Make-Up

Find cruelty-free and eco-friendly makeup brands

Humans have been painting themselves for millennia. From ochre pigments in prehistoric caves to the lead-based cosmetics of Victorian England, the desire to transform our appearance is ancient. What has changed dramatically however, is the scale of the industry behind it. 

The worldwide cosmetics market was valued at approximately $425bn in 2025 with projections suggesting the industry could reach over $800bn by 2035.

Much of the global makeup market is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations including L’Oreal, Estée Lauder, LVMH, Coty, and Shiseido which together own many household-name brands. 

Alongside these giants are a number of smaller companies building their businesses around vegan formulations, organic ingredients, stronger environmental commitments and cruelty-free certification.

This guide examines the mainstream brands and the smaller ethical alternatives. It also includes popular high street shops like Boots and Superdrug, and the Body Shop.

Unsurprisingly, there is a huge difference in ethical scores between these brands, with the lowest scoring brand only scraping 6 points out of 100, compared with the top brand on 90. 

Who owns which makeup brands?

Many of the very big names in makeup own several brands. So when you're choosing between eye shadows or lipsticks from different companies, you may still be buying from ultimately the same company. 

In the table below are some of the biggest makeup and cosmetics companies and their brands.

What is ethical makeup?

Ethical makeup includes products and brands who are cruelty-free (no animal testing), use little or no animal products, don't use harmful ingredients such as microplastics, and don't use palm oil or only use sustainable palm oil. and are taking action on their climate impacts.

Ethical makeup also takes in wider factors such as ethics of the companies behind the makeup brands and their wider activities such as what they’re doing to address their climate impact, how they treat their supply chain workers, and if they pay their fair share of tax. 

This Ethical Consumer guide explores these topics and rates the companies against unique criteria to produce an overall ethical score for each brand. 

Animal testing and cosmetics

Lots of cosmetics companies make statements such as: “We NEVER test on animals. Instead, we test on human volunteers.”

Such statements can be misleading for smaller companies which only operate in the EU or UK, because they imply that testing their product on animals is a possibility. It isn’t. This is illegal and has been since 2004 when the EU ban on animal-tested cosmetics products came into force. The UK maintained this ban following its departure from the EU.

But there are also some other complicating factors related to ingredient testing.

The EU ban on testing of cosmetics ingredients came into full force in 2013 when it became illegal to market or sell cosmetics in the EU where the finished product or ingredients have been tested on animals.

However, there has been tension between the Cosmetics Regulation (which bans animal testing) and other regulations, notably REACH: the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH, which started as EU regulation but now has various spin-offs including UK-REACH, requires companies to “prove”(see below) that the ingredients they are using in their products are safe – not just for consumers, but for workers and the environment too.

In 2023 Cruelty Free International (CFI) challenged the UK government on the issue and later that year the UK government announced that no new animal-testing licenses would be granted for cosmetics products, even in the case
of UK-REACH, essentially reinstating the animal-testing ban for cosmetics and diverging from the EU.

Testing multi-purpose ingredients

The other issue is that the animal-testing ban only covers ingredients that are solely used for cosmetics. But many ingredients are “multi-use” and are used to make cosmetics and other products in markets where there isn’t an animal-testing ban. (For example, citric acid is used from shampoo to foods to drain cleaner to industrial solvent and pesticides.) So an ingredient can’t be tested on animals if it is just used for cosmetics products, but it might be tested on animals if it is also used to make products in other markets which are not covered by animal-testing bans, such as pharmaceuticals or household goods.

The biggest problem is for any global companies choosing to sell their products into the largest market in the world: China. Although the position in China is complex following recent reforms, some Chinese regions may still require “pre- and post-market testing” on animals. The excellent crueltyfreekitty.com website specialises in providing the latest data on this.

The most ethically focused cosmetics companies tend to avoid this by having a policy of not selling into China. LUSH is one of many of these on the crueltyfreekitty list.

We have an introductory article into animal testing policies which has more information about this topic, and another on brands that test on animals.

Best make up brands for animal policies

Several make up brands score very highly in the Ethical Consumer animals rating, getting 80 or more out of 100.

A brand does best in the animals rating if it has both a “fixed cut-off date” (FCOD) meaning it won’t use any material that has been tested on animals after this date, and it doesn’t use any animal-derived ingredients. It will be marked down though if it is part of a company group which does worse on these same criteria.

If a brand has either the Leaping Bunny logo (certified by Cruelty Free International) or an endorsement from the Naturewatch Foundation (listed in its Compassionate Shopping Guide), this means it has declared that it uses a “fixed cut-off date”. 

Worst brands for animal policies

Disappointingly, some brands failed to score any points in the animal rating, or scored 10-40 points (out of 100).

