ElevareExport - Founder Perspectives

---

Most conversations I have around FDI tend to focus on attraction: who is landing projects, which locations are performing, who is “winning”.

But to be honest, I have always found the more interesting question is the other way around: where are companies actually putting their money, and how does that link to how they sell into those markets?

That side of the story has shifted quite a bit over the past couple of years.

From what I am seeing, despite global implications and tariffs things have not stopped, but they have slowed down in terms of pace and confidence.

There is still capital moving. Trade is still happening. But everything feels a bit more… considered.

• Decisions take longer
• There’s more internal challenge before anything gets signed off
• Risk is talked about much more openly
• And supply chains are constantly being reassessed

It is not that companies are pulling back completely: they are just being more careful about where they place their bets.

On the trade side, it is similar. Volumes are holding in many sectors, but routes are shifting. Businesses are spreading risk, trying not to rely too heavily on one market or one supply chain.

So I would not call it a downturn. It feels more like a reset.

One thing I have noticed more and more is how closely trade and investment are now linked.

Companies are not jumping straight into setting up overseas like they might have done before. More often, they:

• start by exporting
• build relationships
• test demand
• and only then look at investing

Or they invest in a very targeted way, tied directly to something they are already selling.

It is a lot more deliberate than it used to be.

The UK is still very active globally, particularly into the US and Europe.

But what stands out to me is that UK companies do not tend to just invest and move on. There is usually an ongoing connection back to the UK.

You see it a lot in:

• financial services
• tech
• energy

They will invest into a market, but continue exporting services, expertise, or support from the UK.

So it is not just capital going out, it is an ongoing commercial relationship.

That is probably one of the UK’s biggest strengths, in my view.

Ireland feels more straightforward.

Strong export base—pharma, tech, ICT—and then investment follows that.

There is a clear pattern:

• build export strength
• establish a presence
• invest to support it

A lot of the outward investment is tied into multinational structures, but the logic still holds.

What I think Ireland does well is consistency. It knows what it is good at and sticks to it. There is not a lot of noise around that.

Italy is slightly different again.

Exports are the backbone—manufacturing, machinery, design, food. But more and more, companies are backing that up with investment closer to where their customers are.

You see:

• production moving nearer to key markets
• more involvement in regional supply chains
• less reliance on long-distance setups

It is a practical shift. If your customers are in Europe or North America, it makes sense to be closer to them.

And that’s exactly what’s happening.

Across the UK, Ireland and Italy, the lines between FDI and trade have blurred quite a bit.

It’s less:

• “we export here”
• “we invest there”

And more about how the two support each other:

• exports open the door
• investment strengthens the position
• and both build over time

You see that clearly in sectors like life sciences, energy, advanced manufacturing and tech.

If you are working in this space (investment, trade, policy) there are a few things that feel pretty clear to me:

FDI and trade should not be separate conversations anymore
They’re too connected for that now.

Being general does not really work
The more specific you can be about sectors and strengths, the better.

Looking beyond your own market helps
Some of the strongest opportunities sit across borders, not within them.

I do not think the global environment is weaker, it is just more measured.

Companies are still expanding. They are still investing. They are still trading.

They are just thinking it through a bit more.

And for markets like the UK, Ireland and Italy, that is actually an opportunity if the approach is clear and joined up.

In the last piece, I focused on how companies are changing the way they approach trade and investment: more joined up, more deliberate, and less rushed.

If that was about how decisions are changing, this is about what those decisions actually look like in practice.

What I am seeing more clearly now is that companies are not choosing a single location. They are building across a small number of markets, each doing a specific job.

Quite often, that setup involves the UK, Ireland and Italy at European level. 

A few years ago, expanding into Europe was fairly straightforward: pick a country, set up, and grow from there.

That still happens, but it is not what comes up most in conversations now.

The discussion tends to break down into parts:

• Where should the commercial side sit? 
• Where should higher-value activity be based? 
• Where should production or delivery happen? 

And those answers rarely land in the same place.

There are a few consistent factors sitting behind this shift.

Tariffs and trade friction are influencing where production is placed and how goods move.
Geopolitical tension is making companies less comfortable relying too heavily on one market.
Cost still matters, especially energy, labour and logistics, but it is being weighed alongside reliability and proximity.

What stands out in conversations is that none of this is being rushed. Decisions take longer, there is more internal challenge, and structures are tested more thoroughly before anything is committed.

That is part of why these multi-market setups are emerging as they are the result of more deliberate thinking, not bigger ambition.

The main change I am noticing is not just where companies go, but how they put things together.

Rather than building everything in one place, activities are being split across locations in a more deliberate way.

In many cases, this still starts with trade, testing demand, building relationships, and then evolves into something more permanent across markets.

In practice, that often looks like:

• A commercial or coordination base in one country 
• Higher-value or specialised activity in another 
• Production or supply chain activity somewhere else 

It is not always mapped out perfectly at the start. But over time, it becomes a fairly clear way of organising things.

This is where the same combination keeps coming up in practice.

Not because the three markets are similar, but because they each solve a different part of the setup:

• The UK often acts as the commercial centre for client-facing, coordination, deal-making, and ongoing support back into other markets 
• Ireland is used for higher-value or more strategic activity, particularly around tech, IP and international structures 
• Italy plays a role on the production side, manufacturing, engineering, and being closer to customers and supply chains 

Individually, none of that is new. What is changing is how often they are used together as part of the same model.

This is not a theoretical model, it is how a growing number of companies are already structuring their European footprint.

There is a clear shift towards separating activities across borders. You see:

• Commercial teams in one place, with operations or delivery in another 
• IP held in one location, with production somewhere else 
• Manufacturing positioned closer to end markets to reduce delays and friction 
• Supply chains spread across regions rather than concentrated 

A few years ago, that might have felt complicated. Now it just feels practical, because no single market offers everything.

What is changing is not necessarily the level of activity, but how it flows: routes are shifting, and structures are adjusting around that.

The question I hear less and less is:
“Where should we invest?”

And more often:
“How do we set this up across a few locations so it works properly?”

That shift changes the focus.

It is not just about where things sit, but how they work together.

A UK commercial team working with Italian operations.
An Irish structure supporting activity across multiple markets.
Supply chains built across countries rather than within one.

That is becoming standard.

For a long time, expansion into Europe was framed around a single entry point.

That comes up less now.

What seems to be taking its place is more of a network: a small number of locations, each playing a role, connected in a way that reflects how the business actually runs.

The UK, Ireland and Italy sit within that. Not as competing options, but as parts of the same setup.

What this changes, more than anything, is how decisions are being made.

It is no longer about selecting a single location and building around it. The process is more about shaping a setup across a few markets, each with a defined role.

That brings a different kind of trade-off.

Decisions are less about best overall location and more about balance:

• where to place commercial activity versus where to produce 
• how to weigh proximity against cost 
• how much to concentrate versus how much to spread across markets 

That is why these multi-market structures keep coming through. They allow companies to solve for more than one constraint at the same time.

And it also changes how individual locations are viewed.

They are not being assessed in isolation, but as part of a wider configuration:  how they connect, what role they play, and how they support the overall system.

This is not just a shift in where capital goes.

It is a shift in how companies are putting things together.

Not just entering markets, but building across them.
Not just setting up entities, but linking functions.
Not just focusing on presence, but on how everything works as a whole.

This is not about doing less. It is about doing it in a more structured and deliberate way.

And when looked at that way, the UK, Ireland and Italy are not three separate choices.

They are part of the same route into Europe, each playing a different role within it. 

In the last piece, I talked about how companies are structuring across markets rather than choosing just one.

The next step down from that is this: Where does the investment actually land?

Because in reality, it is not all going into London, Dublin, Milan, or Paris, Berlin, New York for that matter.

More often now, it is landing somewhere else.

Capital cities still matter. They are where relationships are built, where visibility sits, where deals often start.

But they are not always where activity ends up.

What I am seeing more consistently is a split:

• capital cities for access and coordination
• regional locations for delivery, production, and growth

That shift is happening across multiple markets, not just in Europe.

You can see the same pattern globally.

In the US, activity is moving beyond New York and San Francisco into places like Austin, Raleigh, Nashville.

In Germany, it is not just Berlin: regions like Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg continue to attract industrial and tech investment.

In France, Lyon and Toulouse come up more often, particularly in manufacturing and aerospace.

And across Asia, countries like India and Vietnam are seeing investment spread across multiple cities rather than concentrating in one.

So this is not localised. It is a broader shift.

There is no single driver, but a few things are coming together.

Cost is an obvious one. Capital cities are expensive, and that matters more in a tighter environment.

But it goes beyond cost.

Talent is more distributed than it used to be.
You do not need to be in a capital to access skilled people anymore.

Infrastructure has improved.
Connectivity (physical and digital) has made regional locations far more viable.

And supply chains are being reworked.
Companies are trying to be closer to production, partners and end markets.

Put that together, and the logic becomes quite straightforward.

Another thing I have noticed is how detailed decisions have become.

It is not just: “Which country should we go into?”

It is:

• which region
• which city
• which cluster

That level of specificity was not always there before.

Now it is expected.

A big part of the shift is the strength of regional clusters.

Companies are not just choosing locations: they are choosing ecosystems.

Places where:

• the talent already exists
• the supply chain is already in place
• other companies in the same sector are operating

That reduces risk and makes it easier to scale.  You see it in:

• life sciences clusters
• advanced manufacturing regions
• tech hubs outside of traditional capitals

And once those clusters reach a certain scale, they start attracting more investment on their own.

This is where it links back to the markets I have been focusing on.

The same pattern is playing out there as well.

London, Dublin and Milan still matter, but they are not the full story.

A lot of activity sits beyond them:

• regional UK cities building sector-led positions
• Irish cities outside Dublin attracting specific types of investment
• Italian regions driving industrial and manufacturing strength

So when companies build across these markets, they are often building across regions within them as well.

This changes how investment is being approached.

It is less about comparing countries at a high level.

And more about understanding:

• where specific capabilities sit
• how regions connect to each other
• and how they fit into a wider structure

In other words, the level of competition has shifted.

From country, to region.

A few things stand out to me.

First, regions are not just a cost play. They are often chosen because they are the right place for a specific activity.

Second, clarity matters more than scale. Regions that know what they are good at tend to stand out more.

And third, connection matters. How a region links into other markets, nationally and internationally, is often what makes it work.

This is a fairly simple shift, but an important one.

Investment is not just moving across countries. It is moving within them.

And more often, it is landing in places that offer something quite specific, whether that is talent, capability or proximity.

So when we talk about investment flows today, the map is a lot more detailed than it used to be.

It is not just about the capitals anymore.

In the last piece, I looked at how investment is increasingly moving beyond capital cities and into regional locations.

The next layer to that, and probably the more structural shift underneath it, is supply chains.

Because once companies start to rethink where they operate, it naturally leads to questions around where things are produced, how they move, and how much exposure they are willing to take on.

For a long time, the model was relatively straightforward:

• Produce where it is cheapest
• Move goods across global networks
• Optimise for cost

That model has not disappeared, but it is clearly under pressure. Over the past few years, I have seen more companies question it in practice, not just in theory.

There is no single trigger behind this. It has been building over time.

A combination of events has brought the limitations of long, extended supply chains into sharper focus.
Geopolitical tensions have made reliance on certain regions more uncertain.
Tariffs and trade friction have re-emerged as a real consideration.
Energy and transport costs have been far less predictable than they once were.

At the same time, while global trade volumes have remained relatively stable, the consistency and reliability of long-distance supply chains has been harder to maintain.

Taken together, what was once seen as efficient now often feels exposed.

What I am seeing now is not a complete reversal, but an adjustment.

Companies are not stepping away from global trade, but they are becoming more deliberate about how far they stretch their supply chains and how dependent they are on single geographies.

You hear it described in different ways as nearshoring, friendshoring,  or regionalisation, but in practice it comes down to the same thing.

Shorter, more manageable supply chains. Less reliance on one part of the world. More control.

In practical terms, this tends to show up in relatively simple ways.

A company that previously relied on one long-distance supply chain might now:

• keep part of production closer to its core market
• split suppliers across regions rather than relying on one
• build some level of redundancy into how goods move

It is not always a full redesign. Often it is an adjustment.

