Chapter 4

Getting Creative with Sustainability

Communication in the Beauty Industry:
Exploring On-pack Practices and
Consumers’ Perceptions
Panayiota Alevizou

Abstract
The clean beauty phenomenon is gaining momentum and beauty brands
are getting creative with on-pack sustainability claims. With the increas-
ing focus on sustainability from both brands and consumers, sustainability
communication has the potential to raise the profile of sustainable pro-
duction and consumption. Further attention is needed on the creative
approach behind on-pack sustainability marketing communications as
companies no longer focus on single eco labels but instead use a bundle
of claims to advertise their commitment to sustainability which finds con-
sumers confused and brands open to accusations of greenwashing. This
chapter explores on-pack sustainability communications in the beauty
industry through the lenses of creative marketing communications which
need to be both original and appropriate. This study contributes to the
longstanding debate on the role of sustainability claims in marketing com-
munications and addresses the role of on-pack sustainability claims design
and creativity.

Keywords: Sustainability claims; creative marketing communications;

consumers’ perceptions; beauty industry; on-pack communication;
greenwashing

Creativity and Marketing: The Fuel for Success, 51–66

Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-330-720211004
52 Panayiota Alevizou

Learning Outcomes
⦁⦁ To explore on-pack sustainability communication practices in the beauty
industry.
⦁⦁ To understand the importance of substantiated, credible and transparent sus-
tainability communication.
⦁⦁ To comprehend the complexity of on-pack creative sustainability
communication.
⦁⦁ To develop a better understanding of packaging as a means of communication.
⦁⦁ To gain an understanding of the role of consumer creativity.

The Global Beauty Industry and Sustainability

The global beauty industry is expected to grow in the next few years due to techno-
logical advances, popularity of well-being and self-care messages, and tailor-made
cosmetic products and procedures available for home consumption (Di Gesu, 2020).
Global beauty producers are placing sustainability at the forefront of their commu-
nication as 42% of female consumers are expecting environmentally and socially
responsible beauty products (Dover, 2020). It is widely accepted that current con-
sumption and production practices are far from sustainability shifting the interest of
organisations towards more sustainable business models (Lorek & Vergragt, 2015;
Lozano, 2018). Sustainability and sustainable development have received great atten-
tion for the past 20 years from scholars across most disciplines. The World Com-
mission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987, p. 43) defined sustainable
development as the ‘development that meets the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Ott, Muraca,
and Baatz (2011) highlight the overabundance of definitions, concepts, strategies and
models around sustainability which may challenge the true meaning of the term. This
is due to the underpinning and intertwined threads running across history, academic
research, practices, social movements and politics (Ott et al., 2011). Consequently,
communicating sustainability to the end consumer becomes a thorny task for market-
ers as the lines between communicating sustainable practices and greenwashing are
blurry, vague and challenged.
Beauty producers reimagine the next major sustainability innovation which
varies from the use of ‘natural’ materials to the launch of innovative concepts
such as the Body Shop’s refill store in the UK. As such, beauty brands (e.g. skin-
care and cosmetics) are getting creative with on-pack sustainability signals rang-
ing from ingredient claims (e.g. ‘organic and natural’, ‘vegan friendly’, ‘superfood
ingredients’, ‘sustainable ingredients’, ‘anti-pollution’ and ‘bio based’) to nature
evoking visual and semantic narratives (e.g. images of trees, children, the globe,
green jargon and green colours) and corporate social responsibility catch phrases
(e.g. ‘push for green beauty’ and ‘clean skin and clean planet’). This overabun-
dance of sustainability inspired signalling in the beauty industry has been rela-
tively overlooked as the public eye is focussed on the environmental and social
effects of the fashion, the food and the fast moving consumer goods industries.
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 53

The fashion industry, for instance, has been under criticism for the past few dec-
ades due to unsustainable production and consumption practices. Disasters such
as the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in 2013 motivated a global movement towards
a cleaner fashion industry. Movements such as #InsideOut and #WhoMadeMy-
Clothes (to name a few) called out for transparency, accountability and cleaner
supply chains. During this fashion revolution, the beauty industry has remained
relatively silent. It is only recently that high end fashion magazines started dis-
cussing the true meaning of clean beauty. Harper’s BAZAAR poll in 2019 reveals
that more than 60% of women (out of a sample of 1,000) are using clean beauty
products but questions the blurry lines of what clean beauty actually is (Fleming
& Rosenstein, 2020). Regulation has also been slow to catch up with misleading
claims and consumers are not knowledgeable about scientific terminology such
as ‘parabens free’, ‘formaldehyde free’, ‘triclosan free’ ‘silica free’, ‘10-free’ but
also what more commonly used terms such as ‘natural’, ‘vegan’, ‘cruelty free’
and ‘sustainable’ actually mean. Overall, most commentators seem to agree that
clean beauty is mostly a trend taking over the beauty industry rather than another
industry wide ‘revolution’. In addition, many brands have received negative media
and consumer attention due to greenwashing claims and practices. Yet, there is
dearth of research exploring on-pack sustainability communication in the beauty
industry especially through the lenses of creative marketing which needs to be
both original and appropriate (Koslow, 2015).
This chapter explores the layers of on-pack creative marketing communication
practices and consumers’ perceptions. Specifically, the two research questions are:

(1) What are the on-pack creative sustainability marketing communication

approaches?
(2) How do consumers’ perceive on-pack sustainability communication?

