2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program: Investor Inquiry Handling Study Overview of the Study and Analysis of the Results

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3 1. The increasing importance of investment promotion: The role of investor inquiry handling...................................................................................... 4 2. The 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program: Measuring how IPAs handle investor inquiries...................................................................... 5 3. Summary and analysis of findings......................................................................................... 9

3.1 Global performance...................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Regional performance of developing countries’ IPAs ................................................ 12 3.3 Sample IPA outstanding performances ..................................................................... 14

4. Benchmarking implications and conclusions ....................................................................... 15 Appendix 1 - List of Surveyed IPAs............................................................................................... 18

Index of Tables Table 1 – Aggregated performance of IPAs:

All, developed and developing countries ........................................................................ 9 Table 2 – Aggregated performance of IPAs by region .................................................................. 12 Table 3 – Correlation coefficients between regions -

developing countries IPAs............................................................................................. 13 Table 4 – Best performing developed countries IPAs ................................................................... 14 Table 5 – Best performing developing countries IPAs .................................................................. 14

Index of Figures Figure 1 – Sample report – Investor inquiry handling performance

benchmarking summary - Table..................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 –Sample report – Investor inquiry handling performance

benchmarking summary - Graphics ............................................................................... 8 Figure 3 – Frequency distribution of performance scores

Developed and developing countries IPAs - ................................................................ 10 Figure 4 – Performance score by benchmarking element against the maximum

Developed and developing countries IPAs - ............................................................... 11 Figure 5 – Performance score by benchmarking element against the maximum

Developed vs. developing countries IPAs -.................................................................. 13 Figure 6 – Investor inquiry handling system dimensions .............................................................. 15

Index of Boxes Box 1 – Sample investor profiles ............................................................................................................5 Box 2 – Investor inquiry handling evaluation criteria ..............................................................................6 Box 3 – Benchmaring elements explained .............................................................................................7 Box 4 – A few tips for improving investor inquiry handling...................................................................17

2

Executive Summary

In the increasingly competitive investment promotion landscape of recent years, improvements in the investment climate have consistently leveled the playing field. As a result, investment promotion agencies (IPAs) are left with less differentiated propositions in marketing their locations. However, in addition to the core competitive advantages of their locations, IPAs can draw from within their own organizations to build competitiveness in the quality of the services they provide. The IPA that understands investors and can serve them with excellence introduces a much needed differentiating factor into the marketing mix.

The ability to effectively handle investor inquiries is among the most important of the various activities the IPA performs that can make a difference to investors. The 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program, a joint effort by GDP Global, a London-based consulting firm, and the Multilateral Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank Group, has been implemented to assess and compare the performance of IPAs around the world in this particular dimension, in light of current and widely accepted best practice. In addition, the program has the potential to become a source of innovation that can raise the level of best practice, and a roadmap for IPAs to continually improve their investor inquiry handling skills.

In the second half of 2004, 188 IPAs were surveyed against predefined benchmarking criteria. Among the surveyed group, 102 of the agencies are in developing countries and 86 are in developed countries. Most are national agencies, but sub-national and city agencies are also represented in the group. The survey employed a “mystery shopper” approach so as to reflect as much as possible the level of service that any investor might receive at any given time under normal circumstances. The assessment included 13 benchmarking elements grouped in three performance factors: marketing, service and content.

The program’s methodology incorporated standardized measures in the assessment of performance. This standardization allowed comparisons of participating IPAs around the world, both on a one-to-one basis and as groups according to region or developmental stage.

As expected, the performance of the IPAs in the developed world was superior to that of the IPAs in the developing world. The developed world IPAs’ overall score was nearly double that of the score for IPAs in the developing world. Not only was the performance of the former much more uniform across every benchmarking factor and element (achieving at least 40% in each one of them), but also a greater proportion of the IPAs in the developed world was able to attain general scores above 50%. Among the developing countries, a few IPAs produced very good scores, but most achieved overall scores below 50%, and in general were less proficient in elements such as the professional image displayed in their replies, the process of following up with investors on their inquiries, and the quality of the documents they provided when replying to specific investor inquiries. However, even considering the superior performance of the IPAs from the developed countries, there is plenty of room for improvement among many IPAS -- the best average performance did not reach 50% of the maximum possible.

When grouped by region, the performance of the IPAs from the developing world showed some differences (e.g. the IPAs in Latin America and the Caribbean achieved higher scores than the IPAs in Asia). However, their level of performance across factors and benchmarking elements displayed a considerable level of correlation, reflecting common strengths and weaknesses across the developing world IPAs. There was less correlation between the performance of IPAs from the developed and developing worlds because, as explained earlier, the performance of the latter was particularly weak in some elements. Although the results of the program do not provide hard evidence, the overall similarities among the performance of IPAs in the developing world suggest the results are not a function of coincidence, but rather are the consequences of funding, knowledge and other types of common constraints faced by organizations in the developing world.

There is considerable room for improvement in the performance of all the surveyed IPAs. IPAs in the developing countries need to additionally focus on immediately correcting the critical weaknesses that this study found were common to them as a group. Overall, most of the IPAs were not able to achieve outstanding performance in categories that in practice require a small level of effort and organization to boost the quality of the overall service. The average level of performance at 50% or less of the maximum possible is a clear indication of the pressing need for IPAs to implement comprehensive investor inquiry handling systems, rather than to rely on specific efforts or individual professionalism.

3

1. The increasing importance of investment promotion: The role of investor inquiry handling

During the past 25 years the investment promotion field has become much more competitive. The number of national and local governments (and their IPAs) promoting foreign investment has grown at least fivefold,1 while the number of pro-foreign investment regulation changes introduced on a yearly basis by countries is now at least three times that of those introduced at the beginning of the nineties.2

In practice, these changes increasingly have levelled the playing field for investors in most countries. Political, social and economic stability, as well as a welcoming environment for foreign investors that allows them to take full advantage of the new realities created by globalization, are now usually prerequisites for a country to be considered as a potential location (perhaps an exception to this is natural resource-seeking investment, which responds to different considerations, although even here countries with better investment environments are able to reap greater rewards from these resources). International investment agreements (IIA) and bilateral and multilateral trade agreements have also contributed to levelling the playing field and creating a more seamless world trade order, which in turn, has dramatically impacted growth in foreign direct investment (FDI) flows with relatively few interruptions since the mid-1980s.

