Annual Report
2011
The Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association
Annual Report for
the year ended 2011
Photograph courtesy of John Frieda® - Kao Corporation
Contents
01
page 1
CTPA Board of Directors
08
page 23
Cosmetic Industry in Figures
02
page 3
Chairman’s Report
09
page 29
CTPA Members
03
page 4
Executive Summary
10
page 31
CTPA Committees
04
page 5
Review of the Year
11
page 33
CTPA and Members’ Representatives
to Cosmetics Europe (formerly Colipa)
05
page 13
CTPA Events
12
page 35
Directors’ Report & Financial Statements
06
page 17
CTPA Working with the Media,
Educators and Consumers
13
page 43
CTPA Who’s Who
07
page 19
Science, Innovation and the Cosmetics Industry
14
page 44
CTPA Membership - What can we do for you?
CTPA Board of Directors
At the end of the year under review, the CTPA Board of Directors comprised:
Lady Jay (Sylvia) CBE
Chairman, CTPA – Chairman, L’Oréal (UK)
Anke Menkhorst
President, Kao (UK)
Dr Gerald (Ged) O’Shea
Vice-chairman, CTPA – Head of Beauty Brands
Development, Alliance Boots
Ann Murray
Managing Director (UK),
PZ Cussons (UK) – Beauty Division
Anand Rangaswamy
Vice-chairman, CTPA – Managing Director,
Keyline Brands
Per Neuman
Managing Director, Estée Lauder Companies
Massimiliano (Max) Costantini
Chief Executive Officer, Mibelle
Iain Potter
Vice President Marketing HPC UK & Ireland,
Unilever UK & Ireland
Kathryn Davies
Associate Director, Procter & Gamble UK
Brian Riddick
General Manager, Coty Beauty
Susan Egstrand
Category, Insight & Marketing Director Oral Care,
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Scott Sherwood
Vice President & General Manager (UK/Ireland),
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Lisa Garley-Evans
Vice President & Counsel EMEA Regional Legal
& Regulatory Affairs, Avon Cosmetics
Brian Walmsley
Marketing Director – Skincare,
Johnson & Johnson
Martin Hamilton
Legal Director/Company Secretary, Chanel
Barratt West
General Manager UK & Ireland,
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Ian Mackinnon
Chief Executive Officer, Swallowfield plc
John Harold
Honorary Treasurer
Joyce Traylen
Secretary, CTPA
1.
Mark Wood
Senior Vice-President & Managing Director, EMEA,
Revlon International Corporation
Appointments to the Board
since 1 January 2012
Resignations from the Board
during 2011
Resignations from the Board
since 1 January 2012
Chris Good
Managing Director,
Estée Lauder Companies
Elaine Birchall
Managing Director,
PZ Cussons (UK)
Ann Murray
Managing Director (UK),
PZ Cussons (UK) – Beauty Division
Blake Hughes
General Manager UK & Ireland,
Elizabeth Arden New York
John R E Harold
Treasurer, CTPA - Managing Director,
Combe International
Per Neuman
Managing Director, Estée Lauder
Companies
Eric Brockhus
Vice-President, General Manager,
Kao Brands Europe
Brian Walmsley
Marketing Director – Skincare,
Johnson & Johnson
Matthew (Matt) Close
Vice-chairman, CTPA
Vice President Marketing HPC,
Unilever UK
Barratt West
General Manager UK & Ireland,
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Andrew McCarthy
General Counsel UK & Ireland,
Procter & Gamble UK
Fergal McGarry
Managing Director,
Johnson & Johnson
Carol-Ann Stewart
Marketing Director Oral Care,
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer
Healthcare
Solicitors
Norton Rose LLP
Auditors
Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP
Bankers
Barclays Bank Plc
2.
Chairman’s Report
Lady Jay (Sylvia) CBE
on 2011
During 2011 we expected the European Commission to bring
forward a legislative proposal on the marketing ban relating to
animal testing, due to come into force in 2013. As you will see
elsewhere in this report, CTPA has been fully involved with
Cosmetics Europe’s discussions about the options with the
European Commission and other stakeholders, including animal
welfare groups. One task fell specifically to CTPA: a series of
one-to-one meetings with UK members of the European
Parliament, to ensure they had full background briefing on
the issue, including a clear presentation of industry concerns
and wishes and an offer to provide future help as the
negotiations continue.
Andrew McCarthy retired as Chairman of the CTPA in June
and I must begin by thanking him for his strategic thinking
and guidance as the Association negotiated the uncertain
terrain underpinning the advertising of our products and their
benefits. His knowledge and contacts assisted the Secretariat
greatly and helped the Association show our industry to be
responsible advertisers, in the face of widespread criticism of
advertising generally and especially concerning the use of body
images. That issue continues to be controversial and, as can be
seen from the separate section on body image, has been taken
up at European level by our umbrella organisation Cosmetics
Europe, through its Strategic Project Team on Responsible
Self-Regulation, of which our Director-General,Dr Chris Flower,
is Vice-chairman.
It is in such areas that CTPA makes a great difference for
members, covering issues on behalf of the industry as a whole
that would be difficult or inappropriate for individual members,
or small groups of members, to tackle.
Throughout the year, CTPA held a series of meetings with
the UK competent authority for cosmetics legislation,
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS),
to ensure officials knew our industry’s positions prior to
meetings of member states with the European Commission.
Similar meetings were held with other government departments
on issues where cosmetics might become involved, usually as
an unintended consequence. These meetings were invariably
constructive because of the strong working relationships
established between CTPA and the officials concerned.
In one area, however, a noticeable gap has arisen.
The dissolution of LACORS, the Local Authorities’
Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, left us with no
single point of contact when trying to ensure consistent
interpretation and enforcement across Trading Standards.
Fortunately, during the year, CTPA identified a specific
Trading Standards Officer (TSO) who may well become
the lead for all of Trading Standards on cosmetics and
may even provide an opening into the Trading Standards
Institute, which provides training for TSOs.
3.
These are just a few examples of how CTPA works in the UK
and at European level to improve the environment in which
members compete and to protect members’ licence to operate.
2011 has been a busy year but the Association has coped
admirably and in a highly cost effective way. It has shown itself
fully conscious of the need to provide value for money in the
current difficult economic climate and, as well as ensuring
efficient management of costs, has agreed with the Board ways
of increasing income, whilst remaining true to its mission.
For the first time in over twenty years, therefore, the fees’
structure has been revised to reduce the impact of
amalgamations and take-overs on total subscriptions.
In addition, Associate Membership has been opened to
retailers who market various brands. These two measures should
broaden and deepen our membership base and also ensure that
the Association remains on a sound financial footing.
I shall end by expressing my sincere thanks to all members
of the Board for their support during my first year as Chairman,
and especially to the Vice-chairmen and to our long-standing
Treasurer, John Harold. Particular thanks also go to the
Secretariat for their great work on behalf of our industry,
covering the breadth and depth of the many issues confronting
us, to an admirably high standard.
Executive Summary
View from Dr Chris Flower,
CTPA Director-General
2011 saw several key issues remain
with us as work continued on
developing specific guidance for
members on the new EC Cosmetics
Regulation. This involved in particular
the database developed by the
European Commission that will
form the central notification portal
for all cosmetic products marketed in Europe and where right
of access and confidentiality of information were important
issues. Other aspects covered the revised format for the
cosmetic product safety report and the need for notification
of nanomaterials. However, a major issue throughout the
year was managing the implementation of the testing and
marketing bans due to come into effect in 2013.
The European Commission, under the Cosmetics Directive,
had to assess the scientific progress towards the development
of alternatives to animal testing and, if insufficient to enable
animal testing to be replaced, to make a legislative proposal
during 2011. The proposal required an assessment of the
impact of the ban on costs to industry. Providing industry’s
input was a priority during 2011; it demonstrated the potential
for significant adverse effects on the innovative capacity of the
European cosmetics industry and its competitive advantage
in a global market. Owing to the complexity of this issue,
the European Commission was unable to come forward with
a legislative proposal during 2011.
Animal testing is but one area where CTPA has worked
hard to ensure clear information is readily available to
ensure misunderstandings are corrected. It is important to
know unequivocally that the testing on animals of cosmetic
products has long been prohibited under European law.
The remaining discussions are largely around the technicalities,
such as managing apparent conflicts with other legislation
where animal-testing of chemicals may still be necessary.
Communications planning has also been actively invoked in
correcting the continued misinformation regarding so-called
dangerous ingredients. Here we have seen fewer concerns of
late and greater appreciation of the facts. But we must not rest
on our laurels, because there are always people seeking ever
more remote risks with which to challenge us.
In issues such as the use of animals in safety testing,
the innovative use of nanomaterials and the question of risk
to health from various chemicals we use as ingredients or
which might be found as traces in products, the cosmetics
industry may not have been the major player but was
certainly at the forefront of explaining its position clearly
and pro-actively throughout the year.
2011 saw the emergence of a new question where again the
cosmetics industry may find itself needing to be very clear in
its position as a responsible player – that of body confidence.
The problem of low self-esteem is a complex social one
where many factors interact: the simplistic view that seeing
glamorous images leads to eating disorders is almost certainly
incorrect. However, as a responsible industry, we must become
involved in the debate, to dissect its many factors and ensure
we are not, however inadvertently, contributing to an
avoidable problem. But this is a long-term objective and it
must not be highjacked to provide an illusionary quick win
that ultimately betrays the very people in need of help.
Once again, I would like to thank the members for their
continued support throughout 2011 and particularly those
individuals who contribute through participation in the
many committees, working groups and task forces both
here and in Brussels. Without that support, CTPA and the
Secretariat could not continue to be the authoritative public
voice of a vibrant and responsible UK industry, trusted to
act for the consumer.
Executive Comment
The CTPA has worked with members through the year on
issues that are key to understanding the way consumers
engage with their brands. Trust in the science behind cosmetics
and understanding the industry’s communications is not a
given and a responsible industry must ensure that it responds
to the needs of its consumers and the view of the regulators.
With products that range from daily essentials to those that
impart a sense of well-being, it is incumbent on our industry
to deliver only safe, effective and sustainable products.
Dr Ged O’Shea
Anand Rangaswamy
John Harold
4.
Review of the Year
Self-esteem and Responsible Advertising
In addition to its regulatory and technical roles, including
representing our industry’s views to government and
opinion formers, the CTPA has an active communications
programme. Starting from the position that there was no
accepted central source of information about the cosmetics
industry for the general public and media, the CTPA Board
set us the ambition to be “the authoritative public voice of a
vibrant and responsible industry”. The Board had recognised
that, in order to address the collective challenges facing us,
such a public voice was essential.
After running a structured programme over several years,
we are in a position where we have constructive relations
with journalists, the wider media, other representative
industry organisations and health and charitable bodies,
and have a public website full of useful information about
our industry and its products. We have built a reputation
for giving honest and accurate comment on current issues
and are not afraid to get involved in matters that affect our
industry’s reputation. Recognising the success to date,
the CTPA Board added the additional challenge of being
‘trusted’, applying to both CTPA and the industry itself.
In 2010 we had identified the relatively high volume of
debate about the impact that the industry’s advertising
and marketing techniques were having on people’s
self-esteem and body confidence. To address this in 2011,
a dedicated strand of activity sought to improve
understanding of how the cosmetics industry is perceived
within the Body Confidence debate and to promote the
positive contribution of its products to self-esteem.
5.
One of CTPA’s media panels, Does Beauty Matter?,
was used to better understand the media’s (and therefore
consumers’) perceptions of the broader body confidence
debate and the cosmetic industry’s role within it.
Lucy Beresford, a writer, UKCP registered psychotherapist
and media commentator who writes about human
psychology and mental health and Dr Alex Clarke, the head
of the psychology department within the Royal Free Hospital
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provided
an interesting and credible catalyst to debate.
Zoe Williams, the third speaker, provided a moving personal
perspective on the importance of body confidence on
self-esteem, having experienced the benefits of the
Look Good, Feel Better programme while undergoing cancer
treatment several years previously. The insights from the
event informed the tone and content of the CTPA’s
communications approach for the future.
In May, CTPA Chairman Andrew McCarthy and CTPA
Director-General Chris Flower met Lynne Featherstone,
Government Minister for Equality, to discuss the impact of
the industry on self-esteem. The meeting was resoundingly
positive and the CTPA is now represented at the Minister’s
Roundtable on the issue. This is providing a useful insight
into the panel’s current thinking and the cosmetics industry’s
participation is being viewed positively by the panel.
