Biomim’Index—A New Method Supporting Eco-Design of Cosmetic Products Through Biomimicry

Abstract

In the context of climate change, it becomes of utmost importance to limit the negative impact of industrial activities on carbon emissions, water stress, biodiversity loss, and natural resources depletion. Whether we consider the situation from a product-centered perspective (life cycle, R&D&I process, tools, methods, design, production, etc.) or from a human-centered perspective (habits, practices, fixation, strategic orientations, emotional sensitivity, etc.), coming years will represent a formidable upheaval for companies. To support this transition, various tools assessing products’ impact have been developed over the past decade. They aim at guiding decision makers, integrating new criteria to assess project success, and promoting the development and industrialization of solutions answering pressing environmental issues. If assessment is a key factor of success, it has become clear that processes and practices also need to evolve for practitioners to properly integrate sustainable requirements from the initial stages of their project. In that context, biomimicry, the approach aimed at taking nature as a model to support the design of more sustainable solutions, has been the center of growing interest. However, no integrated methods exist in the cosmetics sector to assess if a product is properly developed through biomimicry. This missing framework led to difficulties for cosmetic companies to support eco-design through biomimicry. In this article, we present a method called Biomim’Index developed by L’Oréal research and innovation sustainable development team to address three objectives: (i) to characterize cosmetic technologies according to whether they are based on bioinspiration, biomimetics or biomimicry; (ii) to guide the project’s leaders to identify key steps to improve existing cosmetic technologies through biomimicry; and (iii) to support the integration of biomimicry as an operational approach towards the development of new sustainable cosmetic technologies. This method, focusing on the problem-driven biomimetic approach is based on a combination of procedural requirements from the biomimetics TC288 18458:2015 ISO norm and environmental design requirements from L’Oréal for the Future (L4TF) commitments. Results present a proof of concept to outline the method’s efficiency and limits to support innovative eco-designed projects and value cosmetic technologies designed through biomimicry.

1. Introduction

Companies in the cosmetics sector face growing pressure from consumers and legislators to reach higher sustainability standards [1,2]. This need for adaptations generates an opportunity to transition towards economic and sustainable strategic interests and to break the global sustainability displacement tendencies [3].

Sustainable development is defined in 1987 by UNO as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, leading to the development of 17 Sustainable Design Goals divided into three historical pillars: Economic, Environmental, and Social [4]. This work focuses on the environmental pillar as the first step of our study.

For a few decades, the literature on sustainability focused on impact management. In that context, and to prevent phenomena such as rebound effect, it has been clearly underlined that impact assessment should be addressed from a systemic perspective, at each step of the product life cycle. This transversal approach challenges a broad range of subjects from resources consumption (water, energy, raw materials) to water contamination, consumers’ safety, ingredients sourcing, etc. [5,6,7,8,9]. These methodological orientations can be explained as companies’ decision makers need to meet three main strategic requirements [10]:

• To prioritize: Evaluations are used to identify the main causes for impact and build a strategic plan targeting project with high reduction potential to maximize return on investment in sustainable development.
• To pilot: Evaluations are used to report and track progress, assisting decisions during the various steps of the process to ensure the success of impact reduction programs or to re-orient projects if necessary.
• To value: Evaluations are used to prove compliance with regulations or labels, to meet employees’ growing needs for a committed professional environment, to promote impact reduction as a commercial lever and so value investments.

Along with these tools, practitioners have turned to alternative innovation design processes such as Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), Circular Economy (CE) [11,12], and Eco-design [13] to try properly integrating these new requirements at the early stages of the design process. Amongst these approaches, the use of biomimicry as a design and philosophical approach explicitly aiming at supporting sustainability [14], has been spreading for the past decade, and more recently, specifically in the cosmetics sector [15].

If biomimicry was theorized as a means of achieving sustainability in the ISO 18458:2015 norm [14] and by seminal work [16], the link between inspiration from the living world and effective sustainable design is widely debated in the literature [17].

Without delving into this debate, it is well recognized that neither a process of bio-inspiration, nor of biomimetics, are guarantees of sustainable development [18]. On the other hand, it can also be assumed that biomimicry, as defined by the standard, aims at mobilizing key philosophical, practical, conceptual, and methodological elements from bio-inspiration, biomimetics, and other design approaches to pursue this goal of sustainability [19,20,21].

