Formulating Skincare for Different Skin Tones: What Cosmetic Chemists Actually Consider
“Inclusive skincare doesn’t mean assuming every skin tone needs a different formula. It means making sure the formula doesn’t create a different problem once it reaches a different skin tone.”
Inclusive beauty is often discussed as a shade-range problem.
For color cosmetics, shade range absolutely matters.
For skincare, the question is different.
A moisturizer does not necessarily need six versions for six skin tones. A cleanser designed for deeper skin does not automatically need a fundamentally different surfactant system. Human skin shares the same basic anatomy regardless of color.
But skin tone can materially change which concerns are most visible, how irritation presents, how pigmentation responds after inflammation, whether a sunscreen leaves an unacceptable cast, and whether the product has actually been tested on the people expected to use it.
That makes inclusive skincare a formulation, claims, sensory, and testing issue rather than simply a marketing statement.
Research also cautions against treating broad racial or ethnic categories as though they map neatly onto one set of measurable skin properties. Studies examining barrier differences across groups have produced variable and sometimes contradictory results, which is one reason good formulation should begin with the actual consumer and product concern rather than stereotypes about what “Black skin,” “Asian skin,” or “White skin” supposedly needs.
What Does “Formulating for Different Skin Tones” Actually Mean?
For skincare, formulating inclusively means considering whether differences in visible pigmentation and the consumer's likely skin concerns affect:
Ingredient strategy
Irritation tolerance
Pigmentation risk
Product residue
Sunscreen aesthetics
Tint development
Sensory acceptance
Claims
Clinical testing
Consumer-use testing
The first mistake is assuming skin color itself tells you everything about the skin.
It doesn't.
Two people with similar skin tones may have completely different:
Oil production
Barrier condition
Sensitivity
Acne tendency
Dryness
Hyperpigmentation
Product preferences
And people placed within one broad racial or ethnic group can have enormous variation in skin tone and physiology.
Skin tone should therefore be treated as one relevant product-development variable, not a substitute for understanding the consumer.
Skin Tone, Race, Ethnicity, and Fitzpatrick Type Are Not the Same Thing
These terms are frequently collapsed together in beauty.
They shouldn't be.
Skin tone describes visible skin color.
Race and ethnicity are social and demographic classifications that do not precisely predict skin physiology.
Fitzpatrick skin type was originally developed around how skin responds to ultraviolet exposure, particularly burning and tanning tendency. It was not designed as a comprehensive color chart for inclusive cosmetic testing.
This distinction matters because saying a product was tested on “Fitzpatrick IV–VI” does not automatically tell you that the test population represented the full range of deeper skin tones, undertones, pigmentary responses, or consumer concerns relevant to the intended market.
The broader dermatology and imaging fields are increasingly examining more nuanced methods for characterizing skin color because simple category systems can obscure meaningful variation.
From a cosmetic-development standpoint, I care less about finding one perfect classification system than about making sure the actual testing population reflects the people expected to buy the product.
The Biology of Melanin Changes What Consumers See
Melanin is produced by melanocytes and packaged into structures called melanosomes, which are transferred to surrounding keratinocytes.
People do not have radically different numbers of melanocytes simply because their skin tones differ.
Much of the visible difference comes from characteristics including melanosome size, distribution, persistence, and melanogenic activity.
That matters cosmetically because greater baseline pigmentation changes the visual contrast created by:
Inflammation
Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation
Hypopigmentation
Ashiness
White residue
Pigment deposition
Some forms of erythema
The formula may technically behave the same way.
The consumer may experience the visual consequence very differently.
That difference is easy to miss if every prototype is evaluated on one skin tone in the laboratory.
Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation Changes the Formulation Strategy
One of the most important considerations in richly pigmented skin is post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, usually shortened to PIH.
PIH is excess pigmentation that remains after inflammation or injury.
It can follow:
Acne lesions
Irritation
Dermatitis
Scratching
Procedures
Other inflammatory events
Research consistently shows that PIH is particularly common and often more visually prominent in darker skin tones.
This changes how I think about an “effective” skincare product.
Imagine a strong resurfacing serum intended to improve visible discoloration.
If the formula causes enough irritation to create new inflammatory pigmentation in a susceptible consumer, the product may undermine its own objective.
The chemist therefore has to think beyond:
Does the active reduce pigmentation?
The next question is:
Can we deliver that strategy without creating unnecessary irritation that may trigger more visible pigmentation?
That is formulation judgment.
Irritation Can Have a Longer Visual Consequence in Pigment-Prone Skin
This is where aggressive formulation strategies can become counterproductive.
Higher active concentrations are easy to market.
Stronger exfoliation can produce fast sensory evidence that the product is “working.”
But irritation itself can become part of the pigmentation problem.