With more IPAs chasing investors, and with a more welcoming investment climate all around the world, it is not surprising that investors are much more selective when choosing their sites. Investors are paying more attention to finding immobile assets (e.g. infrastructure, human capital, trade integration) to complement their mobile ones (e.g. knowledge, expertise, research). In their selection of sites, investors are increasingly looking for appropriate partners to help them access these immobile assets.3

Under this scenario, national and local governments competing for FDI have, in addition to further improving the investment climate, two ways of improving their chances to attract investors: (1) in the longer term, they can build or strengthen desirable immobile assets for investors, and (2) in the short-term, through the relationships their IPAs establish, governments can become the much needed partners that investors seek in capitalizing on immobile assets. IPAs should aim to achieve this partner status among investors. In the current competitive environment for FDI, this partner status means excelling at forecasting, understanding and serving investor needs with no less than world-class service.

Servicing potential or actual investors has several dimensions and stages to consider. In a broad sense, acquiring a new client is much more costly than retaining an existing client (this is a widely recognized principle in private sector business). In the practice of investment promotion, this is particularly true for two reasons: it is usually more difficult for an installed investing company to leave its current location than to stay, and more importantly, potential investors do not have access to an open and efficient market of location offerings. FDI is highly concentrated as a result of known factors related to market size, market proximity, purchasing power and other similar factors, but it is also concentrated as a result of the comfort level investors naturally feel in places where others have already invested and can testify to the benefits they were able to achieve.

Therefore, IPAs must diligently pursue and convince investors to at least consider their locations. IPAs that fail in these efforts may have difficulty proving their long-term value to their governments and other stakeholders. Pursuing and convincing investors are not easy tasks, however, requiring highly developed marketing and selling techniques, and a deep understanding of sectors and multinational production and servicing networks. IPAs also have to make sure they are accessible and able to respond to investor inquiries in a timely and professional manner.

Given the importance and difficulty of these tasks, as well as the idiosyncrasies of the investment promotion field, the sharing of best practices and lessons among IPAs can have a substantial positive effect for all the stakeholders. Moreover, measuring and benchmarking how these practices are executed can raise the performance level of IPAs and substantiate further improvements.

1 UNCTAD. The World of Investment Promotion at a Glance: A survey of Investment Promotion Practices. New York: United Nations, 2002. 2 UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2004: The Shift Towards Services. New York: United Nations, 2004 3 UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages. New York: United Nations, 2001.

4

2. The 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program: Measuring how IPAs handle investor inquiries

Recognizing the need for specific research on current service practices within the investment promotion field, GDP Global, a consulting firm based in the United Kingdom, and MIGA of the World Bank Group, teamed in late 2004 to benchmark how 188 IPAs around the world handle investor inquiries. The sample included 102 agencies from developing countries and 86 from developed countries. The objectives of the 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program were, in addition to the benchmarking per se, to identify innovative practices that have the potential to raise the level of current best practice and to provide a roadmap for IPAs to improve their investor inquiry handling skills.

Drawing on the benchmarking experience that GDP has accumulated from previous years, the program relied on a “mystery shopper” approach to: (1) assess how each subject IPA handles investor inquiries when compared to standardized criteria based on current best practice, and (2) compare its performance against other IPAs.

The “mystery shopper” approach was based on the definition of investor profiles. These profiles were used to simulate consistent investor inquiries appropriate to the specific focus or targeting efforts of the surveyed IPAs. They included some background on the investor, the basics of the investment project under consideration and a brief description of the information required for further project consideration (five profiles were used: computer products assembly, food and drink manufacture, business service center, garment manufacture and call center (see Box 1 below for some examples).

Box 1

Box 1 – Sample investor profiles

Computer products assembly Client company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Taiwan. It is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacturing of a vast array of digital consumer products, including consumer PCs, LCD TVs PDPs, network-connected devices, storage-based media players, videophones and home appliances. The company also delivers advanced products for business computing, such as Tablet PCs, blade servers and wireless thin clients. By capitalizing on the advantages of vertical integration our client company makes full use of the supply of key components such as flat-panel displays and digital tuners from its many subsidiaries located across the globe. In order to sustain strong, long-term growth, the company is planning an investment in Eastern Europe/Asia/Africa. The company requires about 10,000 sq metres to manufacture/assemble computer hardware. The company plans to employ 100 people - 40 engineers, 20 skilled workers and the balance unskilled. Local management would be recruited for the project. No capital expenditure or timescale information is currently available. The company is evaluating various location options. The agency is requested to explain what it could offer to accommodate this investment, in particular: Cost of land Available buildings Financial support measures Costs of labour Skills profile of the workforce Existing companies in the electronics sector Business services centre (SSC) Company is a major European corporation in the manufacturing sector. It currently operates 17 facilities in Europe/12 facilities in Asia, employing more than 5,000 staff. The company plans to consolidate its corporate financial operations for the macro-region in a single location. The company requires about 1000 – 1300 sq metres (with an option to expand to 2000 sq. metres) to carry out back office functions. The company plans to employ 100 people drawn from various levels in the accountancy profession; accounts entry, part-qualified, CIMA/ACCA or equivalent. Senior corporate financial officers would re-locate to the new facility. Corporate operations are carried out in English. No capital expenditure or timescale information is currently available. The company is evaluating various location options. The company currently has a facility in the region in question. However the new facility will not be co-located with the existing facility instead placed in an urban setting. The agency should provide: Information on labour availability and cost, with the relevant skills Property options Assistance with key staff relocation Financial support assistance for relocation, capital expenditure and training Other companies operating shared service functions in the region.

5

During the assessment process, each of the subject IPAs was contacted by telephone, e-mail, contact facilities on their websites, related third parties (e.g. embassies) or through a combination of these means until communication was successful or proved virtually impossible. (There were 11 IPAs with which it was not possible to communicate at all in spite of numerous efforts). The communication with the IPA included all the details contained in the individually assigned investor profile based on the characteristics of the country or location, and on the information available regarding the IPA’s sector and industry promotion focus. This communication attempt also included a clear and formal request for the data and information required as per the investment profile.

Throughout the whole assessment process a consistent evaluation criteria was used. The criteria was based on current and widely accepted best practices for investor inquiry handling and included three main evaluation factors - marketing, service and content - and 13 benchmarking elements relating to these factors, such as customization, content relevance, presentation, use of maps and graphs, professionalism and response time (see Boxes 2 and 3, below).