Communicating Sustainability and the Role of Creativity in

Marketing Communications
Sustainability Marketing Communication: Background
Communication is seen as one of the daily activities central and intertwined with
human life that its complexity and pervasiveness are relatively overlooked (Lit-
tlejohn & Foss, 2011). As such, providing a clear cut definition of communication
has long been a subject of debates due to the different theoretical trajectories
and their distinct underpinning questions (Andersen, 1991). Furthermore, in
sustainability communication research, Ziemann (2011) highlights the second-
ary importance given to the term as if it were possible to first discuss sustain-
ability and its implementation strategies and then its communication. In fact,
it is only through communication that objects and events receive meaning and
social relevance and the discourse of sustainability itself is a communicative pro-
cess within society (Ziemann, 2011). To that end, communication can be under-
stood as ‘symbolically mediated action with humans constructing their reality on
54 Panayiota Alevizou

the basis of perceptions and experiences’ (Godemann & Michelsen, 2011, p. 6).
Simply put, communication is a process where message sender and receiver estab-
lish a commonness of thought and a shared orientation towards a set of informa-
tional signs, thus creating a relationship between them (Schramm, 1954).
Kruse (2011) summarises the common components of classic communica-
tion models as, the communicator (stressing the importance of credibility), the
message (content and design of message), the intention or function (as factual,
convincing, reminding, etc.), the media (type and design) and the desired success
of communication (intention of message). In sustainability marketing communi-
cations, extant research has focussed on these components with studies exploring
the sustainability communication strategies of companies and brands (e.g. print
advertising), consumers’ perceptions of sustainability communication (e.g. focus
on trust and skepticism), the communicated message itself (e.g. eco labels and
certifications), the role and effect of stakeholders in communication (e.g. pres-
sure groups and ethical ratings) and the selected channels for such communica-
tion (e.g. social media). Furthermore, these areas of focus have been explored
from an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspective but also taking into
account the network of relationships amongst science, the public and practice
(Godemann, 2011). This multifaceted perspective is vital for gaining insights into
complex sustainability problems rooted in different disciplines. Even though this
presents a challenge for marketers in terms of message content, format and com-
munication channels, scholars emphasise the need for addressing environmental
and social issues in their communication strategies as

sustainability communications opens up the company behind the

product offering to allow the consumer to learn much more about
the company, and to allow for dialogue between the consumer and
company so that they can understand and learn from one another.
(Belz & Peattie, 2009, p. 180)

Nevertheless, most scholars highlight the contradictory role of communica-

tions in sustainability marketing as on the one hand, brands may inform con-
sumers and promote more sustainable lifestyles, but on the other hand they may
encourage conspicuous consumption leading to unsustainable societies (Belz &
Peattie, 2009; Bartley, Koos, Samel, Setrini, & Summers, 2015). As such, a few
important dilemmas facing brands are: engage or not engage in sustainability
communications?

Creativity and Sustainability Marketing Communications: Sources

and Strategic Options
In today’s digital marketing environment creativity has fallen out of fashion and
as such, there is a need to recognise how vital human creativity is, and foster its
supply (Geoghegan, 2020). The beauty industry as a technology and innovation
driven sector has been quick to adopt a creative marketing approach in its prod-
uct and packaging design (e.g. functional and aesthetic elements), its technology
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 55

claims (e.g. anti-pollution, epigenetic and infrared defence) and its communica-
tion (e.g. through social media and influencers).
Creativity is seen as one of the key factors driving civilisation forward which
can only be unlocked and understood through multiple lenses simultaneously,
across different levels and as part of a systems view approach (Hennessey & Ama-
bile, 2010). Sternberg and Lubart (1999) argue that for a long time creativity has
been overlooked due to been perceived as elusive, trivial and having mysticism
and spirituality origins rather than scientific ones.
Creativity entails a form of innovation and appreciation by various stake-
holders such as the public, agencies and marketers (Kover, 2016). In addition to
innovation and appreciation, scholars have explored the creative process and its
relation with the individual as the

emergence in action of a novel relational product growing out of

the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand and the materi-
als, events, people, or circumstances of his life on the other. (Rog-
ers, 1954, p. 251)

