Introduction: The Tyranny of the Shelfie
Open any social media platform, and you will be confronted with its ghost: the “shelfie.” A meticulously curated, artfully arranged photograph of a skincare collection so vast it would put a small pharmacy to shame. Dozens of serums in identical amber glass bottles, towers of moisturizers, masks in every colour of the rainbow, all bathed in perfect, influencer-worthy lighting. For years, this image has been the aspirational endpoint of skincare culture—a visual representation of self-care, knowledge, and disposable income. It whispered a seductive promise: the more you have, the better your skin will be.
But this promise is a lie. The shelfie is not a testament to wellness; it is a monument to overconsumption, fueled by a multi-billion dollar industry that profits from our insecurities. It has normalized a pathological behaviour: skincare hoarding. This is not the careful curation of a thoughtful routine, but the frantic accumulation of products, many of which will expire on the shelf, half-used or never opened. It is a cycle of buying, trying, and discarding that is not only devastating to our wallets but is also actively harming our skin and the planet.
The “shelfie” is dead. It’s time we held a funeral for this unsustainable, anxiety-inducing trend and embraced a new paradigm of skincare: one rooted in minimalism, knowledge, and intentionality. This is not a call to abandon self-care, but to redefine it. It is a plea to stop the hoarding, to understand that a healthy skin barrier is not built on a foundation of twenty different active ingredients, but on consistency, patience, and a profound respect for both our biology and our environment. The journey to better skin begins not with adding another product to the cart, but with taking nearly all of them off the shelf.
1. The Rise and Fall of the Shelfie: From Aspiration to Absurdity
To understand why the shelfie became so pervasive, we must examine the forces that created it. Its origins are deeply intertwined with the simultaneous rise of social media beauty influencers, the “wellness” industrial complex, and a shift in marketing from problem-solving to identity-creation.
In the early 2010s, platforms like YouTube and Instagram became the new beauty counters. Instead of relying on glossy magazine ads or sales assistants, consumers turned to “real people” for advice. The first wave of beauty vloggers demystified skincare, explaining ingredients like hyaluronic acid and retinoids with an authenticity that felt revolutionary. This was, initially, a positive development. Education was being democratized. However, as the influencer economy matured, the content had to evolve to maintain viewer engagement and drive revenue. Unboxings, hauls, and “full-face of first impressions” became the dominant formats. The narrative shifted from “here’s what works” to “here’s what’s new.”
The shelfie was the perfect visual symbol for this new era. It was a status symbol. A sprawling collection signified that you were in-the-know, that you had the time and resources to invest in this new form of self-optimization. Skincare was no longer just about treating acne or wrinkles; it was marketed as a form of secular spirituality, a daily ritualistic practice that promised not just clear skin, but clarity of mind. The more complex and extensive the ritual, the more dedicated you were presumed to be to the cause of self-care.
Brands quickly capitalized on this. They moved away from selling single hero products and began marketing “systems” and “regimens.” They fostered a culture of constant novelty, releasing limited-edition collaborations, launching new serums monthly, and creating a sense of urgency with flash sales and FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out). The language of skincare itself became inflated. Products were no longer mere moisturizers; they were “moisture-encapsulating bio-ferments” or “quantum-hydration elixirs.” This pseudo-scientific jargon created a barrier to entry that could only be overcome by consuming more content—and more products.
The absurdity peaked with the phenomenon of “skincare fridge.” What began as a practical way to store certain light- or heat-sensitive ingredients (like Vitamin C) or to provide a cooling sensation for puffy eyes, became an aesthetic accessory. The mini-fridge, stuffed with dozens of colourful jars and bottles, was the ultimate shelfie flex. It was a physical manifestation of excess, suggesting that one’s skincare needs were so vast they required their own dedicated appliance. The message was clear: your routine is inadequate if it fits in a single bathroom cabinet.
But the cracks began to show. Consumers started reporting “skincare fatigue”—the exhaustion of managing a 10-step routine morning and night. Dermatologists began speaking out on social media, their voices a calm, evidence-based counterpoint to the influencer hype. They pointed out the rising cases of damaged skin barriers, contact dermatitis, and “cosmetic acne” caused by product overload. The term “product cycling” entered the lexicon, describing the counterproductive practice of using a new active ingredient before the previous one had time to work, leading to irritation and no discernible results.
