Market Diversification and Revealed Comparative Advantage in Salmon Exports: Comparative Evidence from Norway, Sweden, Chile, and the United Kingdom

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the degree of diversification in exports of fresh/chilled salmon and the level of international competitiveness of Norway, Sweden, Chile, and the United Kingdom over 2020–2024, using the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) and the normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA). A quantitative, descriptive approach was adopted, drawing on annual Trade Map data for HS subheading 030214. HHI series were constructed by country–destination and NRCA series by country–market, and both were examined through univariate analysis. The findings showed that Norway exhibited low concentration levels and strong, stable advantages in Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Russia, whereas Sweden displayed moderate but rising concentration, supported by high advantages in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy. In contrast, Chile and the United Kingdom recorded persistently high HHI values, with pronounced advantages concentrated in a limited number of markets (Brazil in Chile’s case; France and Chinese Taipei in the UK’s) and intra-product positions or comparative disadvantages in China, the United States, and Mexico. The study concludes that the combination of geographic diversification and positive NRCA enhances export resilience, while extreme specialization increases vulnerability to demand and regulatory shocks. It is recommended that Chile and the United Kingdom further develop diversification strategies toward markets where NRCA is neutral or negative, and that Norway and Sweden consolidate their advantages through investments in sustainability, traceability, and logistics. Further multivariate research incorporating macroeconomic and firm-level variables is also suggested.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, the global salmon industry has grown steadily and is now a significant part of the global trade in fisheries products [1]. Together, these two nations control almost four-fifths of the world’s supply of farmed salmon [2]. More than 90% of the world’s production in 2020 came from these four nations: Norway, Sweden, Chile, and the United Kingdom, which come in second and third, respectively [3]. This high level of geographic concentration raises concerns about each nation’s international competitiveness, which is frequently determined by revealed comparative advantages, as well as export diversification, which is defined as a balanced distribution of exported goods and destinations.

Prior research suggests that evaluating export diversification provides valuable information on a country’s exposure to external risk: when exports depend on a single market or product, vulnerability to price shocks, exchange-rate fluctuations, or specific shifts in demand increases [4,5,6]. For this reason, concentration measures such as the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) have been developed to capture the degree of diversification across products or destinations. An HHI close to 0 indicates a highly diversified export portfolio, whereas higher values imply concentration in a limited number of products or markets [7].

In parallel, export competitiveness is commonly examined through revealed comparative advantage (RCA), originally formulated by Balassa as an index for inferring the products in which a country holds relative efficiency at the global level [8]. Because the traditional Balassa indicator is biased—being unbounded above and asymmetric—more recent literature has proposed the normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA) as a more robust alternative [9]. This normalized measure is comparable across countries, products, and periods because it is defined on a symmetric scale from −1 to +1. Positive NRCA values indicate that a country displays a revealed comparative advantage (and, therefore, high competitiveness) in exporting the product under analysis, whereas negative values signal a comparative disadvantage or a weaker competitive position [10].

Using diversification metrics (HHI) alongside competitiveness measures (NRCA) makes it possible to characterize a country’s export profile in terms of both market breadth and commercial strength. In general, the literature agrees that adequate diversification across destinations and products can reduce exposure to external risks and support more sustainable growth, while a strong revealed comparative advantage reflects structural strengths or cost efficiencies that help explain the competitive success of certain nations. These conceptual tools are particularly relevant for analyzing salmon trade, a perishable and high-value product shaped by distinct logistical, sanitary, and tariff dynamics [11].

There are several strategic reasons to examine the competitiveness and diversity of salmon exports. From an economic and social perspective, salmon has become a major source of employment and export income for countries like the UK, Canada, Norway, and Chile. For instance, salmon was Chile’s top food export at USD 4.4 billion in 2020, accounting for 6.1% of total exports and nearly 46% of food exports [12]. Its share of Chile’s non-traditional exports nearly doubled over the preceding ten years, from 6.9% in 2010 to 12.4% in 2020. According to the Salmon Council, by generating employment, beneficial relationships, and regional innovation in Chile’s southern regions, this expansion has helped to create a “virtuous circle” of development [13]. In a similar vein, farmed salmon has become an important part of Norway’s fisheries sector; in 2022, it hit a record export volume of 1.26 million tonnes, making up more than 70% of the country’s seafood export revenue [14]. Thanks to its outstanding performance, Norway has overtaken China as the world’s largest seafood exporter by value.

In the United Kingdom, salmon is the leading food export and represents around 40% of the value of Scotland’s food exports, with a presence in more than 50 international markets [15]. These figures underscore salmon’s productive and commercial relevance for national economies, food security considerations, and coastal communities.

A weakly diversified export sector can be vulnerable to sanitary or tariff barriers imposed by a dominant buyer [16]—as occurred when the European Union and Russia implemented sanitary restrictions that affected Chilean salmon—whereas strong revealed competitiveness highlights the need to sustain advantages in cost, quality, or differentiation [17].

Global salmon trade displays notable geographic concentration and a recent evolution shaped by external shocks and production adjustments. Asia does not rank among the major exporters of salmon, yet it plays a significant role as a net importer. China, in particular, shifted over the last decade from being a net exporter of fishery products to a net importer, especially of high-value species such as salmon [18]. This shift enabled Norway to emerge as the new global export leader in the aquaculture sector after years in second place. Salmon production within Asia remains incipient: Japan has increased catches of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in recent years—primarily for domestic consumption and regional markets—but this rise has had only a minimal impact on global supply, given Japanese consumers’ loyalty to domestic product and the cyclical nature of these fisheries [19].

Europe hosts the world’s largest producer and exporter of salmon, as well as other relevant actors. Norway alone accounts for roughly 51% of global Atlantic salmon production [20]. Other European producers include the United Kingdom, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland, and, on a smaller scale, Nordic countries such as Finland or Denmark (mainly trout). The United Kingdom was the third-largest global producer in 2020; after a slight decline in 2020 due to the effects of Brexit and the pandemic [21], it returned to growth in 2021–2022 and reached record export values, driven by demand in the EU and the United States [22].

