Read Part I of the earlier history of Cosmetic Chemistry.
Claims of Equity
Despite this obvious history of male-domination in the beauty industry for decades, many beauty companies have recently been trying to tout “equity”—only after being called out by social media campaigns. Even more concerning is that these beauty standards (often unrealistic, painful, and expensive) are touted by companies led by white men, As Ellen Atlanta in Pixel Flesh reveals:
This gender imbalance may not be surprising, considering more than 70 per cent of the top-level executive roles in the beauty sector are held by white, middle-aged men, a demographic that only gains respect with age and the knowledge, experience and wealth (p 264).
Perhaps, this is because the bar is just so low. Compared to other industries, the beauty industry performs better, according to a 2016 report by LedBetter, a research group that analyzes the gender disparity across big-name companies:
beauty outranked every other profession in terms of the highest percentage of women seen on the board and in executive positions (apparel and retail came in second and third). Unfortunately, that number was 29 percent—29 percent—which paints an incredibly bleak and a very real picture about how far away we are from achieving equal representation at the C-suite.
So, people took to social media to call this out:
#Pulluproshutup
The “#Pulluproshutup” challenge called out the hypocrisy of the beauty industry. In June 2020, Uoma Beauty founder Sharon Chuter challenged beauty executives to reveal the number of Black employees at the corporate level. This challenge was surprisingly accepted by many mainstream beauty brands. Within 72 hours, Sephora, Ulta, Tatcha, L’Oréal, Beauty Bakerie, and Kylie Cosmetics had posted on Instagram.
Instagram screenshots from Sephora, Ulta, and L’Oreal’s responses to the “pulluproshutup” challenge.
These numbers were a bit deceptive. For example, Sephora seemingly included “all” employees, even salespeople and local store managers in their diversity stats. For example, Sephora claimed 80% of its employees are female-identifying. However, only 39% of employees in the corporate offices were women in 2020.
At this time, most major beauty companies were run by men, including L’Oréal, Estée Lauder and Shiseido. Ulta Beauty’s female CEO, Mary Dillon stepped down in March 2021 and was replaced by a man (However, Kecia Steelman, a woman, is the new CEO of Ulta as of January 2025). Coty, a French beauty conglomerate, was an exception, in which Sue Nabi, a trans woman, was its chief executive in July 2020. Artemis Patrick was named the first woman to hold the North America CEO role at Sephora in April 2024.
E.L.F. Cosmetics, one of the worst performers in the challenge, while claiming diversity previously, actually did release their numbers, specifying that only 7% of its employees are Black. Unsurprisingly, black-owned beauty brands had extremely diverse employee rosters and leadership teams.
For example, in 2022 Olay announced “OLAY Announces Second $1 Million Commitment to Closing the Gender Gap in STEM”
“OLAY has been backed by superior science for over 65 years, and in OLAY’s labs, people of all genders work side-by-side to bring scientifically advanced products to market. Sourcing the best talent from the widest pool possible is a competitive advantage”
However, the last post of this challenge was in 2023 (@pullupforchange) #PullUporShutUp appears abandoned
Why Aren’t there More Women in Cosmetic Chemistry?
The cosmetic industry has a history of excluding women scientists. As problematic as its marketing is, cosmetic companies might seem like spaces where women chemists could flourish. Typically barred from many industry and government jobs, historically women scientists have applied their skills in “feminine” areas, such as cooking and cleaning. The formulation of beauty products is very chemistry-orientated, known as cosmetic chemistry or science. Cosmetic chemistry positions usually require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. Cosmetic chemistry kits are sometimes even used to pique girls’ interest in STEM.
However, only 48% of cosmetic chemists are women
A chemistry blog (which has the image of a white man on its front page) offers a sexist reason as to why there aren’t more women in Cosmetic Science”.
One of the things that has always struck me about the cosmetic industry is the lack of women scientists. At the meeting, the ratio of men to women will be something like 65 / 35. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that women traditionally haven’t been encouraged to enter science. In fact, this article in Psychology Today shows that women actually have a harder time thinking about STEM topics when they are thinking about romance. Men don’t have this problem.
Can I just say….BLEH!!
#FacetheSTEMgap —paltry pledges
OLAY initiated a #FacetheSTEMgap campaign in August 2020 to “double the number of women in STEM and triple the number of under-represented women of color in STEM by 2030”. They are unclear if this is all STEM fields, or just cosmetic chemistry. By 2022 they had already pledged $1 million dollars to the cause though providing donations to the United Negro College Fund and other activities to promote girls in STEM.
This is a paltry sum given that L’Oreal is valued at over $200 billion dollars. As Ellen Atlanta argues in Pixel Flesh, “Beauty, after all, is a multi-billion-dollar industry, with 70 per cent controlled by major conglomerate […] It is in their best interest to keep us hooked” (p 144). The motive of many major beauty companies is to make money. It’s not self-empowerment, self-care, or artistic or even scientific pursuit.
