How Cork's Good Fish Company became a leviathan of the international frozen-fish industry
Founder Denis Good opened his first shop almost 40 years ago in Carrigaline and quickly began to supply restaurants across Cork. Two retail units in Douglas Court and Kinsale followed, with seven shops open at the height of the company's focus on retail operations.
The company, which employs over 100 people, then expanded into exporting its products to new overseas markets and demand soared, necessitating the new processing facility that's strategically located adjacent to Cork Container Terminal.
Proximity to the port allows immediate export of the fish and seafood processed on site and as well the new M28 motorway (due to open in 2028) means the company will be able to easily transport its products throughout Ireland.
'We are delighted Commissioner McGrath, Commissioner Kadis, and Minister Dooley were able to join us for the official opening of our new location, just two kilometres from Cork's new container terminal,' Donagh Good said.
'Building the facility was essential for us to maintain our current growth and to respond strongly to the ever-increasing demand for high-quality frozen seafood products in the domestic market, in Europe, and further afield.'
'Our focus has always been to provide sustainably sourced fish and seafood and ensuring good quality from dockside to dinner tables. That ethos remains unchanged, though customers are getting more adventurous in their tastes!
"Sustainable practices are at the core of processes at our new facility, so we foresee further development, new markets, a stronger and more capable workforce, and exciting times in our new home in Shanbally, thanks to the support of everyone that helped bring this investment to life," Donagh added.
Commissioner McGrath said: 'I am delighted to welcome this incredibly impressive new facility by the Good Fish Company - an extraordinary Cork success story I've long admired and known personally. The journey started in 1988 when Denis Good opened a fish shop in Carrigaline and now, under the leadership of his son Donagh, the company is opening a state of the art, next generation processing facility in Shanbally.
'With vital EU and Government of Ireland funding behind it, this investment is a major contribution to enhancing Ireland's seafood sector supporting employment and demonstrating the EU's commitment to rural enterprise and innovation. I wish the Good family and their staff continued success in the years ahead.'
Good Fish has received support from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, and Ireland's Seafood Development Programme, which is co-funded by the Government of Ireland and the EU as part of the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund.
'This factory marks the beginning of another new chapter in the Good Fish story,' Donagh Good concluded. 'Building on more than 35 years of hard work, innovation, and dedication that came before me, we're excited about the developments to come while maintaining the same high-quality standards in service and products that Good Fish is renowned for.'
Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trump's global tariff agenda puts Ireland's pharmaceutical industry at serious risk
The whole world is in thrall to the whims of Donald Trump's tariff agenda, as it has been since the 47th president of the United States' swearing-in last January. We've learned a few uncomfortable truths along the way. Much of the early outcry from America's allies and trading partners surrounded the lack of economic logic to the imposition of tariffs – which are effectively a tax for Americans on foreign products, in theory making them less attractive to US consumers and heightening the allure of their own domestic suppliers. Critics said that the new regime would disrupt the world economy needlessly and perhaps bring about a global recession. That may well come to pass. The problem is that in this stand-off America has the greater wherewithal in terms of raw economic power. It holds the cards as Trump himself might say. And nations worldwide are beginning to fall into line, the EU just the latest after agreeing to a blanket 15% tariff on goods and services going forward. After President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump agreed the trade deal, the spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Photo:The spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Whether that represents capitulation in the face of bullyboy tactics, given that little or nothing has been asked of the US in return, is a separate conversation. Ireland's pharmaceutical industry Here in Ireland we have a bigger problem though, and that problem is the pharmaceutical industry. That industry contributes massively to the economy here via billions of euro in corporation tax contributions, with about 90 companies employing 50,000 people in highly-paid roles. A total 30,000 of those jobs are with American firms. Should foreign pharmaceutical concerns exit Ireland the impact on the country would be catastrophic. The industry globally had pleaded with Trump for it to be exempted from any tariff regime, ostensibly for altruistic reasons – that lifesaving medicines shouldn't be subject to capricious taxation. At an EU level, the industry asked that the bloc not apply reciprocal tariffs, one wish that has at least been granted. Pfizer is one of the massive American pharmaceutical companies holding bases in Ireland, in this case Cork. File picture: Dan Linehan Oddly enough, in Trump's world of permanent grievance where everyone has been making a sucker of the United States for decades, the outsize presence the US pharmaceutical industry holds in Ireland is one situation on which he indisputably has a legitimate point. Drug