Erborian sells a story: centella from Jeju, a commitment to social responsibility, and ethical certification. For four months, we sought to verify these claims using public records. Here’s what they reveal—and what they don’t.
Published on July 27, 2026, by Angel Laffon.
Erborian, a K-beauty brand with a botanical focus, came under the control of the L’Occitane Group in July 2012. The group acquired just over half of the company’s equity at that time, before increasing its stake to nearly 63%. The brand, then in its infancy, had global revenue of 2.5 million euros. Thirteen years later, Erborian has established itself as one of the group’s fastest-growing brands. Its co-founders, Katalin Berenyi and Hojung Lee, have since left the company; Berenyi took the helm at Clarins in 2019.
Since then, the ownership structure has no longer been publicly verifiable: data from the beneficial ownership registry is restricted to authorized individuals. And the group, which was delisted from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on October 16, 2024, is no longer required to publish detailed financial statements: its last full annual report dates from July 2024.
The French entity itself has only been known as “Erborian International” since July 30, 2025. Until then, court records identified it by its original name, “Symbiose Cosmetics France.” As for the brand, it is led by Dorothée Massoulier, who joined the group in 2012 in the marketing department at L’Occitane en Provence.
Its financial statements are filed with the clerk of the commercial court.We reviewed them line by line, including the tax return. One entry immediately catches the eye: for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, the line item labeled “Influencers Collaboration US” jumped from 453,373 to 2,271,531 euros in one year— an increase of 401%. A second line item, “Influencers Collaboration ME,” appears in the same year at 183,183 euros.
Let’s clarify the scope right from the start, because it shapes how this report is interpreted. These figures come from a single company, Erborian International SAS, the brand’s French subsidiary, whose revenue reached 108 million euros for the fiscal year ending in March 2025, compared to 68.5 million a year earlier. According to its own financial statements, these sales are primarily to other companies within the group, not to consumers. These documents therefore do not tell the whole story about Erborian globally. However, they are the only ones that provide financial figures for the brand—since the group does not break it out in any of its publications—and they are sufficient to raise the question at the heart of this investigation: what remains of the promises once they are measured against the facts?
We sent written inquiries to Erborian and its parent company, L’Occitane, regarding the origin of the centella, the calculation of the “1%,” and the influencer budget, as well as to the manufacturer Kolmar Korea and Durae Corporation—co-holder of the patent cited below—regarding their sourcing. None of them responded. However, a response did come through another channel: a report filed on SignalConso, the DGCCRF’s platform. We’ll return to this later. No violation has been established or alleged in the following.
1. What the Financial Statements Reveal: Influence Before Philanthropy
Within the scope of this entity—the only one documented—the comparison between influencer marketing and philanthropy that the brand highlights is as follows.
| Position (Erborian International SAS, fiscal year ended March 31, 2025) | Previous fiscal year | Fiscal year ended March 31, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| "Influencer Collaboration in the U.S." | 453 373 € | €2,271,531 (+401%) |
| "Influencers Collaboration ME" | — | 183 183 € |
| "Self-Esteem Club" Donations | — | €517,000 (+ €300,000 from the “Self Esteem Foundation”) |
(Figures taken from the financial statements filed with the court clerk's office—documents in the possession of the editorial staff.)
In gross terms, and within this scope, the company’s lobbying expenses for the fiscal year amount to roughly three times its donations: 2.45 million euros versus 817,000 euros under the scenario most favorable to the brand—the one that combines the two donation categories. Other entities within the group may be making additional payments elsewhere; these are not public, and that is precisely the issue this report documents.
The actual cost of the reported philanthropy is, in turn, documented by a tax receipt. The 517,000 euros allocated to the flagship program, reported as corporate philanthropy underArticle 238 bis of the General Tax Code—a general-law provision open to any company—qualifies for a 60% tax reduction, calculated at 312,806 euros on Form 2069-RCI-SD attached to the financial statements. After this reduction, the donation cost the company only about 204,000 euros net—less than one-tenth of its advocacy budget for the fiscal year. The tax treatment of the second category of donations, totaling 300,000 euros, is not detailed in the financial statements; we have not included it in this calculation.
2. Marrakech, the Seychelles, and a carbon footprint that’s been swept under the rug
In February 2026, Erborian France brought together fourteen content creators in the Agafay Desert, near Marrakech, for an event called “Red Experience,” organized around the launch of its Redness line. It was a public event, covered by the industry publication *Les Gens d’Internet* and promoted by the agency that produced it. A few months later, a similar event took place in the Seychelles, as evidenced by the “house tour” posted on May 27, 2026, by content creator Sananas.