Overall, the main streams of research in creativity involve the individual (moti-
vation, personality and characteristics), the creative process (flow and the cycle
of experience) and the product of creativity and the interaction of the individual
with the environment (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007).
A creative individual is portrayed as having an openness to experience, toler-
ance for ambiguity and lack of rigidity and boundaries in concepts (an individual
is open to potential and possibilities, as well as, alternative views of the estab-
lished reality), internal locus of evaluation judgement (accepting criticism mostly
from himself) and ability to toy with multiple concepts and ideas (Rogers, 1954).
An individual with a creative personality seem to possess some traits of creative
behaviour manifested through designing, inventing, planning, contriving, com-
posing and so on (Guilford, 1950). Overall, it seems that the creative process is a
lonely one centred around the ‘I’ and an individual’s perception of reality which
leads them from calling out ‘eureka’ to experiencing anxiety and the feeling of
being lost, lonely or wrong (Rogers, 1954).
Past research has discussed the influence of the social environment on an indi-
vidual’s intrinsic motivation and in turn, creativity (Amabile, 1996; Hennessey &
Amabile, 2010; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2006)
point out that creativity research has shifted the attention from the individual to situ-
ational factors influencing creativity. The social environmental and conditions are
known to impact on creativity which means that marketers may affect the creativity
of their advertising agency as they control three dimensions odd the agency’s social
environment: setting the direction of the campaign, provide resources and management
of agency performance and accountability (Koslow et al., 2006). Past studies on crea-
tivity stem from the field of psychology, whereas recently the topic has captured the
attention of the marketing discipline. It is commonly acknowledged that creativity
plays a vital role in marketing communications. What is under researched though is
the role of creativity in sustainability marketing communications.
56 Panayiota Alevizou

There is a wide variety of creative tools and strategic options available to

brands wishing to communicate sustainability. Creative marketing communica-
tion approaches in the beauty industry are known to evoke mental imagery and
elicit consumption desires. One of the most popular approaches used for commu-
nicating sustainability is advertising, which is mostly associated to print, audio and
digital media. It has been argued that the advertising industry or the ‘dream indus-
try’ inspires consumers’ consumption dreams and shifts them into a desire mode
(Fournier & Guiry, 1993). It appears that voluntary dreaming about products is com-
mon and frequent (D’Astous & Deschênes, 2005). In fact, pre-acquisitive dreaming
plays a vital role in consumer culture as it guides consumers in various levels of
anticipated attainment and wish listing behaviour (Fournier & Guiry, 1993). The
beauty industry has been keen to create images of an ideal self which consum-
ers visualise through mental imagery. Communicating sustainability messages in a
creative manner may facilitate the visualisation of a greener consumption identity.
Consequently, a creative communication approach may both strengthen the
desired mental imagery and also provide information to consumers wishing to
come closer to their dream object and identity (D’Astous & Deschênes, 2005).
Overall, pleasant nature inspired imagery or ‘virtual nature experiences’ may
lead to the association of specific emotional experiences with the brand that are
to some extent comparable to those experienced in contact with nature (Hart-
mann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009). The persuasive power of creative marketing
images rely heavily upon photographics to help produce meaning and create value
(Schroeder, 2008) as ‘seeing comes before words’ (Berger, 2008, p. 7). Images
and visuals stand in for experiences when there is a lack of other information
sources and serve as a foundation in comprehending and constructing the world
around us, making them an indispensable element of brand culture (Borgerson &
Schroeder, 2005).
Past studies have mainly focussed on print advertisements and explored the
veracity and accuracy of marketing claims, as well as, consumers’ perceptions
of them. For instance, the seminal work of Carlson, Grove, and Kangun (1993)
in the early 1990s focussed on the type of appeals and messages in advertising
highlighting key categories of claims and their shortcomings. A large number of
follow-up studies confirmed the vagueness of sustainability claims which seemed
to increase when environmental and social issues were prominent in the media,
denoting a reactive tactical approach from brands (Leonidou, Katsikeas, & Cou-
dounaris, 2010).
Apart from advertising, beauty brands may focus on public relations, celeb-
rity endorsement, influencers’ engagement, communities of practice and new
media management. Beauty vloggers and bloggers have become not only popular
amongst consumers communities but also powerful influencers of beauty brands
and trends (Gannon & Prothero, 2018; Martínez-López et al., 2020; Schouten,
Janssen, & Verspaget, 2020). Clean, vegan, eco-friendly, natural and sustainable
beauty are popular buzzwords used by YouTube, TikTok and Instagram influ-
encers, whilst evaluating and rating beauty brands. Exposing and green sham-
ing brands for making unsubstantiated marketing claims is a common practice
amongst the beauty community. This adds an additional layer of complexity in
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 57

communicating sustainability in the beauty industry as the product and its on-
pack claims are under the social media microscope. Subsequently, product pack-
aging gains prominence as it is deemed an important advertising medium, one
of the most significant in store communication tools and an outlet for marketing
creativity (Cousté, Martos-Partal, & Martínez-Ros, 2012; Richards & Curran,
2002; Underwood & Klein, 2002).
In summary, creativity is best when pointed at a problem (Geoghegan, 2020)
and as such communicating effectively and creatively sustainability on product
package becomes vital for the beauty industry with its complex jargon and its
increasing claims.