The fall of the shelfie was a quiet rebellion. It started with the “skinimalism” trend—a direct backlash advocating for fewer, more effective products. People began to realize that the constant chase for the next miracle product was making their skin worse, not better. The curated perfection of the shelfie began to feel inauthentic and stressful. The aspiration had curdled into absurdity, and the once-coveted image of a product-laden shelf now looked less like a trophy and more like a tombstone for wasted money, time, and hope. The shelfie didn’t just die; it was exposed as a fraud.
2. The Three Pillars of the Hoarding Mentality: FOMO, Jargon, and Identity
Why do we continue to buy into this cycle, even when we know better? The hoarding mentality is not a personal failing; it is a carefully engineered outcome built on three powerful psychological pillars: Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO), the strategic use of impenetrable jargon, and the conflation of products with personal identity.
FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out): The beauty industry runs on a manufactured sense of urgency and scarcity. Limited-edition releases, seasonal collections, and viral TikTok trends create a powerful anxiety that if we don’t act now, we will be left behind. This “TikTok Made Me Buy It” phenomenon is a potent driver of impulse purchases. When we see a thousand videos claiming a £5 serum is a “dupe” for a £150 cream, or a new snail mucin product has “healed” someone’s decade-old scarring, the logical part of our brain is overridden by a desperate hope. We are not just buying a product; we are buying the potential of a solution, the chance to be part of an in-crowd that has discovered the secret. This fear is compounded by algorithm-driven social media feeds, which create echo chambers of hype, making a single product appear to be a universal necessity. The result is a drawer full of half-used “miracle workers” that did nothing for us, because our skin is not the same as the influencer’s skin.
The Weaponization of Jargon: Skincare marketing is masterful at using scientific-sounding language to create an aura of authority and complexity. Words like “clinical-grade,” “dermatologist-tested,” “patented bio-available technology,” and “nano-sphere delivery system” are designed to intimidate and impress. They suggest that the product is so advanced, so beyond the understanding of the layperson, that its efficacy must be taken on faith. This creates a dependency on the very brands and influencers who are selling to us. If the world of skincare is too complex to navigate alone, we must rely on their guidance—guidance that invariably leads to purchasing more.
This jargon also obscures a fundamental truth: most effective skincare is built on a handful of well-researched, often unglamorous ingredients. A basic moisturizer with ceramides and a well-formulated retinoid will do more for most people than a dozen “revolutionary” serums with proprietary botanical blends. The jargon is a smokescreen, distracting us from the simple, evidence-based fundamentals and convincing us that we need a constantly evolving arsenal to combat problems that often have simple solutions.
Skincare as Identity: In an increasingly fragmented world, people seek out communities and identities. Skincare has become one such tribe. To be a “skincare junkie” is to have a hobby, a passion, and a community. We signal our membership through our knowledge of ingredients, our brand allegiances, and, most visibly, our collections. The shelfie is the ultimate badge of belonging. This transforms skincare from a functional practice into an expressive one. We are not just treating our skin; we are communicating our values, our sophistication, and our dedication to self-improvement.
This identity-based consumption is incredibly powerful. It makes criticism of the hoarding culture feel like a personal attack. To suggest that someone has too many products is to question their expertise, their hobby, and their commitment to self-care. Brands foster this by creating cult-like followings, with exclusive launches and branded hashtags. The problem arises when the identity becomes contingent on constant consumption. When your sense of self is tied to having the newest, the rarest, or the most products, you are trapped in a cycle of perpetual buying. The pursuit of better skin becomes secondary to the performance of being a “skincare enthusiast,” a performance that is financially and environmentally unsustainable.
3. The Skin-Sabotaging Consequences of Product Overload
The most immediate and personal casualty of the skincare hoarding trend is our skin itself. The human skin is a remarkable organ, a complex ecosystem designed to protect us. It is not an inert canvas upon which we can endlessly layer chemicals without consequence. Overloading it with products disrupts its delicate balance, leading to a host of problems that the next “miracle” product will only exacerbate.
The Skin Barrier: The First Line of Defence, Under Siege
The stratum corneum, our skin’s outermost layer, is a brick-and-mortar structure of dead skin cells (corneocytes) held together by lipids (ceramides, cholesterol, fatty acids). This is our skin barrier. Its job is to keep moisture in and irritants, pollutants, and pathogens out. A healthy barrier is resilient, hydrated, and calm. The modern, multi-step routine is a sustained assault on this barrier. The constant application of multiple cleansers, exfoliating acids (AHAs/BHAs), retinoids, Vitamin C, and other actives can literally dissolve the “mortar” that holds the barrier together. This leads to Trans-Epidermal Water Loss (TEWL), where water escapes from the skin, leaving it dry, flaky, and tight. A compromised barrier is also more permeable, allowing potential irritants to penetrate more easily, leading to redness, itching, stinging, and inflammation—a condition known as irritant contact dermatitis.