prices in the US can retail for as much as five times what an EU citizen would pay. Meanwhile, American pharma firms make a pretty penny avoiding American tax by basing themselves here. Trump's protectionist agenda demands that those jobs and companies should return home. The Government has been worrying about and planning for a worst-case scenario in terms of tariffs on pharmaceuticals for months. Reaction from the pharma companies But what of the pharma industry itself? The official line from the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA), the industry's lobby group here, is that it is reviewing the announcements coming out of Washington as and when they happen 'as key implications for the pharmaceutical sector remain uncertain'. A stance it's hard to argue with given the whole world has grown used to the haphazard nature of the Trump administration's demands. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) notes that tariffs are 'a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic'. It added that if the goal is to rebalance trade and ensure a 'fairer distribution' of how pharmaceutical innovation is financed, then 'there are more effective means than tariffs that would help'. Impact on pharma in Ireland The IDA, the body with prime responsibility for attracting foreign investment to Irish shores, says of the pharma implications that it 'welcomes' the deal made between Europe and the US, arguing it provides 'much-needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world'. 'We are very much reliant (on the US market), there's no arguing with that,' says one industry insider. Last year a massive €44bn in pharmaceutical products were exported directly from Ireland to the US. 'But when you stand back €100bn was exported globally. So half went to America, but it's not like all business went there, though it is certainly the biggest partner,' says the source. That doesn't mean that those massive American companies holding bases here – MSD, Pfizer, ELI Lilly, Johnson and Johnson etc – are about to up sticks on the back of the new tariff regime. 'They are not going to leave today or tomorrow, no. But it could definitely impact future investment decisions,' the source says. One of the problems is that a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the 15% tariff agreement, particularly with regard to pharma. One of the Eli Lilly production buildings at its state-of-the-art facility in Dunderrow, Kinsale, Co Cork. For starters, most people concerned thought that the pharmaceutical industry wasn't to be included in the deal. Then about two hours after the deal was agreed European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said it would be included, a point Trump appeared to back up. The following day the White House produced a 'fact sheet' describing how the new regime would work, and affirming the 15% rate for pharma. Except that the same sheet stated that the European Union would pay the tariff – which isn't how tariffs work. Then there is the Section 232 investigation which the US Department of Commerce initiated into the pharma industry in April – aiming to establish if how the pharmaceutical system worldwide currently functions impacts negatively on the US from a national security standpoint. Should the answer arrived at be a 'yes', then additional tariffs on pharma may well follow (such investigations typically take a minimum of six months to conclude, so we'll probably get an answer sometime towards the end of the year). 'Pharma plans in the long-term,' says Aidan Meagher, tax partner specialising in life sciences with consultants EY, noting that most pharma manufacturers will have been planning for this scenario for months and will have frontloaded stock into the American market, thus negating immediate impacts in the near term. He says that companies will be likely looking at 'dual sourcing' initiatives, supplying the American market from within the US itself and using Irish operations for its trade around the rest of the globe. 'Ireland needs to up its game' But Meagher says that it would be 'remiss' of Ireland, and the pharma industry here, to take a 'wait and see' approach, perhaps with the supposition that Trump's policies will last for the remaining three-and-a-half years of his term, and no longer. 'It is all about the next investment. A lot of these drugs only have patent protection for a certain life or longevity. Ireland needs to maintain investment and to incentivise the right kind of activity in terms of attracting that innovation,' he says. That means thinking outside the box in terms of tax credits for research and development, and improvements to infrastructure, particularly housing, Meagher says, areas in which we are notably lagging behind in terms of international competition. But he argues that the situation is far from a doomsday scenario. 'It's not as simple as that, it's a whole range of business factors that need to be considered – it's all about impacts for specific companies,' he says. 'It's not all necessarily doom and gloom. Companies have had plenty of time to consider this. And pharma companies are long-term thinkers. Ireland has had just two issues with the FDA (the US food and drug administration, responsible for approving new drugs) in its history. "The country has a strong reputation. These countries have invested significantly and Ireland is the owner of a lot of valuable intellectual property.' But it's certainly not a time to be complacent, Meagher argues. 'We have dropped down the competitiveness radar, and our competitors now aren't in the EU – they're in Switzerland, Singapore and the US itself. We need to be a top competitor for inward investment, and R&D and infrastructure will be critical. That is where Ireland needs to up its game.'