In North America, Canada is the main producer of farmed salmon, concentrated in the provinces of British Columbia and, to a lesser extent, New Brunswick. Canada accounted for about 5% of global production in 2020 [23], with volumes of roughly 150 thousand tonnes per year. Although a large share of Canadian output is destined for the U.S. market, Canada also exports substantial quantities to Asia and other destinations, leveraging its reputation for quality. The United States, in turn, plays a different role: while it produces some salmon—particularly wild Alaska salmon and small-scale farming operations in Maine and Washington—it is fundamentally a net importer [24]. The U.S. market is the largest destination for Chilean salmon and one of the largest for Norwegian salmon (especially processed products), supported by strong domestic consumption that exceeds local production. Between 2020 and 2022, U.S. imports of salmon (fresh and frozen) increased markedly, partly because consumers shifted toward at-home consumption of healthy seafood during the pandemic [23].

In South America, Chile overwhelmingly dominates the landscape. Chile has been a major global producer since 1992 [25]. Its exports reached record levels in 2022: 751 thousand tonnes of salmon and trout valued at USD 6.605 billion, representing increases of 3.8% in volume and 27.3% in value compared with the previous year [23]. Chile ships salmon to more than 70 countries, yet the bulk is absorbed by a small group of destinations: the United States, Japan, Brazil, Russia, and China represented the largest shares. This market concentration—where North America and East Asia stand out—carries risks, as was evident when the detection of traces of COVID-19 in Chinese markets in 2020 temporarily depressed demand for imported salmon in China, forcing shipments to be redirected to the United States and Brazil [13].

A substantial body of research has examined export diversification and revealed comparative advantage in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. In general terms, the literature converges on the view that leading salmon-producing countries display significant revealed comparative advantages in this product, reflecting accumulated natural, technological, and institutional strengths. For example, an analysis of competitiveness indicators for developing countries found that several fishing-based economies (Chile, China, Ecuador, among others) hold strong comparative advantages in different marine products, which helps explain their growing share of global exports [1].

In the specific case of salmon, Norway and Chile have long exhibited high levels of revealed comparative advantage. A widely cited study by Bjørndal (2002) documented how Chile managed, within scarcely a decade, to emerge as a highly competitive salmon exporter despite salmon not being a native species—supported by favorable environmental conditions and technological learning—thus positioning itself as the world’s second-largest exporter with comparatively lower costs than Norway [25].

Related research has examined competitive strategies in the Norwegian and Chilean salmon industries, demonstrating that businesses tended to put cost reductions (a volume-based strategy) ahead of differentiation. This strategy worked well when markets were growing, but it may eventually limit destination diversification [2]. On the other hand, some research has emphasized the advantages of moderate diversification. For example, export performance in Chile has been found to positively correlate with intermediate levels of diversification (neither highly concentrated nor fully dispersed), indicating that entering new markets up to a certain point can increase revenues without incurring excessive commercial expansion costs [26]. This result suggests an ideal range of diversification where operational effectiveness and market reach are more successfully balanced.

Regarding the temporal evolution of competitiveness, the evidence points to cases of both gains and losses in comparative advantage that change over time. An illustrative example is India in the fisheries sector: its RCA index for fish declined between 2018 and 2020—eroding export competitiveness—but rose again in 2021 after productive and commercial adjustments [27]. This post-crisis recovery suggests that revealed comparative advantage is not static; rather, it responds to sectoral policies (e.g., infrastructure upgrades or trade agreements) and to external shocks. In Norway, salmon’s comparative advantage has remained strong and has even increased; however, some authors question the limits of a commodity-based model, arguing that sustaining long-term competitiveness requires Norway to differentiate and segment its supply (through quality attributes, organic certifications, and related signals), otherwise it risks “commoditization” and narrower margins [2].

Although the salmon trade has been widely studied, important gaps remain at the specific intersection of market diversification and revealed competitiveness in the recent period. Much of the earlier literature focuses on pre-2020 years or on single-country analyses, and few studies integrate the disruptive events of the last few years and their effects on the salmon market structure. In particular, there is a gap in understanding how diversified salmon exports currently are among the main exporting countries and how their revealed comparative advantage has shifted under a new global equilibrium. Prior to 2020, a relatively stable pattern was often assumed: Norway and Chile leading with high comparative advantages and fairly established market portfolios (Norway broadly diversified within Europe; Chile more concentrated in the United States and Asia). Yet recent developments—such as China’s consolidation as a net importer, the expansion of e-commerce in food retail, air-transport constraints during the pandemic, and even domestic policies (Norway’s salmon tax; environmental regulations in Chile)—may have altered that configuration.

The expected contribution of this research is threefold. At the theoretical level, it provides updated evidence to refine debates on the relationship between export diversification and competitive resilience in a high-value commodity industry. The results will make it possible to assess whether the classic proposition that “diversification reduces volatility and strengthens competitive position” holds for salmon in the aftermath of a global crisis, thereby contributing to international-trade theory applied to agri-food products. At the methodological level, the study will apply two quantitative indicators (HHI and normalized revealed comparative advantage, NRCA) rigorously to recent trade data, illustrating their combined usefulness for diagnosing the commercial health of a sector. Finally, at the applied level, the findings will offer relevant insights for industry stakeholders.

The general objective of this research is to determine the degree of diversification in salmon exports and the level of international competitiveness associated with those exports in the main exporting countries (Norway, Sweden, Chile and the United Kingdom) during 2020–2024, by applying the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) and normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA).

In Norway, researchers aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on salmon exports. They came to the conclusion that, overall, the logistics chain’s resilience prevented a significant decline in Norwegian salmon exports; however, lockdown measures did alter product-level patterns, creating unexpected opportunities (higher shipments of specific cuts to destinations under strict quarantines) and generating heterogeneous responses across firms—large companies with diversified networks coped better with disruptions—highlighting both the robustness and the changing dynamics of salmon trade during the crisis [11].

The industry’s competitive strategies and positioning in global markets were examined in one study carried out in Chile. Remarkably, it was found that in order to compete on price, Chilean ex-executives strongly preferred cost-cutting strategies over product-differentiation strategies. This result demonstrated that companies put volume and efficiency first in order to benefit from economies of scale; this strategy is similar to what has been seen in Norway. By avoiding investment in differentiation, this strategy reduced financial risk, but it also implied less diversification into premium segments, which could eventually limit Chile’s ability to sustain distinct competitive advantages over Norway [2].

