It starts out straightforwardly enough – with washing your face. But the fabled 10-step Korean skincare routine is then quick to test your commitment, if not your patience.
The second step is to wash your face again, with a different cleanser, to remove everything you missed the first time round and reach even deeper into the skin. Then there’s the exfoliant, chemical or physical, to create an even texture.
Next comes the softening step, the ‘essence’ or milky toner, which is patted onto the skin to open the pores and prepare it to receive yet more products.
Steps five and six are both treatments. The first is typically a serum, for tightening, brightening or hydrating. The second is more targeted and tailored to your particular skincare concerns – a pimple patch, for example, or an eye product to tackle fine lines.
Then it’s time for a sheet mask: an arguably defining step of the Korean beauty regimen, and – apparently – essential for achieving that dewy ‘glass skin’ look, where the skin appears unmarked by imperfections and even pores.
Step eight – bear with me – is an eye cream: yes, this one’s different from the eye treatment you might have used in step six, instead focusing on moisturising that delicate area.
Step nine is an all-over facial moisturiser, sealing in those previous products and giving a final layer of protection to the skin barrier.
Finally, there’s sunscreen, guarding against UVA and UVB rays. You skip this step in your nighttime regimen (which may feature different products).
Then, mere hours later (so the theory goes), you do it all over again.
The intensive 10-step routine is well-known as a cornerstone of Korean beauty, or ‘K-beauty’, as it’s globally known. The question is: does it work?
Some experts think so, if only to produce a short-term, glossy effect. “It is a lot, but you really see the benefits,” says cosmetic scientist Rachael Polowyj. “I mean, who can be bothered to actually do it every day, day in and day out? But for special occasions, I think it’s quite nice.”
An emerging trend and even a novelty ten years ago, K-beauty has since exploded to become the international market leader, sought-after for its innovative formats and affordable pricing.
Korean skincare is also known for its natural ingredients such as fermented rice, green tea, ginseng root, mugwort herb, bee venom and – most infamously, on social media – snail mucin (otherwise known as slime).
More recently, salmon DNA extracted from sperm cells has taken off for its alleged skin-rejuvenating properties.
These might still be edgy to Western beauty consumers but, within Korea, they’ve already receded into the rearview as brands compete to break new ground, hold consumers’ attention and uncover the next big thing.
The three- to five-step routines and one-and-done ‘miracle creams’ of Western beauty might seem crude by comparison. Then again, more expensive or elaborate regimens don’t necessarily mean better skin.
K-beauty is undeniably big business; it may well be more innovative. But is it really more effective?
Ten steps too many?
In truth, K-beauty’s 10 steps are likely more apocryphal than a genuinely widespread daily routine in Korea.
It was popularised by a 2015 book, Charlotte Cho’s The Little Book of Skin Care, and likely then taken up by brands as a ploy to introduce Western consumers – more familiar with a simple cleanser-and-moisturiser routine – to the full gamut of K-beauty.
But a 2021 survey of 1500 Korean women, carried out by the market research company Kantar, found that the majority used an average of just three products each morning (not including facial cleanser).
To some, including K-beauty marketer and commentator Odile Monod, the 10-step routine is “simply a marketing gimmick” (according to Monod’s blog).
Indeed, dermatologists tend to advise against using too many products (particularly those containing fragrances or active ingredients) as they can cause breakouts and inflammation or trigger the skin in other ways.
“Simple is usually better,” says Dr Shari Lipner, an associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, in the US.
People with acne, rosacea, eczema, psoriasis or other conditions compromising the skin’s protective barrier are particularly susceptible to adverse reactions.
“When your skin reacts negatively – if you’re becoming itchy, or breaking out – sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what’s causing it when you’re dealing with a lot of steps,” says Lipner. “With all these products being layered upon each other, your face is basically a mixing bowl.”
Prevention, not cure
Whether or not 10 steps, twice a day, is necessary for people with healthy skin, the general approach highlights the essential difference of K-beauty.
Western beauty is more targeted and results-driven, Lipner says, seeking to ‘correct’ blemishes or fine lines, for example. K-beauty, on the other hand, “tends to focus more on preventative care.”
Instead of the prized, rich moisturiser creams from French brands, Korean skincare prioritises lightweight, hydrating layers that boost the skin’s protective barrier.
And though a K-beauty routine may use more products overall, those with active ingredients (such as acids) tend to be lower in strength than Western equivalents (not to mention that they’re often lower in cost, too).
Rather than making claims on fast-acting results, reversing damage and ‘anti-ageing’, for example, K-beauty brands have been embracing ‘slow-ageing’, focusing on caring for the skin over time.
