Commentary and information: a testing industry

Whether the manufactured goods are intended for cosmetic or personal hygiene enhancements, the combined estimated valuation of these subindustries will reach an estimated £410 billion worldwide by 2017 revealing how humans continue to expand the primitive notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘self-amelioration’ around modern day values and needs.1 The obvious difference between primitive and modern human ‘self-amelioration’ centres around the debate of necessity. A question of ‘need’ for modern aesthetic beautification methods or improved hygiene applications has been uttered from social standpoints where 21st-century ‘survival’ is translated to a promotion at work, better self-confidence or more friends and partners. Primitive self-preservation or ‘survival’, by contrast, is of course pivotal for literal life or death situations. This flippant conjecture competently presents the view that the importance or necessity of cosmetic and toiletry products is debatable and differentiates between social circles; but, in reality, this is merely microenvironmental subjectivity relating to the use of personal care products based on the everyday norms of differing demographics. What is difficult to argue, however, is the fact that the cosmetic and toiletry industries are wholly necessary as a modern-day trading commodity in terms of GDP/GNP and regional financial stability, i.e. if these goods were to be removed, the social and financial void created would be irreplaceable in a world with increased an obsession for material substance. The increasing prevalence of these industries throughout the world’s varied cultures is testament to the lack of need to address industry subsidence let alone any forthcoming extinction. Notwithstanding the politics, economic approach to capitalism, consumerism, and current global economic status that a continent, nationstate or region sustains, the increased simplicity of communication pathways, notably facilitated over the last 15 years by media and technology progression, has decreased space-time distance allowing for our industry to have worldwide influence to all cultures.

 A need for legislation – Cosmetics Regulation 2013

In short, the consumer continues to want more information from our industry to compel them into ‘needing’ one product over another to further their selfamelioration; cordially, those involved within the industry thus want to provide more products to keep the carrot at the end of the string for the consumer while lowering costs, keeping within the legal guidelines and maximising profit for a successful business. Because of this, it is reasonable, but imperative, for all personal care businesses and employees to scrutinise every micro-decision made within their line of work in order to provide the most efficient means to justify the end product - profit, of course, rather than aesthetic convenience for the consumer. Yet this prioritisation of business success has been exploited in the past by companies looking to ‘hood wink’ the consumer and the industry into believing ‘facts’ that are unsubstantiated. While it goes without saying that the marketing of any product by any method is aimed at enticing the consumer to buy Product X over Product Y, the governing bodies of the global personal care industry are enforcing the change of directives into legislative regulations in order to police the situation and provide greater protection for the consumer. The European Parliament, for example, will implement the 2013 Cosmetics Regulations in July 2013 which look to guarantee: “...a high level of protection for consumers. The provisions of the Regulation aim at ensuring that consumers’ health is protected and that they are well informed by monitoring the composition and labelling of products. The Regulation also provides for the assessment of product safety and the prohibition of animal testing.”2 Unfortunately, even before the Regulation has been initiated, it leads us to question if a lack of an official auditing system or policing core for these rules, where inspections will be done (or, perhaps, may be done) on an ad hoc basis, will only lead to superficial consumer protection on paper without any substantial genuine safeguarding. We can also note that the rising barriers to entry, in terms of obligatory testing costs that all companies must implement to satisfy each section of the regulation notwithstanding their size, will give the multinational companies a greater position of leverage in a more oligopolistic market. This Regulation’s inception for increased market transparency may in fact make the market less open and more closed a system. However, whether or not the implementation of such a policy will be beneficial to the industry, the governing bodies’ aspirations remain wholesome with good intent; moreover, they are an immediate reality that every company need to face. Thus, with the growing importance of the industry, of increasing profit and of conforming to legislation, it is essential to understand the ways in which marketing angles, cost-benefit analysis and budgeting work in a dynamic relationship with the appropriate consumer product efficacy testing methods – necessary procedures for every company to contemplate for each SKU within the Regulation – to support the other. An understanding of this will provide the company, brand and product with the most efficient pathway through the development process, in terms of time and money, from initial conception to producing a tangibly stocked product.