This is especially relevant with products positioned around:
Acne-prone skin
Exfoliation
Brightening
Texture
Retinoid routines
Post-procedure care
For pigment-prone consumers, tolerability isn't merely a comfort feature.
It can influence what the skin looks like after the irritation resolves.
This does not mean every product for darker skin needs to be extremely mild.
It means the risk-benefit calculation changes when irritation can leave a persistent visible mark.
More Brightening Actives Are Not Automatically Better for Deeper Skin Tones
This is another place where ingredient stacking can work against the concept.
A founder wants a discoloration serum.
So the brief becomes:
Niacinamide.
Vitamin C.
Tranexamic acid.
Alpha arbutin.
Licorice.
Kojic acid derivative.
Azelaic acid.
N-acetyl glucosamine.
Exfoliating acid.
Now it sounds incredibly sophisticated.
It may be.
Or it may become a formula with:
Too much irritation potential
Competing pH requirements
Solubility problems
Greater instability
More tack
More color
Higher COGS
An unnecessarily complicated consumer story
A strong pigmentation formula should be designed around complementary mechanisms and tolerability, not simply the longest possible list of ingredients associated with brightening.
Niacinamide, for example, has human research supporting an effect on hyperpigmentation through inhibition of melanosome transfer, but that doesn't mean every successful discoloration formula needs to combine it with every other pigment-related active available.
Sometimes three well-chosen technologies are more intelligent than ten.
“Brightening” Should Not Mean Making Deeper Skin Lighter
This is an important language distinction.
A cosmetic formulated for hyperpigmentation should generally aim to improve uneven pigmentation, visible dark marks, or overall tone uniformity.
That is different from suggesting that naturally deeper skin should become lighter.
For founders, the product-development objective should be specific.
Are we trying to address:
Post-blemish marks?
Uneven-looking tone?
Melasma-prone consumers?
Dull appearance?
Visible sun-related discoloration?
The word brightening is broad enough that it can hide very different concepts.
The formula should target the concern, not the consumer's baseline skin color.
Redness Does Not Look the Same on Every Skin Tone
Erythema is visible redness caused by increased blood flow and other vascular and inflammatory changes.
On lighter skin, erythema can be visually obvious.
On deeper skin, inflammation may appear more subtly as:
Deep red
Purple
Brownish
Gray
Darkening
depending on the person and condition.
That matters for both product testing and consumer research.
If an irritation study relies heavily on visually obvious redness and the investigator has limited experience evaluating deeper skin tones, subtle inflammatory responses may be missed or graded differently.
This is one reason inclusive testing is more meaningful than adding diverse imagery to marketing after development is finished.
The response needs to be measurable across the intended population.
Ashiness Is a Formulation and Optical Problem
Dryness on deeper skin can become especially visible because fine scaling scatters light against a darker background.
Consumers often describe this as ashiness.
That doesn't necessarily mean deeper skin is universally drier.
Research comparing barrier characteristics by ethnicity has been mixed, and broad statements about one racial group having inherently “better” or “worse” barrier function are not well supported as universal rules.
But the visual expression of surface dryness can be more obvious on deeper skin.
That means an inclusive body lotion may need to be evaluated not only for measured hydration or subjective softness, but also for:
Residual whitening
Powderiness
Dry-down
Surface flaking
Visible ashiness
A moisturizer can feel adequately emollient and still leave a pale film that makes deep skin appear drier.
That is a sensory failure even if the hydration system looks excellent on paper.
White Cast Is Not Just a Sunscreen Problem
Sunscreen is the most famous example, but many cosmetic materials can leave visible whitening.
Potential contributors include:
Zinc oxide
Titanium dioxide
Certain powders
High wax loads
Some starches
Film-formers
Poorly dispersed solids
Product buildup
Soaping during rub-in
Soaping is the temporary whitening that can appear while rubbing in some emulsions.
On lighter skin, it may barely register.
On deeper skin, it may be very obvious.
It can disappear after a few seconds and still make the formula feel poorly designed.
This is the kind of issue a laboratory team may not notice if every prototype is rubbed onto the same light forearm.
Inclusive formulation sometimes comes down to something this practical.
Mineral Sunscreen Is Where Inclusive Formulation Becomes Impossible to Ignore
Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are highly useful UV filters.
They can also scatter visible light and produce a white or gray cast that is much more apparent on deeper skin.
Research into sunscreen optics directly connects visible whitening with light scattering from particulate UV filters, while newer research is developing standardized methods to quantify white cast across different skin tones.
This is not a minor aesthetic issue.
If a consumer hates how a sunscreen looks, they may use less of it or stop using it.
That turns sensory elegance into a public-health and compliance issue because sunscreen performance depends on appropriate application.