It adds up to a more gentle, proactive approach, framing skincare as a lifelong responsibility. In South Korea, it’s common for families to have a dermatologist on call, as well as a doctor; children may start a routine of products before they hit their teens.
“It’s a different philosophy,” says Lipner.
She supports K-beauty’s focus on prevention, and the “more innovative, and more interesting” products. The issue, for her, is the dearth of robust, long-term evidence to support their sometimes lofty claims.
The mainstays of Western beauty – Lipner cites retinol, retin-A, Vitamin C, alpha and beta hydroxy acids, peptides and ceramides – are well-studied and backed by evidence. “We’re not just pulling this out of our pockets,” she says.
Fermented ingredients and snail mucin, on the other hand, “certainly may be helpful in terms of skin health, and skin ageing – but we know a lot less about them… The data is just not there yet to support telling the whole world to use it.”
That partly reflects the barriers to doing good research, Lipner adds. “It doesn’t move as fast as we would like it to move, because it takes a lot to do a well-designed study.”
Even comparing a multi-step routine with a simpler one would be challenging, given all the variables involved – and not just of the different products. “Everyone has their own genetic blueprint and environmental exposures,” she says.
Read more:
- 9 ways to easily upgrade your skincare, according to a dermatologist
- No, a jade roller won't keep your skin youthful. Here's why
- "Microbiome friendly" beauty products: Do they work?
Freedom to move fast
The global explosion of K-beauty may say less about its unique efficacy and more about foreign markets’ failure to keep up.
In the US, the UK and the rest of Europe, gaining regulatory approval for cosmetics tends to be a slow, involved process.
“To launch any type of cosmetic product generally takes about two years in Europe,” says Polowyj, who works as a business development manager for the chemical formulation and distribution company IMCD UK.
In South Korea – where there’s less red tape and more commercial flexibility around things like minimum order quantities – a product can be developed and on the market in as few as eight months.
“That’s what timescales these Korean beauty brands are used to – and that’s why they can stay ahead,” says Polowyj.
It’s not just that K-beauty is faster to move: they also have more ingredients at their disposal.
The European regulations for chemical use in cosmetics (broadly followed by the UK post-Brexit) are among the strictest in the world, according to Polowyj. This means consumers can have high confidence that products are safe, but it limits innovation.
Polowyj likens the possibilities for cosmetics manufacturers to a painter’s palette with only a handful of colours – versus dozens in Korea. “You’ve got more resources and more combinations of chemicals that can be used.”
As for the US, cosmetics regulation is more permissive than in Europe and the UK – but the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) can still be cautious when it comes to K-beauty ingredients with limited research or history of use in the US.
Polowyj believes the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and permitting innovation. “It’s known for being fast but fair, and also strict where it needs to be.”
European and US regulations, on the other hand, can be so restrictive or risk-averse that they result in less effective products.
Polowyj gives the example of Cyclopentasiloxane, or D5: a non-greasy silicone that is widely used in Korean hair and skin care products (as well as those in the US).
“It’s the most beautiful ingredient: super lightweight and so silky,” she says. But in Europe, use is capped at a maximum concentration of 0.1 per cent, “so you’ll never feel any effect from it.”
Though safe for humans, D5 is restricted by the European Chemical Agency on grounds that it causes damage to the environment – but Polowyj says there are questions about the theoretical calculation (based on carbon chemistry, rather than more appropriate silicone chemistry) used to reach that conclusion.
“There’s very little evidence to show that there’s a buildup of Cyclopentasiloxane in the environment… [but] the European regulations are so strict and regimented, they won’t allow any movement.”
The UV factor
The US is seen to be similarly standing in its own way when it comes to sun protection. There, they are categorised as drugs, rather than cosmetics, and as such are more strictly regulated by the FDA.
This not only stymies innovation by US companies but severely limits the ingredients they’re able to make use of, resulting in products that are significantly less effective or pleasant to apply.
This has stoked US consumer interest in K-beauty sunscreens, which are known for their lightweight, milky or watery textures and high levels of protection.
In Europe and the UK, however, they’re broadly comparable to those widely available over-the-counter, says Clare O’Connor, a dermatologist specialising in skin production (and employed as an R&D manager at Boots UK).
Where they differ is in their measurement of UVA rays, responsible for cumulative damage such as pigmentation, skin cancers and photoaging.
The PA+ rating system used in Asian markets was rejected by European regulators as unethical (for using the in-vivo method, meaning tested on live animals, versus in-vitro which happens in a lab dish or test tube) and producing variable results, according to O’Connor.
Where Korean sunscreens do have the edge is with their “very light, liquid textures” which are quickly absorbed and therefore may encourage reapplication, says O’Connor.