This article presents a method, the so called Biomim’Index, to support practitioner mobilizing biomimicry for eco-designed cosmetic technologies development via three main objectives:

4.

Characterize cosmetic technologies according to whether they are based on bioinspiration, biomimetics, or biomimicry approaches;

5.

Guide project leaders to identify key steps to improve existing cosmetic technologies through biomimicry;

6.

Support the integration of biomimicry as an operational approach towards development of new sustainable cosmetic technologies.

Based on previous procedural requirements from the biomimicry ISO 18458:2015 [14] norm and environmental design criteria from L’Oréal for the Future, the Biomim’Index method is developed as a hypothesis to support L’Oréal innovation team on the above-mentioned three functions. Integrating the norm helps to build a robust method by providing a rigorous design process and semantic elements, thus avoiding any Biomim Washing. Given the fact that the norm does not prescribe sustainability criteria we decided to utilize L’Oréal’s most ambitious criteria, defined by the L4TF program.

This method should bring support to operational stakeholders wanting to integrate biomimicry at early stages of their projects, before impact assessment tools can be used to confirm biomimicry efficiency on negative impact reduction.

Several case studies are analyzed and presented as proof of concept. This first version is designed to be used by biomimetic experts within L’Oréal, giving them methodological support to guide project leaders. Future work will include additional criteria and target autonomous use by project leaders who do not have expertise in biomimicry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Setting and Clarifying Definitions

The definitions used as semantic basis for the Biomim’Index are the following:

• Bio-inspiration, as the “creative approach based on the observation of biological systems” [14], the norm specifies that, in the context of bioinspiration, the relationship to the biological system can be loose.
• Example: A historical example is La plante et ses applications ornementales by Eugène Grasset drawn in 1898, where plant forms are stylized for decorative purposes, illustrating a loose yet creative link to biological observation.
• Biomimetics, as the “interdisciplinary cooperation of biology and technology or other fields of innovation with the goal of solving practical problems through the function analysis of biological systems, their abstraction, into models, and the transfer into and application of these models to the solution.” [14].
• Example: the nose of Japan’s Shinkansen bullet train was redesigned and inspired by the kingfisher’s beak to address the functional issues of noise reduction and improved aerodynamic efficiency. Its development is based on functional analysis and abstraction, as well as a mutual transfer between biology and engineering.
• Biomimicry, as “a philosophy and interdisciplinary design approaches taking nature as a model to meet the challenges of sustainable development (social, environmental, and economic)” [14].
• Example: Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, is a building inspired by the natural ventilation systems of termite mounds to passively regulate indoor temperatures. It illustrates how living organisms can be used as models to inspire solutions that meet the challenges of sustainable development.
• A biological system is a “coherent group of observable elements originating from the living world spanning from nanoscale to macroscale” [14].
• A biological model is a “coherent and usable abstraction originating from observations of biological systems” [14]. Depending on the scale at which the function of interest emerges, biological models can be abstracted from biological organisms, from a part of a biological organism, or from a group of biological organisms [22].
• Biomolecules “are chemical compounds produced by living organisms. These biomolecules are fundamental building blocks of living organisms” and they “range from small molecules, such as metabolites, to large molecules, such as protein and carbohydrates”. “Biomolecules are selected by nature through the process of evolution with exemplary molecular structures and recognition properties that govern all the biological systems in living organisms” [23].
• Biomolecules-derived materials: “biomaterials derived from different classes of biomolecules”, commonly used in fields such as biomaterials science, including cosmetics, and engineering [24].
• Cosmetic technology corresponds to any constructs and derivatives of (bio)molecules or assemblies of such molecules leading to a function of interest in cosmetic formulation. (Bio)molecules and their derivatives are commonly called ingredients, or cosmetic raw materials, in cosmetic industries [25].
• Life Inspired Design Principles (LIDP) are persistent patterns in how organisms function and interact that contribute to resilient ecosystems [26,27,28].

These definitions, mainly based on the 18458:2015 ISO standard [14], are used as a reference throughout this paper. Their adaptation to the cosmetic industry will be discussed.

2.2. The Biomim’Index Method

The Biomim’Index is a method that helps L’Oreal’s biomimicry coordinators to support project leaders in determining whether a cosmetic technology developed with inspiration from biological systems, can be qualified as designed through bioinspiration, biomimetics or biomimicry and then to further integrate biomimicry to improve the eco-design of the product when possible.

