Euro Consultants, Inc.

Case Study: European Food Trading

December 20, 2012
Angela Beck (12004812)
Nora Heising (12080845)
Hannah Wilms (12034274)
ES3 1A

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................3
PRE-FILTER.............................................................................................................................4
MACRO-FILTER.....................................................................................................................8
MICRO-FILTER....................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................17
REFERENCE LIST................................................................................................................20
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................22

Introduction
Due to the financial crisis that began in 2008, many companies incurred losses. The European
Food Trading (EFT) Company, which is a Dutch company that trades frozen vegetables and
potato products, was one of the companies that experienced the negative results of the crisis.
In order to get their profit margin back on track and to increase likeliness of positive results,
EFT decided to expand the product range. After investigating the different options and
markets, the company decided to expand the product range by including frozen fish.
EU citizens consume on average approximately 26.5 kg of seafood every year and the EU is
one of the largest seafood markets in the world. In 2006, the EU was the largest seafood
market with about 26% of the worldwide seafood import. According to studies the seafood
consumption is going to keep increasing in the coming years. (Glitnir , 2008)
To assist the European Food Trading company in successfully expanding their product range,
we as the Euro Consultants, Inc. have to find out: What are the most attractive export
markets for frozen fish products in Europe? In order to find the best export market, the
European countries will go through three different filters and will be rated in terms of
different criteria. After each filter, a number of countries will be eliminated. In the end there
will be one remaining country that will have made it through each individual stage of the filter
process and will therefore represent the most attractive foreign market to which EFT can
export the new frozen fish product.
The research method used for this case study was desk research. Most of the sources used
were websites of the European Union such as Eurostat, which is the official website of the EU
where all statistics are published, websites of the United Nations such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN, and websites of international organizations. One of the

websites of organizations used was the Transparency International website. Their sources
were used because they provide reliable and current data.

Pre-filter
The very first step towards finding the most attractive foreign market for frozen fish products
in Europe was listing all European countries (Appendix A). Although Kazakhstan is
sometimes counted as a European country it was not included in our list. For this reason we
started with a list of 46 countries that would go through the pre-filter.
The pre-filter was used to eliminate about half of the 46 European countries to get a smaller
selection that would go through the macro-filter in a later stage of the case study.
For this filter, factors that are relevant for international trade were used. We decided to look
especially at the political situation in the different countries and at the economic situations of
the countries, which would have a significant influence on making business in a particular
country. Because of that we decided to use political instability and degree of corruption as
our pre-filters.
Country
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece
Germany
Great Britain

Degree of
Corruption
1.6
3.1*
3.9
1.2
3.8
1.6
1.7
2
2.2
4.7
3.2
5.0
3.5
1.7
4
3.9

Political
Stability
1.9
2.2*
3.2
2.6
3
1.2
2
1.9
3.1
3.9
1.6
3.4
2.3
1.8
3.1
2.7

Total
1.75
2.65
3.55
1.9
3.4
1.4
1.85
1.95
2.65
4.3
2.4
4.2
2.9
1.75
3.55
3.3
4

Hungary
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Kosovo
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Macedonia
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Sweden
Switzerland
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
Ukraine
Vatican

2.3
3.8
4.2
2
1.5
2.1
4.4*
2.4
4.3
2.8
2
1.5
3.5*
2
4.5
4.5
2.8
2.1
1.8
1.2
2*
4.7
4.4
1.7
2
3
3.1
2.1
1.0
2*

1.9
2.7
2.3
2.5
1.8*
1.6
3.3*
1.9
3.2
2.7
1.7
1.2
2.3
1.8
3
5.00
2.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
2.5*
3.4
3.3
1.8
2.2
3.1
2.2
1.6
1.0
2.5*

2.1
3.25
3.25
2.25
1.65
1.85
3.85
2.15
3.75
2.45
1.85
1.35
2.9
1.9
3.75
4.75
2.75
1.85
1.8
1.40
2.25
4.05
3.85
1.75
2.1
3.05
2.65
1.85
1
2.25

Figure 1

The bolded rows in Figure 1 are the countries that passed the pre-filter.
Because it was not possible to find data for some of the very small European countries, data
from a neighboring country or from a country that is politically and economically very similar
was taken. This can be seen in Figure 1 by the asterisks.
These following countries were rated with data from other countries:
Andorra Data was taken from Spain
Kosovo Data was taken from Serbia
Lichtenstein Data was taken from Switzerland
Monaco Data was taken from France
San Marino Data was taken from Italy
Vatican Data was taken from Italy
The Netherlands was taken out of the list because it is the country from which EFT is
exporting.
5