For a formulator, achieving an elegant high-mineral-load sunscreen across a broad range of skin tones can be much harder than making the sunscreen technically meet SPF.
Smaller Mineral Particles Can Reduce Whitening, but the Story Is More Complicated
Particle size influences how mineral UV filters interact with visible light.
Reducing particle size can decrease visible scattering and improve transparency.
That is one reason micronized and nanoscale zinc oxide and titanium dioxide technologies have been used in modern sunscreens.
But particle size is only part of the formula.
White cast also depends on:
Dispersion quality
Particle agglomeration
Surface treatment
Total solids
Film formation
Oil phase
Pigments
Application thickness
Skin tone
A poor dispersion of a sophisticated zinc oxide can still look bad.
A well-designed formula can make a major difference.
That is exactly why saying “contains micronized zinc” doesn't tell the consumer how the finished sunscreen will look.
Tinted Sunscreens Create a Different Inclusive Challenge
Tinting mineral sunscreen can reduce visible white cast.
Iron oxides also have an additional benefit in pigmentation-oriented sunscreen because iron-oxide-containing formulations can improve protection against visible-light-induced pigmentation compared with UV-only protection. Human studies have demonstrated that iron-oxide-containing formulations can reduce visible-light-induced pigmentation in darker skin types.
That makes tinted sunscreen particularly interesting for consumers concerned with hyperpigmentation.
But one universal tint does not work equally well for everyone.
A shade that looks beautifully neutral on medium skin may appear:
Orange
Pink
Gray
Ashy
Too light
on another complexion.
This creates a real formulation and inventory decision.
Do you make one translucent tint?
Several shades?
A color-adapting system?
A mostly invisible mineral formula?
The answer depends on the consumer and commercial strategy.
Undertone Matters Too
Skin depth and undertone are different.
Consumers can have:
Warm
Cool
Neutral
Golden
Olive
Red
undertones across very different depths of skin.
This becomes especially important when the skincare product contains enough pigment to visibly alter the complexion.
Tinted sunscreens.
Tone-correcting primers.
Blur products.
Illuminating moisturizers.
Pigmented eye products.
Even some mineral-rich formulas.
A shade family can technically cover a range of depths and still look wrong because the undertone balance is poor.
Inclusive color development therefore needs actual skin testing.
Color values on a screen or supplier pigment blends are not enough.
Visible Light Matters More Than Many Skincare Discussions Acknowledge
Traditional sunscreen education focuses heavily on ultraviolet radiation.
For pigmentation-prone consumers, visible light can also matter.
Studies have demonstrated visible-light-induced pigmentation in darker skin types, and iron-oxide-containing tinted formulations have shown value in reducing this response.
This creates an interesting product-development distinction.
A founder may ask for:
“A sunscreen for dark skin with no white cast.”
That is one objective.
A more sophisticated pigmentation-oriented concept might also ask:
Should the product include a tint strategy that contributes to visible-light protection while still working across the intended skin-tone range?
Now the formula is solving more than one problem.
That's where inclusive formulation becomes innovation rather than just accommodation.
Sunscreen Claims Still Have to Follow the Regulatory Path
A tinted sunscreen may look like skincare or makeup.
In the United States, a product intended to provide sun protection is regulated as an OTC drug, or as both a cosmetic and drug depending on its other functions.
That means a formulator cannot simply add zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, or iron oxides and treat the product like a conventional moisturizer.
The active sunscreen system, testing, labeling, manufacturing, and claims have their own regulatory requirements.
Inclusive sunscreen design therefore has to solve:
regulatory performance + optical performance + sensory performance + shade inclusivity
at the same time.
That is one reason sunscreen remains one of the harder cosmetic-development categories.
Hyperpigmentation Is Not the Only Concern in Skin of Color
Inclusive skincare gets reduced too easily to dark spots.
Consumers with deeper skin tones also care about:
Acne
Dryness
Oiliness
Fine lines
Texture
Sensitivity
Barrier support
Sunscreen
Scalp concerns
Body care
The basic cosmetic needs of human skin do not become completely different because melanin levels change.
A brand does not need a separate “melanin moisturizer” simply because the target consumer has deeper skin.
Sometimes the most inclusive product is a beautifully designed moisturizer tested across diverse users and marketed without implying that one group requires exotic biology.
That is an important distinction.
Acne Products Need a Pigmentation-Aware Strategy
Acne is an especially good example because the inflammatory lesion and the mark left afterward may matter equally to the consumer.
Research on acne in richly pigmented skin repeatedly identifies PIH as a major concern.
This means an acne-prone consumer may judge product success by two questions:
Did I develop fewer breakouts?
And:
What happened to the marks afterward?
A cosmetic product cannot make drug claims about treating acne unless it follows the applicable OTC pathway.
