Yes. A salon skincare manufacturer with an in-house formulation team can develop a formula from a brand brief rather than simply relabeling an existing product. Development may cover surfactant systems, active concentrations, pH, viscosity, fragrance, preservatives, texture, packaging compatibility, and target cost. A facial cleanser, for example, may be developed around a pH of roughly 5.0–5.5 and tested through several prototype rounds before production. In the United States, MoCRA was enacted in 2022 and introduced facility registration and cosmetic product listing requirements for covered businesses. Custom formulation is therefore a technical, manufacturing, testing, and compliance service, not only an ingredient-selection service.
A manufacturer normally starts with measurable instructions rather than broad requests such as “make a premium cleanser.” A useful brief states the product type, target skin profile, rinse feel, foam level, fragrance preference, desired actives, excluded ingredients, package size, retail position, destination market, and expected order quantity. A brand developing a sensitive skin facial cleanser, for example, could ask for a fragrance-free gel cleanser at pH 5.2–5.6, moderate foam, low post-rinse tightness, and packaging in a 150 mL pump bottle.
Those instructions give the chemist numbers to work with, but ingredient percentages cannot be selected independently. A brief requesting 4% niacinamide, 2% panthenol, a mild surfactant blend, and several botanical extracts has to be checked for solubility, color change, odor, viscosity, preservation, pH, and ingredient compatibility. Removing 1 preservative or replacing 1 surfactant may change more than one property, so a revised formula often requires another laboratory sample rather than a simple ingredient substitution.
A formula sample that feels good on the hand is not yet a production-ready cosmetic. The same product still has to remain physically stable, microbiologically controlled, compatible with its package, repeatable in larger batches, and suitable for the market where it will be sold.
Manufacturers usually offer three levels of customization, and the commercial differences are substantial.
| Development model | Formula work | Typical brand control | Development burden |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stock private label | Existing formula | Packaging, label, product name | Lowest |
| Semi-custom | Existing base is modified | Selected actives, fragrance, color, viscosity | Medium |
| Full custom | New formula developed from a brief | Ingredient system, texture, use profile, specifications | Highest |
A stock product may reach packaging selection after 1 approved sample, while a full custom project can require 3–6 prototype rounds when the brand is adjusting foam, slip, fragrance, after-feel, or viscosity. Prototype count is not a quality score; an uncomplicated cleanser may need fewer revisions than an emulsion containing several actives, oils, polymers, and heat-sensitive materials.
The same difference appears in laboratory work. A cleanser chemist may compare 3 surfactant blends at different ratios, then measure pH and viscosity after each adjustment. A cream may require separate trials for emulsifier level, oil phase, fatty alcohol content, thickener, humectant system, and cooling procedure. Changing the emulsifier from 4% to 5% can affect body and application feel, while increasing a polymer from 0.2% to 0.4% may produce a large viscosity change even though the numerical difference looks small.
Production scale adds another layer. A 500 g laboratory batch and a 100 kg manufacturing batch do not experience exactly the same mixing conditions. Vessel geometry, shear rate, heating time, cooling speed, ingredient addition order, and homogenization time can alter viscosity or emulsion structure. Manufacturers therefore document processing instructions rather than treating the ingredient list as the entire formula.
Packaging should enter the project before mass production. A 150 mL cleanser with low viscosity may leak through a closure designed for a thicker lotion, while a dense cream may dispense poorly through a narrow pump channel. Compatibility work can examine leakage, pump output, discoloration, odor transfer, seal performance, bottle deformation, and changes in formula appearance after storage.
The formula also needs microbiological consideration. ISO 11930:2019 describes a reference approach for evaluating antimicrobial protection in cosmetic products and remains the published edition in 2026, while a third edition is under development. The standard is especially relevant to water-containing cosmetics that are not assessed as microbiologically low risk, so preservation cannot be judged only from the preservative percentage shown on a formulation sheet.
A manufacturer may therefore review several separate areas before releasing production:
-
appearance, odor, pH, viscosity, and fill weight specifications;
-
microbiological quality and preservative performance where applicable;
-
packaging compatibility and dispensing;
-
raw-material specifications and supplier documentation;
-
batch instructions and manufacturing records;
-
ingredient labeling and destination-market documentation.