Political instability is the propensity of a state government to collapse. It can lead to a collapse
of the economy, in which case investors and also companies importing to that country would
lose money. The more politically unstable a country is, the more likely the political system is
to collapse and the more unstable the economy is. A politically unstable country would
therefore be a bad choice for exported products.
The data for political instability was taken from the website of the Economist Intelligence
Unit, which is an organization that supports business leaders in making strategic decisions. On
the website the political instability is rated from 1 (politically absolutely stable) to 10
(politically highly unstable) and is composed by two component indexes: underlying
vulnerability and economic distress. The political instability index is an average of these two
indexes.
For our pre-filter we looked at all the European countries and how they scored in terms of
political instability. The European country that scored highest and therefore is the most
politically unstable is Ukraine, which scored a 7.6. The European country that scored lowest
and therefore is the most politically stable is Norway, which scored a 1.2.
With this in mind, for the purpose of our filter we rated Ukraine as the most politically
unstable country with a 1 and Norway as the most stable country with a 5. All the other
countries were rated between 1 and 5 according to how high they scored on the Economist
Intelligence Unit rating. (Economist Intelligence Unit )
Degree of corruption is a measure of the public sector corruption in a country. The data for
degree of corruption was taken from the Transparency International website. Transparency
International is an international organization that fights for a world in which government,
business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption (Transparency
International ). The figures for degree of corruption are based on surveys and assessments
carried out by independent organizations.
6

Transparency International gives each country a rating from 1 (Highly Corrupt) to 10 (very
clean from corruption). The European country with the highest corruption rate is Ukraine,
which scored a 2.3. Finland, which is the European country with the lowest rate of corruption,
scored a 9.4. For our rating, we rated Finland, as the least corrupt country with a 5 and
Ukraine as the most corrupt country with a 1. All the other countries were rated in between
depending on how high the degree of corruption is in that particular country.
Since the degree of corruption and the political stability are equally important when deciding
which country would be best for exporting, the two criteria were weighted equally. Through
adding the number of the political instability and the degree of corruption in an equal
percentage the results are numbers between 1 and 5one standing for the worst performing
country concerning these two filters, and five standing for the best performing country.
Ukraine, which scored a 1, is the worst performing country and Norway, which scored a 4.75,
is the best performing country.
All of the countries that scored a 2.4 and higher in Figure 1 were then taken to go through the
to macro-filter.

Macro-filter
With the pre-filters, we narrowed down the list of countries we were looking at to 22
countries. We then put this list of countries through six macro-filters to narrow it down to yet
another smaller list. The macro-filters consisted of broad criteria to determine which countries
would be good to receive any exported product in general, be it books or clothing or cheese.
Important criteria to make that decision are political, economical, social and legal factors.

Therefore we used the following macro-filters: gross domestic product, foreign direct
investment, inflation rate, value-added tax, productivity percentage, and population.
The macro-filter we started with was population. The statistics for this criterion came from
Eurostat, the official statistical database of the European Union. We thought population would
be important to look at so that we would know how big the potential market would be. While
it is unlikely that the entire population is going to want our product, this reflects how many
people would potentially be available to buy our product. The chart (Appendix B) shows the
list of countries, the rating they were given with higher populations receiving higher ratings,
and the population expressed in millions.
The country for which we did not insert a population was Andorra, whose population was too
small to express in terms of millions. Germany, France, and Great Britain are the European
countries with the highest population and were rated with a five, while countries like
Lichtenstein and Andorra, which both have a very small population, were rated with a 1.
Since there were countries that would be good to export to that received rather high ratings
(such as Germany and Sweden), we felt that population should have a higher weight.
Therefore it was given a weight of 25%.
The second macro-filter that we used was value-added tax. For this, we collaborated
information from two different sources: the United States Council for International Business
website, and the Ernest & Young organization website. VAT is a consumption tax that taxes
the value added to a product at each stage of production. Since the majority of European
countries include VAT in shelf-price of goods for sale, this filter was important because the
higher the tax is the lower a product must be priced to make it affordable. It would be ideal to
export to a country that has a lower value-added tax.
For this reason, the chart (Appendix C) reflects a higher rating for countries with a lower VAT.
Since Andorra has the lowest VAT of the European countries it was rated with a 5 and