But skincare developed for blemish-prone consumers can still consider:
Barrier support
Gentle cleansing
Pigmentation-conscious active strategy
Reduced irritation
Non-whitening finish
Suitable sensory characteristics
The product brief should reflect the actual consumer problem, not only the category name.
Strong Exfoliation Can Be a Poor Shortcut to “Faster Results”
Exfoliation can absolutely be useful in formulas targeting texture and uneven tone.
But the development team needs to think about the whole routine.
A consumer may already be using:
Retinoids.
Acids.
Acne medications.
Brightening products.
Exfoliating cleansers.
Now the new serum adds another aggressive exfoliation step.
Technically, the formula may perform as intended.
Commercially, it may create a tolerability problem.
For consumers prone to PIH, excessive irritation can be particularly frustrating because the visible aftermath can last much longer than the initial sting.
This is one reason I would rather build a pigmentation product around consistent tolerable use than the strongest possible first impression.
Skin Barrier Differences Should Be Discussed Carefully
There is a persistent tendency in beauty to make sweeping claims such as:
“Black skin has a stronger barrier.”
“Asian skin is more sensitive.”
“White skin has less TEWL.”
The science is not that neat.
Reviews comparing skin barrier characteristics across racial and ethnic groups have found differences in some studies, but the evidence is heterogeneous and affected by factors including environment, anatomical site, measurement method, age, and population.
This is one of the areas where consumer beauty writing often gets ahead of the evidence.
A cosmetic chemist doesn't need to build a universal ethnic skin theory before making a moisturizer.
We need to understand the product's target consumer and test the finished formula appropriately.
Cultural Hair and Skincare Practices Can Matter More Than Biology
Consumer behavior can sometimes matter more than small measured physiological differences.
Think about:
Frequency of cleansing
Use of oils or occlusives
Makeup wear
Hairstyling practices
Scalp product use
Sunscreen habits
Climate
Shaving
Hair removal
Product layering
These practices can influence what a product needs to do and how it will be used.
A lightweight face lotion developed for a consumer who layers several products under makeup has a different brief from a rich body cream intended for visibly ashy winter skin.
Inclusive formulation should therefore include consumer research, not simply literature about skin biology.
Diverse Skin Tone Testing Should Begin Before the Clinical Study
Brands often think about inclusivity at the clinical-testing stage.
I would start earlier.
Prototype evaluation itself should include a broader range of users when skin appearance could affect the experience.
That can reveal:
White cast
Gray cast
Soaping
Tint mismatch
Ashy residue
Pigment settling
Changes in perceived radiance
Unwanted sheen
Visible peeling or pilling
These aren't always issues a conventional stability test will detect.
A formula can be physically stable and still look unacceptable on part of the target population.
That is why sensory development and inclusive testing need to overlap.
Clinical Testing Needs a Representative Population
If a brand wants to make a broad finished-product claim, the study population should make sense for the claim and intended consumer.
Suppose the product is marketed specifically for visible discoloration in deeper skin tones.
A study conducted almost entirely on very light skin would create an obvious relevance problem.
Likewise, a sunscreen claiming an invisible finish across all skin tones should actually be evaluated across a meaningful range of skin tones.
The study design may include objective instrumental measurements, expert grading, consumer perception, or a combination depending on the claim.
The important thing is to decide what the claim means before testing begins.
“Works on all skin tones” is a stronger statement than “tested on diverse skin tones.”
The evidence should match the words.
“Dermatologist Tested” Does Not Mean Inclusively Tested
This is another subtle claims issue.
A product can be dermatologist tested and still have been evaluated on a narrow population.
Similarly:
Clinically tested.
Consumer tested.
Sensitive-skin tested.
None of those phrases tells you the demographic composition of the study.
If diversity is part of the product promise, the brand should know who was actually included.
A founder doesn't need to put the entire clinical protocol on the carton.
The evidence behind the claim should still be meaningful.
Instrumentation Can Also Behave Differently Across Skin Tones
This is especially relevant in claims testing.
Optical devices, image-analysis systems, color measurements, erythema assessment, and other technologies may require validation or interpretation across different skin tones.
A device that performs extremely well at detecting redness on light skin may not produce equivalent visual sensitivity on deeply pigmented skin.
This is one reason the dermatology and medical-imaging fields continue to examine representation and bias in skin-tone datasets and measurement systems.
For beauty brands, the practical point is simple:
Testing technology should be appropriate for the people being tested.
Inclusive enrollment alone does not solve a measurement method that performs poorly across that enrollment.
Photography Can Misrepresent Product Performance Too
Before-and-after photography sounds simple.
Lighting makes it complicated.
Differences in:
Exposure
White balance
Camera
Angle
Distance
Ambient light
can change how pigmentation and skin tone appear.
