Whether it’s the ingredient list on a moisturiser or the clothing label on a fast fashion top, your concerns might be detailed differently, but are strikingly similar in spirit. A new global study from international market research firm Kantar's Consumer-Led Sustainability Brand Ranking measured more than 2,000 brands across 12 countries and 12 categories with over 18,000 respondents. The study confirmed what many consumers have quietly been feeling: harmful chemicals are among the top sustainability concerns in both the beauty and fashion industries. The gap between what brands claim and what consumers believe is wide, and the chasm is only getting wider.
The study measures two specific things: whether consumers find a brand credible on sustainability, and whether that credibility is actually strengthening the brand. What it reveals, particularly for beauty and fashion, is that consumers are not thinking about sustainability as a single abstract concept. They are thinking about the specific harms closest to the product in front of them and for both these categories, chemicals sit second on the list.
What The Data Says
For personal care and beauty, the top three consumer concerns globally are animal testing and cruelty, the use of harmful chemicals including toxicity and allergens, and plastic and microplastics pollution. For clothing, shoes and fashion, the picture is slightly different but the chemical concern is equally present. The top three concerns noted for the category were child labour and worker exploitation, the use of harmful dyes and chemicals, and overproduction and overconsumption. Two industries with two very different consumer journeys, and yet harmful chemicals appear in both lists among the top three concerns. Another category where the use of harmful chemicals remained the top consumer concern was that of laundry and detergent products.
57 per cent of people globally say they have encountered false or misleading information about brands' sustainability efforts, and only 15 per cent say they know about brand sustainability efforts.
In categories where the product sits directly on or against the body like skincare, clothing, or underwear, that knowledge gap carries particular weight. Consumers are increasingly aware that they do not know what they are absorbing, and that awareness is driving both scepticism and demand for transparency.
The Chemicals In Question
In the beauty category, chemicals often show up in products like moisturisers, shampoos, conditioners and makeup as parabens, sulphates and synthetic fragrances. While most of these remain in the environment for a long time, most are not biodegradable and can travel back to us through food items or meat.
When it comes to fashion, the concern is different in character but similar in consequence. PFAS or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are used to create water-resistant and stain-resistant finishes on clothing and outerwear. They have shown to remain persistent in both the environment and the human body, earning the name ‘forever chemicals’ as they do not break down. Azo dyes, used widely in fast fashion for their brightness and low cost, can interfere with marine life and the overall environment, depending on where they are disposed.
The two industries overlap most directly in synthetic dyes. The same dye chemistry that colours a polyester dress can also be found in makeup and hair colour.
Reading The Labels
If you’re someone who finds toxins or harmful chemicals concerning, here’s how you can make a difference. As obvious as it may seem, labels prove to be an important way to navigate information about what goes into making your products. In beauty, it’s often the sheer volume of ingredients on a typical product that makes meaningful reading difficult without specialist knowledge. In fashion, fabric composition labels are required by law but chemical treatments and finishes are often undisclosed. This means that while a garment can be labelled 100 per cent cotton, it can still be treated with PFAS or coloured using synthetic dyes.
This is where certifications begin to matter. In fashion, OEKO-TEX Standard 100, GOTS or Global Organic Textile Standard indicate environment-friendliness. In beauty, the EWG or Environmental Working Group Verified mark and Leaping Bunny indicate a certain level of transparency and standard. None of these certifications are perfect, and not all carry equal weight, but in the absence of comprehensive regulatory disclosure requirements, they represent the most reliable signal available to consumers trying to make informed choices.