Researchers looked at how fresh salmon’s perishability affects international trade patterns on a global scale. They came to the conclusion that trade in fresh salmon is considerably more negatively impacted by geographic distance than by less perishable goods: the decline in exported salmon volumes is steeper as remoteness increases than would be predicted by standard gravity models [11]. Additionally, they discovered that rather than increases in average shipment size, export growth to new salmon markets is primarily caused by higher shipping frequency and a greater number of participating exporters. This illustrates how the salmon trade adjusts to the perishable nature of the product by suggesting that exporters prioritize frequent, time-sensitive deliveries to maintain freshness and prevent spoilage losses, even if this means sacrificing transport scale economies.

Another study used a descriptive design and Canadian customs data from 2010 to 2019 to calculate Herfindahl indices by product and destination to assess the diversification of fisheries exports and their recent evolution. The authors concluded that trade agreements like CETA with Europe, which decreased concentration in the U.S. market, contributed to Canada’s fisheries exports becoming more diversified over the past ten years. In particular, they noted that during the period, the HHI for Canadian salmon exports decreased from 0.22 (moderately concentrated) to 0.15 (more diversified), suggesting a more equitable distribution throughout the US, Europe, and Asia [28]. This trend was accompanied by a slight improvement in the normalized revealed comparative advantage of Canadian salmon, suggesting that access to new markets modestly strengthened its competitive position, although it remains less pronounced than Norway’s or Chile’s.

In India, researchers assessed the competitiveness of fish and fishery product exports following the India–ASEAN trade agreement. They used a combination of comparative advantage indicators, including Balassa’s RCA and normalized variants, based on 2008–2018 data. They concluded that India’s revealed comparative advantage in fishery products weakened during 2018–2020, reflecting a temporary loss of competitiveness attributed to domestic constraints (infrastructure and standards) and rising competition from other Southeast Asian countries [27]. However, they identified a recovery in 2021, with RCA and normalized RCA measures increasing again, which they linked to improvements in processing capacity and repositioning in post-pandemic markets.

In Chile, one study reviewed the evolution of the salmon industry from its early development to the beginning of the century, assessing its international competitiveness relative to Norway. The authors concluded that Chile’s salmon industry built a notable competitive advantage in a short period, supported by favorable natural conditions in southern Chile, relatively low labor costs, and technology transfer from early pioneer countries. Their analysis showed that by the late 1990s Chile had consolidated its position as the world’s second-largest producer, with production costs per kilogram below those of Norway, enabling it to gain market share in key destinations such as the United States and Japan [25].

Theoretical Framework

Conceptually, export diversification refers to a balanced distribution of exported goods or destination markets, avoiding excessive dependence on a small number of items or buyers [29]. An economy with diversified exports has multiple sources of external revenue and therefore reduces its exposure to shocks affecting a specific sector or country [30]. In the case of salmon, diversification can be assessed through diversification of destination markets, namely the number of importing countries and the distribution of market shares among them. Economic theory suggests that greater diversification brings benefits such as more stable revenues, since demand or price fluctuations in one market can be offset by sales in others, as well as the opportunity to exploit different comparative advantages across distinct market niches [31]. At the same time, diversification entails costs, including entry expenses in new markets, adaptation to heterogeneous regulations, and the potential loss of economies of scale, meaning there is an optimal level at which the marginal benefits of diversification equal its marginal costs [32].

To quantify diversification, concentration indicators such as the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) are commonly used. HHI is defined as the sum of squared shares (by product or by market) of each category in total exports. The index ranges from 0 to 1 (or from 0 to 10,000 when scaled): values close to 0 indicate maximum diversification (many items with small, relatively even shares), while a value of 1 indicates absolute concentration (a single item or market accounts for 100%) [33]. A common interpretation is that HHI < 1000 indicates a “non-concentrated” or diversified structure, 1000–1800 reflects moderate concentration, and values above 1800 indicate high concentration [34].

In this manuscript, the HHI is reported consistently in its scaled form (HHI × 10,000) to improve readability and to apply the conventional thresholds (1000 and 1800) directly. Therefore, any mention of the 0–1 range refers only to the unscaled index, for which the equivalent cutoffs are 0.10 (non-concentrated), 0.18 (moderately concentrated), and values above 0.18 (highly concentrated); all interpretations and classifications in the tables and discussion are based on the 0–10,000 scale.

Export competitiveness refers to a country’s ability to sell its products successfully in international markets relative to competing suppliers [35]. Economically, it is linked to the concept of comparative advantage, that is, the ability to produce a good at a relatively lower opportunity cost than other countries [36,37]. Because comparative advantage is not directly observable, Balassa proposed the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index, which compares the share of a product in a country’s exports with the share of that same product in world trade [8]. If the index is greater than 1, the country is inferred to be relatively specialized in that product and to hold a revealed comparative advantage; if it is below 1, it indicates a revealed comparative disadvantage [10,38]. However, the Balassa index has well-known limitations: it is not symmetric (ranging from 0 to infinity) and is influenced by the scale of a country’s total exports. For this reason, the literature has introduced adjusted measures, notably the normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA) proposed by Yu, Cai, and Leung [9]. NRCA is typically defined as (RCA − 1)/(RCA + 1), which bounds it between −1 and +1, where positive values indicate comparative advantage (and thus competitiveness) and negative values indicate the opposite.

2. Methodology

The study adopted a quantitative approach aimed at describing, without establishing causal relationships, the diversification and competitiveness of international salmon exports. The unit of analysis was the exporter country–year, and the statistical treatment was univariate, based on the separate calculation and interpretation of the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) and the normalized Revealed Comparative Advantage (NRCA), as is common in studies that apply these indices [39,40,41].

The study population comprised global exports of fresh or chilled salmon under HS subheading 030214 (Atlantic salmon and Danube salmon). The sample consisted of the four leading exporting countries in this subheading (based on 2025 query rankings), which jointly account for a substantial share of global trade in this segment [42]. Focusing on HS 030214 is methodologically appropriate because fresh/chilled salmon constitutes a distinct, high-value trade channel characterized by strict cold-chain requirements, short shelf-life constraints, and market access conditions that shape destination patterns differently from frozen or processed salmon. Therefore, restricting the analysis to HS 030214 improves product comparability and supports a clearer descriptive diagnosis of destination diversification and market-specific competitiveness within a homogeneous trade segment, while acknowledging that results should not be mechanically extrapolated to other salmon product forms.

The data were extracted from Trade Map of the International Trade Centre (ITC), using HS classification 030214, on an annual basis for the 2020–2024 period (the most recent complete five-year span available at the time of download) [12]. The database was compiled using export values (USD) for each exporting country to the world, disaggregated by importing destinations.