For products claiming improvements in discoloration, redness, radiance, or texture, standardized photography matters.
It matters across every skin tone, but poor lighting can be particularly misleading when subtle pigment changes are the endpoint.
A good clinical photograph should document the result, not create it.
Consumer Language Changes Across Skin Tones
Consumers do not always describe the same cosmetic problem using the same words.
One person says:
Dry.
Another says:
Ashy.
One says:
Red.
Another says:
My skin looks darker after irritation.
One says:
Sunscreen leaves a white cast.
Another says:
It makes me gray.
Those descriptions are product-development information.
A chemist doesn't need to turn every consumer phrase into a biological category.
We do need to hear what the user is actually experiencing.
Sometimes the brief improves dramatically once the language moves from a generic concern like “sensitive skin” to something concrete like:
“Every strong active leaves dark marks when I get irritated.”
Now the formulation objective becomes clearer.
Inclusive Skincare Does Not Require Separate Formulas for Every Skin Tone
This is worth stating clearly.
Most skincare products do not need to be segmented by skin color.
A good cleanser can work beautifully across a broad range of tones.
So can:
Moisturizers
Serums
Body lotions
Cleansing balms
Eye creams
Barrier products
The product needs to address the relevant skin concern and perform appropriately.
Separate formulas make more sense when color, pigment, residue, or a clearly different consumer need actually changes the product.
Otherwise, over-segmentation can create the impression of scientific precision without a meaningful technical reason behind it.
When Separate Versions Do Make Sense
There are situations where multiple versions can be justified.
Tinted Sunscreens
Shade depth and undertone can materially affect acceptability.
Tone-Correcting Skincare
Pigmented optical modifiers may need multiple shades.
Blur and Radiance Products
Pearlescent pigments and powders can behave very differently across complexions.
Products With Significant Mineral Load
The formula may need color adaptation to avoid visible residue.
Makeup-Skincare Hybrids
Once visible coverage becomes part of the function, shade architecture becomes central.
Here the development process begins to resemble color cosmetics even if the product is marketed primarily as skincare.
Optical Ingredients Can Behave Very Differently Across Complexions
Skincare increasingly uses optical materials for instant effects.
These may include:
Mica
Silica
Boron nitride
Starches
Soft-focus powders
Titanium dioxide-containing pigments
Pearlescent materials
Iron oxides
A powder that creates beautiful blur on lighter skin may create a pale haze on deep skin.
A pink pearl intended to produce radiance may look ashy or artificial.
A golden pearl may flatter some undertones and look too yellow on others.
This is why “universal glow” claims deserve real evaluation.
Optics are chemistry, particle science, and color perception.
The ingredient doesn't know what the marketing team called it.
Texture Preferences Are Not Determined by Skin Color
This is another stereotype worth avoiding.
You cannot look at someone's skin tone and determine that they want:
A richer cream.
A lighter gel.
More oil.
Less oil.
No fragrance.
More fragrance.
Those are consumer preferences, cultural practices, climate effects, and skin-condition considerations.
Inclusive formulation should expand who gets considered.
It should not replace old assumptions with new ones.
Hyperpigmentation Products Have a Strong Commercial Opportunity, but the Category Is Crowded
Discoloration remains one of the most important skincare concerns among consumers with richly pigmented skin, and PIH is a persistent issue in dermatology.
That creates obvious product opportunity.
It also means the market does not necessarily need another generic:
Niacinamide + tranexamic acid dark spot serum
unless the product does something meaningfully better.
Differentiation could come from:
Better tolerability
Barrier-supportive architecture
A clear post-blemish positioning
Better sensory
Pigmentation-aware sunscreen integration
Stronger finished-product substantiation
A specific target consumer
Packaging that supports stability
Thoughtful combination with visible-light protection in an SPF product
The hero ingredient alone may no longer be enough.
Inclusive Sunscreen Still Has Real Product Whitespace
Sunscreen has improved dramatically.
White cast remains a meaningful consumer complaint, especially among consumers with deeper skin tones, and current research continues to focus specifically on measuring and reducing mineral sunscreen whitening.
From a formulation perspective, this remains one of the most interesting spaces because the product has to solve several difficult problems at once:
High UV protection.
Good film formation.
Appropriate regulatory testing.
Elegant sensory.
Minimal whitening.
Shade inclusivity if tinted.
Compatibility with makeup.
Acceptable wear.
Water resistance where intended.
That complexity creates room for genuinely better formulation.
“Melanin Skincare” Can Be Useful Positioning or Empty Positioning
Brands increasingly use language such as:
Melanin-rich skin.
Melanated skin.
Skin of color.
Those terms can help consumers find products created with their concerns in mind.
