POWERED BY PROVENANCE® FAQs

As you probably know by now if you’ve followed our journey on instagram, we are very inspired by what we experienced in our respective times overseas. We look towards international trends and developments to guide us then try to find a framework by which we can implement similar ideas in SA.

When we started straål in 2020/1, we did not feel like the SAn industry was moving in a similar direction to what we experienced overseas (more thoughtful, discerning, product expertise and criteria-based beauty is a big deal overseas). We found few retailers focusing in on specific criteria or expertise beyond blasting PR and marketing. That doesn’t mean there are no platforms in SA putting in effort though. 

We’ve taken a very unique vision for our platform [even in the design] with a solid foundational framework that informs our decisions and what we offer. We want to be sure that you can trust shopping from straål. Partnerships like Provenance® help us get to where we believe our potential lies, step-by-step.

In short, ‘greenwashing’ is when beauty (or fashion & food) brands try to make products seem more sustainable than they really are. The fact is, Beauty and Fashion are two of the most wasteful industries. It’s important therefore that each brand make thoughtful decisions in their production and improve where they can. There’s no such thing as perfect sustainability, perfect eco-friendliness, or even perfect science. That’s why two things are important: 1) Effort 💪aka continuous improvement where the option exists to make a better choice and 2) Communicating with transparency what efforts were taken (or not) and why.

*It’s important to note that miscommunication is not always intentional or malicious. Throughout this education series, it’s important to keep 1) context and 2) intent in mind. It’s our belief that most brand owners generally do not have bad intentions. Second, look for brands or platforms who are able and willing to clarify their language, design language or decisions.  Oftentimes, the industry will use shorthand or certain design choices because it’s easy and accepted, or simply because they liked that colour or idea. That doesn’t mean that they are intentionally ‘greenwashing’; especially if they have a section where they inform about their process, decisions or criteria.

While ‘alternative beauty’ brands often get scrutinised and picked apart, brands or platforms that lean heavily on communicating through scientific-sounding claims or authority generally get a free pass. However, it’s also something to be aware of when shopping or making decisions.

Sciencewashing can be defined as using scientific terminology or authority to simulate scientific practices or quality assurance to create an impression to gain an advantage in the marketplace. It occurs in various industries, e.g., the beauty marketing or the nutritional supplement industry. We highly recommend reading this article by LABMUFFIN or this one published by Wissenschafts Kommunikation.

By the way, through Provenance®, beauty brands can also submit the proof to their scientific or clinical claims. 

Wong M. Scientism or “Science-Washing” in Beauty. Lab Muffin Beauty Science. April 14, 2019. Accessed December 19, 2023. https://labmuffin.com/scientism-or-science-washing-in-beauty/

It sure can! And that’s the goal. One thing we’ve always kept in mind with straål is that rolling on a Santal deodorant or gliding on a Mango lip balm should ultimately be something you enjoy. In addition, for products like SPF that can help prevent a life altering event, it has been shown that the likelihood of usage is tied to whether its use is ‘enjoyable’ or not.

Across the industry, there’s a definitive shift to ‘fun and colour’. Coincidentally, that’s exactly why the decisions that go into making products and how it’s communicated should be careful and thoughtful–so you can just enjoy it without thinking about all the factors that go into it!

Like the fairytale from where this quote was taken, it is a myth that there is such a thing as perfection or “the best”. Most brands and companies are, for the most part, always improving and learning. Us too!

The idea of straål listing shopping criteria and of technological initiatives like Provenance® is not to cast judgement of who is the “best”, but rather the exact opposite: to bring impartial and complete information to help you understand what you’re buying.

Keep in mind that there’s also a lot of subjectiveness and personal opinion that goes into what is considered “best” in beauty. Further, sustainability and science is much more complex than drawing hard lines–it’s also always evolving.

Nuance simply means being able to elaborate on or clarify information, whether positive or negative. For example, if a brand says that they are sustainable, can they elaborate on the details without using jargon?

Depends on what you’re looking at. There can certainly be brands that are more wasteful than others, that’s a fact. There are also brands who use really harsh or inexpensive ingredients in order to be cost effective or aren’t sure where controversial ingredients are sourced (e.g. Palm Oil or MICA). Lastly, some brands can be vague about their supply chain, their workers or how efficacious the product really is.

In general though, companies and brand owners aren’t intentionally mis-communicating or setting out to be harmful. Most products on the racks aren’t immediately harmful or harmful in general, though it might be formulated less well than an alternative (e.g. too much fragrance) or indeed harmful to the planet. Subjective experience also plays a role in determining good or bad while there are many factors that go into what and who people support.

The only ‘less good’ thing is when brands deliberately do not make efforts to improve on all aspects. More and more, ‘better’ brands will set the new standard.

