Reshoring in Europe : overview 2015–2018.
Date: 2019-03-29
Institutions: Eurofound
Subjects: globalisation, industrial cooperation, industrial policy, industrial reorganisation, industrial research, research report

RESEARCH REPORT

Future of manufacturing in Europe
Reshoring in Europe: 
Overview 2015–2018

Future of manufacturing in Europe
Reshoring in Europe: 
Overview 2015–2018

When citing this report, please use the following wording: 
Eurofound (2019), Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Authors: Guido Nassimbeni, Marco Sartor, Li Wan (University of Udine), Alessandro Ancarani, Carmela Di Mauro, Francesco 
Mascali (University of Catania), Paolo Barbieri (University of Bologna), Cristina Di Stefano, Luciano Fratocchi, Lelio Iapadre 
(University of L’Aquila), Guido Orzes (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano)

Research manager: John Hurley

Eurofound project: Future of Manufacturing in Europe

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Print 
PDF 

ISBN 978-92-897-1837-0 
ISBN 978-92-897-1836-3 

doi:10.2806/119762 
doi:10.2806/610125 

TJ-01-19-130-EN-C 
TJ-01-19-130-EN-N

Web: http://eurofound.link/fome18010

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), 2019  
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the Eurofound copyright,  
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 
Cover image © milangudaba/Shutterstock 
Any queries on copyright must be addressed in writing to: copyright@eurofound.europa.eu

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) is a tripartite European 
Union Agency, whose role is to provide knowledge in the area of social, employment and work-related policies. Eurofound 
was established in 1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75 to contribute to the planning and design of better living 
and working conditions in Europe.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

This is a publication from the Future of Manufacturing in Europe (FOME) project.  

FOME is a pilot project proposed by the European Parliament and delegated to Eurofound by the European Commission 
(DG GROW). 

More information on the FOME project, including available and forthcoming publications and events and relevant data, 
can be found on the FOME page of the Eurofound website.

Website: http://eurofound.link/fome

Contact details
Donald Storrie (Project Manager) Donald.Storrie@eurofound.europa.eu
Alessandra Massaro (Project Administrator) Alessandra.Massaro@eurofound.europa.eu
Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00
Email: information@eurofound.europa.eu
Web: www.eurofound.europa.eu

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Free number*: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
*Certain mobile operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Printed by the Publications Office in Luxemburg

Contents

Executive summary 

Introduction 

1 

Reshoring cases 

Reshoring strategies 

Country of reshoring 

Offshoring countries 

Company size 

Sectors 

Motivation for reshoring 

Impact on employment levels 

2 

Inter-annual comparison 

What are the reshoring trends?  

Which home countries are more active regarding reshoring?  

Which are the main countries from which companies reshore?  

Which sectors are more active in reshoring?  

How are reshoring motivations changing?  

3 

Concluding remarks 

References 

Annexes 

1

3

15

15

16

18

19

20

22

26

29

29

29

30

31

32

35

37

41

Executive summary
Introduction
The European Reshoring Monitor is a collaborative 
project between Eurofound and a consortium of Italian 
universities (Bologna, Catania, L’Aquila and Udine) aiming 
to monitor reshoring cases in Europe from 2014 onwards.

The 2018 annual report presents evidence concerning 
the reshoring of manufacturing and other value chain 
activities in the EU and the European Free Trade 
Association (EFTA) countries. Specifically, this report 
examines the phenomenon by analysing reshoring cases 
and policies, and the related literature.

In this report, the findings from 2018 will be presented and 
compared with those of earlier years.

In the course of the monitoring, 253 reshoring cases were 
recorded, 46 of which took place in 2018. Large differences 
in the number of cases were found across the years, with 
about 60% of all cases taking place in 2016 and 2017.

The reshoring cases were identified either with the support 
of M-Brain, a digital media monitoring service  
(113 cases out of a total of 253) or directly through the 
activity of the research team.

Key findings
As far as the number of cases per year is concerned, there 
has been an upward trend since 2014, but a drop in 2018. 
However, it should be noted that there is often a time lag 
between when firms decide to reshore and when the news 
is published in the media. Therefore, the total number of 
2018 cases is likely to increase in the first months of 2019.

In 2018, the two countries with the highest number of 
cases were Denmark and Sweden (seven and six cases 
respectively). France, the United Kingdom and Italy (five, 
four and four cases respectively) remain the three most 
important Member States in terms of evidence of reshoring 
over the entire period of the project. In terms of firm size, 
large companies account for the majority of cases (around 
60% of all cases).

Although reshoring initiatives take place in a wide range 
of sectors from the Nomenclature statistique des activités 
économiques dans la Communauté européenne (NACE) 
classification system, manufacturing cases predominate 
(around 85% of the total). Within manufacturing, 
differences among sub-sectors are evident, with the 

wearing apparel sector (around 11%) remaining the 
most affected sector, even if levels of reshoring activity 
in this sector appear to have declined in the period up to 
February 2019.

As far as the motivations for reshoring decisions are 
concerned, the two most frequent reasons given between 
2015 and 2018 were ‘global reorganisation of the company’ 
and ‘delivery times’. However, in 2018 the most cited 
motivation was ‘poor quality of offshored production’ 
(nine instances), while the ‘Made in’ effect totally 
disappeared as a motivation.

The research team attempted to estimate the job gains 
resulting from the reshoring decisions – despite the 
scarcity of data on this issue – indicating the creation of 
12,840 new jobs during the study period.

Policy context
The economic impact of reshoring, on employment 
especially, has become highly prominent in political 
debate in Europe and the United States in particular. It is 
argued that reshoring has been largely driven by industrial 
policies aiming to ‘bring jobs back home’. Apart from 
reshoring cases, the European Reshoring Monitor also 
tracks policies aiming to support European companies in 
reshoring their production. In this respect, evidence was 
found in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the 
United Kingdom (UK). However, there is a lack of research 
on the real effects of such policies. In this respect, a recent 
study about the South Korean government’s experience 
of promoting the reshoring phenomenon highlighted two 
main issues: the restrictiveness of the adopted criteria 
(i.e. interruption of all manufacturing relationships with 
the host country) and a disproportionate focus on large 
enterprises.

Reshoring literature
As far as academic research literature is concerned, the 
topic of reshoring has continued to attract attention in 
2018. A total of 27 Elsevier Scopus indexed journal articles 
and book chapters were published in 2017, while 23 were 
published in the first nine months of 2018. Motivations for 
reshoring remain the major focus of research, but growing 
attention is being given to the decision-making and 
implementation processes and to barriers and outcomes 
of reshoring strategies (at the firm level).

1

Introduction

In recent years, global political and economic changes, 
the thinning of location advantages in some offshore 
countries and the growing awareness of the ‘total cost’ 
of offshoring have driven many companies to rethink the 
location of their international value chains and to move 
their manufacturing activities to their home country or to 
countries nearby. This phenomenon is often referred to as 
‘reshoring’, although other labels have been used, such as 
‘backshoring’ and ‘inshoring’.

Interest in reshoring has been growing, both among 
scholars and policymakers. At the political level, some 
governments are striving to revitalise manufacturing and 
increase employment by promoting reshoring. Monitoring 
the evolution, magnitude and motivations of reshoring 
is of paramount importance in understanding the drivers 
of reshoring decisions, in learning the processes through 
which reshoring is implemented and in evaluating the role 
of policy in encouraging the phenomenon.

The European Reshoring Monitor is a Eurofound project 
which is part of a multi-annual research project on the 
future of manufacturing in Europe, delegated to Eurofound 
by the European Commission (DG GROW, the Directorate-
General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship 
and SMEs). The project aims to identify, analyse and 
summarise evidence on the reshoring of manufacturing 
and other value chain activities in the EU and EFTA 
countries. It includes reshoring cases, relevant research 
articles/reports and policy initiatives. This project is based 
on collaboration between Eurofound and the Uni-CLUB 
MoRe Reshoring Research Group, a team of management 
engineering scholars belonging to four Italian universities 
(Bologna, Catania, L’Aquila and Udine) with an active 
interest in tracking reshoring activities.

The project collects information on individual reshoring 
cases from several media sources (newspapers, specialised 
press, scientific literature, practitioner literature) and 
organises it into a secured-access, regularly updated 
online database. It also develops and updates an online 
database of reference material on reshoring (i.e. research 
articles, consultancy reports, policy reports, key media 
articles, policy initiatives at regional, national or EU level 
or analysis based on quantitative reshoring data). As of 
February 2019, the European Reshoring Monitor contains 
253 reshoring cases announced in the media from 2014 to 
2018 and 68 reshoring papers published by both scholars 
and practitioners. All of this content is maintained and 
available to the public (see Eurofound, n.d.).

Within the scope of this initiative, the following cases of 
reshoring are considered.

  European companies that reshore value chain 

activities previously offshored to another country to 
their home country (within the EU and EFTA areas): for 

example, manufacturing by a German firm previously 
offshored to China or to France and now returning to 
Germany. This phenomenon is labelled ‘backshoring’.

  European companies that reshore value chain 

activities previously offshored to a non-European 
country to any EU and EFTA countries other than 
their home country: for example, manufacturing by 
a German firm previously offshored to China and 
now relocating to Italy. This phenomenon is labelled 
‘nearshoring’.

  Companies headquartered outside Europe and EFTA 
countries that move value chain activities previously 
offshored to a non-European country to Europe: for 
example, manufacturing by a company previously 
located in the United States (US) offshored to China 
and now relocating to France. This phenomenon is 
labelled ‘other reshoring strategies’.

This report is organised as follows. First, the methodology 
adopted to collect data and the project website are 
presented. Second, findings from recent scholarly 
literature on reshoring are summarised. Third, the policy 
initiatives adopted by European countries are discussed. 
Fourth, the 253 reshoring cases collected through the 
project are summarised and a discussion of the findings 
is provided, including a comparison of cases from 2018 
with those from previous years. Finally, conclusions are 
outlined regarding the current state of reshoring in Europe.

Methodology
The monitoring activities of the European Reshoring 
Monitor cover three main areas: media monitoring of 
reshoring cases, relevant research articles/reports and 
policy initiatives.

Media monitoring. The first monitoring activity aims at 
finding evidence of reshoring decisions implemented 
by EU companies and this process involves two steps. 
The first step encompasses the screening of a wide set 
of media sources (i.e. more than 7,500 press releases, 
major daily national newspapers, local papers, specialist 
trade journals, broadcaster websites and news agencies) 
in different languages of the EU and the identification of 
reshoring decisions. This stage is mainly carried out by 
M-Brain (media monitoring specialists) and the research 
group. M-Brain identifies possible eligible reshoring cases 
through a combination of human intelligence, keyword 
search and tagging, using their digital editorial platform 
and team of analysts. M-Brain searches thousands of 
media sources in multiple languages continuously for 
news stories on global manufacturing activity and provides 
abstracts of news on specific themes in English. These 
abstracts are coded using M-Brain’s in-house taxonomy 

3

(e.g. identifying cases of mergers and acquisitions, the 
countries involved, industrial relations, new plants, 
expansion plans, etc.). The report profile also looks 
for abstracts containing the keywords ‘reshoring’ and 
‘relocation’ in addition to the in-house taxonomy. A basic 
multilanguage glossary (see Annex A) has been built of 
the main phrases and search keywords. A reshoring report 
profile uses M-Brain tagging to identify news items on a 
weekly basis. The resulting report is then read and edited 
by M-Brain to provide a weekly reshoring report delivered 
to the project consortium. Each abstract includes as much 
relevant information (e.g. motivations for reshoring, year 
of any previously implemented offshoring decisions) as is 
available in the original article and a weblink (if available) 
for each piece of news.

