Growing interest in clean beauty standards has transformed the way laboratories develop cosmetic products. Consumers increasingly expect shorter, “cleaner” ingredient lists, creating a new challenge for formulators: to develop stable, effective and sensorially refined products using fewer ingredients.
In this context, two groups of raw materials have become particularly important — surfactants and humectants — as they largely determine how an entire minimalist formulation performs.
What does the clean beauty standard involve, and why has it had such a significant impact on the cosmetics market? What changes must formulators introduce when developing cosmetic products? We explore the subject in detail.
What is the clean beauty standard?
The clean beauty approach emerged in response to a specific consumer need: people want to know what they are applying to their skin, why a particular ingredient is included in a product and whether it is truly necessary. They expect simpler formulations and greater transparency.
Clean beauty is not about eliminating substances for the sake of it, but about consciously developing shorter, better-justified formulations that remain stable, effective and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Clean beauty is not a formal standard, but rather a set of expectations that increasingly shape the market: reducing unnecessary additives, improving biodegradability, ensuring transparent INCI lists and selecting raw materials with a clear safety profile. As a result, formulations often need to be redesigned by simplifying the system and clearly defining the role of each component.
At the centre of this shift are surfactants and humectants — ingredients that have the greatest impact on product functionality and the consumer experience. Consumers increasingly expect modern alternatives: milder next-generation surfactants, humectants that interact more effectively with the skin and raw materials with more transparent origins.
This changes the focus of laboratory work — from “conventional” formulation towards more precise and deliberate design of minimalist systems.
Which surfactants are disappearing from formulations, and which are taking their place?
As clean beauty continues to develop, many conventional surfactants — particularly SLES/SLS and systems requiring numerous supporting ingredients, such as PEGs and heavy-duty solubilisers — are being removed from formulations. In short ingredient lists, their performance is more difficult to balance, while expectations placed on raw materials continue to increase. These include:
greater mildness,
improved biodegradability,
skin compatibility,
predictable performance in minimalist formulations.
Without additional polymers and performance-enhancing additives, conventional anionic surfactants are more difficult to control. As a result, they are naturally giving way to milder surfactant systems.
Surfactant groups gaining ground in clean beauty
In clean beauty formulations, surfactants that combine mild cleansing, improved biodegradability and predictable performance in simple systems are gaining a clear advantage.
Non-ionic surfactants – a cornerstone of clean beauty
They combine mildness, high skin compatibility and stability across a broad pH range. They work well with both anionic and amphoteric systems, making it easier to develop short and predictable formulations.
The most important group in this category is alkyl polyglucosides (APGs) – plant-derived surfactants used in cleansing gels, shampoos, micellar waters and products for sensitive skin.
They are valued for:
their mild profile,
their ability to create transparent formulations,
high biodegradability,
broad formulation versatility.
They have become a cornerstone of modern clean beauty cleansing systems.
Amphoteric surfactants
They act as “mildness modulators”. They stabilise foam, improve skin tolerance and support anionic systems in short formulations. The most commonly used representative of this group is cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB), which performs well as a modifying component even in formulations with a limited number of ingredients.
Plant-derived/emulsifying surfactants (glucoside- and polyglycerol-based)
Surfactants based on glucosides and polyglycerols are valued for their mildness, biodegradability and effective emulsifying properties. They are most commonly used in cleansing oils and milks, where they help stabilise the system and provide gentle, non-stripping cleansing without the need for conventional emulsifiers or solubilisers.
APG variants and technological differences
Individual APGs differ in alkyl chain length and degree of polymerisation, which directly affects their performance in a formulation:
shorter chains provide milder cleansing and a softer foam,
longer chains deliver stronger degreasing performance,
different degrees of polymerisation influence viscosity, solubility and the sensory profile.
Although APGs are mild and versatile, they require precise formulation design, including appropriate support from humectants to improve viscosity, application comfort and the overall sensory experience of the product
Humectants in clean beauty – a role extending beyond “hydration”
In minimalist formulations, humectants are no longer merely supporting ingredients. They are responsible not only for hydration, but also for system stabilisation, control of water activity and support for mild surfactants. With a short ingredient list, they often determine the rheology, sensory properties and overall functionality of the product. Their role in clean beauty formulations is therefore significantly broader than in conventional systems.
When PEGs and synthetic polymers are removed from formulations, humectants begin to take responsibility for viscosity, application comfort, system stability and mildness. In practice, they assume some of the functions traditionally performed by complex auxiliary ingredients in conventional products.