Destination diversification was measured using the value-based HHI, calculated for each exporting country i and year t as:

$$IH{H}_{i,t}=\sum _{j=1}^n{s}_{i,j,t}^2$$

where S_(i,j,t) is the share of destination j in the total exported by country i in year t (value share).

Competitiveness was assessed using the NRCA, constructed in two stages. First, the RCA (Balassa-type) was computed for each exporting country i, destination j, and year t, based on relative shares, comparing the exporter’s presence in a specific market with its global presence in the same product:

$$VC{R}_{i,j,t}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{X_{i,j,t}}{X_{\cdot ,j,t}}\right)}{\left(\frac{X_{i,\cdot ,t}}{X_{\cdot ,\cdot ,t}}\right)}}$$

where X_(i,j,t) is the value exported by i to j, X_(⋅,j,t) is the world total exported to j, X_(i,⋅,t) is the total exported by i to the world, and X_(⋅,⋅,t) is total world exports (all referring to HS 030214). The index was then normalized as:

$$VCR{n}_{i,j,t}={\displaystyle \frac{VC{R}_{i,j,t}-1}{VC{R}_{i,j,t}+1}}$$

NRCA is bounded between −1 and +1. For interpretation purposes, positive values indicate a revealed comparative advantage, values close to 0 reflect a neutral or “intra product” position, and negative values indicate a revealed comparative disadvantage.

The analysis was univariate and descriptive. For each country, the study assessed: (i) the annual trajectory of the HHI as a signal of changes in destination concentration, and (ii) the annual trajectory of NRCA in relevant markets as evidence of competitive strengthening or erosion. Results were reported in country-by-period tables, prioritizing comparative consistency across countries and years. The study relied exclusively on aggregated, publicly available secondary data, with no human intervention and no personal information; therefore, neither informed consent nor institutional ethics approval was required.

3. Results

Global salmon exports are shown in

Table 1. Salmon exporters in the world (in million USD).

Exporter	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
World	12,013	15,156	17,039	17,592	17,283
Norway	5631	7117	8181	8630	8065
Sweden	3040	3356	3771	4154	3663
Chile	537	830	1025	1102	1140
United Kingdom	583	845	715	722	1079
Others	2222	3009	3346	2984	3336

Note. Data taken from International Trade Center (2025) [43].

to have increased steadily from 2020 to 2023, with a slight decline in 2024 tempering the cumulative growth. Norway and Sweden are primarily responsible for this general trend, as their steadily increasing export volumes set the standard for the global market. Chile, on the other hand, shows an upward trajectory that is smoother and more predictable, indicating growth that is less impacted by short-term volatility. Compared to the other major exporters, the UK exhibits an erratic pattern of declines and recoveries, suggesting a higher susceptibility to domestic or regulatory shocks.

When combined, the configuration across nations shows a market structure rooted in the Nordic exporters’ robust performance, with other contributors following more moderate or erratic trajectories. The minor global decline in 2024 coincides with concurrent changes made by a number of major suppliers, suggesting coordinated changes in pricing or supply. This pattern highlights the need for production and trade strategies intended to mitigate volatility and maintain international competitiveness and is consistent with cyclical corrections typical of tightly integrated commodity markets.

3.1. Norway

The configuration of fresh or chilled salmon exports from Norway is shown in

Table 2. Exports of fresh or chilled salmon from Norway (in million USD).

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Poland	944	1119	1248	1398	1250
Denmark	587	721	836	890	814
Netherlands	463	608	781	806	751
France	565	700	820	817	688
Spain	429	552	600	632	610
Others	2643	3416	3897	4087	3952
Total	5631	7116	8182	8630	8065

Note. Data taken from International Trade Center (2025) [43].

along two main axes: the growing weight of a wide and diverse group of nations grouped under “Others” and the consolidation of Europe as the primary destination area. Poland absorbs the largest volumes among European importers and exhibits rapid growth along with relatively stronger fluctuations, making it a dynamic but vulnerable market that is susceptible to sudden changes in demand as well as in processing or re-export chains. Both Denmark and the Netherlands function as logistical and processing hubs with distinctly expansionary trajectories, but with varying degrees of variability: Denmark takes a more consistent and predictable route, while the Netherlands shows greater sensitivity to contextual changes, indicating a more adaptable insertion in trade flows. In contrast, France and Spain exhibit relatively mature consumption markets where growth is based on more stable demand patterns. However, the recent downward correction in France, in contrast to Spain’s ongoing upward movement, indicates differences in demand elasticity and competitive pressure from substitute products or alternative suppliers. The residual category “Others” concentrates the highest average values and the largest dispersion, suggesting that expansion into non-traditional destinations has been both the primary cause of systemic volatility and a key driver of the overall increase in exports. The total’s temporal profile, which shows rapid growth through 2023 and a decline in 2024 while remaining at historically high levels, points to a shift from a phase of extensive expansion backed by geographic diversification to one where long-term stability and competitiveness will depend on the ability to manage the risk associated with these more volatile markets.

The total’s temporal profile, which shows rapid growth through 2023 and a decline in 2024 while remaining at historically high levels, points to a shift from a phase of extensive expansion backed by geographic diversification to one in which long-term stability and competitiveness will depend critically on the ability to manage the risk associated with these more volatile markets.

In

Table 3. Diversification of Norway’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Years	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
HHI in Value	816.6	804.3	946.3	826.1	802.6

Note. Own elaboration.

it is observed that the Herfindahl-Hirschman index for Norway’s fresh salmon exports remains, on average, within the range associated with low concentration, with levels close to what would be expected from a highly diversified portfolio and only limited year-to-year variation, indicating that the expansion reported in Table 2 rests on a broad geographical base rather than on a single dominant buyer; 2024 appears as the most diversified year, closely followed by 2021 and 2023, whereas 2022 marks the point of relatively higher concentration, yet still far from a critical risk zone, which points to a temporary strengthening of specific destinations rather than a structural shift in the export pattern. The combination of a low average and modest dispersion reveals that Norway has consolidated a fairly balanced market portfolio in which the roles of Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, France and Spain are counterweighted by the “Others” group, preventing any individual destination from reshaping the overall profile; this reading is consistent with the normalized revealed comparative advantage indicators in

Table 4. Normalized revealed the comparative advantage of Norway’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Russia	0.6	0.68	0.77	0.74	0.74
United States of America	−0.19	−0.25	−0.26	−0.23	−0.09
Netherlands	0.15	0.38	0.57	0.47	0.42
Saudi Arabia	0.68	0.75	0.81	0.77	0.79
Türkiye	0.68	0.74	0.8	0.75	0.75

Note. Own elaboration.