Technologies that are not designed based on the observation of biological systems are referred to as conventional.

The method is composed of four steps (Figure 1):

• Validation of whether projects are based on observations from a biological system;
• Validation that a biomimetic design process has been applied;
• Validation that sustainable design criteria have been selected;
• Recommendations for better integration of biomimicry.

2.2.1. Step 1: Biological System Observation

The first step questions whether the considered bio-inspired cosmetic technology was designed from the observation of a biological system.

A positive answer means that the project leader or team has observed a biological system that inspired the design of their technology. This observation can be purely inspirational, such as a shape, a set of colors, a behavior, etc., without any connection with a scientific foundation or functional explanation.

As an example of bioinspiration, planes’ wings share visual similarities with birds’ wings, but they work very differently since they are not flapping to generate lift. In the cosmetics sector, an illustrative example of bioinspiration would be to imitate the blue color of peacock’s neck feathers for makeup but with artificial pigments rather than their structural coloration [29].

Thus, if the product is designed from observations of a biological system, following the ISO norm definition, the product moves on from the “conventional” to the “bioinspiration” category, and as such can be further evaluated in the Biomim’Index.

2.2.2. Step 2: Biomimetic Design Process

The second step questions whether the considered bio-inspired cosmetic technology was designed by following the proper steps of biomimetics in accordance with ISO 18458:2015 [14]. Specifically, the Biomim’Index questions the evaluated project based on the three key criterion of biomimetics as defined by the standard (Sub-questions 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 in Figure 2), with the addition of sub-question 2.1 (Figure 2) to define the project’s starting point (functional challenge).

Therefore, four sub-questions are formulated to assess process alignment (Figure 2).

• Sub-question 2.1: What is your project’s functional challenge?

The Biomim’Index method is specifically designed to support the problem-driven biomimetic process [14], meaning the project should start with a well-defined technical challenge to be solved, to which project leader must associate a functional challenge.

Example: My technical challenge is to design a new UV protection system. To do so, I need to solve a functional challenge, for example to stop/displace/avoid UV radiation from reaching the skin.

Counter example: I want to integrate melanin in my sunscreen. This is a counter example because we have no idea what the problem is, we only have a part of a potential solution without key functional problems to look for in the living world.

• Sub-question 2.2: Have you performed the functional analysis of the biological system to reach a comprehensive understanding of the biological functional solution?

According to the norm, the functional analysis of the biological model is the first requirement for a product to be considered biomimetic. Based on biological functional analysis, the design team should be able to understand which combination of sub-functions leads to a functional solution of interest.

Example: Analyze the functions of different types of lipids composing the membranes of vesicles and link them with the types and roles of resulting vesicles.

Counter example: Measure the average lipid composition for any type of vesicles without understanding the functional connection between vesicles molecular “composition” and “behavior”. This is a counter example because the gathered information focused on the description of the composition without linking it with causality relationships between molecules and their functional roles.

• Sub-question 2.3: Is the solution properly abstracted from the biological system?

In biomimetics, proper abstraction means that the functional principles should be expressed through causality relationships and framed by scientific principles and phenomenon. The generic solution thus formalized should be understandable to both the biological and cosmetic expert.

Example: I recognize and understandthat the entanglement of long molecules increases viscosity, which in turn leads to the adhesive properties observed in a marine organism to stabilize itself on a surface.

Counter example: I observe some marine organisms secreting fluids that enable reversible adhesion to surface, but without fully understanding the physical and chemical parameters that make this function possible in the organism.

• Sub-question 2.4: Is the abstracted solution properly transferred to cosmetic technology?

This final aspect underlines that the designed cosmetic technology should mobilize the same scientific rules and functional principles as the ones abstracted from the biological solution(s). More than a simple copy of a given model, it is the “similarity in the relationships between the relevant parameters” [14] presented in the physico-chemical rules and functional principles that must be transferred.

Example:Use a fluid adhesion system with the same properties as those observed in a marine organism, while applying the mechanisms and scientific principles that explain how this adhesion system solidifies, specifically through a pH change.

Counter example:Transfer only the fluid adhesion system with the same properties as those observed in a marine organism, while neglecting the pH change that stabilizes the adhesion.

If the four sub-questions are positively answered, the technology is considered to have been designed through biomimetics. In the opposite case, the technology remains in the bioinspiration category.