The Rise of “Cosmetic Acne” and Sensitized Skin
Product-induced acne, or “acne cosmetica,” is a direct result of using too many products. It typically presents as small, rough bumps (comedones) and pustules on the forehead, cheeks, and chin. This happens when the skin is overwhelmed by a cocktail of ingredients—heavy emollients, certain silicones, oils, or even the simple act of layering multiple products that don’t interact well. Each product might be “non-comedogenic” on its own, but when combined into a complex routine, they can create a congested, suffocating environment on the skin. Furthermore, the constant irritation from over-exfoliation can trigger an inflammatory response that manifests as acne-like eruptions, confusing the user who then applies more acne treatments, creating a vicious cycle of damage.
The Ineffectiveness of “Product Cycling”
Skincare is not fast-acting. Most active ingredients, particularly those that target concerns like hyperpigmentation, collagen production, and cellular turnover, require a significant period of consistent use to show results. Retinoids can take 3-6 months to demonstrate their full anti-aging effects. Hydroquinone for melasma requires 8-12 weeks. The hoarding mentality promotes “product cycling”—the practice of using a product for a few weeks, getting impatient, and then switching to the next viral sensation. This not only wastes money but ensures that no product is ever given a fair chance to work. The skin is in a constant state of adjustment and irritation, never settling into a rhythm that would allow for true improvement. You are essentially throwing a different solution at a wall every few weeks, hoping one will stick, without ever giving any of them time to do so.
The Diagnostic Nightmare
When someone using a 15-product routine experiences a breakout, rash, or sudden dryness, identifying the culprit becomes a near-impossible task. Is it the new niacinamide serum? The ferulic acid? The “soothing” cream with a hidden essential oil? Or is it the interaction between the Vitamin C and the AHA toner? Dermatologists often advise a “skin fast” or a return to basics (cleanser, moisturizer, sunscreen) for precisely this reason. It is the only way to reset the skin and slowly reintroduce products one by one to identify the irritant. The hoarder’s collection, therefore, becomes not a toolkit for skin health, but a minefield of potential allergens and irritants, making it impossible to diagnose and treat underlying issues effectively. In the quest for perfect skin, we have created a landscape of chronic sensitivity and confusion.
4. The Environmental Cost of a 10-Step Routine
The impact of skincare hoarding extends far beyond our bathroom cabinets. The beauty industry is a major contributor to global waste and pollution, and the trend towards vast, frequently changing routines has exponentially increased its environmental footprint. Every brightly coloured bottle, every single-use sheet mask, and every hastily discarded “failed” product leaves a scar on the planet.
The Plague of Plastic Packaging
The vast majority of skincare products are packaged in plastic. While many brands are now incorporating recycled materials, the fundamental problem of volume remains. A single hoarded collection can contain dozens of plastic bottles, jars, droppers, and tubes. Most of this packaging, especially the complex, multi-material components like airless pumps and mixed-material jars, is not recyclable in standard municipal systems. Even when it is, the recycling rates for plastics are dismally low globally. This means that the aesthetic shelves glorified on social media are, in reality, a delayed shipment to a landfill or the ocean, where they will persist for centuries. The carbon footprint of producing and transporting this packaging, often from international manufacturers, is staggering.
The Problem of Product Expiry and Waste
Skincare products have a limited shelf life. Once opened, they are susceptible to bacterial contamination and the degradation of active ingredients. Preservatives can only do so much, especially when products are stored improperly (like in a humid bathroom) or used with contaminated fingers. The hoarder, with a rotation of dozens of open products, is almost guaranteed to have items expire before they are finished. This is not just a waste of money; it is a waste of the resources—water, energy, raw materials—that went into creating that product. The constant churn of buying new viral products means that perfectly good, but perhaps unexciting, staples are abandoned and thrown away half-full. This culture of disposability treats skincare as a transient fashion accessory rather than a functional commodity.