Performed by the project consortium, the second step 
comprises the following points.

  The careful selection of reshoring cases among those 
sent by M-Brain and information searched by the 
project consortium, based on the project definition of 
reshoring (see Introduction section).

  The search for any additional information available 
(e.g. details of the previous offshoring decision, 
the NACE code for the firm’s industry, impact on 
employment when not provided in the news, etc.). The 
search is always expanded to sources beyond those 
covered by M-Brain to get a broader, more detailed 

view of the case. As one or more cases shortlisted by 
M-Brain may not relate directly to a reshoring initiative 
but to a different kind of relocation or restructuring 
decision, the consortium is interested in collecting 
that data to verify that the case is suitable for inclusion 
in the reshoring database.

  The development of the record has to be included 

in the reshoring cases database. Once the record 
is completed, it is saved in the database as a draft 
by a junior member of the research team. The draft 
proposal of record contents is submitted to a senior 
researcher on a weekly basis.

  After verification by a senior research member the 
record is approved and sent to the project quality 
manager for a quality check, after which time it is 
published on the database.

To maximise the reshoring cases collected as part of the 
project, the media monitoring activity was also carried 
out by the research team through their network of both 
practitioners and researchers. This effort allowed the 
project to enlarge the number of reshoring decisions 
found; more specifically, 140 out of the 253 decisions 
were found by the research group while the other 113 were 
identified by M-Brain.

Box 1 below summarises the various methodologies 
adopted in the current academic literature for studying the 
reshoring phenomenon.

Box 1: Methodologies used in the study of reshoring

Five main sources of data have been used in empirical research regarding the reshoring phenomenon:

 

 

 

survey studies

secondary data

case studies

  Delphi studies

 

trade data

Figure 1 summarises the number of scientific articles and book chapters adopting each approach.

De Backer et al’s (2016) study is the only study to use trade data to investigate reshoring. In particular, the authors 
adopted two indicators: the share of domestic demand served by imports and the geographic distribution of productive 
resources within multinational companies’ networks. The first indicator partially supports the hypothesis of reshoring 
from eastern Europe towards the UK but not towards other western European countries. At the same time, the data 
suggest the existence of US companies nearshoring to Mexico. The second indicator shows evidence of the reshoring of 
US companies as far as flows of capital investment are concerned but does not account for employment effects. Data 
from European countries are more limited in terms of time span and industries involved in reshoring and do not offer 
definitive conclusions.

The Delphi method is suitable when addressing opinions as opposed to facts, particularly when addressing complex 
topics where no clear causal relationship exists to explain the phenomenon. Therefore, it does not permit to quantify 
the magnitude of the reshoring phenomenon. Within the referred academic literature, only one document (Pal et al, 
2018) adopted this methodology since the research aim was the analysis of the impact on the reshoring decision of 
competitive manufacturing capabilities in high-cost environments.

4

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Introduction

Figure 1: Breakdown of academic articles by research methodology

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

16

11

10

1

1

1

Case study

Survey

Secondary
data

Delphi
method

Trade
data

Econometric
models

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

The case study methodology is extremely useful in shedding new light on the following research questions.

 

 

 

‘What?’ – this refers to the specific content of the reshoring decisions (e.g. single product line and/or single 
production phase vs. entire offshored product lines and/or production processes). This issue is assuming a growing 
relevance in light of increasing evidence of ‘slicing reshoring’ (Baraldi et al, 2018).

‘Why?’ – this refers to the motivations/drivers behind the reshoring and their relationship (if any) with the ones that 
led the company to offshore (Di Mauro et al, 2018).

‘How?’ – this refers to how the firm managed the decision-making and implementation phases of the reshoring 
decision.

However, the case study methodology does not permit to quantify the magnitude of the phenomenon in a specific 
geographical area or industry, therefore it is not useful for quantitative purposes.

The two remaining data sources (surveys and secondary data) provide an opportunity to quantify the reshoring 
phenomenon but differ in terms of the information they provide. More specifically, the survey – the most widespread 
research methodology among business scholars and consulting companies (De Backer et al, 2016) – enables to collect 
only information explicitly requested by the questionnaire. Since the response rate is generally inversely related to 
the length of a questionnaire (a critical factor for successful survey-based research) it is not always possible to collect 
extensive information on a specific phenomenon. For instance, in the case of reshoring there are very few examples of 
surveys collecting detailed data on the offshoring phase (e.g. the year of the decision, motivations, governance mode, 
etc.). However, it is worth noting the recent experience of Nordic countries among them (Heikkilä, Martinsuo et al, 2018; 
Heikkilä, Nenonen et al, 2018; Johansson et al, 2018; Stentoft et al, 2018). For instance, Johansson and Olhager (2018) 
estimate that, in Sweden, offshoring destroyed and reshoring created the equivalent of an average of six full-time jobs 
per single decision. However, since there was a far larger number of offshoring decisions, reshoring decisions (re)created 
only 56.2% of the jobs destroyed by offshoring.

Moreover, surveys are generally adopted to investigate large or, at most, medium-sized companies since the response 
rate of small companies is normally very low. Finally, survey studies are generally ‘one shot’ analyses that capture 
the magnitude of a phenomenon at a certain moment in time, but they generally lack a longitudinal perspective. In 
this respect, the only exception in reshoring studies is represented by the European Manufacturing Survey (Kinkel, 
2014), which is repeated every two years. Since this survey does not focus on reshoring, information concerning this 
phenomenon is limited to the following three variables: year of reshoring, firm’s industry and size, and reshoring 
motivations.

Table 1 summarises the main findings emerging from survey-based academic articles.

The secondary data methodology is preferred when the phenomenon to be investigated is new and reliable frameworks 
for its analysis are not yet available. These characteristics make it difficult to completely capture the phenomenon by 
means of surveys. These challenges explain the widespread use of secondary data in the reshoring literature (Figure 1). 
One limitation is that, being based on press news, secondary data may under-represent the extent of the reshoring 
phenomenon among small and medium enterprises (SMEs); in reality, developments at SME level are rarely covered 
in the press. Also, the exposure a certain phenomenon (e.g. a decision to relocate) enjoys in the press may depend on 

5

whether the phenomenon is topical in a given period. The secondary data-based methodology has been used, among 
others, by the Uni-CLUB MoRe Reshoring Research Group (Fratocchi et al, 2014; Ancarani et al, 2015; Fratocchi, Ancarani 
et al, 2015; Fratocchi, Barbieri et al, 2015; Fratocchi, 2016;) and Cranfield University (2015).

To sum up, the best way of studying the reshoring phenomenon seems to be a combination of different methodologies, 
given the trade-off between depth (provided by case studies) and breadth (typical of secondary data and surveys) of 
analysis.

Table 1: Evidence of reshoring from academic articles based on survey-based research

Authors

Year

Country

Period

Firms’ size

Surveyed 
companies

Reshoring 
companies

Heikkilä et al

2018 a

Finland

2010–2015

Heikkilä et al

2018 b

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

2010–2015

Johansson & 
Olhager

2018

Sweden

2010–2015

employees > 50

ISIC code 10–33

employees > 50

ISIC code 10–33

employees > 50

ISIC code 10–33

229

229

373

245

373

30

30

99

31

99

Fel & Griette

2017

France

Kinkel

2014

Germany

No time limit 
(until summer 
2016)

Every 2 years 
up to 1997

French firms and 
foreign subsidiaries 
located in France 
which offshored in 
China

SMEs and large firms

270 (not all are 
French firms)

~80 (40%)

1,450-1,650 firms 
for each survey

400/700 companies 
per year (estimated)

Kinkel & 
Maloca

Canham & 
Hamilton

2009

Germany

2005–2006

SMEs and large firms

1,663

2013

New 
Zealand

2001–2011

SMEs and large firms

676

Dachs & Zanker

2014

13 European 
countries

2010–mid 2012

SMEs and large firms

More than 3,500 
in 13 countries

Dachs & Kinkel

2013

9 European 
countries

Mid 2007–mid 
2009

SMEs and large firms

3,293

250

11

~ 140 (4%)

Germany 2.36%

Croatia 3.26%

Slovenia 3.26%

The Netherlands 
3.31%

Austria 3.42%

Switzerland 4.31%

Spain 5.26%

Denmark 5.3%

Finland 5.3%

Monitoring of research. The second monitoring activity 
is performed on research documents, such as academic 
articles and other documents (e.g. reports, white papers) 
produced by international and national organisations  
(e.g. Eurostat, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development (OECD), United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), US Federal Reserve), 
consulting companies (e.g. The Boston Consulting 
Group, McKinsey & Company) and leading practitioner 
organisations. The following methodology is adopted.

  Keyword search (based on English keyword reported 

in Annex A) in the most important academic electronic 

databases, such as Elsevier’s Scopus, ISI Web of 
Knowledge and Google Scholar.

  Analysis of the proceedings of the most relevant 

conferences in international business (e.g. Academy 
of International Business and European International 
Business Academy) and operations management  
(e.g. European Operation Management Association 
and International Purchasing and Supply Education 
and Research Association).

  Keyword search in internet search engines  

(e.g. Google) using English keywords jointly with 
company names of major consulting companies 

6

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Introduction

(e.g. The Boston Consulting Group, Deloitte) and 
institutions (e.g. US Federal Reserve, World Bank, 
UNCTAD, OECD, EU).

  Analysis of a number of internet sites focused on 

reshoring (Direction Générale des Entreprises, n.d.; 
Reshore UK, n.d.; Reshoring Initiative USA, n.d.).

For all the sources retrieved in the steps above, a 
snowballing approach was adopted (i.e. the list of 
references in each study was checked to identify other 
relevant contributions). The list of contributions is 
included in the project database.

Policy monitoring. The third monitoring activity concerns 
policies, that is legislation, regulations and government 
initiatives at all levels (EU, national, regional level) 
that have direct or indirect relevance for reshoring. 
This monitoring activity relies on the press monitoring 
undertaken by M-Brain and on the analysis of research 
documents.

The European Reshoring Monitor website. The results 
from the monitoring activities are published on the 
dedicated website (Eurofound, n.d.). The website includes 
the following five sections:

  project

  methodology

  glossary of search words

 

 

reshoring case dataset

reshoring reference material dataset

The reshoring cases page contains a search engine that 
allows the user to search the full list of reshoring cases, 
or search through the application of specific criteria 
(company name, sector, company country, offshoring 
country, reshoring country, reshored business function, 
reshored services/activities, reshoring announcement 
date).

Academic and practitioner 
literature
In this section, we present an overview of the findings 
of the published academic and practitioners’ research 
papers, focusing on contributions published in 2018. It is 
noteworthy that reshoring is generating a growing interest 
among scholars and practitioners. The first academic 
article on the subject was published in 2007 (Kinkel et al, 
2007). After 11 years, more than 100 journal articles and 
book chapters indexed in the Elsevier Scopus dataset 
have been published. This body of literature, together 
with the reports produced by consulting companies and 
professional bodies, has contributed to the understanding 
of the causes and potential of reshoring. After reading all 
the available documents, the research group selected 78 
documents (Figure 2) which provide useful insights for the 
European context.