But the formula still needs a reason.
If a moisturizer marketed for melanated skin is simply a conventional stock base with a different label, the positioning may have limited technical substance.
A stronger concept might have been deliberately developed around:
No visible ashiness
Rich but non-greasy body moisturization
Pigmentation-conscious irritation strategy
Dark-mark support
A sunscreen with truly acceptable aesthetics on deep skin
Finished-product testing across the intended consumer group
The language should describe the product strategy rather than substitute for one.
The Best Inclusive Product Brief Starts With the Consumer Problem
Instead of:
“We need skincare for Black skin.”
I would rather receive:
“We want a daily treatment for consumers with deeper skin tones who are primarily concerned with post-blemish marks but are already using acne products, so tolerability matters.”
That is a formulation brief.
Or:
“We want a mineral sunscreen that disappears on Fitzpatrick V and VI skin without looking gray and works under makeup.”
Now we know what needs to be solved.
Or:
“Our body lotion has to eliminate visible ashiness without leaving an oily surface because the consumer wants to dress immediately.”
That is actionable too.
The more specific the consumer problem, the less likely the formula becomes a generic diversity exercise.
Ingredient Selection Should Follow the Concern, Not the Skin Tone
This principle keeps inclusive formulation scientifically grounded.
There isn't a master ingredient list for deeper skin.
The chemist selects technologies based on the product objective.
For example, a pigmentation-focused formula might consider categories including:
Melanosome-transfer modulation
Tyrosinase-related strategies
Antioxidant support
Exfoliation
Barrier support
Anti-irritancy or soothing strategy
depending on the product.
A dry-skin product may focus primarily on:
Humectants
Emollients
Occlusion
Lipid architecture
Film formation
A sunscreen may prioritize:
UV filter system
Dispersion
Film-formers
Pigment strategy
Sensory
Shade performance
Skin tone changes some priorities.
It doesn't eliminate normal formulation logic.
Niacinamide Is Useful, but It Is Not “The Ingredient for Melanin”
Niacinamide is a good example of how a useful ingredient can become oversimplified.
Research supports several topical cosmetic benefits, including effects relevant to pigmentation. One established mechanism involves reducing transfer of melanosomes from melanocytes to keratinocytes.
That makes niacinamide highly useful in many uneven-tone concepts.
But it is not a universal answer to every pigmentation concern.
Nor does putting niacinamide into a product make it automatically suitable for darker skin.
The complete formula still determines:
Irritation
Stability
Texture
Delivery
Sensory
Compatibility with the consumer's routine
This is the same pattern that appears throughout skincare.
The ingredient matters.
The formula decides what the consumer actually gets.
Azelaic Acid Illustrates the Cosmetic-Drug Boundary
Azelaic acid is especially interesting because it appears in both cosmetic and therapeutic contexts depending on product, concentration, claims, and jurisdiction.
Published dermatology literature supports topical azelaic acid for several pigmentary and inflammatory uses and generally describes it as reasonably well tolerated, although local irritation can occur.
For a cosmetic brand, however, ingredient evidence does not automatically authorize drug claims.
The formulation and marketing strategy need to remain within the appropriate regulatory category.
This becomes particularly important in skin-of-color product development because founders may want to reference acne, melasma, or inflammatory pigment disorders directly.
The product concept has to decide whether it is a cosmetic or pursuing another regulatory pathway.
The claims cannot be figured out after the formula is already built.
Sunscreen Should Not Be Treated as Optional for Deeper Skin
Higher melanin levels provide some natural UV protection.
They do not make sunscreen irrelevant.
UV exposure contributes to photoaging and pigmentation across skin tones, and visible light can be particularly relevant to pigmentation in darker skin.
The product-development problem has historically been that many sunscreen formulas were cosmetically unpleasant on deeper skin.
That doesn't change the need for protection.
It changes the obligation to make better products.
This is one of those areas where sensory inclusivity supports actual use.
Formulating for Sensitive, Pigment-Prone Skin Often Means Restraint
A formula targeted to consumers concerned with pigmentation can easily become overloaded because so many actives have a plausible story.
This is where experience matters.
A chemist may decide that the better formulation has:
One strong hero strategy.
Two supporting technologies.
A well-designed hydration and barrier system.
And nothing else that needs to be there.
That can outperform a formula carrying every fashionable brightening ingredient because the consumer can actually use it consistently.
I think this is one of the most important shifts in modern active skincare.
Sophistication is not measured by ingredient count.
Packaging Can Affect Inclusive Performance Too
Packaging doesn't change the user's melanin level.
It can change the formula they receive.
For a tinted sunscreen or pigmented treatment, packaging can influence:
Product homogeneity
Pigment settling
Dispensing consistency
Dose
Oxidation
Dry-out
Formula concentration
Imagine a tinted sunscreen where pigments gradually settle or the pump delivers inconsistent composition.