The Hidden Impact of Ingredients and Water Usage
The environmental cost is not just in the packaging. The sourcing of ingredients can be incredibly resource-intensive. The demand for palm oil (and its derivatives, ubiquitous in cosmetics) is a primary driver of deforestation in Southeast Asia. The cultivation of certain botanicals and flowers for essential oils and extracts can involve significant water and pesticide use. Furthermore, the manufacturing process itself is water- and energy-intensive. When we buy a product we don’t need and will not finish, we are wasting all of these embedded resources. Even the act of washing our faces becomes more impactful; a complex routine often requires double-cleansing (oil cleanser followed by water-based cleanser), which uses more water and sends more chemical-laden runoff into the water system than a simple, one-step cleanse.
The Illusion of “Green” Hoarding
In response to consumer awareness, many brands have launched “clean,” “green,” or “natural” lines. While this is a step in the right direction, it can create a false sense of security. A “clean” product in unsustainable packaging, or a “natural” serum hoarded alongside twenty other products, is still an environmental problem. The issue is overconsumption itself, not just the type of product being consumed. Buying ten “sustainable” products you don’t need is far worse for the planet than buying one effective, conventionally produced product that you use completely. The solution is not to switch the type of hoard, but to stop hoarding altogether.
5. The Financial Drain: The High Price of Chasing Perfection
The skincare industry is predicated on one simple, profitable equation: hope = revenue. The hoarding mentality transforms skincare from a manageable personal care expense into a significant financial drain, often justified under the nebulous umbrella of “self-care” and “investment.” This financial cost is multi-layered, impacting not just our bank accounts but also our financial well-being and stress levels.
The Cumulative Cost of the “Affordable” Haul
Marketing often focuses on the accessibility of individual products. “This miracle serum is only £12!” The psychology here is deliberate. £12 feels like an impulse buy, a small treat. However, no one buys just one £12 serum. The modern routine is built on layering multiple “affordable” products: a £10 cleanser, a £15 toner, a £12 Vitamin C serum, an £18 niacinamide serum, a £20 moisturizer, a £15 retinol, a £25 eye cream, and so on. A single, modest routine can easily surpass £100. For a hoarder with a shelf full of dozens of such products, the total investment can run into the thousands of pounds. This is money that could have been allocated to savings, experiences, debt repayment, or other, more meaningful forms of self-care. The “affordable” haul is a myth; it is death by a thousand small, financially debilitating cuts.
The Luxury Lie and the Cult of the Dupe
At the other end of the spectrum is luxury skincare, where a single cream can cost hundreds of pounds. These products are marketed as the pinnacle of efficacy and sensory experience, often using pseudoscientific claims about rare ingredients or proprietary technology. The reality is that the price tag is frequently paying for the brand’s marketing budget, luxurious packaging, and perfume—not necessarily superior efficacy. The high cost creates an aura of exclusivity and desire, fueling the hoarding instinct for those who can afford it or are willing to go into debt for it.
Simultaneously, the “dupe” culture has exploded. Followers spend hours online seeking out budget-friendly alternatives to luxury products. While finding a less expensive version of a favourite product can be smart, the “dupe” hunt often becomes a hobby in itself, leading to the purchase of multiple cheap alternatives in the quest to find a perfect match, many of which end up unused. This creates a paradox: in an attempt to save money, the dupe-hunter often spends more on multiple inferior products than they would have on the single, effective product they originally wanted.
Skincare as a Substitute for Professional Care
One of the most significant financial pitfalls is using over-the-counter (OTC) product overload as a substitute for professional dermatological care. People will spend hundreds of pounds on OTC retinols, acne treatments, and brightening serums to address issues like persistent acne, hormonal melasma, or deep wrinkles—conditions that often require prescription-strength treatments (like tretinoin, spironolactone, or hydroquinone) or in-office procedures (like lasers or chemical peels) to see real improvement. This is not only a waste of money on ineffective products but also delays proper treatment, potentially allowing the skin condition to worsen. A £150 dermatologist consultation that leads to a £20 prescription tube of tretinoin is, in the long run, far more cost-effective and successful than years of spending £50 a month on a rotating cast of OTC products that provide minimal results.
6. The Psychological Toll: From Self-Care to Self-Flagellation
What began as a movement championing “self-care” has, for many, morphed into a source of significant anxiety, obsession, and negative self-perception. The psychological framework built around skincare hoarding is antithetical to genuine well-being, replacing contentment with a perpetual state of lack and dissatisfaction.
The Anxiety of the Routine
A complex, multi-step skincare routine is not a relaxing ritual for everyone; for many, it is a time-consuming, stressful obligation. The pressure to perform each step perfectly, morning and night, can create anxiety. Missing a step or skipping a routine can induce guilt, as if one is being negligent or “letting oneself go.” This transforms what should be a few minutes of personal pampering into a rigid, demanding chore. The “shelfie” itself becomes a source of stress—a visual reminder of the money spent and the constant pressure to “use up” products before they expire. The pursuit of calm has created its own unique form of chaos.
