Reducing approval loops in cosmetics development: How sequential processes become a bottleneck
Reducing approval loops in cosmetics development: How sequential processes become a bottleneck
12 min read
CEO & Founder at Labtree GmbH
Feedback loops in cosmetics development are often treated as a communication problem. In practice, they are a structural problem: when packaging, design, regulatory approval, and production run sequentially instead of in parallel, every handover is a potential loop.
Topics on this page
The topic is short and compact
Feedback loops usually result from sequential processes, not from a lack of communication.
A real formulation base as a starting point eliminates the first briefing loops.
Early physical samples replace abstract discussions and reduce sampling loops.
In classic OEM structures, four recurring sources of alignment loops can be observed:
Briefing loops: The concept is sharpened multiple times because without a real formulation basis, it is unclear which requirements are feasible.
Sampling loops: First samples arrive late, leading to customization requests, which in turn require new samples and briefings.
Packaging loops: Packaging is selected after the formulation is finalized. Then, incompatibilities between texture and container surface, or design requirements collide with fillability.
Approval loops: Safety assessment and PIF are created at the end. Anomalies force formulation adjustments, which lead to re-sampling and further stability testing.
Each of these loops extends the overall process by weeks. Added up, this often means three to six months of additional development time.
Where approval loops typically arise
In classic OEM structures, four recurring sources of alignment loops can be observed:
Briefing loops: The concept is sharpened multiple times because without a real formulation basis, it is unclear which requirements are feasible.
Sampling loops: First samples arrive late, leading to customization requests, which in turn require new samples and briefings.
Packaging loops: Packaging is selected after the formulation is finalized. Then, incompatibilities between texture and container surface, or design requirements collide with fillability.
Approval loops: Safety assessment and PIF are created at the end. Anomalies force formulation adjustments, which lead to re-sampling and further stability testing.
Each of these loops extends the overall process by weeks. Added up, this often means three to six months of additional development time.
Structural Criticism: Sequential handovers are the root cause
In sequential processes, a topic is only opened once the previous one has been completed. Concept → formulation → packaging → design → approval → production. This sequence seems logical, but it produces two structural problems:
First: Decisions at the beginning are made without subsequent requirements being known. If the formulation is developed without reference to the later packaging, incompatibilities are programmed in from the start.
Second: The knowledge generated during development is not passed on to the subsequent phases; it only arises there. The consequence: topics are thrown back into earlier phases, even though these were formally completed.
Tools make these loops visible. However, they do not reduce them because the sequential logic remains unchanged.
Lever 1: Own formulation base as an anchor point
The most effective structural measure against briefing loops is a clear starting point. If development does not start in the dark, but is based on a realistically implementable formulation basis, requirements and feasibility are linked from the very beginning.
At Labtree, a stock of over 1,000 of our own formulations serves as the starting point for white-label, private-label, and customized product developments. Brands see early on which product basis fits, which adjustments are necessary, and which development path is realistic.
The result: The first briefing loops are eliminated because the briefing is not formulated abstractly, but is specified on a concrete basis.
Lever 2: Early physical prototypes replace abstract discussions
Sampling loops arise because requests for adjustments must be formulated on an abstract level since no real sample yet exists. As soon as a physical sample is available, discussions become concrete: texture, application, and performance can be evaluated directly.
Standard samples of pre-qualified formulations are shipped from Labtree's sample warehouse within 24 hours. Shipping is free of charge for customers. This significantly shortens the evaluation cycle and prevents discussions from being held over concept papers.
In practice, it is evident that after the first physical sample, many requests for adjustments that were still expressed in the concept phase are eliminated; they arose from uncertainty about the actual product experience.
Lever 3: Parallel implementation instead of sequential handovers
Packaging and approval loops can be significantly reduced in terms of structure by considering critical topics early on, parallel to formulation development, instead of addressing them only after final formulation approval:
Early parallel packaging selection: Compatibility with texture and requirements is tested early on
Design parallel to sampling: Design requirements flow into the packaging selection
Regulatory preparation during customization: Preparatory steps for safety assessment and PIF run parallel to the formulation, with final approval occurring after completion of the formulation
Consider production capability in prototyping: The transition to production is prepared instead of being improvised at the end
This replaces a relay race with an orchestrated parallel process. Loops are reduced because issues do not have to be thrown back late; they were already taken into account when they were still small.