Creativity in Marketing Communications: Focussing on Packaging

Communications
In creativity marketing research there is a lot of attention paid on the packaging
and its messages. Keller (1993) stresses the importance of a unified marketing
stimuli message and approach as this may result on a positive effect on brand
equity. As such, creating an innovative, functional and aesthetically pleasing
packaging is deemed important for marketers. For homogeneous products and
highly saturated markets, such as the beauty industry, packaging is a critical stra-
tegic element for brand identity and product differentiation (Bertrand, 2002).
Advertising on product packaging is polygonal, conveying not only important
product and packaging information and functions but also brand values and
brand image (Rundh, 2005; van Ooijen, 2016). The power of creative ‘packvertis-
ing’ at the point of sale is attributed to its ability to communicate symbolic brand
meanings to the final consumer (van Ooijen, 2016). At this point, the content
of communication is a balance between functionality and visual differentiation
(Rundh, 2016). An innovative and eco-designed packaging can be defined as a
design that generates impressions of eco-friendliness via its structures: materials,
recyclability/reusability/upcycleability; its visual narrative and its labelling (Mag-
nier & Crié, 2015).
Ampuero and Vila (2006) distinguish the three layers of packaging: primary
packaging (in direct contact with the product), secondary packaging (contains one
or more primary packages) and tertiary packaging (contains and protects the two
previous ones). Beauty brands seem to allocate advertising budgets to their pack-
aging communication especially when faced with reduced advertising budgets and
brand building expenses are reduced in traditional channels of communication
(Underwood, Klein, & Burke, 2001). Indeed, for beauty brands on-pack commu-
nication seem to be an important factor influencing product preference. Recent
studies indicate that indeed packaging (and even over packaging) is important for
consumers as packaging features are extrinsic cues to assess products and quality
(Monnot, Reniou, Parguel, & Elgaaied-Gambier, 2019). As such, more efforts
have been shifted to recyclability and renewable sources with the beauty industry
going circular (Global Cosmetic Industry, 2019a). In the beauty industry, packag-
ing for skincare and cosmetic brands has been a source of discussions amongst
influencers for its environmental friendliness, functionality, innovations and
58 Panayiota Alevizou

aesthetics. What’s more, beauty vloggers and influencers have been instrumental
in driving the industry towards more sustainable packaging design (Rigby, 2019).
Mkhize and Ellis (2020) suggest the use creative communication at the point
of sale to educate and inform consumers about the environmental and social ben-
efits of products. The authors propose playful creativity which can be used to
increase consumer awareness of organic product benefits as playful and creative
individuals have higher tolerance for ambiguity making them open and accepting
of alternative outcomes. By playful creativity the authors refer to: LEGO building
and storytelling where consumers will construct their understanding of organic
products and sustainability; Art based interventions where sustainability is com-
municated and understood through the arts and simulations where digital media
can portray the effect of consumption on the environment. However, one must
bear in mind that overemphasising environmental and social brand and prod-
uct credentials comes hand in hand with accusations of greenwashing. In fact,
promoting sustainability on product packaging through sustainability claims has
raised concerns about their veracity and relevance for the past four decades. In
the beauty industry, sustainability claims of ‘clean’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘natural’
products have managed to enrage beauty vloggers and industry commentators
due to the lack of supporting scientific research and substantiation.

On-pack Sustainability Claims: Creativity and Transparency

With the term on-pack sustainability claims we refer to environmental, health and/
or social messages communicated from businesses to the end users of products/
services. The importance of this type of information was highlighted in Agenda
21 (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),
1992) and has become central for one of the United Nations Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (UN, 2020). From a marketing perspective, on-pack sustainability
labels have become one of the most widely employed communication techniques
that aim to influence consumer behaviour and support sustainable consumption
and production (Belz & Peattie, 2009). Overall, the future integration of ethical
messages into mainstream communication channels is the information strategy
with perhaps the greatest potential to raise the profile of ethical consumerism
(Crane, 2001).
However, designing sustainability messages that meet legal requirements,
whilst also communicating environmental information in a meaningful way has
been a persistent challenge in the past (Fuller, 1999). As previously mentioned
governmental organisations, industry associations and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) worldwide have issues guidelines to support companies
making green advertising claims and to reduce market scepticism. These include
the French Practical Guide to Environmental Claims by CNE in 2011, the UK
Green Claims Guide by DEFRA in 2016 and a study recently commissioned by
the Swedish Consumer Agency in 2016 on environmental marketing claims. In
an effort to harmonise the plethora of fragmented environmental claims in EU
countries the EC published an Environmental Claims Guidance which shares
common principles with the US Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides.
However, only the French advertising professional authority (ADEME-ARPP)
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 59