Nonetheless, the #FaceTheSTEMGap campaign received significant attention when it launched. In 2022, Harper’s Bazaar, a leading fashion magazine, four women in STEM—presented in a glamorous light—were featured as part of OLAY’s effort to encourage more women to pursue careers in science and technology. The piece centered on OLAY’s #FaceTheSTEMGap initiative, which was praised as a “game-changer.” One interviewee, Keiana Cavé, remarked that
“Without this type of guidance, I wouldn’t have been empowered to pursue STEM myself,” says Cavé, who developed a toxin-detecting molecule when she was a teenager.”
While this is laudable, encouraging women into STEM through stereotypically female activities often minimize true discussion and acknowledgement of gendered experiences. Regardless of this fluffy feminism, the campaign appears to have lost momentum since 2022. Apart from a lone 2025 Instagram reel by Olay there has been little continuation.
The Women in Chemistry Pipeline Was Filled in 2000
Given how little scholarship there is on women in cosmetic chemistry, the next best place to look is feminist scholarship on chemistry majors, which is also fairly sparse. A very insightful paper on the challenges that women chemists face dates back to 2000 called An Oddity No Longer: Women Scientists in Industry by L. Shannon Davis.
Davis argued that the chemistry pipeline for women was already “full”—women had been earning more than 20% of chemistry degrees for nearly two decades, indicating a large supply of qualified female scientists entering the field. Yet, women’s wages and participation in the workforce was much lower.
Yet where did they go?
Davis explained that it was nearly ‘impossible’ to find internal numbers on retention of female hires (still a problem in 2025):
1997, only 4 percent of the upper management listed in the annual reports of the top 19 U.S. chemical producers were women, with the majority of these holding staff titles. Numbers on technical staff are virtually impossible to find. A 1998 study of Fortune 500 corporations by Catalyst, the nonprofit organization that aims at maximizing opportunities for women in management and executive positions, showed that fewer than 4 percent of the chairman, CEO, and VP titles were held by women. Only 11.2 percent of corporate officers were women, and they projected very slow growth rates (13 percent in 2000, 17 percent in 2005).
Factors such as pay inequity emerging around mid-career, lack of mentorship, rigid corporate cultures, and challenges faced by dual-career couples contributed to attrition. While diversity and flexible-work policies were improving, Davis emphasized that corporate environments still contained subtle barriers—the “sticky floor” and “glass ceiling”—that hindered women’s progression. Faith Morrison ( Michigan Technological University), commented on Davis’s report:
I can name you five black women chemical engineers from our institution who were unable to find an entry-level job in the last 5 years. […] My sister-in-law, who is a chemical engineer, never even pursued a job in chemical engineering. By the time she finished, she was so disgusted with the field that she wiped her hands clean and just never even tried. I have anecdotally encountered other people who have for whatever reasons—climate or atmosphere—just decided, This is not for me.
Davis also presented data on salary gaps among women and men in Chemistry over several decades:
Chemistry Salary data women v. men in industry from Davis’s “An Oddity No Longer: Women Scientists in Industry”. LEFT: Industrial salaries by gender in years since BS degree attainment (1999). RIGHT: Industrial salaries, women as a percentage of men (1999). Red line is my own to indicate that women are earning 100% of men’s salary.
Davis suggested that many women chemists might become entrepreneurs, not “bending to corporate America’s dictates”. Or they might leave the workforce for childcare, with the intention of reentry 10+ years later. However, as the year since BS attainment increase, the salary gap widened. Whether this is due to initial salary disparities that compounded over the decades, time taken off from work to raise children, or under-employment is less clear. Apparently, the salary gap is lessening, but still has not closed in the 2020s.
Conclusion
The beauty industry is far more committed to selling “empowerment” than creating it. The social media campaigns of 2020 forced companies to release numbers they had long avoided, but these initiatives are fading. Meanwhile, women chemists continue to face the same barriers that kept them out of laboratories and leadership roles a generation ago. Until companies confront the culture and power structures that have kept white male executives at the top, no amount of polished messaging or STEM scholarships will meaningfully narrow the gap. Real equity requires more than hashtags; it requires a redistribution of opportunity and authority.
The cosmetics industry, despite its feminine aesthetic, remains largely controlled by men—men creating their own version of “eye candy.” This dynamic is neither empowering nor progressive.
I will do another post on the climate and job outlook of women in chemistry and cosmetic chemistry—and the persistent problem of under-employment, something that has dogged women in STEM for decades.
is anyone truly surprised about ELF? co-founder Shamah is a Zionist. Companies that sell in Israel would have to be ok with racism and apartheid