Two days after our last update on plastic-free makeup formats, Packaging Dive published a summary of the Packaging Recycling Summit held June 15 through 17, 2026. The piece highlighted four key EPR takeaways, centering on the compliance tensions playing out between brands, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. The core tension is straightforward: extended producer responsibility laws hold brands financially accountable for the end-of-life fate of their packaging, and many brands are not yet ready for that accountability.
That pressure does not stay inside a conference room. It travels back to product development teams, where the calculus on packaging decisions is changing. A tube of foundation that costs a brand nothing to produce in plastic today may carry a compliance cost tomorrow. Formats that use less packaging, or none at all, start to look more attractive on a balance sheet, not just on a sustainability slide deck.
Why this matters more than a trend cycle
Conscious shoppers have heard the pitch for zero waste makeup and minimal packaging beauty for years. What is different now is the structural pressure behind it. EPR frameworks, which are expanding across U.S. states and internationally, create a feedback loop: brands that over-package face escalating costs, while brands that have already moved toward solid formats, refillable systems, or packaging-free products are better positioned.
This is not a guarantee that every brand will do the right thing. Some will find workarounds. But the direction of travel is meaningful, and it aligns with what we covered in our piece on refillable beauty packaging signals from the packaging industry. The infrastructure conversation and the product format conversation are now the same conversation.
What fewer-packaging formats actually look like in makeup
For shoppers who are newer to this space, it helps to be concrete. Fewer-packaging makeup formats generally fall into a few categories.
- Multi use makeup sticks: A single stick that works as blush, lip color, and sometimes eyeshadow. One unit replaces three, which means one-third the packaging at minimum.
- Solid or balm-based formulas: Products that skip the plastic tube entirely by using a twist-up paper or cardboard sleeve, a metal tin, or no outer packaging at all.
- Refillable compacts and pans: A durable outer case paired with replaceable inserts, so the packaging stays and only the product is replaced.
- Concentrated or waterless formulas: Smaller volumes that require less packaging by design, often with a longer use period per unit.
Each of these approaches reduces the volume of material that enters the waste stream. When EPR costs are tied to packaging weight or material type, brands have a direct incentive to shrink that footprint.
The shopper side of the EPR equation
One of the tensions flagged at the Packaging Recycling Summit was the gap between what recycling infrastructure can actually handle and what brands claim on their labels. This matters for shoppers because a product marketed as recyclable may not be recyclable in your municipality. Fewer-packaging formats sidestep this problem more cleanly than recyclability claims do. If there is no packaging, there is nothing to sort, contaminate a recycling stream, or end up in a landfill because the local facility cannot process it.
That is a practical reason to favor plastic-free makeup formats beyond the aesthetic appeal of a cleaner bathroom shelf. It is also why we think the EPR conversation, even when it sounds like regulatory jargon, is worth following as a shopper signal.
Brands that were already moving in this direction
Some brands on Shifting Gaia have been building around fewer-packaging formats for years, which means they are not scrambling to adapt. Axiology is one of the clearest examples in the makeup category, with multi-use sticks designed to replace several single-use products at once. River Organics has built a plastic-free makeup line around paper and cardboard packaging with certified-organic formulas. These brands did not wait for EPR to make the case.
If you want to understand how we evaluate brands like these, our How We Rate page explains the framework we use across sustainability, ingredient safety, and social responsibility. It is worth a read before you take any brand's packaging claims at face value.
For a broader look at what is happening in vegan skincare and low waste beauty more generally, the category has been expanding steadily, and the EPR pressure described above is one reason the pace is unlikely to slow.
Helpful swaps if you are shopping
If you are looking to reduce packaging in your makeup routine, multi-use sticks and plastic-free bundles are the most practical starting point. The two options below come from different brands and cover different parts of a routine, which makes them useful to compare side by side.
Our take on Axiology
Axiology earns a Top Choice rating in our independent evaluation. The brand's multi-use stick format is one of the more coherent approaches to minimal packaging beauty we have seen in the makeup category, and the formulas are vegan and cruelty-free. See our full rating context below.
What to watch next
The EPR landscape is still evolving, and the compliance tensions surfaced at the June 2026 summit are unlikely to resolve quickly. For shoppers, the practical takeaway is that the brands investing in fewer-packaging formats now are building toward a more durable position, both environmentally and commercially. That alignment of incentives is relatively new, and it is worth paying attention to as you make purchasing decisions.
We will keep tracking the packaging industry signals that affect what ends up on store shelves. In the meantime, our earlier piece on plastic-free makeup formats covers the product landscape in more depth if you want additional context.
Helpful swaps if you are shopping
Summer Solace Tallow
23% Non-Nano Zinc Tinted Tallow Balm | Scented
Little Hands Hawaii
