In a framework for clean beauty 2.0 outlined in the publication BeautyMatter last month, Annie Jackson, co-founder and CEO of Credo Beauty, and Matthew Perkins, founder and CEO of Macro Oceans, name radical transparency in manufacturing as one of the central pillars, pointing to new traceability platforms, carbon accounting tools and blockchain-enabled supply chains as facilitating it.

Credo Qualified’ contract manufacturer certification program

Asked to elaborate, Perkins tells Beauty Independent, “Transparency in manufacturing starts with understanding how the product is made. For example, how much energy does it take? Is that energy solar generated or natural gas? How much water is used? What chemicals are used to clean and sanitize the manufacturing line? How much waste is created with each batch?”

He adds, “Contract manufacturers already document their processes for regulatory purposes, so layering on a few more pieces of data is a good first step. Brands can then connect the sourcing of their ingredients to the finished product. Over time, we hope that brands and contract manufacturers will come up with a common clean manufacturing standard which takes these sustainability questions into consideration and sets some improvement targets which the industry can work towards.”

On Monday, Credo announced in the media outlet Glossy that it’s created a common clean standard for beauty supply chain actors, including contract manufacturers, raw material and packaging providers, and cosmetic chemistry and testing laboratories. Allure Beauty Concepts, a skincare, haircare and over-the-counter products manufacturer, is the first company participating.

To be Credo Qualified, supply chain actors must show documents like Good Manufacturing Practice certifications, undergo an internal review by Credo and sign on to a licensing agreement with the retailer. According to Glossy, the program carries a $3,500 application fee and $1,500 annual licensing fee. Credo estimates the process of becoming Credo Qualified takes six to 12 weeks.

Beauty Independent is curious what manufacturers think about the idea of radical transparency and the potential of a “common clean manufacturing standard” such as Credo Qualified. So, for this edition of our ongoing series posing questions relevant to indie beauty, we asked 10 contract beauty manufacturers, consultants and cosmetic chemists the following: Should beauty manufacturers adopt a radically transparent approach and clean manufacturing standard? What could that realistically look like, and what would be the practical barriers? Do consumers actually care?

Megan Cox Founder, Innacos Labs

If we're serious about incorporating transparency into the CM pipeline, we should center the voices of contract manufacturers in this conversation. Managing hundreds of formulas annually across diverse brand requirements provides a particular lens that's essential to understanding implementation realities. After spending nearly a year in Portugal analyzing our expansion and observing EU operations, one thing is clear: We're missing the regulatory infrastructure that would make meaningful transparency achievable.

As manufacturers, we already provide extensive documentation: COAs, batch records, MSDS, stability data. The challenge isn't transparency. It's that we're each operating with different systems, parsing disparate supplier information through our own frameworks. It should be noted even the ingredient manufacturers are not aligned. We're the next step down the supply chain.

Without aligned standards from a neutral, ideally nonprofit or governmental body, we'll land in disparate places with different calculations and even more logos and metrics, creating more confusion for consumers, not less.

Consider the market reality: Most U.S. manufacturers require 10,000-piece minimums. We work with brands launching 1,000 to 5,000 units. These emerging brands already struggle with standard costs to launch. Adding proprietary transparency systems would price them out entirely. Creating a system that only caters to the largest and most VC-backed brands benefits no one.

When governments mandate standards, they provide resources, documentation and gradual implementation timelines. This creates a level playing field rather than a patchwork of competing requirements that burden manufacturers and confuse consumers. Realistically, this might look like standardized reporting templates for energy use, water consumption and waste—metrics we're already tracking—submitted to a central database rather than calculated differently for each retailer.

Until we have more than a skeletal framework from the FDA, these efforts risk being performative. When strict standards are dictated from the retail level without understanding real manufacturing inputs, processes and costs on the ground, what are we achieving?

We should acknowledge that beauty manufacturing operates on the thinnest margins in the value chain while being the most labor-intensive. We're most focused on fundamental human needs, ensuring workers can afford food, housing, healthcare, which shapes our perspective on what “sustainability” must include. Until we've addressed basics like living wages, workplace safety and domestic production capacity, layering on complex metrics feels premature.