Testing plans vary by formula and market. A rinse-off cleanser is evaluated differently from an eye-area product, and a water-free balm does not have the same microbiological profile as an emulsion containing 70% or more water. A brand should ask what tests are included in the quotation because “formula development fee” does not always include every stability, microbiology, compatibility, safety, or claim-support activity.
MOQ is often set by manufacturing and packaging together. Assume a factory has a practical bulk minimum of 100 kg. Filling that amount into 50 g jars gives a theoretical 2,000 units before filling losses, while the same 100 kg filled into 200 g professional containers gives only 500 units. A packaging supplier may separately require 3,000 printed bottles, so packaging can set a higher commercial minimum than the bulk formula.
Raw materials can create another MOQ. If a supplier sells a specialty active only in a 5 kg pack and the formula uses it at 1%, one 100 kg batch consumes only 1 kg. The remaining material has to be stored for later batches or included in the project economics. For a small salon brand, selecting a slightly different active with a smaller purchase minimum can sometimes reduce starting inventory without changing the intended product category.
Cost discussions are more useful when the brand gives a target manufacturing range early. A formula designed without a cost limit may contain 8–12 featured actives that look attractive in marketing copy but make little commercial sense at the planned retail price. Chemists can often build a more practical formula by concentrating spending on a smaller number of ingredients at technically useful levels rather than adding many materials at very low percentages.
Formula ownership should also be written into the commercial agreement. Paying an R&D fee does not automatically establish that the buyer owns the complete formula. One supplier may retain ownership and grant the brand manufacturing use, another may offer exclusivity after a minimum annual volume, and another may allow a full formula purchase. Brands should establish whether percentages are disclosed, whether the INCI list is supplied, and whether the formula can be moved to another manufacturer.
Regulatory responsibilities also change by destination. In the United States, FDA data published for June 30, 2026 showed 16,398 active cosmetic facility registrations and 1,298,361 active cosmetic product listings under MoCRA. Covered facilities renew registration every 2 years, while responsible persons must list marketed cosmetic products and provide listing updates annually. FDA also states that registration or product listing does not constitute product approval.
For European Union sales, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 requires a safety assessment before a cosmetic is placed on the market and requires the responsible person to maintain a Product Information File. The file must be retained for 10 years after the date the last batch is placed on the market, and notification is made through the EU Cosmetic Products Notification Portal.
A salon brand should therefore ask a manufacturer for specific answers before approving development:
-
How many laboratory revisions are included: 2, 3, or more?
-
Is the formula new, or is an existing base being modified?
-
What is the minimum bulk batch in kilograms?
-
What is the packaging MOQ for stock and custom-decorated containers?
-
Which stability, microbiological, and compatibility checks are available?
-
Who owns the completed formulation?
-
Can the ingredient percentages be disclosed under agreement?
-
Which documents are supplied for U.S., EU, or UK market preparation?
-
Can a 100 kg batch later scale to 500 kg or 1,000 kg without reformulation?
Answers to those questions show the practical difference between a supplier that fills cosmetics and a manufacturer that can support formula development. A salon planning 500 units for an initial market test needs a different production setup from a brand forecasting 10,000 units per SKU, while a professional facial protocol may require different viscosity, working time, and package size from the retail version sold for home use.
Professional-use formulas can also be developed around treatment-room handling. A massage cream may need 15–20 minutes of workable slip before becoming too dry, whereas a daily moisturizer should generally settle much sooner. A cleanser used repeatedly by an esthetician may be supplied in 500 mL or 1 L professional packaging even when the corresponding retail SKU is 100–200 mL. Developing both formats from the same formula can reduce unnecessary formulation variation while allowing different filling specifications.
Before final approval, the brand can create a simple comparison sheet for 3 prototype samples and score foam, spread, rinse speed, residue, odor, and after-feel from 1 to 5. Comments such as “Sample B leaves more residue than Sample A after 30 seconds of rinsing” give the chemist more useful information than “Sample B does not feel luxurious enough.” Measurable feedback shortens revision cycles and makes the approved specification easier to reproduce during later production batches.