Now the consumer may receive different color or even an altered UV-filter distribution across uses depending on the formula architecture.
That is not simply a packaging problem.
It is a finished-product performance problem.
Compatibility and dispensing matter even more when visual uniformity is central to the product promise.
Formula Ownership Can Matter When Inclusivity Depends on the Architecture
A brand does not need to own its formula to make an inclusive product.
A private-label manufacturer may have an excellent product developed and tested across a wide skin-tone range.
But custom formulation becomes more strategically useful when inclusivity depends on specific technical choices.
Suppose the product promise depends on:
Particular pigment ratios
Multiple tint versions
Carefully controlled mineral dispersion
Defined brightening-active levels
Low-irritation active architecture
Specific optical materials
A proprietary sensory target
Now knowing the quantitative formula matters more.
With 100% ownership of the finished quantitative formula, the brand has visibility into the ingredient levels and architecture behind the inclusive performance.
That can make it easier to:
Adjust tint
Expand shade range
Modify an active level
Optimize COGS
Change a raw material
Adapt to another retailer standard
Transfer manufacturing
Preserve the sensory and visual benchmarks that define the product
Owning the formula does not give the brand ownership of supplier patents, proprietary pigment technologies, raw-material intellectual property, or other third-party technologies.
It gives the brand control of its finished quantitative product architecture.
That distinction can become important when inclusivity is something engineered into the formula, not simply claimed on the package.
Inclusive Product Development Requires More Than an Inclusive Focus Group
Consumer research is useful.
It doesn't replace technical testing.
Likewise, technical testing doesn't replace consumer research.
A strong process may need both.
Instrumental testing can tell you:
How much hydration changed.
Whether pigmentation measurements changed.
Whether the sunscreen met SPF.
Whether the formula is stable.
Consumers tell you:
It turns gray on me.
It pills over my serum.
The tint is orange.
The moisturizer makes my legs look ashy after ten minutes.
The sunscreen makes my skin look dull.
Those observations are not unscientific.
They are data about the finished product experience.
What Founders Should Ask Before Developing an “Inclusive” Skincare Product
The most useful questions are usually product-specific.
Who is the primary consumer?
What problem are we solving?
Does skin tone materially affect how that problem appears?
Is pigmentation part of the concern?
Could irritation worsen the visible outcome?
Will the product leave visible residue?
Does it contain pigments or mineral particles?
Do we need one tint or several?
Will the formula be evaluated on a meaningful range of skin tones?
Do our claims reflect who was actually tested?
Does the product need to meet additional sensitive-skin, clean-beauty, retailer, or certification requirements?
Those questions create a real formulation brief.
“Make it inclusive” doesn't.
Certifications Do Not Prove Skin-Tone Inclusivity
A product may be:
Credo-compliant.
Sephora Clean compliant.
COSMOS certified.
Vegan.
Cruelty-free.
Accepted by another retailer or certification program.
Those standards may matter enormously to the intended consumer.
They do not establish that the finished product performs equally well across skin tones.
A mineral sunscreen can meet a clean standard and still leave an unacceptable white cast.
A sensitive-skin formula can meet a retailer standard and still be evaluated on an unrepresentative clinical population.
Certification and inclusivity answer different questions.
Good product development can address both.
Clean Beauty 2.0 and Inclusive Formulation Have Something in Common
Both have moved beyond simple checklists.
First-generation clean beauty often asked:
What did we remove?
Modern formulation also asks:
Did the product still perform?
Inclusive skincare has a similar evolution.
The early question was:
Did we include diverse consumers in the marketing?
The stronger question is:
Did we design and evaluate the product in a way that works for them?
That means performance.
Sensory.
Pigmentation.
Residue.
Tolerability.
Testing.
Claims.
The inclusion should be visible in the product architecture, not only the campaign photography.
A Product Can Be Universal Without Being Generic
There is no contradiction between creating one product for a broad population and developing it very deliberately.
A truly universal moisturizer might have been specifically optimized to:
Avoid visible ashiness
Layer cleanly
Work across dry and oily areas
Support the barrier
Avoid unnecessary irritation
Leave no pale film
Perform across a broad testing population
The final product might look deceptively simple.
That does not mean the development process was generic.
Sometimes a product feels universal precisely because someone worked hard to remove the things that made it exclusionary.
Inclusive Formulation Is Also a Market Opportunity
Beauty has made major progress in color cosmetics because shade inequity was impossible to ignore once consumers began demanding better ranges.
Skincare is subtler.
The product may technically be “one shade.”
That does not mean every consumer experiences it equally.
White cast.
Ashy residue.
