On June 26, 2026, rePurpose Global, the world’s leading Packaging Compliance and Sustainability Platform, announced the launch of a new tool called the Packaging Simulator — a first-of-its-kind device that gives consumer brands real-time impact modeling across every packaging decision, replacing months of manual spreadsheet analysis with one-click scenario comparisons.
The innovation is designed in light of California’s Individual Source Reduction Plan deadline of August 1, 2026 fast approaching which will force brands selling packaged products in California to model, document, and submit defensible plans across five approved source reduction pathways: Material Switching, Lightweighting, PCR Content, Elimination, and Reuse/Refill.
Related: 6 Ways to Stay Up to Date on the Latest Treatment Regulations [Survey]
If not careful, packaging regulation can cause business issues for aesthetic brands, medspas, and skincare manufacturers, as all types of products from pumps and droppers to refill systems and secondary packaging may change as SB 54 sets new compliance standards and Without the right tools, modeling source reduction scenarios is a few months-long pwocess — and plans built on incomplete data are the ones regulators push back on.
rePurpose's The Packing Simulator changes that.Brands can submit their 2023 baseline data, enter the packaging changes they’re considering, and instantly project the impact on EPR fees, CA recyclability, material footprint, PCR weight, and plastic components, all in one platform. For existing rePurpose Compliance customers, the baseline data is already on file.
To better understand what SB 54 means for medical aesthetics and professional skincare brands, MedEsthetics spoke with Alyssa Dizon, Head of Product at rePurpose Global, about the compliance challenges, packaging trends, and business implications shaping the industry.
ME: How are medical aesthetics, professional skincare, and beauty brands uniquely affected by California's SB 54 requirements compared with other consumer packaged goods categories?
Beauty and aesthetics brands are dealing with a structural challenge most other CPG categories aren't: packaging complexity is disproportionately high relative to unit volume. A single skincare SKU might involve multiple components such as a primary container, a pump or dropper mechanism, a secondary carton, a closure, and an interior insert, and each is a separate plastic component that counts against your baseline. That component count is one of the two metrics California permanently locked at 2023 levels, and it has to trend down alongside plastic weight.
Beauty packaging often consists of small, multi-material, or highly pigmented items that are difficult for current infrastructure to process. Many beauty components have non-recyclable materials and often have small dimensions that fail to be captured by sorting lines, falling through the screens and becoming residue. Cosmetic packaging formats, e.g., ampoules, trays, single-use applicator packaging — often doesn't fit cleanly into California's recyclability determinations, creating real uncertainty around which formats qualify for which pathway credits.
Unlike some states that focus purely on residential waste, California’s definition of a "consumer" includes any person or business that is the end user of a covered material. For professional skincare and beauty brands, this means that "back-bar" products such as the large-format containers used by aestheticians during treatments are not exempt as B2B materials if they are discarded after use. The aesthetician or clinic is legally the "consumer"
Many professional skincare products (like anti-aging creams or serums) are federally classified as both drugs and cosmetics. Under SB 54, if a product is considered a cosmetic (under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 321(i)), its packaging is reportable as covered material, even if it has medicinal properties. That said, medical professionals must look through the exemptions carefully to explore exclusions and exemptions of their specific packages in question.
ME: What are the most common packaging compliance mistakes you're seeing among skincare and aesthetic brands as they prepare their source reduction plans?
The biggest one is treating component count as a secondary concern behind plastic weight. In beauty, those two metrics carry equal exposure, and both have to trend down simultaneously against your 2023 baseline. Brands that optimize for weight alone are building a plan with a blind spot.
The second mistake is assuming that instinctive plastic swaps automatically generate pathway credit. Switching from rigid bottles to flexible pouches is a move many beauty brands have already made, but flexible plastics currently aren't recyclable in California, so that switch doesn't count. Lightweighting earns credit only when the resulting material stays recyclable.