, which show sustained strong positions in several non-European markets, so that the resulting configuration is not only diversified within Europe but also anchored in specific high-competitiveness niches such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, helping to absorb idiosyncratic shocks and producing a trajectory where the dominant feature is the stability of a highly diversified structure rather than a trade-off between concentration and the opening of new markets.

In Table 4, the normalized revealed comparative advantage values for Norway’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon, when read together with the destination breakdown in Table 2 and the relatively low, stable concentration levels in Table 3, point to a very strong yet clearly tiered competitive structure: in terms of country averages and standard deviations, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye display the highest and most stable advantages, with all observations firmly in the advantage band and very limited volatility, which reveals an extra-European insertion where Norway behaves as a quasi-natural supplier and that complements the European core formed by large shipments to Poland, Denmark, France, Spain and the Netherlands; Russia also remains consistently in the advantage range, with a high mean and moderate dispersion, so that these three markets (Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Russia) constitute the most robust specialization block, hosting the maximum value in the table and providing a competitive buffer against shocks in European destinations. The Netherlands, which appears both as one of the main importers in value terms (Table 2) and as a medium-advantage market in Table 4, shows a clear upgrading path: it moves from intra product trade into solid advantage, with the highest variability in the sample, indicating an active process of competitive deepening precisely in a key intra-European logistic hub; this strengthening helps explain why the HHI remains at moderate levels despite the prominence of a few partners, since advantage is distributed across several strategic markets rather than concentrated in a single one. The United States is the only case that stays entirely within the intra-product band, with a slightly negative but near-neutral average and no deep disadvantage episodes, suggesting a constrained competitive presence in a highly contested market, consistent with the fact that most export value is directed toward Europe and a handful of Middle Eastern partners. Overall, classifying all observations reveals a clear dominance of advantage episodes over a small set of intra product cases and a complete absence of disadvantages, so the competitive pattern captured by Table 4 is that of an export structure where strong advantages in Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Russia and the Netherlands overlay a relatively diversified destination architecture (low HHI), and the most relevant case is the combination of the peak advantage in Saudi Arabia with the lack of any disadvantage across the panel, underscoring that Norway’s main challenge is not acquiring competitiveness, but strategically managing the allocation of that advantage between Europe, the Middle East and the narrow intra product space in the United States.

3.2. Sweden

In

Table 5. Exports of fresh or chilled salmon from Sweden (in million USD).

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Poland	613	674	690	912	711
France	499	631	750	782	647
Spain	401	525	571	604	563
Italy	305	424	510	563	526
Netherlands	274	356	454	482	406
Others	947	746	797	812	810
Total	3039	3356	3772	4155	3663

Note. Data taken from International Trade Center (2025) [43].

, Sweden’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon reveal a spatial and temporal configuration that combines expansion, regional concentration and differentiated risk profiles across market types. The shared temporal pattern among most destinations, with an accumulated phase of growth followed by a subsequent correction, indicates that the sector’s dynamism is not the result of isolated episodes but of a relatively synchronized expansion cycle in Europe that appears to have reached a recent limit. Within this common trajectory, Poland and France emerge as the core pillars of the Swedish export system: both display high average levels and substantial year-to-year variability, suggesting strategic yet demanding markets in which sourcing decisions, domestic processing capacity and potential re-export functions magnify demand adjustments. Spain and Italy, positioned at an intermediate level in relative importance, show trajectories consistent with expanding consumption markets that are beginning to exhibit signs of maturation, so that growth is no longer purely inertia-driven but constrained by competing suppliers, household income limitations and the gradual reshaping of consumer preferences. The Netherlands plays a more modest role and behaves less like a final absorption market than like a logistical node, with fluctuations that appear to reflect shifts in trade flows rather than structural changes in internal demand. The “Others” category adds an important nuance: unlike many residual, highly heterogeneous aggregates, its variability is relatively contained, which turns this group of destinations into a partial buffer against the volatility associated with the major European partners. From a systemic perspective, the total export pattern embodies the tension between expansion and correction: sustained growth up to the penultimate year reflects the combined effect of deepening ties with leading partners and the stabilizing contribution of secondary markets, whereas the subsequent downturn suggests that future growth will depend less on adding volume and more on managing exposure to risk in the largest destinations, rebalancing the geographic portfolio and strengthening those trade relationships that offer both significant absorption capacity and more stable demand trajectories.

In

Table 6. Diversification of Sweden’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Years	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
HHI in Value	1142.1	1169.6	1182.4	1247.6	1304.4

Note. Own elaboration.

it is observed that the Herfindahl-Hirschman index for Sweden’s fresh salmon exports remains consistently within a band of moderate concentration, with an average level of around 1200 points and only limited dispersion, signaling that the export structure is anchored in several sizeable markets rather than in a single dominant buyer; 2020 appears as the comparatively most diversified year and 2024 as the most concentrated one, yet the gap between them is small, implying that the destination shifts reported in Table 5 correspond to gradual reallocations—slight strengthening of Poland, France, Spain and Italy relative to the “Others” group—rather than to sharp structural breaks. In this setting, the persistently high and in some cases rising normalized revealed comparative advantage values in

Table 7. Normalized revealed comparative advantage of the Sweden’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
United States of America	−0.28	−0.24	−0.14	−0.14	−0.21
Belgium	0.85	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.86
United Kingdom	0.86	0.86	0.87	0.88	0.87
Germany	0.6	0.69	0.71	0.75	0.82
Italy	0.59	0.67	0.75	0.76	0.76

Note. Own elaboration.

for European partners such as Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy suggest that the gradual increase in the index reflects not so much “bad” concentration as a deeper specialization in markets where Sweden enjoys strong competitive advantages, producing a pattern that combines reasonably broad geographic diversification within Europe with growing intraregional concentration: the system avoids the extreme vulnerability associated with a single key buyer but becomes increasingly reliant on a compact core of closely linked European partners, which limits the risk-mitigating power of diversification unless market expansion is pursued more decisively beyond the region.