No points for animal policies:

• Charlotte Tilbury
• BourJois (Coty)
• LVMH (Dior, Fenty, Benefit, Givenchy, Guerlein, Make Up For Ever)
• Max Factor (Coty)
• Sycamore Partners (Boots: 17, No7, Soap & Glory)

Between 10 and 40 points for animal policies:

• bareMinerals
• Body Shop
• Clarins
• Dr Hauschka
• Estee Lauder (Bobbi Brown, Clinique, Estee Lauder, MAC, Too Faced)
• Huda
• Covergirl (Coty)
• Kylie (Coty)
• Laura Mercier
• L'Oreal (and all its brands: Lancome, Maybelline, NYX, Urban Decay, Vichy, YSL)
• Rimmel (Coty)
• Shiseido (Nars, Shiseido)
• Superdrug
• Revlon (Elizabeth Arden, Revlon)

For a wider discussion on animal testing in cosmetics, see our separate article.

Understanding cruelty-free certification schemes

There are several different certification schemes which makeup brands could use to show their committent to cruelty-free cosmetics. The main ones used in the UK are outlined below.

Leaping Bunny/Cruelty Free International

The gold standard for cruelty-free certification. It audits suppliers and ingredient manufacturers annually to ensure no animal testing takes place. Brands must operate a FCOD, meaning they cannot use ingredients tested on animals after a set date. From April 2026, the familiar Leaping Bunny logo is being phased out and replaced by a new Cruelty Free International (CFI) logo.

Note that this certification does not mean a product is vegan. There may still be animal ingredients in products with the CFI logo. 

Naturewatch

The only certification scheme in this guide that requires the entire company group to have a clear policy against animal testing. It certifies both vegan and non-vegan products, with vegan products identified separately in its guide.

PETA

Certifies at brand or company level rather than by individual product. It does not require a FCOD and offers both vegan and non-vegan certification. Companies that still allow animal testing in order to sell in countries where it is required by law may qualify for PETA's Working for Regulatory Change certification if they are actively campaigning to change those laws.

The Vegan Society

The only certification that requires all certified products to be free from both animal ingredients and animal testing. Suppliers cannot test ingredients on animals for the certified product or brand, but the same ingredient could still have been tested for use by another company or for another purpose.

For more info read the feature article on animal testing certification schemes.

Vegan makeup

Animal-derived ingredients such as beeswax, shellac, lanolin, and carmine are commonly used in makeup products but vegan makeup is becoming mainstream. The global vegan cosmetics market was valued at approximately $17.89bn in 2025 with projections suggesting it could reach nearly $30bn by 2035.

Some companies in this guide are entirely vegan while others offer vegan ranges alongside non-vegan products which contain animal derivatives.

Fully vegan companies

• Tropic is certified vegan by The Vegan Society for all its products (body and haircare, deodorant and sunscreen).

Vegan brands owned by non-vegan companies

• Beauty Without Cruelty is vegan but its parent company owns other vegetarian brands.
• Aveda prohibits the use of animal-derived ingredients across its range but its parent company Estée Lauder does not have the same commitments.
• Studio London, Superdrug’s own-brand makeup, is 100% vegan – however, its parent group CK Hutchison Holdings and parent AS Watson, has no policy against the use of animal-derived ingredients.

Brands offering mostly vegan ranges

Some brands were not 100% vegan but offered extensive vegan-friendly options.

• The Body Shop: The large majority of products were vegan but in 2025 it reintroduced honey and beeswax.
• Dr Hauschka: The brand had a wide range of vegan products, but used wool wax, beeswax, and silk powder in some products. Its company group Wala-Stiftung claimed to be over 70% vegan. 
• Green People: The brand uses only two animal-derived ingredients, namely beeswax and propolis, across a select number of products.
• Lavera: Nearly entirely vegan, examples of non-vegan ingredients are beeswax, carmine, and pearl extract.
• Lush Cosmetics: While Lush uses honey and beeswax, it clearly labels these and 95% of its range is vegan.
• Odylique: The brand was overwhelmingly vegan, with only small amounts of beeswax and honey used.

Vegan unfriendly brands

Many of the biggest makeup groups, including Estée Lauder, L’Oreal, Coty, and LVMH, offer some vegan options but the majority of their portfolios are not vegan and avoiding animal derivatives is not central to their company ethos.

Are cosmetics over packaged? 

In the words of the Plastic Pollution Coalition, "the best packaging is no packaging". 

The beauty industry produces at least 120 billion pieces of packaging per year and sadly, only a dismal 9% of that is effectively recycled. 

Here are some of the brands taking positive steps to reduce packaging pollution.

What's wrong with mica and sparkle in makeup?

Mica is a naturally occurring mineral used to create shimmer and shine in makeup. It gives sparkle to products including eyeshadow, highlighter, lipstick, and nail polish, but is also used in industries including electronics, construction, and car manufacturing. Your eyeshadow may have more in common with cement than you might expect. 

