Beauty Wants to Talk Anti-Consumption. But Can an Industry Built on Selling More Really Change?

Hailey Bieber is no stranger to making headlines. At Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in October, however, it wasn’t a beauty trend or new Rhode launch causing a stir. It was a comment the founder made about not being interested in “overconsumption”.

In Bieber’s defence, no one wants to actively encourage waste or excessive consumption. But when your business model relies on people buying products, the statement becomes much more complicated than simply declaring you’re ‘over’ overconsumption.

The internet was quick to call her out. Diet Prada, the fashion criticism account with more than 3 million Instagram followers, laid out what it saw as the disconnect between Rhode’s messaging and its actions. “Problem is, despite the brand’s commitment to the reduction of overconsumption, Rhode isn’t exactly known for sustainable products or practices. From bag charms for your makeup to wasteful PR packaging, talk is cheaper than its $16 pimple patch case,” the account summarised.

“I think she meant well, but perhaps didn’t fully consider the contradiction in what she was saying,” says Ray Hopkinson, producer of the British Beauty Council’s Courage to Change report and founder of purpose-driven PR and talent agency SWAYED. “I agree with the philosophy of creating a few products and doing them exceptionally well, but it’s difficult to reconcile that with things like phone cases with built-in lip gloss holders, released in multiple colourways.”

Hailey Bieber may not have intended to raise a much bigger question, but that’s exactly what happened. Can a beauty brand ever really be anti-overconsumption? And if it can, what does that actually look like?

It’s an interesting point given what’s happening among consumers themselves. The resurgence of Project Pan, a social media movement encouraging people to finish the beauty products they already own before buying more, suggests that attitudes towards consumption may be changing. Instead of showcasing their latest hauls, creators are documenting their empties, taking stock of overflowing bathroom cabinets and questioning whether they really need another new lipstick.

Rhode has built much of its success on creating desire through limited-edition drops, utilising Bieber's influence and creating viral moments. But that isn’t unique to Rhode; it’s become part of modern beauty marketing. Launches are designed to create urgency. Sell-outs become proof of desirability, creating more and more demand.

And the commercial stakes are considerable. Rhode reportedly generated approximately $390 million in net sales in fiscal 2026, an 80% increase on the previous year, and is now targeting $1 billion in annual sales. It’s an extraordinary achievement, but it also underlines the tension at the heart of this conversation. Can a brand genuinely advocate against overconsumption while pursuing such ambitious growth? Growth doesn’t necessarily have to mean encouraging excess, but it’s difficult to reconcile the two when so much of beauty marketing is designed to make us want something new.

Hopkinson believes the conversation needs to move beyond virality and social capital and towards the process of how we make purchases. “Anti-consumption is about buying products with emotional durability. It’s a concept I’ve come across in fashion, but it applies just as much to beauty. Will you still want to wear that lipstick in five years, or are you buying it because it’s having a moment?”

Does this place too much responsibility on the consumer? And what about products like soap, toothpaste, SPF and shampoo that aren’t luxuries? They’re part of health and hygiene, and access to basic personal care shouldn’t be considered overconsumption. Somehow, though, essentials have become more than just the basics. Moisturisers are no longer simply moisturisers; they’re formulated for different purposes, with different ingredients, for different times of day. Do we really need them all? And should they all count as essentials? We’ve quickly expanded our idea of what counts as the minimum.

Beauty has always blurred the boundary between need and want, which is what makes the conversation around overconsumption so complex. Who decides where necessity ends and excess begins? And how do they make that call?

If brands genuinely want to position themselves as being against overconsumption, it’s not as simple as releasing fewer products or attempting to formulate the best version of each product category. “I think the bigger question is if you’re advocating for anti-consumption, what friction are you putting in place to encourage people to buy less?,” points out Hopkinson. “Hailey has enormous cultural influence and sets the tempo for consumption, whether she intends to or not. Imitation has long been the highest form of flattery, but at this scale it has environmental consequences.”

The conversation also arrives at an interesting moment for sustainability. Not that long ago, it was a massive part of beauty marketing. Every launch promised more sustainable packaging, responsibly sourced ingredients or lower-carbon production. Today, those conversations don’t feel quite as public as they once were.

“The buzz has faded because sustainability has become table stakes,” says Sarah Brown, founder of skincare brand Pai, a certified B Corp that has long championed sustainable practices and independently certified organic formulation. “Customers expect a brand to have sorted out its packaging. It isn’t news and they won't pay extra for it.”

But there’s a difference between offering more sustainable options and actually changing how people consume. According to the British Beauty Council, the refillable beauty category grew by 22% in 2025, yet actual refill purchases accounted for just 20% of the refillable market. In other words, we’re increasingly buying products designed to be refilled, but we’re not necessarily refilling them. It’s a telling example of how even well-intentioned sustainability initiatives can fall short when consumer behaviour doesn’t follow.

Brown also points to regulation and how this has impacted the conversation. “Under the EU’s new packaging regulation, which came into effect in August, all packaging has to be recyclable by 2030. But there’s no marketing message in complying with the rules. For example, nobody would advertise that they no longer test on animals because that’s just become expected.”

Perhaps that’s exactly where sustainability is heading: not as a marketing campaign, but as a baseline expectation, which can only be a positive for the beauty industry—as long as it’s monitored.

Ultimately, a beauty brand cannot exist without encouraging some consumption. But Brown believes change is possible, provided the industry acts. “It will take four things: One, influencers have to champion it. Two, retailers need to set some standards of curation that provide a platform for responsible brands. Three, governments have to mandate it, and across Europe they’re already doing that. Four, leading brands have to show by example that you can be sustainable and be cool.”

And maybe that’s the good thing to emerge from Hailey Bieber’s comments. They didn’t necessarily convince people that Rhode, or Bieber herself, was against overconsumption. But they did reignite a conversation the beauty industry has been rather quiet about. With Black Friday just around the corner and our inboxes flooded with offers encouraging us to buy things we never knew we needed, perhaps there’s no better time to question how much beauty we really need.