Progress should be systematic and supported, with regulatory guidance ensuring we're working toward shared goals. Otherwise, we risk creating barriers for small brands and domestic manufacturers while advantaging large operations that can absorb these costs.

As for consumer interest, they're already overwhelmed by competing claims. Without clear, unified standards, we're adding complexity to their decisions rather than clarity.

The conversation is worth having, but it should include those actually implementing these standards on the factory floor. Are we ready to talk about that?

BOB GOEHRKE Co-Founder and CEO, International Products Group

IPG believes that all manufacturers should have a straightforward approach to clean manufacturing. The consumer wants trust and differentiation with their manufacturer when it comes to when, where, how and why we do something with their product. They want proof, not promises, regarding our practices.

The consumer wants to know where products are made, under what conditions and with what ingredients. Brands that can disclose their manufacturing partners, batch origins and testing protocols win loyalty and continued business.

Retailers like Credo, Sephora Clean and Target’s Clean already require ingredient-level transparency. The EU’s Green Deal, California’s MoCRA compliance and the global crackdown on greenwashing are making transparency less optional and more operational. The problem is that there is not a single universal clean standard. Instead, there are many.  By adopting a “clean manufacturing standard,” a factory can future-proof itself before these expectations become mandatory.

IPG was clean before clean was cool, but, above all else, we honor the NDAs we have with our customers. We are fully transparent about sustainability practices, but will never release any information that could compromise the sanctity of the brand’s intellectual property.

Brands care if it is a core part of their marketing story (Credo, Sephora Clean). Consumers care conceptually, but most will not dig beyond “clean ingredients” and “ethical sourcing.” Manufacturing transparency is rarely the deciding factor in a purchase.

However, the brands that do use it as a story (for example, “made in our solar-powered factory in Nashville” or “cleanroom-manufactured to medical-grade standards”) stand out powerfully and can justify a higher price point.

Kyle LaFond Founder, Natural Contract Manufacturing and American Provenance

As the founder of a contract manufacturing business, I think that this is a conversation worth having to address some realities and misconceptions. To me, this seems like a little finger pointing and an attempt to create a problem out of a solution.

The vast majority of contract manufacturers in the beauty and wellness space already adhere to rigorous standards that are either required by local, state or federal regulatory agencies or abide by their own internal standards that are often far more extensive. Adding another layer of paperwork and bureaucracy is both time consuming and expensive.

As a standard business practice, we've always invited our clients to visit us at our facility to see exactly how we operate. I don't know if you can get more transparent than that. The thought that radical transparency—whatever that means—is something different than what most contract manufacturers already offer to their clients is a stretch at best.

Furthermore, the idea or suggestion that some kind of barrier exists between manufacturers and the brands that they support is also nonsense. I'm not aware of any manufacturer that operates in a silo without any kind of insight into their operations. Manufacturers frequently volunteer far more information to potential clients than they ask for.

To be fair, there are some trade secrets that manufacturers do want to reserve and not share with potential competitors. We're all trying to operate successful businesses, and if we have a manufacturing advantage over similar companies, we do not want to share those practices or technologies to maintain our competitive edge.

No two contract manufacturing companies are exactly the same. We all have our own unique specialties and niches and what may be a common practice for one type of manufacturer may not even be applicable to another. The idea that a common "one-size-fits-all" approach can work across such a broad spectrum is impractical and naive.

Finally, I don't know if this even matters to most clients or consumers. Our primary focus has always been on ingredients, process and quality outputs all at a reasonable cost. The implication that contract manufacturers operate behind a veil and don't want to showcase their talents and efforts towards improvement and sustainability is ridiculous at best.

Fred Khoury President, Above Rinaldi Labs

At Above Rinaldi, we view transparency and clean manufacturing as a natural evolution, not a marketing movement. The idea of radical transparency sounds bold, but for it to mean something, it has to be practical, measurable and sustainable, not just another checkbox for brands or manufacturers to claim.

