Is the beauty industry in India selling science as spectacle?

In the past decade, the beauty industry in India entered what many would call its 2.0 phase—and flourished. Skincare marketed through ingredient percentages along with clinical language and tech-led packaging scaled beauty into a multi-billion-dollar sector. Much of the expansion reflects a shift in how beauty is marketed rather than a comparable leap in formulation innovation.

Beauty formulations weren’t actually devoid of chemical ingredients before ‘actives’ made science-driven language mainstream. The ingredients have always existed, what changed was the storytelling. 

Many conventional beauty products widely endorsed before the active-fication of skincare featured chemical ingredients even if packaging avoided technical jargon. Salicylic acid in Neutrogena’s Deep Clean Face Wash. Zinc oxide in Lacto Calamine Lotion. Citric acid, kaolin clay, and glycerin in Himalaya’s Purifying Neem Pack. Niacinamide and panthenol in Olay’s Total Effects. The chemistry was always there.

So what shifted? The formulations didn’t advance as dramatically as the packaging narrative suggests. As presentation outweighs innovation, is the beauty industry in India really living up to its rebranded facelift or just science-washing consumers? 

How the beauty industry in India became science-obsessed

Beauty products have never been bereft of science—even if consumers are made to think so. 

Before independent brands mushroomed and saturated the market, conglomerates like Hindustan Unilever Limited, Procter & Gamble, ITC Limited, and L’Oréal dominated Indian beauty. Companies of this scale invested deeply in research and development (R&D). Science was always there, but it operated quietly. 

"ACTIVES DID NOT SUDDENLY MAKE SKINCARE SCIENTIFIC. PREVIOUSLY, PRODUCTS WERE DESIGNED AROUND OUTCOMES LIKE HYDRATION, EXFOLIATION, OR PROTECTION RATHER THAN BEING BASED ON A SINGLE MOLECULE" –– Oscar Pereira

Oscar Pereira, formulator and founder, CodeSkin, explains that long before vitamin C and hyaluronic acid became marketing headlines, formulations relied on humectants, emollients, antioxidants, and bioactive plant compounds. “Actives did not suddenly make skincare scientific,” he says. “Previously, products were designed around outcomes like hydration, exfoliation, or protection rather than being based on a single molecule.”

Dr Macrene Alexiades, a board-certified EU-US dermatologist who has formulated for brands like Lancôme and L’Oréal traces the shift to the mid-20th century chemistry, when stable isolated ingredients became scalable. “With the formalisation of systems like International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI), naming systems made labels look increasingly technical.”Chemical language moved from laboratories to packaging, but the scientific backbone had always underpinned skincare. Dr Jamuna Pai, a dermatologist and author, adds that ingredients currently marketed as breakthroughs—retinol (Vitamin A), salicylic acid, glycolic acid, and vitamin C (ascorbic acid)—have existed in skincare for decades. The difference lies in framing these ingredients. “Earlier, efficacy was experiential and cultural. Now it is clinical, quantified, and often marketed in a way that can feel more scientific than the underlying innovation actually is,” says Krupa Koestline, a conscious formulator and founder, KKT Labs. 

How active ingredients actually changed skincare innovation

Traditionally, beauty products followed a simple problem-solution format. A face wash for brightness. A cream for cracked heels. A mask for pimples. Ingredient literacy was low. Consumers trusted outcomes, not formulations. 

The last decade changed that. Social media multiplied access to ingredient education. Today, terminology around active ingredients skincare dominates search engines and shopping behaviour. A Euromonitor report reveals that 38 per cent of Asia-Pacific consumers prioritise efficacious ingredients over brand names. Moreover, 49 per cent are willing to pay a premium for products positioned as science-backed. 

Brands responded by reframing their language. Anti-pimple became salicylic acid. Fairness became vitamin C for brightening. Anti-ageing became hyaluronic acid. Sciencewashing didn’t introduce chemistry into beauty; it repackaged existing formulation logic, notes Pereira. 

But novelty in marketing speak doesn’t always guarantee innovation. In some cases, the industry simply revisited messaging with terms like “new and improved”, without creating something different, states Surbhee Grover, founder of New York-based skincare brand Love, Indus. 

"IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN A TUNNEL-VISION FOCUS WHEN A BRAND IS ON ITS 77TH ITERATION OF A FORMULA, WHILE WATCHING OTHERS RACE TO MARKET AT A FRACTION OF THE COST WITH A MASSIVE MARKETING BLITZ" –– Surbhee Grover 

Pereira points out that many launches rely on renamed blends or concentration tweaks presented as breakthroughs. “These changes can improve experience or tolerability, but they are evolutionary, not transformative,” he adds.. These changes improve experience. They are evolutionary, not transformative.

