Influence of Global Business Environment on Industry:
GLOBAL INDUSTRY ANALYSIS – GROUP REPORT
Group no: 03
Industry name: Cosmetic Surgery
Word count: 3,000 words
Submission deadline: 29th April 2022, 1:00 pm AEDT
Term: 2022 T1
Course name: MGMT 5601 Global Business Environment
Lecturer in-charge: Dr Douglas Long
Group 3 members:
•
•
•
•
Wing Nokomis Lok - z5412004
Bohan Yang - z5346374
Jie Li - z5346136
Hrydhal Damani - z5407618
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Contents
1.
Introduction and study objectives......................................................................... 4
2.
Industry value chain and suitable segments for the MNC to operate in ............... 4
3.
The global industry performance and suitable product line the MNC should
venture into .......................................................................................................... 5
4.
Regional distribution and shortlisting a few countries for locating the MNC ......... 6
5.
Identifying the determinants of national competitive advantage and screening the
shortlisted countries ............................................................................................. 7
5.1.
Determinants of national competitive advantage .............................................. 7
5.2.
Country screening – USA ............................................................................... 10
5.3.
Country screening – Germany........................................................................ 10
5.4.
Country screening – Japan............................................................................. 11
5.5.
Country screening – South Korea .................................................................. 11
6.
Comparative assessment of the shortlisted countries, selection of preferred
country for pilot entry and market entry strategy ................................................ 11
6.1. Comparative assessment of shortlisted countries and selection of preferred
location .............................................................................................................. 11
6.2.
Competitive assessment of the USA cosmetic surgery market ...................... 12
6.3.
Market entry strategy for selected location ..................................................... 13
7.
Summary, conclusion and way forward ............................................................. 13
A.
References .................................................................................................. 14
B.
Appendices ................................................................................................. 15
2
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
List of Figures
Figure 1: Value-chain of cosmetic surgery industry (recommended segments in red
outline)......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Leading global regions and top performing cities for cosmetic surgery
industry ........................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: The Ansoff Matrix or the Product/Market Expansion Grid ........................... 7
Figure 4: Relative importance of the PESTLE factors for the cosmetic surgery
industry ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5: Assessment of the PESTLE factors for USA ............................................. 10
Figure 6: Assessment of the PESTLE factors for Germany ..................................... 10
Figure 7: Assessment of the PESTLE factors for Japan .......................................... 11
Figure 8: Assessment of the PESTLE factors for S. Korea ...................................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1: Cosmetic surgery industry growth trends ..................................................... 5
Table 2: Global ranking of countries by total number of procedures (2016-2020) ...... 6
Table 3: Initial screening for factors giving countries competitive advantage using
Porter’s Diamond Framework ...................................................................... 8
Table 4: Detailed screening for competitive advantage using PESTLE Framework ... 8
Table 5: Comparative assessment of the four shortlisted countries to select the
preferred location for pilot entry ................................................................. 12
Table 6: Ranking of countries by number of plastic surgeons for 2020 .................... 15
Table 7: Share of procedures for international patients by country, 2020 ................ 15
Table 8: Total number of procedures by country for 2016-2020............................... 16
Table 9: Number of plastic surgeons by country for 2016-2020 ............................... 16
3
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
1. Introduction and study objectives
Over the last decade the number of cosmetic procedures have doubled globally
(ISAPS 2011-20). Over these years, the procedures have gotten safer, cheaper and
more sophisticated. The industry is globally distributed across various wellestablished regional markets, with numerous new markets developing rapidly.
