Key Takeaways:
When President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on imported aluminum to 50% in June, the policy headlines landed squarely in the world of steel, construction, and heavy industry. While the beauty industry may not have been mentioned in the headlines, higher aluminum prices affect any beauty manufacturer with any shiny components in its packaging: tubes, caps, cannisters, sprays.
Products like prestige lipstick bullets, everyday aerosol hairsprays, and moisturizer tubes are some of the ways aluminum plays a central role in the sector’s packaging ecosystem. Aluminum, once considered a costlier but greener alternative to plastic, now faces scrutiny as tariffs alter its economic calculus. With costs set to climb sharply, brands across the spectrum are grappling with difficult questions about pricing, sourcing, and sustainability.
“Aluminum has become a very useful product in beauty and personal care over the past twenty years,” Jeffrey Martin, Director of Marketing of FP Labs at Federal Package, said to BeautyMatter. “Beauty and personal care consumers are very keen to consider packaging and formulations that show a greater promise of sustainability. Not to mention, aluminum packaging, particularly in tubes, plays well in the prestige beauty space more so than traditional plastic components,” he continued.
Aluminum’s Prestige Factor Meets Harsh Economics
While many mass market players have long leaned on cheaper plastics, aluminum packaging has been a signifier of both sustainability and luxury. “Aluminum packaging is less prevalent in mass market products but used more in mid-to-premium brands,” Akemi Ooka, Interim CEO of the Independent Beauty Organization, explained to BeautyMatter.
“Aluminum is often the go-to for aesthetics and recyclability and is used in things like tubes, foils, caps, and aerosol cans. There is still a barrier to entry for aluminum, though, as the cost can be 3-6x higher than plastic alternatives, which is why you see it in more premium products,” she continued. That gap just widened. Premium brands must now decide whether to absorb added costs, pass them to consumers, or pivot packaging altogether.
For Amrita Bhasin, co-founder and CEO of Sotira, a supply chain company enabling retailers and brands to discreetly offload and monetize unsold inventory, the new tariff regulations will likely accelerate an industry-wide game of classification chess. “There are a lot of items advertised to consumers as made in the US, but the materials and packaging are actually made abroad. Consumers may be surprised as to why prices have gone up for a beauty item with American manufacturing facilities,” she told BeautyMatter.
“There is a science behind how items are classified for imports to avoid tariffs,” Bhasin added. “[For example], putting a thin layer of fluff on the bottom of a sneaker to sneak your item in as a slipper versus a sneaker because sneakers have higher tariffs. I predict that beauty companies will look at substitute materials or a hybrid of materials so they can claim their imports as a different category with lower tariffs. I have heard this from major consumer goods companies at recent trade shows I’ve attended.” Bhasin also noted that there is an expectation for the arbitrage opportunities around this tariff on aluminum to be significant, especially for large brands with global distribution.
Switching Suppliers Isn’t Simple
Even so, shifting away from aluminum is easier said than done. Ooka cautioned that the hidden costs of packaging changes can be prohibitive. “Some brands are exploring alternative materials, but I think most are holding steady for now and absorbing the cost or renegotiating supplier contracts. Strong relationships with good suppliers are often the preferred strategy,” she said.
Even if there is a cheaper or lower tariff option, the overall risk to supply chain continuity and long-term success is often not worth the impact of the sourcing change, according to Ooka, who also pointed out that the cost to switch suppliers is very high. “Think thousands of dollars per product/SKU for all of the testing that has to be redone, and many small companies don’t have the extra time or resources—human or capital—to execute a secondary qualification program just to offset tariffs.” In other words, tariffs may sting, but for many brands, the impending packaging upheaval may sting worse.
Sustainability has also been caught in the crossfire. Aluminum’s green credentials have long made it a darling of sustainability narratives, but tariffs complicate that positioning. “Recycled plastics and recycled recommerce materials are appealing right now because of the beauty industry’s focus on sustainability,” Bhasin said. “At the same time, black plastics are receiving negative media attention for microplastics.” The beauty industry as a whole is responding to allegations that certain materials are potentially endocrine disrupters, according to Bhasin. “Thus, viable nonsynthetic alternatives are preferred but limited in availability and affordability.”