Humectant groups gaining importance in clean beauty
Clean beauty formulations favour humectants that are technologically stable and well tolerated by the skin:
polyols – sorbitol, glycerin, xylitol and erythritol. They offer predictable performance, broad compatibility and easy incorporation into minimalist formulations,
NMF components – urea and amino acids. They support skin hydration and comfort and work well with mild cleansing systems,
oligosaccharides/prebiotic humectants – inulin and alpha-glucans. They combine moisturising properties with support for the skin barier.
What does a humectant do in a surfactant system?
In clean beauty formulations based on mild surfactants, particularly APGs, humectants improve cleansing comfort, reduce the “draggy” feel often associated with minimalist systems, support viscosity development and influence the after-rinse sensory profile. They may also improve skin tolerance, as demonstrated by studies on polyols in surfactant systems.
In practice, clean beauty formulations often use humectants that are well documented in the scientific literature and perform predictably in simple systems. These include sorbitol and urea — ingredients that are widely used in cosmetics, technologically stable and compatible with a broad range of surfactant systems. In minimalist formulations, they can support viscosity, application comfort and skin tolerance, which is why they are frequently used to complement mild cleansing systems.
Why must a surfactant “work together” with a humectant?
In minimalist formulations, each ingredient performs several functions at the same time, so the surfactant–humectant system must work synergistically. The surfactant is responsible for micelle formation and cleansing, while the humectant influences the properties of the aqueous phase, including viscosity, application feel and comfort after rinsing.
When the ingredient list is short, a lack of compatibility between these two components can lead to problems with rheology, stability and the sensory properties of the product.
A physicochemical perspective
In clean beauty systems, non-ionic surfactants organise the solution by forming micelles, while humectants modify the properties of the aqueous phase. In simple formulations without “buffering” additives, these effects become critical to the performance of the entire system.
The impact of humectants on skin tolerance
Humectants can help reduce the potential drying effect of surfactants, improving comfort and the after-rinse feel. In simple clean beauty formulations without complex supporting systems, these properties of humectants become particularly important.
Clean beauty challenges – why are these two ingredients not enough?
In clean beauty formulations, a surfactant and a humectant alone are not sufficient to ensure product stability, as the entire system relies on a limited number of ingredients. Natural thickeners are sensitive to pH and temperature, natural and glucoside-based emulsifiers require a precisely controlled order of addition, and preservation is significantly more challenging in “cleaner” formulations — a humectant cannot replace a preservative.
In addition, the absence of synthetic polymers increases the impact of shear, temperature and mixing time. Clean beauty therefore requires greater process discipline and a thorough understanding of how individual raw materials behave.
How to select a surfactant + humectant combination in clean beauty formulations?
The starting point is to define the type of cleansing system and the desired sensory profile. This determines the type of support required by the surfactant, particularly an APG. The compatibility of the humectant with the formulation pH and the presence of oils must also be assessed, as these factors affect viscosity and system stability.
In practice, combinations should be tested in small-scale variants, using different humectant levels and surfactant ratios, and evaluating their impact on foam, viscosity and drag during application.
General principles that work well in many minimalist cleansing systems include:
mild non-ionic surfactants work well with polyols,
sorbitol or glycerin can improve viscosity and application feel,
urea at low concentrations may support skin tolerance,
the choice of humectant depends on the product type, pH and the presence of oils.
Without polymers and PEGs, there is no “safety net”: non-ionic surfactants respond more strongly to temperature, higher-molecular-weight humectants affect product density, and a shorter ingredient list increases the importance of physicochemical interactions and precise processing conditions.
In clean beauty formulations, the specific variant of each ingredient can determine the performance of the entire product.
Clean beauty behind the scenes: advanced chemistry in a simple package
lthough clean beauty is built around short ingredient lists, it relies on complex physicochemistry — micelle structure, humectant behaviour in the aqueous phase, interactions between raw materials and the impact of processing conditions. Surfactants and humectants form the structural core of the entire formulation, while the precise selection of their specific variants determines the final quality of the product.
How to design clean beauty formulations for consistent success: rely on expert support
Clean beauty demonstrates that simple formulations require highly informed choices. What matters is not only the type of surfactants and humectants used, but also their specific variants, origin and compatibility within the system.
Should you need information on available raw materials, their specifications or functional differences, our team is here to support you. We are happy to share manufacturers’ expertise and practical guidance that can make laboratory work easier.