The objective of this report is to aid a large multi-national (MNC) healthcare and
pharmaceutical conglomerate to diversify into the cosmetic surgery industry. In the
recent past traditional pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson & Johnson
(USA), Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Germany), and AbbVie (spin-off of Abbott
Laboratories, USA) have successfully diversified into this industry and are market
leaders. This large MNC wishes now to undertake the following steps:
a. understand the value chain of the industry and identify the suitable segments of
the value chain that they should operate in,
b. review the global industry performance and potential, and select the product line
of the industry they should enter into,
c. review the regional distribution of the industry and shortlist a few suitable
locations to make a pilot entry into,
d. identify the determinants of national competitive advantage and screen the
shortlisted countries to understand their advantages and disadvantages,
e. compare the shortlisted countries, select the preferred country for pilot entry, and
prepare a market entry strategy for the MNC in that location
2. Industry value chain and suitable segments for the MNC to
operate in
Figure 1: Value-chain of cosmetic surgery industry (recommended segments in red outline)
The value chain of the
cosmetic surgery
industry is aggregated
across five main
actors (see Figure 1)
– firms which are into
research and
development, into
manufacturing of
materials and
equipment, into
distribution and sales,
medical practices
which provide
procedures, and
finally, the consumers.
Source: Internal group analysis
4
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
•
Recommendation 01: Considering the scale and global position of the MNC it
is recommended that it remain in the development, manufacturing and
distribution segments of the value chain (segments 1,2 and 3 in Figure 1). Also,
keeping in line with its traditional operations, it is recommended that it establish
its pilot venture as an integrated facility with all three functions.
3. The global industry performance and suitable product line the
MNC should venture into
The aesthetic or cosmetic procedures can be classified into two broad categories –
surgical, i.e. related to face and neck, breasts, or body and extremities; and nonsurgical, i.e. related to injectables, facial rejuvenation, and other procedures.
The industry has seen a steady growth over the last decade, where in it saw 67%
overall growth (see Table 1 and Table 8) (ISAPS 2011-2020). Growth in non-surgical
procedures tends to be higher reflecting the rising preference of avoiding surgery to
achieve aesthetic benefits. Over the past few years, between 2016-19 before
COVID-19, the industry has moved from growth to consolidation and stabilization,
with an average growth of 5.74%. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a dampener in
the growth story of this industry, where in between the periods of 2019-2020, the
global surgeries declined by -1.81%, surgical procedures declined by -10.86% and
the non-surgical procedures grew by a meagre 5.74%. However, it is to be noted
that, like healthcare and beauty, this is a defensive industry and not cyclical. The
demand which was once aspirational keeps becoming the norm.
Table 1: Cosmetic surgery industry growth trends
Period
2011-2020
2016-2019
(last 10 yrs) (pre-COVID-19)
Growth - surgical
59%
9.08%
procedures
Growth - non-surgical
73%
3.10%
procedures
Growth - total procedures
67%
5.74%
Remarks
Industry more Stable growth
than doubled before
in the last
COVID-19.
decade.
Higher growth
Higher growth in surgical
in non-surgical procedures
procedures
Source: ISAPS, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
2016-2020
(last 5 years)
-2.76%
2019-2020
(last 2 years)
-10.86%
9.01%
5.74%
3.82%
Growth
deceleration in
2020 due to
COVID-19, but
increase in nonsurgical
procedures
-1.81%
industry impacted
overall, surgical
procedures
heavily impacted
and deceleration
in non-surgical
procedures
A recent report by Fortune Business Insights (2020) estimates that this dip due to
COVID-19 is expected to be followed by a sharp revival with a projected growth of
6.2% (USD 23.3 billion) by 2026. Within this, the surgical segment is expected to
grow slower at 5.6% and the non-surgical segment is projected to grow faster at 7%.
5
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
• Recommendation 02: Given this background, it is recommended that the
MNC lay more focus on the development and production in the non-surgical
segment, e.g. Botulinum Toxin injections, dermal fillers, Microdermabrasions,
laser hair removal, chemical peels, etc. On the other end, the MNC could also
focus on development and manufacturing of super-speciality high-end surgical
equipment and devices.
4. Regional distribution and shortlisting a few countries for
locating the MNC
As per the 2020 survey by the International Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons
(ISAPS 2021), the largest 4 regions are USA, Latin America (Brazil, Mexico,
Argentina), Asia-Pacific (India, Japan, Thailand, S. Korea) and Europe & MENA
(Germany, Italy, Turkey) (see Figure 2). Also, based on number of procedures, USA
is the global leader, Germany the leader in Europe, and Japan the leader in AsiaPacific (see Table 2 and Table 8). S. Korea has most surgeons per capita (Table 6).
Figure 2: Leading global regions and top performing cities for cosmetic surgery industry
Source: ISAPS, 2021
Table 2 : Global ranking of countries by total number of procedures (2016-2020)
global rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
country USA Brazil Germany Japan
2020 global
19.03% 7.87% 4.72%
4.31%
share
country USA Brazil Japan Mexico
2019 global
15.94% 10.27% 5.90%
4.81%
share
country
2018 global
share
country
2017 global
share
country
2016 global
share
USA
Brazil
18.75% 9.75%
Mexico Germany
9
10
Italy
Russia
India
3.47%
3.39%
2.53%
2.14%
Germany Turkey
France
India
Russia
2.98%
2.58%
2.31%
Turkey
Mexico Argentina
3.85%
3.51%
Italy
4.36%
3.94%
India
Italy
3.67%
3.02%
Argentina Colombia Thailand
4.48%
3.96%
3.85%
Japan
Mexico
Italy
18.43% 10.38% 7.18%
4.43%
4.07%
3.01%
2.21%
Italy
Mexico
Russia
India
4.05%
3.91%
3.79%
3.72%
USA
USA
Brazil
Brazil
Japan
17.85% 10.68% 4.82%
2.62%
1.76%
Germany Colombia Thailand
0.55%
n/a
0.60%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Turkey Germany France
3.34%
3.09%
2.19%
Source: ISAPS, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
6
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Figure 3: The Ansoff Matrix or the Product/Market Expansion Grid
Source: Ansoff, H. Igor, "Strategies for diversification"
• Recommendation 03: Four key countries with very high demand and market
share are shortlisted for further investigation - USA, Germany, Japan and
South Korea.
• Recommendation 04: The Ansoff Matrix (see Figure 3) (Ansoff H., 1957) has
been applied to help determine the business strategy for the MNC. Given the
scale of the MNC and benchmarked competition, it would be advisable to adopt
a market penetration strategy where the MNC ventures with ‘existing products’
into ‘existing largest and fast-growing markets’, so as to better manage risks
and investments. This is as opposed to entering other established, affordable,
but poorly regulated markets such as Mexico, Turkey, and Thailand.
5. Identifying the determinants of national competitive advantage
and screening the shortlisted countries
5.1.
Determinants of national competitive advantage
In order to determine the factors which lend a county competitive advantage for the
cosmetic surgery industry, two frameworks are being used for a two stage (initial and
detailed) screening of the shortlisted countries:
• For initial screening, Porter’s Diamond Framework (Porter, Michael E. 1990) is
being applied, as per which, the following attributes (see Table 3) when present in
a country give it competitive advantage, that which is suited to the context of a
large MNC wishing to enter through a market penetration strategy. On an initial
screening, all four shortlisted listed countries check all these criteria and are found
to be suitable for further analysis.
7
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Table 3: Initial screening for factors giving countries competitive advantage using Porter’s
Diamond Framework
Demand Conditions
Firm Strategy,
Related and
Factor Conditions
Structure and Rivalry Supporting Industries
A consistently growing An industry which
A number of preA stable government,
demand reflected in
exhibits dominance of
existing players of scale with a well stipulated
past industry growth
large players –
and enforced legal &
trends
national/other MNCs
regulatory framework
A robust client base
Where large players are A well-established
An economy which has
which value quality over involved in own
health-care
strong emphasis on
price
development
infrastructure with
technology innovation
manufacturing and
availability of skilled
and high-tech research
distribution of products professionals/ surgeons
Source: Porter, Michael E., "The Competitive Advantage of Nations"
Figure 4: Relative
importance of the PESTLE
factors for the cosmetic
surgery industry
•
Source: Internal group analysis
Detailed screening is done using the PESTEL
(Political, Economic, Socio-cultural,
Technological, Legal and Environmental)
framework. Amongst the PESTLE factors,
Economy (high-income population with
disposable income), Socio-cultural factors
(demography and culture-pushed demand), and
Technology (advanced bio-technology, training
and skills) have the highest influence on this
industry (see Figure 4). This is followed by
Legal and Regulatory factors (ease of doing
business), Political factors (stability, probusiness policies), and Physical factors
(location and healthcare infrastructure).