June saw the publication of The Bailey Report into the
Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) responded
with guidance to tighten up the use of sexually-suggestive
images in outdoor advertising close to churches and schools.
Although our industry does need to be careful about some of its
imagery and where it is used, this is not really a problem for our
sector. In December, the advertising industry’s research arm,
Credos, issued its report into the extent of any problems with
the body image/confidence of young women, the part played
by advertising and potential solutions. Again, this did not see the
cosmetics industry as a major part of the problem. Rather, our
industry is viewed widely as not underestimating the level of
concern about these matters but is actively engaged with those
expressing concern. The cosmetics industry wants to be a partner
in understanding this very complex social problem, doing what is
appropriate to help provide solutions based on facts and data.
Earlier in the year, CTPA had been developing guidance on the
‘Use of production techniques in cosmetic advertising’ with the
support of the ASA and its Committees on Advertising Practice
(CAP & BCAP). The use of air-brushing has caused a problem in
cosmetics advertising, with some confusion about what was
allowed and what would be considered misleading. The guidance
sought to address this without stifling innovation in cosmetics
advertising. CAP & BCAP formally adopted and published this
guidance in April 2011.
Media Smart is an initiative that aims to encourage an informed
approach to understanding advertising images from a young age.
It does this by providing materials and lesson plans for teachers
in primary schools. CTPA co-funded Media Smart’s new module
on Body Confidence and provided expert advice on content.
Launched in October, CTPA is monitoring feedback.
In relation to her campaign on air-brushing, the CTPA also
invited Jo Swinson MP to contribute an article to a special
edition of the CTPA members’ newsletter on the topic of
body confidence. We secured additional contributions from
ASA, Credos, the Institute for Public Policy Research,
Lucy Beresford, a key speaker at our media panel and
Lynne Featherstone. Following publication, feedback from the
contributors has been overwhelmingly positive, with many
describing it as a real step-change in CTPA’s communications.
To ensure that there was senior level co-ordination amongst
members and the CTPA with regards to strategy on responsible
advertising practices, we set up our own Responsible Advertising
Working Group. Its first meeting was held in September.
6.
04. Review of the Year
Sustainability Matters
International Regulation
CTPA’s own public and media-facing website,
www.thefactsabout.co.uk, has lots of content written
in plain language that is relevant to the body confidence
debate. As part of the updated look and style of the
website, the opportunity was taken to create three new
sections on Beauty Matters, Safety Matters and Sustainability
Matters. Additional content relevant to the current debates
on body confidence has been taken from the CTPA’s
educational programme Catie www.catie.org.uk and
included in Beauty Matters, which deals with perception
of beauty and the positive impact of appearance on
self-esteem and self-worth.
CTPA remains actively involved in cosmetics industry working
groups looking at new regulations being developed for
cosmetic products in India, Israel and Korea. The aim is to
ensure that new legislation complements the new European
Cosmetics Regulation as far as practicable. The European
Union Chamber of Commerce (EUCCK) organised a seminar
on 30 November in Seoul on the impact on the cosmetics
industry of the new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between
EU and Korea. Most EU cosmetics exported to Korea
currently face a duty of 8% (the EU has 0% duty on
cosmetic imports). The FTA should entirely eliminate these
duties over a maximum time of 5 years. During the Seminar,
presentations were made by various stakeholders including
the EU delegation, the French cosmetics association (FEBEA),
the Korean Food & Drug Administration (KFDA), the EUCCK
and Korean cosmetic companies. Olivia Santoni from CTPA
presented the UK cosmetics market and explained how
the Cosmetics Directive is implemented here. It was a very
successful event, well attended by Korean companies and
European stakeholders.
A totally new section on Sustainability Matters has been
written for two reasons: CTPA member companies have
active programmes on sustainability and government,
investors and the general public want to know that our
industry takes sustainability seriously; and secondly,
many journalists writing about the beauty industry had
intimated that they do not understand what sustainability
means and they needed a ready-reference to explain the
issues in a straightforward way.
The traffic to the CTPA's consumer website continues
to grow strongly, underlining the success of this part
of our communications strategy.
Regulatory Issues
In spite of all the good intentions about ‘better regulation’
from the UK Government and the European Commission,
the cosmetics industry continues to be affected by a host of
regulatory initiatives or extensions to existing regulation.
Olivia Santoni, CTPA,
speaking in Seoul
International Information Day
On Tuesday 6 December CTPA held an International
Information Day attended by 83 delegates including
members, guests and speakers. Attendees had the
opportunity of hearing about the different legislative
requirements in a number of regions including the US
and Canada, Asia, the Middle East and South America
from speakers with expert knowledge and experience
of those areas.
Read more about the event in CTPA Events (Section 5).
7.
2011sawachangeforourInformation
Officers.Inrecognitionofthewaysthat
ourInformationOfficershaveadvanced
theirrolesandmanageissuesso
effectively,aswellasdevelopingand
runningthehugelysuccessfullyCosmetics
Basicsseminars,itwasappropriatetohave
acollectivechangeinjobtitlestobetter
reflecttheirresponsibilities.
ThereforeAmandaIsom,LindsayHolden
andOliviaSantoniarenowour
TechnicalAffairsManager,Scientific
AffairsManagerandRegulatoryAffairs
Managerrespectively.
8.
04. Review of the Year
Ingredient Defence
Without ingredients there would be no cosmetic
products. As an industry we are able to respond to
the growing needs of consumers for more innovative
and high performance products due, in the main,
to a wide potential palette of available cosmetic
ingredients. However, this pool of ingredients is
constantly being challenged. We also need to
recognise that ingredients are generally defended by
the efforts of the largest companies in our industry
because of the cost, time, effort and technical
expertise required. Owing to competition law,
national trade associations can only be involved if the
ingredients in question are used widely by Members.
Small companies may not be able to afford to defend
ingredients they might be using if they become subject
to official review and often the ingredients that give
them a point of difference can be lost, not because
they are unsafe but because they are not defended.
So it is more important than ever that specific
ingredients are only put up for official review if there
are solid scientific concerns about their safety.
A number of ingredients received attention in
2011, some of which have been under the
spotlight for many years.
9.
Parabens
Ingredients activity in France
2011 was an important year for the parabens, a family of
preservatives that most in our industry believe to be safe and
effective. The publication of the draft SCCS opinion in
December 2010 has been followed by a year of discussion
over how this opinion will be implemented into cosmetics
legislation. Not only were a number of regulatory proposals
discussed at the European Commission’s Working Group on
Cosmetics meetings over the course of the year, the SCCS
was also mandated to provide clarification regarding the use
of parabens in products for children. This was, in part, to
address actions by the Danish Authorities to ban propyl
and butyl parabens in cosmetic products for children under
three. Discussions will continue into 2012 although, based on
the positive SCCS opinions that support the safety of these
ingredients, we hope that a satisfactory resolution will be
arrived at soon.
The French Agency, Afssaps, has been very active in 2011
performing its own risk assessments for a number of
cosmetic ingredients. As an outcome of this activity,
we have seen reports released on benzophenone-3,
aluminium and nano-form titanium dioxide and zinc oxide,
as well as a decision to ban 3-benzylidene camphor in
cosmetic products in France. We know that many other
ingredients are also receiving attention.
We understand that it is the intention of the French
Agency to share its reports or assessments with the
European Commission. It remains to be seen how
these reports will be received and if any will prompt
an SCCS evaluation. Industry continues to monitor the
situation and act where appropriate.
Nanomaterials
D4/D5
The two cyclic siloxanes, D4 and D5, have received much
attention in 2011, both from a human health and environmental
perspective. For human health, since the publication of the SCCS
opinion in July 2010 concluding the safety of D4 and D5 under
current practices of use, discussions have been focussed on the
regulation of these materials under cosmetics legislation.
During the EC Working Group meeting in November, in light
of concerns from industry, it was agreed that industry would
provide updated usage information for D4. A further industry
dossier would also be prepared for the SCCS evaluation of D5
in its own right.
Both D4 and D5 are also receiving attention under REACH,
the culmination of a seven-year-long review of these ingredients
in the UK. It is up to the UK Competent Authority to propose
environmental risk management measures for each of these
substances. CTPA has been involved in representing the
European industry position to the various UK Government
Departments involved in the process (HSE, Defra, BIS). News of
the nature of the UK proposal is expected in mid 2012.
Following a prolonged period of consultation and discussion,
October 2011 saw the adoption of the European Commission’s
Recommendation on the Definition of Nanomaterials.
The Recommendation provides a broad regulatory definition
that affects all industry sectors within the EU. However, its
recitals do allow for the narrowing of the scope under specific
sector legislation. It is the industry position that both the
Recommendation and the definition in the Cosmetics Regulation
can co-exist. The Commission has also indicated that the criteria
in the Regulation definition are useful in narrowing its scope to
those materials that may be of concern. However, the possibility
is foreseen that criteria based on a size or a weight distribution
cut-off could eventually be introduced into the definition in the
Cosmetics Regulation.
The Commission has so far provided no interpretation of
the Cosmetics Regulation definition criteria. Mindful of
the 2013 deadlines for compliance with the Cosmetics
Regulation’s requirements for nanomaterials (labelling and
notification), our European association, Cosmetics Europe,
has released the industry interpretation of the definition to
its Members as guidance. Companies are now committing
resources to meet the requirements of the regulation but
based on our own industry’s interpretation of the official
definition of a nanomaterial.
Tooth whitening
After more than 10 years of discussion, the European Council
adopted a directive in September 2011 that allowed tooth
whitening products with higher levels of hydrogen peroxide.
Although this type of product has been available overseas for
many years, and there have been a number of safety reviews,
the Member States of the EU could never agree on the controls
necessary to introduce these products to the EU market.
Consequently, the normal legal process of European Commission
and working groups, made up of officials from all EU countries,
agreeing a regulatory proposal has been overridden in this case.
Although this mechanism is rarely used, perhaps even more
unusual is that, for the first time, the way a cosmetic product
is sold has been regulated; these tooth-whitening toothpastes
can only be made available to consumers after a consultation
with a dentist.
10.
04. Review of the Year
Chemicals Regulations
Cosmetics Regulation
There are many regulations that affect the manufacture and use
of chemicals, including cosmetic ingredients. Implementation of
the REACH regulation will continue for several more years.
Large tonnage chemicals had to be registered by 1 December
2010 if they were to remain on the market; medium volume
chemicals must be registered by mid-2013. As users of
chemicals, we are primarily concerned with the loss of
ingredients if manufacturers fail to register in time and how
to deal with the mass of new information on how to manage
and use ingredients following successful registration. Importers
of finished cosmetic products also have registration obligations
for ingredients used in those products.
The implementation of the new EU Cosmetics Regulation is
obviously of prime importance to our sector. Although the main
premise to only place safe cosmetic products on the market
remains, there are many changes that will impact companies
and providing clear interpretation to members to ensure
compliance with the July 2013 implementation date has been
key to CTPA. As well as developing common interpretation for
its members Cosmetics Europe is working with the European
Commission to develop guidance to complement the new
regulation in 4 major areas: notification, claims, the new
Annex I and the reporting of Serious Undesirable Effects (SUEs).
CTPA staff have been actively involved with the working
groups at our European association. CTPA is represented on
the committees discussing notification, claims, safety
assessment, nanomaterials, Product Information File and the
reporting of SUEs. This means CTPA has been able to feed
industry views directly into the discussions and conversely the
opinions of Member States and the Commission can be reported
back to members. CTPA was also able to seek the advice of its
relevant committees on critical questions – which has been
invaluable in the whole process of developing clear, meaningful
and workable guidelines on this major change in legislation.
CTPA was also drawn into the development of the new
EU regulation on biocides. Under the existing Biocidal
Products Directive, cosmetic products are completely excluded
fromits scope. Many cosmetic ingredients, such as preservatives
or surfactants, do affect bacteria, moulds and fungi but their
safety is fully assessed under the cosmetics legislation.
Because of the intention of the new Biocidal Products
Regulation to cover anything with a biocidal effect, we found
our cosmetic products could be subject to both sets of
regulations. However, the UK’s Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS, responsible for cosmetics regulation)
and the Health & Safety Executive (HSE, competent authority
for biocides) were very supportive and helpful in negotiating
a satisfactory outcome, with Cosmetics Europe also making the
case to the relevant European Commission directorates.