Among the academic articles and book chapters, we found 
three literature reviews (Stentoft et al, 2016; Wiesman et al, 
2017; Barbieri et al, 2018) that help to summarise the main 
findings in this research field. In this respect, it is useful to 

use the framework adopted by Barbieri et al (2018), which 
classifies the available knowledge in accordance with the 
following research questions.

 

 

 

 

 

‘What’ – this question aims to verify the convergence 
(if any) among scholars with regard to proposed 
reshoring concepts.

‘Who’ – this research question focuses on the 
characteristics of the firms implementing reshoring 
strategies, analysing elements like firm size and 
industries.

‘Why’ – this question refers to the motivations that 
induce companies to reshore production.

‘How’ – this question essentially relates to the 
decision-making and implementation phases of 
reshoring strategies, that is how managers make 
decisions to repatriate offshored activities and how 
they put these decisions into practice.

‘Where’ – this question is related to the geographical 
aspect and is evaluated on both the home and host 
country levels.

7

Figure 2: Number of academic and practitioners’ documents by year

25

20

15

10

5

0

19

16

11

9

6

6

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Consultancy and Practitoner Report

Research papers

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

 

‘When’ – this question is mainly focused on the 
duration of the offshoring experience and the 
(possible) impact of contingent factors, such as the 
global economic crisis.

The ‘What’ question is the most debated in the current 
literature. A certain convergence among authors emerges, 
even if different labels (e.g. reshoring, backshoring, 
backsourcing) are adopted. In this report, we continue to 
use Fratocchi et al’s (2014, p.56) definition of reshoring:

a voluntary corporate strategy regarding the home 
country’s partial or total relocation of (insourced or 
outsourced) production to serve the local, regional or 
global demands, making the phenomenon a strategic 
option for manufacturing firms in regards their 
international relocation activities.

At the same time, it must be noted that several authors 
have considered the relationship between reshoring 
and governance mode, that is whether the reshored 
production is insourced within the company or outsourced 
to its national supply chain actors (Gray et al, 2013; Bals 
et al, 2016; Foerstl et al, 2016). Even if the two decisions 
(the location and the governance mode) are distinct, 
they share some interdependencies. Moreover, the 
adopted governance mode has a significant impact on 
the implementation of the reshoring decisions, shifting 
the attention from the relevance of internal knowledge 
(see, for instance, Nujen and Halse, 2017) to the role of the 
external network in the home country (Baraldi et al, 2018).

When referring to the ‘Who’ question, the most analysed 
issue relates to the impact of firm size. In this respect, 

findings differ significantly across studies. For instance, 
while Kinkel (2014) and Kinkel and Maloca (2009) stated 
that, among German manufacturing companies, reshoring 
hardly occurs among SMEs, Canham and Hamilton 
(2013) found a higher reshoring propensity among 
New Zealand SMEs. Conversely, Fel and Griette (2017) 
found no significant difference among French reshoring 
firms with respect to their size. They also found SMEs 
generally more satisfied with the outcomes of reshoring 
decisions than large companies. Fratocchi et al (2016) 
noted differences in the proportion of SMEs according 
to the home country; more specifically, while SMEs 
headquartered in North America constituted the majority 
of sampled firms, western European SMEs represented 
only one-third of the total amount. In any case, Gray et al 
(2017) suggest reshoring decisions implemented by SMEs 
should be examined closely since they seem to present 
differences when compared to those implemented by 
large companies. In this respect, it is useful to consider 
findings concerning the effects of the reshoring incentives 
promoted by the government of South Korea (Moon, 
2018). The evaluation, conducted by the Korea Institute 
for Industrial Economics and Trade (KIET), highlighted 
that one of the most relevant weaknesses of the adopted 
policy was its excessive focus on large enterprises where 
the companies most interested in reshoring appeared to 
be SMEs.

The ‘Why’ question is the second most investigated issue 
in the current reshoring literature (Barbieri et al, 2018). 
Several authors outline a broad variety of reshoring 
motivations including, in some cases, theoretical 

8

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Introduction

frameworks to classify them (e.g. Stentoft et al, 2016; 
Fratocchi et al, 2016; Srai and Ané, 2016). In this respect, 
one of the most important findings in the literature is 
the evolving conceptualisation of the nature of reshoring 
decisions. While they were initially considered a mere 
correction of an earlier managerial mistake (Kinkel and 
Maloca, 2009), later studies have shown that reshoring 
decisions are often made in response to changes in the 
external environment (e.g. changes in the cost advantage 
of low-cost countries such as China). More recently, some 
authors (see Baraldi et al, 2018; Di Mauro et al, 2018) 
have contended that the reshoring decision is the result 
of a ‘strategic shift’ of the company, for instance due to a 
repositioning strategy towards higher-value sectors.

Moreover, recent studies (Di Mauro et al, 2018; Johansson 
and Olhager, 2018; Stentoft et al, 2018) have paid attention 
to the relationships between offshoring and reshoring 
drivers. These studies have confirmed that backshoring 
decisions depend on multiple competitive goals, while 
offshoring is generally driven only by efficiency-seeking 
aims.

The ‘How’ question remains the least addressed, despite 
being considered among the most important priorities for 
future research. Even if some attempts have been made –  
like the process approach proposed by Bals et al (2016) 
and Benstead et al (2017) and the decision-making process 
adopted by SMEs investigated by Gray et al (2017) – further 
research should provide more information on issues 
such as governance, technological upgrading following 
reshoring and impacts on performance. In this regard, a 

recent contribution by Johansson et al (2018) focuses on 
the benefits of reshoring, while Engström, Hilletofth et 
al (2018) and Engström, Sollander et al (2018) highlight 
barriers to reshoring.

The research paper published by the OECD (De Backer 
et al, 2016) deserves a special mention because of its 
emphasis on government policies implemented to support 
reshoring. The authors summarise evidence from US 
and western European countries building on Fratocchi, 
Barbieri et al (2015). Although national policies offered 
a wide range of tools (ranging from the mere supply of 
information to financial aids), the authors recommended 
that policymakers should embody reshoring within a 
broader framework aiming at stimulating investments 
from both national and foreign companies. In this respect, 
the creation of unfair competitive conditions arising from 
subsidisation of reshoring companies should be avoided.

The possible role of technologies from Industry 4.0 also 
merits special attention given the weight policymakers in 
several European countries attach to these technologies in 
industrial policy. See, for instance, the German ‘Plattform 
Industrie 4.0’, the French ‘Alliance Industrie du Futur’ 
and the Italian initiative ‘Piano Industria 4.0’ (Industrie 
du Futur, n.d.; Plattform i40, n.d.). Industry 4.0 can be 
considered as a reshoring driver or as a reshoring enabling 
factor. In this respect, interesting analyses were recently 
published on the impact of automation (Ancarani and Di 
Mauro, 2018) and of additive manufacturing technologies 
(Fratocchi, 2018; Moradlou and Tate, 2018). Box 2 below 
summarises the main findings from these studies.

Box 2: Reshoring and Industry 4.0

The article entitled ‘Reshoring and Industry 4.0: How often do they go together?’ (Ancarani and Di Mauro, 2018) 
investigates the links between the reshoring of manufacturing to high-cost countries and the adoption of technologies 
labelled Industry 4.0.

The article is based on 840 reshoring initiatives to either the US or Europe, and includes data from the European 
Reshoring Monitor.

The results of this article offer the following lessons for managers and manufacturers.

  Robotics is not a necessary ingredient of reshoring. The majority of reshoring manufacturers have not adopted 

robotics and labour-saving technologies. Reshoring companies with quality-oriented strategies rely on the premium 
price that the higher quality of products produced in high-cost countries can guarantee.

  Cost-oriented companies, however, may adopt robotics. Because the labour cost gap with respect to offshore 
production has a greater weight for these companies, they need to plan to adapt existing technology when 
repatriating production.

 

Industry 4.0 supports manufacturing reshoring when design and product innovation are involved. 3D printing 
facilitates swift modifications of design and fast prototyping at costs only slightly higher than those borne in China.

  Technology is required to fill the void created by labour competencies destroyed during the offshoring process. 

Reshoring manufacturers may need to resort to robotics when the old supply base has vanished, and also because 
of a shortage of skilled workers.

9

Box 3: A growing interest in sustainability by reshoring researchers

Production activities affect all three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental). Therefore, 
decisions about where products are manufactured may have a negative impact on a firm’s sustainability. Scholars are 
paying more attention to the relationship between a firm’s reshoring decisions and sustainability issues. Analysis of 
the current literature shows that authors conceptualise sustainability as a motivation/driver for reshoring decisions. 
However, Engström, Hilletofth et al (2018) and Engström, Sollander et al (2018) show that it may also represent a barrier. 
For instance, authors found that in a Swedish furniture company the reshoring decision was delayed several times 
due to the entrepreneur’s sense of social responsibility to protect German employees from unemployment. Moreover, 
Engström, Hilletofth et al (2018) show that companies aiming to reshore have to evaluate carefully the effect of such a 
decision in the offshored production unit, given the possibility of acts of sabotage.

In a similar vein, the current literature offers evidence regarding the role of customers’ perceptions for both the social 
and environmental sustainability pillars. Pal et al (2018) speculate that this issue is expected to facilitate the backshoring 
decisions by Swedish manufacturing companies operating in the fashion industry. In this respect, Moore et al (2018) 
reported on a study by Cotton Incorporated which found that US customers believed that fashion products produced 
overseas had a greater negative environmental impact than those manufactured in the US. At the same time, Abbasi 
(2016) suggests that US reshoring companies in the clothing sector may take the opportunity to implement a strategy 
based on the recycling of apparel, given the growing ‘throwaway attitude’ within the industry (Ashby, 2016) and the 
availability of a good infrastructure for waste collection in the US.

Finally, it is worth noting the growing attention scholars 
are paying to environmental and social sustainability 
issues as possible drivers/effects of reshoring decisions 
(see Box 3).

With respect to the ‘Where’ question, research has aimed 
to identify home and host countries and their specificities. 
However, there is generally a scarcity of comparative 
studies, since most studies focus on one country or an 
extended area (e.g. the EU) considered as a whole  
(Table 2).

With respect to the home country, the phenomenon 
has been found in several western countries with 
characteristics – especially in terms of frequency of 
occurrence – varying among them.

In this respect, it is worth noting that differences  
have also been found within homogeneous regions,  
like the Nordic countries. For instance, while the 
reshoring decisions of Finnish companies were 
implemented mainly in the machine equipment and 
fabricated metal products sectors, for the pan-Nordic 
countries as a whole (Denmark, Finland and Sweden) 
reshoring has mostly concerned the transportation 
equipment and electrical equipment sectors. However, 
the three Nordic countries are homogeneous in terms of 
drivers with flexibility, quality and lead time being the 
leading motivations.

