3. Vulnerability of Imports

This chapter defines import vulnerability based on three criteria met simultaneously: high concentration of sourcing, reliance on regions outside Europe, and low capacity for domestic substitution. The results reveal large disparities in the reliance on potentially vulnerable imports across the Nordic region. Norway and Denmark face the highest proportion of vulnerable imports, suggesting greater exposure to supply chain shocks. In sharp contrast, Iceland and Sweden show remarkably low shares of vulnerable intermediate goods.

The sourcing regions for these critical, vulnerable inputs differ significantly from general trade patterns, as they typically originate outside of Europe. The US is the leading source of vulnerable goods for Denmark and Sweden, while China holds this position for Finland and Iceland. Norway’s risk exposure is the most globally dispersed, relying heavily on the Rest of the World and Other BRIC+ countries for these sensitive materials. Vulnerability is often highly concentrated in a small selection of products, such as petroleum products for Denmark or lithium-ion accumulators for Finland.

3.1 How to track vulnerabilities in imports?

In this chapter, our goal is to analyze foreign sourcing by Nordic countries that may become vulnerable in geopolitical or other crises. To reach this goal, we build on a data driven bottom-up approach and use the imports data of Nordic countries in high granularity.

To track the potentially vulnerable imported products, we rely on the methodology proposed originally by European Commission (2021) and further enhanced by Arjona et. al. (2023). Both these previous studies analyzed imports at the EU level and did not make distinction between final and intermediate goods. From the perspective of global value chains in a single country, Ali-Yrkkö et. al. (2025) enhanced the method by focusing only on a single country and distinguishing intermediate goods from final goods.

Our analysis is based on the trade of goods data on annual level from the Nordic NSIs. This data includes detailed information on bilateral trade flows of each Nordic country with virtually all countries in the world. As mentioned before, we concentrate on the upstream value chains by analyzing how the imports of intermediate goods have developed. To examine value chains, we use the data in HS6 digit level.

Following the previously mentioned studies, we use three criteria to identify products whose imports may prove vulnerable in crisis situations. These criteria are the concentration of imports, the share of extra-Europe imports and import substitution by domestic production. The method is described in detail in Box 3.1.

Box. 3.1. Method to measure vulnerability

The first criterion is a low level of import diversification which describes the concentration of imports from few countries. To reduce the dependence on a single or a few countries, importers may seek to decentralize their supplier base. We utilize Herfindahl-Hirchman index to measure concentration of intermediate goods’ imports. For each intermediate product (p) that Nordic country c, we calculate the index (

HHI_-M_{i,c}^p

) as follows (Equation 1):

1.	HHI_-M_{i,c}^p=\sum_{i\mathop=1}^n\left(s_{i,c,p}\right)

, where s_i,c,p is the share of exporter country i of the product’s p total imports to the Nordic importer country c.

The second indicator (

EXT_-EUR_-SHARE_c^p

) describes what share of product’s p imports to country c is imported from outside of Europe. This indicator is calculated as follows (Equation 2):

2.	EXT_-EUR_-SHARE_c^p=\frac{EXT_-EUR_-IMP_c^p}{IMP_c^p}

The third criterion (

SUBST_c^p

) indicates to what degree extra-Europe imports could be substituted by domestic production (Equation 3). To proxy the available domestic capacity for domestic use, we use exports.

3.	SUBST_c^p=\frac{EXT_-EUR_-IMP_c^p}{EXP_c^p}

where

EXT_-EUR_-IMP_c^p

is the imports of product p to Nordic country c which is imported outside Europe, and

EXP_c^p

is Nordic country c’s total exports of product p.

Each of the 5,200 traded goods (HS 6-digit level) was evaluated based on these criteria, and products that satisfied thresholds were selected. To define the vulnerable imports, we used the same limits as Arjona et. al. (2023) and Ali-Yrkkö et.al. (2025). It should be noted, however, that in our case criteria 2 and 3 were calculated by using Europe and not the EU, as in the studies by Arjona et. al. (2023) and Ali-Yrkkö et.al. (2025). Any product p is classified as vulnerable if the following thresholds are met:

Concentration:

HHI_-M_{i,c}^p

>0.4
Share of Extra-Europe imports:

EXT_-EUR_-SHARE_c^p

>50%
Substitution:

SUBST_c^p

≥1.