2.2.3. Step 3: Biomimicry Level

The third step questions whether the considered biomimetic cosmetic technology was designed through biomimicry.

To answer this question, a qualitative assessment of technology’s environmental impact is used. It is based on specific criteria selected from both L’Oréal for the future (L4TF) [25] and Green Sciences (GS) (First authors and al. in preparation) sustainable development programs (Supplementary Table S1). These programs aim to support eco-design through environmental impacts requirements acting as both guidelines and assessment criteria for each existing or new cosmetic technology. Any raw material used in product formulas and containing one or several ingredient(s) is considered “sustainable” if

• It is made of Biobased materials or Abundant minerals or materials from a Circular process (Supplementary Table S1);
• It contains a majority of (i) readily biodegradable ingredients according to the OECD test guidelines 301/310 or an equivalent standard or (ii) degradable in line with REACH non-persistency criteria [30] or (iii) occurring in nature (Supplementary Table S1);
• It does not contain any ingredients suspected to be a substance of very high concern (SVHC) for the environment: not suspected to be PBT (Persistent and Bioaccumulable and ecoToxic), vPvB (very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative), PMT (Persistent and Mobile and ecoToxic), very Persistent and very Mobile (vPvM) or Endocrine Disruptor in the environment (ED ENV) [30];
• It is not labeled GHS09 due to an environmental hazard mention H400, H410, or H411 by calculation from GHS/CLP classification of its ingredients following Global Harmonization System [31];
• Its ingredients production processes are analyzed and oriented towards the use of low impact solvents and additives as well as green energy and waste limitation [32]: transformed by Biotech and fermentation, Green chemistry, Green extraction and physical processes (Supplementary Table S1).

If the five sustainability criteria are validated, the biomimetic cosmetic technology is considered to have been designed by biomimicry.

In the case where a bioinspired cosmetic technology (Step 1 validated) has not been designed through a biomimetic process (Step 2 not validated) but is compliant with all five “sustainability” criteria then it is said to be bioinspired eco-designed. The first objective of this three-step method is, thus, to allow project leaders to characterize their cosmetic technologies, e.g., being able to state if the given technology has been designed by bioinspiration, biomimetics, or biomimicry approaches (see Section 2.1 for case study).

The underlying objective is to support practitioners in their increasing use of biomimicry as an approach to design a more sustainable generation of cosmetic technologies.

2.2.4. Step 4: Recommendation for Better Integration of Biomimicry

This fourth and last step is aimed at guiding project leaders in further integrating biomimicry as a means towards sustainable cosmetic technology improvement.

Thus, depending on the result of the first three steps, a set of guidelines (

Table 1. Recommendation offered by the Biomim’Index method.

N°	Corresponding Steps	Recommendations
1	1. Biological system observation	If you don’t know how to get inspired from Nature to solve problems and generate sustainable solutions, use the Biomim’Index method for your next projects, and feel free to contact the biomimicry referent for some advice.
2	2.1. Functional challenge	(1) Make sure to identify a function (e.g., gelling, UV protection, adhesion, etc.) and not a solution (e.g., finding a similar molecule, etc.) to question the biological data. (2) Make sure to carry out an in-depth analysis of your problem, to identify the cause(s) and/or need(s) and formalize functions of interest (e.g., I want to moisturize dry skin. ‘How does living organism fight dehydration?’ rather than ‘Is there a molecule similar to the one missing in dry skin?” this to avoid settling for preconceived solutions that are potentially limited).
3	2.2. Biological functional analysis	Explain the elements, interactions, mechanisms or biological sub-functions, describing how, and by what means, the biological system performs the observed function.
4	2.3. Abstraction	Analyze and extract the physico-chemical rules observed when the biological system performs the function of interest. Take up the elements discussed in the sub-question 2.2 and formulate them using generic terms, i.e., non-biological terms, retaining only those elements that are strictly necessary to perform the function sought and observed. (e.g., When a fish is observed moving in water for the function ‘moving through a fluid’, its size or color are not necessary elements for this particular function. It is the fact that the biological model ‘performs an undulatory movement’ that enables it to move in a fluid).
5	2.4. Transfer	(1) Check that all the causal relationships observed in your biological model leading to the desired function are transferred to your technology. (2) Ensure that the physical and chemical rules still apply in the context of your technology (pH, ionic charge, T°, etc.). (3) Ensure that the physico-chemical conditions (pH, ionic charge, T°, etc.) are compatible with your solution all along its life cycle, those conditions should, thus, be considered dynamically (during manufacturing, storage, type of usages, etc.)
6	3. Sustainability	If one or more RMs in your technology does not validate the L4TF criteria or does not validate at least one of the GS pillars, please replace it/them with one or more RMs meeting these criteria. Once replaced, check that the sub-question 2.4 is still valid.
7	Iterative product and practice improvements	For your next project, try to further integrate biomimicry by making sure your technology fully validates the LIDP.
8	Innovation management continuous improvements	Assess if your technology designed by biomimicry led to better SPOT [7] scoring than conventional ones, and if so, promote the approach efficiency, if it is not the case contact the biomimicry referent for deeper analysis.