In Table 7, the normalized revealed comparative advantage values for Sweden’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon, when read alongside the destination structure in Table 5 and the concentration levels in Table 6, reveal a distinctly European and highly robust competitive pattern: out of 25 possible observations, 20 fall in the advantage range and none in disadvantage, so Belgium and the United Kingdom emerge as the core of specialization, with averages close to the upper bound of the interval and almost no variability, signaling stable structural advantages in markets where Sweden behaves as a “natural” supplier; Germany and Italy also display clearly advantageous averages but with the highest dispersion over time, indicating a process of gradual strengthening of competitiveness that aligns with their growing relevance as destinations in Table 5 and with the mild upward trend in the HHI, which reflects a concentration that is increasingly anchored in this group of European partners. The United States is the only case that consistently remains within the intra product trade band, with a negative but near-neutral average, pointing to a market in which Sweden participates without a deep disadvantage but clearly underperforming its European positions and, moreover, with only marginal weight in the export basket summarized in Table 5. Overall, the competitive pattern captured by Table 7 is that of an export structure rooted in strong and stable comparative advantages within Europe (particularly Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy), complemented by an extra-regional partner that functions as an intra product corridor (the United States), and, combined with a moderately low but rising HHI, this yields a profile in which the main strength lies in the depth of regional advantage and the main vulnerability in the increasing concentration of that advantage in a relatively narrow set of European markets.

3.3. Chile

In

Table 8. Exports of fresh or chilled salmon from Chile (in million USD).

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Brazil	358	603	729	741	817
China	52	46	64	155	138
United States of America	85	100	147	140	107
Argentina	31	65	61	34	26
Mexico	4	8	13	15	15
Others	7	6	13	17	36
Total	537	828	1027	1102	1139

Note. Data taken from International Trade Center (2025) [43].

, exports of fresh or chilled salmon from Chile reveal a structure highly concentrated in a single market, Brazil, whose dominant weight reshapes the overall risk profile of the export system: the evolution of the aggregate depends to a large extent on the ability to maintain and expand this destination, so that any disturbance in its demand, macroeconomic environment or sanitary regulation would be transmitted almost directly to total export values. In contrast, the remaining markets—China, the United States, Argentina, Mexico and the “Others” group—contribute comparatively smaller amounts but display markedly different variability patterns, indicating an international insertion strategy that is still in the process of consolidation. China stands out for a clearly upward trajectory accompanied by pronounced fluctuations, signaling an expanding market in which demand reacts strongly to changes in prices as well as to regulatory or logistical factors; this behavior suggests significant diversification potential but also high exposure to destination-specific shocks. The United States shows a more stable profile, with moderate year-to-year changes consistent with more established commercial ties, although its relatively modest weight in the total indicates that Chile has not yet fully leveraged this market compared with other global competitors. Smaller regional markets such as Argentina and Mexico exhibit low levels and a degree of fragility, with signs of stagnation or even contraction in Argentina, implying that their current function is more complementary than structuring within the export portfolio. The residual category “Others” reflects an incipient diversification towards non-traditional destinations, but its scale is still insufficient to offset the high concentration in Brazil. From a systemic viewpoint, the total exports follow a sustained expansionary path built on a narrow geographic base and marked differences in partner stability; the result is a trade pattern that combines growth with vulnerability, where the scope for further increases in export value will depend less on deepening the relationship with the main buyer—already highly concentrated—and more on strategically developing those secondary markets which, by virtue of their dynamics and variability, may become additional pillars of demand and help reduce exposure to idiosyncratic risks.

In

Table 9. Diversification of Chile’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Years	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
HHI in Value	4868	5610	5355	4890	5381

Note. Own elaboration.

it is observed that the Herfindahl-Hirschman index for Chilean fresh salmon exports remains consistently within the range of high concentration, with an average of around 5200 points and relatively limited dispersion, indicating that throughout the period the export structure is locked into a configuration heavily dependent on a small set of markets, consistent with the pattern outlined in Table 7; the year with the lowest concentration is 2020 which, although it constitutes the “best” outcome in terms of diversification, still lies well above the threshold separating moderate from high concentration, whereas 2021 emerges as the “worst” year by reaching the peak level of concentration and embodying a reinforcement of the leading buyer’s dominance rather than a meaningful rebalancing toward secondary destinations. The partial decline in concentration after the 2021 peak suggests marginal gains by other markets, but the modest scale of those changes —reflected in a moderate standard deviation— shows that there is no sustained process of market broadening capable of reshaping the overall risk architecture: the sequence depicts, not a genuine transition towards a diversified portfolio, but the consolidation of a concentrated equilibrium with short-term fluctuations, so the system remains exposed to idiosyncratic shocks in the main destination and the general trend over the period tilts clearly toward the persistence of concentration rather than toward structural diversification.

In

Table 10. Normalized revealed comparative advantage of the Chile’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Brazil	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.86
China	−0.58	−0.74	−0.72	−0.45	−0.50
United States of America	0.04	−0.17	−0.03	−0.13	−0.28
Argentina	0.70	0.79	0.70	0.49	0.40
Mexico	−0.36	−0.24	−0.19	−0.13	−0.15

Note. Own elaboration.

, the normalized revealed comparative advantage values for Chile’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon, when interpreted alongside the destination pattern in Table 8 and the high concentration levels in Table 9, reveal a sharply tiered competitive structure: market averages indicate that Brazil and Argentina form the core of consolidated advantage, with persistently high values within the advantage range and very low temporal dispersion in the former and moderate dispersion in the latter, so that the global maximum is found in Brazil, reinforcing that a large share of export value and of the HHI is driven by a destination where Chile acts as a dominant supplier; at the opposite end, China records clearly negative averages, with all years in the disadvantage band and constituting the minimum of the table, signaling a structurally unfavorable insertion that persists despite recent dynamism in export volumes, and suggesting that growth occurs in an environment of strong competition where Chile fails to secure differentiation. The United States and Mexico lie, on average, within the intra product trade band, though with different profiles: in the former, values oscillate around neutrality and drift toward the lower part of the range, pointing to a gradual erosion of relative position in spite of its importance as a destination, whereas in the latter the trajectory moves from disadvantage toward neutrality, consistent with a growing market in which Chile is gaining space but has not yet converted that into revealed advantage. Classifying all observations shows a slight predominance of advantage episodes over intra product cases and, to a lesser extent, disadvantages, so the overall pattern is that of an export structure in which the concentration captured by the HHI is not only a function of Brazil’s weight, but also of the coexistence of a small group of markets with strong advantage (Brazil and Argentina), a relevant set of partners where competition follows an intra product logic (the United States and Mexico), and a key Asian destination (China) in which persistent disadvantage underlines the competitive constraints facing Chile’s diversification strategy.