“Scientifically, they’re not superior [to European and UK products]. At best, they’re equivalent.” But, she adds, “consumers might very much prefer them.”
Big business and bold claims
The K-beauty craze has been boosted by hallyu, the so-called ‘Korean Wave’ of cultural dispersal across the globe. The chart-topping success of boyband BTS, for example, is credited with stoking Western interest in Korean products and routines.
Cosmetics and culture are now both major exports for South Korea, if not cornerstones of its economy.
In early 2025, the Korean government announced an official K-Beauty Fund worth $27 million (approx. £20 million) dedicated to bolstering K-beauty’s global standing.
The global market is forecast to balloon to nearly $26 billion (approx. £19.3 billion) by 2032. Western beauty giants, meanwhile, are flailing.
Coty UK (which owns Rimmel, Max Factor and Kylie Cosmetics, among other brands) recently reported a £50m (approx. $68m) loss, while Unilever blamed its reduced turnover on “subdued growth” in beauty.
In 2024, South Korea overtook France as the biggest exporter of cosmetics to the US.
“There’s so much more innovation that’s coming,” says Polowyj, pointing to the investment in biotechnology in particular.
The South Korean company Bio FD&C, for example, is doing pioneering work into the use of plant cell cultures for anti-ageing.
It’s representative of K-beauty’s defining drive to innovate and combine natural ingredients with cutting-edge technology. But the industry’s breakneck pace, and massive consumer demand, doesn’t necessarily support scientific rigor.
Brands can be more inclined to throw out formulas than refine them, says Polowyj. “If 10 out of 12 new launches haven’t been successful, they’ll drop them and do another 10… It’s kind of like throwing products at the wall until something sticks.”
Against such high churn, companies may also play fast and loose with their marketing.
One new innovation in K-beauty are serums that claim to replicate the effects of microneedling – a minimally invasive cosmetic procedure – via spicules (spikes derived from freshwater sponges).
It sounds too good to be true – and it is, says Lauren Lee, an Australian-born, Seoul-based consultant and founder of the online K-beauty platform Style Story.
Microneedling penetrates the lower levels of the skin unable to be reached by a topical product. “The claims are just false… It doesn’t do the same thing.”
Last year the MFDS cracked down on companies claiming to offer “microneedling in a bottle”, but by then it had already spread.
“These companies have multi-million-dollar marketing budgets,” Lee says.
In particular, she goes on, they can be “exceptionally talented” at coordinating social media campaigns, sending influencers freebies in the hopes that they’ll share them with their followers, or else working with them to create viral ‘moments’.
“I’ve seen the briefs that some of these companies put out, and it’s literally directed down to the second.”
The recent craze for salmon DNA (or polydeoxyribonucleotide, widely known as PDRN) “is another absolute doozy”, says Lee.
There’s evidence to support its regenerative effects – but as an injectable ingredient. “The delivery is the most important thing: it needs to get past the skin barrier… using a needle to get down to the deeper layers.”
Brands are using PDRN in topical products, such as serums and creams, but it won’t penetrate to the levels necessary for it to be effective, Lee says.
“The molecule is just too big. Some brands are claiming that they’ve made it smaller, but there’s no real proof.”
Nevertheless, buzz continues around PDRN as a miracle ingredient, within Korea and beyond – highlighting a broader issue with the spread of misinformation online, and regulators’ struggles to effectively act against it.
“This is a K-beauty problem, yes – but it’s also an internet-in-2025 problem,” says Lee.
It speaks to the demand for a new silver bullet or high-tech solution. But the K-beauty ingredients with the most evidence behind them are those derived from traditional herbal medicine, says Lee.
Take Centella asiatica, commonly known as cica: a tropical plant (and now K-beauty staple) that has been used for centuries to treat redness and inflammation.
A 2013 study showed its effectiveness in treating minor wounds, burns, hypertrophic scarring and photoaging.
Most K-beauty brands have a Cica-based range for brightening and radiance; stores in Seoul will even have entire sections dedicated to the ingredient. “But it’s not ‘sexy’ anymore in Korea, because it’s been done,” says Lee.
As innovative as it is, the global craze for K-beauty also reflects our contemporary obsession with novelty – and being first to get there. Even experts struggle to resist the allure, Lee says.
She recently spoke to a dermatologist about PDRN, the salmon DNA. The doctor, Lee reports, said: “I know it doesn’t work if you apply it topically – but I bought some of those products… and they feel really nice. They feel like they’re doing something.”
That may be the industry’s real formula: when it comes to beauty, perception can be as potent as proof.
Read more:
