Is BYOMA Sustainable or is it Greenwashing?

Oct 28

Welcome to my "Sustainable or Greenwashing" series where I'm sharing if brands and products are actually what they say they are.

Is BYOMA sustainable or is it greenwashing? 🧴

BYOMA is the skincare brand that went from a UK launch in 2022 to $500 million-plus in retail sales in about three years — barrier-first formulas, clinical language, $13–$19 at Target and Ulta, and a Phyto-Mucin serum that won awards. I use the Phyto-Mucin Glow Serum myself — it was in my October 23 carousel of the things I actually use that leveled up my life — so this one is personal. It is also a brand whose sustainability story is mostly… packaging. So let's look at what is actually there.

BYOMA was founded in 2022 in the UK by beauty entrepreneur Marc Elrick, under his incubator Future Beauty Labs. It is not the indie brand it looks like: in September 2025, private equity firm Bansk Group — whose portfolio also includes Amika and Ethique — acquired a majority stake. Elrick kept a minority stake and remains CEO. It is also not owned by Unilever, despite what some corners of the internet say.

Here is what BYOMA actually claims on sustainability. The packaging is made from recyclable, 100% monomaterial plastic, with excess packaging eliminated, and the square bottles are designed to ship more efficiently. Refill packs exist for some products — you transfer your existing dropper or pump to the new bottle, so you are not throwing the whole thing away. That is genuinely better than mixed-material packaging, and the refills are real, not just promised.

But here is the thing: that is almost the whole sustainability story. I could not find a BYOMA sustainability page, a sustainability report, or any carbon or plastic-reduction targets. There is no recycling take-back programme. The brand makes no carbon-neutrality claim. And "recyclable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here — BYOMA makes no verified recycled-content claim, and curbside recycling rates for small cosmetic plastics are low. A refill is also still a new plastic bottle; the saving is just the pump or dropper.

On the certifications front, the picture is mixed — and this is where I get personal, because I buy this one. BYOMA is PETA Beauty Without Bunnies certified and vegan, and that matters to me. But I want to be straight about what that certification is: it is declaration-based, with no independent audit, and PETA suspended new EU approvals in 2025 over a REACH loophole. It does not hold Leaping Bunny, the stricter, audited cruelty-free standard. It is not B Corp certified. It is not EWG Verified. The National Eczema Association seal appears on the Creamy Jelly Cleanser in the brand's own imagery, but I could not confirm it against the NEA's own directory, so I am not going to claim it as verified.

And then there is the "clean" halo. BYOMA does not lean hard on "clean" or "natural" marketing — its pitch is clinical efficacy — but the formulas are conventionally synthetic: propylene glycol, phenoxyethanol, carbomer, silicones in some products. That is normal for the category. The real tension is the fragrance split: the face line is fragrance-free, but the body line is fragranced, and EWG Skin Deep rates the Hydrating Body Lotion with high concerns for allergies and immunotoxicity, driven by fragrance allergens like geraniol, limonene, and linalool. That undercuts any blanket "clean and sensitive" impression.

To be fair, I will give them this: the ingredient transparency is genuinely good. BYOMA prints each ingredient and its function on the packaging, publishes full INCI lists, and independent decoders can parse its formulas. The monomaterial packaging and the refills are real. And there are no lawsuits, FDA warnings, or regulator actions against the brand that I could find — no scandals. But the brand also preaches minimal routines while selling five-step systems and launching constantly, and its clinical claims — like the Phyto-Mucin serum's "22% brighter tone" — come from the brand's own commissioned tests, not independent studies.

So is BYOMA sustainable or is it greenwashing?

I'm going to say 50/50 — and here is why. The brand is PETA cruelty-free and vegan, and I buy this one myself. The packaging work is real, and the ingredient transparency is real. But there is no sustainability report, no targets, no take-back programme, no B Corp, no Leaping Bunny, and no EWG Verified — and without more information, I can't make a wider sustainability call either way. A recyclable bottle does not make a sustainable brand, but it does not make a greenwashing one either — not when the cruelty-free and vegan credentials are real. This one stays in the middle until BYOMA shows us more.

If you want to compare it with the other skincare brands I have covered, my Bubble Skincare breakdown is on the hub. What do you think — is BYOMA sustainable, or is it greenwashing? Let me know, and if there is another brand you want me to cover, send it my way!

I have many more deep dives on the Sustainable or Greenwashing hub — stick around for all things mind, body, and planet! 🌎

XOXO,
Krys

Sources:

Krystalynn Gier

Krystalynn Gier is an eco-educator and sustainability content creator who is passionate about sharing low waste living tips, health and wellness hacks, and cozy home decor with those interested in learning about a low waste life.

https://www.krystalynngier.com

Is BYOMA Sustainable or is it Greenwashing?

So is BYOMA sustainable or is it greenwashing?

Sources:

Is Athleta Sustainable or is it Greenwashing?

Is Bubble Skincare Sustainable or is it Greenwashing?