In other words, all three of these thresholds must be met for a product to be classified as vulnerable.

Note: To define Europe, we include all EU countries, EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) and the UK.

3.2 Vulnerability differences and similarities between Nordic countries

When we sum up the import values of vulnerable products, it turned out that a significant share of imports of intermediate goods can be seen as vulnerable. However, not all Nordic countries are similar for there are rather large differences between Nordics (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Share of vulnerable intermediate goods imports in Nordic countries, % (2024)

Note: Share of vulnerable intermediate goods’ imports of the total intermediate goods’ imports.

The vulnerability of intermediate goods imports in 2024 varies significantly across the Nordic countries, with Norway and Denmark showing the highest shares. Norway has the largest exposure, with 14.5% of its total intermediate goods imports being categorized as vulnerable, closely followed by Denmark at 9.4%. This suggests that a substantial portion of their imported supply inputs is potentially susceptible to external disruptions.

In contrast, Iceland and Sweden demonstrate remarkably low vulnerability shares, at 1.2% and 2.6% respectively, indicating much more resilient or diversified sourcing for their intermediate goods. Finland falls in the middle range with 7.7%. The wide disparity in these figures suggests varying degrees of value chain risk across the Nordic region.

To provide more detailed information on the vulnerabilities, we also present the fulfillment of vulnerability criteria separately (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Fulfilment of vulnerability criteria, % of imports value of intermediate products (2024)

	(a) Concentration criterion is met		(b) Extra-Europe criterion is met		(c) Substitution criterion is met		(d) All 3 criteria are met
	%	Number of goods	%	Number of goods	%	Number of goods	%	Number of goods
Denmark	26.1%	1,664	28.7%	902	19.9%	654	9.4%	262
Finland	38.4%	1,484	22.0%	734	46.8%	1,122	7.7%	232
Iceland	35.5%	1,488	32.4%	584	38.2%	643	1.2%	44
Norway	28.7%	1,316	34.0%	698	55.8%	1,308	14.5%	170
Sweden	16.7%	1,447	8.7%	490	28.7%	684	2.6%	61
Average	29.1%		25.2%		37.9%		7.3%

The breakdown of the vulnerability measure reveals rather high shares across its different criteria (Table 3.1). These individual shares are significantly higher than the final vulnerability measure, which requires all three criteria to be met in order to classify a product as vulnerable.

The imports of intermediate goods are rather concentrated in all Nordic countries except for Sweden. In Finland, for instance, as much as 38% of the total intermediate goods imports can be classified as concentrated (column a, Table 3.1).

Sweden also differs concerning the role of extra-European sources. More than 30% of Iceland’s and Norway’s intermediate imports originate from outside the European region, while in Sweden the corresponding share is remarkably lower (column b, Table 3.1). Regarding the substitution criterion, close to 56% of Norway’s intermediate goods imports would be hard to replace with domestic production (column c, Table 3.1).

But where exactly are the Nordic countries sourcing these vulnerable products? This is the question we address next.

The analysis reveals that the primary sourcing regions for vulnerable intermediate goods imports differ sharply between Nordic countries (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Import of vulnerable goods broken down by region/country, % (2024)

*Due to confidentiality the percentages do not add to 100%.

The US is the overwhelmingly dominant source of vulnerable goods for Denmark (55.0%) and Sweden (41.3%), indicating these countries' critical reliance on US supply chains for sensitive inputs. In contrast, China is the primary source of vulnerable goods for Finland (37.8%) and Iceland (31.3%), suggesting their specific vulnerability lies more with supply chain issues originating in China.

Norway exhibits the most diversified and least dependent profile on a single country, with the Rest of the World (RoW) being its largest source at 34.7%, followed by Other BRIC (22.7%), suggesting its vulnerable imports are highly dispersed globally.

Imports from Other Nordic and Other European countries contribute relatively small shares to the vulnerable goods basket across most countries, rarely exceeding 15%. This suggests that while Europe is the main source of total imports, the most vulnerable inputs are sourced from non-European global powers.

