The Impact of Contractual Clauses

to stop Animal Testing while launching a New Cosmetic Product



By Justine Brabant

SKEMA Business School

Paris, France




Since many years, animal testing is considered as the method to prove that a new cosmetic product is not toxic to consumers health before being marketed. The safety test is a legal requirement from authorities.

However, the use of animals is not required, but it’s always easier for cosmetic companies to do what has ever be done.

Nevertheless, more and more cosmetic companies have decided to stop animal testing and be cruelty-free, but this cannot be a worldwide promise as some countries still require this practice by law when it comes to sale foreign cosmetic products in their own countries.

To identify and understand what the best solution would be to replace animal testing for cosmetics, several tools such as root cause analysis, as well as qualitative and quantitative analysis. The results coming out from these studies will help us to understand why cosmetic companies should implement some new alternatives to animal testing when it comes to launching a new cosmetic product.

Keywords: Cosmetic industry, testing cosmetics, testing cosmetics on animals, consumer’s safety.


It is official: L’Oréal will launch its first brand created internally in 2019 in the United States, the first global subsidiary of the company. Seed Phytonutrients is a haircare, facial care, and body care brand, made from natural ingredients but what is important to note is that seven of the world’s dangerous poisons are all from plants. The use of natural ingredients does not exclude the safety test when it comes to launch a new cosmetic product.

Nowadays, new cosmetic products can’t be marketed without having been tested beforehand for the safety of the consumers. According to Article 3 of the Cosmetics Regulation: “A cosmetic product made available on the market shall be safe for human health when used under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.”[1] In this context, L’Oréal is legally responsible for ensuring that its new product (and its ingredients) performs the safety evaluation to prove that it is not toxic to human health when consumers use it according to the directions written in the labeling. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can take action against the manufacturer if certain information shows that a cosmetic does not meet the legal requirements to protect consumers.

However, these tests involve the use of animal studies to determine toxicology. According to Cruelty Free International, the organization working to put an end to animal testing methods around the world: “at least 115 million animals may be used in safety tests worldwide each year”[2]. And even if more and more cosmetic companies claim that they are “committed to the elimination of animal testing”[3], this method is still implemented worldwide due to the differences in legislation between countries. Cosmetic companies do tests on animals where it is required by law as they sell their products in China.

Nevertheless, more and more governments are passing a ban in their own country to stop animal testing for cosmetics. 2018 is an important date in the animal testing ban history: it has already been five years since the animal testing ban for cosmetics is implemented in European Union. The objective of the ban was reached: there is no animal testing for cosmetics in the EU and, imported products and ingredients tested previously on animals before being sold in the EU was eliminated. It was a big step in cosmetics regulation, and it has been impactful around the world as many countries follow the path. The European Parliament is currently discussing a global ban on animal testing. But for now, other jurisdictions have just followed European Union legislation like California. As you might know, we won’t find beauty products tested on animals on the California market anymore. The “California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act”[4] was passed unanimously (80-0) by the California State Assembly on August 31, six months after its introduction by Senator Cathleen Galgiani. This measure bans the sale of cosmetics tested on animals and will take effect from January 1, 2020.

From a project management perspective, when a cosmetic company wants to launch a new brand on the market, the new brand is regarded as a portfolio of assets as the company is using “projects as the means to an end to acquire, create, update, maintain, expand and eventually dispose of organizational assets, their measurement of success is based not so much as whether the project was successful but whether the product the project was undertaken to achieve was successful”[5]. All the creation and testing of products of a new cosmetic brand passes through a Multi-Project program if we consider that each product of the new brand constitutes a project and if we look at the following definition “a multi-project program achieves synergies from projects with common traits such as shared resources, similar clients or product technology. There is a relative interdependence of constituent projects and benefits are expected from synergy.”[6] When the products have been created and, the safety tests were successful, the new brand is ready to be marketed and all the products become new assets for the company if we consider that « an asset can be described as being a tangible or intangible resource with economic value that an individual, corporation or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide future benefit”[7].

Identifying the causes leading to animal testing for new cosmetics can be an interesting manner to resolve the roots of the problem.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Student papers are authored by graduate or undergraduate students based on coursework at accredited universities or training programs.  This paper was prepared as a deliverable for the course “International Contract Management” facilitated by Dr Paul D. Giammalvo of PT Mitratata Citragraha, Jakarta, Indonesia as an Adjunct Professor under contract to SKEMA Business School for the program Master of Science in Project and Programme Management and Business Development.  http://www.skema.edu/programmes/masters-of-science. For more information on this global program (Lille and Paris in France; Belo Horizonte in Brazil), contact Dr Paul Gardiner, Global Programme Director paul.gardiner@skema.edu.

How to cite this paper: Brabant, J. (2019). The Impact of Contractual Clauses to stop Animal Testing while launching a New Cosmetic Product, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue IV (May).  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pmwj81-May2019-Brabant-contract-clauses-to-stop-animal-testing.pdf



About the Author


Justine Brabant

Paris, France



Justine Brabant is a student at SKEMA Business School. After two years of preparatory class, she successfully passed the exam and entered at the Programme Grande École of SKEMA.  After studying one year abroad, she integrated the MSc Programme and Project Management & Business Development and was certified AgilePM during the semester. She is now looking for opportunities in project management.

Justine lives in Paris, France and can be contacted at justine.brabant@skema.edu


[1] Cosmetics Europe, A practical guide. 2016 “Compliance with regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetics products: Roles and Responsibilities along the supply chain” < https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/files/9314/7306/9079/Compliance_with_regulation_1223-2009_new.pdf >

[2] Cruelty Free International (NA). “Facts and figures” < http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/facts-and-figures-animal-testing >

[3] Laughlin, A. 2018 “30 Makeup Brands that still test on animals in 2018”, Cruelty-Free Kitty, < https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/cruelty-free-101/makeup-brands-that-test-on-animals/>

[4] Demotivateur (2018). “Cosmétiques: La Californie devient le premier état à bannir les tests sur les animaux “ < https://www.demotivateur.fr/article/cosmetiques-la-californie-devient-le-premier-etat-a-bannir-les-tests-sur-les-animaux-14352 >

[5]67 Planning Planet (2015). “Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference” <http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/introduction-to-managing-project-controls >