The brand does not publish the carbon footprint of these trips anywhere. We estimated it—as a rough order of magnitude, not an exact measurement—based on the emission factors from ADEME’s Empreinte database (152 g of CO₂e per passenger per kilometer for long-haul flights, approximately 187 g for medium-haul flights) and flight distances—approximately 3,800 km round-trip for Paris–Marrakech and 15,800 km for Paris–Mahé—for fourteen participants per trip, including airfare only. This results in approximately 44 metric tons of CO₂e for the two trips combined—about 10 metric tons for Marrakech and 34 for the Seychelles. This is a minimum estimate, which excludes non-CO₂ forcing from aviation, production teams, cargo, and lodging, and already equates to the annual carbon footprint of about five French citizens. The complete calculation sheet is available upon request.
At the same time, France was experiencing a first half of the year marked by red alerts and heat wave plans. Erborian, meanwhile, was planning two press trips by air, including one to the Seychelles, an archipelago on the front lines of climate change.
From a tax perspective, this influence budget—including appearance fees, production costs, and press trips—is also deductible from taxable income, just like any other business expense. At the standard rate of 25%, the deduction of these 2.27 million euros spent on influence over the course of a year results in approximately 570,000 euros in reduced corporate income tax. There is nothing unusual about this deduction: any business expense reduces taxable income—and thus the tax liability. We mention this not to dispute it, but because it completes the picture: every euro spent on influence is also a euro that is tax-deductible.
This market is no longer a gray area. Since the law of June 9, 2023, regulating commercial influence, the DGCCRF has inspected more than 300 influencers, nearly half of whom were found to be in violation. And the regulator warns that its investigations “may extend to advertisers, who may also be held liable”: in other words, the brand that pays may be held responsible for what is said about it. It is against this backdrop that Erborian, one advertiser among many, increased its influencer marketing budget from 453,373 to 2,271,531 euros in one year.
3. A flagship product recalled in four countries
In 2025, Centella Cream, the brand's signature product, was withdrawn from the market in four countries—all from the same batches.
| Date | Country / Authority | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| July 25, 2025 | France — RappelConso, Fact Sheet No. 18963 | Recall of the 20- and 50-ml sizes, initiated voluntarily by M&L Erborian Laboratories |
| August 7, 2025 | Switzerland — OSAV | Recommendation to stop using the product; recall by the importer, HJD Distribution SA |
| August 21, 2025 | Spain — AEMPS | Discontinuation of Sales, Withdrawal, and Recall of Lots KM05363, KM06363, KM06343, and KM07343 |
| August 15, 2025 | United Kingdom — OPSS (GOV.UK) | Market withdrawal and consumer recall; non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 |
The reason cited in the French notice is the absence of a preservative in the affected lots. Without this protection, the product developed microbiological contamination (Candida parapsilosis, Micrococcus luteus, Microbacterium oxydans), posing a risk particularly to those with broken skin and immunocompromised individuals. This recall does not constitute any breach of regulations: the brand initiated it itself, which is part of the normal operation of health surveillance. One point, however, is worth noting, as it comes from a regulatory authority. The UK OPSS advisory states that the affected batches do not meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009, the foundational text of European cosmetics law. This constitutes a public finding of non-compliance for the batches in question.
The episode also touches on the manufacturing process. On its “Korean DNA” page, Erborian states that its products are manufactured in Seoul. However, the brand does not manufacture its products itself: production is outsourced to the Korean contractor Kolmar Korea, in line with the ODM model—the predominant model in the K-beauty industry. In April 2025, a report in the business daily Seoul Economic Daily described the filling and packaging operations at the Kolmar factory in Sejong for the BB cream intended for the Erborian brand of the L’Occitane group, which is produced and then sold in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy. The “KM” prefix on the recalled batches corresponds to this manufacturer’s coding system; its 2024 sustainability report, audited by BSI Group Korea, lists “L’Occitane en Provence” among its international clients, alongside L’Oréal.
There is nothing illegitimate about this business model; in fact, it is the predominant model in Korea. But it has a direct consequence: the traceability of raw materials depends on information that neither the manufacturer nor the brand makes public.
4. A B Corp certification that applies to the group, not the brand
B Corp certification, issued by the U.S.-based organization B Lab, evaluates a company’s social and environmental performance. Erborian proudly displays this certification. On its English-language website, the brand announces at the top of the page: “Erborian is now a Certified B Corporation™.” The official B Lab registry lists the certified entity as “Group L’Occitane HQ Labo”—that is, the group as a whole— which has been certified since August 2023 with an overall score of 85.4. As such, the certification applies to the entire portfolio, without a separate public score or audit specific to Erborian.