Similarly, switching to compostable plastics doesn't get you off the hook. SB 54 includes compostable plastics in its definition of plastic, so that move may not be materially significant for source reduction purposes.
On PCR: the credit is incremental only. If your brand was already using recycled content before 2023, you don't get credit for it — only the increase above your baseline year counts. And it has to be APR-certified. Brands that were early adopters of PCR are often surprised by how little headroom they have left.
Finally, refill-at-home systems have more nuance than most beauty brands expect. Even when a brand provides a durable glass parent container, the single-use refill pouch or concentrate bottle is still reportable covered material. The child packaging doesn't disappear from your obligations just because the parent is reusable.
ME: Are brands being forced to rethink premium packaging, secondary packaging, or product delivery systems to meet source reduction goals, and what trends are emerging?
Yes, these regulations are undoubtedly forcing brands to rethink packaging. A few trends quickly gaining interest are “paperization” where possible i.e. material switching from plastics to paper formats given there is a lot of innovation occurring in this space. Additionally, beauty brands are looking to switch to glass and metal formats where possible, especially the premium brands.
Secondary and transport packaging is where we're seeing promising potential for action. Outer cartons, inserts, and gift-with-purchase packaging are being scrutinized because they add component count and plastic weight without always adding consumer value that's hard to preserve another way. Eliminating or right-sizing secondary and transport packaging is one of the cleaner wins available right now.
For primary packaging, the trend is toward simplification — fewer plastic components per unit, down-gauging where the material stays recyclable, moving away from multi-material laminate structures. Delivery systems are the harder conversation. Pump mechanisms, airless dispensers, precision applicators — the formats that define premium positioning in aesthetics — are difficult to redesign quickly. A complex format change can take 18 to 36 months. Brands that haven't started those conversations are already behind for the 2027 milestone. However, it is recommended that where such components cannot be eliminated, they should be designed for recyclability. Designing your packaging in alignment with standards like the APR design guide for plastics is a promising step that will reap benefits for producers in the long run.
ME: Beyond compliance, what financial impact could these packaging changes have on margins, product pricing, and profitability for aesthetics and skincare companies?
The financial picture is more layered than most brands have modeled. Beyond the base EPR fee, California's structure includes a reuse investment fee, a Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund fees tied to both plastic weight and no of plastic components, as well as a bonus-malus system that escalates for brands falling behind, and most brands walking in are only accounting for one of those four. That’s a problem when dealing with a program that has provisions for levying $50,000-per-day penalties, as per the statute.
The margin pressure hits from two directions: packaging redesign carries real development and tooling costs, and premium formats have higher per-unit packaging costs to begin with. But the flip side is real too — component reduction lowers material cost, right-sizing secondary packaging reduces shipping weight, and brands treating this as a packaging optimization opportunity rather than a pure compliance cost are coming out ahead financially.
ME: Looking ahead, do you expect regulations similar to SB 54 to influence packaging innovation and sustainability strategies across the medical aesthetics industry over the next five years?
Yes, and brands treating this as a California-only question are accumulating risk. Oregon, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, Maine, Minnesota — state-level EPR is already spreading, and eco-modulation frameworks in most states will have similar principles that reward more sustainable and recyclable packaging choices, not just fund recycling it. In addition California Truth in Labelling regulations like SB 343 are also forcing producers to rethink the recyclability claims they make on pack, in line with local infrastructure realities
For medical aesthetics specifically, the next five years will likely bring additional scrutiny on single-use and professional-use formats that have historically sat outside consumer EPR frameworks. That regulatory perimeter will expand (provided the packaging is not exempt as a medical device or drug)
The brands that navigate this well are building durable infrastructure now — a single authoritative source for packaging data by SKU, cross-functional ownership of source reduction decisions, and the ability to model compliance and cost impact before anything goes to tooling. That's not just a California capability. It's the foundation for responding to whatever comes next without repeating the scramble we're seeing right now. Brands can speak with an expert at repurpose.global.