A review of the scope of the directive controlling the emissions
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from products also looked
at cosmetic products with the intention of reducing the use of
solvents. Ethanol is the second most common solvent used in
cosmetic products after water, for example. After our industry
contributed information on costs that would be incurred and
the financial impacts for reformulation and loss of specific
product types, the European Commission eventually decided
that the relatively small reduction in VOCs would come at too
high a cost, especially when it is already successfully meeting
its overall targets for VOC reductions.
Guidance issued so far includes:
• Roles and Responsibilities (of manufacturers,
responsible persons, distributors)
• Cosmetic Product Labelling
• Product Information File
• Notification System for all products placed on
the EU market
The documents are available to members in the
members' intranet.
Work continues on product claims, the new Cosmetic Products
Safety Report, the reporting of SUEs and the new requirements
for nanomaterials, including how to define nanomaterials used
in cosmetic products.
CTPA will be running its final seminar about the new regulation
in the first quarter of 2012. It will also be important to roll this
guidance out to the competent authorities responsible for
enforcing the new Regulation.
11.
Photograph courtesy of
Paul Cox/Harper Collins
News from Europe
Dear Colleagues,
It is with great pleasure that I meet CTPA’s request to share some
‘Brussels perspectives’ observations for the CTPA Annual Report.
Our industry is faced with ever increasing challenges every day,
requiring a pro-active strategy that focuses on our licence to
operate and on enhancing and preserving trust and confidence
from consumers and stakeholders.
The value of our industry’s contributions to society is often underestimated. The values of
well-being, self-esteem and self-confidence, the sheer joy and fulfilment that beauty gives,
are important assets in every citizen’s life.
Although the ‘European consumer’ does not exist, there is a general recognition across
Europe that we have to do more to explain these values, to talk about our contributions.
The personal care industry must demonstrate that it cares, and it has to strengthen its
outreach to all stakeholders: consumers, citizens and decision-makers alike.
That is why the European cosmetics association Colipa, in its 50th year of existence,
has chosen to rejuvenate and clarify its identity. Our name has become unambiguous:
Cosmetics Europe – the Personal Care Association.
We have widened the ‘traditional agenda’ to new horizons, we strengthen our
communication and public affairs, we deepen our involvement in sustainable development.
In today’s world our industry’s licence to operate is not any longer exclusively defined by
technical and regulatory issues: we are expected to show that we care for society in all its
aspects. We build on our past, to serve for the future.
This drives our strategies, our operations, our collaboration with members and
stakeholders, in Europe and across the globe. And we do this – as always – in intense
collaboration with CTPA, proud to be able to work with such enthusiastic, knowledgeable
and committed colleagues!
Bertil Heerink
Director-General
12.
CTPA Events
Cosmetic Basics Workshops 2011
Owing to the success of the CTPA Cosmetic Basics Workshops in 2010, a further series of
workshops was held throughout 2011 with more than 70 delegates attending the 5 sessions.
Attendees were provided with a basic
understanding of the Cosmetics Directive’s
requirements and benefited from the latest
CTPA advice and recommended best
practice through a Q&A session with the
three CTPA Affairs Managers (Regulatory,
Scientific, Technical).
Mainly dedicated to SMEs, new members
and regulatory staff or personnel new to
the cosmetics industry, the sessions were
attended by a good mix of companies
such as manufacturers, brand owners,
contract manufacturers and retailers.
“Excellent update on cosmetic legislation –
very professional slides and presentations.
A very worthwhile course”
These events are also seen as an
opportunity for attendees to have
direct contact with CTPA, to meet
their counterparts and exchange
views on regulatory issues.
“As a newcomer to the cosmetic industry
I found this event very informative and it
clarified many areas”
CTPA Affairs Managers
Dr Lindsay Holden
Scientific
Olivia Santoni
Regulatory
“Really excellent, very helpful, packed with useful information.
The take-away pack is really good quality. I am very glad to have
had the opportunity to come and recommend it highly”
13.
Amanda Isom
Technical
Supporting Cosmetic Science
BSc (Hons) Cosmetic Science Course
The CTPA has continued to support the
Cosmetic Science Degree Course at the
London College of Fashion, University
of the Arts London, since its inception
over 10 years ago.
Providing financial course support
for materials and external activities
as well as competitive bursaries for
the students in years 1 and 2 of the
course, the CTPA also recognises
excellence amongst the third year
students with CTPA awards for the
best project and best presentation
of their industry placement.
In 2011, three students shared these
prizes and went on to deliver their
presentations to an evening lecture
organised by the Society of
Cosmetic Scientists.
Philippa Harmann, Kristin Katakami and Susan
Shehab Eldine
The placements are seen as an
essential part of this 4-year
sandwich course, giving the
students a real understanding
of the exciting careers they can
take up on graduation.
Additionally, a 2011 graduate from
the BSc (Hons) Cosmetic Science,
Sophie Ludwig, won the third prize
at the international competition
organised by SEPAWA
(Soap, Perfume and Detergent Experts
Association based in Germany).
She won the prize with her final
project, entitled: “An ex vivo
comparative study of the tensile
strengthening efficacy of
protein-derived actives in the
management of heavily chemically
bleached hair”, in the category
'Outstanding Graduate from a
University of Applied Science'.
Sophie received a prize of 500 Euros
and travel and accommodation costs
to attend the awards ceremony
in October in Germany. As a past
recipient of a CTPA bursary on the
Cosmetic Science Course, we are
delighted Sophie was recognised in
this way.
Sophie Ludwig
A New Future – MSc Cosmetic Science
An integrated MSc Cosmetic Science course has now
been introduced replacing the BSc Cosmetic Science.
This unique applied science course focuses on the needs
of the cosmetics industry and its consumers. Situated in
the School of Management and Science it is an integrated
MSc, with a BSc exit point, and an optional placement year
in industry in the third year of the course. The post-graduate
part of the MSc also presents a unique opportunity for
students on the Society of Cosmetic Scientists (SCS) Distance
Learning Course. Those students finishing the SCS Diploma
with merit or distinction will be eligible to join the MSc
course in January of its penultimate year.
Students will study a range of sciences, both pure
and applied, formulation development and industry
operations, designed to give a broad range of career
opportunities. Students completing a placement year
between the second and third year of the course will
gain an additional qualification, the Diploma in
Professional Studies, with the opportunity to make
contacts and build relationships within the industry
before the end of their studies. Graduates from the
BSc course are already employed throughout the industry,
both in the UK and internationally, in a wide range of
roles. These include research and development, product
manufacturing, marketing, technical sales, product
testing, quality assurance, logistics, regulation and
legislation departments. Some multinational companies
also recruit directly from the course.
CTPA has provided support for the development of the
MSc from the successful BSc, in response to industry
demand for graduates with a high level of scientific and
technical knowledge coupled with business awareness.
The course offers immediate relevance to the industry,
with graduates who will already have an understanding
of the way the industry operates and the challenges it
faces. CTPA will continue to provide awards for the best
students in each year of study.
www.fashion.arts.ac.uk/courses/integrated-masters
14.
05. CTPA Events
“A well organised and executed event, a lot
of information to get in one day”
“I found the seminar excellent
it was a very informative day”
CTPA International
Information Day
The CTPA International Information Day,
held on 6 December 2011, was attended by
83 delegates including members, guests and speakers.
The event was chaired by Dr Emma Meredith, CTPA,
and attendees had the opportunity of hearing about
the different legislative requirements in a variety of
regions from speakers with expert knowledge and
experience of those areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USA / Canada
“Initiatives are being developed
by different stakeholders
which may have an impact
on the cosmetics industry”
China, Japan, ASEAN, Korea, India
USA and Canada
Israel and Dubai
South America
Australia
South Africa
UK Government Export Services
The marketing of cosmetic products beyond Europe is becoming increasingly important
for CTPA members. Knowing if these new markets require pre-registration or follow a
European Directive style of legislation is the first step in a long and often difficult path
to getting products onto the shelves in other economic areas.
15.
Dr Emma
Meredith
CTPA
Chair
Yuri Endo
Malamant
Shiseido
Japan
Ana
Ost
L’Oréal
ASEAN
Debra
Redbourn
DR Cosreg
South Africa & Dubai
Tricia Francis
UK Trade &
Investment
Export Services
Emmanuel
Capiomont
L’Oréal
ASEAN
Sue
Wemyss
Estée Lauder
Israel
Tina
Flaherty
Kimberly Clark
USA, Canada &
South America
Tiphaine
Daubert-Macia
Chanel
China
Olivia
Santoni
CTPA
Australia, India &
Korea
South America
“Mexico, Brazil,
Argentina, Colombia,
Chile and Venezuela are
considered to be the
most regulated markets
of South America”
“It was a great opportunity to share difficulties we are facing in
some countries and realise that we were not the only one struggling!”
China
“The new Chinese
regulatory regime for
cosmetics is impacting the EU
cosmetic industry and companies
are facing a lot of difficulties
to market products with
‘new ingredients’”
Dubai
“EU Compliant products
(Formula and labelling)
are generally acceptable
as long as they have been
registered with the
Dubai Municipality”
Japan
“The Japanese regulatory
system for cosmetics
and quasi drugs
is very specific”
Israel
“The Israeli Ministry of Health
is willing to adopt the
EU Cosmetics Regulation
and published a draft bill
on this issue in 2010”
ASEAN
“ASEAN adopted the Asean
Cosmetic Directive (ACD)
based on the EU Cosmetic Directive
in 2009 but harmonisation is
unfortunately going backwards
in some cases, noticeably in
Vietnam and Indonesia”
Korea
“The new Korean Cosmetic
Act will be a big challenge
for EU companies,
in particular regarding
the new GMP and
Claims requirements”
India
“A new system of
registration should
be coming into force
in April 2012”
South Africa
“Products should comply with
the CTFA South Africa Cosmetic
Compendium developed by the
Industry, Government and SABS
(South African Bureau of
Standards) which includes Codes
of Practice, Standards and
Annexes of ingredients”
Australia
83
“Members should be
aware of the difference
of process between
cosmetics and
therapeutic goods
regulation”
delegates
including members,
guests and speakers.
The CTPA would like to thank all of the speakers
for their first class contributions.
16.
CTPA Working with the Media,
Educators and Consumers
In 2003 the CTPA set out a mission statement for the future:
“To be the authoritative, public voice of a vibrant and
responsible industry”.
With the support of its members, the CTPA has cemented
its role as the industry’s authoritative, public voice and its
commentary is widely regarded as credible by government,
stakeholders and the media alike.
There was therefore an appetite to agree a new ambition for
the next five years and to set out, as far as possible, the key
themes that should underpin it. The agreed ambition is to
secure the trust of stakeholders, partners and the public in
the Association and, by proxy, in the industry as a whole.
In short:
“To be the authoritative, public voice of
a vibrant and responsible UK industry
trusted to act responsibly in meeting
consumers’ needs”.
Communicating the safety and efficacy of the industry’s diverse,
and growing, range of products remains the foundation stone
of the CTPA’s communications. However, in working towards
building greater trust, the 2011 programme included many
initiatives around the positive contribution made by the industry
to innovation, self-esteem and sustainability.
Working with stakeholders
The CTPA has continued to strengthen its understanding of the
communications environment in which it operates by carrying
out a comprehensive audit of key stakeholders and the online
landscape. The ambition is to better understand the key issues
and strengthen relationships to ensure resource remains highly
targeted and to lend added credibility to both rebuttal and
pro-active communications.
“The fact that the CTPA liaises so closely
with Government on safety issues also
helps to bolster its credibility”
Sheila Kelly, Chief Executive.
Working with the Media
CTPA held a media panel early in 2011 when twelve
key health and beauty journalists debated the interesting
topic, Does Beauty Matter? The discussions were used to
better understand the media’s and consumers’ perceptions
of the broader body confidence debate and the cosmetic
industry’s role within it.
Lucy Beresford, a writer, psychotherapist (UKCP registered),
and media commentator who writes about human
psychology and mental health and Dr Alex Clarke, the head
of the psychology department within the Royal Free
Hospital Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
provided an interesting and credible catalyst to debate.
Zoe Williams, the third speaker, provided a moving personal
perspective on the importance of body confidence on
self-esteem, having experienced the benefits of the Look
Good, Feel Better programme while undergoing cancer
treatment several years previously. And the insights from
the event have now informed the tone and content of the
CTPA’s communications approach going forward. A CTPA
factsheet was developed following the panel and Psychologies
magazine also developed a three-page article on the topic.
The CTPA continues to monitor for key issues in the
media that could undermine trust in the industry and its
products. The CTPA provides background and quotes for
media reports and articles and can also consider providing
spokespeople. On average, the CTPA posted one reactive or
pro-active statement on its consumer website each month
during the past year often with wider associated activity with
social or traditional media. These statements have rebutted
common media-myth stories such as the claim that the use
of certain cosmetics and, in particular, shampoos could be
contributing to obesity. They’ve also acted as pro-active
reminders for media and consumers to take various actions
such as remembering to spring clean cosmetic bags.
“The CTPA and brands
alike must try to help
hairdressers better
understand cosmetic
and toiletry products”
Eileen Lawson, Secretary General
17.
Information for Consumers
The CTPA’s much referenced consumer website,
www.thefactsabout.co.uk, seeks to provide factual
information in a very relevant and easily understood
manner. As part of the brand refresh strategy
undertaken in 2011, the site received a facelift to
provide better navigation to key topics.
Sustainability Matters: with sustainability an increasing
focus for companies and brands, the CTPA added a new
section to its consumer website ‘Sustainability Matters’ to
show the industry’s understanding of this complex and
diverse issue and demonstrate its positive progress towards
a sustainable future.
The success of the 2011 activity is most clearly
demonstrated by the significant rise in traffic (25%)
to the site; 51,000 visits compared with 41,000 in 2010.
By analysing Google Analytics on a regular basis and
refreshing content where necessary, the CTPA has
also ensured that the site has continued to increase
the number of people who return; just under 14,000
compared with 11,000 the previous year. Indeed, the
majority of visits to the site (64%) are driven by
search engines, demonstrating the success of the site.
www.thefactsabout.co.uk
Beauty Matters: this section now houses new video
material featuring renowned make-up artist
Caroline Barnes which originated from work with
InStyle.co.uk around the positive impact that taking
care of our appearance can have on an individual’s
self-esteem, and to society at large. Also included
on the site are a series of video testimonials by
Dr Alex Clarke, expert speaker at the Beauty Matters
media panel. In them, Alex answers a series of
questions around the positive role of the industry on
self-esteem, reiterating many of the points made at
the original media panel.
Safety Matters: working with numerous stakeholders
on key issues has become an important strand of the
CTPA’s communication programme and during the year
we liaised with Trading Standards and the Consumer
Safety Department of the Business, Innovation & Skills
Department (BIS) on ‘Brazilian’ hair straighteners and
produced a safety factsheet to alert the general public
to the dangers of illegal products. Hair colorants and
allergy remained key topics throughout the year.
Much work has been done with the professional
organisations for hairdressers and allergy and the
media to raise understanding around the issue of
allergies generally and the importance of following
the manufacturers’ instructions on hair colorants closely.
Educational Initiatives
Media Smart: CTPA provided industry’s expert input
and seed-funding to a new Body Image module
for 10-11 year olds produced by Media Smart.
Media Smart aims to encourage an informed
approach to understanding advertising images
from a young age. The module was launched in
conjunction with the Home Office as part of its
Campaign on Body Confidence in the autumn
of 2011.
www.mediasmart.org.uk
18.
Science, Innovation and
the Cosmetics Industry
Innovation – a much-used word that actually covers a
very wide range of novel ideas. These can range from the
steady but important product development process by
which leading-edge developments trickle down to
mainstream products, up to the real breakthrough ideas
which are the source of the constant improvement of all
products available to the consumer. While much research
is carried out within company facilities, other companies
are linked to academic organisations; there is no single
model that fits all. Similarly, the direction of that research
varies. Some companies seek novel ingredients and
investigate their properties with a view to improving
product characteristics or to provide new functional
benefits: other research may be aimed more at a better
understanding of the structure and function of those
areas of the body with which the cosmetics industry
concerns itself. In any event, the outcome is new
knowledge, new insights and ultimately better products
for the consumer.
In many cases, we now find that it is the attainment of
new biological knowledge that drives the development
of new products that can capitalise on that knowledge,
as opposed to new products arising simply from a need
for something new. More and more, cosmetic products
are being developed at the cutting edge of biological
understanding of the structure and function of the skin,
hair, nails, etc.
As we come to know how skin ages, what the signs
are of aged skin and what causes those ageing effects,
so we can search for products and systems to help
prevent them appearing and we are able to measure
and thus demonstrate those benefits. This is very different
from the somewhat serendipitous approach once adopted
of trying ingredients seemingly at random in the hope of
finding some beneficial attribute that can be utilised in a
cosmetic. Although that approach has also resulted in
many efficacious products.
19.
In this respect, the more targeted
approach being adopted by some is
analogous to the targeted approach
of pharmaceutical companies.
In this respect, the more targeted approach being adopted
by some is analogous to the targeted approach of
pharmaceutical companies. And therein lies a potential
problem. Although cosmetic products are regulated strictly
to ensure quality, efficacy and, above all, safety, people
will draw parallels to medicines legislation and ask why
cosmetics may be marketed without prior approval.
We have seen this already with the introduction of
pre-notification for products containing nanomaterials
through the new EC Cosmetics Regulation. At the same
time, such product development routes mean that cosmetics
are becoming more effective in the way they can restore and
maintain good condition.
If the cosmetics industry is to maintain the business model
of self-assessment married to in-market control rather than
move to one of prior notification and perhaps even an
approval process, it is essential that the rules governing
the distinction between cosmetics and medicines are known
and respected rather than eroded.
Courtesy of Elizabeth Arden New York, image for
PREVAGE® Face Advanced Anti-aging Serum
20.
07. Science, Innovation and the Cosmetics Industry
What is a Cosmetic?
Cosmetics today are more than just decorative products. Indeed, they have long been more than
just decorative products: in 1541 BC Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt was buried with a skin balm,
clearly showing that she used some cosmetics for their skin protective and restorative properties
as well as others for their decorative effect. Today, cosmetics are much more tightly regulated than
they were three-and-a-half thousand years ago and there is a legal definition of what is a cosmetic
product. So, today, we know that in Europe cosmetics may protect, keep in good condition and
restore as well as decorate. Thus, the definition today includes fragrances and personal care
products, or toiletries, within the legal classification of cosmetics.
When is a Cosmetic not a Cosmetic?
Medicinal products may also be applied to the skin with a view to protecting, restoring or keeping
in good condition, raising the possibility of a product falling under both definitions. An example
might be a cream or lotion to be applied to irritated or inflamed skin. However the legislation
covering each category makes clear that a product may be either a medicine or a cosmetic but
may not be both at the same time. Thus, it is necessary to make a choice when faced with such
a borderline situation. In practice, this initially seems relatively straightforward since medicines take
precedence. In other words, if a product falls within the definition of a medicine, it is a medicine
and not a cosmetic, even if it also complies with the definition of a cosmetic. A consequence of
this is that products often described in marketing or media terms as ‘cosmeceuticals’ are legally
cosmetics and must comply with the requirements of the EC Cosmetics Regulation, unless they are
actually medicines; there is no middle legal category.
However, although the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issues
guidance in this area, there are times when it is not so easy to determine on which side of the
borderline a particular product falls. A product may be a medicine by function or by presentation,
which means the product is a medicine either because it works (functions) as a medicine or
because it is presented as a medicine.
The latter situation is relatively straightforward. For example, if you make medicinal claims for
the product (claims to diagnose, prevent or treat disease or the product is presented as doing
any of these things) or if the presentation of the product as a whole gives the impression that
the product is a medicine, it will be judged as being one and treated accordingly. It will for
example, require marketing authorisation from the MHRA.
21.
Photograph courtesy of John Frieda® - Kao Corporation
Cosmetic products contribute to our well-being and
self-esteem and without them we would all suffer from
lack of confidence in social situations, in business and
in our health generally.
It is the area of ‘medicine by function’ that has been causing
some confusion recently. A product is a medicine if it functions
as a medicine, even if no specific claims are made. It has been
said repeatedly and erroneously that cosmetic products must not
have a physiological effect otherwise they would be medicines.
This is quite wrong. Cosmetic products can and do have
physiological effects, but could still be classed as medicines if
those effects are brought about by specific mechanisms, which
are described later.
What is Physiology?
Physiology is the study of nature (from the Greek φύσις - physis
and λογία - logia) or, more specifically, the science of how the
normal body functions. It studies, for example, why our normal
body temperature is 37°C whether we are in the arctic or the
tropics and how we maintain that temperature by creating heat
through shivering or cooling ourselves through sweating.
Consider then a typical antiperspirant: by stopping sweating,
it has a significant effect on physiology, yet no one seriously
proposes that antiperspirants should be anything other than
cosmetic (toiletry) products.
Of course, many medicines also have physiological effects:
we have medicines to reduce blood pressure, to reduce stomach
acid, to supress coughing, to induce sleep, to deaden pain, etc.
Indeed, virtually all pharmacologically active medicines, i.e. drugs,
act on the physiology of the body to some extent. To establish
whether the physiological effect of a product is cosmetic or
medicinal requires knowledge of how that effect is brought
about; what is the mechanism of action? If the mechanism is
pharmacological, immunological or metabolic, and is significant,
the product is usually deemed a medicine.
These terms require further explanation.
Pharmacological activity
Pharmacological activity is, essentially, a drug action. An active
agent or drug is bringing about a change in the body’s activity.
The effect requires the presence of the drug and the effect
normally ceases when the drug is no longer present, although
not exclusively so as some drugs may have long-lasting effects.
But one might ask whether this is not also true of our
antiperspirant since it only works when present on the skin.
Immunological activity
Immunological activity is unlikely to concern cosmetics and the
discussion over borderline products since cosmetic products do
not act by altering or engaging with the immune system.
However, some ingredients used in cosmetics may have soothing
effects on the skin and any inflammatory reaction inevitably
involves the immune system so a link might be drawn.
Metabolic action
Metabolic action is, at first sight, also unlikely to involve cosmetic
products since this mechanism is concerned with the internal
functioning of individual cells and cosmetics do not set out to
change that. Or do they?
One of the most basic cosmetic products is the moisturiser.
Whether a cream or lotion, at its simplest, it is a mixture of
humectants to hold water, emollients to soften and lubricate
the skin and water itself, made into an emulsion. When used
on dry skin, the benefit is immediate and visible but with
repeated use, there is a general improvement in the condition
of the skin. Research has led to understanding how this benefit
has been achieved and has shown that there is indeed a change
in the metabolism of the skin cells as they mature and age,
leading to the increased production of natural moisturising
factor, increased water retention in the skin and reduction in
the dry, flaky, scaly look of dry skin. This comes about through
changes in the metabolism of the skin cells where different
genes are expressed and different enzymes produced. But again,
no one would expect a moisturiser to be classed as a medicine.
What does this mean for our ability to reliably differentiate
between a cosmetic and a medicine? Whilst we have seen
that cosmetics can and do have physiological effects that are
significant, and indeed must be significant to be efficacious,
we had thought that the mechanisms by which medicines act,
namely pharmacological, immunological and metabolic,
were not likely to be directly invoked by cosmetics and certainly
not to a significant degree.
However, the picture is perhaps not so clear and research has
established that even the most basic cosmetic products might
well lead to metabolic changes, might be deemed to act through
pharmacological mechanisms and, who knows, might even have
an impact upon our immune systems. Although the advice given
by MHRA recognises this possibility and states that minimal
pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effects would not
automatically lead to a product being classed as a medicine, as
we enter into exciting new areas of research in skin science,
future cosmetic products may well come under closer scrutiny as
borderline products. If we are to ensure that common sense
prevails and that safe, effective and high quality cosmetics can
bring innovations to market in a rapid and cost-effective fashion,
we ought to remind ourselves that, in essence, medicines take
the diseased and return them to normal whereas cosmetics take
the normal and make further improvements.
Cosmetic products contribute to our well-being and self-esteem.
Without them we could well suffer from lack of confidence in social
situations, in business, and in our health generally. But innovation
is about the unknown and the exciting new developments still to
be discovered. If those benefits are to be brought to the public,
the level of regulation must be appropriate.
22.
Cosmetic Industry in Figures
The UK cosmetic industry maintains its growth pattern
The UK cosmetic industry continues to grow total value sales
year-on-year, growing +4.1% vs 2010.