3.4. United Kingdom

In

Table 11. Exports of fresh or chilled salmon from the United Kingdom (in million USD).

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
France	240	419	378	338	591
United States of America	134	209	162	174	288
China	18	62	46	59	97
Chinese Taipei	20	15	11	16	34
Ireland	23	18	15	29	19
Others	148	122	102	105	51
Total	583	845	714	721	1080

Note. Data taken from International Trade Center (2025) [43].

, the pattern shows a pronounced expansion in the United Kingdom’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon by 2024, following a growth-and-correction cycle between 2021 and 2023. France and the United States remain the structural anchors of demand, while the sharp 2024 increase points to a reactivation and reallocation of external demand rather than a simple extension of prior momentum. Market concentration intensifies over time: the two leading destinations account for 64.15% of total exports in 2020 and rise to 81.46% in 2024, and the top three markets reach 90.45% in 2024, indicating greater reliance on a small set of buyers and, consequently, higher vulnerability to destination-specific shocks. In parallel, France consolidates its dominance, with its share increasing from 41.17% to 54.77%, consistent with a strengthened European pull and potentially more favorable trade and logistics conditions. By contrast, the “Others” category contracts sharply from 25.39% to 4.73%, signaling a clear loss of geographic diversification. A third salient development is China’s growing relevance, with its share rising from 3.09% to 8.99%, suggesting that Asian demand is becoming a more meaningful, though still secondary, contributor to the recent upswing. Overall, the evidence depicts rapid growth accompanied by rising concentration, which strengthens near-term performance but increases strategic exposure, underscoring the value of safeguarding core markets while rebuilding secondary destinations.

Table 12. Diversification of the United Kingdom’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Years	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
HHI in Value	2342	3170	3388	2912	3800

Note. Own elaboration.

shows that the high HHI values are clearly explained by the destination structure presented in Table 11, where a strong concentration of the United Kingdom’s salmon exports in a very limited number of markets—primarily France and the United States—is evident. In 2020, when the HHI is comparatively lower, exports are somewhat more distributed: France and the United States together account for roughly two-thirds of the total, while the “Others” group represents about one-quarter, introducing a modest degree of diversification. However, by 2024—the year associated with the highest concentration—France alone absorbs more than half of the total export value and, together with the United States, exceeds approximately four-fifths of the total, while the share of “Others” drops to a marginal fraction. This shift from a relatively more balanced pattern to one clearly dominated by two key destinations aligns with the rise in the HHI, as the declining weight of secondary markets and the increasing dependence on a small group of buyers systematically heighten concentration and reinforce the vulnerability of the export basket to shocks affecting those principal markets.

In

Table 13. Normalized revealed comparative advantage of the United Kingdom’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon.

Importers	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
France	0.75	0.80	0.80	0.78	0.82
United States of America	0.23	0.32	0.31	0.27	0.31
China	0.08	0.55	0.18	0.45	0.59
Chinese Taipei	0.78	0.64	0.62	0.69	0.75
Ireland	−0.28	−0.48	−0.53	−0.24	−0.53

Note. Own elaboration.

, the normalized revealed comparative advantage values for the United Kingdom’s exports of fresh or chilled salmon, when read together with the destination structure in Table 11 and the concentration levels in Table 12, depict a markedly asymmetric competitive pattern: France and Chinese Taipei form the core of specialization, with consistently positive and stable advantage indicators that signal structurally entrenched competitiveness, matching their central weight in total exports and accounting for a substantial share of the rise in the HHI; the United States remains persistently within the intra product trade band, indicating a high-absorption market where the United Kingdom’s position is more contested and segment-specific, thereby reinforcing concentration without offering a degree of advantage comparable to that achieved in France; China alternates between intra product and advantage years, reflecting an ongoing but incomplete process of competitive upgrading that increasingly positions it as a diversification market with potential to partially offset dependence on France and the United States; and Ireland concentrates the only recurrent episodes of disadvantage, interspersed with neutral years, signaling a structurally adverse market that, despite its limited weight, delineates the geographical boundary of the United Kingdom’s competitiveness. Taken together, the evidence points to an export structure that is highly concentrated in a small set of high-advantage markets (France and Chinese Taipei), anchored in a large but purely intra product partner (the United States), complemented by an emerging Asian pole (China), and constrained by a localized disadvantage (Ireland), so that the main vulnerability does not stem from a lack of competitiveness, but from excessive reliance on a very narrow group of strategic destinations.

3.5. Comparative Overview

In

Table 14. Comparative Overview of Salmon Exports.

Country	Export Trend (2020–2024)	Key Growth Markets	HHI Trend	Competitiveness
Norway	Total exports increase from 5.63 to 8.07 billion USD (+43.2%), with strong expansion through 2023 and a moderate correction in 2024 that still maintains historically high levels.	Broad European core: in 2024, Poland accounts for 15.5%, Denmark 10.1%, the Netherlands 9.3%, France 8.5%, Spain 7.6%, and “Others” 49.0%, confirming a widely diversified base.	Low concentration: the HHI remains within a narrow band between 800 and 950 points; 2024 stands as the most diversified year.	Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Russia show consistently strong competitive advantages with NRCA values between 0.71 and 0.76; the Netherlands reflects medium but more volatile advantage; the United States remains in an intra product position with negative but near-neutral NRCA values.
Sweden	Exports rise from 3.04 to 3.66 billion USD (+20.5%), with sustained growth until 2023 and a contraction in 2024 that still places totals above 2020 levels.	Fully European structure: Poland represents 19.4%, France 17.7%, Spain 15.4%, Italy 14.4%, the Netherlands 11.1%, and “Others” 22.1%.	Moderate and increasing concentration: the HHI moves from roughly 1140 to 1300 points, indicating a gradual strengthening of the European core.	Belgium and the United Kingdom exhibit very strong and stable advantages with NRCA values around 0.85–0.87; Germany and Italy show strengthening advantages with higher variability; the United States consistently appears in the intra product band with values close to −0.20.
Chile	Exports grow from 0.54 to 1.14 billion USD (+112.3%), but the expansion is anchored in a very narrow geographic base, reinforcing structural vulnerability.	In 2024, Brazil accounts for 71.7%, China 12.1%, the United States 9.4%, Argentina 2.3%, Mexico 1.3%, and “Others” 3.2%, confirming near-total dependence on a single market.	Very high and persistent concentration: the HHI ranges between 4870 and 5610 points, far above the high-concentration threshold.	Brazil shows a structurally dominant advantage with NRCA values near 0.87; Argentina maintains a solid advantage around 0.62; the United States and Mexico fall within the intra product range with slightly negative NRCA averages; China exhibits a persistent competitive disadvantage with values near −0.60.
United Kingdom	Exports rise from 0.58 to 1.08 billion USD (+85.1%), with a sharp acceleration in 2024 driven by a small set of key destinations.	In 2024, France absorbs 54.8%, the United States 26.7%, China 9.0%, Chinese Taipei 3.2%, Ireland 1.8%, and “Others” 4.7%.	High and increasing concentration: the HHI increases from about 2342 to 3800 points, showing a shift toward a structure dominated by France and the United States.	France and Chinese Taipei present strong and stable advantages with NRCA values around 0.79 and 0.70; China shows a progressive improvement in competitive position with values around 0.37; the United States remains an intra product partner; Ireland exhibits a consistent competitive disadvantage with values near −0.41.