Yes and no. It would certainly qualify as ‘greenwashing’ if there were no criteria that underpinned it and if the meaning isn’t clarified anywhere. It is also ‘greenwashing’ when it’s used to mislead customers by hiding certain details.

When a brand’s values are clarified and efforts are made to substantiate claims, it’s much better.

Lately, we’ve been using the words CLEAR much more often. Our intention with the word ‘clean’ has been to mark two concepts under one term: 1) clean-cut and 2) clear. The first, to refer to the fact that you get what you see with us: we do not have gray beauty products (aka parallel imports). Parallel imports generally misleads customers, contravenes the CPA and suggests affiliation where there is none. Not to mention that resellers are being called out more often for reselling fakes! Plus, clean-cut also refers to the fact that we always research or interview brands if they are available to find out how they go about things. We check ingredients against various criteria to make sure we inform you correctly. Many brands have educators that are available to provide information to retailers. Plus, we invited our brands to submit their Proof Points to our Provenance® blockchain. You will always know where you stand with straål and are welcome to beam us with questions.

Secondly, ‘clear’ because we’ve had one goal from the first day: be clear about what’s in the product so customers can verify for themselves. However, more and more we’ve seen platforms use words like ‘clean’ and ‘conscious’ (or even ‘green’) to hop on a trend which has impacted trust in the industry. Know that we are always doing our best 💌

There’s lots of talk in beauty how free-froms are irrelevant or often misleading.

We agree! At straål, our discernment over ingredients were borne out of personal experience. Our co-founder, Chrystene–a qualified skincare therapist–not only has eczema and psoriasis but also developed severe, skin-blistering allergies to personal care products. This makes it crucial for her to know what’s in- and what’s not in products. But, she found that platforms often do not provide this information, while in-store staff aren’t trained what to look for. These ingredients she has to avoid was tested and determined by a Dermatologist btw, so it’s not exactly ‘fear mongering’ as TikTok would have you believe.

Our intention is not to class products ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but rather to help you understand the product you’re purchasing, regardless of your preferences. You should always be able to have the information to know what you’re buying to make the choices YOU want.

For that, we list (as best we can):

1. Critical Criteria: ingredients that can trigger allergies/skin problems or known allergens such as sulphates, MIT/CMIT, essential oils in skincare etc.
2. Personal Preference: ingredients that shoppers choose to look out for due to their own experience or preference. These can be shoppers who avoid Talc or silicones. As is your prerogative. 
3. Value-based Preferences: For those who shop according to their plant-based lifestyles or prefer brands who have historically been cruelty-free.

We certainly can’t list it all, that’s why you’ll always have the ingredient list available to do a quick scan 🙂 If you have any suggestions of criteria that would be more relevant or accurate for you to shop by, please don’t hesitate to beam us on [email protected] or [email protected]. We love getting your input!

It’s important for you to feel like we’re putting in the best effort we can to make sure we’re trustworthy and that you enjoy our platform. There’s so much debate about the beauty industry that it’s really important to be candid.

The Beauty Industry is without a doubt one of the most wasteful and controversial industries. However, it’s unlikely that people will want to stop using a nice shampoo to feel good or a beautiful red lipstick for a special occasion. So the goal should be improving! And there is some amazing progress on this front. Here’s where it gets really important: When brands or platforms use terms like ‘sustainability’ ‘eco’ or ‘better beauty’ (as just a few examples) loosely or use scientific sounding language, it undermines those who put in really hard efforts to make real changes. So everyone gets thrown under the bus while misinformation and mistrust spreads further. And this spreads to other industries as well.

• Brands with an educator or education portal.
• Brands who can clarify details and are willing to publish or talk about details of where they are making good choices or where they are not great (i.e. certain packaging choices might have been too expensive for them).
• Transparency: brands who put detailed proof online of the claims they make.
• Brands who are willing to listen to and learn from others as well as their audience and make no excuses for it.
• Watch out for ‘afterthought-sustainability’. That is, brands who claim thoughtfulness but shift the onus entirely onto consumers to recycle plastics. It’s not inherently bad, but better in these cases for brands not to rely on sustainability claims as the main feature. 
• Attention to smaller details such as foregoing bubblewrap in courier packages or replacing plastic courier bags with another solution (we use biodegradable courier bags.)
• See also ‘GREENWASHING’ and “SCIENCEWASHING’ tabs.

It’s a very good sign!

There are enterprises that exist to reinforce high standards. In general, these enterprises have a set of criteria brands have to meet to qualify. These criteria are often expensive (and is cited as a reason why many brands don’t have these certificates). Further, the enterprises that uphold these standards generally do independent audits of brands to ensure the certification is accurate and relevant to the brand’s current situation. 

Third-party certifications are often the highest standard and completely objective, measured against publicised criteria, hence this makes it a very good thing to see. Lastly, it’s illegal for brands to use certification symbols on their websites or packaging without holding the actual certificate, therefore it’s really trustworthy. 