Denmark, Norway and Iceland, which have the highest VAT, were rated with a 1. However,
we realize that it is mostly the smaller countries such as Andorra, Switzerland and
Liechtenstein that have lower value-added tax and we dont wish to end up with such a small
market to send the exported product. Therefore, value-added tax was given a weight of 20%,
making it the next important after population but not as important.
Our third macro-filter is gross domestic product per capita. The data for GDP per capita was
taken from the website of The World Bank, a group of five international aid organizations.
Gross domestic product is the final market value of all goods and services produced in a
country over the course of a year. We felt it would be useful to look at GDP to determine one
factor of each countrys economic strength. Exporting to a country with a strong economy
would make it more likely that the new product will attract buyers.
Since GDP per capita is often seen as a measure of the standard of living in a country, we felt
it would be important to export to a country with a higher GDP, so a higher rating was
awarded to countries with higher GDP per capita. The chart can be found in Appendix D and
the figures are listed as GDP per capita in US dollars for the year 2011. The countries with a
GDP too low to consider do not have figures filled in and received the lowest rating. This
includes Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic, which were rated with a 1. The country that
was rated with a 5 was Liechtenstein because it has the highest GDP. Liechtenstein is not only
a very small country but also had a GDP much higher than that of the next highest. Therefore
gross domestic product was given a weight of only 15% to once again eliminate smaller
countries.
The fourth factor we looked at for the macro-filter is foreign direct investment. The figures
were found on the website of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Foreign direct investment shows how much a country invests in goods and services from
other countries, as well as direct investment in companies that operate outside of the investing

country. It is important that the country chosen invests a lot in foreign companies, as it gives a
higher likelihood of successfully importing goods if the country is more willing to support
other countries.
The figures are expressed in terms of billions of US dollars, and a higher FDI received a
higher rating. Once again, the countries in the chart on Appendix E that do not have a figure
filled in had an FDI too low to consider and received the lowest rating. Countries that invest a
lot such as Great Britain, Germany and France are countries to which it would be desirable to
export. Therefore Belgium was rated with a 5 and for example Andorra was rated with a 1 as
one of the countries with the lowest FDI. Foreign direct investment was also given a weight
of 15% and an equal importance to GDP.
The fifth macro-filter that we applied to this list of countries is productivity. For the purpose
of this report, productivity reflects the world competitiveness of each country. This criterion
was included because it was important to us that the market in the country to which we export
has a very competitive market. The IMD business school of Switzerland released 2012 ratings
of world competitiveness with each country given a ranking out of 100.
From this, we took the country rated the highest out of our set of countries and gave it a 5, and
those countries that did not make the list at all received a 1. The remaining countries were
calculated with a rating more suited to our scale. The country that received a 5 was
Switzerland, while Liechtenstein, Andorra, Malta and Monaco each received a 1. The final
ratings that were given to each country can be found in Appendix F. Productivity was also
given a weight of 15% and equal importance to GDP and FDI.
The sixth and final macro-filter is inflation rate in each country. These figures were again
taken from Eurostat. The inflation rate measures the rate of increase of market prices. This
was important to look at to see how prices fluctuate in each country from year to year,
because it would be ideal to always sell our product at a consistent price.

10

Countries with a higher inflation rate received a lower rating, as shown by the chart
(Appendix G). These countries include Estonia, Great Britain and Iceland, each of which had
an inflation rate of over 4% and thus received a 1. Countries that received a 5 were
Liechtenstein and Switzerland, which had inflation rates next to nothing at 0.3% and 0.1%
respectively. It was evident to us that it was the smaller countries that would have lower
inflation rates, so inflation was given a weight of 10%, making it least important.
Figure 2 below reflects the final rating for each country.