In the special collaborative report for CTPA on the GB market
from Kantar Worldpanel and SymphonyIRI Group, Steve Jones
comments :
“Colour cosmetics and fragrances were again the fastest
growing sectors, growing +8.4% and +4.5% respectively.
However, this value growth is mostly driven by average price
increases: total unit sales in the cosmetic market grew by only
+0.1% vs 2010, held back by skincare (-3.3%) and haircare
(-0.4%). This picture hints that in some sectors consumers
may well be cutting back on their purchases as economic
uncertainty, rising unemployment and below-inflation salary
increases continue to bite.
There are other more tangible factors at work here too:
within skincare, handcare (unit sales -14.7%) lip salves
(unit sales -13.1%) were the biggest drivers of unit sales decline,
and we know that the unseasonably warm Oct-Dec period will
have impacted these traditional ‘cold weather’ categories. By the
same token, another disappointing summer in the UK (as well
as people potentially cutting back on holidays abroad) may well
have driven the -4.9% decline in sun preparations unit sales.
The star-performer categories again show us that in times
of recession consumers often look to treat themselves:
mass fragrance (value sales +13.5%), nail cosmetics
(value sales +23.8%) and hair colorants (value sales +12.9%).
The growth in hair colorants in particular could be linked
back to the economic climate – as consumers look to curb
their discretionary spend they are bringing ‘in house’ treats
that they might previously have gone to a salon for,
such as changing hair colour.
The trends in personal care mirror what we are seeing across
FMCG – growth in volume, units is slowing or declining across
a number of macro categories, thanks to economic hardship
and increasing average prices. However, value sales continue
to increase as the volume declines are not enough to counter
the impact of rising prices. To try and incentivise consumer
purchase during this unprecedented economic environment,
levels of promotion are increasing consistently across almost
all FMCG categories, and cosmetics categories are amongst
the most heavily promoted. For example, deodorants,
shampoos and conditioners all see more than 70% of volume
sold with a trade promotion, compared to a total FMCG
average of just over 50%. Average price discounts are also
significantly higher in beauty / cosmetics / personal care than
the total FMCG averages.”
CTPA category estimates December 2011
Fragrance*
Female Fine Fragrance
Male Fine Fragrance
Female Mass Fragrance
Male Mass Fragrance
Unisex Fine Fragrance
Unisex Mass Fragrance
£000s
Dec 10
£000s
Dec 11
% Change
1,277,664
1,334,979
4.5
707,408
397,976
85,781
57,452
26,367
2,680
736,651
407,838
96,400
66,154
25,067
2,869
4.1
2.5
12.4
15.1
-4.9
7.1
1,218,333
1,320,690
8.4
464,837
368,061
196,985
169,220
19,230
507,751
381,070
208,232
209,497
14,140
9.2
3.5
5.7
23.8
-26.5
* includes gift packs/coffrets
Colour Cosmetics
Face
Lips
Eyes
Nails
Gift Packs
23.
Skincare
Prestige Skincare Total inc Gift Packs
Face Care Non Medicated
Face Care Medicated
Face Care Male
Hand Care
Body Creams & Lotions
Baby Care Products
Lipsalves
Sun Preps
Haircare
Conditioners
Hair Colourants Incld Lightening
Home Perms
Shampoo
Hair Sprays & Setting Sprays
Hair Creams/Waxes and Gels
Settings Lotions and Mouses
Salons
Toiletries
Toothpaste
Depilatories
Foot Preparations
Deodorants
Shaving Soaps
Mouthwashes
Talcum Powder
Bath Additives
Shower and Body Wash
Liquid Soap
Toilet Soap
Grand Total
£000s
Dec 10
£000s
Dec 11
% Change
2,005,416
2,043,419
1.9
428,048
901,835
78,450
71,172
47,215
170,403
19,496
47,936
240,860
463,554
932,391
74,395
70,754
42,751
167,027
18,993
44,130
229,424
8.3
3.4
-5.2
-0.6
-9.5
-2.0
-2.6
-7.9
-4.7
1,587,730
1,652,772
4.1
257,873
259,816
1,991
383,378
157,904
92,944
29,210
404,614
263,142
293,284
1,787
404,541
169,770
87,205
28,429
404,614
2.0
12.9
-10.2
5.5
7.5
-6.2
-2.7
0
1,938,929
2,003,982
3.4
399,758
50,997
22,427
564,352
81,435
156,550
17,951
117,482
307,610
131,515
88,852
420,896
51,882
21,173
596,250
81,969
152,133
17,508
114,784
315,375
144,208
87,804
5.3
1.7
-5.6
5.7
0.7
-2.8
-2.5
-2.3
2.5
9.7
-1.2
8,028,072
8,355,842
4.1
The GB cosmetics market saw a
4.1% increase in
value at retail sales price taking the total market to
£8,356m in 2011.
24.
08. Cosmetic Industry in Figures
GB Market Statistics Overview
Fragrances
Colour Cosmetics
Skincare
Haircare
Toiletries
Total
£000s
Dec 10
£000s
Dec 11
£Share
Dec 10
£Share
Dec 11
% Change
Dec 11
Contribution to
Growth Dec 11
1,277,664
1,218,333
2,005,416
1,587,730
1,938,929
1,334,979
1,320,690
2,043,419
1,652,772
2,003,982
15.9
15.2
25.0
19.8
24.2
16.0
15.8
24.5
19.8
24.0
4.5
8.4
1.9
4.1
3.4
17.5
31.2
11.6
19.8
19.8
8,028,072
8,355,842
100.0
100.0
4.1
100.0
Sector Share (%) of Category Dec 11 vs Dec 10 by Value (rsp)
Sector Share (%) of Category Dec 11 vs Dec 10 by Units
Sector Share (%) Dec 11 £8,355,842
Sector Share (%) Dec 11 - 2,626,713 units
Fragrances
16.0
Fragrances
2.4
Colour Cosmetics
8.3
Colour
Cosmetics
15.8
Haircare
19.8
Skincare
24.5
Toiletries
51.8
Skincare
17.5
Toiletries
24.0
Haircare
20.0
Sector Share (%) Dec 10 - 2,623,930 units
Sector Share (%) Dec 10 £8,028,072
Fragrances
15.9
25.
Colour Cosmetics
15.2
Skincare
25.0
Haircare
19.8
Toiletries
24.2
Fragrances
2.3
Colour Cosmetics
7.9
Skincare
18.1
Haircare
20.1
Toiletries
51.6
8.4%
4.5%
4.1%
3.4%
Appendix: Methodology & Data Sources
SymphonyIRI Group market tracking data:
Census EPoS data from Asda, Boots, Iceland,
Morrisons, Sainsburys, Superdrug, Tesco,
Waitrose, Wilkinson, The Cooperative Group
(including Somerfield).
1.9%
Sample EPoS data from Symbol Grocers, other
Coops, independents and chemists.
Toiletries
Haircare
Skincare
Colour Cosmetics
Fragrances
Sector Year on Year % Change by Value
Sector Year on Year % Change by Units
5.2% 5.1%
Other data representation (audit and estimation
methodology) from convenience stores, petrol
forecourts, drugstores and other impulse outlets.
Kantar Worldpanel Purchasing data (Worldpanel)
Individual purchasing data from a panel of 25,000
households which for this report will cover other
GB outlets not mentioned above plus Aldi, Costco,
Holland & Barrett, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Wilkinsons,
Savers, Netto, Bodyshop and other smaller outlets.
Kantar Beauty Panel
A panel of 15,000 individuals who record their
purchasing of fine fragrances, colour cosmetics
and skincare products across all relevant outlets
(including department stores, Bodyshop, Internet,
mail order and direct sales) via online data entry.
Report Definitions
Measures:
Value Sales = £ sold (in 000s)
% Chg = % change versus same time a year ago
Haircare
-0.4%
Toiletries
Skincare
Colour Cosmetics
Fragrances
-3.3%
0.5%
Contact Details
SymphonyIRI Group:
Steve Jones
SymphonyIRI Group
Tel: +44(0) 1344 746033
E-mail: Steven.Jones@SymphonyIRI.com
www.SymphonyIRI.co.uk
Kantar Worldpanel:
Tim Nancholas
Kantar Worldpanel
Tel: +44(0) 20 8967 4442
E-mail: Tim.Nancholas@kantarworldpanel.com
www.kantarworldpanel.com
26.
08. Cosmetic Industry in Figures
Cosmetics/ Toilet and Liquid Soap 201
(£ Sterling in millions - trade data)
Categories by import 2011 (2010) & largest market
Perfumes
Beauty (skincare/decorative)
Haircare
Oralcare
Men’s shaving
Deodorants & Antiperspirants
Bath preparations
Depilatories & other toiletries
Toilet soap
Liquid hand soap
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2011
2010
588.4
1240.4
413.5
164.3
45.6
134.6
66.7
49.2
66.3
118.2
565.3
1222.0
376.1
133.1
52.6
115.5
55.4
42.4
61.2
109.1
Key trading partner
(% share of category)
France
France
France
Germany
France
Germany
Italy
France
Germany
Germany
235.7m
268.8m
110.6m
23.9m
15.3m
44.4m
25.4m
9.2m
13.9m
46.6m
40%
22%
27%
15%
34%
33%
38%
19%
21%
39%
1200
2011 UK imports worldwide
UK’s largest worldwide import markets
£2887.1m / % share worldwide market
France
2011
£678.4m
(2010)
(£653.3m)
Germany
£450.1m
(£429.9m)
USA
£386.8m
(£392.3m)
Poland
£190.4m
(£170.9m)
Italy
£182.0m
(£174.8m)
China
£155.1m
(£138.3m)
Irish Republic
£122.2m
(£104.4m)
Spain
£119.2m
(£116.5m)
Belgium
£106.4m
(£94.1m)
£87.8m
(£83.3m)
Western Europe
£95.9m / 3.3%
Eastern Europe
£10.6m / 0.4%
EU 27
£2024.8 m / 70.1%
North America
£416.4m / 14.4%
Other America
£6.6m / 0.2%
ME & North Africa
£22.6m / 0.8%
Asia & Oceania
£299.6m / 10.4%
Sub Saharan Africa
£10.7m / 0.4%
Key: Value year on year
Imports 2011
27.
Up
Netherlands
Down
Perfumes
Beauty
Hair
Oral
Mens
Deos
Bath
Dep
Soap
Liquid Soap
EU 27
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
North America
Other America
ME & North Africa
Sub Saharan Africa
Asia & Oceania
463.5
23.8
0.1
67.5
1.9
3.2
0.0
28.3
743.2
55.1
0.4
248.8
0.4
4.6
9.2
178.7
318.5
1.7
2.9
69.4
0.9
6.0
0.8
13.3
135.2
3.7
0.0
10.5
3.2
3.7
0.2
7.9
42.2
0.4
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.0
123.0
0.4
3.2
4.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
2.4
53.1
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.0
12.4
32.1
2.4
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.1
0.4
10.4
31.0
6.1
0.0
6.0
0.2
2.0
0.0
20.9
83.0
1.9
4.1
4.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
24.3
Total
588.4
1240.4
413.5
164.3
45.6
134.6
66.7
49.2
66.3
118.2
Trade data sourced from www.uktradeinfo.com
SITC Codes 553 (excluding air fresheners) and 554 (toilet soap and liquid soap only)
* Balance of trade - Worldwide £95.3m / Extra-EU £88.4m
Categories by export 2011 (2010) & largest market
Perfumes
Beauty (skincare/decorative)
Haircare
Oralcare
Men’s shaving
Deodorants & Antiperspirants
Bath preparations
Depilatories & other toiletries
Toilet soap
Liquid hand soap
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2011
2010
Key trading partner
(% share of category)
529.5
1113.1
299.1
268.6
134.4
295.2
56.0
85.3
74.1
127.1
498.1
997.4
271.3
227.7
128.2
219.2
44.8
78.5
74.5
88.8
Germany
Irish Republic
Irish Republic
Germany
Russia
Netherlands
Irish Republic
France
USA
Germany
216.8m
211.9m
101.1m
35.2m
13.7m
42.9m
10.6m
9.2m
16.3m
26.8m
41%
19%
34%
13%
10%
15%
19%
11%
13%
21%
1200
2011 UK exports worldwide
UK’s largest worldwide export markets
£2982.4m / % share worldwide market
Western Europe
£155.1m / 5.2%
Eastern Europe
£103.9m / 3.5%
EU 27
Irish Republic
2011
£472.5m
(2010)
(£488.9m)
Germany
£433.9m
(£353.9m)
Belgium
£259.2m
(£212.4m)
USA
£167.8m
(£163.9m)
France
£142.3m
(£113.7m)
Netherlands
£125.0m
(£112.5m)
Italy
£112.1m
(£93.7m)
Poland
£100.4m
(£99.4m)
UAE
£95.7m
(£75.2m)
Spain
£92.3m
(£82.5m)
£2031.7m / 68.1%
North America
£191.4m / 6.4%
Other America
£14.1m / 0.5%
Asia & Oceania
£247.8m / 8.3%
Sub Saharan Africa
£58.9m / 2.0%
Key: Value year on year
Exports 2011
Up
ME & North Africa
£179.5m / 6.0%
Down
Perfumes
Beauty
Hair
Oral
Mens
Deos
Bath
Dep
Soap
Liquid Soap
EU 27
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
North America
Other America
ME & North Africa
Sub Saharan Africa
Asia & Oceania
379.8
11.3
7.4
42.3
1.0
31.5
3.6
34.6
700.9
85.2
47.7
86.4
5.9
57.1
11.7
118.2
226.6
12.2
6.3
12.5
0.3
12.2
8.5
20.6
200.5
12.9
0.6
0.6
2.7
39.4
2.5
9.5
80.1
4.3
18.4
7.8
0.9
9.8
3.0
10.1
240.8
14.6
17.5
1.8
0.4
4.8
3.2
12.0
38.9
2.1
1.2
3.5
0.5
3.7
1.0
5.1
28.0
5.4
0.9
10.2
1.0
9.1
20.6
10.2
35.8
3.5
2.3
17.3
1.2
5.4
3.1
5.5
82.4
3.6
1.7
8.9
0.2
6.5
1.8
22.0
Total
529.5
1113.1
299.1
268.6
134.4
295.2
56.0
85.3
74.1
127.1
28.