Irish Examiner
9 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trading principles for predictability — what the EU gave up to avoid a tariff war
In the hours following the announcement that the US and EU had struck a deal last weekend on tariffs, European reaction was mixed. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the deal, which imposes 15% tariffs on most items going both ways, "creates certainty in uncertain times" and "delivers stability and predictability, for citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic" as she tried to sell the deal to the 27 EU member states. But if Ms von der Leyen expected a lap of honour to ease her troubled start to her second term, one was not coming. "It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission," French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X of what he called the "von der Leyen-Trump deal". German Chancellor Friedrich Merz himself initially appeared satisfied, saying that the agreement "succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard". But by Monday, amid cross-party criticism, Mr Merz said the deal would "substantially damage" his nation's finances, but acknowledged that the negotiating team "couldn't expect to achieve any more" as Mr Trump's willingness to enter into a 30% trade war was apparent. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, an ally of Mr Trump, said the US president "ate von der Leyen for breakfast" while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he would support it "without any enthusiasm". Across the bloc, there has been criticism of Europe's perceived capitulation, with many echoing Mr Bayrou's sentiments that it poses fundamental questions about the cohesiveness of the project. German Green MP Sandra Detzer told her parliament that the EU "has agreed to a deal that abandons fundamental principles of rules-based global trade, instead of long-term stability". Ms Detzer's alarm is representative of a particular sharp end of the deal. According to one think tank, the deal will cost the German economy around €6.5bn in terms of its GDP in the first year, while experts have slashed the country's growth forecasts in recent months. Fabio de Masi, a German MEP, told EuroNews this week that not only was the deal bad, it was "a betrayal" for which Ms von der Leyen should resign. The bloc is set to face 15% tariffs on most of its goods including cars, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals entering the US, and 'zero for zero' tariffs on a number of products including aircraft, some agricultural goods and certain chemicals – as well as EU purchases of US energy worth €643bn over three years. But as the tariffs were set to kick in on Friday, the two sides had not agreed on all of the details, which Ms von der Leyen's commission has stressed will be a "set of principles" and not a trade deal. On Thursday, commission spokesperson Olof Gill said that "from there will flow the additional negotiated exemptions that we're looking to bake into our agreement with the US". Drinks tariffs What shape those carveouts take is still to be decided, with a 15% tariff applying until they are. That is of particular concern to the drinks industry across the continent. From Irish whiskey to French and Spanish wines, exporters across Europe have been arguing for a carveout on their products. The US tariff on European spirits is currently 10%. Brussels is keen to reduce that to zero or, for wine at least, to the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rates that are set on a fixed cost per litre basis, rather than in percentage terms. Until recently, spirits had benefited from zero tariffs between the US and EU following an agreement in 1997 that also included other countries such as Canada and Japan. That lasted until 2018, when the EU response to US steel and aluminium tariffs included increased duties on US bourbon and other spirits. These were suspended in 2021. From Irish whiskey to French and Spanish wines, exporters across Europe have been arguing for a carveout on their products. File photo US most-favoured-nation rates for wine are 19.8c per litre for sparkling and 6.3c per litre for most other wine, which equates to very low rates in most cases. But as Mr Trump signed an executive order overnight into Friday, there was no movement on the exemption and the drinks industry will, for now at least, pay the 15% rate. With EU officials privately briefing Reuters that negotiations could run into late autumn, that will mean financial pain for those businesses in the short-term, at least. Speaking to journalists at a press conference on Thursday, commission spokesperson Olof Gill said: 'The commission remains determined to achieve and secure the maximum number of carve-outs, including for traditional EU products such as wine and spirits. 