The PESTLE analysis is further applied to each of the short-listed countries, to
develop a detailed understanding of the competitive advantages and risks of each
factor. Detailed country profiles of each country are presented in the Table 4.
Table 4: Detailed screening for competitive advantage using PESTLE Framework
(best in class in blue highlight)
Factors
Competitive advantages
Global share (2020)
Growth in procedures
(2016-20)
Growth in procedures
(2016-20)
Procedures/1,000ppl (2020)
Industry No. of surgeons (2020)
perforSurgeons/per million (2020)
mance
Procedures/surgeon (2020)
International patients (2020)
Key competitors
Key foreign patients
USA
19.03%
Germany
4.72%
Japan
4.31%
S. Korea
<1.0%
10.67%
58.50%
-7.01%
Not available
-5.57%
34.64%
29.46%
Not available
14.17
7,000
21.24
667
9.20%
13.92
1,541
18.52
751
11.70%
8.41
2,707
21.51
391
Not available
13.5
2,581
49.83
Not available
Not available
Brazil, Mexico,
Argentina
Turkey, Italy,
France, Spain,
Switzerland,
Austria,
Russia
Thailand
Russia
Thailand,
Japan, Russia
China, Russia,
S.Korea
China, Japan,
Russia
Mexico,
Canada, UK
8
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Table 4 (contd.): Detailed screening for competitive advantage using PESTLE Framework
(best in class in blue highlight)
Factors
Competitive advantages
Type of political system
Political
factors
Government effectiveness
rank (2020) (best is 100)
Political stability rank (2020)
(best is 100)
Control of corruption rank
(2020) (best is 100)
Corruption Perception Index
(2021) (best is 100)
Economy rank in 2021
Economic
factors
Sociocultural
factors
Technological
factors
Legal &
regulatory
factors
Geographical
factors
GDP growth (2021)
GDP projections for 2027
GDP / capita (PPP) (2021)
Inflation (2021)
GINI co-efficient (2020)
Population (2021) in million
Human Devpt. Index (2019)
(best is 1.0)
Life expectancy(yrs) (2020)
Government spending in
healthcare / capita (2021)
loose v/s tight culture
normative legitimacy
(for cosmetic surgery)
Global Innovation Index
(2021) (best is 100)
Spending on R&D as % of
GDP (2020)
Global Competitiveness
Index / Rank (2021)
‘rule of law’ indicator (2020)
(best is 100)
‘regulatory quality’ indicator
(2020) (best is 100)
Corporate tax rate (2022)
Interest rate for commercial
borrowings (2022)
Location and connectivity
advantages
Level of urbanization:
USA
Federal,
presidential,
democratic
Germany
Federal
republic,
democratic
87.02
88.94
93.27
89.90
46.23
68.87
87.26
62.74
82.69
95.19
90.38
75.96
67
80
73
62
5.7%
1.7%
USD 69,230
4.7%
0.42 (2019)
332.2
0.926
17th rank
76.6
4th in world
1st in Europe
2.8%
1.1%
USD 58,380
3.2%
0.32 (2018)
83.2
0.947
4th rank
81.1
3rd in world
2nd in Asia
1.6%
0.4%
USD 44,740
-0.3%
0.33 (2013)
125.5
0.919
20th rank
84.6
10th in world
4th in Asia
4.0%
2.3%
USD 48,580
2.5 %
0.31 (2016)
51.7
0.916
22nd rank
83.21
USD 10,949
USD 6,731
USD 4,692
USD 3,494
Loose
Moderate
Very tight
Very tight
Very high
High
High
Very high
61.3
57.3
54.5
59.3
3.45%
3.14%
3.28%
4.18%
2nd
7th
6th
13th
88.46
91.35
90.87
84.62
87.50
93.27
89.42
81.25
25.00%
29.00%
29.00%
27.00%
3.37%
1.78%
1.10%
3.56%
Large country
& population
82.00%
Central in
Europe
77.00%
1st in world
Japan
S. Korea
Constitutional unitary state,
monarchy,
presidential,
democratic
democratic
Proximity to
Proximity to
China, Russia China, Japan
91.00%
81.00%
Source: ISAPS, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021; Worldwide Governance Indicator 2020;
Corruption Perception Index 2021; World Bank data, IMF data, OECD data; UNDP data; Science
Magazine; Global Innovation Index 2021; Trading Economics; World Population Review 2022
9
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