, the comparative evidence reveals sharply differentiated export architectures, where Norway and Sweden stand out for combining sustained growth with relatively low-to-moderate concentration levels supported by diversified European portfolios and robust competitive advantages in key regional markets, while Chile and the United Kingdom exhibit expansion driven by highly concentrated destination structures that heighten systemic vulnerability despite strong advantages in their primary partners. Norway’s broad geographic base and stable advantages in Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Russia underpin a resilient configuration with limited exposure to single-market shocks; Sweden, although increasingly anchored in a compact European core, retains a balanced profile reinforced by strong advantages in Belgium and the United Kingdom. By contrast, Chile’s dependence on Brazil—exceeding seventy percent of its export value—produces a structurally fragile pattern further constrained by persistent disadvantage in China and only intermediate performance in the United States and Mexico. The United Kingdom, while achieving substantial growth, mirrors a similar vulnerability by channeling over half of its exports to France, with additional reliance on the United States, and only incremental competitive gains in China. Overall, the table underscores that export sustainability during 2020–2024 is closely tied to diversification and the breadth of competitive advantage: countries with wider market portfolios and multi-market strengths display more stable trajectories, whereas those centered on one or two dominant partners face higher strategic risk and reduced resilience.

4. Conclusions and Discussion

This study provides a descriptive, comparative diagnosis of destination diversification and market-specific competitiveness in fresh/chilled salmon exports, combining the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index with normalized revealed comparative advantage. The evidence shows two broad empirical profiles. On the one hand, Norway and Sweden exhibit export value trajectories supported by comparatively diversified destination structures. Norway maintains a low HHI and a broad geographic portfolio, with NRCA patterns indicating stable competitiveness across multiple markets. Sweden displays moderate and rising concentration, anchored in a dominant destination, while still preserving competitiveness in selected markets. On the other hand, Chile and the United Kingdom present export growth with more concentrated destination portfolios, reflected in persistently high HHI levels. In both cases, NRCA indicates strong competitiveness in specific markets, alongside weaker or neutral positions in others, consistent with an export structure that is more dependent on a limited set of key buyers.

In line with the export diversification literature, broader dispersion across destinations is often interpreted as potentially reducing exposure to demand or policy shocks, whereas higher concentration may increase sensitivity to idiosyncratic disruptions in dominant markets [11]. However, the present analysis remains strictly descriptive and does not test hypotheses, estimate relationships, or identify causal mechanisms linking diversification to export “resilience”. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as comparative patterns of concentration and competitiveness rather than as evidence of optimal diversification strategies or resilience outcomes.

For Sweden, the combination of moderate concentration and sustained competitiveness suggests a strategy that consolidates performance in a leading market while maintaining selective positions elsewhere, which is consistent with evidence that diversification can evolve through phased market rebalancing rather than uniform dispersion [28]. For Chile and the United Kingdom, strong competitiveness concentrated in a small set of markets implies both opportunities and potential exposure: continued growth can be supported by deepening established high-NRCA markets, but additional destination broadening could reduce dependence on dominant buyers without implying any specific “optimal” portfolio. The United Kingdom’s pattern is consistent with destination-specific adjustments observed in other agri-food contexts, where competitiveness can remain strong in anchor markets while performance varies across secondary destinations [27].

Conceptually, the contribution of this paper is primarily diagnostic and comparative. By combining HHI (as a concentration signal) with NRCA (as a market-specific competitiveness signal), the study provides a parsimonious dashboard that helps identify whether export growth is accompanied by broad market reach or by reliance on a limited set of destinations, and where competitive strengths are concentrated. This approach aligns with prior applications that pair concentration measures with revealed-advantage indicators to characterize trade structures and track market positioning [9,39,40,41]. Importantly, this diagnostic does not, by itself, establish explanatory claims about why these patterns arise or how they translate into resilience.

From a policy perspective, the descriptive evidence suggests that diversification priorities should be market-specific and guided by where competitiveness is already present or improving. Chile’s portfolio is heavily concentrated in Brazil (71.7% of 2024 exports) and its NRCA is strongly positive there (~0.87) while remaining persistently negative in China (~−0.60), so near-term risk reduction is more plausibly achieved by consolidating the anchor market and incrementally expanding where the NRCA gap is smaller (e.g., the United States and Mexico) rather than treating China as the main diversification pivot. By contrast, the United Kingdom—still concentrated in France (54.8%) and the United States (26.7%)—already ships a non-trivial share to China (9.0%) and shows improving competitiveness there (NRCA ~0.37), making China a more realistic incremental diversification objective, conditional on market-specific sanitary access, cold-chain logistics, and differentiation efforts.

Several limitations follow from the study design. First, the analysis is univariate and descriptive; it does not model covariates, mechanisms, or dynamic adjustments, and thus cannot support causal interpretations. Second, HHI and NRCA are computed from trade values and may be influenced by price changes, exchange rates, logistics costs, and unobserved firm-level strategies. Third, the scope is restricted to HS 030214 and does not address other salmon product forms or broader fisheries categories. Future research could incorporate simple multivariate extensions (panel regressions relating concentration or market shares to prices, exchange rates, freight costs, sanitary measures, or production shocks) and basic robustness checks (e.g., alternative concentration indices and value-versus-volume comparisons). Extending the analysis to additional products and emerging exporters would also help assess how general these comparative patterns are.