Sweden shows the most concentrated sourcing, with the US alone accounting for roughly half of its vulnerable goods. Conversely, Norway and Iceland rely heavily on the RoW and Other BRIC regions for their vulnerable inputs, signaling more complex global dependencies.

3.3 Vulnerabilities in the Nordics

Next, we delve deeper into vulnerabilities by examining them at the country and product level. We will find out which vulnerable import products are the most significant in terms of import value and where they are imported from.

3.3.1 Denmark

Of all 3,268 intermediate goods imported by Danish enterprises in 2024, 262 can be characterized as vulnerable goods. The import amounted to EUR 3.9 billion or 9.4% of total intermediate goods’ imports to Denmark in 2024.

Of the import of vulnerable goods, the imports from non-European countries constituted EUR 3.1 billion or 79.4% of all imported vulnerable goods. The dominant export country of vulnerable goods to Denmark was the US (55,0%), followed by the other Nordic countries (14.1%), China (11.1%), BRICS+ (except China) (8.0%), other Europe (6.6%) and the Rest of World (5.2%).

Table 3.2 Top 5 vulnerable products imported by Denmark (2024)

Product	HS code	Imports, million EUR	Share of total imports of vulnerable products, %
Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude	270900	2,625	67.3%
Semi-finished products of iron or non-alloy steel containing, by weight, < 0,25% of carbon	720712	358	9.2%
Cyclic amides, incl. cyclic carbamates, and their derivatives; etc.	292429	144	3.7%
Photovoltaic cells assembled in modules or made up into panels	854143	130	3.3%
Ball bearings	848210	91	2.3%
Total		3,347	85.9%

The Danish import of vulnerable goods is highly concentrated, as the Top 5 imported vulnerable goods constituted as much as 85.9% of total imported vulnerable goods. Petroleum products are by far Denmark's most significant vulnerable product group, as they account for over two-thirds of Denmark's total vulnerable intermediate goods imports.

Denmark imports one-fifth (20%) of its petroleum oils from other Nordic countries, but the vast majority originates from the US (Table 3.3). In contrast to the sourcing patterns of other Nordic countries, China is the most important sourcing region for three of Denmark's five most important vulnerable goods.

Furthermore, from the Danish perspective, other BRIC+ countries are a particularly important region for sourcing semi-finished products of iron or non-alloy steel.

Table 3.3 Imports of Denmark’s Top 5 vulnerable goods by region, % (2024)

Product	Nordic	Other Europe	The US	China	Other Bric+	Rest of the World
Petroleum oils etc.	20.1%	2.5%	73.5%	0.0%	0.0%	3.9%
Semi-finished products of iron or non-alloy steel etc.	0.0%	15.0%	0.0%	11.0%	74.0%	0.0%
Cyclic amides, incl. cyclic carbamates etc.	0.2%	7.1%	22.1%	70.6%	0.0%	0.0%
Photovoltaic cells assembled in modules etc.	0.2%	18.3%	0.0%	81.1%	0.0%	0.4%
Ball bearings	0.9%	30.6%	1.7%	65.5%	0.0%	1.3%
Average	4.3%	14.7%	19.5%	45.6%	14.8%	1.1%

3.3.2 Finland

In 2024, Finland imported vulnerable intermediate products worth 3.1 billion euros, representing 7.7% of total imports of intermediate goods.

The great majority of these vulnerable imports came from non-European countries. The major sourcing areas are China (40.9%) and the US (25.7%). Finland sourced only few per cent (3.5%) of vulnerable imports from other Nordic countries, and 5.9% from other Europe. Close to one-fifth (18.8%) of vulnerable intermediate goods were imported from the rest of the world.

Notwithstanding Finland’s import of vulnerable goods is not as concentrated as in Denmark, the share of Top5 vulnerable goods is substantial accounting for two-thirds (65.9%) of total imports of vulnerable goods.