Box 2

Box 2 – Investor inquiry handling evaluation criteria

Benchmarking Element Description Maximum

100%

Marketing factor Projection of a professional image: design, function, business fit. 28%Professional image Overall impact of the information provided and the professionalism of the agency staff during the

i t ti10%

Brochure Inclusion of informative, impressive and relevant agency/investor information in hard copy or l t i f t

9%Business card/e-card User-friendly method to give key contact information, address, email and telephone numbers. 3%Folder/attached email files Investor friendly packaging of proposals and brochures. Convenient use of emails and attached files. 3%Envelope/email presentation Quality envelope presentation, typed address labels, agency branding. Professionally presented email

t i l3%

Service factor Personal service, added value features, follow up responses. 32%Telephone contact The professional and effective handling of the investor by telephone and by email. 10%Response time Time from enquiry to receipt of information, target within 48 hours. 9%Follow up with investor A recall to investor to confirm if satisfied. 8%Letter/email customisation Degree to which letter/email is customised to reflect investor's interests. 5%

Content factor Information for investor: accessible, comprehensive, relevant. 40%Content relevance The degree to which the information meets all of the information needs of the investor. 15%Customised information The use of DTP to deliver customised information in a convenient and impressive manner. 10%Content presentation Overall presentation of the information – professional, relevant, impressive. 8%Maps, graphs etc. Visual and tabular methods for client to assimilate key facts. 7%

Whenever possible, specific standards were defined to facilitate a uniform assessment. For example, to assess the “response time” element, it was decided that a reply received within 48 hours after the inquiry was made would receive a perfect score, while one received after 10 days or more would be considered unacceptable, and therefore would receive a zero score. In this case, the criteria also allowed the consistent assignment of scores for replies received between 2 and 9 days.

When it was not possible to specify similar criteria for other benchmarking elements, the scores were assigned following the agreed upon qualitative description of the benchmarking elements (see Box 3 below). In doing this, special care was taken to assess each performance in relation to the performances of the other IPAs; this ensured consistency in the assessments and comparability of the results. Additionally, a limited number of people were responsible for assigning the scores, thus reducing the possibility that personal differences in criteria and assessment standards would introduce a bias.

6

Box 3 – Benchmarking elements explained

Envelope/e-mail presentation Quality envelope presentation, typed address labels, agency branding. Professionally presented e-mail materials. Points lost for unprofessional packaging.

Response time Time from enquiry to receipt of information, target within 48 hours. Thereafter one point deducted per additional day taken, unless other delivery timescale agreed with the consultant.

Folder/attached e-mail files Investor friendly packaging of proposals and brochures. Convenient use of emails and attached files. Points gained for small number of well-labelled and relevant materials. Points lost for multiple attachments or printed materials that could have been better presented.

Brochure Inclusion of informative, impressive and relevant agency/investor information in hard copy or electronic format. Points lost if materials do not adequately cover the role and function of the agency, its successes, services, etc.

Business card/e-card User-friendly method to give key contact information, address, e-mail and telephone numbers. Points gained for effective use of e-signature and traditional business card.

Professional image Overall impact of the information provided and the professionalism of the agency staff during the interaction. Points gained for strong impact for both elements.

Letter/e-mail customisation Degree to which letter/e-mail is customised to reflect investor’s interests. Points gained when the standard letter/email is converted into a customised communication that answers the investor’s special information needs and offers further service.

Customised information The use of desktop publishing (DTP) to deliver customised information in a convenient and impressive manner. Points gained for concise, customised documents, answering specific information needs.

Maps, graphs etc. Visual and tabular methods for client to assimilate key facts. Points gained for effective use of maps, graphs, charts, diagrams, pictures, tables, etc.

Telephone contact The professional and effective handling of the investor by telephone and by e-mail. Points maximised for fewer contact points, with knowledgeable and service-minded staff, which keep the investor informed at all times.

Follow up with investor A recall to investor to confirm if satisfied. Email follow up is sought. Maximum points achieved if effective follow up is experienced by telephone.

Content presentation Overall presentation of the information – professional, relevant, impressive. Points lost for lack of attention to professional presentation that might impair the agency’s image and cause unnecessary time wasting by the investor

Content relevance The degree to which the information meets all of the information needs of the investor. The most important element. Top marks gained for proposals that answer the obvious questions, also the unstated but nonetheless important needs of the international investor.

Box 3

After the survey and assessment were completed, several outputs were produced for each of the surveyed IPAs:

1. A table summarizing the scores obtained in each one of the thirteen benchmarking elements and the three evaluation factors (see Boxes 2 and 3 above, and Figure 1 below).

2. A set of graphics representing the achieved scores against several benchmarks, such as the regional or global performance averages (see Figure 2 below).

3. A descriptive document summarizing the assessment and providing qualitative details and insights on the assessment process, including dates and means of communication used.

These individual country reports are strictly confidential but the whole range of global and individual benchmarks are not, allowing the participating IPAs to gauge their performances and the non-participating IPAs to gain perspective on the current levels of performance in handling investor inquiries.

7

Figure 1 Sample report – Investor inquiry handling performance benchmarking summary – Table

Benchmarking Element Observation MaximumAll

countriesDeveloping countries IPA

Content relevance Most of the enquiry questions were effectively dealt with. Good supporting information on

15% 6% 5% 12%

Customised information Good use of DTP to compile response documents.

10% 3% 2% 7%

Content presentation The information is well presented - good use is made of comparative data, statistics and independent so ces

8% 3% 2% 6%

Maps, graphs etc. Excellent use of tables & graphs to summarise data. Good national scale map supplied.

7% 2% 1% 5%

Professional image Good impression due to inclusion of relevant information & focus on

10% 4% 3% 7%

Brochure The PowerPoint presentation provides a rapid overview of the country from an investors

9% 2% 1% 5%

Business card/e-card Partial contact details of executive & agency included as an electronic signature - lacks agency e-mail & website addresses.

3% 1% 1% 2%

Folder/attached email fileAttached files clearly labelled in li h

3% 1% 1% 2%

Envelope/email presentaGood message layout - e-mail lacks agency branding.

3% 1% 1% 2%

Telephone contact The initial call was effectively handled & personal contact details of an advisor supplied. The enquiry was acknowledged by e-mail.

10% 5% 5% 7%

Response time Excellent turn round on enquiry. 9% 4% 3% 8%

Follow up with investor No follow up contact. 8% 2% 1% 0%

Letter/email customisatioDetailed personalised letter describing the advantages of Armenia as a location for the

j t

5% 2% 1% 4%

Figure 2 Sample report – Investor inquiry handling performance benchmarking summary - Graphics

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Content relevance

Telephone contact

Customised information

Professional image

Brochure

Response time

Content presentationFollow up with investor

Maps, graphs etc.