But those adjustments add up.

Cost still matters. It always will, but it is no longer the only factor driving decisions.

What I am seeing more often is a more balanced trade-off. Companies are willing to accept slightly higher production costs if it gives them greater reliability, faster access to market, and less exposure to disruption.

That is a different calculation to what we saw ten or fifteen years ago.

This is where Europe starts to come back into focus.  Not necessarily as the lowest-cost option, but as a balanced one.

For companies serving European markets, being closer to customers, reducing transport times, and limiting exposure to external shocks has become more important. That is why you are seeing more activity moving closer, or at least moving part of the supply chain back within reach.

This shift is more pronounced in some sectors than others.

You see it more clearly in:

• advanced manufacturing
• automotive and mobility
• life sciences
• energy and industrial supply chains

These are sectors where disruption is costly, timelines matter, and supply chain visibility is critical.

Which is why they tend to move first.

This shift is not happening in one place. It is playing out across different parts of Europe at the same time.

What I am seeing more often is production being brought closer to end markets, supply chains being spread across multiple European locations rather than concentrated in one, and a mix of regions handling different parts of the process.

In that context, countries like the UK, Ireland and Italy tend to sit within the same wider setup, not as a fixed model, but as part of how companies balance coordination, capability and delivery across a number of locations.

The common thread is not the country itself. It is how everything connects.

This is also where the link to regional investment becomes clearer.

As supply chains shorten and become more regional, activity does not necessarily move into capital cities. It tends to land in places that are closer to production, infrastructure, and existing industrial or sector clusters.

You start to see manufacturing in established industrial regions, logistics hubs just outside major urban centres, and specialised production sitting within clusters that already have the skills and supply chains in place.

The shift towards regional investment and the redesign of supply chains are happening at the same time, and for very similar reasons.

What has changed most, in my view, is how risk is being factored into decisions.

It is no longer something that sits in the background.

Companies are actively asking:

• how exposed are we to disruption
• how quickly can we respond if something breaks
• how dependent are we on a single route or location

That is shaping how supply chains are designed.

I would not describe this as de-globalisation.

Global trade is still very much there. Companies are still operating internationally.

What is changing is the balance.

Instead of stretching everything across the globe, there is more emphasis on combining global reach with regional stability.

A few things stand out to me.

Supply chains are no longer just an operational consideration—they have become a strategic one.
Resilience is now being weighed alongside efficiency.
And structure, where things sit and how they connect, is becoming just as important as cost.

What we are seeing is not a step back from globalisation, but a reset in how it is applied.

Companies are still global in how they operate, but they are building with more structure, more balance, and more intent.

And in that context, Europe is becoming more relevant again.

Not because it is the cheapest option, but because it offers something that matters more right now: control, proximity and stability.

A lot of the discussion around global investment lately has been dominated by uncertainty.

• tariffs
• geopolitical pressure
• trade disputes
• elections
• supply chain disruption
• slower growth.

And yet, despite all of that, one thing still stands out quite clearly from the conversations I am having:

The transatlantic relationship is still very active.

There is still a huge amount of movement between the US and Europe, not just in terms of trade, but investment, partnerships, expansion and long-term positioning.

What feels different now is not whether companies are expanding internationally.

It is how they are thinking about it.

Ten or fifteen years ago, a lot of international expansion followed a fairly standard model:
pick a market,
set up,
grow from there.

Now it feels much more layered than that.

Most companies I speak to already operate internationally in some form, so the conversation is less about “where do we enter?” and more about: where should capability sit; where do we build operational depth;
where does this fit strategically over the long term?

That changes the nature of investment decisions quite a bit. It feels less reactive than it used to.

More structured. More connected. And definitely more long term.

A lot of the focus tends to go on US investment into Europe.

And understandably so. The scale of American investment across Europe is still significant, particularly in sectors like technology, life sciences, finance and advanced manufacturing.

But what I think sometimes gets missed is how active European firms still are in the US as well.

I see it constantly across the UK, Ireland and Italy.

UK firms continuing to expand commercially and operationally into the US.

Irish companies scaling internationally through technology, pharma and internationally traded services.

Italian businesses growing through manufacturing, engineering, design and industrial capability.

Despite everything happening politically and economically, the US still matters enormously to European businesses. That has not changed.

Another thing that feels very different compared to years ago is how companies now build internationally.

You no longer need the same physical footprint on day one.

Businesses can test markets earlier, manage teams internationally, build partnerships remotely and scale gradually rather than making one huge move upfront.

That flexibility changes the way companies think about risk.

Expansion today often happens in stages: commercial presence first; operations later; deeper investment after that.

You can feel how much more measured the process has become.

One thing I notice more and more is how early talent comes into the conversation.

Not just general labour access, but very specific expertise, including:

• AI
• engineering
• life sciences
• energy transition capability
• advanced manufacturing
• research ecosystems.

In a lot of cases, companies are choosing locations because the capability already exists there, not simply because of geography or cost.

That is reshaping how markets position themselves internationally.

Years ago, investment conversations often felt very country focused.

Now they feel much more tied to ecosystems and sectors.

You hear companies talk about biotech clusters, fintech ecosystems, semiconductor capability,
defence supply chains,  and clean energy infrastructure.

The question is increasingly:
“Where does this already work well?”

Not simply:
“Which market should we choose?”

That is creating a much more specialised investment environment on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is probably one of the biggest shifts underneath all of this.

Politics and industrial policy now sit much closer to business decision-making than they used to.

You can see that clearly in the US right now under President Trump with tariffs, domestic manufacturing,
strategic industries, reshoring, trade pressure on China, and all of it is feeding into how businesses think about international structures.

Even companies that are not directly impacted by policy changes are still adjusting around the wider environment those policies create.

What I notice now is that businesses think much more openly about political exposure, trade risk,
supply chain concentration, and how quickly conditions can change. That does not stop investment from happening but it absolutely changes how companies structure it.

There is sometimes a narrative that Europe is losing relevance globally.

From what I am seeing, I do not think that is really true.

What feels more accurate is that Europe is becoming more specialised.

Different markets are strengthening around different capabilities:

• finance
• research
• engineering
• manufacturing
• technology
• energy
• industrial expertise.

And that specialisation is part of what continues to attract investment from the US, while also helping European firms scale more effectively into the American market.

What I find interesting is how often the UK, Ireland and Italy now sit within the same broader international structures, but usually for very different reasons.

The UK still plays a major role around finance, legal infrastructure, business services and international coordination.

Ireland remains deeply connected into US corporate ecosystems, particularly across technology and pharmaceuticals.

Italy brings industrial depth, engineering capability and manufacturing strength.

Individually, those strengths are not new.

What feels different now is how companies combine them.

Not as isolated choices, but as part of wider transatlantic operating structures.

And that applies in both directions: US firms building across Europe, and European firms continuing to scale into the US.

I do not think the transatlantic relationship is weakening.

If anything, it feels more strategic than before.

Less about rapid expansion.
More about long-term positioning.
More about capability, resilience and operational fit.

And despite all the noise around fragmentation and uncertainty, the US and Europe still remain deeply connected economically.

That relationship is changing shape, but it is definitely not disappearing.

There is a question I hear quite often when speaking with government agencies, investment promotion organisations and even businesses looking to attract overseas investors:

"What incentives are investors looking for?"

It is an understandable question. Grants, tax reliefs and financial support all have their place, and they can certainly help when an investor is comparing two similar opportunities.

But after years of working across international trade and investment, I have come to believe they are rarely the reason an investor chooses one destination over another.

The real deciding factor is confidence.

At ElevareExport, we are fortunate to sit in the middle of these conversations. We work with businesses looking to expand internationally, governments keen to attract inward investment, and organisations building stronger commercial links between markets. One thing has become very clear: before anyone talks about incentives, they are looking for reassurance.

Can I trust this market?

Can I build reliable partnerships here?

Will I be supported once I have invested?

Those questions matter far more than people sometimes realise.

FDI is rarely an impulsive decision. Companies are committing significant time, resources and capital, often with a long-term view.

They want to know they are entering a market where policies are consistent, where regulation is clear, and where the business environment is not going to change dramatically six months down the line.

Of course, no market is perfect. Investors understand that.

What they are really looking for is predictability.

One thing that often gets overlooked is just how important local relationships are.

You can have a fantastic product, a strong business case and a clear growth strategy, but if you don't know the right people or understand how business is done in a particular market, progress can be painfully slow.

That is why, at ElevareExport, we spend as much time building connections as we do discussing strategy.

Introducing the right partner. Facilitating conversations between public and private sectors. Helping businesses understand not just where the opportunities are, but who they need to know.

Those relationships create confidence, and confidence creates investment.

A few years ago, conversations were often centred around labour costs or tax rates.

Today, they are much broader.

Businesses want resilient supply chains. They want access to skilled talent. They want markets that are connected internationally and governments that understand the needs of investors.

They are asking whether a region has an ecosystem that supports long-term growth, not simply whether it is the cheapest option.

That is a significant shift, and one I believe will continue.

One lesson I have learned over the years is that international business is rarely straightforward.

Every market has its own culture, regulations and way of doing business. Navigating those differences is much easier when you have people around the table who understand both sides.

That is where ElevareExport adds value.

We are not brokers looking to make introductions and walk away. We work alongside businesses, public sector organisations and investment partners to help build relationships that last.

Sometimes that means opening doors.

Sometimes it means challenging assumptions.

Often, it simply means helping people have the right conversations at the right time.

Governments will always compete on incentives, and they should. They are an important part of the investment landscape.

But I don't believe they are what makes investors stay.

Strong partnerships do.

A collaborative business environment does.

Clear communication does.

Trust does.

If there is one thing I have taken from working in international trade and investment, it is this: foreign direct investment is not just about capital flowing across borders. It is about people having the confidence to build something together.

That is what we focus on at ElevareExport every day: connecting businesses, investors and institutions in a way that creates long-term value, not just short-term transactions.

Because when confidence comes first, investment tends to follow.

It is a question that comes up regularly in conversations with companies looking at their next move into Europe. Brexit is inevitably part of the discussion, as are costs, regulation, the economy and the UK's changing relationship with the EU. All of these factors matter. But they rarely tell the whole story.

When looking at a new market, the starting point should be more practical: what is the business trying to achieve, where is the opportunity, and does the market provide the conditions to make the investment worthwhile?

The latest FDI figures make that question particularly relevant.

During the 2025/26 financial year, 1,020 foreign direct investment projects landed in the UK, down 25.8% from the previous year. Those projects created 69,166 new jobs, broadly in line with 2024/25, while 16,407 existing jobs were safeguarded, an increase of 60.9% (Source: UK Department for Business and Trade – Trade and Investment Core Statistics Book, July 2026).

There is no need to dress those numbers up. The number of projects has fallen significantly. At the same time, the UK continues to attract substantial investment and create tens of thousands of jobs.

Both points matter.

The 25.8% decline in FDI projects reflects a more competitive investment landscape. Working with local and international EDOs and IPAs has made that increasingly clear. Attracting investment from the UK and into the UK now requires much more than promoting a location. It requires precise targeting, a proposition that stands up against competing markets and a clear understanding of where the strategic fit exists.

The UK remains a crucial market. Its position cannot, however, be taken for granted.

That applies to investment coming into the UK as much as it does to UK companies looking overseas.

A business considering an investment has plenty of alternatives. It can compare markets on costs, skills, infrastructure, energy, regulation, access to customers and the wider business environment. The UK has considerable strengths, but those strengths have to translate into something commercially relevant for the business making the decision.

The same principle applies to exports.

There is no shortage of information available to a company looking at a new market. The difficult part is working out what is actually useful. A long list of potential customers does not necessarily make an export strategy. Sometimes the most valuable piece of work is understanding one market properly, identifying two or three credible partners or establishing that an opportunity is not quite as attractive as it first appeared.

That is where experience matters.

It is also why the UK should not be viewed as a single market. London has an obvious international profile, but the commercial proposition is very different across the Midlands, Scotland, Wales, the North West and other parts of the country. Sector strengths, business networks and investment opportunities vary considerably from one region to another.

For an international company, the question is therefore not simply whether the UK is attractive. It is where the right opportunity sits and whether it fits the company's objectives.

This is the space ElevareExport works in.

The role is not to tell every company that the UK is the right answer. It is to help businesses and organisations make sense of the opportunity, test the assumptions behind a market decision and find the people and relationships that can turn interest into something commercially real.

The UK's FDI results for 2025/26 show a market that remains important, but also one operating in a much more competitive environment. That is probably the most useful way to look at the UK in 2026.

It remains a market with significant international relevance. But its size, history and reputation are not enough on their own.

The UK still has a strong proposition. The challenge is being clear about where that proposition is strongest, who it is right for, and what needs to happen to turn an opportunity into growth.

Ireland has become a familiar name for companies looking at international expansion. Its position in Europe, English-speaking workforce and long track record of attracting foreign investment make it an obvious market to consider.

But being an obvious choice does not necessarily make it an easy one.

The companies that do well in Ireland tend to look beyond the headline advantages. They spend time understanding the market, identifying the right people and working out where they can genuinely add value.

Ireland's international position remains difficult to ignore.

In the first quarter of 2026, inward FDI stock reached €1.105 trillion, with €25.2 billion of new investment recorded during the quarter. Exports of goods and services were worth more than €204 billion in the same period.

Those figures say a lot about the type of economy Ireland has become. It is a relatively small country, but its business relationships, supply chains and customer base extend well beyond its borders.

Technology, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, financial services and advanced manufacturing remain particularly important. That creates opportunities not only for investors, but also for companies supplying products, technology and specialist services into these sectors.

Ireland's size can sometimes give companies the wrong impression.

A market of just over five million people might appear relatively straightforward to penetrate. In reality, business networks can be quite close. People know each other, sectors overlap and reputation matters.

That has an upside. Once the right relationship is established, access can sometimes develop quickly.

The other side is that a weak first impression can travel just as quickly.

For a new entrant, knowing who to approach is therefore only part of the job. Knowing why they should want to speak to you is often more important.

Ireland's domestic market is important, but it is not the only reason companies establish themselves there.

The presence of large international businesses has created a sizeable ecosystem of suppliers, professional services firms, technology companies and specialist manufacturers. For businesses that can find a place within that ecosystem, the commercial opportunity can extend well beyond Ireland.

This is particularly relevant in areas such as healthcare, renewable energy, industrial technology, construction, digital services and advanced manufacturing.

For some companies, Ireland can be a useful base from which to develop wider European relationships. But that only works if the Irish market itself is taken seriously rather than treated simply as a stepping stone.

There are also practical issues to consider.

Competition for skilled people is strong. Commercial property is expensive. Established companies and suppliers can be difficult to displace. And, as in most markets, new relationships take time to develop.

None of this changes the underlying opportunity. It does mean that entering Ireland with a generic market-entry plan is unlikely to be enough.

The better approach is usually more targeted: understand the sector, identify where there is a genuine gap, find the people who influence the decision and build the relationship before expecting the business.

The latest FDI and export figures show that Ireland remains deeply integrated into the global economy. The investment is there, the international companies are there and new opportunities continue to emerge.

The question for a company considering Ireland is therefore not simply whether the market is attractive.

It is whether there is a good reason for the market to choose them.

That is often where the real work begins.

When companies talk about expanding into Italy, they usually talk about the Italian market.

It sounds obvious enough. Italy is one of Europe's largest economies, with a population of almost 60 million, a strong manufacturing base and companies that have been selling internationally for decades.

But looking at Italy as one market can be misleading.

The country works very differently depending on where you are. The industries around you change. The type of companies you find changes. Even the commercial opportunity can look completely different.

That is particularly true when you look at the North and the South.

The difference is often described in terms of economics, and there is obviously a long history behind that. But from a business point of view, the more interesting question is what those differences actually mean for a company looking to sell, partner or invest in Italy.

Because the answer is not simply that the North is stronger and the South is weaker.

It is more complicated than that.

Much of Italy's industrial strength is concentrated in the North.

Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont contain some of the country's best-known manufacturing areas, with strong positions in machinery, automation, automotive, packaging, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing.

What makes these regions particularly interesting is the depth of their industrial networks.