CTPA
Members
Members’ support of the Association’s
work is fundamental to the success
of the CTPA’s ability to help shape
the environment in which companies
do business.
Visit www.ctpa.org.uk/members
for the most up-to-date list and links
to members’ websites.
Contract Laboratory Services
a Anaytical
b Claims Testing/Support
c Stability Testing
d Microbiological Services
e Formulation Creation
f Safety Assessment
Raw Materials
g General Ingredients
h Speciality Ingredients
i Fragrance Ingredients/Mixtures
j Colours
k Certified Organic Ingredients
l Natural (Not Organic) Ingredients
Other Services
m Contract Manufacturer/Supplier
n Packaging Supplier
o Other
29.
Full Members
Acheson & Acheson m
Albion Cosmetics (UK)
Alida Health & Beauty
Alliance Boots
• Boots Company, The
• Boots the Chemist
• Boots Healthcare International
• Boots Manufacturing m
Amway (UK)
Anglo Indian Trading
Avlon Europe
Avon Cosmetics
ET Browne (UK)
Elizabeth Arden New York (UK)
Espa International (UK)
Estée Lauder Companies
• Aromaderme UK (Darphin)
• Aveda
• Clinique Laboratories
• Estée Lauder Cosmetics
• Jo Malone
• Make-up Art Cosmetics
FDD International
Bayer
Beiersdorf UK
Broad Oak Toiletries m
Bronnley & Company, H m
Chanel
• Bourjois
Chattem (UK)
Church & Dwight
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Combe International
Cosmarida 2010
Cosmetics Laboratory
Coty UK
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
GoJo Industries
Guthy-Renker UK
Hampshire Cosmetics m
HCT Europe
Henkel
Herb UK
Herbalife (UK)
HMC m
Hoyu
Inline Health and Beauty m
International Cosmetic Suppliers m
DCS Manufacturing
DDD
• Dendron
• Fleet Laboratories m
• Trinity Scientific
Deb Group
Denman International
Jeyes
John Gosnell & Company m
Johnson & Johnson
Kanebo Cosmetics
Kao (UK)
• Goldwell
• KMS
• KPSS
Keyline Brands
• Inecto
Kimberly-Clark Europe
Laleham Healthcare m
LF Beauty (UK) m
Linco Care m
Liz Earle Beauty
L'Oréal UK
• PBL Europe
Lornamead
Luster Products
LVMH Perfumes & Cosmetics
• Guerlain
• LVMH Fragrance Brands UK
• Nude Brands UK
• Parfums Christian Dior (UK)
Maclaren Europe
Mary Kay Cosmetics
Mavala (UK)
Meller Design Solutions m
Mentholatum Company (The)
Mibelle m
Mix Labs
Montagne Jeunesse
Morgan's Pomade Company
Neal's Yard (Natural Remedies)
Nice-Pak International m
Novartis Consumer Health
Orean Personal Care
Original Additions (Beauty Products)
Pacific World
Pascalle
Periproducts
Pfizer
Pharmacare Europe
Procter & Gamble UK
PZ Cussons (UK)
• PZ Cussons Beauty
Quantum Beauty Company (The)
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK)
Retra Holdings
• Badgequo
Revlon International Corporation
Revolymer
Robert McBride m
Saaf International
Salon Success
S C Johnson UK
Shiseido UK Company
• Carita
• Decleor
Sleek Makeup
Solent International
Surefil Beauty Products m
Swallowfield m
• Aerosols International
• Cosmetics Plus
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Universal Products m
Firmenich UK i
Fragrance Oils (International) i
Givaudan UK i
Innospec h
Innovant Research f o
International Cosmetics &
Chemical Services f
Intertek Toxicology Assessment
a
b
c
d
f
o
ITS Testing Services b
f
Kingfisher Colours j
k
l
Litmus Research b
Rockwood Additives g h
Vivalis
• Constance Carroll
• Fade Out
• Jerome Russell
Schulke & Mayr UK h
SGS United Kingdom d
Skinnovation b e o
STR (UK) b c d f
Surfachem h
Yves Rocher (London)
Thor Specialities (UK) a d h
Associate Members
Univar e g h
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry h
Arch UK Biocides g h
Ashland g h
Aspen Clinical Research b o
Aston Chemicals g h j
Azelis b c e g h i j l
Vivimed Labs Europe j
f
o
j
Walt Disney Company (The) o
Wren Consulting f
Retail Associate Members
CMA (UK) f o
Connock, A & E (Perfumery & Cosmetics)
h
i
k
l
Cornelius Group g h o
CPL Aromas i
Croda International g h
Cutest Systems b
Arcadia Group
Body Shop International, The
Marks & Spencer
Next Retail
Sally Salon Services
Danisco (UK) h
Delphic HSE Solutions f
dR Cosmetic Regulations o
Dyecat e o
30.
CTPA Committees
Sub-committees, Panels
and Working Groups
The lists below reflect the current membership of CTPA Committees, Sub-committees, Panels and Working Groups.
In addition to the above groups, ad hoc task forces and panels are set up as necessary.
These currently include: Health & Safety Advisory Panel, Oral Care Combined Technical Toothwhitening Group,
Risk Management Guideline Working Group.
The CTPA Secretariat also maintains ‘contact lists’ of Members with special interests.
Commercial
Advertising Claims Group (CACG)
Andrew McCarthy (Chair)
Gill Baverstock
Avon Cosmetics
Steffi Bogart
Estée Lauder Companies
Dr Hitesh Chauhan
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Dr Raniero De Stasio
L’Oréal (UK)
Fredrik Hallin
Guthy-Renker UK
Ian Marlow
Alliance Boots
Julie McManus
L’Oréal (UK)
Richard Read
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Sandy Stevenson
Johnson & Johnson
Mark Tarantino-Hind
Revlon International
Jenny Wild
Beiersdorf UK
Dr Judy Woodford
Kao UK
Communications Advisory Group (CAG)
L’Oréal (UK)
Louise Terry (Chair)
Kathy Rogerson (Vice-chair)
Procter & Gamble UK
Caroline Almeida
Johnson & Johnson
Alison Cairns
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Kathy Davy
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Sarah Griffiths
Estée Lauder Companies
Stephen Johnson
Alliance Boots
Iona Maclean
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Jessica Rouleau
Schwarzkopf & Henkel
Packaging Committee
Steve Paul (Chair)
PZ Cussons (UK)
Jim Thomas (Vice-chair)
Deb Group
Gill Baverstock
Avon Cosmetics
Catherine Davies
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Helen Dunham
Revlon International
Pam Green
Alliance Boots
Jim Hathaway
Beiersdorf UK
Julie McManus
L’Oréal (UK)
Nashila Nourmamod
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Dr Wazir Sohal
Sally Salon Services
Tony Taylor
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Agnieskza Trzesicka Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
31.
REACH Working Group
Kalima Alibhai
Dr Dalida Chouchi
Elizabeth Colson
Duncan Halliwell
Sarah Henly
Dr Marie Kennedy
Chris Martin
Penny Schuler
Mark Tarantino-Hind
Kimberly-Clark
Alliance Boots
Robert McBride
PZ Cussons (International)
Avon Cosmetics
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
CMA (UK)
The Body Shop
Revlon International
Responsible Advertising Working Group
Dr Chris Flower (Chair)
CTPA
Gill Baverstock
Avon Cosmetics
Steffi Bogart
Estée Lauder Companies
Laura Collister
Unilever UK
Kathryn Davies
Procter & Gamble UK
Paul Gaff
Chanel
Sarah Griffiths
Estée Lauder Companies
Ian Marlow
Boots Company
Andrew McCarthy
Julie McManus
L’Oréal (UK)
Colleen O'Hare
Johnson & Johnson
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Louise Terry
L’Oréal (UK)
Dr Judy Woodford
Kao UK
Scientific
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC)
L’Oréal (UK)
Dr Raniero De Stasio (Chair)
Dr Marie Kennedy (Vice-chair)
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Sue Butler
Schwarzkopf & Henkel
Anne Connet
CPL Aromas
Alison Cowan
PZ Cussons (UK)
Polly Falconer
Kimberley-Clark
June Graham
Robert McBride
Garry Ho
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Dr John Hopkins
Innovant Research
Stephen Johnson
Alliance Boots
Dr Amanda Long
Avon Cosmetics
Dave Preston
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Beatrice Poirier
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Mark Tarantino-Hind
Revlon International
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
International Committee
Revlon International
Chris Martin (Chair)
Pamela Bloor
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Iain Brunning
Alliance Boots
Dr Dalida Chouchi
Alliance Boots
Stuart Elliott
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Polly Falconer
Kimberley-Clark
Noel Hitchcock
ICDA
Dr Marie Kennedy
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Dr Amanda Long
Avon Cosmetics
Becky Milner
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Herve Olivier
Espa International
Jane Pett
The Body Shop
Debra Redbourn
Keyline Brands
Nia Roberts
Nice-Pak International
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
GMP Sub-committee
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Dave Preston (Chair)
Elizabeth Aspinall
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Mark Crawley
Laleham Healthcare
Brendan Marken
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Stephen Rawling
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Clare Stott
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Arthur Tinnion
Procter & Gamble UK
Microbiological Sub-committee
PZ Cussons (UK)
Andy Brack (Chair)
Amanda Baila
Boots Manufacturing
Dr Alex Blanchard
Procter & Gamble UK
Clare Clark
Schulke & Mayr UK
Chris Martin
CMA (UK)
Dave Preston
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Stephen Rawling
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Dr Kenneth Seal
Thor Specialities (UK)
Hair Preparations Sub-committee
Kathy Rogerson (Chair)
Procter & Gamble UK
Iain Brunning
Alliance Boots
Sue Butler
Schwarzkopf & Henkel
Dr Raniero De Stasio
L’Oréal (UK)
Michèle Elbaz
Shiseido
Ruth Fenwick
Alliance Boots
Chris Martin
CMA (UK)
Peter Matthewson
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Julie McManus
L’Oréal (UK)
Debra Redbourn
Keyline Brands
Mark Tarantino-Hind
Revlon International
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Sun Products Sub-committee
Julie McManus (Chair)
L’Oréal (UK)
Mike Brown
Alliance Boots
Dr Hitesh Chauhan
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Dr Jack Ferguson
Skinnovation
Dr Amanda Long
Avon Cosmetics
Debra Redbourn
Keyline Brands
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Toni Roman
Johnson & Johnson
Mike Salmon
LF Beauty (UK)
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Jenny Wild
Beiersdorf UK
Hair Salon Working Group
Julie McManus (Chair)
L’Oréal (UK)
Michelle Cole
Schwarzkopf & Henkel
Dr Raniero De Stasio
L’Oréal (UK)
Michèle Elbaz
Shiseido
David Macklin
HBSA
Peter Matthewson
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Shayne Meadows
Schwarzkopf & Henkel
Debra Redbourn
Salon Success
Kathy Rogerson
Procter & Gamble UK
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Toxicology Advisory Panel (TAP)
Stephen Kirk (Chair)
Alliance Boots
Elizabeth Colson
Robert McBride
Rhian Eckley
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Dr John Hopkins
Innovant Research
Dr Catherine Mahony
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Dr Bob Priston
STR (UK)
Mary Spurgeon
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
32.