Letter/email customisation

Business card/e-card

Folder/attached email files

Envelope/email presentation

Maximum All IPAs

Region IPA

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Best in Region All IPAs

Developing countries' IPAsIPA

Marketing factor (m) Service factor (s) Content factor (c)

Overview of Performance - General evaluation

Detailed view of Performance

Factor Benchmarking Analysis

8

3. Summary and analysis of findings The results of the 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program have an important practical value as they represent the only global comparative data available on the performance of IPAs in handling investor inquiries. However, given the obvious limitations inherent in any benchmarking methodology, before proceeding with the analysis of the program findings it is important to understand and explain these limitations. The first limitation of the program is that it involves only one data point per surveyed IPA; in other words, the performance of each IPA was only assessed once. This limitation implies that the results obtained may be influenced by chance or unexpected or unusual events. Therefore, although extreme care has been given to fairly represent the actual level of performance of each of the IPAs, the assessment may not necessarily represent it. The second limitation is that the assessment of the performance for some of the benchmarking elements involves a certain degree of subjectivity. Given the difficulties in, for example, standardizing and assessing what a professional presentation is or why a level of customization is better than another, it is almost impossible to remove this subjectivity. Still, when it was not possible to embed into the assessment criteria additional elements to reduce the degree of subjectivity, the methodology allowed for a limited number of highly qualified and experienced individuals to perform the assessments in a consultative manner, therefore reducing the possibility of relevant variations. As a consequence of these two limitations, any interpretation of the results of the Program should always be made with caution.

3.1 Global performance Performance of IPAs in developed and developing countries. Table 1 below shows the aggregated and individual performance of developed and developing countries’ IPAs. Reflecting a higher degree of sophistication, the performance of the IPAs in the developed world rated a score almost double that of the IPAs in the developing world. The only benchmarking factor in which the difference was less was in service, but still it was relevant (almost 1.5 times higher). This is an understandable variation, given that typically with the marketing and content factors, the higher level of resources available to IPAs in the developed world allows them to hire image and advertising professionals and invest in the research and preparation of high quality investor information. On the other hand, the service factor is highly influenced by the professionalism of the people working for the IPAs, and in this particular respect developing countries are not that far behind the developed ones.

Table 1

Aggregated performance of IPAs: All, developed countries and developing Countries

Benchmarking Element Maximum

Overall score 100.0% 37.7% 49.0% 27.1%

Marketing factor 28.0% 9.7% 13.5% 6.1%Professional image 10.0% 3.9% 5.1% 2.8%Brochure 9.0% 2.3% 3.6% 1.0%Business card/e-card 3.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.9%Folder/attached email files 3.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.6%Envelope/email presentation 3.0% 1.1% 1.5% 0.8%

Service factor 32.0% 13.0% 15.5% 10.6%Telephone contact 10.0% 5.4% 5.8% 5.1%Response time 9.0% 3.7% 4.2% 3.3%Follow up with investor 8.0% 2.1% 3.4% 0.8%Letter/email customisation 5.0% 1.7% 2.2% 1.3%

Content factor 40.0% 15.1% 20.0% 10.4%Content relevance 15.0% 6.3% 7.8% 4.8%Customised information 10.0% 3.2% 4.3% 2.1%Content presentation 8.0% 3.2% 4.1% 2.4%Maps, graphs etc. 7.0% 2.5% 3.9% 1.1%

Developing countries IPAs

Developed countries IPAsAll IPAs

9

When looked at from another perspective, the superiority of the performance of the IPAs from the developed world is easily confirmed. Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of the overall scores of the agencies in both developing and developed countries. The evidence presented in the figure is further strengthened by regrouping the performance intervals and calculating the distributions accordingly. As a result, the data reveals that more than 70% of the IPAs from developed countries, and 25% of the IPAs from developing countries, achieved overall scores above 40%.

Figure 3

Frequency distribution of performance scores - Developed and developing countries IPAs -

Developed countries

Developing countries

0%

20%

40%

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

IPA overall performance (0-100)

% o

f sur

veye

d IP

As

Conclusions. It is gratifying to see outstanding performances by a number of IPAs in the developed countries who have made great efforts to achieve very successful agencies. Likewise, some IPAs In developing countries have also achieved very creditable performances. However, many agencies still need to do more work. Despite their clearly superior performance on a relative basis, it is interesting that the performance of developed countries’ IPAs did not achieve half of the possible maximum. Without a doubt, this reflects the need for both groups of IPAs (developing and developed countries) to review their inquiry handling systems. As stated earlier, the results of the program should be judged as representative of only one data point. Yet in practice this one data point may also represent an invaluable opportunity for the IPA and the country, region or city it represents. Implementation of an investor inquiry handling system places into consideration all the elements and factors that are relevant to the investor during the inquiry process. This allows the IPA to then systematically deliver the best possible service, positioning itself to compete and potentially win the investment project. The importance of establishing a system as opposed to an ad-hoc scheme cannot be overstated; it is simply impossible to know or judge when the right opportunity will knock at the door. To account for this inevitable unpredictability, IPAs should make sure that each and every investor inquiry is handled following the same highest standards. The investor inquiry handling evaluation criteria used as the baseline in this program can easily also serve as the baseline for the investor inquiry handling system of an IPA. (The last section of this document will provide more insight on the system’s effective implementation.)

10

Another interesting conclusion resulting from the 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking, is that the performance of IPAs from the developed countries across the benchmarking factors and elements is much more consistent than that of the IPAs from developing countries. Figure 4 shows how the line representing the performance of these IPAs is relatively flat and varies only within a 20% interval. To the contrary, the performance of the IPAs from the developing countries varies within an interval of 40%. The consistent performance across a range of benchmarked elements among developed countries’ IPAs indicates the presence of effective investor inquiry handling systems that take into account all the different service elements of relevance to the investor. The greater variation in the case of the developing countries’ IPAs can likewise be attributed precisely to the lack or lesser degree of sophistication in their systems.

Figure 4

Performance score by benchmarking element against the maximum - Developed and developing countries IPAs -

Developed countries IPAs

Developing countries IPAs

Maximum

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

Profes

siona

l imag

e

Brochu

re

Busine

ss ca

rd/e-c

ard

Folder/

attac

hed e

mail fil

es

Envelo

pe/em

ail pr

esen

tation

Teleph

one c

ontac

t

Respo

nse t

ime

Follow

up w

ith in

vesto

r

Lette

r/email

custo

misatio

n

Conten

t relev

ance

Custom

ised i

nform

ation

Conten

t pres

entat

ion

Maps,

graph

s etc.