5.2. Country screening – USA
Figure 5: Assessment of the
PESTLE factors for USA
•
•
•
•
Source: Internal group analysis
•
•
•
Industry performance: highest global share in
value and volume, high growth rate, large
domestic demand, highest number of plastic
surgeons
Political factors: stable and effective
government setup, moderate corruption
Economic factors: largest economy, high
GDP growth, high per capita GDP
Socio-cultural factors: media and fashion
shape the demand, high government spend on
healthcare infrastructure.
Technological factors: global leader in
technology and material innovation in cosmetics
and cosmetic surgery
Legal and regulatory factors: weak regulatory
control over proliferation of unregistered clinics
Geographical/environmental factors: large
country with big domestic demand
5.3. Country screening – Germany
Figure 6: Assessment of the
PESTLE factors for Germany
•
•
•
•
Source: Internal group analysis
•
•
•
Industry performance: market leader in
Europe, exponential demand during the
pandemic, highest number of procedures per
plastic surgeon
Political factors: extremely stable and
effective governance
Economic factors: largest economy of
Europe, stable growth rate and inflation
Socio-cultural factors: large share of ageing
population drives the demand, robust health
infrastructure
Technological factors: global leader in
medical technology and innovation
Legal and regulatory factors: pro-business
legislation and policies. Overregulation of
professional services, tedious permitting and
licensing system, and high corporate tax rates
Geographical/environmental factors: central
location in Europe with easy access
10
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
5.4. Country screening – Japan
Figure 7: Assessment of the
PESTLE factors for Japan
•
•
•
•
•
Source: Internal group analysis
•
•
Industry performance: market leader in Asia,
COVID-19 related lockdown resulted in
negative industry growth
Political factors: amongst the topmost
effective government setups
Economic factors: 3rd largest economy, but
with stagnant growth and deflation
Socio-cultural factors: a large ageing
population drives the demand
Technological factors: amongst the most
innovative economies in medical tech
Legal and regulatory factors: very low
commercial borrowing rates
Geographical/environmental factors:
accessible from China, Russia and South Korea
5.5. Country screening – South Korea
Figure 8: Assessment of the
PESTLE factors for S. Korea
•
•
•
•
•
Source: Internal group analysis
•
•
Industry performance: highest number of
plastic surgeons per capita. 1 in 5 women are
estimated to have aesthetic surgery
Political factors: industry friendly governance
and policies
Economic factors: 4th largest economy of
Asia, with stable inflation
Socio-cultural factors: social norms,
superstitions, K-Pop influences demand.
Technological factors: Leader in digitalization
and technology innovation
Legal and regulatory factors: week
enforcement against “ghost surgeries”
Geographical/environmental factors: easily
accessible from large markets such as China,
Japan and Russia
6. Comparative assessment of the shortlisted countries, selection
of preferred country for pilot entry and market entry strategy
6.1. Comparative assessment of shortlisted countries and selection of
preferred location
In order to aid the selection of the preferred country for pilot entry, a parametric
comparative assessment is undertaken (see Table 5), wherein the industry demand
along with each of the PESTLE factors are given a score from 1 to 4 (4 being
highest) for each country, which would then influence the investment decision of the
MNC.
