While the company Glowbiotics has important core ideas as a clean beauty brand, they also have not addressed or prioritized other sustainability issues, especially the packaging of their products, which is the first and easiest change to make with their product to make it more sustainable. They also are not very transparent about the factory conditions involved in the production of their products, or about the supply chain, except to say that they can look for new suppliers, without actually addressing what they would value in different suppliers to reflect sustainability.
This particular product is made from ingredients that include probiotics, smart peptide 239 and 240, Chelasyn, hyaluronic acid, skin tightener ST, and SymCalmin. While most of these ingredients are natural alternatives to many chemicals commonly found in skincare products, SymCalmin is a 5% solution of synthetic avenanthramide (the active component of oat with anti-inflammatory properties). The use of a synthetic ingredient here is of concern to me – why isn’t is possible to use the natural form of this ingredient from oats? Next, while Glowbiotics tries to use the least amount of packaging possible, the packaging of their products is lacking in important sustainability initiatives. The cardboard boxes the products come in are recyclable, but the plastics used in the packaging of the products are not recyclable. While this is more expensive for the company, it is an easy change to make to make the product more sustainable, and the packaging brings down the rating for this section.
Glowbiotics is very transparent about all of the ingredients that go into their products, but they have not made information about their supply chain or factory conditions where the products are created readily available, which lowers their rating in this section.
Glowbiotics is committed to creating products that are clean and safe – without the use of parabens, phthalates, sulfates, artificial dyes, mineral oils, and toxic or hormone-disrupting ingredients. However, it seems that sustainability within their products and company is not a top priority of theirs – instead, monetary concerns for the company (for example, using the cheapest packaging even though it is not recyclable and transported from China) – and this brings down their rating for this section.