A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ECONOMIC AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS IN THE COSMETICS INDUSTRY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR EASTERN EUROPEAN COMPANIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71235/rmee.232Keywords:
systematic review, alternative testing methods, in vitro testing, cosmetics industry, animal testing ban, ESG practices, transition management, 3Rs principles, OECD test guidelinesAbstract
The European Union’s complete ban on animal testing for cosmetics, enacted through (EC) Regulation No. 1223/2009, has fundamentally transformed the landscape of product safety assessment in the cosmetics industry. This systematic review examines the economic and managerial implications of transitioning from traditional animal testing to alternative in vitro methods, focusing on opportunities and challenges that companies in Eastern Europe are facing, including initial capital investment requirements, technical expertise gaps and limited regional testing infrastructure. Through a comprehensive review of regulatory documents, market research reports, scientific literature, and industry publications, combined with cost-benefit analysis, SWOT analysis, and case study methodology, this paper synthesizes current knowledge on market trends, OECD-validated testing methods, the 3Rs principles and organizational factors influencing successful adoption of alternative testing approaches. Based on the reviewed evidence and a Romanian case study, the paper proposes a four-phase transition management model and provides evidence-based recommendations for companies, policymakers, and research institutions. This review contributes to the understanding of technological transitions in regulated industries and offers practical guidance for organizations navigating the shift toward more ethical and scientifically advanced testing paradigms.
References
Adler, S., Basketter, D., Creton, S., Pelkonen, O., van Benthem, J., Zuang, V., ... & Zaldivar, J. M. (2011). Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: Current status and future prospects—2010. Archives of Toxicology, 85(5), 367-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2
Cosmetics Europe. (2024). Annual report 2024. Brussels: Cosmetics Europe.
Cosmetics Europe. (2025). Market performance 2024 report. Brussels: Cosmetics Europe.
Curzer, H. J., Perry, G., Wallace, M. C., & Perry, D. (2016). The three Rs of animal research: What they mean for the institutional animal care and use committee and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8
Eurofins Scientific. (2024). The future of in vitro testing in the cosmetics industry. Cosmetics Business. Retrieved from https://cosmeticsbusiness.com
Euromonitor International. (2024). Beauty and personal care in Romania. London: Euromonitor International.
European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the animal testing and marketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics (COM/2013/0135). Brussels: European Commission.
European Parliament and Council. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union, L 396, 1-849.
European Parliament and Council. (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union, L 342, 59-209.
European Parliament and Council. (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union, L 276, 33-79.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 897-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Graham, M. L., & Prescott, M. J. (2015). The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease. European Journal of Pharmacology, 759, 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.040
Grand View Research. (2024). Cruelty-free cosmetics market size, share & trends analysis report. San Francisco, CA: Grand View Research.
Humane Society International. (2024). Global ban on cosmetics animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.hsi.org
Lee, K. H. (2020). The 'R' principles in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animal Research, 36, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-020-00078-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-020-00078-6
Metastat Insight. (2024). Cosmetic testing service market size & share, growth, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.metastatinsight.com
NC3Rs (National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research). (2024). The 3Rs. Retrieved from https://nc3rs.org.uk/who-we-are/3rs
OECD. (2023). OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/20745788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/20745788
Pistollato, F., Madia, F., Corvi, R., Munn, S., Grignard, E., Paini, A., ... & Whelan, M. (2021). Current EU regulatory requirements for the assessment of chemicals and cosmetic products: Challenges and opportunities for introducing new approach methodologies. Archives of Toxicology, 95(6), 1867-1897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03034-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03034-y
Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen.
SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). (2023). SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation (12th revision). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Statista. (2024). Beauty & personal care: Romania. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/beauty-personal-care/romania
StrategyHelix. (2024). Romania beauty and personal care products market 2024. Retrieved from https://store.strategyh.com
Turcu, O., & Brancu, C. (2024). The cosmetics industry in Romania: Analysis of economic performance and trends. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, 24(2), 89-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61801/OUAESS.2024.2.12
Würbel, H. (2017). More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Lab Animal, 46(4), 164-166. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1220
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zuang, V., Dura, A., Asturiol Bofill, D., Batista Leite, S., Berggren, E., Bernasconi, C., ... & Whelan, M. (2021). EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches (2020). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/439178
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Carmen Maria Muresan, Lucian CUIBUS, ZORITA DIACONEASA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