On cosmetics labels, mica may appear as mica, potassium aluminium silicate, or CI 77019. 

Although mica is considered safe for use on skin, the conditions in which it is mined can be dangerous. 

Workers repeatedly exposed to mica dust can suffer from respiratory illnesses, including pneumoconiosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling mineral particles. The greatest concerns surround informal mica mining. Investigations by organisations including Terre des Hommes have documented child labour in mica-mining regions, particularly in parts of India and Madagascar. Children may enter unstable mines, work without protective equipment, and face risks including injury, lung damage, and mine collapses.

India’s Jharkhand and Bihar regions have been a particular focus for campaigners. The Responsible Mica Initiative (RMI) was founded in 2017 to create a fairer and more transparent mica supply chain. It works on improving traceability, strengthening workplace standards, and supporting communities in mica-producing areas.

Several major cosmetics companies in our guide are members of the RMI, including L’Oréal, Estée Lauder, Coty, Clarins, LVMH, and Shiseido. However, membership alone does not prove that every product is free from exploitation.

Some brands have taken another route: Lush stopped using natural mica from 2018 and switched to synthetic mica after concluding that it could not guarantee transparency in natural mica supply chains.

Synthetic mica avoids the specific child labour risks associated with mining, but it is not a perfect solution. It still requires energy and resources to manufacture and a large-scale transition to synthetic mica may exacerbate carbon emissions involved in its production and supply. Furthermore, a complete shift away from mined mica could remove income from communities that depend on it.

See below for a template email you can use to contact companies to ask them about human rights in their mica supply chain. 

Microplastics in makeup

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles added to products for purposes including texture, shine, exfoliation, or to help ingredients bind together. 

According to campaign group Beat the Microbead, 9 out of 10 cosmetic products contain forever-polluting microplastics, with more than 500 different microplastic ingredients identified in personal care products. Their 2022 report “Plastic: the hidden beauty ingredient” is a first-ever large-scale study of the presence of microplastics in over 7000 different cosmetic and personal care products.

The data was collected by app users that scanned products over the course of two years. Head to the Beat the Microbead website to download the PlasticFreeFuture app and check your products using their traffic light system. 

Glitter in makeup

Glitter is one of the most visible examples of plastic use in makeup. Traditional glitter is usually made from tiny pieces of plastic coated in aluminium meaning it will break down into microplastics after use.

Its popularity has grown alongside social media trends, with usage peaking during festival season. Online searches and sales of glitter products tend to spike in the summer months, reflecting increased demand for bold, decorative makeup looks. This surge in use has raised concerns about the cumulative environmental impact, as glitter is often washed off after a single use and enters waterways. 

Within the annual confines of Burning Man’s Black Rock City glitter is prohibited, as well as at dozens of British music festivals. 

So-called “glitter bans” which prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain microplastic-containing products are also in effect in New Zealand and the European Union.

Brands shunning glitter or using alternatives

Some companies are now offering alternatives, producing plant-based glitter made from cellulose rather than conventional plastic. Among the brands we rated, companies such as Lush and Barry M have begun to move away from plastic glitter or highlight biodegradable options in their ranges, although this is still far from standard practice across the sector.

 As with other “biodegradable” claims, it’s worth noting that even biodegradable glitter has its own problems.

How and where materials break down can vary, and reducing overall use remains the most effective way to limit pollution.

Potentially harmful makeup ingredients

Makeup contains complex mixtures of ingredients, some of which have raised concerns for their potential effects on human health and the environment.

Harmful ingredients rating

The Ethical Consumer harmful ingredients rating looked at companies’ approaches to phasing out chemicals of concern in cosmetics, including PFAS, parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde, and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, as well as microplastics.

While some of these ingredients are banned or restricted in certain uses, others remain widely used in cosmetics. We looked for clear company-wide policies excluding these substances, rather than claims about individual “free-from” products. See the deodorant guide for more detail on the harmful ingredients rating.

Best scoring brands for harmful ingredients

• Dr Hauschka
• Green People
• Lavera
• Odylique

These brands performed particularly well, all scoring full marks for their policies restricting the use of these chemicals.

Beauty Without Cruelty, Lush and Tropic also performed reasonably well, although they did not have policies covering every ingredient group we looked at.

Worst scoring brands for harmful ingredients

At the other end of the table, there were significant differences in the scores of several major beauty brands operating under the same company groups. 

In the case of bareMinerals and Laura Mercier (both owned by Orveon and ultimately Advent) they were 80 points apart. Similar differences also existed between brands owned by Coty, Estee Lauder, Revlon and LVMH. 

Most of the big name brands scored 40 or below, including some who scored 0 (out of 100) for this rating.