Sometimes, you can also check the status of these certificates yourself. For example, at the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, you can search members of this initiative. Type in ‘Ere Perez’ to verify their ACTIVE status or check out the three South African retailers who are ACTIVE 😊

Examples include: Leaping Bunny, Beauty Without Cruelty, COSMOS Natural, NATRUE, FSC, B-Corp, PETA, Fair For Life and more. Scientific and conscious claims can only be certified through these various Third Party institutions, however, simply using those phrases does not refer to a particular Third Party certification.

Retailers and brands partner with Provenance® under a license. For those retailers (like straål, CULT BEAUTY, Beauty Heroes etc.) who are partners, there will be a section on these shopping sites for their brands who have opted-in to have their Proof Points published. So Proof Points can be seen on Brand- and Product Pages with the relevant Proof on the applicable product.

In short: just being honest about what you are and are not; what you do or don’t do; what you can or can’t do (and why); and what you know for sure or cannot know for sure. In plain language preferably. Marketing is magical and fun, but should be matched by integrity.

In the spirit of education and transparency at straål, we’re focused on continually keeping up with education and learning together with you, our audience (we don’t claim to know everything). We rely on information from brand owners to communicate these to you. In addition, our co-founder Chrystene is a qualified skincare therapist through Isa Caarstens Stellenbosch.

However, there are a few persistent misconceptions we see across social media that we want to clarify. Generally, these are simply misnomers 👉

• The use of the words ‘clean’ or ‘conscious’. Lately, we’ve been using the words CLEAR much more often. Our intention with the word ‘clean’ has been to mark two concepts: 1) clean-cut and 2) clear. The first to refer to the fact that you get what you see with us: we do not have grey/gray beauty products (aka parallel imports). Parallel imports generally mislead customers and suggest affiliation where there is none. Not to mention that this practise is being called out for reselling fakes as well as racking up legal problems! And secondly, ‘clear’ because we’ve had one goal from the first day: be clear about what’s in the product so that our customers can verify for themselves. However, more and more we’ve seen platforms use words like ‘clean’ and ‘conscious’ (or even ‘green’) to hop on a trend which has impacted trust in the industry. Know that we are always doing our best 💌
• ‘Good For The Planet‘ claims. The truth is, there is no such thing as a beauty product that’s adding anything to the planet, as the phrase would suggest. Products can be ‘Planet-friendly’ or more ‘Sustainably-minded’ but it’s inaccurate to claim that a beauty product is making the planet better in and of itself.
• Chemical Free. This is an interesting one because it is factually and scientifically impossible. In general, this misnomer is used to refer to products that are derived from plants and have no added synthetic ingredients. 
• Free-froms. While many in the beauty industry have pegged ‘free-froms’ as bad and misleading, we see it differently. As explained earlier, we needed to start checking ingredients due to severe allergies as tested by a Dermatologist. Further, it can make shopping easier to list these. The caveat is that these should be relevant and serve a specific purpose. It is indeed misleading to put free-froms on products where full ingredients aren’t disclosed or to put free-from sulphates, for example, on a product where it is completely irrelevant. Moreover, we take a page out of the nutrition industry’s book: pasting a sticker like ‘sugar-free’ or ‘gluten-free’ on a product does not tell the full story and does not make a product better than an alternative. It’s simply a signal to people  with certain diseases or allergies that the product is appropriate for them.
• The myth of natural. Nowhere at straål will you find us perpetuating this myth. Natural does not mean better, neither for your health nor in terms of sustainability per se. In fact, natural products can be quite demanding on nature (e.g. it takes 40kgs of pomegranate to make one small vial of pomegranate oil). Natural is a common misnomer brands use as shorthand to refer to products that are simply made without synthetic ingredients. It does not mean a product is chemical-free either because everything is made up of chemicals.

As mentioned, we receive naming conventions and copywriting descriptions from brands, although we often add our our touch. Retailers or platforms can’t exactly change what brands market. Rest assured, we’ll always make sure you understand what the product actually is. And when we drop the ball, don’t hesitate to beam us 💌

The key takeaway is that beauty is improving. The standards are changing and there’s lots of innovation to look forward to. But in doing so, it has become a behemoth of waste. It can be overwhelming, even for retailers like us. That’s why it’s important to support brands who are genuinely giving it their all to do better, without gimmicks.

Our recommendation is to start small by focusing on brands with more sustainable packaging or to help recycle packaging. While ingredients are being hotly debated, one thing is for sure: the waste cannot be disputed. Start there 😊

No, not necessarily. Not all brands have the same resources to substantiate claims. However, transparent communication and higher manufacturing standards will become the new norm together with better understanding of scientific communication. In fact, in many countries, there has already been a crack-down on beauty brand claims.

It can be as simple as asking a question! Beam us in the Video Bubble or on email [email protected] / [email protected]