For comparative purposes, the ‘back/offshoring ratio’ (i.e. 
the number of backshoring decisions for each offshoring 
decision in the same period) deserves particular attention. 
While New Zealand companies are characterised by a 
1:6 ratio (Canham and Hamilton, 2013) and German 
companies by a 1:4–6 ratio, Nordic country companies 
range between 1:1.13 (Denmark) and 1:2.4 (Finland) 
(Heikkilä, Nenonen et al, 2018). Finally, the only pan-

European study (Dachs and Zanker, 2014) shows a ratio 
greater than 1:3. The different time frame of data – Nordic 
country data are more recent (2010–2015); New Zealand 
data are older (2001–2011) – may account in part for these 
significant differences.

Concerning host countries, Fratocchi, Barbieri et al (2015) 
compare European and US companies and find that US 
companies mainly reshored from China and other Asian 
countries, while European companies relocated mainly from 
other European countries. Significant differences also concern 
the reshoring period, with reshoring strategies implemented 
by European companies occurring since the 1980s, while US 
companies seem to have relocated more recently.

Within Europe, early academic research offers mixed results, 
also at the regional level. For instance, while 40% of Finnish 
companies backshore from Asia (Heikkilä, Martinsuo et al, 
2018), 66.7% of Swedish companies relocate from western 
European countries (Johansson and Olhager, 2018). The 
only available pan-European survey shows reshoring 
decisions are almost equally distributed between EU15 
(33% of total decisions) and EU12 (30%) countries.

Finally, the ‘When’ question was addressed adopting 
different perspectives: the first of which aims to evaluate 
variables affecting the offshoring duration (i.e. the time 
between the decision to move the value chain activity 
abroad and relocating to the home country). In this respect, 
by adopting a survival analysis approach, Ancarani et al 
(2015) were able to investigate the determinants of time 
span in a sample of companies in several countries, mainly 
in the EU and US. Their findings revealed that the duration 
seemed to be influenced by firm size, industry, adopted 
governance mode in the offshoring phase, reshoring drivers 
and host country. For instance, SMEs tend to return earlier 
than large firms; electronics and automotive companies 
return earlier than those in other industries. With regard 

10

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Introduction

to the governance mode, companies implementing 
offshore outsourcing strategies generally return earlier 
than those implementing captive offshoring. Regarding the 
relationship between motivations and duration, quality 
concerns are generally associated with shorter offshore 

durations – similar results were found for the ‘Made in’ 
effect. Finally, offshore initiatives located in Asia had a 
significantly lower duration than those located in eastern 
Europe.

Table 2: Evidence of reshoring by home country

Authors

Year

Country

Period

Industries (first three 
ones) 

Geographical 
areas (% first 
three)

Backshoring/
offshoring 
ratio

Drivers (first three)

1) Machine equipment  
2) Fabricated metal 
products  
3) Electrical 
components

1) Asia (40%; 
China 27%)  
2) Western 
Europe (33%)  
3) Eastern 
Europe (27%)

Heikkilä 
et al

2018a

Finland

2010–2015

Heikkilä 
et al

2018b

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

2010–2015

Johansson 
& Olhager

2018

Sweden

2010–2015

1) Transportation 
equipment  
2) Electrical 
equipment  
3) Basic metals

1) Labour-intensive 
production  
2) Complex 
production

1) Western 
Europe (66.7%)  
2) Asia (18.19%; 
China 11%)  
3) Eastern 
Europe (9.1%)

Only offshoring 
in China

Fel & 
Griette

2017

France

No time 
limit (until 
summer 
2016)

1) Automotive 
2) Electrical and 
electronics  
3) Metallurgy

Kinkel

2014

Germany

Each two 
years by 
1997

Dachs & 
Zanker

2014

13 
European 
countries

2010–mid 
2012

Up to 2006: only 
metal and electrical 
industries

After 2006: whole 
manufacturing 
industries

1) Electrical 
equipments  
2) Computer and 
communication 
equipment  
3) Automotive industry

1 back:1.9 off

1) Flexibility  
2) Quality  
3) Lead time

1 back:2.4 off  
1 back:1.19 off  
1 back:1.13 off

1) Quality  
2) Flexibility  
3) Lead time

1 back:1.13 off

1) Quality  
2) Lead time  
3) Flexibility

1) Labour cost 
reduction  
2) Euro fall against 
US$  
3) Change in 
firm's strategy 
4) Correction of 
managerial mistake

1) Quality  
2) Flexibility  
3) Coordination 
efforts (captive 
reshoring) vs 
transport/logistic 
costs (outsourcing 
reshoring)

1 back:4-6 off

1) EU15 (33%) 
2) EU12 (30%) 
3) India & China 
(21%)

1 back:more 
3 off

1) Quality  
2) Flexibility  
3) Transport costs

Canham & 
Hamilton

2013

New 
Zealand

2001–2011

1) Consumer goods

1 back:6 off

Kinkel & 
Maloca

2009

Germany

2005–2006

Up to 2006: only 
metal and electrical 
industries

After 2006: whole 
manufacturing 
industries

1) Eastern 
Europe (39%)  
2) EU15 (30%)  
3) Asia (4%; 
China 2%)

1 back:4-6 off

1) Flexibility  
2) Quality  
3) 'Made in' effect

1) Flexibility  
2) Quality  
3) Coordination 
costs

11

The second issue investigated with respect to the ‘When’ 
research question regards the role the global financial 
crisis has played in the reshoring phenomenon. In this 
respect, Kinkel (2012) found that, while offshoring 
decisions implemented by German companies decreased 
over the course of the global economic crisis, the levels 
of reshoring were broadly stable. In contrast, Fratocchi, 
Ancarani et al (2015) and Tate and Bals (2017) reported 
that reshoring has grown significantly in the years after 
the crisis, boosted by the return of North American firms. 
Finally, Fel and Griette (2017) noted that the number of 
reshoring operations in France has also grown significantly 
since the crisis.

In summary, although a significant body of empirical 
research on reshoring has been generated in the past 10 
years, more research is needed, especially to understand 
the processes and consequences of reshoring, although 
it must be acknowledged that the identification, 
operationalisation and measurement of this phenomenon 
and the related performance effects present considerable 
methodological challenges.

Policy initiatives
Notwithstanding the increasing interest of western 
policymakers in reshoring, few policies that directly 
promote the relocation of value chain activities in the 
home country exist (Figure 3).

Reshoring has been referenced in some EU institutional 
communications. For instance, the European Parliament 
adopted a resolution on ‘reindustrialising Europe to 
promote competitiveness and sustainability’ which was 
based on one ‘opinion’ expressed by the Committee on 
Industry, Research and Energy. In this document reshoring 
initiatives are considered useful in supporting Europe’s 
traditional industrial regions (European Parliament, 2013). 
The policy documents ‘A Stronger European Industry 
for Growth and Economic Recovery’ (October 2012) and 
‘European Industrial Renaissance’ (January 2014) declare 
the EU aim to reverse manufacturing’s declining share of 

GDP, increasing it from 15% to more than 20% by 2020. 
Reshoring may represent one of the means by which the 
objective may be achieved.

At the national level, reshoring policies are often coupled 
with those aimed at attracting investment, especially 
foreign inward investment. For example, in the UK, the 
Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) and UK Trade 
& Investment launched the Reshore UK service which 
supported companies in evaluating their capabilities, 
tailoring their relocation strategies and finding national 
suppliers. However, the MAS programme formally came 
to an end on 31 March 2016. At the same time, the British 
government participated in financing the Advanced 
Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative (AMSCI) which 
funded projects aimed at improving the competitiveness 
of UK supply chains and encouraging new suppliers to 
locate in the UK (AMSCI, n.d.).

Also, France was quite active in supporting firms’ 
relocation strategies, as shown by a survey conducted in 
2013 by the Ministry for Industrial Renewal which revealed 
that 60% of the companies that undertook reshoring 
initiatives received support from central government and/
or the local authorities. Among other support services, 
the Ministry of Economics and Finance made available 
the Colbert 2.0 software tool which helps companies 
self-evaluate their readiness for reshoring. However, data 
emerging from the reshoring monitor of France seem 
to show this service was not very supportive for local 
companies. Indeed, as of February 2019, the service is no 
longer active.

Another software programme designed to support 
firms in evaluating and implementing reshoring 
decisions has been developed by the US non-profit 
organisation Reshoring Initiative. It developed the Total 
Cost of Ownership Estimator®, an online calculator for 
determining the impact of reshoring vs. offshoring on a 
company’s profit and loss.

In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Social Affairs and 
Employment created a special incentive fund (€600 
million) to support job creation in the reshoring process 

Figure 3: Documents regarding reshoring policies by year

4

3

2

1

0

1

1

2

1

2

1

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Policy Report

Regional Policy

National Policy

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

12

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Introduction

in 2013 (Summer Foundation, n.d.). At the same time, in 
Italy, we found both initiatives at the country and regional 
levels. With respect to the latter, it is worth noting the 
parliament’s decision to support the reshoring of call 
centre services, which could create at least 20,000 jobs 
(Repubblica, n.d.). The best practice at the regional level 
is the Emilia-Romagna Regional Law 14/2014, which 
provides for ‘Location and Development agreements’ 
between foreign companies aiming to invest within the 
region and Italian reshoring firms. Applicant companies –  
which are selected based on industry, technological 
innovation level and environmental sustainability of their 
production processes – may receive benefits in terms of 
fiscal and financial incentives as well as reduced time for 
administrative authorisations. Box 4 below summarises 
the aims of an innovative reshoring programme the 
Emilia-Romagna regional government is implementing in 
collaboration with four local universities.

Regarding the various national Industry 4.0 initiatives 
already mentioned, it is worth noting that three larger 

member states (France, Germany and Italy) have combined 
forces in an initiative to promote the digitisation of 
manufacturing (Plattform i40, n.d.).

The only structured analysis regarding the ex-post 
evaluation of the reshoring incentives was implemented 
by KIET with respect to the ‘Act on Assistance to Korean 
Offshore Enterprises in Repatriation’ promoted by 
the South Korean government in 2013 (Moon, 2018). 
Analysts found that the main factors warranting criticism 
related to the restrictiveness of criteria for accessing 
aid (i.e. construction of a totally new manufacturing 
facility in Korea coupled with the total interruption of all 
manufacturing relationships with the host country) and 
the excessive focus on large enterprises where greater 
interest was indicated by SMEs. On the firms’ side, 
researchers found the main problem was the high level of 
reshoring costs and difficulty in correctly evaluating them 
in advance.

Box 4: The ‘Scouting Reshoring Prototype’ in Emilia-Romagna

As of February 2019, the University of Bologna – one of the European Reshoring Monitor’s partners – is involved in a 
project supported by the local government of the Emilia-Romagna region, aimed at developing a ‘Scouting Reshoring’ 
prototype. The tool will assist the local government to:

  map the international manufacturing footprint of Emilia-Romagna’s firms

  analyse and assess their reshoring propensity/potential and match it with the interests of various local stakeholders 

(e.g. other firms, trade unions, educational institutions, banks and financial institutions, etc.)

 

identify a pool of candidates for reshoring, meeting the expectations of the local stakeholders

  develop incentive systems that may eventually support their reshoring decisions

The project is an innovative partnership that involves the Department of Economic Development of the Emilia-Romagna 
local government and the departments of Economics, Management and Engineering of the four universities of Emilia-
Romagna: Bologna, Ferrara, Modena and Reggio Emilia, and Parma.