CTPA and Members’
Representatives to Cosmetics Europe
(formerly Colipa)
Board of Directors
Dr Chris Flower
CTPA
Active Association Members (AAM)
Dr Chris Flower
CTPA
Strategic Project Teams (SPT)
A maximum of 5 temporary groups, created by the Board to manage the major issues and key priorities.
Task Force linked to SPT
Alternatives to Animal Testing
Dr Joanna Rowland
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
EU Cosmetics Regulation Re-cast
Dr Chris Flower (Vice-chair)
CTPA
Dr Marie Kennedy
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Andrew Wilson
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Graham Wilson
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
TF Annex I
Dr John Hopkins
Stephen Kirk
Dr Joanna Rowland
Sarah Tozer
Dr Emma Meredith
Task Force Claims
Dr Raniero de Stasio
Andrew Wilson
Dr Chris Flower
Innovant Research
Alliance Boots
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
CTPA
L’Oréal (UK)
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
CTPA
Robert McBride
Estée Lauder Companies
Alliance Boots
CTPA
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Boots Manufacturing
Task Force Nano Notification
Iain Brunning
Boots Manufacturing
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Dr Lindsay Holden
CTPA
33.
Task Force India
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Dr Robert Polywka
Meena Sabarwal
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Olivia Santoni
CTPA
Task Force Russia
Olivia Santoni
CTPA
Self Regulation On Advertising
Dr Chris Flower (Vice-chair)
CTPA
Graham Wilson
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Task Force Cosmetovigilance
Liz Colson
Beverley Harris
Stephen Kirk
Dr Emma Meredith
Task Force Notification
Dr Marie Kennedy
Iain Brunning
International Convergence
Dr John Humphreys (Chair) Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Graham Wilson
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Olivia Santoni
CTPA
Sustainable Development
David Duncan (Chair)
Paul Crawford
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
CTPA
Task Force Life Cycle Assessment / Carbon Footprint
Alliance Boots
Andrew Jenkins
Core Competencies Committees (CCC)
To provide expert support to Strategic Project Teams.
Task Force linked to CCC
Advocacy Committee
Sophie Crousse
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Internal & External Communication Committee
Caroline Almeida
Johnson & Johnson
Sarah Griffiths
Estée Lauder Companies
Debbie Hunter
CTPA
Dr Chris Flower (Board mentor)
CTPA
Task Force Integrated Communications
Debbie Hunter (Chair)
CTPA
Sarah Griffiths
Estée Lauder Companies
Legal Committee
James Barnes
Scientific
Dr Raniero de Stasio
Dr John Humphreys
Dr Joanna Rowland
Dr Carl Westmoreland
Dr Emma Meredith
L’Oréal (UK)
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
CTPA
Technical & Regulatory Committee
Dr Raniero de Stasio
L’Oréal (UK)
Dr John Humphreys
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Dr Marie Kennedy
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Andrew Wilson
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Paul Crawford
CTPA
Unilever
Expert Teams (ET)
Appointed by the Board to manage specific technical fields that require a high level of expertise.
The Board can transform an ET into an SPT if the subject becomes a key priority.
Task Force linked to ET
Hair Preparations
Sarah Henly
Dr Robert Polywka
Dr Kim Rich
Dr Emma Meredith
Avon Cosmetics
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
CTPA
Hair Colorants Consumer Information Group
Dr Emma Meredith
CTPA
Ingredients Defence
Dr Lindsay Holden (Chair)
CTPA
Dr Marie Kennedy
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
Dr Amanda Long
Avon Cosmetics
Dr Kim Rich
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
TF D4/D5
Dr Lindsay Holden
Oral Care
Andrew Wilson
Perfumes
Dr John Humphreys (Chair)
Reach
Dr Marie Kennedy (Vice-chair)
Paul Crawford (Vice-chair)
Sarah Henly
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Elizabeth Arden (UK)
CTPA
Avon Cosmetics
CTPA
Microbiological Protection of Products
Dr Alex Blanchard
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Lorraine Caskie
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Dave Preston
Colgate-Palmolive (UK)
Nanotechnologies
Dr Amanda Long
Dr Joanna Rowland
Dr Lindsay Holden
Natural/Organic Products
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Graham Wilson (Vice-chair)
Gill Baverstock
Avon Cosmetics
Dr Robert Polywka
Unilever UK Home & Personal Care
Sue Wemyss
Estée Lauder Companies (Whitman Laboratories)
Paul Crawford
CTPA
Avon Cosmetics
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
CTPA
Sun Care Products
Mike Brown
Dr Paul Matts
Alliance Boots
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Traces
Neil Bolton (Vice-chair)
Dr Amanda Long
Procter & Gamble Technical Centres
Avon Cosmetics
Triage
Olivia Santoni
CTPA
34.
Directors’ Report & Financial Statements
12.1
The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association Limited
(Limited by Guarantee)
Directors’ Report
Year ended 31 December 2011
The directors present their report and the audited financial statements of the company no. 398046
for the year ended 31 December 2011. This report has been prepared in accordance with the special
provisions of Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 relating to small companies.
Directors
Risk management
The members of the Board are the directors of the company.
The current directors, and the directors who acted at any time
during the financial year, appear on page 1.
The Association has identified a number of risks including a
potential shortfall in income from member subscriptions,
an IT systems failure and/or security breach leading to a
break-down in the expected membership service levels, a breach
of UK/EU competition law by either our staff or members whilst
on Association business/premises and a conflict of interest
and/or related party transactions with Board members. Internal
controls have been developed to reduce these risks including
the alignment of budget with membership renewal levels,
the funding of an IT systems business continuity programme,
the highlighting of the need for staff and members to conduct
themselves according to the CTPA’s Competition Guidelines
which are re-issued, highlighted and reviewed at appropriate
times. These controls are reviewed periodically by the Board of
Directors. Regular enquiry will be made of Board members to
ensure there are no conflicts of interest between CTPA and its
Board members.
Principal activities and review of operations
The principal activities of the Association are to organise, study,
protect, promote and further the interests of the cosmetic,
toiletry and perfumery industry in the United Kingdom.
These remained unchanged during the year under review and
all the Association’s work came within that general description.
In carrying out this work the Association involved itself deeply
in the work of the European cosmetic trade association,
Cosmetics Europe (formerly known as Colipa). It is the
Association’s intention to continue to operate within the
same general framework.
The Association’s financial policy is to match income and
expenditure over a period of years, subject to the need to
maintain adequate working capital. Subscriptions for 2012
have been set at a level which takes into account the financial
position at 31 December 2011.
35.
Financial statements
The financial statements show a deficit for the year after
taxation of £5,407 (2010: £4,423 surplus) which, together
with the surplus brought forward of £527,249 results in a
balance to be carried forward of £521,842.
Charitable contributions
The Association has continued to support the
Look Good ...Feel Better Programme in the UK by providing
access to meeting facilities and administrative support to the
registered charity Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Foundation
(CTPF). In 2011, the CTPA’s Director of Commercial Affairs
also acted as Company Secretary to the CTPF. No charge is
made for these services.
Going concern
The Association has adequate financial resources and is well
placed to manage the business risks. Our planning process,
including financial projections, has taken into consideration
the current economic climate and its potential impact on the
various sources of income and planned expenditure. We have
a reasonable expectation that we have adequate resources to
continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future.
We believe that there are no material uncertainties that call
into doubt the Association's ability to continue. The accounts
have therefore been prepared on the basis that the Association
is a going concern.
Auditors
Insofar as each of the directors of the company at the date
of approval of this report is aware there is no relevant audit
information (information needed by the company’s auditors
in connection with preparing the audit report) of which the
company’s auditors are unaware. Each director has taken all
of the steps that he/she should have taken as a director in
order to make himself/herself aware of any relevant audit
information and to establish that the company’s auditors are
aware of that information.
Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP has expressed its willingness to
continue as auditor for the next financial year and a resolution
proposing their reappointment will be submitted to the
forthcoming Board Meeting.
By order of the Board
J Traylen, Secretary
27 March 2012
Statement of Directors’
Responsibilities
The directors are responsible for preparing
the Annual Report and the financial
statements in accordance with applicable
law and United Kingdom Generally Accepted
Accounting Practice.
Company law requires the directors to
prepare financial statements for each
financial year which give a true and fair
view of the state of affairs of the company
at the end of the year and of the surplus or
deficit of the company for the period.
In preparing those financial statements
the directors are required to:
• select suitable accounting policies and then
apply them consistently;
• make judgements and estimates that are
reasonable and prudent;
• prepare the financial statements on
the going concern basis unless it is
inappropriate to assume that the
company will continue in business.
The directors are responsible for keeping
proper accounting records which disclose
with reasonable accuracy at any time the
financial position of the company and to
enable them to ensure that the financial
statements comply with the Companies Act
2006. The directors are also responsible for
safeguarding the assets of the company and
hence for taking reasonable steps for the
prevention and detection of fraud or other
irregularities.
The directors are responsible for the
maintenance and integrity of the corporate
and financial information included on the
company’s website.
36.
12. Directors’ Report & Financial Statements
Independent Auditor’s Report
to the Members of the Cosmetic,
Toiletry and Perfumery Association
We have audited the financial statements of the
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association for the
year ended 31 December 2011 which comprise the
Income and Expenditure Account, the Balance Sheet
and the related notes numbered 1 to 14.
The financial reporting framework that has been applied
in their preparation is applicable law and United
Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom
Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).
This report is made solely to the company's members,
as a body, in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 16 of
the Companies Act 2006. Our audit work has been
undertaken so that we might state to the company's
members those matters we are required to state to
them in an auditor's report and for no other purpose.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept
or assume responsibility to anyone other than the
company and the company's members as a body,
for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions
we have formed.
Respective responsibilities of directors and auditors
As explained more fully in the Statement of Directors'
Responsibilities, the directors are responsible for the
preparation of the financial statements and for being
satisfied that they give a true and fair view.
Our responsibility is to audit the financial statements
in accordance with applicable law and International
Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards
require us to comply with the Auditing Practices Board's
Ethical Standards for Auditors
Opinion on financial statements
In our opinion, the financial statements:
• give a true and fair view of the state of the company's
affairs as at 31 December 2011 and of its deficit for
the year then ended;
• have been properly prepared in accordance with
United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting
Practice; and
• have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
Opinion on other matters prescribed
by the Companies Act 2006
In our opinion the information given in the Directors'
Report for the financial year for which the financial
statements are prepared is consistent with the
financial statements.
Matters on which we are required
to report by exception
We have nothing to report in respect of the following
matters where the Companies Act 2006 requires us to
report to you if, in our opinion:
• adequate accounting records have not been kept,
or returns adequate for our audit have not been
received from branches not visited by us; or
• the financial statements are not in agreement with
the accounting records and returns; or
• certain disclosures of directors' remuneration
specified by law are not made; or
• we have not received all the information and
explanations we require for our audit.
Scope of the audit of the financial statements
An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts
and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to
give reasonable assurance that the financial statements
are free from material misstatement, whether caused by
fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether
the accounting policies are appropriate to the company's
circumstances and have been consistently applied and
adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant
accounting estimates made by the directors; and the
overall presentation of the financial statements.
In addition, we read all the financial and non-financial
information in the Directors’ Report to identify material
inconsistencies with the audited financial statements.
If we become aware of any apparent material
misstatements or inconsistencies we consider the
implications for our report.
37.