Similar patterns between both IPA groups. From a different perspective, Figure 4 also illustrates how the performance of both groups of IPAs seems to run in parallel across several of the benchmarking elements, reflecting similar patterns in their stronger and weaker elements. This may be the result of common constraints that make the IPAs both relatively more effective at interacting over the phone or providing relevant content, and at the same time relatively less effective at providing high quality brochures or customizing the information. Although the reasons behind this trend are outside the scope of this program, the findings suggest an important lesson: there are areas of performance that require proportionally more effort and resources than others in order to achieve higher satisfaction from the investor, yet all areas are important. The corresponding allocation of resources should be made to reflect this reality.

Areas for improvement among developing IPAs. In addition, Figure 4 shows how the performance of developing countries’ IPAs is particularly weak in some of the benchmarking elements. These elements include: the use and quality of brochures, the packaging and presentation of attached documents and e-mails, the process of following up with the investor, and the use of maps, graphs and visual aids to

11

illustrate concepts, ideas and information. IPAs from the developing world need to pay special attention to improving the levels of performance in these categories. Perhaps a feasible approach to accomplish this is to start with those elements that require fewer resources but can considerably impact overall performance levels. For example, improving the response time to an investor inquiry can be easily accomplished by establishing the practice of e-mail acknowledgements in which every e-mail from investors is answered within four hours or so. This does not necessarily mean that the acknowledgment has to contain all the answers to the questions asked and all the documents or information requested. It is a simple, quick reply to let the investor know that the inquiry was received and to provide a suggested timetable for a full reply. A substantially more profound improvement in this benchmarking element likely will require considerable effort and investment in developing a pre-packaged set of investor information, customization facilities and an operational structure to support all these improvements. However, by promptly communicating back to the investor, a significant impact can be made at an almost negligible cost.

3.2 Regional performance of developing countries’ IPAs Table 2 below shows the average performance of developing countries’ IPAs by region, and again the global benchmarks for both developed and developing countries’ IPAs.

Table 2 Aggregated performance of IPAs by region

Benchmarking Element Maximum

Eatern Europe /

Central Asia

Middle East / North Africa

South Saharan

AfricaAsia /

Pacific

Latin America / Caribbean

Developed countries

IPAs

Developing countries

IPAs

Overall score 100.0% 32.7% 23.9% 26.7% 18.8% 33.0% 49.0% 27.1%

Marketing factor 28.0% 8.1% 5.6% 6.4% 3.5% 6.2% 13.5% 6.1%Professional image 10.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.2% 1.7% 3.3% 5.1% 2.8%Brochure 9.0% 1.9% 1.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% 3.6% 1.0%Business card/e-card 3.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9%Folder/attached email files 3.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 1.6% 0.6%Envelope/email presentation 3.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 1.5% 0.8%

Service factor 32.0% 11.1% 10.4% 10.3% 10.0% 11.5% 15.5% 10.6%Telephone contact 10.0% 5.6% 5.6% 4.6% 5.1% 5.1% 5.8% 5.1%Response time 9.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 4.2% 3.3%Follow up with investor 8.0% 0.4% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 1.3% 3.4% 0.8%Letter/email customisation 5.0% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 2.0% 2.2% 1.3%

Content factor 40.0% 13.4% 7.9% 10.1% 5.3% 15.3% 20.0% 10.4%Content relevance 15.0% 5.7% 3.7% 4.8% 3.0% 6.8% 7.8% 4.8%Customised information 10.0% 3.1% 1.5% 1.7% 0.6% 3.9% 4.3% 2.1%Content presentation 8.0% 2.7% 1.8% 2.6% 1.2% 3.3% 4.1% 2.4%Maps, graphs etc. 7.0% 1.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 1.4% 3.9% 1.1%

Differences by region and elements. By complementing Table 2 with the graphical representation of the regional performances at the benchmarking factor level depicted in Figure 5, it is easy to see that there are important differences in the overall performance of the developing countries’ IPAs by region and by benchmarking factors and elements. The performance of the IPAs from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA) is considerably better than that of the IPAs from Asia and the Middle East/North Africa (MENA). In fact, the average performance score of LAC’s IPAs is almost twice as high as the performance score for the Asian IPAs.

When the analysis is taken to the level of benchmarking factors, there is variation in the differences between regions mentioned above. In some cases, these differences are lessened (for example, between the performance of LAC and Asia in the service factor - 11.5% against 10.4% respectively). In other cases, the differences become greater (for example, in the content category where LAC scored 15.3% and Asia only 5.3% - about a third of LAC’s performance score). When analyzed further at the level of benchmarking elements, the findings reveal that even though Asia IPA performance lags behind the LAC

12

IPA performance, for some elements Asia’s performance exceeds that of LAC (for example, the response time category).

The practical implication of the analysis at the level of benchmarking factors is that an overall excellent performance cannot be achieved by providing outstanding service in only a few elements. Overall performance is a composite of several equally critical elements, and a standard of excellence can only be achieved when all elements are taken into consideration at all times.

Figure 5

Performance score by benchmarking element against the maximum - Developed vs. developing countries IPAs -

Asi

a / P

acifi

cAsi

a / P

acifi

c

Asi

a / P

acifi

c

Mid

dle

East

/ N

orth

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

East

/ N

orth

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

East

/ N

orth

Afr

ica

Sout

h Sa

hara

n A

fric

a

Sout

h Sa

hara

n A

fric

a

Sout

h Sa

hara

n A

fric

a

East

ern

Euro

pe /

Cen

tral

Asi

a

East

ern

Euro

pe /

Cen

tral

Asi

a

East

ern

Euro

pe /

Cen

tral

Asi

a

Latin

Am

eric

a / C

arib

bean

Latin

Am

eric

a / C

arib

bean

Latin

Am

eric

a / C

arib

bean

Developed countries

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

Marketing factor Service factor Content factor

Correlation between regions. In spite of the overall regional differences, the performances of the IPAs from the developing world show a similar pattern across benchmarking factors and elements, regardless of the region. In fact, statistical analysis of the data shows a significant degree of correlation between regions. Table 3 shows the corresponding correlation coefficients4.

Table 3

Correlation coefficients between regions - Developing countries’ IPAs -

Eatern Europe / Central Asia

Middle East / North Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa Asia / Pacific

Latin America / Caribbean

Eatern Europe / Central Asia 1.00Middle East / North Africa 0.92 1.00South Saharan Africa 0.93 0.91 1.00Asia / Pacific 0.86 0.98 0.90 1.00Latin America / Caribbean 0.92 0.80 0.91 0.75 1.00

The correlation analysis shows that the performance of the different regions follows the same pattern across the benchmarking elements. In other words, the level of performance for one benchmarking element in relation to another within a region mimics the relationship that exists between them in the other regions. Of course, this does not mean that every region attained the same level of performance (as has

4 The correlation coefficient measures the degree of relationship between two or more variables. It can take a value between -1 and +1. A negative value means that as the value of one variable increases the value of the other decreases; a positive value means the opposite. The closer to 1 the correlation coefficient is, the closer the degree of relationship between the variables. That is, the value of the variables will increase or decrease simultaneously.