13

1  Reshoring cases

In this section, we analyse the 253 reshoring cases 
collected by the European Reshoring Monitor up to the end 
of December 2018, by considering several variables and 
issues:

 

 

 

 

 

country of reshoring (home country vs. another EU 
country)

comparison and relations between home, host and 
‘landed’ country (only for repatriation in countries 
different from the home country)

firm’s size

industry

reshoring motivations

  offshoring countries

  employment impact

Box 5: Reference concepts

The database contains three different definitions of 
reshoring:

  activities previously offshored (by a European 

firm) and relocated to the home country in the EU 
(‘backshoring’)

  activities previously offshored (by a European firm) to 
a non-EU host country and relocated to an EU Member 
State different from the home country (‘nearshoring’)

  activities previously offshored (by a non-European 

firm) to a non-EU host country and relocated to an EU 
Member State (‘other reshoring strategy’)

Box 5 below defines some of the concepts that will be used 
in the analysis.

Home country: The country that hosts the company’s official headquarters.

Host country: The country that hosted production or other value creating activity during the offshoring phase.

Landed country: The country that hosts the production after the reshoring.

Reshoring: Relocation of all or part of production or other value creating activities. According to the destination, we can 
further distinguish between backshoring (home country) and nearshoring (nearby country).

Backshoring: Relocation of all or part of production or other value creating activities back to the home country.

Nearshoring: Relocation of all or part of production or other value creating activities to a country near the home 
country.

When applicable, if a company has reshored different 
value chain activities from several offshore countries, 
these have been recorded as distinct reshoring cases.

For each case of reshoring identified through media 
monitoring, the research team has collected:

  general company data (location, employment levels, 

NACE code)

 

 

information on the reshoring initiative (date, 
motivations, expected impact on employment, 
ownership of repatriated activities)

the previous offshoring initiative (host country, 
ownership of offshore activities)

Unfortunately, information regarding how, when and 
why the company offshored in the past are only rarely 
available.

Reshoring strategies
As stated above, three distinctive reshoring strategies 
are included in the reshoring monitor: back-reshoring, 
near-reshoring and ‘other reshoring strategies’. Figure 4 
shows the frequency of each of them among the 253 
cases. Backshoring represents the dominant strategy for 
companies in the dataset (92.4%), where near reshoring 
strategies account for only 5.1% of the cases. Therefore, 
it seems that companies prefer to reshore directly to their 
home country rather than to a nearby country. This can 
be explained by a twofold reasoning. On the one hand, 
the ‘Made in’ effect is one of the most important reshoring 
motivations (see the subheading ‘Motivation for reshoring’ 
below). In this respect, Di Mauro et al (2018) clearly show 
that Italian companies in the fashion industry prefer 
backshoring to nearshoring, since they want to leverage 
the ‘Made in Italy’ label. On the other hand, the ‘emotional’ 

15

factors or ‘local roots’ of the entrepreneurs/managers 
often play a significant role in reshoring decisions 
(Fratocchi et al, 2016; Baraldi et al, 2018; Di Mauro et al, 
2018). In this respect, a specific role may be played by 

industrial districts/clusters (Bettiol et al, 2017a, 2017b). 
Box 6 summarises the reshoring experience of a small 
Italian shoemaker in the Montebelluna industrial district 
(Di Mauro et al, 2018).

Figure 4: Reshoring strategies

250

200

150

100

50

0

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

234

13

6

Backshoring

Nearshoring

Other reshoring

Box 6: The reshoring experience of a small Italian company operating in an 
industrial district

Fitwell is a small Italian company producing outdoor and mountain shoes which is headquartered in the shoe district of 
Montebelluna. The firm was created in 1979 and initially focused on the production of highly technical mountain shoes. 
Given the small volumes, the company also worked as a contract manufacturer. In 1999, Fitwell began outsourcing its 
production to Romania in response to pressure from its key business customer demanding more a competitive cost. 
However, in 2009, Fitwell partially backshored its Romanian production, deciding to manufacture in Italy not only top-
end shoes but also two out of the three main production stages for mid-range shoes (with its own brand). As of February 
2019, only footwear at the upper end of its mid-range products is still manufactured in Romania, given greater sensitivity 
to price competition.

Giuliano Grotto, the company founder, commented on his reshoring decision as follows:

We came back because we are rooted in the territory [Montebelluna], because we are able to manufacture a product but in 
order to make it a quality product we must produce it in Italy […] With the concept of Made in Italy we have gained as far as 
quality is concerned, but we have also regained the pride to produce here at home.

Country of reshoring
The data collected suggest that the level of reshoring 
activity varies significantly across countries, confirming the 
results of the previous reshoring monitor reports (Figure 
5). France, Italy and the UK remain the three countries with 
the highest number of reshoring cases. Despite its strong 
manufacturing tradition, Germany ranks only seventh 
among the reshoring countries. This is less surprising in 
light of the fact that Kinkel’s (2014) study already identified 
that German manufacturing was starting to weaken. The 

performance of Nordic countries is also noteworthy; they 
rank among the top 10, in each case with a higher number 
of reported reshoring cases than Germany. 

To make a scaled comparison of the reshoring 
phenomenon, the number of decisions per country has 
been compared with two economic indicators at the 
country level. The first indicator is GDP per capita, that 
is the ratio of the country’s total GDP to the number of 
inhabitants. As shown in Figure 6, no clear relationship is 
revealed between the number of reshoring cases and GDP 
per capita.

16

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018 
Figure 5: Number of reshoring cases per country (2014–2018)

Reshoring cases

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

44

39

36

19

19

17

17

12

9

6

5

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
a
w
r
o
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

d
n
a
o
P

l

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
ti
a
o
r
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

Source: European Reshoring Monitor
Note: US and Taiwanese data refer to the ‘Other reshoring’ category.

Figure 6: Comparison between number of reshoring cases (2014–2018) and GDP per capita

1

e
c
e
e
r
G

1

1

1

1

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
S

l

n
a
w
a
T

i

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

80.3

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

69.1

44

46.5

42.8

39

36

32.2

32.3

26.4

57.9

56.4

40.7

35.5

35.7

35.0

37.2

24.5

19

19

17

17

12

11.8

9

6

14.6

17.5

17.4

11.5

11.7

15.0

8.3

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Source: European Reshoring Monitor, Eurostat.
Note: GDP per capita (2017 data) except Switzerland (2016 data); France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Spain (expected 2017 data).

Number of cases

Real GDP per capita 2017 (k€)

17

 
 
Figure 7: Comparison between number of reshoring cases and value added by manufacturing sector (2016)

36

35

34

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

18

17

14

14

10

7

6

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Value added in  C-Manufacturing (NACE Rev 2) 2016 (Billion €)  Number of cases in C-Manufacturing

Source: European Reshoring Monitor, Eurostat.

Note: 2017 data; Belgium and Slovakia data not available.

Since the majority of reshoring decisions concern the 
manufacturing sector, the second economic indicator 
selected to better understand the phenomenon was the 
value added, that is the difference between the value 
of what is produced and intermediate consumption 
entering production, less subsidies on production and 
costs, taxes and levies. More specifically, the value added 
of the manufacturing sector (NACE code group C) was 
used. There seems to be a clearer correlation between the 
number of manufacturing reshoring cases and value added 
by the manufacturing sector (Figure 7) than between the 
number of reshoring cases and GDP per capita, with the 
partial exception of Germany and the Nordic countries. 
Based on this analysis, then, reshoring appears not to be 
related to these economic characteristics of the home 
country.

Finally, larger European countries (in terms of inhabitants), 
excluding Germany, account for a higher number of 
reshoring decisions.

Offshoring countries
Figure 8 shows the distribution of cases by host regions, 
that is the areas left after the reshoring decision. Cases 
are almost equally distributed between Asia and EFTA 
countries. This finding is extremely interesting for both 
policymakers and scholars, since the two areas have 
attracted offshoring for different reasons.

When considering decisions to reshore from individual 
offshore countries (Figure 9), China occupies the top 
position (around 30% of cases). This can be explained 

18

by different factors: (1) China (often called ‘the world’s 
factory’) has traditionally been one of the most important 
offshoring countries; (2) Western companies sourcing or 
manufacturing in China have experienced some issues 
with product quality, IP rights and sustainability in recent 
years; and (3) production costs in China have significantly 
increased in recent years.

Figure 8: Breakdown by host region

3 (1%)

8 (3%)

2 (1%)

6 (2%)

10 (4%)

118 (47%)

106 (42%)

EFTA countries
North America
Russia, former USSR countries & non EU-Balkans
n.a.

Asia
Africa & Middle East
Oceania

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018       
Figure 9: Breakdown by number decisions to reshore from host country

80

76

Reshoring cases

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

15 15 14

9 9 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i

a
n
h
C

i

a
d
n

I

d
n
a
o
P

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

y
e
k
r
u
T

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

a
i
k
a
v
o
S

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

a
i
s
s
u
R

i

n
a
p
S

n
a
w
a
T

i

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
d
a
n
a
C

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

a
b
r
e
S

a
i
s
i
n
u
T

m
a
n
t
e
V

i

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

n
a
p
a
J

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
t
l
a
M

o
c
i
x
e
M

a
v
o
d
o
M

l

o
c
c
o
r
o
M

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
r
o
p
a
g
n
S

i

h
s
e
d
a
g
n
a
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a

l
i

a
h
T

i

e
n
a
r
k
U

a
c
i
r
f
A
h
t
u
o
S

s
e
t
a
r
i

m
E
b
a
r
A
d
e
t
i
n
U

10

.
a
.
n

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

As far as EFTA countries are concerned, Poland and 
Germany are the most frequent host countries (15 and 
14 reshoring decisions respectively), demonstrating that 
reshoring is a strategic phenomenon involving both the 
traditional high-cost western European countries and 
lower-cost eastern European ones.

Company size
Figure 10 presents the breakdown of reshoring cases 
by firm size. We classified firms into three categories 
according to the number of employees, adopting the EU 
definition (2003/361/EC): small (less than 50 employees), 
medium (between 50 and 250 employees) and large (more 
than 250 employees).

Around 59% of reshoring cases involve large companies, 
while SME companies represent 41% of the collected 
cases. This result is consistent with recent findings for the 
Nordic countries (Heikkilä, Martinsuo et al, 2018; Heikkilä, 
Nenonen et al, 2018).

This evidence, which also deserves attention in light of 
the prevalence of SMEs in the EU, can be explained in 
different ways. Small enterprises have greater difficulty 
in rethinking their business strategies (e.g. due to a lack 
of resources), in particular abroad. They were less active 
in offshoring trends, and consequently in reshoring 
initiatives. As regards activity, small firms usually receive 
less attention from the media; thus, their reshoring 
initiatives are less likely to be detected through the 
methodology of media monitoring adopted in this project.

Figure 10: Breakdown by number of reshoring cases and firm size

151

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

59

43

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

large

medium

small

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sectors
As shown in Figure 11, more than 85% of reshoring cases 
occurred in ‘Manufacturing’ (218 cases), followed by 
‘Information and communication’ (12) and ‘Financial 
and insurance activities’ (9). Despite the low number of 
reshoring cases in ‘Information and communication’, this 
sector had a significant impact in terms of employment 
gains (2,411 job gains, that is 18.7% of the total amount) 
though it should be noted that this data relates mainly 
to the 2,100 jobs created in a single case (Vodafone’s 
reshoring of call centre activities – see Box 7). 