Irritation-related pigmentation.
Tint mismatch.
Clinical underrepresentation.
These are real product-development gaps.
For brands, that creates opportunity.
Not by building a separate product for every demographic group.
By identifying where current formulas fail a consumer and solving that failure better.
That is much more defensible than attaching the word inclusive to an otherwise ordinary product.
The Competitive Advantage May Be the Testing, Not the Ingredient
This is an area I think beauty brands underestimate.
Imagine two products with nearly identical INCI lists.
One brand chose its actives carefully but tested mostly in-house on whoever was available.
The other evaluated:
White cast across multiple skin tones.
Pigmentation outcomes in the relevant population.
Consumer acceptance.
Visible residue.
Clinical endpoints appropriate to deeper skin.
Same broad ingredient story.
Different confidence in the finished product.
As skincare categories become increasingly crowded, how a product was validated can become part of the differentiation.
That is a stronger story than inventing another proprietary-sounding name for a familiar ingredient blend.
Key Takeaways
Inclusive skincare formulation does not mean assuming different racial or ethnic groups require completely different skin biology. Research comparing barrier characteristics among ethnic groups is mixed, and broad stereotypes are less useful than understanding the actual target consumer and product concern.
Skin tone becomes especially important where it changes the visible consequence of a product. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation is more common and often more prominent in richly pigmented skin, making irritation and tolerability particularly relevant in products targeting uneven tone or blemish-prone consumers.
Optical performance matters too. Mineral UV filters, powders, pigments, and some emulsion structures can create white, gray, or ashy residue that is substantially more visible on deeper skin.
Tinted sunscreen introduces another layer because iron oxides can contribute to visible-light protection relevant to hyperpigmentation, while the tint itself needs to work across the intended shade and undertone range.
The strongest inclusive product-development strategy is therefore not “formulate differently because skin is darker.”
It is:
Understand where the consumer's experience is different, then design and test the finished product accordingly.
Cosmeta's Perspective
I think the next phase of inclusive beauty will be much more technical than the first one.
Color cosmetics forced the industry to think seriously about shade range because exclusion was immediately visible.
Skincare can hide it better.
A bottle can say “for all skin tones” while the sunscreen turns gray on deep skin.
A dark-spot serum can look inclusive in the campaign while the active system is unnecessarily irritating for consumers especially concerned with post-inflammatory pigmentation.
A universal glow product can create a pale pearl finish that looks beautiful on half the test group and ashy on the other half.
Those are formulation problems.
What makes this area interesting is that the solution usually isn't a special ingredient for one demographic.
It's better product development.
Better consumer definition.
Better sensory work.
Better pigment and particle science.
Better clinical representation.
Better claims.
And sometimes more restraint in the active system.
Inclusive formulation is not about treating skin tones as completely different types of skin.
It's about making sure the product-development process isn't built around one skin tone and assumed to work for everyone else.
That is a much higher standard.
And I think it will increasingly separate products that merely look inclusive from products that were actually designed that way.
Ready for the Next Step
Start with the specific consumer experience you want to improve. If skin tone changes the visibility of pigmentation, residue, tint, irritation, or product finish, build that consideration into prototype evaluation and claims testing early. Inclusive performance is much easier to engineer during formulation than to add after the finished product already exists.
FAQs
-
Not automatically. Human skin has the same basic structure across skin tones, and broad racial or ethnic categories do not reliably predict one universal skincare need. Ingredient selection should primarily follow the consumer's actual concerns, such as dryness, acne-prone skin, pigmentation, sensitivity, or visible aging. Skin tone becomes especially relevant when it changes how irritation, pigmentation, white cast, ashiness, or tinted products appear.
-
Inflammation can stimulate melanogenesis and leave post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, or PIH. PIH occurs across skin tones but is particularly common and often more persistent or visually prominent in richly pigmented skin. This is why irritation control can be an important part of skincare developed for consumers concerned with post-blemish marks.
-
Mineral UV filters such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide interact with and scatter visible light. That light scattering can produce a white or gray appearance, which creates greater contrast on deeper skin tones. Particle characteristics, dispersion, formula structure, total mineral load, and tint strategy all influence how visible the cast becomes.
-
They can be particularly useful when the tint contains iron oxides. Human research has shown that iron-oxide-containing formulations can provide additional protection against visible-light-induced pigmentation compared with UV protection alone, which may be relevant for consumers prone to melasma or post-inflammatory pigmentation. The tint still needs to match the consumer well enough to be used consistently.
-
If a product is intended for a broad population, and especially if the claim involves pigmentation, redness, white cast, radiance, or visible skin appearance, including a meaningful range of skin tones can make the results more relevant. The measurement method also matters because visual and optical endpoints may not perform identically across every complexion.