13

been previously discussed), but rather that within their respective overall levels of performance the IPAs from developing countries were relatively better or worse in the same benchmarking elements.

Table 3 shows that with the exception of LAC in relation to Asia, the correlation coefficients are very close to 1.00. Although the results of the program do not provide specific hard evidence, the well-documented similarities in relationships between elements across regions are patterns that likewise indicate similarities in funding, knowledge and other common constraints faced by institutions in the developing world, rather than study results influenced by coincidence or change.

3.3 Sample IPA outstanding performances Beyond the global and regional averages, analysis of the 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program results revealed the outstanding individual performers in both developing and developed countries. Although confidentiality of the individual IPAs’ performance assessments requires that scores not be disclosed or detail provided on the specifics of why some performances were better than others and by how much, GDP Global and MIGA are able to release the names of the top performers. All the IPAs singled out in this section were not only the top performers, but had an overall performance of no less than 50%.

Table 4 shows the names of the top performing agencies from the developed world. An interesting fact worth noting is that not only national agencies, but also sub-national and city-level agencies were among the best performers. This is a confirmation of the increasingly relevant role that these types of investment promotion agencies are playing in economic development and the attraction of FDI.

Table 4

Best performing developed countries’ IPAs

Agency AgencyCategory

Invest Victoria, Australia Sub-NationalInvest in Sweden Agency NationalCity of Melbourne, Australia CityLocate in Kent, UK Sub-NationalNewport City Council, UK CityScottish Development International, UK NationalShannon Development, R. of Ireland Sub-NationalInvestment Partnerships, Canada NationalLiverpool Business Centre, UK City

The top performers from the developing countries’ IPAs by region are listed in Table 5, below.

Table 5 Best performing developing countries’ IPAs

Region AgencyGEDA, South AfricaEPZA, KenyaBEDIA, BotswanaNamibia Investment CentreECDC, South AfricaAPIX, Senegal

Asia XIPA, Xiamen, Rep. of ChinaLIAA, LatviaADA, ArmeniaBFIA, BulgariaLDA, LithuaniaTIPO, SloveniaAIPAF, AzerbaijanIDAL, LebanonOCIPED, OmanFIDE, HondurasProNicaragua, NicaraguaCONAPRI, VenezuelaCINDE, Costa RicaCEPROBOL, Bolivia

Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Middle East and North Africa

Latin America and Caribbean

Sub-Saharan Africa

14

4. Benchmarking implications and conclusions The 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking Program relies on the 13 elements summarized in Box 3 (in Section 2, above) to assess and then compare the performance of the surveyed IPAs. As was previously explained in section 2, the selection of these 13 elements was based on current best practice. As such, the study’s methodology inherently includes a range of recommendations to help IPAs tackle the key elements of handling investor inquiries. Some of these recommendations are implicitly summarized in Box 3; others are based on common sense or widely known and accepted best practice in many other disciplines or in common day-to-day situations. For example, a question must be properly understood in order to be answered, and a quick reply is usually preferred over a less prompt one if both are of the same quality.

Consequently, the value added of the 2005 IPA Performance Benchmarking program is not to offer common sense or widely accepted advice related to the individual benchmarking elements. Instead, the program’s contribution is to provide overall context on how a selected number of interrelated elements reflect the overall performance of an IPA in handling an investor inquiry. In addition, the program brings value added in its potential to alert the participating IPAs on the specific elements of their processes not meeting a best practice standard.

To improve their performance on handling investor inquiries, IPAs have to address the proposed benchmarking elements and others that may be relevant not so much as individual areas of performance, but rather as a set of interrelated parts of an investor inquiry handling system. It is true that performing well in one or more related element is important. However, excellent performance in a couple elements is never a substitute for a performance that comprehensively and simultaneously covers all the elements. It is also important for the IPAs to understand that in practice, and in spite of the fact that the methodology and criteria used in this study are fairly comprehensive, there are still a series of elements and considerations regarding the handling of investor inquiries that are not integrated into this study. In other words, IPAs should look at the criteria and methodology of the program as one possible approach, but not as an immutable truth.

As a consequence, IPAs should focus first on understanding the main considerations or dimensions that should be ingrained in an investor inquiry handling system. This allows the IPAs to subsequently place more emphasis on the specific elements that address these broad considerations or dimensions. Figure 6 below depicts the three broad dimensions that an investor inquiry handling system should contemplate: availability, readiness and handling.

Figure 6

Investor inquiry handling system dimensions

HandlingHandling

Handling

Handling

Handling

HandlingHandling

Handling

Handling

Handling

Readiness

Investorinquiry

Availability

15

The three dimensions: availability, readiness and inquiry handling. The first dimension has to do with the way in which the IPA makes itself available, or reachable by the investor. If the investor is not able to easily reach the IPA, then any additional consideration in terms of inquiry handling is useless. IPAs should aim to always have at least one or a combination of the following updated points of contact: telephone numbers, e-mail accounts, web facilities and directories through which the IPA can be found and consequently reached by potential investors.

The second dimension is readiness. In this framework, readiness refers to the IPAs being able to promptly handle investor inquiries as a result of their having built internally the capacity to: understand the requirements of the investor; display the required level of professionalism and skills; understand the economy, industries, sectors, investors, competitors; gather and package comprehensive investor information; establish relevant partnerships and coordination among stakeholders; and balance the needs of the investors against the available resources to the IPA, so it can provide a level of service that at least focuses on those elements essential to the investor.

Finally, the third dimension is the handling of the inquiry per se. This dimension includes the usual steps in the process: receipt and evaluation of the investor inquiry; acknowledgement, understanding and processing of the inquiry; customisation of the information; initial reply; follow up on appropriateness of initial reply; adjusted or additional reply to the inquiry; continued follow up; and evaluation of the process. In addition, this dimension includes elements such as the use of information technology to make the process more effective and efficient, the definition of service and communication standards and the evaluation of the value added of the whole process.