Product	HS code	Imports, million EUR	Share of total imports of vulnerable products, %
Lithium-ion accumulators (excl. spent)	850760	1,167	38.0%
Precious-metal ores and concentrates (excl. silver ores)	261690	284	9.2%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	290110	246	8.0%
Tall oil, whether or not refined	380300	180	5.8%
Butanes, liquefied (excl. of a purity of >= 95% of N-butane or isobutane)	271113	147	4.8%
Total		2,023	65.9%

Table 3.4 Top 5 vulnerable products imported by Finland (2024)

Notwithstanding, the US is the most important sourcing region for tall oil imported by Finland; however, nearly one-fourth of its import volume comes from other Nordic countries (Table 3.5). Other Nordic countries also play a role in the sourcing of liquefied butane.

Out of the Top 5 vulnerable imported goods for Finland, China has a significant direct role only in lithium-ion accumulators. The US, in turn, plays a significant role in three of these products. Furthermore, one hundred percent of imported precious-metal ores and concentrates comes from the rest of the world region.

Table 3.5 Imports of Finland’s Top 5 vulnerable goods by region, % (2024)

Product	Nordic	Other Europe	The US	China	Other Bric+	Rest of the World
Lithium-ion accumulators (excl. spent)	1.4%	4.7%	1.3%	81.1%	0.0%	11.5%
Precious-metal ores and concentrates	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	0.0%	0.5%	99.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Tall oil, whether or not refined	23.6%	3.5%	72.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Butanes, liquefied	14.2%	16.7%	68.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.3%
Average	7.8%	5.1%	48.5%	16.2%	0.0%	22.4%

3.3.3 Iceland

In 2024, vulnerable imported intermediate goods worth EUR 46 million were imported into Iceland, accounting for 1.2% of total imports of intermediate goods. Compared to other Nordic countries, in Iceland, the share of vulnerable goods is substantially lower.

The largest single source of potential vulnerability is China, which supplies a substantial 31.3% of these inputs. This is closely followed by the rest of the world, contributing 21.3%, the other BRIC+ countries at 17.0%, and the US at 15.2%.

Other European countries (12.5%) and the Other Nordic region (2.8%) play only a minor role in supplying these vulnerable goods.

Product	HS code	Imports, million EUR	Share of total imports of vulnerable products, %
Parts of telephone sets, telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks	851779	8	18.2%
Bars or rods, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-formed or cold-finished and further worked	721590	5	11.2%
Under-carriages and parts thereof, for aircraft, n.e.s.	880720	5	10.9%
Aerials and aerial reflectors of all kinds, of telephone sets, telephones for cellular networks	851771	5	10.0%
Coniferous wood in chips or particles	440121	4	7.9%
Total		27	58.3%

Table 3.6 Top5 vulnerable products imported by Iceland (2024)

Among the Top 5 vulnerable goods imported by Iceland, there are two products where China plays a particularly important direct role (Table 3.7). In four of these product categories, other Nordic countries have some involvement, though their role is generally small.

Other BRIC+ countries constitute a crucial import sourcing region for iron/steel bars and rods, while the US remains critical for undercarriages for aircraft. Finally, close to 85% of coniferous wood in chips is imported from the rest of the world region.

Table 3.7 Imports of Iceland’s Top 5 vulnerable goods by region, % (2024)

Product	Nordic	Other Europe	The US	China	Other Bric+	Rest of the World
Parts of telephone sets, telephones etc.	4.9%	11.7%	7.7%	73.0%	0.0%	2.7%
Bars or rods, of iron or non-alloy steel etc.	0.2%	3.5%	0.0%	0.0%	96.2%	0.0%
Under-carriages and parts thereof, for aircraft, n.e.s.	0.0%	22.4%	68.2%	0.0%	0.1%	9.3%
Aerials and aerial reflectors, of telephone sets etc.	3.5%	9.1%	1.8%	81.1%	0.0%	4.5%
Coniferous wood in chips or particles	5.6%	9.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	84.7%
Average	2.8%	11.3%	15.6%	30.8%	19.3%	20.2%

3.3.4 Norway

Norway's import profile for vulnerable intermediate goods is notably more globally diverse than that of its Nordic neighbors, with risks broadly distributed across several non-European regions.

Unlike Denmark and Sweden, Norway's largest source of vulnerable inputs is the Rest of the World (RoW), accounting for 34.7% of the total. The second most significant source is the other BRIC+ category, which supplies 22.7%, underscoring a high reliance on emerging and developing economies for vulnerable goods.

The United States and China contribute similar, moderately high shares: The US is responsible for 17.8% and China for 15.2% of these vulnerable imports. Both the other European countries (7.5%) and the other Nordic region (2.1%) play a minimal role.

Product	HS code	Imports, million EUR	Share of total imports of vulnerable products, %
Nickel mattes	750110	1,853	4.4%
Aluminium oxide (excl. artificial corundum)	281820	1,121	2.7%
Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers, n.e.s.	841191	431	1.0%
Turbojets of a thrust > 25 kN	841112	394	0.9%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	290110	272	0.6%
Total		4,070	9.7%

Table 3.8 Top 5 vulnerable products imported by Norway (2024)

The imports of Norway’s imports of vulnerable goods are not as concentrated as in other Nordic countries (Table 3.8). In Norway, Top 5 vulnerable goods account for less than 10% of the total vulnerable goods’ imports. This is remarkably less than the Nordic average (57.6%).

Nickel is the only Top 5 vulnerable good imported by Norway where other Nordic countries play a significant role (Table 3.9). The US is the most important import source for three of the goods, while China has no direct role in sourcing these particular products. Furthermore, the BRIC+ region is a particularly important sourcing area for aluminum oxide.

Table 3.9 Imports of Norway’s Top 5 vulnerable goods by region, % (2024)

Product	Nordic	Other Europe	The US	China	Other Bric+	Rest of the World
Nickel mattes	19.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	80.3%
Aluminum oxide (excl. artificial corundum)	0.0%	21.3%	0.1%	0.0%	78.6%	0.0%
Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers, n.e.s.	0.7%	21.4%	75.1%	0.0%	0.3%	3.1%
Turbojets of a thrust > 25 kN	0.0%	37.2%	57.7%	0.0%	0.0%	5.1%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	0.0%	4.1%	95.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Average	4.1%	16.6%	45.7%	0.0%	15.8%	17.7%

3.3.5 Sweden

In contrast to other Nordic countries, the United States is by far the dominant source of these vulnerable inputs, accounting for 41.3% of the total, making Sweden highly exposed to vulnerable inputs originating in the US.

The second largest source is the rest of the world, contributing a substantial 31.7%. China is the third largest source at 16.9%, while Other European countries account for only 6.0%. The contributions from Other Nordic (0.9%) and Other BRIC+ (3.1%) are minimal.

The Swedish import of vulnerable goods is quite concentrated, as the Top 5 imported vulnerable goods constituted 65.3% of total imported vulnerable goods (Table 3.10).

Product	HS code	Imports, million EUR	Share of total imports of vulnerable products, %
Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic uses	300290	449	27.9%
Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, non-agglomerated	270112	444	27.7%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	290110	312	14.8%
Sulphates of nickel	283324	73	4.5%
Plates, separators and other parts of electric accumulators, n.e.s.	850790	64	3.1%
Total		1,332	65.3%

Table 3.10 Top 5 vulnerable products imported by Sweden (2024)

The source regions for these Top 5 most vulnerable imported goods vary significantly (Table 3.11). Almost 100% of blood imported to Sweden originated in the US (97.1%) in 2024. This dependence is less pronounced when averaging over the top five vulnerable goods, but the US remained the single most important source representing 44.5% of the import of these five vulnerable intermediate goods.

Table 3.11 Imports of Sweden’s Top 5 vulnerable goods by region, % (2024)

Product	Nordic	Other Europe	The US	China	Other Bric+	Rest of the World
Human blood etc.	0.1%	0.2%	97.1%	0.0%	2.6%	0.0%
Bituminous coal	0.0%	7.9%	25.7%	1.3%	0.0%	65.2%
Saturated acyclic hydrocarbons	0.4%	1.3%	98.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Sulphates of nickel	0.2%	7.1%	22.1%	70.6%	0.0%	0.0%
Plates, separators etc.	7.4%	15.3%	1.3%	74.2%	0.0%	1.8%
Average	1.6%	5.4%	44.5%	15.1%	0.5%	32.9%