'It is not our expectation that wine and spirits would be included as an exemption in the first group announced by the US tomorrow, and therefore that sector, as with all other economic sectors, will be captured by the 15% ceiling.' Motor tariffs In Germany, a number of car manufacturers revised down profit guidance on the back of the tariffs, which will face a 15% tariff as well, but for BMW, the impact of the agreement was "exaggerated". 'I think this tariff discussion is way exaggerated and also its effects on the industry,' chief executive Oliver Zipse told the Financial Times. 'What's more important is the question, are the products attractive?' Carveouts At Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, enterprise minister Peter Burke updated ministers on the detail of the weekend's agreement, telling journalists that there will be exemptions to the tariff regime, with aviation one for which Ireland had successfully argued alongside others. 'The key thing is that there will be a number of carveouts. Obviously, aviation has been cited as zero-for-zero, but also in relation to agri-foods and potentially spirits.' Ireland, like many other countries, is banking on the carveouts agreed protecting key sectors like agri-foods and that the rate for pharmaceuticals would not exceed 15%. Like many countries across Europe, ministers here are privately saying that the deal is far from ideal, but also query what else is to be done. By Friday, they could point to Mr Trump's executive order, which imposed tariffs on many countries with whom he had not negotiated. But there is also acceptance that the tariff regime brings with it a new reality, one with which the EU needs to grapple. If countries are arguing for exceptions, how does the European negotiating team balance those interests? And what will the reaction be when the final deal is reached?
RTÉ News
9 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Stress test shows AIB and BOI could withstand an economic shock
An EU wide bank stress test has found that the country's two largest banks currently hold enough capital to withstand an economic shock. The European Banking Authority exercise was conducted on a sample of 64 banks from 17 EU and EEA countries, covering 75% of EU banking sector assets. The results indicate that the largest EU banks would be resilient to a severe hypothetical stress scenario over a three-year period from 2025 to 2027. It assumes a simultaneous and prolonged recession across the EU and other advanced economies, driven by severe global disruptions. Under the scenario, the disruptions are caused by escalating geopolitical tension, particularly in the Middle East, and a rise in protectionist trade policies worldwide, including tariffs. It concluded AIB's transitional Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio - an important measure of a bank's financial strength - would stand at 13.4%. While the CET1 capital ratio for Bank of Ireland would stand at 13.9% under the adverse stress test scenario. Both are above the average 12% CET1 capital ratio, which is up from the avearge 10.4% in the 2023 exercise. AIB's Chief Financial Officer, Donal Galvin, said the bank's result of 13.4% fully loaded CET1 in the EBA's hypothetical adverse scenario "demonstrates our high capital base and capital resilience in the EBA adverse scenario". "AIB continues to be very well-capitalised with a CET1 ratio of 16.4% (1) at H1 2025 which remains substantially in excess of regulatory requirements," he added. The EBA said the strong performance of the EU banks in the 2025 stress test "is reassuring, nonetheless, this should not lead to complacency among banks or supervisors". The Director of Banking & Payments Supervision at the Central Bank, Domhnall Cullinan said: "On balance, the scenario in use for the EU area is broadly aligned with the 2023 exercise but the impact of the stress test is milder than the results from that exercise. "This is mainly due to banks entering the exercise with stronger profitability, and stable asset quality," he added. Mr Cullinan said despite prevailing uncertainty, "the benefits of resilience built up in recent years are evident, with banks having sufficient capital to absorb the impact of the severe scenario." "Given the uncertainty, there remains a need to maintain and continue to build resilience, both financial and non-financial."
