Mintel, the beauty market intelligence agency, has codified across multiple 2024-2025 reports the "big five hero ingredients" of contemporary dermo-cosmetics: retinol, niacinamide, peptides, vitamin C, ceramides. The sector's scientific narrative from 2020 onward has been structured around these five active families, with a progressive evolution from "aggressive anti-aging" — high-concentration retinol as the reference ingredient — toward a "skin longevity" and "barrier-focused" approach that rewards actives with a higher tolerance profile. In 2024 the polynucleotide PDRN — Polydeoxyribonucleotide — was the single "big buzzword" of the sector: periocular applications inspired by regenerative medicine, K-beauty launches such as Medicube and luxury launches such as Lancôme in 2025. Exosomes have entered the "next-frontier" promises category.
The economic framework underneath the marketing narrative is structured. BASF held a 13% global share in cosmetic bioactive ingredients in 2024. DSM-Firmenich launched its AROMActive line at in-cosmetics Global 2024 and maintains an active ingredients portfolio that includes PENTAVITIN for hydration, PEPHA-AGE CB for blue-light and barrier protection, SYN-COLL CB as a tripeptide for collagen, and biotech Hyaluronic Acid-BT. Croda and Evonik complete the list of leading competitors in the active ingredients B2B segment according to Newstrail and Mordor Intelligence. Givaudan Active Beauty signed a 2026 partnership with Haut.AI for AI demonstrations of active ingredients at in-cosmetics Global.
The active-of-the-month cycle
The mechanics by which the dermo-cosmetics sector rotates around active ingredients can be read in 12-18 month cycles. A new active emerges from biotech research, is adopted as a hero ingredient by one or two pioneer brands, is amplified by dermatologist influencers on TikTok and Instagram, is incorporated by major players into their portfolios, saturates the market and gives way to a successor. Retinol dominated from 2018 to 2022 with variants such as retinal and granactive retinoid. Niacinamide had its wave from 2020 to 2023. Peptides have built a more technical and less mainstream narrative since 2021. PDRN is the 2024-2025 phenomenon with its epicentre in K-beauty and fast propagation toward Western markets.
For the CRM and content marketing system of an Italian dermo-cosmetics company, the non-trivial operational constraint is managing the speed of the cycle. A brand that reacts six months late to the arrival of a new active has already lost momentum. A brand that tries to anticipate every wave risks investing in actives that don't scale. Companies that have built trend monitoring and content modularization infrastructure — the ability to rapidly produce informational material, product datasheets and social communication on a new active without zeroing out the MLR backlog — manage the cycle as a competitive asset. The others suffer it.
The exosome case: the term banned in South Korea
The most instructive example of tension between marketing hype and regulatory framework is the exosome case. Exosomes are small extracellular vesicles involved in cellular communication, with significant potential therapeutic and cosmetic applications according to scientific literature. The 2023-2025 marketing narrative promoted them as the frontier of regenerative medicine applied to cosmetics. The European regulatory framework, however, is clear: exosomes of human origin are banned in cosmetics under EC Regulation 1223/2009 as of May 2026, because they do not fall within the list of permitted ingredients. The same constraint applies in the United Kingdom.
The most extreme case is South Korea, a country typically at the forefront of cosmetic innovation. As of January 21, 2025, the MFDS — Ministry of Food and Drug Safety — has banned the use of the word "exosome" in cosmetic product advertising, in order to avoid potentially medical and misleading claims. In the United States the FDA has not approved any exosome product for therapeutic use outside authorized clinical trials, and as of October 2025 had issued twelve warning letters on products marketed as exosomal. The compliant alternatives for dermo-cosmetics are exosomes of plant or marine origin, and polynucleotides from plant sources such as those obtained from Paeonia lactiflora documented in NCBI papers from 2025. For an Italian brand in 2026 promoting a product as "exosomal" without a precise qualification of origin is a choice that collides with the EU regulatory framework.
The EU framework: 1223/2009, 655/2013, 2024/858
The European regulatory framework for dermo-cosmetics claims is structured around three main regulations. EC Regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetic products provides the general frame: definition of cosmetic, list of permitted and prohibited ingredients in the Annexes, responsibilities of the responsible person, Product Information File. EU Regulation 655/2013 sets out the common criteria for cosmetic claims: truthfulness, substantiation, non-misleadingness, support from the Product Information File. The three types of evidence admitted by 655/2013 are experimental studies, consumer perception tests and published scientific literature. EU Regulation 2024/858 of March 14, 2024 added twelve nanomaterials to the prohibited substances in Annex II and updated the classification of nano hydroxyapatite.
The "dermatologically tested", "clinically tested" and "hypoallergenic" claims have specific guidelines issued by the EU Commission and repeated in publications of Cosmetics Europe and the British association CTPA. The constraint that is growing in intensity in 2026 is that of "free-from" claims and sustainability claims, on which the EU Commission has begun a review of the 655/2013 guidelines. For Italian dermo-cosmetics companies the message is that the framework is not static: claims accepted in 2022 are not necessarily acceptable in 2026 without adjustment. The compliance of the active portfolio must be audited periodically, not only at launch.
MedComms in cosmetics: lower standards than pharma, under pressure
The level of scientific rigor applied to clinical communication of dermo-cosmetics products is structurally lower than that of pharma. Typical cosmetic studies have small populations — between twenty and sixty subjects — durations of four to twelve weeks, and use endpoints that combine instrumental measurements — corneometry, cutometry, mexametry — with self-reported subject evaluations. Publication occurs in niche cosmetic journals such as Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology or Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, not in the major clinical journals. There is no GCP framework and no pharma-grade RCT rigor.
This historical asymmetry is under pressure in 2026. Italian supervisory authorities — NAS, AGCM, ICQ of the Ministry of Health — are increasing attention on borderline cosmetic claims. Cosmetica Italia, through its self-regulation, has reinforced claim guidelines over the last two years. Italian dermatologist opinion leaders — Pucci Romano, Antonino Di Pietro, Magda Belmontesi, among others — are participating more frequently in scientific brand panels, softly replicating L'Oréal's Derm Board model. The direction is toward a progressive convergence of cosmetic MedComms standards with those of pharma, even though the gap remains significant. For an Italian brand in 2026 the strategic choice is whether to invest now in structured MedComms capabilities — multicentre studies, formalised KOL panels, CRM infrastructure for managing physician-patient interactions — or wait for the constraint to become an operational block. The sector's trajectory suggests not waiting.