Within the manufacturing sector, the following five sub-
sectors are the most relevant as regards reshoring activity: 
C14 – Manufacture of wearing apparel, C10 – Manufacture 
of food products, C28 – Manufacture of machinery 
and equipment n.e.c., C26 – Manufacture of computer, 
electronics and optical products, C27 – Manufacture of 
electrical equipment, C30 – Manufacture of other transport 
equipment (Figure 12). These sectors represent 47% of 
the cases and 43% of total manufacturing jobs gained. 
Manufacturing as a whole accounts for 79% of total job 
gains arising from reshoring.

Figure 11: Breakdown by number of reshoring cases and sector

218

250

200

150

100

50

0

12

9

5

3

2

1

1

1

1

C –
Manufacturing 

J – Information
and
communication 

K – Financial
and insurance
activities 

G – Wholesale
and retail
trade; repair of
motor vehicles
and
motorcycles

B – Mining
and
quarrying 

A – Agriculture,
forestry and
ﬁshing 

N –
Administrative
and support
service
activities 

F –
Construction 

H –
Transporting
and storage 

M –
Professional,
scientiﬁc and
technical
activities 

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Box 7: Vodafone – the impact of reshoring on employment levels in the home 
country

Vodafone is a British mobile communications company operating in many countries around the world. In the UK it 
serves around 18 million customers and employs around 3,700 customer service operators, either directly or through 
contractors. As part of its GBP 2 billion investment programme over the 2016–2019 period aimed at improving the 
quality of its customer service, Vodafone announced the decision to relocate call centres previously offshored to South 
Africa back to the UK.

According to BBC news coverage, the Vodafone decision would create 2,100 jobs in the UK, both in its own call centres 
(Manchester, Newark, Stoke-on-Trent and Glasgow) and in those of service providers (600 jobs in Newcastle, Cardiff and 
the west of Scotland).

20

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018 
Figure 12: Case frequency by industry (only for manufacturing companies)

Reshoring cases

29

24

20

19

17

17

13

12

9

8

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

C14–
Manufacture of
wearing apparel 

C10–
Manufacture of
food products 

C28–
Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment n.e.c. 

C26–
Manufacture of
computer, 
electronic and 
optical products 

C27–
Manufacture of 
electrical
equipment 

C30–
Manufacture of 
other transport 
equipment 

C25–
Manufacture of
fabricated metal
products, except 
machinery and
equipment 

C29–
Manufacture of
motor vehicles,
trailers and
semi-trailers 

C32–Other 
manufacturing 

C31–
Manufacture of 
furniture 

Source: European Reshoring Monitor. Chart excludes sectors with fewer than eight reshoring cases

Four cases from the most relevant industries in terms of reshoring decisions are presented in boxes 8–11 below.

Box 8: Roy Lowe & Sons – a British reshoring case in the clothing industry

Roy Lowe & Sons is a family-owned company established in 1996 in the UK. The firm produced socks in the UK until 2006. 
At that time, it decided to offshore and outsource production activities to China, Turkey and India to reduce production 
costs. In 2013, the company launched a new brand (SockMine) for its lines of technical, sport, leisure and workwear 
socks. It decided to leverage the ‘Made in the UK’ label. Therefore, it reshored some production activities and insourced 
them to its old plant in Sutton-in-Ashfield. Between 2013 and 2017, the company reshored around 10% of its entire 
production. Other reshoring motivations declared by the company included: product quality, delivery time, protection of 
innovation and co-location of R&D and production activities.

Box 9: Premier Is – a Danish reshoring case in food production

Premier Is is a Danish ice cream dairy established in 1933. In 2017, it bought its Danish competitor Hjem Is and decided 
to reorganise its plant’s footprint, concentrating on the home country production activities previously located in 
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Slovenia and Poland. The decision to relocate the manufacturing function was also 
taken to ensure food quality and safety. As a result of this decision, the company increased the number of employees in 
its Thisted plant by around 20%.

Box 10: Vimec – an Italian reshoring case in the machinery and equipment industry

Vimec is an Italian company established in the 1980s that designs and builds stairlifts and elevators to overcome 
architectural barriers and improve accessibility. During the 1990s the company offshored production to its own plant in 
China. However, production costs and delivery times kept rising over the years, and exchange rate movements became 
unfavourable. For these reasons, the company decided to move all production activities back to its Italian site in Luzzara 
in 2017. This decision created 10 new jobs. By producing in Italy, the company has not only become more flexible but can 
also leverage the ‘Made in Italy’ label.

21

Box 11: Kapsys – a French reshoring case in the electronics industry

Kapsys is a French company founded in 2007 which operates in the fields of embedded intelligence and voice 
technologies. It designs and sells digital mobility and communication devices for elderly and visually impaired people. 
In 2017, the company decided to relocate the production of its second generation SmartVision mobile phone from 
China to France. The choice was driven by several motivations, among them poor product quality, long delivery times 
and increasing transport costs from its Chinese facilities. Production activities were outsourced to a French contract 
manufacturer that will also ensure a greater protection of Kapsys’ know how and intellectual property, and will make 
relationships between the production team and the company's R&D department easier.

Motivation for reshoring
A vast array of drivers or motivations have been identified 
in current reshoring literature (Fratocchi et al, 2016; 

Barbieri et al, 2018). The reshoring monitor considered 56 
reshoring drivers or motivations (see Annex C). Figure 13 
presents the distribution of the most cited motivations by 
number of cases.

Figure 13: Reshoring motivations (only those declared at least 10 times)

Quality control

Loyalty to the home country

Proximity to suppliers

Government support to relocation

Improve customer service

Economic crisis

Labour costs' gap reduction

Logistics costs

10

11

13

15

17

18

19

Untapped production capacity in the home country

Change in total costs of sourcing

Production ﬂexibility

Implementation of strategies based on product/process innovation

Know how in the home country

'Made in' eﬀect

Proximity to customers

Poor quality of oﬀshored production

Automation of production process

Delivery time

Firm's global reorganisation

24

26

26

27

28

30

40

43

48

51

55

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: European Reshoring Monitor
Note: Multiple motivations can be indicated for a single reshoring case

To understand whether these motivations are linked to 
specific models of reshoring, as in the previous reshoring 
monitor reports, we make use of a theory-driven 
framework introduced by Fratocchi et al (2016). This 
framework distinguishes reshoring motivations based on 
two main dimensions: the contextual factors affecting the 
decision (factors external to the firm vs. internal) and the 
strategic goals of the firm (customer perceived value vs. 
costefficiency). For illustration, external contextual factors 
include the home or host country's legislation or culture, 
labour markets, availability of suppliers and intellectual 
property protection. Internal contextual factors refer for 
instance to production processes, integration of company 
functions, processes and product innovation. Crossing 
the two dimensions (goals and main contextual factors), 
reshoring motivations can be mapped in a 2x2 matrix 

according to their nature. The matrix also includes four 
hybrid areas in which either one of the strategic goals or 
one of the factors becomes the dominating characteristic 
(Figure 14).

The two upper quadrants (value-driven motivations) 
account for around 33% of the total reported motivations. 
Among them, the most frequent are the ‘Made in’ effect 
and ‘Poor quality of offshored production’ (40 and 48 
instances respectively) in the upper-right quadrant 
(external environment and customer perceived value). 
These two motivations are certainly linked with high-end 
luxury production in which offshoring the production or 
part of the value chain could be risky, and which implies 
falling internal quality standards. The Diadora case is 
presented in Box 12, which builds on the ‘Made in’ effect.

22

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Figure 14: Framework for the analysis of reshoring motivations

l

e
u
a
v
d
e
v
i
e
c
r
e
p
r
e
m
o
t
s
u
C

y
c
n
e
i
c

ﬃ
e
-
t
s
o
C

1
6
n
o
ti
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
e
r

l

a
b
o
g
s
’

l

m

r
i
F

1
1
y
r
t
n
u
o
c
e
m
o
h
e
h
t
o
t

y
t
l
a
y
o
L

i

l

4
g
n
n
n
a
p
n
o
ti
a
c
o

l

e
t
n
a
x
e
f
o
k
c
a
L

4
y
g
e
t
a
r
t
s

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

i

2
s
p
h
s
n
o
ti
a
e
r

l

2
y
t
i
r
u
c
e
s
T
I

y
l
p
p
u
s

r
e

i
l
r
a
e
f
o
n
o
ti
a
n
m
r
e
T

i

Internal environment

External environment

Delivery time 55
Corporate social responsibility image 5 
Clean technology 2

Proximity to customers 43 

Poor quality of the oﬀshore production 48 

Implementation of strategies based on
product/process innovation 28  
Need for greater organisational ﬂexibility 27

Improve customer service 17 

Customer demand increase 6

Brand repositioning 2

Strengthen the brand image 2 

Production sustainability 1

Willingness to maintain employment in the home
country 1 

Automation of production process 51

Streamlining of supply chain 7 

Improvement in eﬃciency 8 

High inventory costs 6  

Quality control 10 

R&D vicinity 6 

Oﬀshored activities' control complexity 3 

Size of lots 3

Lean manufacturing 1

'Made in'eﬀect 40

Know how in the home country 30 

Intellectual property protection 7 

Unattractiveness of the oﬀshore market 7 

Retailer/customer pressure 4 

Local employees' poor skills 2 

Risk of brand counterfeiting 2

Cultural and linguistic diﬀerences 1 

Labour costs' gap reduction 19

Economic crisis 18 

Government support for relocation 15 

Exchange rate risk 7

Increased home country manufacturing productivity 5  

Increased production costs in the host country 4 

B
r
e
x
i
t
3

Changes in taxation 3 

Customs issues 3 

Competitive pressure 2 

Energy costs 1 

Reduction of administrative costs 1 

Rationalisation of costs 3 

Duties 1

Change in the total cost of sourcing 26 
Logistics costs 24 
Untapped production capacity at home 26
Proximity to suppliers 13 
Union pressure in the home country 2
Collaboration with suppliers 1 

Internal environment

External environment

Reshoring cases

l

e
u
a
v
d
e
v
i
e
c
r
e
p
r
e
m
o
t
s
u
C

y
c
n
e
i
c

ﬃ
e
-
t
s
o
C

Source: Our elaboration of European Reshoring Monitor data based on Fratocchi et al, 2016

Box 12: Diadora – the ‘Made in’ effect as a reshoring driver for an Italian fashion 
manufacturer

Diadora is an Italian company, mainly producing shoes, T-shirts and other products for sports activities. In 2017, 
Chairman Moretti Polegato announced company plans to reshore to Italy 10% of its high-end production activities over 
the next three years. The remaining products will be produced in China, Thailand and Vietnam. The decision was taken 
to support the product innovation process and bring the production and R&D departments closer to home. In addition, 
the company was able to leverage the ‘Made in Italy’ label and reduce the environmental impact of its production 
network.

‘Proximity to customers’ and ‘Implementation of 
strategies based on product/process innovation’ 
(43 and 28 instances respectively) are the most frequent 
motivations in the upper-left quadrant (internal and 

customer perceived value). ‘Proximity to customers’  
refers to higher levels of service and reliability of a  
firm, as explained in Box 13 below.

Box 13: La Brava – proximity to customers as a reshoring driver for a Spanish food 
company

La Brava Beer is a Spanish brewing company which decided to locate its production activity in the Czech Republic in a 
century-old brewery. The company defined itself as ‘nomad’ and ‘gypsy’, as one of the most famous brewers in history. 
However, it always used ingredients sourced from the Girona area (near Barcelona) and used a traditional recipe.