However, Martin pointed out that beauty consumers are not abandoning sustainability, even if cost pressures rise. “Beauty and personal care consumers are incredibly savvy when it comes to sustainability,” he said. “Political sustainability measures may rise and fall, but beauty consumers are becoming increasingly more steadfast in their desire for brands to prove their environmental friendliness in their products, their packaging, and their missions.”
Still, Ooka flagged a regulatory wrinkle. “Some of the recyclability definitions emerging in regulatory and policy initiatives don’t always align even with existing aluminum beauty packaging. Some packages still use barrier linings, plastic pumps, or spray components that don’t allow products to be recycled whole. I think it is still too early to know the impact.”
Knock-on Effects Across the Supply Chain
This tariff is also rippling into beauty’s supply chain, and Martin acknowledged this volatility. “Every variable in the supply chain and delivery is changing right now. As suppliers adjust sourcing, manufacturers react and adapt, and we all work to deliver products as quickly and confidently as possible. Generalized inflation has caused the cost of doing business at every stage to increase faster than expected over the past two years.”
Ooka echoed the turbulence, noting that “some logistics providers are already seeing longer lead times and more fragmented shipments for companies that are diversifying suppliers. It’s complicating inventory planning and increasing warehousing costs, especially for smaller players. Bonded warehouses are still an important resource for companies trying to unpack the tariff impact on products and components being imported into the US.”
Bhasin was blunt. “[Supply chain would] likely stall as tariffs have caused a lot of confusion and chaos in the industry, and this is hurting every initiative that relies on supply chains. Even many e-commerce materials are made abroad, so they may still face difficulties with tariffs.”
The administration has suggested the tariffs are designed to incentivize domestic aluminum production. Beauty insiders remain skeptical. “An increase in domestic aluminum production is clearly the administration’s goal,” Bhasin said. “However, with rising costs to operate warehouses domestically as well as the cost of labor and inflation, American companies will likely be hesitant to invest in these costs to set up domestic production, especially if they don’t know what the ROI will be upfront. Running warehouses and production facilities is a significant upfront cost.”
Ooka was similarly cautious. “It is possible, but that seems like a long game and would require a lot of consistent political and policy choices over many years to invest in the infrastructure and market needs to do that. In the short term it seems unlikely that these tariffs would drive significant production. Even if the incentive is there, the ramp-up timeline is slow. It would easily be 18-36 months before brands would feel relief.”
Looking Ahead: Cost Forecasts and Consumer Impact
Across the board, experts predict higher packaging costs, though the magnitude remains uncertain. “It is difficult to estimate, but I’d expect fluctuations of around 20%,” Bhasin forecasted. Ooka, however, put it in starker terms for the months ahead. “We are just starting to see the impact of tariffs on beauty products. Some of our manufacturers are expecting Q4 2025 and Q1-Q2 2026 to be when tariffs will be felt more broadly by consumers. We have heard companies are building in 5%-10% increases in package cost over the next year.”
Meanwhile, Martin sees preparation as key. “Brands and manufacturers alike are bracing for packaging costs to rise over the next 12-18 months, how much is the burning question. Market awareness, good planning and sourcing, and building strong supply chain partnerships will hopefully make any increases more predictable and easier to adapt to in the long run.”
The 50% aluminum tariff presents like a stress test for an industry already grappling with how to balance inflation, regulatory complexity, and rising consumer expectations around sustainability. Prestige brands may feel the squeeze first, but indie labels and mass players will not be spared. The challenge for beauty is not simply whether to stick with aluminum or pivot elsewhere, but how to navigate a packaging landscape where every decision that includes material, supplier, and even price point, ripples across brand identity, consumer trust, and the planet. Martin puts it, “Being flexible and efficient is now more important than ever.”