has issues specific guidelines for the use of pictures or symbols suggesting
environmental benefits by prohibiting misleading references (Parguel, Benoît-
Moreau, & Russell, 2015). One potential challenge for regulating and advising
on visual elements is the complexity of mapping and listing all visual references
(Parguel et al., 2015). On a global level, the International Chamber of Com-
merce (ICC, 2011) issued a Framework for Responsible Environmental Mar-
keting Communications, with guidance for business, including the advertising
sector as well as self-regulatory advertising organisations and national govern-
ments. Similarly, the International Organisation for Standardisation’s 14,000
series distinguishes three main types of green labels as Type I (eco labels and
certifications), Type II (self-declared claims) and Type III (life cycle based rat-
ings). Although this classification provides important guidance for business, it
has been criticised for not being inclusive enough and omitting instruments such
as obligatory labels, test reports and trademarks (Rubik & Frankl, 2005). Most
importantly, current guidelines do not address concepts of clean beauty. There
is, however, an effort from the Global Cosmetics Industry (GCI) we well as wide
industry organisations such as the ISEAL (2015) Alliance – a form of meta
governance established in 1999 by eight leading international standard setting
certification and accreditation organisations – to address sustainable produc-
tion and consumption practices as well as the related visual and semantic brand
communication.
Overall, there are strict guidelines for using eco labels and certification logos on
beauty products. However, brands seem to get creative and alter these labels such as
the example highlighted by the GCI and the eight different symbols for paraben-free
products which may create consumer confusion (Yarussi-King, 2020). Another exam-
ple is the Tidyman who is pictured alone on product packaging prompting consumers
to recycle. Wagner (2015) reports seeing him with a female friend, kissing and recy-
cling empty package together. This love inspired narrative aims to evoke warm feelings
to consumers for both the act of recycling as well as the brand itself. Furthermore,
sustainability logos on product packaging may adhere to the three strategic objec-
tives (Henderson & Cote, 1998): high recognition and involvement logos (brands have
invested in creating a recognisable and meaningful logo), low investment logos (brands
create false/correct recognition and positive affect) and high image logos (brands cre-
ate strong positive affect without thought to recognition). The aim is to trigger con-
sumer recognition which depends on logo design; and a memorable one will be easily
recalled and recognised (Henderson & Cote, 1998). However, budget issues may pro-
hibit a company to invest on high image logos leading them to image banks which
lack differentiation and uniqueness. Most importantly such practice may question
label authenticity.
Overall, as aesthetically appealing as it may be, it is risky for brands to modify
well-established logos and symbols as they are important company assets and a
brand’s signature on its products (Henderson & Cote, 1998; Snyder, 1993).

The Language and Colour of Communication

It has been suggested that language influences the effectiveness of cross-cultural
advertising, especially the effectiveness of image-based advertising compared
60 Panayiota Alevizou

with information-based advertising (Laskey, Thouvenin, & Seaton, 2000). There

is more research on the use of verbal and visual information in terms of labelling
format effect on buying behaviour. Verbalisation refers to a description of the
meaning of the visual label. A study explored the effect visual and verbal com-
munication in eco labels on purchase behaviour (Tang, Fryxell, & Chow, 2004)
and found that the most effective eco labels would be those having a ‘seal’ and an
additional ‘written message’ that indicates the primary environmental attribute of
the product. In addition, consumers seem to be more interested in reading beauty
product ingredients a practice carried over from food consumption which is not
surprising given the multiple natural ingredients (almonds, honey, oils, fruits,
etc.) featured in ‘foodie beauty’ brands (Doyle, 2018; Global Cosmetic Industry,
2018a). Finally, extant research has explored the effect of colours on consumers’
product choices. The colour of the package can refer to the actual colour of the
product; indicate a variety in a product line, signal its environmental attributes or
indicate levels of price and quality (Barchiesi, Castellan, & Costa, 2018; Pancer,
McShane, & Noseworthy, 2017; Wagner, 2015). This is especially relevant to the
beauty industry where product differentiation is crucial for product positioning.
Overall, the product packaging offers various layers for creative sustainability
communications in the beauty industry. These are related to the packaging mate-
rial and its eco friendliness, to the packaging design and aesthetics, to its colour
and language and finally to its visuals and imagery. Most importantly adhering to
voluntary sustainability communication codes of practice is important due to the
thin lines between creative on-pack sustainability communications and creating
consumer confusion.

Creativity in On-pack Sustainability Marketing Communications and

Consumers’ Perceptions
Cognitive psychology offers explanation for consumer choices, decision mak-
ing and engagement with information processing (Bargh, 2002). It is argued
that information processing is dependent of various moderators such as level of
involvement but the entire process of consumer decision making is far from being
straightforward or based solely on a conscious information processing and deci-
sion making (Dijksterhuis, Smith, Van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005). As such,
other environmental stimuli and factors, such as, retail sensory elements, con-
sumer values and norms, habits and routines and perceptions and attitudes may
affect product purchase decisions. In such a turmoil of influencing factors and
stimuli – which may consciously and/or unconsciously affect decision making –
beauty brands and marketers are left with a challenging task; communicate vital
product and brand information without overwhelming the final consumer.
Consequently, beauty producers and marketers have to make decisions
regarding the type and quantity of information used on-pack. Scholars (Heroux,
Laroch, & McGown, 1988) found that the amount and type of information to
which consumers are exposed may affect decision making and consumers usu-
ally recall three to five items from product labels as follows: brand name, generic
name, pictures and logos, colours, manufacturer, quantity, size and type. As the
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 61

