Key Takeaways:
For years, the beauty industry has leaned heavily on the promise of universality, especially in relation to skincare. From cleansers and moisturizers to sunscreens and serums, brands routinely claim their formulas “work for all skin types,” offering consumers the reassurance of simplicity in an otherwise overwhelming market. As routines grow more complex and ingredient literacy rises, universality has become a shorthand for accessibility, inclusivity, and ease.
At its core, the debate around universality exposes a deeper tension within modern beauty: the desire for simplicity versus the reality of biological diversity. As brands scale globally and consumers demand both inclusivity and efficacy, the idea of a single formula that can meet every skin’s needs has become a powerful and even profitable narrative. However, against that backdrop lies a more complex truth about how skin actually functions, how products are formulated, and where marketing often fills the gaps that science cannot.
What “Universal” Means in the Lab
From a formulation standpoint, universality is not impossible, but it is highly limited. “From a scientist’s perspective, it is possible to create a universal framework for skincare products,” Smitha Rao, veteran scientist and CEO of Parëva Beauty, said to BeautyMatter. That framework, she explained, prioritizes “low-irritation formulas, balanced lipids, skin-identical ingredients, and anything that won’t disrupt the skin barrier.”
Some categories naturally lend themselves to this approach. Rao said that cleansers are the best example, particularly when they use gentle surfactants, maintain a balanced pH, and include barrier-supporting humectants. “Certain moisturizers and lightweight hydrating serums can also get close when their formula is balanced enough that it doesn’t feel too heavy or too light on the skin.”
Varun Koneru, Vice President of R&D, Quality, and Regulatory at SeneGence, agreed, but with caveats. “‘Universal skincare' is a bit of a scientific tightrope,” he explained to BeautyMatter. “While skin varies widely in barrier strength, lipid composition, pigment biology, and sensitivity thresholds, he noted that “creating formulas that are broadly compatible across skin types is absolutely possible.”
Where that compatibility breaks down, however, is in treatment-driven products. “Treatment products, such as high-strength Vitamin C, retinoids, sunscreens, and exfoliating acids, are rarely universal,” Koneru said. These actives behave differently depending on sensitivity, tolerance, and pigment biology, making personalization far more critical.
Environment > Genetics
Although genetics and ethnicity influence baseline skin characteristics, environmental and lifestyle factors frequently determine how skin behaves in real time. “In my professional view, environmental and lifestyle factors often create bigger day-to-day formulation differences than genetics or ethnicity,” Rao explained. Genetics establish the starting points like barrier thickness, sebum production. and irritation thresholds, but environment dictates how aggressively the skin changes over time.
Koneru has seen this firsthand.“I grew up in hot, humid India, and my skin was naturally oily for most of my early years.” After moving to Utah, one of the driest climates in the United States, his skin shifted toward normal-dry within a few years. “The shift had nothing to do with my ethnicity or genetics. The climate transformed how my skin functioned day to day.”
This variability complicates universal claims. A product that performs well in a humid climate may feel insufficient or destabilizing in a dry one, even on the same person. If universality has limits, active ingredients are where those limits become unavoidable. “Actives absolutely behave differently across Fitzpatrick levels,” Rao said, calling this “the core reason why universal treatment formulas are scientifically unrealistic.”
Retinoids, she explained, “penetrate faster in lighter skin (I–III), causing visible redness, while in melanin-rich skin (IV–VI) irritation is often ‘invisible’ and instead triggers post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).” AHAs at low pH may perform well on lighter skin but create high PIH risk for deeper tones, while even niacinamide, often framed as universal, becomes problematic at higher concentrations. “Ten percent can irritate deeper skin and lead to PIH, while 2%-5% is broadly tolerable,” added Rao.
Dr. Julian Sass, cosmetic scientist and product development consultant, sees this divide clearly in clinical outcomes. “You can have a product that performs really well on lighter skin tones but doesn’t perform as well on deeper skin tones,” he told BeautyMatter, particularly when treating hyperpigmentation. “Those melanocytes are much more active, so getting improvement from hyperpigmentation is a lot more work.”
The takeaway is consistent across experts. “Universal skincare is possible for cleansers, hydrators, and basic moisturizers but not for complicated active treatments,” Rao said. “Precision matters because skin biology isn’t universal.”
Is the Industry Equipped to Prove Universality?
For brands, universality often functions as both a formulation goal and a marketing language. This distinction matters. Koneru believes credibility starts in the lab. To legitimately claim broad compatibility, products must use “balanced, nonaggressive levels of actives, follow a barrier-first approach, avoid common irritants, and undergo rigorous safety testing such as RIPT [Repeat Insult Patch Testing] across diverse users.”
However, Sass argued that consumer perception is often shaped less by chemistry than by communication. “You can have the same gel moisturizer in three different brands marketed in three different ways,” he said, “and they perform very differently just because of what your brand voice is.” Emotional connection, community-building, and brand identity frequently determine whether consumers feel a product was “made for them.”
While inclusivity in testing has improved, gaps remain. “We’re getting better, but we’re not fully there yet,” Koneru said. Many biophysical measurement tools, including erythema detection, were originally optimized for lighter skin tones. “We’re still working toward more universally accurate instrumentation,” he continued.
Sass is blunt about the implications. “If you’re trying to launch products that you say are built for everyone, you have to back that up. You can’t just have your whole team feel it and go, ‘Okay, great. This is good for everybody.’ That’s crazy.”
Despite the critiques, none of the experts believe universal skincare is obsolete. Instead, they see a hybrid model taking shape. “The future isn’t fully universal or fully hyperpersonalized; it’s a precision middle ground,” Rao said. “Universal formulas will continue to anchor routines, while smart base formulas paired with modulators, boosters, or controlled-release actives allow flexibility without bespoke complexity.”
Koneru described this as “smart universal foundational products with personalized treatment layers,” supported by growing consumer literacy and emerging AI-driven diagnostics, while Sass remains pragmatic. “It’s a tall order to have one product that the vast majority of people are satisfied with,” he said, likening consumer response to a bell curve. There will always be outliers, and that, he suggested, is exactly why universality remains more aspiration than endpoint.
In the end, universal skincare may not mean one product for everyone, but rather science-driven simplicity: formulas that respect biological diversity while reducing unnecessary complexity. On a market-balancing scale, inclusivity and performance may be the most universal goals of all.
