How can We Use Ethnography to Figure Out Singapore's Sustainable Skincare Shift of ‘Clean Beauty’?
In a Nielsen IQ report cited by The Straits Times, searches for refillable packaging surged by 64% across beauty categories, with compostable and plastic-free options driving growth. The Asia Pacific clean beauty market, valued at USD 1,866.7 million in 2023, is projected to grow at a 15.6% CAGR through 2030.
"Clean beauty" means different things to different consumers. For one shopper, it's about avoiding parabens. For another, it's cruelty-free certification. For a third, it's entirely about sustainable packaging. When 94% of French consumers say they'd switch to reusable shampoo bottles, but Singapore's humid climate makes waterless formulations feel impractical - how do brands work through this complexity?
This is where ethnographic research becomes indispensable. Not because surveys can't capture preferences, but because they can't capture contradictions, compromises, and the lived experience of trying to be an "ethical consumer" in a world of competing claims.
Singapore positions itself as a beauty innovation hub for good reason. According to Enterprise Singapore, the beauty services industry generates approximately S$2 billion in operating receipts, comprising about 6,000 enterprises and employing over 13,000 workers. Nine of the world's top 10 fragrance and flavour multinationals - including IFF, Symrise, Takasago, and Firmenich - operate manufacturing in Singapore. The Skin Research Institute of Singapore (SRIS) and A*STAR provide R&D backbone that supports emerging sustainable formulations.
The regulatory environment matters here. The Health Sciences Authority requires cosmetic products to comply with the ASEAN Cosmetic Directive, including adherence to prohibited and restricted ingredients lists. This creates a baseline standard that clean beauty brands can build upon, but it also means "clean" claims require substantiation—something consumers are increasingly demanding.
We're observing a generational divide worth understanding. According to market research from Daily Vanity, 43% of Singapore consumers purchase skincare every three months. But younger consumers—particularly appearance-conscious millennials and Gen Z - are scrutinizing labels more carefully, rejecting greenwashing, and demanding transparency about supply chains. They don't just want to know what's in the product; they want to know what's not in it, and how it was made.
The local brand landscape reflects this shift. Homegrown companies like Oasis Skin, Katfood, and Re:erth have emerged with positioning explicitly centered on natural ingredients and sustainable practices. International retailers like Sephora and Watsons - which account for 80% of pharmacy chain market share—are actively expanding their clean beauty offerings, signaling mainstream adoption.
Clean beauty operates in a space of admirable intentions and messy realities. Our research questions would probe this gap:
For the "Clean Beauty" Consumer:
When you say a product is "clean," what specific attributes come to mind first? What's the hierarchy of importance?
Walk me through a recent purchase decision where sustainability mattered. What trade-offs did you make?
Have you ever felt skeptical about a brand's sustainability claims? What triggered that doubt, and how did you resolve it?
How does Singapore's climate affect your willingness to try certain sustainable formats, like waterless or bar products?
For the Sustainability-Curious Non-Adopter:
What would need to be true for you to pay a premium for sustainable beauty?
When you see "eco-friendly" on packaging, what's your gut reaction—genuine interest, mild skepticism, or something else?
For Retail Staff and Store Managers:
How do customers actually engage with clean beauty claims? What questions do they ask? What confuses them?
What sells despite sustainability positioning versus because of it?
The Qualitative Approach
Method Selection
In-Home Ethnography: We'd spend 90 minutes in participants' bathrooms and bedrooms, observing their actual product collections. There's a revealing gap between what people say they value and what occupies their shelves. A consumer who eloquently describes her commitment to clean beauty might have three sustainable products sitting beside ten conventional ones. That's not hypocrisy—it's a research finding about the adoption curve and what accelerates or inhibits it.
Shop-Alongs: Accompanying participants through Sephora, Guardian, or specialty stores like The Green Collective lets us observe decision-making in real time. We'd watch how they interact with sustainability signage, which products they pick up and put back, and what questions they ask (or don't ask) staff.