11
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Basis this and aggregating the individual scores, USA ranks the highest, followed by
Germany, Japan and South Korea.
Table 5: Comparative assessment of the four shortlisted countries to select the preferred
location for pilot entry
PESTEL SCORE (1-4)
USA
Germany
Japan
South Korea
Industry demand
4
3
3
3
Political factors
2
4
4
3
Economic factors
4
3
3
2
Socio-cultural factors
4
3
3
4
Technological factors
Legal and regulatory
factors
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
Environmental factors
4
3
2
2
3.43
3.29
2.86
SCORE (avg.) (4 max)
3.57
Source: Internal group analysis
• Recommendation 05: USA, considering the sheer volume of demand and
enabling factors which are largely favourable, should be the country for pilot
entry. This is an established market with a highly competitive environment
dominated by large players. Hence, an incisive market penetration strategy
needs to devised to venture into this market.
In order to develop a market entry strategy for the MNC into the USA cosmetic
surgery market, two steps are followed – first using Michael Porter’s five forces
assessment framework (Porter, Michael E 1979) the competitive rivalry of the USA
market is assessed, following which, a market entry strategy for the MNC is
developed.
6.2. Competitive assessment of the USA cosmetic surgery market
The following competitive forces would be encountered by the MNC whilst entering
the USA cosmetic surgery market, where it intends to engage in research and
development, manufacturing as well as distribution and sales of products and
equipment:
• Competitive rivalry: The market is dominated by large pharma players such as
Allergan plc., Cynosure Inc., Galderma Laboratories, L.P., etc. They distribute
patented products to wholesalers as well as end-users and occupy majority
market share. The competitive rivalry as well as the capital cost to enter and
establish for the MNC is high.
• Threat of new entrants: Given the high competitive index of USA (2nd globally), it
is fairly easy to enter and establish business, with large economies of scale and
12
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
well-established distribution channels. This works in advantage of the MNC, but in
the future could prove to be a threat. This threat is presently medium to low.
• Threat of substitute products: Given the high and growing demand in USA,
there is place for new entrants to absorb the new and upcoming demand if
cheaper or better differentiated products are offered. Which means, while the
threat of substitutes in high, this works to the advantage of the MNC.
• Bargaining power of buyers: Given the high competition and high demand, the
bargaining power of buyers is very high, brand loyalty is relatively low, switching
costs are negligible, price sensitivity amongst customers is high, highlighting the
need for having a distinctive advantage – better quality or lower price.
• Bargaining power of suppliers: Given the industry demand, there is a varied
and large supplier base, making the bargaining power of suppliers low.
6.3. Market entry strategy for selected location
Based on the above 5 forces analysis, for the MNC to be profitable, it would benefit
from adopting the following market entry strategies:
• Quality differentiation: The MNC needs to invest heavily in research to develop
and launch products which create a perceived level of differentiation amongst the
customers
• Patenting: In order to safeguard against cheap duplication, the MNC needs to
patent its in-house developed technology and products
• Large volume market flooding: To benefit from the available economies of
scale, the MNC needs to invest in a large volume game which allows it to capture
faster market share
• Competitive and nuanced pricing strategy: To cater to all segments of
demand, the MNC needs to have product segmentation at competitive pricing
• Distinctive branding and aggressive advertising and marketing: To stand out
from main competition, the MNC needs to invest heavily in creating and strong
brand which is promoted through mass marketing
7. Summary, conclusion and way forward
In summary, the key recommendation for the MNC are to venture into development,
manufacturing and distribution functions of the cosmetic surgery industry value
chain, focus on the non-surgical segment and specialised equipment segments of
the industry, and enter in the USA market using a “market penetration” strategy. In
order to gain quick ground and large market share, the MNC needs to enter the
market through an aggressive marketing campaign, with patented and differentiated
products, which are launched at high volumes and available at competitive prices.
