Groundwork: What are surfactants?

(Surface Active Agents) Surfactants are chemicals that reduce the surface tension between different liquids. They are amphiphilic with a fat loving and water loving part which enables their behaviour - e.g. in detergency or in holding oil and water emulsions together. In cosmetic products, surfactants are the hero ingredients that enable the different product formats we’ve come to love, from shampoos to conditions to lotions and more!

Rapid fire of common surfactant misconceptions

Actually, sulfate-free isn’t greener or necessarily more gentle.

One of the first free-from claims that started from a haircare brand trying to differentiate their products. When consumers saw the claim, they assumed the ingredient (i.e. SLS or SLES) must be bad, which opened the floodgates for a lot of misinformation, and more free from claims.

Misconception, SLS=harsh. This depends on the finished product formula. While SLS on it’s own may be harsh due to it’s effectiveness as a cleanser, when it’s added at a low % in cosmetic products, you can produce products suitable for the most sensitive skin. While other surfactants may be less harsh on their own, they may be added at higher %s in formulas to achieve comparable cleansing impacts - which may end up as a more harsh final product.

Misconception, SLS=faster hair color fade. Color fade actually is mostly due to water rather than the surfactants. SLS does not appear to contribute to color fade more than other surfactants. In fact, in product studies by Good Housekeeping, shampoos WITH “sulfates” often come out on top as the best shampoos to keep your hair color longer.

Misconception, SLS-free=better for the enironment. Reality, SLS is readily biodegradable... I’m unsure why this idea has come around but considering how surfactants are made, it doesn’t make sense. I.e. SLS is made in a continous production where as many of the alternatives are made in batches - each start and stop of manufacturing drives up the total environmental footprint. If we were to actually measure it, SLS would likely come out on top (would be great to see someone do this!). There’s also the fact that SLS formulas can be thickened via salt whereas other surfactants may require additional gelling agents (such as gums), which will drive up the final formula impacts compared to salt.

Actually, solid cleansers don’t necessarily = greener

There are many reasons liquid products may come out on top from an environmental performance standpoint.

1) The greatest contributor to environmental impact for cleansing products in their life cycle tend to be at the consumer use phase - specifically how much water (especially warm) is needed to effectively use the product (lots of research here on laundry detergents). Solid cleansers typically translate to more water usage from consumers. This was recently explored via an LCA in the context of toothpaste tabs vs toothpaste in tubes - for this reason, the regular toothpaste came out on top.

2) We know in other product formats, such as O/W lotions, the ingredient types that contribute the most to formulation environmental impacts are the emollients (e.g. oils). Structuring agents are often based on oil feedstocks, and solid formats require more of those ingredients to create the structure.

3) Finished products are often manufactured closer to their final consumer, which may reduce the importance of transportation weight for environmental performance compared to other things (such as the above).

Did you know? One of Unilever’s current strategies for meeting their sustainability targets is encouraging consumers to switch from bar soaps to liquids. From their analysis, bar products—often palm oil-heavy—have a greater sustainability impact than liquid formats, even considering the additional plastic packaging and water content.

DISCLAIMER, I am NOT saying solid=worse. But the blanket idea that they’re better is incorrect. These ideas were based on assumptions, demonstrating the importance of actually measuring these things.

Actually, palm-free also ≠ greener

Palm is a uniquely productive crop. Compared to other oilseeds, it requires fewer resources/land/water, with estimates of being 6-10x more efficient at producing oil on a per hectare basis. Outside of efficiency, millions of individuals, especially smallholder farmers, depend on this crop for their livelihoods, without it, income and food insecurity would likely become a big issue for them.

Specific to surfactants, the sector started using palm to move away from fossil fuels. There was also already so much palm oil production already from the food sector, which had palm kernal as a waste - the chemicals sector created value to turn this into a co-product.

With the palm=bad narratives, there has been a push to use different oil seeds. For surfactants specifically, considering the chemistry needs, coconut has been often viewed as the alternative. We already knew coconut was less efficient and was similarly grown in richly biodiverse regions. More evidence is starting to come out that coconut may actually have a larger impact - a case of regretable substitutions...

Yes, there is obviously issues with palm supply right now and historically. The path forward probably isn’t to just abandon the crop and reach for alternatives (that will likely have a higher impact in the end). The Round Table for Responsible Palm Oil has been doing a lot of good work trying to work on improving palm sustainability - it’s very large and complex challenge. At the end of the day, the blanket statement that palm=bad probably has done more harm than good.

What has been the impact of misinformation to the surfactant sector?