Pushing the conversation beyond ingredients into the realities of how products are made, energy use, water consumption, waste handling, even the chemistry behind cleaning and sanitizing production lines, these are all things manufacturers already track for compliance and quality, but making them visible could create a stronger bridge between brands and the people actually making their products.

Real transparency doesn’t mean opening the lab doors and handing over proprietary information. It means sharing data that matters energy sources, water usage, waste recovery, traceable ingredient sourcing and creating a common framework that helps the industry improve together. Imagine a manufacturing equivalent of GMP, but built around environmental performance and ethical production standards.

The barriers are real. Collecting, standardizing and publishing sustainability data takes time and investment. Retrofitting facilities to capture it accurately is expensive. And without a shared definition of clean manufacturing, the term risks becoming as diluted as natural once was.

Some consumers do care, but not all at least not yet. Most still buy based on efficacy, experience and price. But the next generation of beauty consumers is more informed and more connected to brand values. As that awareness grows, so will the expectation for brands and by extension, their manufacturing partners to prove their integrity.

At the end of the day, radical transparency isn’t about exposing everything, it's about elevating everything. For us, it’s a mindset shift, using data and accountability to move the conversation from compliance to conscience and ultimately to trust.

Anete Vabule CEO and Co-Founder, Selfnamed

Let’s be honest, radical transparency has to start at home, not on the label. If a manufacturer doesn’t know how much water goes into a product or where their waste ends up, putting a transparency badge on the website means nothing. Before we aim for “radical,” we should aim for real. Numbers on waste, energy, materials, that’s where true transparency begins.

And that’s also where the real work starts. Once you have the numbers, you can start improving them. Identify what will have the biggest impact, and act on it.

A shared framework could help, but only if it goes deeper than ticking boxes because the beauty industry doesn’t need more claims. We don’t need another “clean seal” that everyone can slap onto a product with little actual change behind the scenes. Any standard should help companies create better business practices, not just better claims.

Realistically, the barriers are obvious. Data collection takes time. Aligning multiple partners is complicated, but we work with thousands of beauty brands in the U.S. and Europe, and they’re all on the same page. Consumers increasingly care about clean beauty because, at the end of the day, it leads to better products and less harm, not just prettier storytelling.

Shannaz Schopfer Founder and CEO, The Beauty Architects

Radical transparency is a compelling direction for the industry, but it has to be grounded in the reality of how manufacturing actually works. One of the biggest challenges is that there is no such thing as a global standard. Regulatory frameworks vary dramatically by country, and even the term “clean manufacturing” means something different depending on the region, the retailer and the brand. Before we talk about standards, we have to align on definitions, and, today, the industry isn’t there yet.

Manufacturers also operate with highly specialized, often customized equipment that’s been modified over years to deliver unique textures, formats or efficiencies. That proprietary know-how is exactly what brands rely on us for. Radical transparency cannot come at the expense of innovation or intellectual property. The goal should be meaningful visibility into environmental and process metrics, not exposing the technology that differentiates manufacturers from one another.

Could the industry move toward more standardized reporting on things like energy use, water consumption, waste management and traceability? Absolutely. Many manufacturers already track these internally.

The next step would be establishing a shared reporting format or scorecard that aligns across brands, retailers and regions, something measurable, attainable and flexible enough to accommodate different technologies and scales of operation. Anything beyond that enters the realm of proprietary process, and that’s where transparency becomes unrealistic.

Do consumers care? Not really, at least not at the manufacturing level. Most consumers assume the brand actually makes its own products and don’t always realize that third-party manufacturers are involved. They place the responsibility for due diligence squarely on the brand, not the factory.

What they’re looking for is confidence and credibility, not a behind-the-scenes breakdown of production mechanics. If brands determine that deeper transparency around manufacturing enhances that trust, manufacturers will evolve with them, but it must be a coordinated, collaborative effort across the entire value chain.

In short, transparency is absolutely the future, but it must be built thoughtfully: aligned definitions, respect for innovation, realistic expectations and collaboration at every level.

