Three European Markets Enter K-Beauty's Export Top Ten

What is the signal?

According to the provisional figures released on 2 October, cosmetics exports for January to September 2026 reached US$11.1 billion, up 31.1% year on year and the highest ever for a nine-month period. That is close to last year's full-year total of US$11.4 billion, reached in nine months. The third quarter alone came to US$4.17 billion, 7.5% above the second quarter's US$3.88 billion.

By country, the United States led with US$2.35 billion, 21.1% of the total, up 40.6% year on year. China was second at US$1.58 billion, or 14.2%, but grew only 0.4%; its share has fallen from 46.7% in 2022 to 14.2%. Japan followed at US$890 million, or 8.0%, up 8.6%.

What changed in this release sits below those three. The United Kingdom reached US$443 million, up 179.3%, entering fifth place for the first time and displacing Russia and Vietnam. The Netherlands was eighth at US$369 million, up 292.6%, and Poland ninth at US$322 million, up 58.6%. Canada was tenth at US$285 million, up 124.4%. By product type, skincare was the largest at US$8.72 billion, up 45.1%.

Let us set the limits of the reading. These are provisional nine-month figures, so annual rankings may differ once the fourth quarter is counted. Export statistics record the value of goods cleared for shipment, not what consumers in that country actually paid. The figure for the Netherlands was reported slightly differently across outlets, at US$360 million and at US$369 million. Markets with triple-digit growth are measured against a small base from last year, so one or two large shipments can move their position. The direction of the list is clear all the same: volumes heading to Europe have reached the top ranks, which means one more set of documentary requirements to design to.

1. The top three no longer explain the picture

Add the shares of the United States at 21.1%, China at 14.2% and Japan at 8.0% and you get 43.3%. More than half of the total came from everywhere else. A plan written as a choice between the United States and China does not match this list.

Growth rates reorder it again. The United States grew 40.6% from a large base, but the Netherlands at 292.6%, the United Kingdom at 179.3% and Canada at 124.4% grew faster. In absolute terms, though, the United Kingdom is less than a fifth of the United States. A fast-growing market is a signal of opportunity, not yet a market that carries volume, and both readings have to stay on the table.

Translated into development, the question narrows to one line: which market do you write down as the first launch market? Whether that is the United States, the United Kingdom or an EU member state changes who is accountable, where you notify, what safety documentation you need and what goes on the label — and those differences are hard to adjust once the formula is locked.

• Whether the brief says only "export" or names the countries
• Whether the first and second launch markets are set out in order
• Whether fast-growing markets and high-volume markets are kept in separate columns
• Whether volume will be split per market or pooled into one

2. The three European markets are not one condition

Of the three European markets in the top ten, the United Kingdom runs a system separate from the EU's. UK government guidance states that to make cosmetic products available in Great Britain you must designate a Responsible Person with a UK established address, and notification goes through the Submit Cosmetic Product Notification (SCPN) service run by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. The product information file must be kept in English at that UK address and produced for market surveillance and enforcement authorities on request.

The Netherlands and Poland are EU member states, so they follow the EU cosmetics framework and notify through the Commission's CPNP portal. The two systems share a root and ask for similar items, but they are separate: sell the same product in both Great Britain and the EU and you may have to notify twice. The United Kingdom at fifth place alongside the Netherlands and Poland at eighth and ninth means a plan that treated Europe as one bundle now has two portals in it.

The core document is the safety report. Before a product goes on the market the Responsible Person must ensure it has undergone a safety assessment and that a report exists, split into Part A, the safety information provided by the Responsible Person, and Part B, the assessment provided by the safety assessor. The assessor is expected to hold formal qualifications from a university course in pharmacy, toxicology, medicine or a similar discipline. That person is often not in-house, so the time to engage one belongs in the schedule, and changing the formula means assessing again.

• Who the Responsible Person will be for Great Britain and for the EU
• Whether you have written down how many notifications go to SCPN and to CPNP
• In which language and at which address the product information file will be held
• Whether the safety assessor is engaged before or after the formula is locked

3. Do not read a high growth rate as consumption

Export statistics count where goods were sent. Whether the volume cleared into a country was all sold there, or moved on to a neighbouring market, is not something this statistic tells you. So a country's export figure cannot be taken as what consumers in that country bought.

The distinction bites immediately in practice. Whether your counterparty is retail distribution in that country or a regional wholesaler changes which languages go on the label, in which country the Responsible Person sits, and who receives consumer enquiries and reports of undesirable effects. The fact that European orders rose does not settle any of those three.

Growth rates also need to be separated by nature. Reading the Netherlands at 292.6% and Poland at 58.6% as the same kind of demand increase can mislead. A small base from last year makes a growth rate look large, and a country's cleared value can also jump in a single year while distribution is being restructured. Until you know what form the transaction took, the source of a number matters more than its size.

4. The structure leans on skincare alone while markets multiply

By product type, skincare was the largest at US$8.72 billion, up 45.1% — close to four-fifths of the US$11.1 billion total. Markets are widening while product types stay concentrated on one axis, and that combination forces a clear choice in development.

One option is to send the same skincare formula to several markets unchanged. Volume pools into one formula, which improves quantity and unit cost. In exchange, that single formula has to satisfy the ingredient conditions of every market at once, and an ingredient restriction arising in one market reaches every market using it.

The other is to split formulas by market. Meeting each market's conditions becomes easier, but volume fragments, which worsens minimum production quantity and unit cost, and stability testing and safety assessment multiply with the number of formulas. Which option fits is settled by arithmetic, not preference. Put the number of markets, formulas, notifications and expected volumes in one table and the cost gap between the two becomes visible.

• Whether one shared formula versus per-market formulas was compared in numbers
• Whether prohibited and restricted ingredient lists per market were obtained before locking the formula
• Whether the tests and assessments added by each extra formula were counted
• Whether the range stays on skincare alone or adds another axis

5. How many markets you open decides the launch date

Designating a Responsible Person, notifying, holding the product information file and running the safety assessment differ by market in both who does it and where it sits. They look like administration that follows the formula, but they are what actually sets the launch date. Opening three markets at once means three sets of documents ready at the same time.

So simultaneous and sequential entry have different cost structures. Open together and the upfront cost and preparation time arrive at once, but one set of documentation can be used side by side. Open in sequence and you can decide the next market from the first market's response, but changing the formula or label for the second market may send you back through the first market's paperwork.

It helps to narrow the ordering rule to one. Clear the market with the most demanding requirements first and the looser markets can mostly be explained with the same documentation. Launch in a looser market first and move to a demanding one later, and you are fitting documentation around a formula and a pack you have already committed to, which leaves fewer options.

The first question for the brief

Instead of writing "a skincare line for export", narrow it to one sentence with country names in it. Write something like "a skincare line entering Great Britain and one EU member state on the same formula", and the number of notifications and Responsible Persons follows directly from that sentence.

The second thing to write is a table. Put the markets you will enter on the left, and on the right the Responsible Person, the notification portal, and the documents and languages you must hold for each. A market with an empty right-hand side is a hope, not a plan. With that table, the cost of adding one more market becomes a number.

The last is the order. Decide which market opens first and the timing of the formula lock, of engaging the safety assessor, and of approving the pack and label artwork all fall into place together. Approve the artwork first and settle the markets later, and a market with more mandatory label items arriving afterwards sends the label and the pack back for another round.