GD
P

FDI

Inflatio
n

VAT

Productivit
y

Populatio
n

Weight

15%

15
%

10%

20%

15%

25%

Andorra

1.00

1.00 4.00

5.00

1.00

1.00

2.10

Austria

2.10

3.50 1.50

4.69

3.50

3.50

3.33

Belgium

2.00

5.00 2.00

1.82

3.50

4.00

3.14

Czech
Republic

1.00

3.00 3.00

2.23

3.00

4.00

2.796

Denmark

2.60

3.50 2.50

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.72

Estonia

1.00

3.00 1.00

2.23

3.00

2.00

2.10

Finland

2.10

3.00 2.00

1.41

4.00

3.00

2.60

France

1.90

4.50 3.50

2.64

3.50

5.00

2.49

Germany

1.90

4.50 2.50

3.05

4.50

5.00

3.75

Great Britain 1.60

4.50 1.00

2.23

4.00

5.00

3.31

Iceland

1.80

2.50 1.00

1.00

3.50

1.50

1.85

Ireland

2.10

3.50 4.50

1.41

3.50

2.50

2.72

Liechtenstein

1.00

1.00 5.00

4.80

1.00

1.00

2.61

Luxemburg

5.00

3.50 1.50

4.28

4.50

1.50

2.45

Malta

1.00

1.00 3.50

3.87

1.00

1.50

1.82

Monaco

1.00

1.00 4.00

2.64

1.00

1.00

2.63

Country

Final
Rating

11

Norway

4.20

3.00 4.50

1.00

4.50

2.50

3.00

Poland

1.00

4.00 1.50

1.41

2.50

4.50

2.62

Slovenia

1.10

2.50 3.00

2.23

2.00

2.00

1.47

Spain

1.40

4.00 2.00

3.87

2.50

4.50

3.28

Sweden

2.50

3.50 4.50

1.00

5.00

3.50

3.17

Switzerland

3.60

3.00 5.00

4.80

5.00

3.50

4.07

Figure 2

From this we pulled all countries with a final rating of 3 or higher to go through the microfilter. As is shown by the bolded rows in Figure 2 above, this left us with eight countries:
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Micro-filter

Imported
Fish/Seafood
Country
Fish/Seafood Consumption
Weight
30%
30%
Austria
1.00
1.00
Belgium
1.50
2.00
Germany
5.00
4.00
Great Britain
3.00
4.00
Norway
2.50
2.00
Spain
5.00
5.00
Sweden
2.00
2.00
Switzerland
1.00
1.00

Frozen Fish
Market by
Value
Final Rating
40%
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.85
5.00
4.70
3.00
3.30
1.00
1.75
4.00
4.60
2.50
2.20
1.00
1.00

Figure 3

In Figure 3 (located above) you can find the eight countries that passed the macro-filter. The
remaining countries, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, Sweden and
Switzerland were all potential export markets and we needed to assess their individual
suitability. To figure out the most attractive country to export the product to, these eight
countries had to go through a micro-filter. The filter consists of three different criteria to
analyze the potential of the sales market and the frozen fish industry in each country more indepth. Therefore, the import of fish and seafood, the fish and seafood consumption and the
12

frozen fish market by value were chosen as criterion. A country with a high consumption of
fish, a high import rate and a high value of the frozen fish market was considered the most
attractive country to which the frozen fish could be exported.
The first criterion was the import of fish and seafood. We used information compiled by the
FAOSTAT, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. The statistics used were
gathered in 2009 and are stated in metric tons. This source gave us access to data concerning
how much fish and seafood the country imports and how big the demand for fish being
imported from other countries is. The attained information (found in Appendix H) was
important because we considered a country with a high import rate to have a high demand for
exported fish and a reasonably big market at which we would be able to compete.
We rated the country with the highest fish and seafood import rate with a 5 and the country
with the lowest import rate with a 1. With 2897 tons Germany was the country with the
highest import rate, closely followed by Spain with 2357 tons. Great Britain with 1701 tons
and Norway with 1337 tons are on rank three and four. The country with the lowest import
rate is Switzerland with 142 tons, followed by Austria with 161, Belgium with 622 and
Sweden with 771 tons in 2009.
The second criterion was the consumption of fish and seafood per year expressed in 1000
metric tons. For this we used information from the FAOSTAT again. The figures (Appendix I)
were gathered in 2009. The data delivered information about how much fish and seafood the
population of the country eats as a whole per year and therefore about how big the market and
the demand for fish are. This data about the human consumption of fish and seafood is
important because it indicates the market size and popularity within the consumers.
The country that has consumed the most fish and seafood in 2009 was rated with a 5 and the
one that consumed the least was rated with a 1. With 1956 tons, Spain was the country that
consumed the most fish and seafood, followed by Great Britain with 1303 and Germany with

