Foreign direct investment (FDI) is fiercely competitive. Every country wants its share of new factories, technology parks, or corporate headquarters. Yet success rarely comes from simply lowering taxes or launching glossy ad campaigns. Instead, the most effective investment promotion agencies (IPAs) have learned to speak the language of both global investors and local economic realities. Increasingly, that language is built on the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) system—a framework that, when used well, bridges the gap between a nation’s capabilities and the interests of the world’s most mobile capital.
ISIC-guided sector mapping is not just a technical exercise. It is a method for taking stock: understanding where clusters of competitive strength already exist, and then communicating that advantage to precisely the right audiences. National and subnational IPAs analyze their economies through the lens of ISIC codes, identifying pockets of activity—whether it’s renewable energy (ISIC 3510), medical equipment manufacturing (ISIC 2660), or business process outsourcing (ISIC 8220)—that match the strategic goals of multinational investors.
This approach marks a significant evolution from past practice. Previously, FDI promotion often focused on broad narratives—“invest in our country, we’re open for business.” Now, success hinges on specificity. Instead of promoting the entire manufacturing sector, for example, an IPA might highlight its strengths in ISIC-coded electric vehicle components or precision pharmaceuticals, mapped against current trends in global investment. Such granularity is compelling: it tells investors not only what is possible, but also where supply chains, skilled labor, and local partners are already in place.
The alignment of national economic zones with high-growth ISIC categories has produced measurable results in several jurisdictions. Take Morocco’s push into automotive manufacturing, for example. By mapping ISIC-coded supplier clusters around key free zones, and matching these with the investment priorities of European and Asian carmakers, the country attracted significant FDI inflows—transforming its export base and creating tens of thousands of new jobs. The same playbook has worked for Vietnam in electronics, Costa Rica in medical devices, and the United Arab Emirates in logistics and fintech. Each case began with a sober assessment of ISIC-coded industrial activity, followed by highly tailored, data-driven marketing to foreign investors.
There is an important strategic dimension here. ISIC-based sector mapping allows for both targeting and differentiation. Rather than chasing every potential investor, IPAs can prioritize sectors where their comparative advantage is strongest and where global demand is projected to grow. It also allows for rapid response to shifting trends. When clean energy investments surged globally, countries like Chile and Portugal used ISIC mapping to quickly rebrand certain regions as renewables hubs, attracting new capital that might otherwise have gone elsewhere.
Success stories are accumulating. In Poland, the Katowice Special Economic Zone leveraged its ISIC strengths in advanced manufacturing and auto parts to attract FDI from Korean and Japanese firms. By presenting detailed ISIC-based profiles of local supplier networks and workforce competencies, they persuaded investors that they weren’t just offering land or tax breaks, but a real ecosystem for growth. Similarly, Ireland’s IDA has long used ISIC analytics to position the country as a leader in information technology and pharmaceuticals, underlining the sector-specific skills and infrastructure that matter most to global firms.
These targeted approaches have tangible benefits for the domestic economy. FDI that flows into established clusters tends to stick; spillover effects—supplier development, technology transfer, local hiring—are stronger when new investments build on existing capabilities. There are also advantages in aftercare and investor retention: when IPA staff speak the ISIC “language” of their investors, they are better equipped to support expansion, resolve bottlenecks, and shape long-term relationships.
Of course, the model is not without challenges. Accurate sector mapping depends on up-to-date data and honest self-assessment. Overstating strengths or misclassifying clusters can backfire, leading to missed opportunities or disappointed investors. There is also the need for coordination between national and local agencies, and between IPAs and the statistical offices that maintain ISIC-coded registries. When this cooperation is lacking, data gaps or inconsistent messaging can undermine the overall investment promotion effort.
Moreover, investors themselves are becoming more sophisticated. Many now conduct their own ISIC-based analysis of potential locations, weighing sectoral density, supply chain integration, and even ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance by ISIC code before making site visits. This only raises the bar for IPAs: the quality and credibility of sector mapping can make or break an investment decision.
The trend is clear. Investment promotion is becoming more analytical, more sector-driven, and more closely tied to the real structure of national economies. The ISIC system, often invisible to the public, is at the center of this transformation. By speaking with specificity and credibility—showcasing the right clusters to the right investors at the right time—countries are rewriting the playbook for attracting FDI in a crowded global marketplace.
Ultimately, the lesson is simple but powerful. Success in investment promotion doesn’t go to those who shout the loudest, but to those who know their own economies best—and can communicate those strengths, with evidence, in the language that matters most to investors. In the age of ISIC-guided sector mapping, that’s a challenge more countries would do well to embrace.