I agree that the beauty industry is shifting toward more sustainable and eco-friendly packaging, but once you really look deeper, it becomes clear that the progress is real while also being a bit oversold. When I stop and investigate the sources, the National Geographic article is actually paid content for Garnier, meaning it’s more of an advertorial than neutral reporting, and the Meyers article comes from a packaging company that benefits from promoting sustainability trends. Both are knowledgeable, but both have motives that could make the shift sound bigger than it is. When I look for better coverage, independent sources show that sustainable packaging is genuinely growing, consumers are choosing eco-friendly options more often, refill systems are expanding, and organizations like Pact Collective are diverting tons of cosmetic waste from landfills. But tracing claims back to their original sources shows that a lot of the most positive numbers come from corporate sustainability reports, which naturally want to present brands in the best light. At the same time, outside research points out that the beauty industry still generates massive amounts of packaging waste and much of it never gets recycled. So overall, I do agree with the claim because the shift toward sustainable packaging is happening and backed up by independent data, but the articles make it sound a little cleaner and more complete than it really is so there is legit progress, but also a lot of marketing mixed in.
Sources:
British Beauty Council – Packaging & Waste Statistics
Shorr Packaging – Sustainable Packaging Consumer Report
BeautyMatter – “The Beauty Industry’s Waste Reckoning” (Pact Collective Data)
Woola – Cosmetic Packaging Waste Statistics