Analysis Paralysis and Decision Fatigue
Faced with a shelf containing 30 serums, 15 moisturizers, and 10 toners, choosing what to use on any given night becomes a mentally taxing exercise. This is known as decision fatigue. The cognitive load of navigating a vast collection, remembering which actives can be combined, which products are expiring soon, and what your skin “needs” that particular day, is exhausting. It can lead to “analysis paralysis,” where the individual becomes so overwhelmed by choices that they either make a poor decision or avoid the routine altogether. The freedom of choice, when taken to an extreme, becomes a prison of indecision.
The Erosion of Body Acceptance and the Pursuit of “Glass Skin”
Skincare marketing, by its very nature, must sell a solution to a problem. To do this, it often pathologizes normal skin. Pores, which are essential for sebum production, are “minimized.” Fine lines, a natural part of human aging, are “fighting.” Texture and minor redness are “imperfections” to be erased. The hoarding mentality is fueled by this constant focus on flaws. The ultimate, unattainable goal—often exemplified by filtered images and Korean “glass skin” ideals—is perfection: a poreless, line-less, uniform canvas. This sets an impossible standard. When a £100 serum doesn’t erase pores that were never a flaw to begin with, the user doesn’t blame the marketing; they often blame their own skin, or worse, themselves for not buying the right £100 serum. Self-care becomes self-flagellation, a daily reminder that one’s natural state is inadequate. The hobby that was supposed to build us up systematically tears us down by design.
7. The Path to a Skincare Intervention: How to Break the Cycle
Recognizing the problem is the first step; taking action is the next. Breaking free from the skincare hoarding cycle requires a conscious, deliberate shift in mindset and behaviour. It is not about deprivation, but about liberation—freeing up mental space, physical space, and financial resources for what truly matters. Here is a practical guide to conducting your own “skincare intervention.”
Step 1: The Great Purge – An Honest Inventory
This is the most cathartic step. Take every single skincare product out of your cabinets, drawers, and fridge. Lay them all out on a large surface. You will likely be shocked by the volume. Now, sort them into three piles:
- Keep: Products that are currently in your stable, consistent routine and that you know work well for your skin. This should be a very small pile.
- Toss: Anything that is expired, has changed colour or consistency, or smells off. This also includes products that you tried and that caused irritation, breakouts, or redness. Be ruthless.
- Maybe/Donate: Products that are unopened or gently used but don’t work for you or no longer fit your needs. Unopened products can often be donated to shelters for women or families. For lightly used products, check with friends or family (hygienically, by decanting), but be transparent about their use.
This process is not just about decluttering; it’s a visual reckoning with your consumption habits. It makes the abstract problem of hoarding concrete and manageable.
Step 2: Embrace the “Skinimalist” Routine – The Core Four
Once you have purged, it’s time to rebuild. Strip your routine back to the absolute essentials, the “Core Four” that every dermatologist agrees upon:
- A Gentle Cleanser: To remove dirt, oil, and makeup without stripping the skin.
- A Moisturizer: To support and repair the skin barrier, keeping it hydrated and resilient.
- A Sunscreen (SPF 30+): The single most important anti-aging and skin-health product. Non-negotiable for daytime.
- One Active Ingredient: This is your “goal” product. Choose one concern you want to address (e.g., aging, acne, hyperpigmentation) and select one evidence-based active to target it (e.g., a retinoid, a BHA, Vitamin C). Use this consistently.
Commit to this simple routine for at least one month, preferably three. This allows your skin barrier to repair, reduces inflammation, and gives you a true baseline to understand what your skin actually needs.
Step 3: Become an Ingredient Savant, Not a Marketing Victim
Shift your focus from brands and packaging to the ingredient list. Learn to read them. Understand what the key, evidence-based ingredients are for your concerns (e.g., ceramides for barrier repair, niacinamide for oil and redness, tretinoin for collagen). The International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) list is your new best friend. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration. This knowledge empowers you to cut through the marketing jargon. You’ll start to see that a £50 “renewing elixir” and a £15 “regenerating serum” might contain the same primary active ingredient at a similar concentration. Knowledge is the antidote to FOMO.