Participant Targeting
Rather than simple demographics, we'd recruit along a sustainability adoption spectrum:
The Committed Purist: Has systematically replaced products with clean alternatives. Often sources from specialized retailers. May own reusable cotton rounds and shampoo bars.
The Selective Adopter: Clean for certain categories (skincare yes, makeup less so). Price sensitivity creates boundaries around commitment.
The Interested Skeptic: Attracted to concept but paralyzed by conflicting information. Fears being "greenwashed" or sacrificing efficacy.
The Performance Pragmatist: Sustainability is a nice-to-have, not a deciding factor. Will choose clean if it matches on efficacy and price, but won't compromise.
Uncovering Insights
We'd deploy several projective techniques:
The Ingredient Ranking Exercise: Present participants with 15 ingredient-related claims (paraben-free, cruelty-free, vegan, recyclable packaging, biodegradable, etc.) and have them sort by personal importance. Then discuss why certain attributes rank higher than others.
The Trust Spectrum: Show logos and certifications (COSMOS, EWG Verified, Leaping Bunny, B Corp) and explore which carry credibility and why. Many consumers cannot articulate what these certifications mean - understanding that gap helps brands communicate more effectively.
The Disposal Diary: For one week, have participants photograph every beauty product container they discard. Discuss the emotional experience of throwing away plastic versus returning to a refill program.
Helpful Tools
Tool 1: The Clean Beauty Definition Decoder
Clean Beauty Definition Decoder
When consumers say "clean," they may mean one or more of these dimensions. Research must disambiguate.
Tool 2: The Say-Do Gap Mapping Tool
Say-Do Gap Mapping Tool
Plot consumers based on their stated values versus observed behavior
✓ True Believers
High stated / High behavioral: Walk the talk. Product collection matches values. Key segment for premium sustainable offerings. Explore what enabled their full transition.
⚡ Aspiration Gap
High stated / Low behavioral: Want to be sustainable but aren't (yet). Barriers include price, efficacy concerns, convenience. Highest potential for conversion with right interventions.
🔇 Silent Sustainables
Low stated / High behavioral: Don't identify as "green consumers" but quietly make sustainable choices. May not respond to eco-messaging. Find them through behavior, not surveys.
→ Non-Prioritizers
Low stated / Low behavioral: Sustainability not a decision factor. May convert on secondary benefits (efficacy, gentleness) with sustainability as bonus.
Tool 3: Sustainability Claim Credibility Matrix
Sustainability Claim Credibility Matrix
Use in research to assess which claims resonate versus trigger skepticism
| Claim Type | Consumer Understanding | Trust Level | Research Question to Explore |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Natural ingredients" | Vague but positive association | Medium | What percentage natural feels meaningful? Is 70% "natural" still clean? |
| "Paraben-free" | Widely recognized, meaning unclear | High | Can they explain why parabens are "bad"? Fear-based or informed? |
| "Sustainable packaging" | Variable—could mean recyclable, refillable, biodegradable | Medium | What does sustainable packaging look like in their mind? |
| "Carbon neutral" | Low understanding, abstract concept | Low | Does this claim feel meaningful or like corporate speak? |
| "Cruelty-free" (with logo) | Clear meaning, certification adds weight | High | Does Leaping Bunny vs. PETA logo affect credibility? |
| "Made in Singapore" | Local = trustworthy, quality control | High | Does local origin feel more or less "clean" than imported? |
Conclusion
The clean beauty conversation in Singapore is maturing beyond buzzwords. Consumers increasingly expect brands to substantiate claims, not just make them. The winners in this space will be those who understand their audience's specific definition of "clean"—whether that's ingredient purity, environmental stewardship, or ethical sourcing—and communicate accordingly with transparency.
Ethnographic research cuts through the noise of stated preferences to reveal actual behavior, decision-making friction points, and the compromises consumers make when their values meet their bathrooms. If you are ready to uncover more about such insights, let us have a conversation. You can also write to our Research Lead, Felicia at felicia@assembled.sg or give us a call at +65 8118 1048.