Real innovation exists in fragments. “Improvements in stability, barrier repair systems, gentler exfoliation, and formulation safety have raised standards. While these advances matter, they are quiet and rarely headline-friendly,” says Pereira.

Why marketing is moving faster than cosmetic science

The innovation dry spell is systemic. Large corporations face bureaucratic inertia. Smaller independent brands struggle with funding. The result is a market saturated with analogous formulas differentiated by packaging and positioning.  

Despite more consumer awareness, exaggerated beauty marketing claims have intensified. Koestline points out that many products share identical base architectures. “The differentiation may be sensory, sourcing-related, or positioning rather than radical chemistry. Packaging, accessibility, and storytelling are not trivial; they influence adoption. But, conflating those with scientific innovation can blur consumer understanding,” she says.

Translating rigorous science into meaningful formulation advances requires expertise across medicine, dermatology, plant science, and chemistry—and the development of truly novel formulas is both complex and costly, says Alexiades. “Market pressures often push brands toward faster, simpler, and more iterative formulations housed in inexpensive packaging, a dynamic that runs counter to genuine innovation. As a stand-in for true advancement, many brands highlight a single ‘hero’ ingredient supported by storytelling, rather than investing in comprehensive formulations that reflect real scientific progress.”

Why is innovation slow in the Indian beauty industry? 

India adapted quickly to the global trend of actives. Moving beyond the education phase has proven slower. As of 2024, India has an estimated 650 to 700 personal care contract manufacturers. The sector is projected to double by 2030. Yet the speed of production hasn’t translated into radical innovation. Grover explains, “It is incredibly difficult to maintain a tunnel-vision focus when a brand is on its 77th iteration of a formula, while watching others race to market at a fraction of the cost with a massive marketing blitz. It requires a different objective—one that prioritises a ‘what is possible’ mindset over ‘what can I quickly replicate.’”

Structural barriers compound the issue further. “Investment in fundamental R&D infrastructure is still limited compared to Western markets,” notes Koestline. “Many brands rely on contract manufacturers without in-house scientific teams. There is also a tendency to prioritise speed to market over long-term formulation research. And finally, true innovation requires interdisciplinary collaboration between biotechnology, dermatology, materials science, and sustainability—an ecosystem that is growing in India, but not fully mature yet.”

“Heavy dependence on contract manufacturing leads to shared formulation libraries, making differentiation more aesthetic than scientific. Weak claim substantiation enforcement reduces pressure to innovate deeply,” says Pereira. There are infrastructure gaps too. “Cosmetic science research lacks the institutional backing seen in pharmaceuticals.” 

Celebrity dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal notes that regulatory approval for novel ingredients is slow. “Developers of novel products are usually required to undergo rigorous safety assessments before market entry. There is always a risk that competitors may introduce similar products with pre-approved ingredients during the time, and thereby acquire a leadership position in the marketplace.”

The ecosystem rewards speed, not depth.

Consumers should take the Indian beauty industry glow-up with caution 

For consumers navigating the beauty industry in India, discernment becomes essential. From user-friendly packaging to multi-active formulations and multi-use products, the Indian beauty market offers freshness, though the lines between innovation and inspiration remain starkly evident. 

"TRUE INNOVATION REQUIRES INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION BETWEEN BIOTECHNOLOGY, DERMATOLOGY, MATERIALS SCIENCE, AND SUSTAINABILITY—AN ECOSYSTEM THAT IS GROWING IN INDIA, BUT NOT FULLY MATURE YET" –– Krupa Koestline

“The real value of an ingredient is not determined by how recently it entered the conversation, but by how intelligently it is used. What matters is formulation depth, how ingredients are stabilised, how they work together, and how effectively they are delivered into the skin,” says Supriya Modi, founder, FutureMe. Yet India’s regulatory verification is loose and inconsistent. 

Agarwal recounts patients convinced by marketing jargon despite negligible results. “Marketing helps cover the distance between refinements and breakthroughs,” she says. 

Compared to more mature beauty markets globally, a large grey area exists in India. “Indian regulations focus on ingredient safety and disclosure, not on marketing relevance. As long as an ingredient is legally permitted and listed correctly on the INCI, the product is considered compliant. There is no requirement that an ingredient highlighted on the front label be present at a meaningful or functional concentration. An ingredient can be prominently displayed even if it exists in trace amounts. This is not illegal, but it can be misleading by omission,” notes Pereira. 

The transformation of the beauty industry in India is a double-edged sword. On the one hand lies expanded access, modern packaging and ingredient literacy.  On the other, the rise to rampant science-washing. 

Today, clinical language replaces old beauty insecurities as clickbait. Consumers chase innovation that may be incremental. Brands often talk big while delivering small adjustments packaged as revolutions. 

As Alexiades concludes, “Good skincare doesn’t need jargon—it needs consistency, safety, and evidence.”