13

1259 tons in 2009. The country with the smallest fish and seafood consumption was
Switzerland with 125 right followed by Austria with 127, Norway with 245, Belgium with
271 and Sweden with 298 tons per year. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations)
This criterion can be seen in connection with the macro-filter criterion of the population as
well. If the size of the population is linked to the total fish consumption, the average
consumption per capita will be visible. This gives an idea of how well fish and seafood are
integrated into the normal diet of the people and how popular it is in the given country. So if a
country has a rather small population, but a high fish consumption per capita, as in Norway
for example, the country might be more attractive to export fish to than a country such as
Germany, which has a big population and therefore a much higher total consumption of fish
and seafood, but the consumption per capita is much smaller.
The third and final micro-filter criterion was the frozen fish market by value. The data was
gathered in 2010 and is stated in millions of Euros. The information we used is part of a report
dealing with the frozen food consumption in Europe. It analyses the consumption behavior
regarding frozen food and the actual sales. The report was published in the European Almanac
of Statistics in 2011. The stated data gives information on how big the market for frozen fish
is in each of the countries that remained in this filter and how much this market is worth. This
criterion is important because it helped us to assess whether or not there is a reasonably big
market for frozen fish in that country and indicates the possibility of success in entering the
market.
The country with the highest value (Appendix J) of frozen fish market was rated with 5, the
country with the lowest value with 1. Germany was ranked highest with 3575 million Euros,
followed by Spain with 2677 million. The country with the lowest valued frozen fish market

14

is Norway with 217 million, followed by Switzerland with 253 million and Austria with 255
million Euros. (EW Williams Publications Company )
This criterion delivers quite important information concerning the popularity and
consumption of frozen fish, as well as the market size, and it helps to assess the countries
more in depth for their specific potential regarding our product. There is a big distinction
between the import and the demand for fish and seafood in general and the import and
demand for frozen fish. The numbers can vary a lot. A country like Norway for example has a
huge demand for fish due to a very high consumption rate and a reasonably high import rate
for fish, but the value of the frozen fish market is extremely low. This is due to socioeconomical reasons as well as geographical conditions. Norwegians consume a lot of fresh
fish as Norway is located near the sea and has one of the highest fish capture rates in Europe.
(Glitnir , 2008) They can cover their own demand to a high extent and therefore there is no
big need for frozen fish.
To draw a reasonable conclusion and to get a useful final result, the criteria were weighted
differently, as you can see by referring back to Figure 3.The Import of fish and seafood and
the total consumption of fish and seafood were each weighted 30%. The value of the frozen
fish market weights 40%, as we considered it to be the most important micro-filter.
As indicated in Figure 3 Germany is the best performing country in the micro-filter. With an
average of 4.7 it is can be considered the most attractive country to which we can export the
frozen fish. Spain received the second highest final rating of 4.6. The worst performing
countries in the micro-filter are Austria and Switzerland, both with a final rating of 1.

Conclusion

15

In the macro-filter, single criterion like the VAT allowed countries with a very small
population like Liechtenstein and Andorra to score very high because of their low taxes. Since
we considered the size of the market and therefore the size of the population as much more
important, this criterion was weighted higher to eliminate these small countries early and not
consider them as possible export markets anymore.
Another criterion that has eliminated countries that seemed to be attractive to export to up
until then was the total consumption of fish and seafood. Norway, Austria and Switzerland
had to score very low in this criterion either because of a too little consumption due to a small
population or in the case of Austria and Switzerland due to a too little consumption per capita.
The micro-filter we decided to use assesses the attractiveness of the country to export
specifically frozen fish. There would have been other suitable choices for criteria, for example
the consumption of fish and seafood per capita instead of the total consumption. This would
have focused more on the popularity and frequency of fish in society. However, we decided to
concentrate more on the market size. Another possible criterion would have been the capture
rate of fish for human consumption. This data would have delivered more information about
how big the fishing industry in that country is and how much of their demand for human
consumption they may be able to cover themselves. We decided to use the data on the import
of fish and seafood instead.
After applying pre-, macro- and micro-filter the most attractive country to export the frozen
fish to is Germany. In the pre-filter it scored with its political stability and low corruption rate.
In the macro-filer its results werent that convincing. Germany has a high inflation rate,
relatively high VAT and a comparatively low GDP. However, due to its high population,
productivity and foreign direct investment it was still able to get a macro-filter rating of 3.75
and to pass the filter as second best after Switzerland. In the micro-filter it succeeded with a
final result of 4.7. Due to its population of more than 80 million inhabitants, Germany was the
country with the highest total fish consumption in tons. It also has a very high fish and
16