Distorted Market Demand & Pressure to Conform

Misinformation has shifted consumer demand away from scientifically sound ingredients (e.g., “sulfates”, parabens) due to perceived harm, not actual safety data. Brands that resist false narratives see sales drop, while those that adopt misleading "free from" claims often benefit financially in the short term.

Key tension: Brands, especially the bigger ones, are beheld to stockholders. When false claims drive revenue, there’s little incentive to push back—even if the science says otherwise.

Retailer & NGO Influence

Major retailers (e.g., Sephora) and NGOs (e.g., Environmental Working Group) have codified misinformation via ingredient “blacklists.” These standards often lack scientific rigor but are required for market access. Brands must align with pseudoscience standards or risk exclusion from high-visibility retail platforms.

R&D Inefficiencies

To meet retailer standards and consumer expectations driven by misinformation, surfactant suppliers must:

Reformulate with less effective or more expensive alternatives.

Spend time developing “safe-sounding” systems instead of ones with actually improved in-use &/or environmental performance.

I.e. we’re not actually producing safer or greener products but spending a lot doing... something (that will probably be a lot more expensive for end users?)

Current trend: brands are looking for surfactants without preservatives so they don’t have to be listed on their label. In order to satisfy this demand, many surfactant producers shift to high-pH systems. This isn’t a problem for end consumers since the formula pH will be adjusted. However, this introduces a higher risk in terms of worker safety for those handling the material.

Regulatory & Compliance Costs

Misinformation has fueled patchwork legislation that isn’t necessarily aligned with science. Examples: current bill in California moving through committees to ban all synthetic polymers (due to perception that polymers=plastic which is incorrect. FYI, DNA? That’s a polymer), current bill moving through comittees to ban all parabens despite them being demonstrably safe, or the Hawaii sunscreen filter bans which the evidence does not support.

This translates to: Frequent reformulations (which increases business costs), increased supply chain complexity (which makes it harder for businesses to navigate to actually do better), and increased legal and compliance cost.

Barrier to Truthful Marketing

Telling the truth is hard to monetize in the current system. Truthful brands often can't compete on messaging simplicity or emotional resonance. The ROI of correcting misinformation is unclear, while the ROI of echoing it is immediate.

Silver linings and long term strategies

Misinformation-driven shifts (e.g., sulfate-free trend) have also spurred new product development and opportunities for innovation—but only if companies invest in strong internal science.

For suppliers, building credible scientific narratives, investing in education, and collaborating through trade associations are potential paths forward. The panel associated with this post is an example of what this can look like, which was brought to you by Independent Beauty Association with the support of Colonial Chemical.

This post was based on the Truth in Beauty panel, Surfactants Edition, at the 15th ICIS World Surfactants Conference w/ Dennis Abbeduto, Claire McGahan and Neil Burns. Tune into the full conversation here!

Additional References

Bondi, C. A., Marks, J. L., Wroblewski, L. B., Raatikainen, H. S., Lenox, S. R., & Gebhardt, K. E. (2015). Human and environmental toxicity of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS): evidence for safe use in household cleaning products. Environmental health insights, 9, EHI-S31765.

Brandi, C. (2021). The Interaction of Private and Public Governance: The Case of Sustainability Standards for Palm Oil. The European Journal of Development Research, 33(6), 1574-1595.

Candellone, E., Aleta, A., Ferraz de Arruda, H., Meijaard, E., & Moreno, Y. (2024). Characteristics of the vegetable oil debate in social-media and its implications for sustainability. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 391.

Evonik. (2022). Presentation at The Eco Well Sustainable Beauty E-Summit (presentation available on blog)

Karsa, D. R., & Porter, M. R. (Eds.). (2012). Biodegradability of surfactants. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kerr, M. S., & Cole, K. P. (2022). Sustainability case studies on the use of continuous manufacturing in pharmaceutical production. Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 5, 100279.

Meijaard, E., Abrams, J. F., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Voigt, M., & Sheil, D. (2020). Coconut oil, conservation and the conscientious consumer. Current Biology, 30(13), R757-R758.

Meijaard, E., Virah-Sawmy, M., Newing, H. S., Ingram, V., Holle, M. J. M., Pasmans, T., ... & Sheil, D. (2024). Exploring the future of vegetable oils.

Santika, T., Wilson, K. A., Law, E. A., St John, F. A., Carlson, K. M., Gibbs, H., ... & Struebig, M. J. (2021). Impact of palm oil sustainability certification on village well-being and poverty in Indonesia. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 109-119.

Suppipat, S., Hu, A. H., Trinh, L. T., Kuo, C. H., & Huang, L. H. (2022). A comparative life cycle assessment of toothpaste cream versus toothpaste tablets. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 357-369.

Truth in Beauty, Surfactants Edition - Podcast Recap.