By taking into account the three dimensions and integrating them into an investor inquiry handling system, IPAs can cover the most important elements that have the potential to positively impact the level of quality and competitiveness of their services. However, it is important to understand that the concept of a system is much more complex than simply putting the three dimensions together. A real system involves at least two distinctive elements. The first one is that the system integrates elements that allow the organization to monitor and evaluate all the related inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes; the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) components become an integral part of the system. The second distinctive element is a result of the first and can be called continuous improvement. By integrating M&E elements, a system becomes a self- evolving/self-improving mechanism to achieve increasingly better results.

From this point on, an IPA with a strong investor inquiry handling system framework can start focusing on the specific benchmarking elements such as those in outlined in Box 3, and consider specific best practices and recommendations such as those suggested in Box 4. In doing this, IPAs may take different approaches. While some may adopt a more integrated approach and include in their efforts those elements that may be more costly to fix, others may focus on the small details that require fewer resources and sacrifice, but that can yield interesting improvements in the overall performance of the agency.

Overall, investor inquiry handling should be considered a crucial priority in the IPA’s day-to-day operation. In addition to making the IPA’s services more competitive, superior investor inquiry handling also contributes to the competitiveness of the location, given that investors must acquire and evaluate certain types of information about a site before adding it to a short list of locations to visit. The effective investor inquiry handling system can help streamline the process by which the IPA’s location is considered for this short list. While effective investor inquiry handling cannot enhance the overall investment climate, the IPA’s competent performance in this area can: 1) help the investor to efficiently make decisions, 2) positively influence these decisions, and 3) reflect both on the IPA’s professionalism and the location as an orderly and convenient place to do business.

16

Box 4 - A few tips for improving investor inquiry handling

1. Understand what is important for the investor: have a clear understanding of their target markets and their competitive positioning in those markets. Then gather the information and relevant promotional facts that will impress the investor.

2. Be mindful of what is happening in the world: have a close eye on international business and investment conditions and trends, which will either limit or present opportunities for investment in your region.

3. Implement a system from which you can learn and that you can improve. Adopt professional standards of business planning, systems and marketing, and look to measure and improve performance on a regular basis. In particular, understand that the market for FDI is now truly global and competitive. Agencies need to become nothing less than professional sales machines for their countries and regions.

4. Invest in human resources: Invest in the human resources that, together with resilient internal systems and standards, will deliver the agency’s performance.

5. Understand the limitations of the agency: Understand the limitations faced by the agency in terms of resources and remit, and then develop strategies to optimise its performance accordingly. Pragmatic strategies are adopted by many successful agencies with limited resources and remits, especially in areas including research, promotion, collaboration with other public bodies and the private sector.

6. Work with others in partnership, and to common standards of professional service, so that the foreign investor can be satisfied at every step of the investment process.

7. Adopt realistic, professional and service-minded systems when working with foreign investment enquiries. This will include the use of enquiry evaluation methods (balanced scorecards) that lead to varying, but appropriate levels of resources being applied to each enquiry. Then research around the best enquiries. Adopt proactive measures to develop the agency’s capability to respond effectively to these enquiries, and seek similar investments from other investors.

8. Respond as quickly as possible: IPAs should ensure that they take the first opportunity to interact with the potential investor. The majority of IPAs worldwide still do not have rigorous systems and procedures in place to do this first step consistently well. Whether enquiries are received by e-mail or telephone, a rapid reaction to the initial contact is necessary. This requires IPAs to have call and e-mail handling systems that direct the enquiries to the relevant staff members. In the case of enquiries received by telephone, it is better practice to have the relevant advisor call back rather than have an inexperienced staff member discuss the project with the investor immediately. It is good practice to send e-mail acknowledgement of enquiry reception, with contact details of the advisor who has been assigned to handle the enquiry.

9. Discuss and clarify: After receiving the enquiry and assigning an advisor, the IPA should contact the investor in order to discuss the project and clarify the information required. Preferably this should be carried out by telephone. However, if there is a time difference that hinders telephone communication, an initial e-mail asking clarification questions should be sent and followed up by a telephone call if possible. Although outwardly similar in appearance, projects are the unique creations of their owners. Different companies have divergent views about the business environment and what data they require to understand it.

10. Customize information delivered: Customised information is defined as materials specifically prepared to deal with issues raised by the enquiry. The customised information should answer all questions asked in the enquiry and take into account feedback received during the discussion and clarification stage. The best customised information goes beyond merely dealing with the original enquiry questions and demonstrates the IPA’s knowledge of the sector in question and experience in handling corporate location projects.

11. Follow up after delivery: It is good practice to ensure that the information has been received and is suitable for the investor’s needs shortly after delivery. This can be carried out by e-mail or telephone depending on circumstances.

12. Follow up on selection process: A follow-up call to check on the investor’s analysis of the response and to offer further assistance is an essential step in the process. Timing of the call is dependent on the location selection timetable. This follow up should be made by telephone in order to extract the maximum feedback on the response from the investor.

13. Provide fully backed background information: Background information should be carefully researched, detailed and regularly updated. Since there is no real time pressure on preparation of these materials, IPAs can be creative in design and take branding into consideration. The finished materials should be distinctive and as impressive as resources allow. Background information is defined as pre-prepared materials describing the national or regional business environment. IPAs should have these standard materials up to date and available to supply in either electronic or hard copy format. This also allows the investor to gain an understanding of the broader business environment and set the customised information in context when they receive it.

14. Customise information: Many agencies will personalise information, but fall short of providing the specific information required by the investor. Customised information should be provided, in as professional a presentation as time allows. The format and delivery method should be discussed with the investor at the discussion and clarification stage (e.g. Word document, PowerPoint presentation, pdf file). A key component of the customised information is a detailed covering letter, which summarises the main IPA arguments regarding the project and highlights where the investor will find key data in the response materials. A summary of the main arguments should also be included at the end of the main response document.