) is shared with the practitioners to help them identify the possible optimization levers for biomimicry to by properly integrated in ongoing projects or the ones to come.

The objective is to support teams’ appropriation of biomimicry through the stimulation of an iterative approach based on positive reinforcement and constructive feedback. As a result, depending on the result, the above-mentioned recommendations can be used as positive feedback or recommendations for improvements. As an example, guideline 11 turned into positive feedback would be: You’ve replaced conventional means of production with one of the Green Sciences transformation pillars. That’s a good way of going about it and a key performance indicator to be promoted.

These positive reinforcements only make sense during the adoption phase and should not be considered as a systematic output of the method. The interest in such feedback is left to the user’s discretion.

In developing the Biomim’Index method, clear choices were made to support the operational integration of biomimicry methodological framework within cosmetics eco-design framework, and more specifically the one of L’Oréal. The next section explores key methodological bias of the method before the paper presents case studies and results.

2.3. The Design Choices Made for the Biomim’Index

Three main elements have been thoroughly questioned during the design of the Biomim’Index method:

• The adaptation of the TC288 18458:2015 standard [14] to face the specific case of cosmetic biomolecules while respecting the spirit of the norm;
• The choice of the criteria to assess the sustainability dimension required for a product to move from the “biomimetics” to the “biomimicry” category;
• The formalization of the recommendations to help practitioners better integrate biomimicry.

These choices were based on the trade-off between the academic methodological strict framework, the operational need for appropriation and the step-by-step improvements of biomimicry practice.

2.3.1. Adaptation of the Norm

The cosmetics industry, like other chemistry-centered industries (pharmaceuticals, materials, etc.), presents key specificities that make direct application of the norm difficult. Specifically, the standard specifies that the solution is supposed to be “transferred without using the biological system”.

However, in this context, the biological systems that serve as sources of inspiration are mainly biomolecular systems that are produced and released by biological organisms. This makes it feasible to isolate, stabilize, and potentially directly use these molecular constructs with little to no change in molecules. Nonetheless, following the norm, these biomolecules should not be used directly, as they represent the biological system leading to the solution.

This restriction is clearly beneficial for inspiration at a larger scale as it acts as a protection and ensures the proper abstraction of the solution prior to any technical transfer. For example, it prevents fur trade as a means to use the insulation properties of polar bear fur. However, we question if, at a molecular level, the norm has the same benefits. Particularly, following the standard requires practitioners to replicate molecular solutions through compounds manufactured either through biotechnology, chemical synthesis, or by sourcing analogous bio-based compounds from other biological sources. If it can sometime appear as the best solution (as with the famous spider silk example), the benefits of systematically applying this constraint can also be questioned as it may lead to greater environmental impact (use of energy, materials, release of pollutants from transformation processes, etc.) than a direct sourcing from a biological model (valorization of by-products for example). Ultimately, it will be necessary to evaluate and justify quantitatively that the direct use of a biomolecule is less impactful than its synthetic analog.

Facing these observations, we propose to specify that it is possible to use biomolecules extracted from a biological system of interest, to embody biomimetic solutions designed from analyzed, abstracted, and transferred functional molecular constructs observed in biological systems.

In adequation with the standard, the act of “design” and the functional analysis, abstraction and transfer of “operating and functional principles” remain discriminating criteria for qualifying a cosmetic technology as biomimetic.

As a result, at the molecular scale, only a biomolecule-derived compound can be considered biomimetic, and only if it has been engineered respecting the above-mentioned criteria. Thus, biomolecules cannot per se be qualified as bioinspired or biomimetic as they are not designed by humans. Following the same logic, the direct use of biomolecules to design cosmetic technology without prior functional analysis, abstraction, and transfer of the molecular solution observed in the biological model should not be confused with biomimetics.

This new formalization of the biomimetics procedural requirements allows practitioners to value biomolecules coming from biological systems used as the source of the abstracted solutions.

To prevent any misinterpretations, we specify that one should always wonder about “the spirit of the law” expressed in the standard. Biomimetics is an approach taking advantage of the evolutionary process that occurs in the living world in order to identify relevant solutions for our human challenges. It is by essence a conceptual design process before ideas are embodied through materials, whether from biological or technological origin. Those two steps, conceptual design and detailed design (leading to embodiment) should not be confused.

On a final note, biomimetics is supposed to bring something new to the cosmetic industry. The expected mindset while facing biomimetics is to try on integrating new approaches and cognitive reasoning through functional design based on LIDP.

These adaptations and specific applications of the norm have been used to create the Biomim’Index method presented in Section 2.1. These proposed evolutions of the normative context also question the potential impact of biomimetic solutions. If sustainable sourcing is at the core of most cosmetics policy, the framework allowing a proper assessment of biomimetic solution is yet to be specified.

2.3.2. Choice of Criteria for Impact Assessment

Entering the biomimicry category is associated with the validation of environmental impact criteria. The selection of these criteria, thus, had a crucial impact on the way the method was designed and will guide practitioners.

To meet this challenge, we combined existing sustainability assessment programs at L’Oréal, namely L’Oréal for the Future (L4TF), Green Sciences (GS), and ecodesign principles, with existing criteria from biomimicry, namely the Life Inspired Design Principles (LIDP), as presented in KARIM guidelines [27]. To be precise, Biomim’Index use only the Living systems matter, energy and information flows optimization category of Karim Guide.

The objective was to easily reduce adoption limitations thanks to a well-established and integrated corporate assessment framework while performing a comparative analysis with biomimicry criteria to underline potential for improvements.

This comparison highlights a match between L4TF or GS criteria with 9 of the 15 LIDP, on the origin of ingredients, their manufacture, and their end-of-life (Supplementary Table S2).

The first version of the Biomim’Index, thus, directly integrates L4TF/GS criteria, and additional work will be needed to further adjust the set for criteria and integrate the remaining six LIDP.

This step-by-step method appeared effective to generate internal momentum towards the integration of the Biomim’Index, creating a foundation to later implement more specific environmental guidelines and criteria.

It should also be underlined that our work focused on environmental impact only, considering that the social and economic pillars of sustainable development are addressed separately [33].

2.3.3. Recommendations to Support Practitioners

Recommendations were mainly formalized based on the ISO norm [14] and biomimetic process FMECA analyses [18] and adapted to the given industrial context through L’Oréal experts feedback.

The combination of positive feedback and recommendation for improvement is a recognized way of helping employees improve their practices [34].

2.4. Experimental Method

To test the Biomim’Index, 14 projects were analyzed including 12 finalized projects, and 2 ongoing projects.

The Biomim’Index method was performed on each project by the same two operators, a biomimetic expert from Ceebios and a biomimetic cosmetic expert from L’Oréal.

The evaluation started with interviews with project leaders, allowing the gathering of key data for the operators to follow the Biomim’Index method in a second phase. These interviews took place between the two experts and the project’s leader(s). An example of the questions asked during these interviews is given in Supplementary Table S3.

The formalized answers were validated by project leaders. Recommendations for potential improvements and guidelines in terms of internal or external communication were then presented.

Three main elements were tested in these first case studies:

• The method’s ability to assist biomimetic cosmetics experts in discriminating the types of projects;
• The method’s ability to assist biomimetic cosmetics experts in identifying the proper recommendations to support project leaders in their practice;
• The method’s ability to assist biomimetic cosmetics experts in supporting project leaders along projects integrating biomimicry.

While this version of the Biomim’Index is mainly intended for biomimetic experts in cosmetics, tests for non-experts, in particular autonomous use by project leaders, are underway and will lead to a new version of the method in the near future.

3. Results

3.1. Polyvalence and Discriminating Character of the Biomim’Index

In total, 12 finalized projects from different types (Section 2.4) were analyzed, enabling clear differentiation of projects depending on their characteristics (Figure 3).

Both operators reported that the method was efficient in supporting their analyses and that the data required to answer the various questions was easily available.

The duration of analysis was typically around 2 to 4 h depending on the project’s complexity (1 h for the initial interview and 1 to 3 h for the analysis), making it a broadly applicable method.

Both operators also underlined that the semantics and reasoning used within the method could be perceived as complex for non-experts in the hypothesis of an autonomous use. Current tests further support this feedback, and adjustments are currently made to make the method more ergonomic and for project leaders to use it autonomously, without experts’ analysis.

3.2. Comparison of Three Projects and Resulting Biomim’Index Recommendations

This section exemplifies three projects, underlining the method’s ability to discriminate projects based on their key characteristics (

Table 2. Comparative analysis of three projects’ evaluations through the Biomim’Index.

Projects	Project A	Project B	Project C
Results	Eco-Designed Bioinspiration	Biomimetics	Biomimicry
1. Biological system observation	Validated	Validated	Validated
2.1. Functional challenge	Identified	Identified	Identified
2.2. Biological functional analysis	Not validated	Validated	Validated
2.3. Abstraction	NA	Validated	Validated
2.4. Transfer	NA	Validated	Validated
3. Sustainability	Validated	Not validated	Validated

) and offering suitable recommendations depending on the result (

Table 3. Recommendations offered by the Biomim’Index of different projects (A, B, C).

Recommendation	Project A	Project B	Project C
N°2: Make sure to carry out an in-depth analysis of your problem to identify the cause(s) and/or need(s) and formalize functions of interest (e.g., I want to moisturize dry skin. ‘How does living organism fight dehydration?’ rather than ‘Is there a molecule similar to the one missing in dry skin?” this to avoid settling for preconceived solutions that are potentially limited).	Feedback on improvement	Positive feedback	Positive feedback
N°6: If one or more RMs in your technology does not validate the L4TF criteria or does not validate at least one of the GS pillars, please replace it with one or more RMs meeting these criteria. Once replaced, check that question 2.4 is still valid.	-	Feedback on improvement	Positive feedback
N°7: For your next project, try to further integrate biomimicry by making sure your technology fully validates the Life Inspired Design Principles.	-	-	Feedback on improvement

).

Projects A, B, C were, respectively, addressing cosmetic functions on hair care, UV protection, and antiaging technologies. The full analysis through the method can be found in Supplementary Table S4.

Interestingly, the Biomim’Index method underlined that conventional practices of the cosmetics sector can be the source of confusion when trying to apply biomimicry. Specifically, as illustrated in Project A, cosmetic team leaders may quickly focus on imitating or integrating a biomolecule of interest as the solution to a given problem. However, this approach can lead a design team to start a project with a solution already in mind, often resulting in insufficient time spent on problem analysis. By bypassing the core of the biomimetic design process, teams may fail to seek out biological systems that could solve the functional problem. Instead, they may attempt to imitate a specific biological system they previously deemed relevant without fully understanding the problem at hand.

This imitation of a molecular perceived as a solution rather than the analysis of the problem to properly look for a molecular solution, is one of the main risks of failure emerging through the interviews of project leaders and data analyses.

Based on projects analyses, recommendations were formalized to better guide biomimicry practice (Table 3).

The Biomim’Index is also currently tested as method to support project leaders during the conception phase. Two projects have been analysed:

Both projects initially integrated biomimetic experts to answer questions 1 to 2.3 and then faced difficulty of pursuing the process (questions/sub-question 2.4 to 3) in autonomy (

Table 4. Biomim’Index analysis on two ongoing projects.

Projects	Project D	Project E
1. Biological system observation	Validated	Validated
2.1. Functional challenge	Identified	Identified
2.2. Biological functional analysis	Validated	Validated
2.3. Abstraction	Validated	Validated
2.4. Transfer	To do	To do
3. Sustainability	To do	To do

).

Recommendations to support the project leaders performing those two remaining steps are, thus, presented by the Biomim’Index (

Table 5. Recommendations offered by the Biomim’Index of different projects (D, E).

Recommendation	Project D	Project E
N°5: (1) Check that all the causal relationships observed in your biological model leading to the desired function are transferred to your technology. (2) Ensure that the physical and chemical rules still apply in the context of your technology. (3) Ensure that dynamic evolutions and interactions with a potentially variable environment are considered in the design of your technology.	Feedback on improvement	Feedback on improvement
N°6: If one or more RMs in your technology does not validate the L4TF criteria or does not validate at least one of the GS pillars, please replace it with one or more RMs meeting these criteria. Once replaced, check that question 2.4 is still valid.	Feedback on improvement	Feedback on improvement

):

These results underline the method’s ability to support integration of biomimicry, both by improving practice in each new project and by supporting the proper following of the biomimicry design process throughout a given project.

