They changed one letter and told me to sell you a moisturiser
Why greenwashing skincare is making it harder to make informed decisions.
A story about the moment I realised some skincare brands aren’t formulating for your skin — they’re formulating for your silence.
I want to tell you about a conversation I had early in my career that I’ve never quite been able to let go of.
I was working for a spa brand — one that packaged themselves as a ‘natural’ brand built around dead sea salts, natural clays and botanicals. One that the therapists and our clients trusted implicitly. At the time, sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) was becoming a concern for consumers. People were beginning to ask questions, read labels, push back. So, the brand did what many brands do: they reformulated.
They swapped SLS for sodium laureth sulphate — SLES. Same foamy, stripping action. Similar irritation potential. A different name on the label.
When I questioned this — because I’d studied these ingredients, because I could see they were closely related — I was told to look more carefully at the spelling. They were different ingredients. And if clients were experiencing dry or irritated skin? Well, that was an opportunity. Upsell the moisturiser.
I’ve been thinking about that moment ever since. Because it isn’t just one brand. It’s a pattern — and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
So, what actually is the difference between SLS and SLES?
Both are surfactants — ingredients that create lather, cut through grease, and help water and oil mix. They’re the reason your shampoo foams, your shower gel bubbles, and your face wash feels like it’s “working.” That foam, by the way, does almost nothing functional. We’ve been conditioned to associate it with cleansing. It’s largely theatre.
Sodium lauryl sulphate is the stronger, more aggressive of the two. It’s a known irritant, particularly for people with sensitive skin, eczema, or a compromised skin barrier. It strips the skin’s natural lipids — the oils your skin needs to stay healthy, hydrated and resilient.
Sodium laureth sulphate is what’s called an ethoxylated version of SLS — it’s been through a chemical process that makes it milder and less irritating for most people. It’s gentler, yes. But it is still a sulphate surfactant. It can still disrupt the skin barrier with prolonged or frequent use. And the ethoxylation process itself can introduce trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane — a compound the European Chemicals Agency classifies as a substance of very high concern.
Swapping SLS for SLES isn’t reformulating for your skin. It’s reformulating for the label.
This is what greenwashing skincare actually looks like
Greenwashing isn’t always a brand slapping a leaf on their packaging and calling something “natural.” Sometimes it’s much subtler — and much more calculated.
It looks like:
- Swapping one problematic ingredient for a closely related one, and hoping the consumer doesn’t look too closely.
- Removing one ingredient consumers have learned to avoid and burying three others they haven’t heard of yet.
- Using words like “clean,” “conscious,” “botanical,” or “naturally derived” with no regulatory definition behind them.
- Listing an active natural ingredient (say, rosehip oil) prominently on the front, while it appears near the bottom of the INCI list — meaning it’s present in such a small amount it’s doing almost nothing.
- Packaging that evokes nature — greens, browns, kraft paper — wrapped around a formula that hasn’t changed at all.
None of this is accidental. It’s a response to a more informed consumer — not a genuine commitment to doing better.
And then there’s the upsell cycle
What was suggested to me — sell the moisturiser to the client with dry skin — is a business model, not a skincare philosophy. Strip the barrier with the cleanser, restore it with the moisturiser. Two products sold where one thoughtful product could have done a better job.
I see this cycle play out constantly. Harsh cleansers leading to “dehydrated” skin. Foaming face washes marketed to oily skin types that strip the skin so thoroughly it overproduces oil in response — reinforcing the idea that you need the product that caused the problem. Fragranced toners that sensitise, sold alongside calming serums.
The most radical thing I can tell you is this: a well-formulated, genuinely gentle routine often needs fewer products, not more.
What to actually look for instead
You don’t need a chemistry degree to make better choices. Here are a few honest starting points:
- Learn to read the INCI list (the ingredient list). Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration. If the hero ingredient is at the bottom, it’s a supporting act, not a lead.
- Look for sulphate-free cleansers if you have sensitive, dry, or reactive skin. Gentle alternatives include coco glucoside, decyl glucoside, and sodium cocoyl isethionate — these clean effectively without stripping.
- Be sceptical of the word “natural” on its own. It has no legal definition in cosmetics. Arsenic is natural. What matters is whether the formulation is genuinely kind to skin.
- Fewer, better ingredients beat a long list of impressive-sounding ones. Stability, preservation, and pH matter more than having seventeen botanical extracts.
- If your skin feels tight, dry, or irritated after cleansing, that’s your skin barrier telling you something. Listen to it.
I started this blog because I kept seeing people spend money on products that weren’t serving them — or worse, products that were quietly making things harder for their skin. I’ve been a beauty therapist, worked inside the industry, and I’m now a natural skincare formulator. I’ve seen it from every angle.
My commitment to you is straightforward: I will always tell you what I actually know, explain why it matters, and point you toward things that genuinely work — not things that work for a brand’s bottom line.
Your skin deserves better than a letter swap and an upsell.
Rebecca
Rebecca Isabel Skincare