seafood import rate. This is caused by the high demand for fish due to high fish consumption
of the population in total. This demand cannot be covered by its own capture (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Another plus is the very high value of the
German frozen fish market, which can be explained by the high demand for imported fish, the
high consumption and the fact that one third of the fish consumed in Germany is purchased
frozen. Generally Germany is a country with a healthy economy and distinctive consumer
behavior. The import rates of fish and seafood, as well as the per capita consumption of fish,
are constantly increasing during the last years. (Glitnir , 2008) Therefore it is a good country
to which we can export our product, frozen fish. Germany fulfills important requirements to
enable us to participate successfully in their frozen fish market.
With an average rating of 4.6 in the micro-filter Spain scores right behind Germany. Therefore
it has to be considered as an attractive country to export the frozen fish to as well. It imports a
lot of fish and seafood, has a high valued frozen fish market and even the highest
consumption of fish and seafood in total of the countries that remained in the micro-filter. In
the macro-filter it obtains an average rating of 3.28. It received this score because of its high
foreign investment rate and its high population.
In conclusion, we as Euro Consultants, Inc. would suggest to European Food Trading
Company that the most attractive export market for the new frozen fish product would be
Germany, closely followed by Spain.

17

Reference List
Economist Intelligence Unit . (n.d.). Economist Intellicence Unit The Economist Views Wire.
Abgerufen am 20. Novmber 2012 von http://viewswire.eiu.com/site_info.asp?
info_name=social_unrest_table&page=noads

eurostat . (n.d.). eurostat Bevlkerung am 1. Januar . Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?
tab=table&language=de&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling
=labels&plugin=1

eurostat. (n.d.). eurostat HICP - inflation rate . Retrieved December 4, 2012, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?
tab=table&language=en&pcode=tec00118&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling
=labels&plugin=1

EW Williams Publications Company . (n.d.). Quick Frozen Foods International . Retrieved

December 15, 2012, from http://www.qffintl.com/pdf/october-2011/almanac-1.cfm

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . (n.d.). Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department . Abgerufen am 7. December 2012 von
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countryprofiles/search/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations FAOSTST. Abgerufen am 4. December 2012 von
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#COMPARE

Glitnir . (April 2008). EU Seafood Industry Report . Abgerufen am 14. December 2012 von
http://skjol.islandsbanki.is/servlet/file/store156/item49487/20080418_Seafood_EU.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development . (n.d.). OECD FDI in Figures .
Abgerufen am 27. November 2012 von
http://www.oecd.org/daf/internationalinvestment/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/FDI
%20in%20figures.pdf
The United States Council for International Business. (n.d.). The United States Council for
International Business. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from
http://www.uscib.org/index.asp?documentID=1676
18

The World Bank . (n.d.). The World Bank Working for a World Free of Poverty . Retrieved
November 23, 2012, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?
order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc
Transparency International . (n.d.). Transparency international the global coalition against
corruption . Retrieved November 20, 2012, from
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/

19

Appendices
Appendix A
Albania
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Ireland
Latvia
Malta
Montenegro
Portugal
Sweden
Slovenia
Hungary

Andorra
Bosnia
Denmark
Greece
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Macedonia
Netherlands
Romania
Switzerland
Spain
Vatican

Austria
Bulgaria
Estonia
Germany
Italy
Lithuania
Moldova
Norway
Russia
Serbia
Turkey

Belarus
Croatia
Finland
Great Britain
Kosovo
Luxembourg
Monaco
Poland
San Marino
Slovakia
Ukraine

Appendix B
Country

Rating

Population/mil

Andorra

1.00

Austria

3.50

8.44

Belgium

4.00

11.04

Czech Republic

4.00

10.51

Denmark

3.00

5.58

Estonia

2.00

1.34

Finland

3.00

5.40

France

5.00

65.40

Germany

5.00

81.84

Great Britain

5.00

62.99

Iceland

1.50

0.32

Ireland

2.50

4.58

Liechtenstein

1.00

0.03

Luxembourg

1.50

0.52

Malta

1.50

0.42
20

Monaco

1.00

0.03

Norway

2.50

4.99

Poland

4.50

38.43

Slovenia

2.00

2.06

Spain

4.50

46.20

Sweden

3.50

9.14

Switzerland

3.50

7.95

21

Appendix C

Country

Rating

VAT
(%)