Future work will investigate the use of the method as a fully autonomous guide to operationalize biomimicry in practice without the need for biomimicry experts.

4. Discussion

This paper presents the Biomim’Index method, and an initial testing phase composed of 12 completed and 2 ongoing projects. If these first results show the method’s ability to distinguish projects depending on their types, to offer recommendations depending on the project types and to support practitioners during their practice of biomimicry, they need to be further investigated:

• The number and diversity of projects should be increased to improve the robustness of the results [18]. This will progressively become possible as biomimetic design and biomimicry approaches continue to emerge and be more widely implemented.
• The evaluation is currently made by external biomimicry experts, and as such, the Biomim’Index method is confined to a small number of users. If this initial phase can rely of biomimicry experts to confirm its potential, tests and optimizations will need to be performed to make the tool directly available for project leaders.
• The analyses presented in this paper lack user interviews to gather some qualitative data on the method. Since the main risk for this project is the lack of appropriation of the method, this feedback loop will be a key lever for optimization.
• Additional tests should be performed to evaluate whether the method truly helps at improving existing products and reducing their negative impacts. Economic KPI and SPOT assessment of projects based, or not, on the Biomim’Index can be a way to perform a comparative analysis between projects and design processes. This step will be crucial to enhance the confidence of internal practitioners and consumers on the actual environmental impact of biomimicry.

The method can also evolve to include additional features and ensure its continuous improvement:

• Cosmetic products are at the intersection between the formula, the packaging, and the routine. Further adaptations of the tool are needed to integrate those key aspects.
• Prescriptions made during the comparison of L4TF criteria and Life Inspired Design Principles invite us to formulate and integrate new sustainability criteria in Biomim’Index to further support the development of low impact products. For example, additional criteria on local availability of resources could be used during step 3.
• Sustainability encompasses three pillars, and our initial work only focused on the environmental axis, thus social and economic concerns are addressed separately.
• Autonomous use of the method will be a requirement for its broad appropriation within the company. Designing a tool that embodies the method to intuitively guide project leaders through an ergonomic digital platform can be a way to make it an effective operational resource for practitioners.

If this paper presents a method to integrate biomimicry within the cosmetic sectors, it also underlines the need for potential adaptations of the normative framework to specific contexts, and questions how this key international standard can finally reach a trans-sectorial operational integration.

On a broader level, a key current limitation in biomimicry adoption by the industrial sector in general, and the cosmetic sectors in particular, lies in marketing. It can be paradoxical as biomimicry can be seen as a high potential marketing concept, but the term itself remains mostly unknown by consumers that are lost in complex terminology.

Using biomimicry as an internal and or external sustainable innovative process is a means towards positive cognitive eco-design frameworks or even formalization of a biomimicry label, to prevent “Biomim’washing” through proper evaluation by an independent labeling organization and promoting the positive impact of biomimicry. In that sense, the Biomim’Index represents a first step.

5. Conclusions

The Biomim’Index method has demonstrated its potential to support an internal biomimicry expert during the assessment of 12 cosmetic technologies, differentiating those that are bio-inspired, from the ones resulting from the biomimetic design process, and from the ones that are both biomimetic-designed and sustainable, e.g., corresponding to biomimicry philosophy, and this is mostly at the raw material level. The method also provides some recommendations to help project leaders in their practice of biomimicry.

Additionally, the method has been used on two projects as a guide for project leaders, leading them to implement a proper biomimicry process so far.

We aim to continue this research by increasing the number and diversity of projects tested, both within L’Oréal but also by studying projects from other companies in the cosmetics sector and even from other sectors. The next generation of the Index would intend to

• Implement criteria applying at the product level (formula, packaging, routine) while considering the links between these scales, e.g., even if a formula is qualified as biomimetic, it does not systematically mean that the entire product is.
• Incorporate other Life Inspired Design Principles as sustainability criteria, in particular the ones related to ecosystemic principles and flows of matter, information and energy, to enlarge the scale of our impact through a more systemic approach.
• Strengthen the autonomy of non-expert users through the development of an interface, which will complement the dedicated user guide already deployed in the company.