Reducing your risk from toxic makeup

To avoid some of the risks of harmful ingredients in cosmetics, you could:

• Buy from companies you trust. These could include brands that get our best rating for harmful ingredients policies.
• Use less of the product at each use.
• Use fewer products, less often.
• Check ingredients lists before you buy.
• Make your own if it's a product where you can do that.

Sustainable makeup brands and the climate

Climate change is beginning to reshape the makeup industry in multiple ways. Rising temperatures, increased UV exposure and worsening air pollution are affecting both how products are formulated and how they are marketed. In response, some brands are promoting what is now being dubbed as "geoskincare” or climate-adaptive formulas: products designed for specific environments.

Beauty influencer Hitika Sachdev says, “India has a hot and humid climate. The beauty companies focus on making products that are lightweight, sweat-proof, and long-lasting. They develop foundations and powders with oil-absorbing properties to combat shine and keep your skin looking fresh all day long. They offer waterproof and smudge-proof eyeliners and mascaras to withstand the heat and humidity.” 

One example is Huda Beauty, said to have created custom lip oils for millennials who work in air-conditioned offices during the day and who are exposed to pollution outside the office. 

While this reflects genuine changes in environmental conditions, it also raises questions about whether climate concerns are being used to drive new product categories and increased consumption.

Rating makeup companies on climate actions

The beauty industry itself contributes to the climate crisis it is responding to. The makeup industry makes short-lived products and relies on energy-intensive manufacturing and ingredients sourced from around the world which add to transport emissions. In the Ethical Consumer climate rating many companies scored poorly due to their lack of robust emissions reduction targets or limited transparency.

Revlon were marked down for non-existent climate policies, whilst L’Oreal and Estée Lauder had increasing emissions or lacked long term targets. 

In contrast, smaller brands such as Green People, Lavera and Odylique performed better mainly because they focused on plant-based and organic ingredients, with lower environmental impact. 

Charlotte Tilbury, owned by the multinational conglomerate Puig, scored surprisingly well thanks to its Climate Transition plan. This included reducing raw material extraction for packaging, as well as having clear targets and carbon reporting. 

Lush also scored well, partly due to its efforts at ditching packaging altogether.

Is ethical make up more expensive?

We compared the price of a standard liquid foundation across some of the highest-scoring brands and the biggest cosmetics companies to see how much choosing a more ethical option might cost.

All foundations were 30 ml, unless stated otherwise. 
 

*tinted moisturiser with SPF
**tinted moisturiser
Prices as of July 2026.

Makeup for Black, Asian and Latinx skin tones

The launch of Fenty Beauty in 2017 fundamentally changed expectations around shade ranges. Its original 40-shade launch, which later expanded to 50 shades, demonstrated that makeup companies could – and should – cater to a much broader spectrum of skin tones, in particular, darker complexions that have long been overlooked. Since then, many competitors have expanded their own ranges.

However, beauty influencers and makeup artists argue that brands need to offer the right undertones, not simply more shades, and ultimately ensure that deeper complexions are considered from the beginning of product development rather than added as an afterthought. In 2025, a Vogue article concluded that despite industry progress, consumers with darker skin tones still regularly struggle to find suitable matches.

Among the brands in our guide, Fenty Beauty (when comparing foundation ranges) continues to be widely regarded as the benchmark for inclusive shade range, alongside brands such as the Body Shop, Boots, Dior, Estée Lauder, Kylie Cosmetics, Lancôme, Lush, MAC, Make Up For Ever, Maybelline, and NARS. These brands are consistently recommended by beauty editors for offering extensive ranges catering to deeper skin tones and a broad variety of undertones.

Unfortunately, many of the smaller, ethical brands continue to struggle in this area. Brands such as Beauty Without Cruelty, Green People, Lavera, Odylique, and Tropic offer relatively limited complexion ranges, reflecting the challenge of developing and manufacturing many shades at a smaller scale.

AI involvement in makeup

Artificial intelligence has quickly spread into the beauty shopping experience. Rather than relying on beauty consultants, online shoppers are asked to upload a selfie so AI can recommend a foundation shade, suggest complementary products, or let them “virtually try on” makeup before buying.

In February 2026, Clarins unveiled its “most precise ever foundation matcher”, arguing that technology makes shopping more personalised and inclusive. However, Vogue’s Beauty Run by Robots mini-series raises concerns that AI systems can reproduce existing biases if they are trained on datasets that under-represent darker skin tones.

There are also wider environmental questions. Brands promote AI as a way to reduce returns by helping customers find the right shade first time. Yet, it can be argued the same tools are designed to increase sales by recommending additional products and encouraging experimentation. Is AI helping customers buy more confidently, or simply buy more?

There are also concerns with the ethics of many AI companies, which we explore in the AI guide.