Go to content

Annex B.2: Ratings and Criteria

Indicator

Criteria/source

Classes/ranking

Location

Location of main production facility of firm

Application

Capital
Urban
Rural
Same for Danish and local firm

Company size

Permanent employment at the start of B2B for firm

Application

Micro[74] – less than five
Small – 5-49
Medium – 50-249
Large – 250 and over
Same of Danish and local firm

Company age

Year in business before joining the B2B first time

Application

Start-ups – less than three years
Emerging – 3-9 years
Established – 10 years or more
Same for Danish and local firm

Financial Robustness

Profit statement year before start of B2B

Application: That gives turnover, profit, total assets and equity.

To be used where we have sufficient data in the application.

These are only guidelines – the final assessment is left to the analyst:

Strong: At least USD 1 million in equity (DKK 6 million), equity percentage above 20% of assets, and profit above 10% of turnover. (If company has had profit last three years, an average of between 5-10% is sufficient)
Medium: At least DKK 1 million in equity, equity percentage above 15%, and at least break-even
Weak:
The rest…..
Same for Danish and local firm

 

International experience

Prior international experience before joining B2B (from trade or FDI)

For Danish companies – focus on experience from developing countries.

Interviews

None
Some
Considerable (e.g. more than half of turnover derived outside home country)
Same for Danish and local firm

Sector

Main business sector concerning the B2B collaboration

Application

Agro-based
Manufacturing
Services

Broken up in sub-sectors as applicable – in Bangladesh there is two sub-sectors: ICT and Marine manufacturing
Same for Danish and local firm

Other experience B2B

Involvement in another B2B project before or after

Interviews

Yes, before
Yes, after
No
Same for Danish and local firm

B2B Phases

Enrolment in pilot and/or project grant phase

Danida database

Pilot only
Project phase (including DBP is collaboration started in pilot during B2B)

Contact phase

Enrolment in contact phase prior to pilot/project (or similar phase under PD program

Interviews

NB: Only in the sheet for random projects

Yes
No
Same for Danish and local firms

Start year

First enrolment in B2B (or PD)

Danida database

Year (2006 to 2011)

B2B grant approved

Total grant for contact, pilot and project

Danida database

DKK million

Leverage/ support percentage (Ex ante)

Grant as share of total project cost

Application

Percent of grant to total cost (DKK)

Project implementation period

Years between start of B2B (Contact or pilot) and end of disbursements

Application, Quarterly progress reports and interviews

Number of years

B2B Disbursement

Actual disbursement most recent figure. All phases

Danida database

DKK million

Previous experience of the partners before joining B2B

Business relations (such as trade) prior to the programme

Interviews

None
Some
Considerable

Partnership today

Status of partnership at time of Evaluation

Interview, PRC

No
YesWW – working well
YesS – struggling

Sustainability of partnership ex post B2B

Likely on-going partnership when B2B Programme is over in medium term

Judgement based on interviews

Yes
No
Informal

Danish business motive to engage in B2B

Why are the Danish company seeking partnership?

Interview; application

Market extension; exports
Sourcing of raw-material
Outsourcing of production for cost-reasons
Business environment

Danish entry strategy

What form of collaboration is the Danish company seeking?

Application, interviews

JV – Joint venture
JVB – Buy-in
Buy/sell – Buyer-seller relation
Agent – Agency/licensing
Fran – Franchise
MC – Management contract
TA – Technical assistance

Business relation

What relation exist between the production/services of the Danish and local company (Might be deleted at the end)

Horizontal
Vertical

Judicial relation now

Form of collaboration at the time of the Evaluation

Interview

Joint venture
Buy-in
Buyer-seller relation
Agency/licensing
Franchise
None

NB: In a number of cases the partnership may have ended, but the legal JV lives on as it is difficult to close – In these cases rate it according to actual, i.e. a legal JV.