The logic is the same as for revenue. The brand is indeed included in the group’s commitments, specifically mentioned among those covered by its goals regarding the biodegradability of rinse-off formulas or RSPO certification for palm oil derivatives. However, it appears there as a scope of application, never as a unit of measurement: no results are attributed to it specifically.
This score of 85.4 is based on a framework that is being phased out. In April 2025, B Lab published the most significant overhaul of its standards since 2006, effective as of January 2026. The previous point-accumulation system—which allowed companies to exceed the 80-point threshold by excelling in one area while neglecting another—has been replaced by seven impact themes, each with its own minimum requirements, a five-year progress trajectory, and an audit by an independent third party.
One of these themes is directly related to what this survey documents. The Climate Action theme requires large companies—those with more than 250 employees or generating more than 75 million euros in revenue—to measure and report their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, have this inventory verified by an accredited third-party organization, and set scientifically validated reduction targets within three years of certification. Scope 3 encompasses indirect emissions across the value chain, including business travel. Flights related to operations in Marrakech and the Seychelles would therefore be included.
5. The “Jeju” origin—a claim that cannot be verified by any public information
The official product descriptions for Erborian’s Centella Crème—which RappelConso recall notice No. 18963 references under codes 6AA20067 and 6AA20068—specify the origin of its main active ingredient. In the version archived by the Wayback Machine on April 23, 2024, the active ingredient is described as follows: “Centella Asiatica extract, a plant native to Jeju Island, South Korea.” As of July 18, 2026, the same description appears on the Sephora product page, which still sells this version in white packaging; the page also displays a notice of an ongoing recall. The product is now sold in new green packaging and under new product codes, 6AA20095 and 6AA20094, which appear online alongside the previous versions, and the original claim is repeated there: “2% Centella Asiatica : extract of Korean Centella Asiatica, sourced from Jeju Island.”
On these product pages, the brand states in its FAQ: “No, the formula for Centella Cream remains exactly the same. Only the packaging has changed.” However, two distinct INCI lists exist for this product. One, displayed notably by Sephora, lists centella extract in ninth position and mentions t-butyl alcohol. The other, published on the brand’s current product pages, lists it in eleventh position and no longer mentions this ingredient. However , Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 requires that the list be arranged in descending order of the weight percentage of the ingredients at the time of incorporation, with only those present at less than 1% permitted to be listed in any order. Since centella is claimed to be present at 2%, it falls within the range where the order of listing is binding. These two lists therefore do not describe the same distribution, and it is not possible to deduce the concentration of any particular ingredient from them.
Legally speaking, a claim of origin is not a marketing slogan. Regulation (EU) No. 655/2013 requires that any cosmetic claim be supported by verifiable evidence. However, four different avenues of verification all lead to the same dead end. The label bears the generic name “CENTELLA ASIATICA LEAF EXTRACT,” which is identical regardless of origin. We found no third-party certification of origin—such as Ecocert, UEBT, or Cosmos—accompanying the ingredient. The Korean patent KR102259767B1, jointly filed by Kolmar and Durae, establishes that production is possible, but no public document links it to Erborian’s formulas. Furthermore, no public document identifies the agricultural supplier.
Yet, right in Korea itself, there is a tool designed specifically for this purpose. The Jeju Special Self-Governing Province created an official “Jeju Cosmetics” certification, prompted by the fact that products manufactured outside the island were using its image for marketing purposes. Products are eligible if they contain at least 10% raw materials sourced from Jeju and are manufactured on the island. This second criterion alone disqualifies the Centella Cream: Kolmar Korea’s cosmetics factories are located in Sejong and Bucheon, on the Korean mainland. We found no Erborian products in the registry of certified products, as of July 20, 2026.
The context of the industry makes this absence all the more notable. The Korean business press (Korea Daily / JoongAng, April 9, 2026) reports that the country’s cosmetics industry has long relied on imports for about 90% of its centella, sourced primarily from Madagascar and Vietnam. On the island, the world’s first production of “giant centella” did not begin until March 2025, at a smart farm built in Gujwa-eup by the Riman Group, which registered this cultivar in July 2022 and holds exclusive rights to its use through July 2042. This centella is used in the company’s own skincare brand, ICD, which has no known connection to Erborian. The development manager interviewed on site explained that Jeju was chosen because its climate resembles that of Madagascar, the plant’s country of origin.
Added to this is an agronomic constraint. According to a study published in September 2025 in *Frontiers in Plant Science* by researchers at the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, South Korea’s public agricultural research agency, the plant’s natural habitat in South Korea is limited to southern islands such as Jeju, and open-field cultivation there restricts the growing season to June through October, making it difficult to ensure a stable year-round supply.
