search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
SECTORSBIOTECH


fDi biotechnology mini-ranking 2020


NAOMI DAVIES TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE LEADING DESTINATIONS FOR GREENFIELD FDI IN THE BIOTECH SECTOR


2020 edition of fDi’s Biotechnology mini-ranking. This mini-ranking, which takes


T


into account project numbers, capi- tal investment and job creation in the biotechnology sector, sawthe US precede China, the UK, Ireland and Switzerland, to top the list of most attractive countries for bio- tech investors. According to data from green-


field investmentmonitor fDi Markets, the US welcomed 189 inward FDI projects in the sector between June 2015 and May 2020. It is the highestnumber out of all countries analysed and greater than its closest four competitors com- bined: the UK (69), China (46), Germany (32) and Ireland (27) (see chart 1). A particularly strong year for


greenfield biotechnology FDI in the US was 2019, when 50 projects were recorded, the highest number since


1: TOP FIVE DESTINATION COUNTRIES BYNUMBER OF INWARDFDI PROJECTS IN THE BIOTECHSECTOR, JUNE 2015-MAY 2020


200 150 100 50 0 78


he US has topped the list of most attractive countries for biotechnology investors in the


TOP10 BIOTECH COUNTRIES RANK


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10


COUNTRY US


China UK


Ireland


Switzerland Germany Belgium


Netherlands Singapore France


fDi Markets began recording data in 2003. The US was also the study’s


standout performer in terms of both capital investment and job creation, securing more than $7.5bn in bio- technology investment in the five years to May 2020, and generating more than 13,000 jobs. Of the US’s 189 projects logged


during this period, almost a third were sales, marketing and support operations; more than a quarter were in research and development (R&D) and about a fifth of projects were in manufacturing (see chart 2). The US’ prominence in this sector


Source: fDi Markets


is further reinforced in the city-level ranking, with four US cities making it into the top 10, more locations than any other country. The influ- ence of the Greater Boston Area’s life sciences cluster is evident, with Boston taking second place in the ranking of global biotech cities and Cambridge and Burlington coming in at fifth and seventh place respec- tively. According to investor motives recorded on fDiMarkets, approxi- mately 75% of companies that gave a reason for their biotech investment in Massachusetts in the five years to


TOP10 BIOTECH CITIES RANK CITY


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10


Shanghai Boston


Singapore San Diego Cambridge Dublin


Burlington Hangzhou London Suzhou


COUNTRY China US


Singapore US US


Ireland US


China UK


China


TOPFIVE BIOTECH LOCATIONS PER CAPITA RANK CITY


1 2 3 4 5


Cambridge Basel


Leiden


Cambridge Dublin


COUNTRY US


Switzerland Netherlands UK


Ireland


May 2020 were motivated by the local life sciences cluster.Whencommer- cial-stage biotech company Servier Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of France-based Les Laboratoires Servier, established its US headquarters in Boston inMay 2019, it stated:“We chose Boston so we could benefit from being in one of the world’s lead- ing hubs for bio-innovation, both to tap cutting-edge expertise, as well as to work collaboratively with like- minded companies.” In addition, San Diego, places


fourth in the overall global cities ranking and is the only west coast US city to feature in the top 10. The city attracted 16 biotech projects in the previously-stated period and is sup- ported by southern California’s Biotech Beach area, a hotbed for bio- technology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.


www.fDiIntelligence.com August/September 2020


US UK


CHINA


GERMANY IRELAND


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88