The beauty industry is a vibrant, thriving, incredibly creative space which I am consistently blown away by. I follow the innovation and ingenuity of brands with avid excitement, from breakthrough start-ups to longstanding beloved businesses, which have become ingrained within the lives of their consumers.

It is little wonder that when brands, which change the status quo of their industry are seemingly forced to say goodbye to their customers, it makes national headlines. Amid the difficult financial periods countless companies have faced of late, many were shocked and saddened at what looked to be the loss of The Body Shop. A company that since its very beginnings has changed history. It paved the way for countless brands to establish goals that emulated even a fraction of what The Body Shop has achieved.

There are few businesses, one could argue, that have set such a precedent. Anita Roddick and her brand pushed boundaries, championing sustainability, prioritizing ethical and cruelty-free sourcing, fighting for the empowerment of women and girls—always putting ethics at the forefront of beauty.

The Body Shop’s success in expressing its values so intrinsically went hand in hand with its ability to introduce pioneering products to its customers, to the point that dedicated fans of the brands have consistently used the same ranges for decades. They have passed on their passion for these product choices to their children, even their grandchildren, so engrained is the efficacy and reliability of items, which have been stacked on shelves for almost half a century.

It is understandable—and expected—that the success of a brand, which has become so entrenched in the lives of consumers for so many years, will spark inspiration in others. As I say, The Body Shop’s role in shifting the landscape of the industry has naturally spurned others to follow in their footsteps.

What is less expected, however, is for another brand to so spuriously claim to be honoring their memory (if one could call it a memory when The Body Shop has not, in fact, left us for good), under the guise of appropriating its most successful products for their own profit.

Last week we saw the news that Lush—another brand that has earned itself industry-leading status as true pioneers of the bath bomb—is launching a “new” collection titled, “a fresh take on The Body Shop’s greatest hits.”

It has always been my view that Lush is a business built on a foundation of innovation and ethics.

"Innovation"—bringing something new to the table, whether it’s an idea, method, or product—is what keeps beauty exciting. Coupled with ethics, which speaks to moral integrity, fairness, and honesty, these two pillars have been crucial in shaping consumer trust. These two definitions are particularly important when we recognize the increasing and passionate demand for authenticity that beauty customers of today demand.

What Lush has achieved through product innovation, retail experience, and marketing skill is commendable. It is for this reason I was perhaps even more disappointed to see this new collection announced under the guise of celebrating a fellow innovator.

Rather than continuing to bring truly unique and cutting-edge products to market, it seized some of The Body Shop’s most iconic products, marketing the raid on the brand’s cherished ranges as “celebrat[ing] the original trailblazing brilliance of Anita Roddick’s vision.”

“Dusting off” these items to “give her legacy a home.”

Lush’s CEO, Mark Constantine, may have played a role in creating some of these products during his time working for The Body Shop. But launching them under Lush’s name feels less like innovation and more like appropriation.

Having worked in the beauty, wellness and skincare space for years, I have been proud to help brands better understand how to communicate their unique vision to the world. To help them carve their way in a buzzing, restless, fluctuating industry. To support them in honoring their roots while moving forward in a modern world. A brand’s identity should be built on crafting a path of their own—not piggybacking on another’s.

The disappointment in Lush is weighted further by the fact that despite The Body Shop’s commercial struggles, it is not a dead brand. Life is being breathed back into this brand, saving thousands of jobs and preserving a legacy held dear by so many.

With this news, I am curious how Lush will proceed. Will Lush return to its roots of true, progressive creativity? Or continue to repackage the work of others under the marketing guise of tribute? We shall see.