In the future, basis the business performance in the USA market, the MNC can
expand further to other markets such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, thus
moving on from a “market penetration strategy” on the Ansoff Matrix (Ansoff H.,
1957) to “market development (existing products-new markets) strategy.”
13
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
A. References
Ansoff, H. Igor, Sep–Oct 1957, Strategies for diversification, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 35 Issue 5, pp. 113-124.
Fortune Business Insights, April 2020, Cosmetic Surgery Market Forecast 2019-26,
Report ID: FBI102628, viewed 22nd March 2022,
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/cosmetic-surgery-market-102628
International Monetary Fund, 2022, IMF Data Mapper, viewed 15th April 2022
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/datasets/WEO
International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, ISAPS Global Statistics, viewed
3rd March 2022
https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2022, OECD Data,
viewed 15th April 2022
https://data.oecd.org/
Porter, Michael E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Harvard Business
Review
Porter, Michael E., 1979, How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, Harvard
Business Review, (Vol. 57, No. 2), pp. 137–145.
Science, 27 May 2011, Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation
Study, Vol 332, Issue 6033, pp. 1100-1104, viewed 15th April 2022
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1197754
Trading Economics, 2022, Bank Lending Rates, viewed 15th April 2022
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/bank-lending-rate
Transparency International, 2021, Corruption Perception Index 2021, viewed 15th
April 2022
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/kor
United Nations Development Programme, 2022, Human Development Reports,
viewed 15th April 2022
https://hdr.undp.org/en/content/download-data
World Bank, 2022, World Bank Open Data, viewed 15th April 2022
https://data.worldbank.org/
The World Bank 2022, Worldwide Governance Indicator 2020, viewed 15th April
2022
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
World Intellectual Property Organization, 2022, Global Innovation Index 2021
https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2021-report
World Population Review, 2022, Country Rankings, viewed 15th April 2022
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries
14
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
B. Appendices
Table 6: Ranking of countries by number of plastic surgeons for 2020
no. of plastic
no. of plastic
rank country
rank country
surgeons
surgeons
1
USA
7,000
6
India
2,400
2
Brazil
5,843
7
Russia
2,000
3
China
3,000
8
Argentina
2,000
4
Japan
2,707
9
Mexico
1,749
5
South Korea
2,581
10
Germany
1,541
Source: ISAPS, 2021
Table 7: Share of procedures for international patients by country, 2020
country
average
country
average
World-Wide
Mexico
Turkey
Colombia
15.90%
28.20%
25.80%
21.80%
Greece
Brazil
Italy
USA
11.50%
10.90%
9.60%
9.20%
Thailand
Spain
20.90%
14.80%
Argentina
India
5.90%
5.20%
11.70%
Russia
5.00%
Germany
Source: ISAPS, 2021
15
Group 03 – Industry Report: Cosmetic Surgery
Table 8: Total number of procedures by country for 2016-2020
World
USA
Brazil
Germany
Japan
Turkey
Mexico Argentina