time pressure experienced by individuals increases, the amount of informa-

tion recalled decreases (Heroux et al., 1988). Consumers spend very little
time and effort on the decision-making process when making a low involve-
ment product purchase, and has a green attribute (Thøgersen, Jørgensen, &
Sandager, 2012). It has been argued that these so-called ‘credence attributes’
are more difficult to evaluate given their intangible nature (Nocella & Ken-
nedy, 2012). For instance, the carbon label is often viewed favourably by con-
sumers but the numerical values and provision of a behavioural comparator
daunted them (Upham, Dendler, & Bleda, 2011). In other words, consumers
feel overwhelmed by complex information and calculations on labels (Global
Cosmetic Industry, 2019b; Levy & Fein, 1998). This may be a daunting fact
for the beauty industry where scientific jargon is difficult to communicate
and explain in simple terms. For instance, in the fast moving consumer goods
industry Alevizou, Oates, and McDonald (2015) found that when consumers
are faced with product labelling jargon they shift towards a visual decod-
ing process which may be risky as nature imagery has been linked to green-
washing. There currently is limited/no research exploring the time and effort
needed from consumers to decode beauty packaging information.
To that end, Hoek, Roling, and Holdsworth (2013) alarm policy makers,
who are interested in promoting sustainable behaviours, about the risks associ-
ated with unsubstantiated and puffed claims that risk consumer trust, increase
scepticism and end up deterring them from making ethical choices. The litera-
ture records an increasing number of on-pack sustainability claims developed
by companies and various stakeholders such as industrial sectors, NGOs, pres-
sure groups and international organisations which compete not only with other
product information but also amongst themselves (Pedersen & Neergaard,
2006). Recently, an increasing number of indie beauty brands which have been
referred to as beauty industry disrupters has taken advantage of the clean beauty
trend and as such engage in cosmetic claims (i.e. obvious, puffery, emotive, for-
mulation, sensory and performance) creating confusion amongst consumers
(Bulla & Johns, 2020; Yarussi-King, 2020). Consequently, a few indie brands
create an illusion of naturalness by utilising clean beauty language (e.g. ‘Free-
from’ and ‘sourced from hard working reputable farmers’), natural scenery (e.g.
trees and plants) and creative logos, resembling to official certifications (Bulla
& Johns, 2020; Yarussi-King, 2020).
It is worth highlighting that most studies explore creative on-pack commu-
nications from a brand perspective assuming a passive consumer role limited to
perceiving this communication as substantiated, truthful, or vague, ambiguous
and so on. As such, consumer creativity, its antecedents and constrains, as well
as, its effect on brands have been overlooked (Burroughs & Mick, 2004; Moreau
& Dahl, 2005; Wu, Wen, Dou, & Chen, 2015). Consumer creativity is defined as
the ability to generate novel and useful ideas in a consumption context and crea-
tive consumption defined as a departure from conventional modes of consump-
tion (Burroughs & Mick, 2004; Moreau & Dahl, 2005; Wu et al., 2015). As such,
a more active consumer role in creative sustainability communication practices
needs further research.
62 Panayiota Alevizou

Conclusion
This chapter provides an overview of on-pack creative sustainability communica-
tions in the beauty industry and highlights the importance of truthful, verified
and substantiated information. Most importantly, it outlines some important
questions for brands wishing to engage in creative sustainability communications.
Clean beauty is gaining momentum which creates a wide range of opportu-
nities for marketers wishing to be creative with their on-pack communication.
As such, marketers are invited to pay extra attention to product and packaging
claims as substantiated information becomes a priority for the beauty community
with little tolerance for puffery and irrelevant claims. Finally, it is an opportunity
for marketers to demonstrate their strategic approach to sustainable development
and create solid foundations for the future of their brands by educating con-
sumers and raising the profile of sustainable production and consumption in the
beauty industry. As previously highlighted, marketers need to deploy creativity
against strategic opportunities and a mindset of patience and ideas (Geoghegan,
2020).
This chapter also contributes to theory of creativity in marketing commu-
nications by highlighting the neglected role of the consumer. Past studies have
focussed on creative production assigning a rather passive role to creative con-
sumption. Future studies can focus on the creative interface between consumers
and brands.

Key Terms and Definitions

(1) Creative marketing communications are strategic communication options

known to evoke mental imagery and elicit consumption desires, increase con-
sumer awareness of product and brand benefits and differentiate the product
from competition.
(2) Packaging design carries information about the product and package materi-
als, signals brand values with its colour(s) and visual branding and informs
and reassures consumers about their product choice.
(3) Sustainability claims are environmental, health and/or social messages com-
municated from businesses to the end users of products/services.

References
Alevizou, P. J., Oates, C. J., & McDonald, S. (2015). The well (s) of knowledge: The
decoding of sustainability claims in the UK and in Greece. Sustainability, 7(7),
8729–8747.
Amabile, T. M. (1996, January). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard
Business School Background Note 396-239.
Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100–112.
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 63