In response to a complaint filed on June 28, 2026, on SignalConso, the DGCCRF’s platform, Laboratoires M&L, the parent company of Erborian International, replied on July 23. It considers the complaint unfounded and the allegation “duly substantiated,” specifying that the evidence is based on “documentary proof of traceability and certificates of origin” kept in its regulatory records, which can be “presented to the competent authorities upon request.” Above all, its response confirms the crux of the problem: the documents exist, it says, but they are enforceable only against the regulator.
That is exactly what the law requires. Traceability is mandatory; Article 7 of Regulation 1223/2009 requires it , and the product information file provided for in Article 11 must be retained for ten years. However, these documents are accessible only to regulatory authorities. Geographical origin thus serves as a marketing claim without any legal requirement to publish proof of it.
This phenomenon extends beyond Erborian. The Korean brand Atomy is a good example. For its Derma Real Cica line, it claims to use centella sourced from Madagascar. However, its product sheet lists Korea Kolmar as the manufacturer. Yet this same contract manufacturer packaged Erborian’s BB cream at its Sejong plant. This was revealed in a report by the Seoul Economic Daily published in April 2025. The same contract manufacturer is therefore producing for two brands. These two brands claim two different origins for a similar active ingredient. The origin of an active ingredient is determined by the commercial contract between the brand and its manufacturer. It cannot be inferred from the identity of the factory.
Yet this lack of transparency is by no means inevitable, as a competitor has demonstrated using the same plant. L’Oréal reports that, since 2016, it has implemented a responsible sourcing program for its Madagascar centella, featuring named suppliers—Indfrag and Ravina—identified collection areas—Fierenana and Ambatondrazaka—and verification bythe Union for Ethical BioTrade, which publicly documents its work with harvesters and ensures traceability. On the ground, the company Bionexx—a member of this same NGO since 2021—has its centella verified and claims to have a network of approximately 35,000 farmers. Transparency regarding the origin of centella is therefore possible. Erborian does not provide it.
6. The “1%” solidarity tax: a percentage with no verifiable basis
The “1%” donation. Erborian publicizes its commitment to donate 1% of its sales to charities. However, the definition of this 1% varies depending on the medium. On its French website, the legal notice refers to “1% of global revenue from Erborian products.” On its U.S. website, it refers to “1% of sales recorded by the L’Occitane Group under the Erborian brand during the previous fiscal year (2022–2023) in France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Europe (Schengen Area).” A global basis on one hand, limited to certain regions on the other. And in both cases, the reference figure is not published anywhere.
It is even impossible to reconstruct it. For the 2024–2025 fiscal year, ended March 31, 2025, the L’Occitane Group generated 2.8 billion euros in global sales and provides details only on the share of its three largest brands: L’Occitane en Provence 48.4%, Sol de Janeiro 31.6%, and Elemis 10.1%. Erborian is not listed among them. It is one of the five other brands in the portfolio, which collectively account for the remaining 9.9%, or approximately 277 million euros in total. This lack of transparency is nothing new: as early as 2018, the trade press noted that the sales share of the group’s various brands, including Erborian, “is not disclosed.”
The previous fiscal year—which serves as the basis for calculating donations—is in the same boat: in the 2023–2024 annual report, the “Others” category totaled 214 million euros, comprising five specifically named brands: LimeLife, Melvita, Erborian, L’Occitane in Brazil, and Grown Alchemist. Erborian’s global revenue for that fiscal year is therefore, at best, only a fraction of those 214 million, and is not itemized anywhere. As a rough guide, 517,000 euros in donations would correspond to 1% of 51.7 million euros in revenue; adding the second line item of 300,000 euros would bring the total to 1% of 81.7 million. These figures are on the same order of magnitude as the “other brands” budget, but there is no way to verify whether they match the actual figure, since it is not published. The French financial statements are of no further help: the 108 million reported by the entity are, according to the financial statements themselves, “primarily generated through transactions with companies belonging to the L’Occitane Group,” and not from sales to consumers.
The donations, on the other hand, are genuine and documented. Form 2069-RCI-SD, included in the tax return package, details three payments made on March 10, 2025, by the French entity to three organizations: Force Femmes (190,000 euros), Premiers Secours en Santé Mentale France (227,000 euros), and Respect Zone (100,000 euros)—for a total of 517,000 euros, entitling the company to a tax deduction of 312,806 euros. These payments, made by the French company, do not necessarily cover the entire program, which the brand also carries out internationally through other entities within the group. However, the percentage shown is based on a calculation that is not quantified anywhere: by its very nature, it remains impossible to verify from the outside.