Other Danish support

Loans from IFU; mixed credits as part of the collaboration at the time of the Evaluation

Interview

None
Applied, but rejected (which)
Yes (what)

Change in turnover

Difference in turn-over from baseline to currently in local company (only with relevance to B2B)

Application, progress report, Interviews

Expressed in DKK million per annum

Possible attribution by B2B

Judgement based in material and interviews

None or marginal
Some
High

Change in employment

Difference in employment from baseline to currently in local company or JV (only with relevance to B2B)

Number of jobs

Possible attribution by B2B

Judgement based in material and interviews

None or marginal
Some
High

Change in female employment

Difference in female employment from baseline to currently in local company or JV

Documents and interviews

Number of jobs

Possible attribution by B2B

Judgement based in material and interviews

None or marginal
Some
High

Additionality

To what extent the B2B Programme was critical for the collaboration to take place or for the form it took

Judgement

2 = High (very likely)
1 = Medium (probably likely)
0 = Low (probably it would have happened anyway)

Commercial performance of local company

Turnover and profitability of the local company or joint venture as compared to baseline

-2 = Much worse
-1 = worse
0 = more or less the same
1 = better
2 = much better

Leverage of B2B

To what extent the B2B triggered Danish investment in local company or JV beyond the mandatory matching contribution

0 = None
1 = Some
2 = Considerable

Collaboration between partners

The extent to which partners had a good and equal collaboration overall – even if the business did not work

-2 = Very bad collaboration, complete breakdown in trust
-1 = Bad collaboration, partners disagree and suspect each other
0 = an average, normal business collaboration
1 = a good collaboration, shared perception of business and a reasonable degree of trust
2 = A very good collaboration, high degree of trust and agreement about the business

Spin-off effects

To what extent has the B2B collaboration had spin-off effects?

-2 = Very Negative
-1 = Negative
0 = None
1 = Positive
2 = Very positive

Any rating except for “0” should be given an explanation at the end of the line for that project

Market impact

To the extent the B2B collaboration had an impact on the local market

-2 = Very negative (creation of serious market distortions.
-1 = Negative (creation of some market distortions).
0 = neither negative nor positive impact.
1 = some positive impact such as addressing market failure, reduction of price levels, enhancing competition.
2 = Very positive – creation of markets with significant positive impact for business and customers.

Technology transfer

To what extent the B2B Programme provided skills development, knowhow development and better management culture to local partner

Interviews and documents (progress reports, PCR)

0 = No such transfers
1 = some transfers
2 = considerable transfers

Poverty Orientation

To what extent has the project potential to impact poorer segments of society as clients, consumers, producers, suppliers, workers, etc.?

0 = No particular poverty orientation
1 = Some poverty orientation; some aspects are relevant for poverty
2 = High poverty orientation; project has potentially great relevance

Environmental impact – external

To what extent the B2B Programme contributed to improvement of the external environmental standards of the local company (emissions, etc.)

0 = None
1 = Some
2 = Considerable (major upgrading as compared to baseline)

Environmental impact – internal

To what extent the B2B Programme contributed to improvement of the internal working environmental standards of the local company (safety, etc.)

0 = None
1 = Some
2 = Considerably

CSR impact

To what extent the B2B Programme contributed to improvement of the corporate social responsibility

0 = None
1 = Some
2 = Considerably

Impact on Danish company

To what extent the B2B Programme contributed to changes of the Danish company in terms of commercial performance

-2 = Much worse (e.g. from failed major investment; diversion of management focus)
-1 = Worse
0 = More or less no impact
1 = Better (improvement incommercial performance through new markets, higher turnover, better profitability)
2 = Much better (significant improvement in commercial performance through new markets, higher turnover, better profitability)

Development impact

Overall impact on the B2B Programme towards poverty alleviation such in terms of direct and indirect employment; creation of farm outlets, business development in impoverished areas; improvements of products and services for the poor; correction of market failures of essential value to poor producers or consumers

0 = None
1 = Marginal
2 = Good
3 = Significant
4 = Very significant

Indirect employment

Upstream or downstream employment created

Indication of numbers + explanation

Reasons for failure of the collaboration

What was the main reason for those projects (not pilots) that failed?

An open category – some of the reason can be:
Lack of Danish capacity, financial or otherwise
Lack of local company capacity
Market issues, lack of demand, world prices, etc.
Other organisation of collaboration
Partner dispute/lack of trust
Other


[74] The cut-off point for micro/small is five employees as this is the limit under the DBP for companies eligible under the programme.

Top

This page forms part of the publication "Evaluation of Danida Business-to-Business Programme 2006-2011 – Evaluation 2014.05" as annex b.2
Version no. 1.0, 2014-11-14
Publication may be found at the address http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/14_danida_btb_programme_2006_2011/index.html