In-depth sources: The legal basis for all cosmetic products marketed in the EU is the EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009. In Germany, the health assessment of ingredients is the responsibility of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). Industry information and market data are published by the German Cosmetic, Toiletry, Perfumery and Detergent Association (IKW).
Practical example: Skincare series with ten products
A supplement brand wanted to launch a skincare range in addition, a completely new product range with ten products as a proof of concept, followed by scaling for the drugstore market.
What characterized this case: The range was not considered product by product, but as a complete line ready for launch. Raw materials, packaging, production, documentation, and registration data were planned together.
In concrete terms, this meant:
Ten products set up in parallel on existing formulation bases
Small batches of approx. 2,000 units per product including packaging, no downstream packaging step
Registration data created in parallel to development
Scaling as a follow-up, not as a restart
Result: Successful proof of concept, followed by scaling within three months and placement in the drugstore market. The loops that would have occurred in a sequential process for ten products were largely eliminated because the topics were processed in parallel.
Related articles: Digital project management · Avoid launch delays · Avoid overengineering
For parallel implementation to work, a few prerequisites must be met:
A development partner with their own formulation base and their own laboratory. Without a realistically implementable basis, every process remains partly sequential because key information is missing.
Clear decision-making responsibility on the brand side. Parallel processes require decisions to be made quickly, otherwise parallel strands turn into waiting points.
Common database. If packaging, approval, and production run in parallel, those involved must have the same level of information. This is the area where digital tools actually create added value, not as a point of differentiation, but as a hygiene factor.
Early involvement of production. Producibility must be established before the final step, otherwise new loops will be created at the end.
Some loops lie outside of the process levers:
Regulatory requirements with mandatory iteration. Some stability results objectively require an adjustment, which in turn entails a new stability test.
Raw material bottlenecks. If a chosen active ingredient is temporarily unavailable, an alternative selection is necessary, regardless of how parallel the process is run.
Strategic brand pivots. If the requirement for the product fundamentally changes, a reset is part of reality.
The goal is therefore realistically not "zero loops", but a significant reduction to what remains structurally unavoidable.
Feedback loops in cosmetics development cannot be eliminated through better communication or better tools. They arise from the sequence of the process. The effective levers are structural: a real formulation base as a starting point, early physical samples to substantiate requirements, and parallel implementation of packaging, design, regulatory approval, and production.
Brands that want to reduce their development time should ask less about tools and more about the procedural setup of the development partner.
More useful links
FAQ
Does Labtree have its own laboratory?
Yes. Labtree has its own development expertise, including a laboratory. This means that formulations can not only be selected, but specifically developed, tested, and adjusted. Additionally, smaller test batches can be produced in-house in order to validate products early on in real conditions and safely transfer them to production.
How many feedback loops are realistic in cosmetics development?
Sequential processes typically result in three to six additional loops per product. With formula-based development and parallel implementation, a large portion of these can be avoided, although not all can be eliminated; some remain unavoidable due to regulatory requirements or raw material issues.
Does parallel implementation really shorten development time?
Yes. In recipe-based development with parallel implementation of packaging, design, approval, and production, an acceleration of up to 50 percent is realistic compared to classic sequential processes.
When are approval loops unavoidable?
In the case of regulatory requirements that force adjustments, raw material bottlenecks that require alternatives, and strategic pivots on the brand side. These loops lie outside of procedural leverage.
What role do digital tools play in reducing loops?
Digital tools support transparency, documentation, and coordination within the development process and are a valuable component of a clean setup. However, the underlying development logic and the sequence of the process steps remains the central factor for reducing loops.
How early should the packaging selection process start?
Ideally parallel to the sampling. This allows incompatibilities between the formulation, container and design requirements to be recognized early, before they lead to packaging loops.
Now discover more articles