The “purpose” was incorporated in 2026. A recent document clarifies the timeline. Pursuant to an extraordinary general meeting held on February 13, 2026, and published in the BODACC, the company expanded its corporate purpose to include the statement that it “intends to generate a positive and significant social, societal, and environmental impact through the conduct of its business.” The inclusion of this purpose in the articles of incorporation—permitted by the 2019 PACTE Act—took place in February 2026, after the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, on which this investigation is based, whereas the “Self-Esteem Club” program and its “1%” commitment had already been in place since at least 2023.
7. “Naturalness” in Various Forms
“Natural” with varying definitions. Erborian’s marketing message is based on a promise of botanical gentleness, “Korean skin therapy,” plant-based active ingredients, and centella. Several recent studies qualify this narrative. In July 2026, the industry publication Vert scrutinized some 50 Korean cosmetics sold in France and ranked Erborian among the most problematic brands in its list, due to the presence of UV filters and controversial substances in certain products. The Que Choisir comparison, for its part, identified several undesirable ingredients in the product line.
When contacted by Vert, the brand’s press office responded that “all ingredients used in our products are authorized for use in cosmetics in accordance with applicable regulatory frameworks,” and indicated that it was “reformulating certain products.” This reformulation effort sheds light on the issue raised above: for Centella Crème alone, two INCI lists exist, even though the FAQ states that “the formula remains strictly the same.”
What the Law Says, and the September 27 Deadline
The legal framework specifically targets this type of claim, and it is becoming stricter. The Consumer Code prohibits any claim likely to mislead consumers, particularly regarding a product’s origin (Article L121-2), under penalty of sanctions of up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros, an amount increased to 10% of average annual revenue (Article L132-2).
Above all, a deadline is approaching. European Union (EU) Directive 2024/825, known as the “Empowering Consumers” Directive, is set to take effect on September 27, 2026, and its transposition into French law will be carried out through the DDADUE bill. In particular, it prohibits unsubstantiated generic environmental claims. It should not be confused with the separate “Green Claims” proposal, which the Commission announced it would withdraw in June 2025.
The regulator’s practice, however, is already well-established. The DGCCRF imposed a settlement fine of 200,000 euros—along with a public notice— on a major player in the cosmetics industry for highlighting ingredients present at a concentration of 0.01% alongside a fragrance thirty times more concentrated. The agency also lists the enforcement of penalties for misleading claims regarding origin among its enforcement priorities. The DGCCRF has not named this operator, and there is no evidence linking it to Erborian; the precedent merely establishes that the discrepancy between an ingredient highlighted in marketing and what a brand can document is no longer an abstract debate.
Conclusion
At the conclusion of this investigation, none of the claims examined turned out to be false. Nor did any of them turn out to be verifiable. The “Jeju” origin claim is based on documents that the brand claims to possess but does not make public. The “1%” is calculated based on revenue that the group does not disclose. The certification applies to the parent company, not to the brand displaying it. Manufacturing, claimed to take place in Seoul, actually occurs in Sejong. In each case, the same discrepancy exists, and both consumers and journalists are unable to verify the claim against the evidence.
This discrepancy is not unique to Erborian; it is widespread throughout the K-beauty industry. But it is becoming harder to maintain as regulations tighten and the burden of proof slowly shifts to the party making the claim.
Methodology
This investigation is based exclusively on public or official documents: the annual financial statements and tax return of Erborian International SAS filed with the clerk of the Commercial Court, legal documents and notices published in the BODACC, recall notices from the French, Swiss, British, and Spanish health authorities; product information sheets from the brand and its distributors, including their archived and time-stamped versions; the Korean business press; a patent filed with the Korean Intellectual Property Office; as well as European and French regulatory texts. Carbon footprint calculations are based on ADEME’s publicly available emission factors; the calculation sheet is available upon request.
Erborian, its parent company L’Occitane, the manufacturer Kolmar Korea, and Durae Corporation were contacted in writing regarding the origin of the centella, the calculation of the “1%,” and the influence budget. None of them responded to these inquiries. The position of Laboratoires M&L, the parent company of Erborian International, was obtained through another channel: a report filed on June 28, 2026, on SignalConso, a platform operated by the DGCCRF, to which the company responded on July 23, 2026; its response is quoted in full in the body of the article. This article will be updated should any of the companies contacted provide a response at a later date.
No violation has been established or alleged. The investigation systematically distinguishes between what is proven by documentary evidence and what could not be found in public sources; the latter category is presented as such and not as evidence of an absence.
Leave a comment