Italy
Russia
India
Spain
Greece Colombia Thailand France
UK
78,131
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
surgical
non2020
surgical
total
1,01,29,528 14,85,116 13,06,962 4,25,855 2,22,642 3,60,542 4,56,489 2,84,320 2,45,400 4,78,200 2,55,528 1,65,906
2,08,416 1,02,407
surgical
non2019
surgical
total
1,13,63,569 13,51,917 14,93,673 3,36,244 2,49,543 3,51,930 5,80,659 1,93,237 3,14,432 4,83,152 3,94,728 2,21,935
surgical
non2018
surgical
total
1,06,07,227 14,92,383 14,98,327 3,85,906
n/a
n/a
5,18,046 2,80,555 3,11,456
n/a
3,90,793
n/a
n/a
2,73,316 1,05,105
n/a
n/a
1,26,59,147 28,69,485 7,69,078 5,36,150
n/a
n/a
5,25,200 3,28,405 5,42,752
n/a
5,05,103
n/a
n/a
1,35,473
n/a
n/a
2,32,66,374 43,61,868 22,67,405 9,22,056
n/a
n/a
10,43,246 6,08,960 8,54,208
n/a
8,95,896
n/a
n/a
4,08,789 1,40,123
n/a
n/a
surgical
non2017
surgical
total
1,07,66,848 15,62,504 14,66,245 2,90,932 2,94,396
n/a
5,20,956
n/a
3,01,875
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3,46,140 1,05,342
n/a
n/a
1,26,23,694 27,47,676 9,61,290 4,13,948 13,84,214
n/a
5,15,662
n/a
6,50,955
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,70,790
n/a
n/a
2,33,90,542 43,10,180 24,27,535 7,04,880 16,78,610
n/a
10,36,618
n/a
9,52,830
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,16,930 1,28,398
n/a
n/a
surgical
non2016
surgical
total
1,04,17,370 14,80,314 14,50,020 3,36,396 2,09,017 3,05,820 4,88,043 1,01,632 3,24,989 5,79,535 4,21,600 2,25,851
1,44,00,347 31,82,815 6,22,396 7,31,883 8,35,556 5,84,935 4,04,229 5,66,520 5,85,468 1,43,400 2,68,536 2,31,606 3,18,903 1,57,896
52,140
2,45,29,875 46,67,931 19,29,358 11,57,738 10,58,198 9,45,477 8,60,718 8,50,840 8,30,868 6,21,600 5,24,064 3,97,512 3,97,034 3,66,312 1,54,547
1,36,18,735 26,30,832 10,72,002 6,47,188 12,23,678 4,02,462 6,19,804 2,32,584 7,74,272
83,391
2,67,641
93,735 2,49,024 1,59,429 2,91,080 1,45,872
92,597 3,20,997 1,69,768
30,631 4,23,084 53,064
2,49,82,304 39,82,749 25,65,675 9,83,432 14,73,221 7,54,392 12,00,463 4,25,821 10,88,704 5,76,887 6,43,752 3,81,364 3,74,471 4,13,513 1,23,228 7,44,081 2,22,832
67,703
35,018
23,056
2,88,443
85,813 2,59,293
n/a
1,32,09,539 27,37,548 10,74,095 3,94,042 9,28,960 4,83,744 4,35,200 1,70,788 6,32,825 3,17,094 4,56,580 2,47,223 2,20,215 2,16,717
27,009 2,58,438
n/a
2,36,26,909 42,17,862 25,24,115 7,30,438 11,37,977 7,89,564 9,23,243 2,72,420 9,57,814 8,96,629 8,78,180 4,73,074 2,87,918 5,05,160 1,12,822 5,17,731
n/a
Source: ISAPS, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
Table 9: Number of plastic surgeons by country for 2016-2020
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
USA
7,000
6,900
7,009
6,800
6,600
Brazil
5,843
6,011
6,393
5,500
5,500
China
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,800
n/a
Japan S. Korea
2,707
2,581
2,707
2,571
2,663
2,330
2,650
2,330
2,225
n/a
India
2,400
2,400
2,330
2,150
2,000
Russia
2,000
1,812
1,800
1,028
2,050
Argentina
2,000
1,100
1,375
560
400
Mexico Germany Italy France
1,749
1,541 1,200 1,020
2,124
1,397 1,390 1,082
1,656
1,417 1,600 925
1,639
1,129 1,500 925
1,634
1,152 1,700 950
Spain
UK Netherlands Greece Belgium Portugal Turkey
900
619
605
350
280
176
n/a
1,021 1,077
385
380
317
176
n/a
1,031
578
270
340
300
n/a
1200
1,114
578
270
322
300
254
1200
1,002
n/a
n/a
292
291
258
1200
Source: ISAPS, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
16