Andersen, P. A. (1991). When one cannot not communicate: A challenge to Motley’s tradi-
tional communication postulates. Communication Studies, 42(4), 309–325.
Barchiesi, M. A., Castellan, S., & Costa, R. (2018). In the eye of the beholder:
Communicating CSR through color in packaging design. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 24(7), 720–733.
Bargh, J. A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment,
behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 280–285.
Bartley, T., Koos, S., Samel, H., Setrini, G., & Summers, N. (2015). Looking behind the
label: Global industries and the conscientious consumer. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Belz, F. M., & Peattie, K. (2009). Sustainability marketing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Berger, J. (2008). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin UK.
Bertrand, K. (2002). Wake up your product category with ‘shapely’ packaging. Brand
Packaging, 80(11), 20.
Borgerson, J. L., & Schroeder, J. E. (2005). Identity in marketing communications: An eth-
ics of visual representation. In A. J. Kimmel (Ed.), Marketing communication: New
approaches, technologies, and styles (pp. 256–277). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bulla, R., & Johns, S. (2020). Sustainable packaging decoded: Finding your path amid plas-
tic, glass, paper, refillables and more. Global Cosmetic Industry, 188(4), 58.
Burroughs, J. E., & Mick, D. G. (2004). Exploring antecedents and consequences of con-
sumer creativity in a problem-solving context. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(9),
402–411.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental adver-
tising claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27–39.
Cousté, N. L., Martos-Partal, M., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2012). The power of a package:
Product claims drive purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(3),
364–375.
Crane, A. (2001). Unpacking the ethical product. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 361–373.
D’Astous, A., & Deschênes, J. (2005). Consuming in one’s mind: An exploration. Psychology
and Marketing, 22(1), 1–30.
Di Gesu, R. (2020). A year of innovation in soap, bath & shower – UK – January 2020.
MINTEL Group Ltd. Retrieved from https://clients.mintel.com/report/a-year-of-
innovation-in-soap-bath-shower-2020. Accessed on June 2020.
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., Van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The
unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193–202.
Dover, S. (2020). The green BPC consumer – UK – February 2020. MINTEL Group Ltd.
Retrieved from https://reports.mintel.com/display/987902/# Accessed June 2020.
Doyle, L. (2018). The next wave of foodie beauty: Delicious innovations in formulations
and marketing. Global Cosmetic Industry, 186(10), 42.
Fleming, O., & Rosenstein, J. (2020). The ultimate guide to clean beauty. Harper’s
Bazaar, April 22. Retrieved from https://www.harpersbazaar.com/beauty/skin-care/
a28352553/clean-beauty/. Accessed on June 2020.
Fournier, S., & Guiry, M. (1993). “An Emerald green jaguar, A House on Nantucket,
and an African Safari:” Wish lists and consumption dreams in materialist society.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 352–358.
Fuller, D. A. (1999). Sustainable marketing: Managerial-ecological issues. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gannon, V., & Prothero, A. (2018). Beauty bloggers and YouTubers as a community of
practice. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(7–8), 592–619.
Geoghegan, A. (2020). Marketing needs a culture of creativity. Marketing Week. Retrieved
from https://www.marketingweek.com/marketing-culture-of-creativity/. Accessed
on June 2020.
64 Panayiota Alevizou

Global Cosmetic Industry. (2018a). Elements of beauty: Inspiring ingredients and innova-
tive claims drive new product innovation. Global Cosmetic Industry, 186(3), 36.
Global Cosmetic Industry. (2019a). Insider insights: Beauty 2020 & Beyond. Global
Cosmetic Industry, 187(10), 8.
Global Cosmetic Industry. (2019b). Welcome to clean sun care: Limited ingredients, regu-
latory pressure, retailer no-no lists, consumer confusion and concern–sound famil-
iar?. Global Cosmetic Industry, 187(8), 9.
Godemann, J. (2011). Sustainable communication as an inter- and transdisciplinary dis-
cipline. In J. Godemann & G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communication (pp.
39–51). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_4
Godemann, J., & Michelsen, G. (2011). Sustainability communication–an introduction.
In J. Godemann & G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability Communication (pp. 3–11).
Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_1
Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. Retrieved from
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=ovfta&NEWS=N
&AN=00000487-195009000-00002
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2009). Green advertising revisited: Conditioning
virtual nature experiences. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715–739.
Henderson, P., & Cote, J. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of
Marketing, 62(2), 14–30.
Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569–
598.
Heroux, L., Laroch, M., & McGown, K. L. (1988). Consumer product label informa-
tion processing: An experiment involving time pressure and distraction. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 9(2), 195–214.
Hoek, J., Roling, N., & Holdsworth, D. (2013). Ethical claims and labelling: An analysis
of consumers’ beliefs and choice behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management,
29(7–8), 772–792.
ISEAL. (2015). Sustainability claims good practice guide – Sustainability standards sys-
tems’ guide to developing and managing environmental, social and/or economic
claims. Retrieved from https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/ISEAL_
Claims_Good_Practice_Guide_v1_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 2020.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Creativity. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 39(4), 55–60.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Koslow, S. (2015). I love creative advertising: What it is, when to call for it, and how to
achieve it. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1), 5–8.
Koslow, S., Sasser, S. L., & Riordan, E. A. (2006). Do marketers get the advertising they
need or the advertising they deserve? Agency views of how clients influence creativ-
ity. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 81–101.
Kover, A. J. (2016). Advertising creativity: Some open questions. Journal of Advertising
Research, 56(3), 235–238.
Kruse, L. (2011). Psychological aspects of sustainability communication. In J. Godemann
& G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communication (pp. 69–77). Dordrecht:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_6
Laskey, H. A., Thouvenin, A., & Seaton, F. B. (2000, June). The language effect in
cross-cultural advertising. Paper presented at the Marketing in a global economy
conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
 On-pack Sustainability Communications 65

Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Coudounaris, D. N. (2010). Five decades of busi-
ness research into exporting: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of International
Management, 16(1), 78–91.
Levy, A. S., & Fein, S. B. (1998). Consumers’ ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels.
Journal of Nutrition Education, 30(4), 210–217.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Aufl.
Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Lorek, S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2015). Sustainable consumption as a systemic challenge: Inter-
and transdisciplinary research and research questions. In Handbook of research on
sustainable consumption (pp. 19-32). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471270.00008
Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1159–1166.
Magnier, L., & Crié, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 350.
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Esteban-Millat, I., Torrez-Meruvia, H.,
D’Alessandro, S., & Miles, M. (2020). Influencer marketing: Brand control,
commercial orientation and post credibility. Journal of Marketing Management,
36, 1–27.
Mkhize, S., & Ellis, D. (2020). Creativity in marketing communication to overcome barriers
to organic produce purchases: The case of a developing nation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 242, 118415.
Monnot, E., Reniou, F., Parguel, B., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2019). “Thinking outside
the packaging box”: Should brands consider store shelf context when eliminating
overpackaging?. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 355–370.
Moreau, C. P. & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on
consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13–22.
Nocella, G., & Kennedy, O. (2012). Food health claims – What consumers understand.
Food Policy, 37(5), 571–580.
Ott, K., Muraca, B., & Baatz, C. (2011). Strong sustainability as a frame for sustainability
communication. In J. Godemann & G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communica-
tion (pp. 13–25). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_2
Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and prod-
uct efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics,
143(1), 159–177.
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Russell, C. A. (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising
mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’. International Journal
of Advertising, 34(1), 107–134.
Pedersen, E., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware! Environmental
labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15(1), 15–29.
Richards, J. I., & Curran, C. M. (2002). Oracles on “advertising”: Searching for a defini-
tion. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 63–77.
Rigby, B. (2019). When less is more: The beauty bloggers exposing the industry’s wasteful
secret. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/
apr/03/when-less-is-more-the-beauty-bloggers-exposing-the-industrys-wasteful-
secret
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A review of general semantics,
11, 249–260.
Rubik, F., & Frankl, P. (2005). The future of eco-labelling: Making environmental product
information systems effective. Abingdon: Routledge.
66 Panayiota Alevizou

Rundh, B. (2005). The multi-faceted dimension of packaging. British Food Journal, 107(9),
670–684.
Rundh, B. (2016). The role of packaging within marketing and value creation. British Food
Journal, 118(10), 2491–2511.
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. influencer endorse-
ments in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit.
International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281.
Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and
effects of mass communication (pp. 3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Schroeder, J. E. (2008). Visual analysis of images in brand culture. In B. J. Phillips & E.
McQuarrie (Eds.), Go figure: New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp. 277–296).
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Snyder, A. (1993). Branding: Coming up for more air. Brandweek, 34 (December 6), 24–28.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and para-
digms. In Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 3–15). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tang, E., Fryxell, G. E., & Chow, C. S. (2004). Visual and verbal communication in the
design of eco-label for green consumer products. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 16(4), 85–105.
Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A. K., & Sandager, S. (2012). Consumer decision making regard-
ing a “green” everyday product. Psychology & Marketing, 29(4), 187–197.
United Nations (UN). (2020). Sustainable development goals. UN. Retrieved from https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300. Accessed on July 08, 2020.
Underwood, R. L., & Klein, N. M. (2002). Packaging as brand communication: Effects
of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 58–68.
Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M., & Burke, R. R. (2001). Packaging communication:
Attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
10(7), 403–422.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Agenda
21–Action Plan for the Next Century.
Upham, P., Dendler, L., & Bleda, M. (2011). Carbon labelling of grocery products: Public
perceptions and potential emissions reductions. Journal of Cleaner Production,
19(4), 348–355.
van Ooijen I. (2016). The power of symbolic packaging cues. In P. Verlegh, H. Voorveld, &
M. Eisend (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. 6, pp. 365–378). Wiesbaden:
European Advertising Academy, Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
658-10558-7_28
Wagner, K. (2015). Reading packages: Social semiotics on the shelf. Visual Communication,
14(2), 193–220.
WCED. (1987). Our common future (The Brundtland Report), World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, J., Wen, N., Dou, W., & Chen, J. (2015). Exploring the effectiveness of consumer crea-
tivity in online marketing communications. European Journal of Marketing, 49(1),
262–276.
Yarussi-King, K. (2020). Claims in the Indie Brand Era: Part 3 of a 4-part series:
Understanding the market dynamics that drive beauty claims. Global Cosmetic
Industry, 188(4), 36.
Ziemann, A. (2011). Communication theory and sustainability discourse. In J. Godemann
& G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communication (pp. 89–96). Dordrecht:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_8