Krupa Koestline Founder and Cosmetic Chemist, KKT Labs

The truth is the current structure of the beauty industry doesn’t support this kind of “radical transparency.” Most brands don’t even audit their manufacturers right now, and, frankly, many don’t care to. They rely on manufacturers to “follow the rules,” even when those rules are undefined. There’s rarely a written quality expectation or documented standard, yet when something goes wrong, the manufacturer is the first to be blamed.

Financially and operationally, most indie and mid-size brands simply can’t support the level of auditing and reporting that true transparency requires. And even if they could, there’s a bigger issue: education. Most brands don’t know what to ask their manufacturers. They don’t understand the process deeply enough to interpret the data transparency would bring. So, transparency without literacy just creates more confusion and misplaced accountability.

Before we chase radical transparency, we need to fix the fundamentals: clear quality standards, better education on how manufacturing actually works and shared responsibility between brands and manufacturers. Transparency only matters when everyone involved understands what they’re looking at.

Richard Omordia Head of Business Development and Outreach, Crida Labs

The short answer to, should beauty manufacturers adopt a radically transparent approach and clean manufacturing standard?, is yes in principle. Transparency and an industry-wide clean manufacturing standard are good directional goals that would likely improve trust and reduce environmental footprints. But it must be implemented pragmatically to avoid friction from overregulation and greenwashing. It also could be cost-prohibitive for indie brands.

It matters because transparency is where premium brands and mass retailers want to be. They want verifiable claims about sourcing, waste, carbon, water use and such. There should be a third-party verification/attestation layer. There should be incentives for switching to renewables or lower impact materials.

Cost and capacity, e.g., documentation, verification of manufacturing metrics, third-party attestation, etc., are likely to be too cumbersome, especially for smaller contract manufacturers and indie brands. IP issues are also a drawback. Too much operational transparency reveals proprietary processes to competitors. And new data streams can create new compliance burdens or expose companies to litigation risk if numbers are misreported.

In our experience, especially for smaller contract manufacturers and indie brands, the premium client and maybe retailer chains or investors care more than the average end user. It's not necessarily the top reason for making the purchasing decision.

Thomas Mooy CEO, Allure Beauty Concepts

Transparency isn’t optional, it’s foundational. At Allure Beauty Concepts, we believe every step in manufacturing should be visible, from energy sources and water use to sanitation chemicals and waste output. By adopting traceability platforms and carbon emissions accounting, we’re laying the groundwork for what a clean manufacturing standard looks like. It’s about being accountable, measurable and committed to improvement.

That same commitment extends to our ESG efforts. We’re monitoring emissions and advancing renewable energy across our facilities, with our Scottsdale site now powered entirely by renewables and our Hayward facility drawing much of its energy from solar. For us, transparency defines how we operate, openly, responsibly and with purpose.

Anay Kacharia Director of R&D, iLABS

In my opinion, clean and sustainability initiatives are great, but they need to have an endpoint that is palatable to the end consumer. As soon as we start talking about “standards” or “certifications,” there’s a ripple effect on cost. Manufacturers don’t operate under the same cost structures as brands, which can either absorb the cost impact or pass it on to the consumer as part of a passion-driven initiative.

European suppliers, manufacturers, brands and consumers have worked hand-in-hand over the last decade or more on these programs, and it has become such an integral part of their culture, enabling manufacturers and brands alike to really push those philosophies. The only way to bring this to North America is to do it together, not just for the sake of certifications, but to truly drive the initiative forward.

Realistically, we need to start small. Instead of immediately aiming for net-positive carbon-emission programs, we can start by targeting a net reduction in energy consumption over a five-year window, build some momentum and move forward from there.

Regarding consumer mindset, there is a portion of the population that believes in the cause and will spend extra to support the movement. However, in my opinion, the general population isn’t as invested in these initiatives, especially if it requires them to change part of their routine or adjust their spending.

If you have a question you'd like Beauty Independent to ask contract beauty manufacturers, cosmetic chemists or consultants, send it to editor@beautyindependent.com.