Is Europe running out of water? In short–no; however, with the growing popularity of independent and niche beauty brands launching skincare and cosmetic products that are formulated without water, it does raise the question, why the trend?
K-Beauty Pioneering Innovations
Anhydrous skincare products are nothing new–as platforms like Forbes and Vogue have covered in past features, but rather can be traced back to innovative K-Beauty brands. The Pure Lotus brand, for example, in its clean and vegan Jeju Lotus Leaf Essence replaces water as the primary base with sustainably harvested white lotus extract from thousand-year-old plants at Beophwasa Temple in Jeju.
Pyunkang Yul Essence toner is another example. Created by the renowned Pyunkang Korean Medicine Hospital, the toner replaces standard water for a nutrient-dense herbal root base.
Is it possible that the current waterless trend in Europe is simply a result of Western brands catching up with K-Beauty innovations, or something more?
The EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
The rising waterless trend in Europe seemingly has little if anything to do with concern over quality skincare. The major driving force is the European Green Deal, the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) and its associated Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Recall how in 2019, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the European Green Deal as Europe’s “man on the Moon moment,” and the plan to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent. It’s a bit of a slog to read through all the EU legislation, but it’s worth trying to understand the gist of what’s happening, since its regulatory ripple effects are global in reach.
The European Green Deal, Europe’s overarching macroeconomic and geopolitical philosophy, has drawn the cosmetics industry into its plan by claiming the cosmetics industry is responsible for 26% of the ‘toxic micropollutant load’ entering European urban wastewater. The EU is using a legal framework known as Extended Producer Responsibility, and this policy applies to wastewater. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD), Article 9, commands all EU Member States to pass national laws by July 2027 establishing mandatory Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs). This means, cosmetic “producers” are mandated to join a national PRO. Cosmetic producers must report exactly how many units of product they placed on the market, detailing the specific chemical and preservative weight inside those products. The PRO then calculates an invoice based on that volume. These PRO networks then collect funds to cover the cost of what is reported as 80% of the entire investment and operational costs for Europe’s new advanced water filtration upgrades.
Essentially, the EU is claiming that the cosmetics industry and pharmaceutical industry together should shoulder 80%-100% of the entire continent’s clean-up bill. Meanwhile, it seems businesses relating to manufacturing and plastic processing, agricultural pesticides and biocides, the textile and fashion industry, PFAS manufacturers, are off the hook.
To the casual observer trying to make sense of it all, it seems rather unfair. Why is the cosmetics industry being singled out? It could be simply because cosmetics are designed for human use and the industry has highly standardized chemical formulas that are easy to track in a lab (as does the pharmaceutical industry). Consequently, this reliable transparency and tracking means the cosmetic industry could be left holding the makeup bag, so to speak.
A Violation of EU Law?
Both the Polish government and Cosmetics Europe sued the European Union over the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mandates in the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. The EU General Court, however, dismissed Cosmetics Europe’s case as inadmissible, ruling that as a trade association it lacked legal standing to sue the EU Parliament and Council over the directive.
The Polish Government, on the other hand, is a sovereign nation and under EU law cannot be blocked. Poland filed its own lawsuit with the Court of Justice of the EU, the highest court.
In September 2026, CJEU Advocate General Juliane Kokott reviewed Poland’s case and agreed that the EU’s data blaming cosmetics for 26% of wastewater pollution is questionable, recommending that the high court annul the 80% tax provisions–a development announced in a Cosmetics Europe press release.
Where Does C-Beauty and the U.S. Fit In?
These European mandates have global consequences. The EU officially withdrew from the Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT), which essentially means the EU refuses to automatically recognize Chinese green supply chains. Yet, rules from the Green Claims Directive and the Packaging and packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) apply to any brand selling in Europe, no matter where they are based.
Is this regulatory imperialism? Is the EU saving the environment, or forcing the U.S. and Chinese companies to subsidize its closed-loop economy? If a Chinese or American beauty brand cannot prove the exact carbon and water footprint of its packaging, they may be locked out of Europe’s prestige beauty market.
Conglomerates Riding the Wave
While the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) was passed in 2025, the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mandates do not go into effect until December 31, 2028. If formulas are rapidly biodegradable or “generate zero micropollutants” they are exempt, so there may be major changes and reformulations to remove EU-banned chemical ingredients in order to avoid paying any EPR tax.
For instance, Estée Lauder still sells water-based formulations in Europe, however they are making changes. Switching to reusable glass and refill pods, as well as relaunching one of their best-selling foundations, the Double Wear Stay-in-Place Foundation after replacing restricted chemical cyclic silicones. A case in point illustrating that brands do not have to go waterless to survive European regulations, they can re-formulate–that is, if they can afford it.
Interestingly, Estée Lauder maintained the retail price point of its Double Wear Stay-in Place Foundation and expanded the global line to over 70 shades. While major multi-billion dollar beauty conglomerates like Estée Lauder and L’Oréal Groupe are better positioned to capitalize on the EU’s regulatory squeeze, will smaller independent brands be facing a wipeout?
Loopholes for Small Brands
The UWWTD does seem to offer a loophole for brands placing less than 1 tonne of total micro-pollutants on the EU market annually, however for scaling independent brands whose liquid formulas easily push them past that volume limit, replacing water may be the only way to avoid a costly compliance tax.
There are however it seems no small-business waivers for packaging under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). If a small brand ships even one box into an EU country, they must register for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and pay local recycling fees on its weight.
While beauty conglomerates rely on their existing network of regional distributors to handle the paperwork, independent direct-to-consumer brands will likely need to find their own distribution partners. How this is all managed seems like an administrative nightmare, so brands will most certainly need to research all current legal requirements.
The Rising Tide of Regulations
It actually gets even more complicated. There’s something called the EU Ecolabel (which we’ll save for another post), specific U.S. state packaging laws, and numerous other countries that have already implemented or are actively rolling out their own Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging.