Tina Allison
Senior Statutory Auditor
For and on behalf of Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP
Statutory Auditor
London
4 May 2012
12.2
Financial Statements
31 December 2011
These accounts are prepared in
accordance with the special provisions
(of Part 15) of the Companies Act
2006 relating to small entities.
Income and expenditure account for the year ended 31 December 2011
Notes
2011)
£)
2010)
£)
3
1,514,691)
1,475,220)
(1,535,984)
(1,487,668)
(21,293)
(12,449)
Subscription income
Administrative expenses
The notes on pages 39 to 41 form
part of these statements.
Income from other member
activities and events
20,370)
47,030)
Approved by the Board on
27 March 2012 and signed
on its behalf:
Associated direct expenses
(7,536)
(35,153)
12,834)
11,875)
Lady Jay (Sylvia) CBE
Chairman
Operating deficit
4
(8,459)
(572)
Other income
7
3,827)
6,323)
(4,632)
5,751)
(775)
(1,328)
(5,407)
(4,423)
Balance at 1 January 2011
Deficit/(surplus) for the year
527,249)
(5,407)
522,826)
4,423)
Balance at 31 December 2011
521,842)
527,249)
Notes
2011)
£)
2010)
£)
9
221,719)
154,285)
10
272,359)
-)
1,143,345)
228,406)
800,000)
475,445)
1,415,704)
1,503,851)
(1,115,581)
(1,130,887)
Net current assets
300,122)
372,964)
Total assets less current liabilities
521,842)
527,249)
Accumulated surplus
521,842)
527,249)
Ged O’Shea
Vice-chairman
(Deficit)/surplus before taxation
Taxation
Anand Rangaswamy
Vice-chairman
John Harold
Honorary Treasurer
8
Deficit for the year
There are no recognised gains or losses in
either year other than as disclosed above.
Balance sheet at 31 December 2011
Fixed assets
Tangible assets
Current assets
Debtors
Short term deposits
Cash at bank and in hand
Creditors: amounts falling
due within one year
11
38.
12. Directors’ Report & Financial Statements
12.3
Notes to the financial statements
31 December 2011
1. Status of company
The company was incorporated on 23 August 1945
and is limited by the guarantee of its members.
The guarantee of each member is restricted to one
pound sterling.
2. Accountiing policies
a) Basis of preparation
The financial statements have been prepared under
the historical cost convention and in accordance with
applicable accounting standards. The financial
statements have been prepared on a going-concern
basis as discussed in the Directors’ report on
pages 35 and 36.
b) Depreciation of tangible fixed assets
The cost of tangible assets is written off on a straight
line basis over their expected useful lives as follows:
Office furniture
Office fixtures
Office equipment
- 10 years
- over the period of the
lease on buildings
- 3 to 5 years
The carrying values of tangible fixed assets are reviewed
for impairment if events or changes in circumstances
indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable.
d) Foreign currencies
Transactions in foreign currencies for which forward
exchange contracts have been entered into as a hedge
against potential exchange rate movements are
translated at the relevant forward contract rates of
exchange. All other transactions in foreign currencies
are translated into sterling at the rate of exchange
ruling at the date of the transaction.
Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign
currencies are retranslated into sterling at the year
end rate of exchange. Exchange differences arising
from this retranslation are taken to the income and
expenditure account.
e) Pension costs
The company provides defined contributions to personal
pensions. Contributions are charged in the income
and expenditure account as they become payable in
accordance with the rules of the scheme.
c) Subscription income
Subscription income is recognised when received and is
allocated to the financial year to which the subscription
relates. Subscriptions received in advance are recorded
as deferred income.
3. Subscription income
Subscription income comprises subscriptions receivable,
exclusive of VAT, in respect of continuing activities.
4. Operating loss
2011
£
2010
£
96,628
99,576
8,900
8,800
75,000
75,000
7,850
7,919
The operating loss is stated after charging:
Depreciation of tangible fixed assets
Auditors’ remuneration
Rent of leasehold property
Office equipment lease rentals
39.
5. Directors’ emoluments
None of the Board members received any remuneration
for their services to the company during the year.
6. Staff costs
Wages and salaries
Social security costs
Other pension costs
The average monthly number of
employees during the year was
2011
£
2010
£
541,623
66,841
56,503
524,609
62,110
53,962
664,967
640,681
10
10
2011
£
2010
£
3,827
6,323
7. Other income
Bank and other interest receivable
8. Taxation
The tax charge for the year of £775 (2010: £1,328) represents UK corporation tax on the
income from bank and other interest of 21% for the period 1 January 2011 – 31 March 2011
and 20% for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2011.
9. Tangible fixed assets
Office Furniture
and fittings
£
Office)
Equipment)
£)
Total)
£)
Cost
At 1 January 2011
Additions
Disposals
97,328
1,005
0
437,367)
163,058)
(93,900)
534,695)
164,063)
(93,900)
At 31 December 2011
98,333
506,525)
604,858)
Depreciation
At 1 January 2011
Charge for the year
Disposals
62,650
8,191
0
317,761)
88,437)
(93,900)
380,410)
96,628)
(93,900)
At 31 December 2011
70,841
312,298)
383,138)
Net Book Value
At 31 December 2011
27,492
194,227)
221,719)
At 31 December 2010
34,678
119,607)
154,285)
40.
12. Directors’ Report & Financial Statements
10. Debtors
Other debtors
Other taxes recoverable
Prepayment and accrued income
2011
£
2010
£
174,339
0
98,020
108,873
43,661
75,872
272,359
228,406
11. Creditors: amounts falling due within one year
Trade creditors
Corporation tax
Deferred income (subscriptions)
Accruals
Other taxes and social security
2011
£
2010
£
93,164
775
712,325
17,494
291,823
67,286
1,328
832,495
11,490
218,288
1,115,581
1,130,887
12. Financial Commitments
The annual commitments under non-cancellable
operating leases were as follows:
Leasing expiring:
In two to five years (office equipment)
In two to five years (land and buildings)
2011
£
2010
£
7,850
75,000
7,919
75,000
13. Forward exchange contract
CTPA has entered into a forward contract for settlement on 25 May 2012
to purchase €159,500 at a rate of €1.15:£1 as a hedge relating to the
payment of the 2012 subscription to Cosmetics Europe (formerly Colipa).
14. Capital commitments
At 31 December 2011, CTPA had contracted but not provided for capital
expenditure totalling £nil (2010: £nil)
41.
12.4
Detailed income and
expenditure
2011)
Quick guide to income
and expenditure
Subscription income
Ordinary Members
Associate Members
Total income 2011/2010
2011: £1,530,577
Other operating income
Surplus from seminars, publications, etc
2010: £1,492,090
Interest receivable
Bank interest receivable
Other interest receivable
Less provision for corporation tax
Total expenditure 2011/2010
2011: £1,535,984
2010: £1,487,667
(Deficit)/Surplus 2011/2010
2011: (£5,407)
(10)
Total Income
£)
2010)
)
£)
1,480,774)
33,917)
1,514,691)
1,442,303)
32,917)
1,475,220)
12,834)
11,875)
4,508)
(681)
(775)
3,052)
4,196)
2,127)
(1,328)
4,995)
1,530,577)
1,492,090)
688,227)
8,165)
75,000)
40,948)
13,511)
11,429)
26,250)
112,222)
28,583)
7,850)
11,803)
34,393)
0)
105,634)
3,527)
34,806)
8,900)
166,716)
21,984)
3,294)
12,106)
10,000)
7,759)
0)
99,515)
3,369)
(7)
661,991)
9,036)
75,000)
27,050)
9,097)
11,756)
24,673)
84,938)
27,506)
7,919)
15,474)
24,162)
0)
103,224)
9,768)
26,349)
8,800)
204,746)
27,014)
1,308)
12,063)
10,000)
1,300)
0)
102,393)
2,100)
0)
1,535,984)
1,487,667)
(5,407)
4,423)
2010: £4,423
0
10
Administrative expenses 2011
6.
5.
1.
4.
3.
2.
1. Staff and other costs
45.3%
2. Communications
6.9%
3. Cosmetics Europe
12.5%
4. Depreciation, disposal, exchange
rate variance
6.5%
5. Office premises & other services
10.0%
6. Other expenditure
18.8%
Administrative expenses
Staff costs
Other personnel expenses
Rent
Rates
Service charges
Heat, light and utilities
Telephone, communications, post
CTPA websites, IT network, database
Printing, journals, supplies
Office equipment leasing costs
UK travel, functions, meetings & staff training
Overseas travel and expenses
Chairman's expenses
Communications
Professional subscriptions
Professional services
Audit
Cosmetics Europe - subscription
- SCAAT
- general assembly
Office insurances and sundries
Higher education grants
Educational resources
Donations
Depreciation, disposal, exchange rate variance
Bank charges
Adjustment - VAT creditor
Total Expenditure
(Deficit)/Surplus for the year
42.
CTPA Who’s Who
1
2
3
4
5
Dr Chris Flower
Director-General
Dr Emma Meredith
Head of Scientific &
Technical Services
Paul Crawford
Head of Regulatory &
Environmental Services
Dr Lindsay Holden
Scientific
Affairs Manager
Ingredient issues.
Hair products.
Sun products.
Technical guidance.
Regulatory.
Labelling claims &
borderline.
Chemicals/REACH.
Environment.
Scientific enquiries.
Researching & tracking
ingredient issues.
Nanomaterials. Sun products.
Alternatives to animal testing.
Eleanor O’Connor
PA to
Director-General /
Communications
Co-ordinator
Strategic direction.
Public voice.
External stakeholder
engagement.
International relations.
PA to the D-G.
Media monitoring.
Communications.
3
1
2
5
4
8
6
10
9
7
6
7
8
9
10
Olivia Santoni
Regulatory
Affairs Manager
Julia Hewitt
Commercial Affairs
Co-ordinator &
Database Manager
Debbie Hunter
Director of
Commercial Affairs
Joyce Traylen
Company Secretary
Amanda Isom
Technical
Affairs Manager
Regulatory enquiries.
Labelling. Packaging.
Transport of
dangerous goods.
International enquiries.
43.
Membership services.
CTPA Newsletter.
CTPA events.
Office administration.
Strategic
communications.
Board management.
Membership relations
and services.
Company management,
accounts and office
systems. Membership
accounts. Events.
Publications.
Website controller.
Technical enquiries.
Ingredient tracking.
CMRs. PIF. CPNP.
CTPA Membership
What can we do for you?
“…membership is what you make of it – the value comes from
contributing and using the vast resources at your disposal.”
Debbie Hunter, Director of Commercial Affairs
Representing Members worldwide
Key Objectives
• Over 100 Members representing small, medium, large
and multi-national companies supplying the UK market
• Work with all key stakeholders to provide creative,
pragmatic solutions to new issues
• Companies include manufacturers, distributors, ingredient
suppliers, contract laboratories, contract manufacturers,
retailers of own brand
• Individual confidential advice provided to members by
experienced regulatory, scientific and technical staff on
anything from ingredient issues to best practice
manufacturing guidance
• Representing around 80% by value of the £8,356 million
UK market supply
Working with Members
• Intercept media issues with fast, robust rebuttal
• Positive proactive communications to build confidence
and trust in the industry’s safe, effective products
• 24/7 Members’ only intranet full of useful guidance,
up-to-date news and with time-saving issue tracking –
everyone in your company can access this tool wherever
they are in the world
• Promote the CTPA’s www.thefactsabout.co.uk website
as the research resource for journalists, consumers,
stakeholders and members
• Cosmetics Basics - free workshops for members at
CTPA to help maximise your membership
• Be seen as the leading trade association, offering value
for money to members and setting the bar high
• Topic-specific seminars and committee meetings driven
by area of competence or issue
• CTPA presentations at your company and at
external meetings
For more details about joining the CTPA see our website :
www.ctpa.org.uk
Cover photograph of Keri-anne Payne, Olympic Swimmer and Ambassador for Max Factor and Oral-B
Design & art direction Wybo Haas (UK) Limited | +44 (0)1483 890091 | www.wybohaas.com | Printed by Bishops | +44 (0) 23 9233 4900 | www.bishops.co.uk
44.
The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association Limited
Josaron House, 5-7 John Princes Street, London, W1G 0JN.
Tel. +44 (0)20 7491 8891
Fax. +44 (0)20 7493 8061
Web www.ctpa.org.uk
E-mail info@ctpa.org.uk
Visit our consumer website at www.thefactsabout.co.uk