As of February 2019, it plans to move its production activities from the Czech Republic back to Spain, investing €8–10 
million in a new plant by 2023. The decision was taken since the company’s main markets are in Girona and Barcelona, 
although it also exports its products to Australia and France.

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moving to the lower-left quadrant, we find ‘Automation of 
production process’ (51 instances), which has recorded 
a further significant increase in 2018 (7 more instances 
than in 2017). Investments in robotics and automation can 
reduce labour usage and in turn decrease cost differences 
between the offshore and domestic countries, thus 
fostering reshoring. However, as already pointed out, for 

this reason automation may limit the number of job gains 
in the home country after the implementation of reshoring 
decisions. Welltec (see Box 14 below) has recently 
reshored thanks to investment in automation. Box 15 has 
an interesting illustration of the role of reshoring (and of 
Brexit) in the event of a firm’s global reorganisation.

Box 14: Welltec – the role of automation in the reshoring of a Danish company

Welltec is a Danish company developing and providing technologies and solutions for the oil and gas industry. In the 
past it outsourced and offshored production activities, mainly because of high production costs in the home country. 
In 2018 it invested heavily in robotics and automated production systems in its Danish plant, reducing the demand for 
labour and improving the level of efficiency. As a consequence, the company decided to bring back to Denmark part of 
the production function previously relocated to Poland.

Box 15: Deutsche Bank – business reorganisation and Brexit as a driver of reshoring

Deutsche Bank is a leading German bank operating at a global level. The bank announced it will move a large part 
of its securities trading business from London (UK) to Frankfurt (Germany) in response to Brexit. Moreover, the bank 
will concentrate its business for European corporate clients there. This relocation project started in 2017 and is still 
underway. The relocation will impact hundreds of employees.

A further characterisation of reshoring drivers has 
been implemented by analysing their relevance by 
landing country and by industry. With respect to the 
first dimension (geography) (Figure 15), reshoring to the 
UK (the country with the largest amount of reshoring 
decisions, 44) is mainly driven by issues with ‘Delivery 
time’ (17 citations of this driver out of a total of 55 within 
the entire dataset), ‘Poor quality of offshored production’ 
(14 out of 48) and ‘Proximity to customers’ (11 out of 
43). Not surprisingly, Italy (39 decisions) is the leader of 
reshoring strategies driven by the ‘Made in’ effect (18 
out of 40), which is also a characteristic of UK reshoring 
initiatives (13 cases). These results should be seen in light 
of Italy’s manufacturing specialisation, where the fashion 

sector (top of the reshoring ranking by industry) represents 
one of the most important manufacturing sectors (Di 
Mauro et al, 2018).

With respect to the adoption of automated production 
systems (the fourth reshoring driver by number of cases, 
51), Norway ranks first (13), followed by Italy (8), France 
and the UK (6 each). Italian reshoring cases are also 
characterised by the following other drivers: ‘Firm’s global 
reorganisation’ (10 out of 61), ‘Availability of know how in 
the home country’ (10 out of 30) and ‘Implementation of 
strategies based on product/process innovation’  
(12 out of 28). These findings suggest that reshoring drivers 
may be correlated with the economic and technological 
characteristics of the host country to some extent (Box 16).

Box 16: The home country effect

A recent article entitled ‘Reshoring: Does home country matter?’ (Wan et al, 2018) has attempted to answer the question 
of ‘how the home country affects reshoring’ using data from the European Reshoring Monitor and other sources.

By analysing a sample of 529 cross-industry reshoring projects by companies headquartered in five large advanced 
economies (France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US), this study shows that reshoring projects differ significantly 
in terms of industry, entry mode, firm size and motivations across the analysed countries. These results offer strong 
evidence that home country does matter in reshoring processes.

With regard to Italian reshoring projects, it has been found that they are significantly skewed in terms of industry (with 
significant and positive over-representation in the clothing and electronics sub-sectors) and in terms of motivations or 
drivers (with a strong positive ‘Made in’ effect but less influence from factors such as ‘labour costs’ gap reduction’ or 
‘delay in deliveries’) when compared to the other countries analysed.

With regard to German reshoring projects, the distinctive characteristics concern the industry (mechanical machinery, 
equipment and metal products, significant and positive), firm size (large), entry mode (insourcing prevails) and some 
motivations (‘quality issues’, significant and positive; ‘Made in’ effect, significant and negative) compared to the other countries.

24

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Reshoring cases

Box 16: (continued)

As far as UK reshoring projects are concerned, comparatively, they are distinguished by the dominance of time-based 
motivation, where ‘delay in deliveries’ and ‘total costs’ are found to be significant and positive motivating factors. In 
contrast, the ‘logistics costs’ and ‘Made in’ effect are significant motivations but with negative coefficients, that is less 
important considerations.

This study argues that the home country effects may manifest themselves in reshoring processes through multiple 
dimensions involving institutions, culture and size and profile of the manufacturing industries.

Figure 15: Frequency of cited motivations for reshoring by country

Firm's global reorganisation

• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (10)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (10)
• Sweden C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (10)

Delivery time

• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (17)
• Norway C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)
• Spain C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)

Automation of production
process

• Norway C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (13)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)
• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)

Poor quality of oﬀshored
production

• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (14)
• Denmark C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• Norway C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)

Proximity to customers

• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (11)
• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (9)
• Spain C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (7)

'Made in' eﬀect

• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (18)
• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (13)

Know how in the home
country

• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (10)
• Germany C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (4)

Implementation of strategies
based on product/process
innovation

• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (12)
• Germany C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (5)

Need for greater
organisational ﬂexibility

• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (10)
• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (5)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (4)

Change in total costs of
sourcing

• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (4)

Untapped production capacity
in the home country

• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (8)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (7)

Logistics costs

• France C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (7)
• United Kingdom C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (6)
• Italy C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel  (5)

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

25

When breaking down reshoring drivers according to the 
manufacturing sub-sector (Figure 16), it clearly emerges 
that only the ‘Made in’ effect motivation is strictly 

associated with a specific industry (the clothing sector 
with 16 out of 38 citations), while other drivers relate to a 
variety of different industries.

Figure 16: Motivations for reshoring sorted by manufacturing sub-sector

Firm's global reorganisation

•C27 - Manufacture of electrical equipment (7 cases)
•C10 - Manufacture of food products (6 cases)
•C26 - Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (6 cases)
•C29 - Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (4 cases)
•C32 - Other manufacturing (4 cases)

Delivery time

•C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel (10 cases)
•C28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. (9 cases)
•C27 - Manufacture of electrical equipment (6 cases)
•C30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment (6 cases)

Automation of production process

•C26 - Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (7 cases)
•C28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. (7 cases)
•C10 - Manufacture of food products (5 cases)
•C25 - Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (5 cases)
•C31 - Manufacture of furniture (5 cases)

Poor quality of the oﬀshored production

•C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel (7 cases)
•C28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. (6 cases)
•C10 - Manufacture of food products (5 cases)
•C30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment (4 cases)

Proximity to customers

•C30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment (8 cases)
•C31 - Manufacture of furniture (5 cases)
•C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel (4 cases)
•C27 - Manufacture of electrical equipment (4 cases)

'Made in' eﬀect

•C14 - Manufacture of wearing apparel (16 cases)
•C15 - Manufacture of leather and related products (5 cases)

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Impact on employment levels
The reshoring monitor dataset provides evidence of the 
employment impact of recent reshoring initiatives in 
Europe. Understanding the number of jobs lost because of 
offshoring initiatives and jobs gained in the home country 
thanks to reshoring initiatives is very important, especially 
for policymakers. Unfortunately, this information is 
available in the secondary data sources used by the 
reshoring monitor only for less than half of the cases 
(99, i.e. 40.4% of the sample). This finding may prompt 
the speculation that in the other 60% of analysed cases 
the employment gains were totally absent or at least 
not relevant enough to be highlighted by the reshoring 
company when communicating its own decision or by the 
media in reporting the case.

number (454 vs. 6,222) and in average job gains per case 
(86.4 vs. 11.3).

As far as reported job gains are concerned, two further 
issues emerge from the analysis of the case studies. 
First, the growing relevance of automation as a reshoring 
enabler (see the previous section, ‘Motivation for 
reshoring’; Ancarani and Di Mauro, 2018), which implies 
a reduction of labour demand. Second, companies 
sometimes implement reshoring decisions based on 
a ‘defensive’ approach, which is leveraging untapped 
production capacity available in the home country. 
Analyses conducted especially among Italian companies 
clearly show that firms may reshore under the pressure 
of unions and local communities, if in the home country 
there is a risk of plant closure and employee lay-offs.

A total of 12,840 new jobs were linked to these 99 
initiatives (Figure 17). In contrast to the 2017 data, in 2018 
the number of new jobs greatly decreased both in total 

Of course, it should be taken into account that the real 
effect of reshoring on employment is probably much more 
significant than suggested by the reshoring monitor data, 

26

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Reshoring cases

given the growing role of ‘indirect’ job creation, that is jobs 
created in companies that are part of the value chain of 
the reshoring company. Obviously, indirect job creation 
is more relevant when the reshoring companies relocate 

the manufacturing activity in the home country adopting 
the ‘reshoring for out-sourcing’ alternative (Gray et al, 
2013), that is outsourcing the reshored production to local 
suppliers.

Figure 17: Number of jobs created

 7,000

 6,000

 5,000

 4,000

 3,000

 2,000

 1,000

 0

6,222   

2,031   

2,110   

2,023   

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

454   

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Figure 18: Classification of cases per number of created positions

37

22

20

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

12

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

1–10

11–50

51–100

>100

27

2 

Inter-annual comparison

What are the reshoring trends? 
The number of cases remained fairly stable in the first two 
years, more than doubled in the following two years, and 
apparently decreased in the last year. This information 
should not be considered conclusive, given that news 
about a firm’s reshoring decision often appears in the 
press after a time lag. Therefore, the total number of 2018 
cases is likely to increase during the first months of 2019 
(data collection for this report concluded in December 
2018).

In establishing a trend, a caveat is necessary since a 
rigorous comparison of the annual data is difficult for the 
following reasons.

  M-Brain only started monitoring the news about 
reshoring projects at the beginning of 2016. Data 
referring to 2014 and 2015 have been drawn from 
another database (the Uni-CLUB MoRe Reshoring 
database), using a different methodology for 
collecting data and focused only on manufacturing 
companies.

 

It is worth noting that a case of reshoring is sometimes 
associated with the ‘announcement date’ of the first 
reshoring project. New reshoring projects by the same 
company are sometimes not announced, or at least 
not reported by media.

  Media traditionally pay less attention to mature 

phenomena or phenomena that are no longer 
considered novel.

In our view, the phenomenon deserves future attention by 
both scholars and policymakers, especially considering 
the possible impact of the emerging commercial tensions 
between the world’s main trading blocs that may provide a 
fresh stimulus for reshoring initiatives.

Figure 19: Number of reshoring cases per year

73

74

46

32

28

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Which home countries are more 
active regarding reshoring? 
Analysing data by home country, some substantial time-
based differences of the reshoring phenomenon emerge. 
First of all, the number of home countries affected by the 
reshoring phenomenon greatly increased after the first 
two years (Figure 20), confirming that the phenomenon is 
spreading throughout Europe.

