At a recent panel hosted by BeautyMatter, the topic on stage was one that, not so long ago, dominated every industry conversation: sustainability.

Moderated by Kelly Kovack, the discussion brought together three founders who have built their brands with sustainability embedded at the core: Irene Forte of Irene Forte Skincare, Liah Yoo of KraveBeauty, and Alexandra Keating of Uni.

What struck me most wasn’t just what was said on stage – it was the fact that this conversation needed to happen at all.

Because five years ago, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, sustainability wasn’t a side discussion. It was the discussion, it felt like a turning point – consumers were more conscious, more questioning and more demanding which led to brands responding. How? Purpose became central and ESG frameworks were built into strategies. Entire identities were reshaped around responsibility.

There was momentum. Real momentum.

And yet, here we are now, just a few years later, and that urgency has softened. Sustainability hasn’t disappeared – but it has been deprioritized, diluted into a token gesture rather than a driving force. The conversation has, in many cases, quietly slipped off the table.

That is what makes this moment so disappointing. And also why this panel felt so necessary.

The industry didn’t explicitly reject sustainability – it simply moved on.

Faced with slowing growth, tighter margins, and the relentless acceleration of consumer demand driven by platforms like TikTok, brands reverted to what they know works: speed, volume, and newness. Product cycles shortened and launch calendars intensified whilst the pressure to perform in the short term overtook the commitment to build for the long term.

Sustainability, by contrast, is inherently slow. It requires investment, systems thinking, and operational change. It introduces friction into a model that is designed to move quickly.

So it began to feel inconvenient.

Too expensive.
Too complex.
Too difficult to scale.

And gradually, the narrative shifted. Sustainability became less of a priority and more of a footnote – something acknowledged, but rarely leading.

What made this panel so refreshing was that these founders have not followed that shift.They are not treating sustainability as a marketing message or a compliance exercise. They are treating it as a fundamental business decision.

For Irene Forte, sustainability is embedded in sourcing, manufacturing, and packaging- from organic farming practices in Italy to refillable systems and recycled materials. For Liah Yoo, it is about challenging the very structure of the industry, questioning overproduction and advocating for a “less is more” approach to skincare. For Alexandra Keating, it is about designing systems – from aluminum packaging to ocean-based sourcing – that integrate sustainability into every layer of the brand.

These are not quick wins, they are long-term commitments.

And they require a different mindset – one that prioritizes durability over immediacy.

One of the most candid moments in the discussion was the acknowledgment that sustainability does not necessarily drive the first purchase. 

Consumers rarely buy a product because it is sustainable.

But that is not where its value lies.

Sustainability shows up later – in retention, in loyalty, in lifetime value. It builds trust. It creates a deeper relationship between brand and consumer. It is the reason customers come back, not just once, but repeatedly.

In that sense, the industry has been asking the wrong question.

It’s not whether sustainability sells.
It’s whether sustainability builds businesses that last.

And increasingly, the answer is yes.

The real challenge is not a lack of innovation or intent. It is the system itself.

Modern beauty is built on constant output. New launches drive attention. Attention drives sales. Sales drive growth. It is a cycle that depends on producing more – more products, more categories, more reasons to buy.

But sustainability begins with reduction.

As Liah Yoo pointed out, the industry has inverted the waste hierarchy. Instead of focusing on reducing consumption, it has emphasized recycling – managing waste rather than preventing it. True sustainability requires restraint, and restraint is fundamentally at odds with a model built on excess.

This is where the tension becomes unavoidable.

Because meaningful change doesn’t just require better packaging or cleaner ingredients. It requires rethinking how much is produced in the first place.

Despite these challenges, the panel made clear that progress is happening – just not always where consumers can see it.

Packaging remains one of the most complex areas, with brands experimenting with refillable formats, recycled materials, and alternatives like aluminum. But scaling these solutions is difficult, particularly for smaller brands without the purchasing power to bring new materials to market.

There is also a growing focus on raw materials – rethinking how ingredients are sourced and exploring alternatives such as upcycled agricultural waste or biotech-derived compounds. These innovations are still emerging, often stuck between laboratory development and commercial viability.

And then there is the less visible work: building supply chain transparency, establishing direct relationships with producers, and integrating sustainability into every operational decision.

None of this is simple. And none of it is immediate.

Sustainability comes at a cost – financial, operational, and strategic.

Better materials are more expensive. Smaller production runs increase unit costs. Innovation requires upfront investment and carries risk. Even packaging decisions involve trade-offs between environmental impact and consumer expectations.

Luxury complicates this further. Consumers expect products to feel substantial and premium – qualities that often conflict with lightweight, minimal packaging.

These contradictions are not easily resolved.

But the founders on this panel are not avoiding them. They are navigating them – making deliberate choices, accepting compromises, and continuing to push forward.

What becomes clear is that sustainability is not incompatible with profitability. It simply operates on a longer timeline.

In the short term, it adds cost and complexity. In the long term, it builds stronger, more resilient businesses – brands with higher retention, deeper trust, and greater equity.

This is why it remains strategically important, even as the industry shifts its focus elsewhere.

Because in a saturated market, durability is differentiation.

What is most striking is not just that these founders are continuing the conversation – it’s that they are advancing it, even as the broader industry has stepped back.

At a time when sustainability has become a smaller, quieter part of the narrative, their commitment feels both rare and necessary.

It is a reminder that sustainability was never meant to be a trend. It was meant to be a transformation.

And perhaps what is needed now is not a reinvention, but a reset – a return to the momentum that once felt so tangible, and a renewed willingness to do the harder work required to sustain it.

Because we can do better.

And the brands that continue to believe that – despite the challenges, despite the cost, despite the shifting priorities – are the ones defining what the future of beauty should look like.