Step 4: Implement the “One In, One Out” Rule
To prevent backsliding into hoarding, adopt a strict “one in, one out” policy. If you want to introduce a new serum, you must first finish or discard an existing serum from your collection. This forces mindful consumption and makes you seriously consider whether a new product is worth displacing a current one. It slows down the acquisition cycle and prioritizes finishing what you have.
Step 5: Redefine Your Self-Care and Community
Find other outlets for your interest in skincare that don’t involve shopping. Follow dermatologists and cosmetic chemists on social media instead of hauls-focused influencers. Engage in forums that discuss ingredient efficacy and science rather than new launches. Most importantly, broaden your definition of self-care. Understand that true skin health is also influenced by factors that don’t come in a bottle: a balanced diet, adequate hydration, quality sleep, stress management, and regular exercise. Investing time and energy into these pillars of health will yield better results for your skin and your overall well-being than any product ever could.
Conclusion: Beyond the Shelf – Towards a New Era of Conscious Skincare
The death of the shelfie is not an ending, but a necessary and hopeful beginning. It marks a cultural shift away from mindless consumption and towards mindful self-care. It is a rejection of the anxiety, waste, and ineffectiveness that defined the hoarding era and an embrace of a more intelligent, sustainable, and ultimately more rewarding relationship with our skin.
The goal is no longer to have the most impressive collection, but to have the healthiest skin possible with the least number of necessary, effective products. It is a philosophy of “less, but better.” This approach honours our skin by understanding its biology and respecting its limits. It honours our planet by drastically reducing our personal contribution to cosmetic waste. It honours our finances by redirecting funds from a bottomless pit of products towards experiences, savings, or professional treatments that deliver real value.
Let the empty space on your shelf be a new status symbol—a sign of clarity, intention, and freedom. Let your routine be a simple, effective, and consistent practice that supports your skin’s health without dominating your life or your identity. The truest form of self-care is not found in a jar; it is found in the peace of mind that comes from knowing you have everything you need, and nothing that you don’t. The future of skincare is not on the shelf; it’s in the health and resilience of the skin itself.
SOURCES
Aguirre, C. (2019). The psychology of the skincare routine: When self-care becomes obsession. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(2), 45-51.
American Academy of Dermatology. (2021). Over-the-counter acne treatments: How to avoid overwhelming your skin. Dermatology Insights, 23(4), 112-118.
Baumann, L. (2022). The impact of product cycling and ingredient overload on the cutaneous barrier. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 21(5), 789-795.
Chen, L., & Park, S. (2020). From K-beauty to skinimalism: A decade of evolving skincare trends and their global environmental impact. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 42(3), 201-210.
Davis, E. C., & Callender, V. D. (2021). A dermatologist’s perspective on the rise of cosmetic acne and irritant contact dermatitis in the social media era. Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, 14(7), 32-37.
Draelos, Z. D. (2019). The science behind skin care: Demystifying cosmetic ingredient jargon. Cosmetic Dermatology, 32(8), 21-25.
Grant, I. (2022). The economic burden of over-the-counter skincare as a substitute for prescription and procedural treatments. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 21(4), 411-415.
Huang, K., & Smith, J. (2023). Packaging waste in the cosmetics industry: A lifecycle analysis of the skincare segment. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(15), 6120-6128.
Johnson, A. R. (2020). The clean beauty movement: Assessing the gap between marketing claims and environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120-129.
Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2021). The “shelfie” phenomenon: Social media, identity construction, and consumption in the digital beauty economy. New Media & Society, 23(10), 2891-2909.
Mills, O., & Takeda, H. (2022). The psychological impact of unattainable beauty standards promoted through filtered imagery and skincare marketing. Body Image, 41, 67-74.
Rodan, K., Fields, T., & Chen, J. (2021). The role of social media influencers in driving product churn and decision fatigue among skincare consumers. Marketing Letters, 32(3), 455-468.
Singh, P. (2019). The carbon and water footprint of global botanical ingredient sourcing for the personal care industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, 220-228.
Sparavigna, A., & Marini, A. (2020). The efficacy of a minimalist skincare regimen compared to a multi-step routine in subjects with sensitive skin. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 13, 875-881.
Statman, M. (2020). The fear of missing out (FOMO) and impulse buying behavior in the beauty and wellness market. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(4), 552-567.
Wu, S., & Roberts, W. (2023). The dermatological consequences of the 10-step Korean skincare routine: A clinical review. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 88(1), 145-148.
HISTORY
Current Version
OCT, 14, 2025
Written By
BARIRA MEHMOOD