Box 4

17

Appendix 1 List of Surveyed IPAs

Country Agency Type

Albania Albanian Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (ANIH) National

Algeria Agence Nationale de Developpément des Investissements (ANDI) National

Anglola National Agency of Private Investment (ANIP) National Armenia Armenian Development Agency (ADA) National Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Investments Promotion and Advisory Foundation (AIPAF) National Bangladesh Board of Investment (BOI) National Belgium BEA Brussels National Belgium GOM Antwerpen Region Belgium Wallonia (OFI) National Belize Belize Trade and Investment Development Services (BELTRAIDE) National Benin Centre de Promotion des Investissements National

Bolivia The Bolivian Agency for the Promotion of Exports and Investment (CEPROBOL) National

Bosnia-Herzegovina Foreign Investment Promotion Agency of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FIPA) National Botswana Bostwana Export Development and Investment Authority (BEDIA) National Brazil Investe Brasil National Bulgaria Bulgarian Foreign Investment Agency (BFIA) National Burkina Faso Direction Générale du Développement Industriel (DGDI) National Cambodia Council for the Development of Cambodia National Cameroon Cellule de Gestion du Code des Investissements (CGCI) National Canada IPC Canada National Cape Verde Center for Investment, Export & Tourism Promotion (PROMEX) National China China International Investment Promotion Agency National China Sichuan Provincial Promotion Bureau National China Xiamen International Investment Promotion Center National Colombia Invest in Colombia Corporation (COINVERTIR) National

Congo DR Agence Nationale pour la Promotion des Investissements (ANAPI) National

Costa Rica Costa Rican Investment & Development Board (CINDE) National

Côte d'Ivoire Centre de Promotion des Investissements en Côte d'Ivoire (CEPICI) National

Croatia Trade and Investment Promotion Agency National Cuba Centro de Promoción de Inversiones (CPI) National Czech Republic Czechinvest National Denmark Invest in Denmark National Djibouti Agence nationale pour la promotion des investissements (ANPI) National Dominican Republic Center for Export and Investment of the Dominican Republic (CEI-RD) National Ecuador Corporación de Promoción de Exportaciones e Inversiones (CORPEI) National Egypt General Authority for Investment & Free Zones (GAFI) National El Salvador Comision Nacional de Promocion de Inversiones (PROESA) National Emirates, UA Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority National Ethiopia Ethiopian Investment Commission (EIC) National Fiji Fiji Islands Trade & Investment Board (FITIB) National Gabon Agence de Promotion des Investissements Privés (APIP) National Gabon Commmission Nationale de Mise en Place de la Zone Franche de l'Île Mandji National Gambia The Gambia Investment Promotion and Free Zones Agency (GIPFZA) National Ghana Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) National

18

Country Agency Type

Guatemala IIG-Invest in Guatemala National Guinea Office de Promotion des Investissements Prives (OPIP) National

Honduras FIDE – Fundacion para la Inversion y Desarrollo de Exportaciones / Foundation for Investment and Development of Exports National

Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board (Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal - BKPM) National

Jamaica Jamaica Promotions Corporation (JAMPRO) National Jordan Jordan Investment Board (JIB) National Kazakhstan Kazinvest National Kenya Export Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) National Kenya Investment Promotion Centre (IPC) National Korea, Rep. Of Invest Korea (KOTRA) National Laos Laos Department of Domestic & Foreign Investment National Latvia Latvian Development Agency (LIAA) National Lebanon Investment Development Authority of Lebanon (IDAL) National Lesotho Lesotho National Development Corporation (LNDC) National Lithuania Lithuanian Development Agency (LDA) National Macedonia Privatisation Agency of the Republic of Macedonia National Madagascar Espace de Promotion des Investissements Privés National Malawi Malawi Investment Promotion Agency (MIPA) National Mali Centre National de Promotion des Investissements (CNPI) National Mauritania Direction de la Promotion de l'Investissement Privé National Mauritius Board of Investment of Mauritius National Mongolia Foreign Investment and Foreign Trade Agency (FIFTA) National

Montenegro Agency of Montenegro for Economic Restructuring and Foreign Investments National

Morocco Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances National Mozambique Centro de Promocao de Investimentos (CPI) National Namibia Namibia Investment Centre, Ministry of Trade and Industry National Nicaragua ProNicaragua National Niger Centre de Promotion des Investissements (CPI) National Nigeria Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) National Norway Oslo Teknopol (OT) City

Oman Omani Centre for Investment Promotion & Export Development (OCIPED) National

Palestine Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency National Philippines Board of Investments (BOI) National Romania Romanian Agency for Foreign Investments (ARIS) National Russia Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (TIPA) National Rwanda Rwanda Investment Promotion Agency (RIPA) National Saint Lucia National Development Corporation National Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia General Investment Authority (SAGIA) National Senegal Investment Promotion and Major Works Agency (APIX) National Serbia Serbian Investment & Export Promotion Agency (SIEPA) National Slovak Republic Slovak Investment and Trade Development Agency (SARIO) National Slovenia Slovenian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (TIPO) National South Africa Department of Trade & Industry DTI (TISA) National South Africa Durban Investment Promotion Agency (DIPA) National South Africa Eastern Cape Development Corporation National South Africa Free State Development Corporation (FSDC) National

19

20

Country Agency Type

South Africa Gauteng Economic Development Agency (GEDA) National South Africa Invest North West (INW) National South Africa Trade & Investment KwaZulu Natal (TIKZN) National South Africa WESGRO National Spain Murcia (IIM) Subnational Sri Lanka Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI) National Swaziland Swaziland Investment Promotion Authority (SIPA) National Tanzania Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) National Tanzania Zanzibar Investment Promotion Agency (ZIPA) National Thailand Office of the Board of Investment (BOI) National Trinidad and Tobago Tourism and Industrial Development Company (TIDCO) National Tunisia Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA) National Uganda Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) National United Arab Emirates Dubai Airport Free Zone Authority (DAFZA) National United Arab Emirates Dubai Development and Investment Authority (DDIA) National United Kingdom East Midlands (EMDA) Subnational United Kingdom East of England (EEDA) Subnational United Kingdom Invest East of England (IEE) Subnational United Kingdom Enterprise Florida (EF) Subnational United Kingdom Invest Leicestershire (IL) City United Kingdom InvestNI (INI) National United Kingdom Isle of Wight (IWEP) City United Kingdom Kent (LIK) Subnational United Kingdom Knowsley (KMBC) City United Kingdom Liverpool Business Centre (LBC) City United Kingdom Merseyside (TMP) Subnational United Kingdom MIDAS Subnational United Kingdom Newport (NCC) City United Kingdom One North East (ONE) Subnational United Kingdom Scotland (SDI) National United Kingdom Sheffield First (SF) City United Kingdom South West England (SRDA) Subnational United Kingdom UKTI National United Kingdom WDA National United Kingdom Yorkshire Forward (YF) Subnational USA Illinois (IEDA) Subnational USA Mississippi (MiEDA) Subnational USA Missouri (MEDA) Subnational USA North Carolina (NCEDA) Subnational USA South Carolina (SCEDA) Subnational USA West Virginia (WVEDA) Subnational Vanuatu Vanuatu Investment Promotion Authority (VIPA) National Venezuela Consejo Nacional de Promoción de Inversiones (CONAPRI) National Vietnam Ministry of Planning and Investment National Yemen (Republic of) General Investment Authority (GIA) National Zambia Zambia Investment Centre (ZIC) National