Andorra

5.00

4.50

Austria

4.69

10.00

Belgium

1.82

21.00

Czech Republic

2.23

20.00

Denmark

1.00

25.00

Estonia

2.23

20.00

Finland

1.41

23.00

France

2.64

19.60

Germany

3.05

19.00

Great Britain

2.23

20.00

Iceland

1.00

25.50

Ireland

1.41

23.00

Liechtenstein

4.80

7.60

Luxembourg

4.28

15.00

Malta

3.87

18.00

Monaco

2.64

19.60

Norway

1.00

25.00

Poland

1.41

23.00

Slovenia

2.23

20.00

Spain

3.87

18.00

Sweden

1.00

25.00

Switzerland

4.80

8.00

Rating

GDP 2011

Appendix D
Country

22

Andorra

1.00

Austria

2.10

49688.00

Belgium

2.00

46989.00

Czech
Republic

1.00

20436.00

Denmark

2.60

59709.00

Estonia

1.00

16568.00

Finland

2.10

48783.00

France

1.90

44007.00

Germany

1.90

44111.00

Great Britain

1.60

37780.00

Iceland

1.80

43088.00

Ireland

2.10

48289.00

Liechtenstein

1.00

Luxembourg

5.00

115809.00

Malta

1.00

21137.00

Monaco

1.00

Norway

4.20

97607.00

Poland

1.00

13469.00

Slovenia

1.10

24900.00

Spain

1.40

32077.00

Sweden

2.50

57638.00

Switzerland

3.60

83073.00

Appendix E
Country

Rating

FDI/billion

Andorra

1.00

Austria

3.50

14.70

Belgium

5.00

103.40
23

Czech Republic

3.00

5.40

Denmark

3.50

12.70

Estonia

3.00

0.30

Finland

3.00

2.70

France

4.50

41.00

Germany

4.50

40.40

Great Britain

4.50

55.10

Iceland

2.50

1.10

Ireland

3.50

11.50

Liechtenstein

1.00

Luxembourg

3.50

Malta

1.00

Monaco

1.00

Norway

3.00

6.20

Poland

4.00

18.90

Slovenia

2.50

1.00

Spain

4.00

29.50

Sweden

3.50

14.70

Switzerland

3.00

3.00

14.40

Appendix F

Country

Productivity
Rating

Andorra

1.00

Austria

3.50

Belgium

3.50

Czech Republic

3.00

Denmark

4.00

24

Estonia

3.00

Finland

4.00

France

3.50

Germany

4.50

Great Britain

4.00

Iceland

3.50

Ireland

3.50

Liechtenstein

1.00

Luxembourg

4.50

Malta

1.00

Monaco

1.00

Norway

4.50

Poland

2.50

Slovenia

2.00

Spain

2.50

Sweden

5.00

Switzerland

5.00

Appendix G
Country

Rating

Inflation Rate

Andorra

4.00

Austria

1.50

3.60

Belgium

2.00

3.50

Czech Republic

3.00

2.10

Denmark

2.50

2.70

Estonia

1.00

5.10

Finland

2.00

3.30

France

3.50

2.30

Germany

2.50

2.50
25

Great Britain

1.00

4.50

Iceland

1.00

4.20

Ireland

4.50

1.20

Liechtenstein

5.00

0.30

Luxembourg

1.50

3.70

Malta

3.50

2.50

Monaco

4.00

1.50

Norway

4.50

1.20

Poland

1.50

3.90

Slovenia

3.00

2.10

Spain

2.00

3.10

Sweden

4.50

1.40

Switzerland

5.00

0.10

26

Appendix H
Country
Austria
Belgium
Germany
Great Britain
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland

Rating
1.00
1.50
5.00
3.00
2.50
5.00
2.00
1.00

Imported
Fish/Seafood
161.00
622.00
2897.00
1701.00
1337.00
2357.00
771.00
142.00

Appendix I
Country
Austria
Belgium
Germany
Great Britain
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland

Rating
1.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
1.00

Fish/Seafood
Consumption
127.00
271
1259
1303
245
1956
298
125

Appendix J
Country
Austria
Belgium
Germany
Great Britain
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland

Rating
1.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
2.50
1.00

Frozen Fish
Market by Value
254.90
311.00
3574.70
1349.40
216.60
2676.70
354.00
252.90

27