In many cases, businesses have developed around the same sectors for generations. Manufacturers, specialist suppliers, engineering companies and technology businesses often sit within the same wider ecosystem. Companies know their markets well and many already operate internationally.

For an overseas business, that can create a very attractive opportunity.

But it can also be difficult to enter.

Many relationships have been built over years. Suppliers are well known. Customers often have a clear understanding of what is available in the market. Turning up with a good product does not automatically mean there is an opening.

The more useful question is usually where that product fits and why a company should take the time to look at it.

That is where market knowledge becomes important.

The South is often discussed mainly through comparison with the North.

The economic differences are real. The level of industrial concentration is not the same, and neither is the distribution of foreign investment.

Italy recorded 206 announced foreign investment projects in 2025. Of these, 59% went to the North-West, while Lombardy alone attracted 44%. The South accounted for 10% (Source: EY Italy Attractiveness Survey 2026).

That is a clear picture of where international investors are currently concentrating their attention.

But it should not be mistaken for the whole story.

Southern Italy has industries that matter in their own right. Campania has significant aerospace, automotive and pharmaceutical activity. Puglia has developed strong capabilities in aerospace, engineering and renewable energy. Other parts of the South offer opportunities in logistics, agri-food, life sciences and energy.

The industrial landscape is less concentrated, but that can sometimes create a different type of opening.

In Northern Italy, a company may be trying to enter a mature market with established competitors and long-standing supply chains. Further south, the opportunity may be connected to new investment, industrial development or sectors that are still growing.

That does not make one easier than the other.

It simply means the approach should be different.

One thing that is easy to underestimate about Italy is how outward-looking its companies are.

The best-known Italian brands only tell a small part of the story. Behind them are thousands of companies producing machinery, components, technology and specialist products for customers around the world.

That matters if you are looking at Italy as an international business.

The company you meet in Italy may not simply be a potential customer for the domestic market. It could already have distributors in North America, customers across Europe or manufacturing relationships elsewhere in the world.

The latest export figures show just how different the picture can be across the country.

Italian exports increased by 3.3% in value in 2025. But the national number hides very different regional performances. Exports from Central Italy increased by 13.2%, the South grew by 3.2%, while the North-West and North-East increased by 2.3% and 2.0% respectively. Exports from the Islands fell by 11%

(Source: ISTAT, Export of Italian Regions, Q4 2025).

That is why national figures can only tell you so much about Italy.

The opportunities are often regional, and so are the challenges.

A company looking at industrial technology in Emilia-Romagna is entering a different environment from one looking at aerospace in Campania or renewable energy in Puglia.

They may all be entering Italy, but they are not necessarily entering the same market.

Italy is facing many of the same pressures as other European economies. International demand has been uneven, trade conditions remain uncertain and competition for investment is intense.

Yet the market is still moving.

ISTAT expects exports of goods and services to grow by 1.6% in 2026, while total investment is forecast to increase by 2.7% (Source: ISTAT, Italy's Economic Outlook 2025–2026).

Companies are continuing to invest in machinery, equipment and industrial activity, while areas such as digital infrastructure, energy and advanced manufacturing are attracting increasing attention.

Foreign investors are also continuing to look at Italy.

The number of announced investment projects fell by 8% in 2025, but that was broadly in line with the wider decline across Europe. Italy maintained its share of the European investment market at 4.1%

(Source: EY Italy Attractiveness Survey 2026).

So the story is not one of a market standing still. It is one of a market changing.

The question for international companies is where those changes are creating the right opening.

That is probably the most important thing to understand about Italy.

The country cannot be approached with one generic market-entry strategy.

A company selling into manufacturing may need to focus on Lombardy, Veneto or Emilia-Romagna. An aerospace business could find relevant opportunities in Piedmont, Campania or Puglia. A company involved in logistics, energy or infrastructure may need to look somewhere else again.

The decision to enter Italy is therefore only the beginning.

The real work is understanding where you fit.

For some companies, the answer will be in the established industrial ecosystems of the North. For others, the opportunity may be in parts of the country that are receiving less international attention but are developing quickly.

That is why the Italian market is not always where you think it is.

And once you stop looking at Italy as one single market, the opportunities become much easier to see.