Figure 20: Number of home countries affected by 
reshoring decisions

21

17

16

25

20

15

10

5

0

7

7

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

From a time-based breakdown at country level (Figure 21), 
three different patterns seem to emerge.

 

 

 

‘Early reshoring’ countries – in the case of the UK, 
one-third of reshoring initiatives were implemented in 
2014, when the Reshore UK project was launched by 
UK Trade & Investment and the MAS.

‘Second mover’ countries – in the case of the three 
largest industrial countries in Europe (France, 
Germany and Italy) reshoring decisions peaked in 
2016.

‘Late reshoring’ countries – primarily in the Nordic 
countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), most 
reshoring cases identified took place in the last two 
years. However, with respect to Norway, it ought to be 
noted that 4 out of the 11 cases found in 2017 relate 
to the same firm (I.P. Huse AS) which backshored to 
Norway with different reshoring decisions from the 
Czech Republic, Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

29

Figure 21: Number of reshoring cases per home country (only >10 decisions)

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

4

9

10

7

14

4

7

11

9

8

5

10

12

3

6

United Kingdom

Italy

France

Source: ERM

7

7

2
2
1
Denmark

1

11

5

2

Norway

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

7

2

5

2
1
Germany

6

4

7

1
3

5

3

Sweden

Spain

Which are the main countries from 
which companies reshore? 
As shown in Figure 22, the number of countries from 
which reshoring took place increased after 2015 and 
remained quite high for the next two years. This finding, 
together with the number of involved home countries 
and industries, clearly shows reshoring is becoming more 

widespread, even if the total number of cases has not 
increased sharply over the last five years.

Breaking down the findings by single host country and 
time period, it is evident that nearly half of all identified 
reshoring took place from China and that China’s share 
remains quite stable over the period. There is evidence of 
increased reshoring from Poland, India and Germany in 
2017 (Figure 23).

Figure 22: Number of offshoring countries affected by reshoring decisions

30

25

26

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

12

14

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

30

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Figure 23: Number of reshoring decisions by host country and year (>5 decisions)

Inter-annual comparison

Romania

1

1

2

2

Netherlands

1

2

1

2

Italy

2

2

2

France

4

2

United States

2

3

1

1

United Kingdom

2

1

2

1

3

Sweden

2

1

2

1

3

Germany

4

1

1

5

3

Poland

1

1

2

10

India

3

2

4

5

1

1

China

11

13

19

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

11

70

80

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

Which sectors are more active in 
reshoring? 
Reshoring has occurred mainly in the manufacturing 
sector, which accounts for around 85% of total reshoring 
cases identified. Based on manufacturing cases only, 
Figure 24 clearly shows that the number of sub-sectors 
affected by reshoring has significantly increased over the 
period, rising from 11 in 2014 and 2015 to 21 in 2017 (out 

of a total of 25 manufacturing sub-sectors in the NACE 
classification).

When considering the breakdown of the manufacturing 
sector, Figure 25 clearly shows how the share of each 
industry in the total number of reshoring announcements 
has changed over time. While in the last two years the 
number of reshoring cases in the clothing/apparel industry 
(the highest with 29 cases) reduced significantly, case 
numbers in food products, electronic and optical products 
and electrical equipment show an increasing trend.

Figure 24: Number of sub-sectors affected by reshoring decisions

22

18

11

11

13

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

31

Figure 25: Number of reshoring cases per industry (only >10 decisions)

C29 – Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers

4

1

2

C25 – Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery
and equipment 

C30 – Manufacture of other transport equipment 

C27 – Manufacture of electrical equipment 

1

1

C26 – Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 

1

1

C28 – Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.

C10 – Manufacture of food products

3

C14 – Manufacture of wearing apparel 

7

5

5

3

5

5

7

3

3

7

0

5

1

2

4

4

2

6

9

10

1

6

5

8

8

5

2

9

10

4

1

15

20

25

30

35

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

How are reshoring motivations 
changing? 
Figure 26 summarises changes in the reshoring drivers’ 
relevance within the period under investigation. While 
quality issues (both in terms of quality level and cost for 

quality audit) increased in relevance, the effect of the 
economic crisis declined as a motivation after 2016. At the 
same time, the adoption of automated production systems 
increased as a driving factor, while the ‘Made in’ effect 
almost disappeared in 2018, largely as a consequence 
of the sharp reduction of backshoring decisions in the 
fashion industry.

Figure 26: Inter-annual comparison of motivations

Quality control

Loyalty to the home country

Proximity to suppliers

Government support for relocation

Improve customer service

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

7

7

6

3

1

1

5

4

4

6

7

2

1

2

7

6

7

9

9

5

12

6

7

11

6

1

6

6

6

1

2

6

2

8

5

2

11

5

2

4

3

3

5

18

10

13

15

22

11

11

17

14

3

9

18

7

14

4

9

7

6

10

10

8

20

30

40

50

60

70

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Economic crisis

5

5

Labour costs' gap reduction

Logistics costs

Untapped production capacity

Change in total costs of sourcing

Production ﬂexibility
Implementation of strategies based on product/process
innovation
Know how in the home country

'Made in' eﬀect

Proximity to customers

Poor quality of oﬀshored production

Automation of production process

Delivery time

Firm's global reorganisation

0

8

6

6

6

8

7

8

7

6

6

8

8

10

Source: European Reshoring Monitor

32

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Inter-annual comparison

Table 3 summarises the main findings of the inter-annual comparison.

Table 3: Summary of main findings

Analysed issue

Main findings

Reshoring case frequency

The phenomenon increased between 2015 and 2017.

Home countries

Time periods

Host countries

Industries

Employment

Motivations

A spreading phenomenon: the number of home countries has grown steadily since 2015.

Three groups of reshoring countries were identified: ‘earlier reshoring’ (UK), ‘second movers’ (France 
and Italy) and ‘late reshoring’ (Denmark, Norway and Sweden).

The number of host countries – i.e. the country to which production was originally offshored – has 
declined. China has been the leading host country in each of the last five years. The importance of 
reshoring from Poland and India increased in 2017.

The spread of industries affected by reshoring decisions also increased in 2016 and 2017. 
Manufacturing accounts for around 85% of all cases. Within manufacturing, the clothing industry has 
been the most affected over the period covered but, in 2018, case frequency fell sharply in this sub-
sector. Reshoring in the food industry grew significantly in 2018.

Information on the employment effects of individual reshoring cases is partial and incomplete. 
Such effects are only made explicit in around 40% of media articles dealing with individual cases. 
In the cases covered, around 12,840 direct jobs were created over five years. Creation of ‘indirect 
employment’ is likely to be significant, although there is no research evidence of the reshoring 
multiplier effect.

‘Firm’s global reorganisation’ is the most cited driver of reshoring decisions. Poor product quality 
in offshored production has been growing as a driver in more recent years, while automation and 
technology also emerged as important motivating factors in 2017 and 2018.

33

3  Concluding remarks

The data collected highlight some key features of the 
reshoring phenomenon. In quantitative terms, reshoring 
appears to be essentially stable, while qualitatively 
significant changes emerge relative to the following features.

  Target countries – reshoring flows, which in the past 

predominantly affected developed western European 
manufacturing countries (France, Germany, Italy and 
the UK) have broadened to encompass northern and 
eastern Europe. Intra-regional flows have become 
more important.

  Sectors – the variety of industries affected has grown 

significantly and the concentration in labour-intensive 
sectors observed in the past has declined.

  Motivations – cost factors, and even quality factors to 

some extent, which dominated the first wave of the 
phenomenon, have today given way to factors linked 
to the global reorganisation of value chain activities, 
the need for customer responsiveness (delivery times) 
and new technological trajectories (automation and 
digitalisation).

Even with all the caveats that the use of secondary 
data requires, the reshoring phenomenon that our data 
describe is quite different from that observed even in the 
recent past. Previously, reshoring was often in response 
to unmet expectations regarding a prior offshoring 
decision. Once the (total) costs of developing and 
managing a foreign manufacturing base became clear, 
some companies decided to bring production back. In the 
first decade of this century, the instability of the location 
advantages in some sourcing countries and the mounting 
global crisis helped tip the balance in favour of reshoring.

The results of the reshoring monitor are in line with 
recent research contributions. In particular, evidence 
has been offered of a relevant backshoring movement 
towards northern European countries, Poland and Spain. 
Furthermore, the global reorganisation of value chains has 
been increasingly acknowledged as driving backshoring, 
assisted by increasing investments in new technology in 
several industries.

As of February 2019, we are witnessing a phase 
characterised by a greater awareness of the risks and 
the hidden costs of outsourcing and offshoring. The 
geographical dispersion of operations may disappoint 
cost-cutting expectations and compromise product quality 
and premium quality positioning.

In addition, companies are more aware of the fact that 
back- or nearshoring are just two of the possible options 
for international (re)configuration. Therefore, they 

should not be examined separately, but in the context of 
overall operations network design as well as companies’ 
corporate strategies.

To strengthen their competitive position, many emerging 
countries are making important modernisation efforts, 
significantly improving their industrial profile in terms of 
quality and innovation. In doing so, they develop their 
comparative advantage and increase the probability of 
being selected for nearshoring and/or further offshoring 
strategies.

Also, many European countries are supporting company 
investments in new technologies. Until now, these 
efforts are only partially driving reshoring. Many of the 
challenges that firms faced offshore can be addressed 
by relocation to home countries. The new generation 
of technologies appears to be providing opportunities 
to increase productivity and to address product quality 
issues, thus suggesting that further reshoring cases can be 
expected in the near future, driven by the falling costs of 
new technologies and encouraged by national plans that 
support technological upgrading.

Analysis of the links between reshoring and technology 
remains scarce, and is limited to northern European 
countries. Emerging research suggests that backshoring 
companies are among the most active in using new 
technologies, thus supporting the idea that this 
phenomenon may be reinforced in the near future 
by process innovations tied to the adoption of new 
technologies.

The evidence that emerges tends to confirm the 
evolutionary hypotheses of the reshoring phenomenon 
described in the already mentioned OECD report (De 
Backer et al, 2016), in particular the fact that ‘after years 
of large-scale offshoring and outsourcing, companies 
increasingly look for more diversified sourcing strategies 
and consider more options in structuring their production 
processes’. Furthermore, De Backer et al (2016) point 
out that it is reasonable to assume that changes in 
cost structures, demand factors and new technologies 
will promote the regional rebalancing of some global 
value chains as well as a growing concentration of 
manufacturing activities in regional or local hubs closer to 
end markets.

In conclusion, the data collected so far in the European 
Reshoring Monitor show that reshoring is an ongoing 
process whose features are evolving over time. Continuous 
monitoring of this phenomenon remains important.

35

References

All Eurofound publications are available at www.eurofound.europa.eu

Abbasi, M. H. (2016), ‘It’s not offshoring or reshoring but 
right-shoring that matters’, Journal of Textile and Apparel, 
Technology and Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1–6.

AMSCI (Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative) 
(n.d.), Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative, 
web page, accessed 4 February 2019.

Ancarani, A. and Di Mauro, C. (2018), ‘Reshoring and 
industry 4.0: How often do they go together?’, IEEE 
Engineering Management Review, Vol. 46, No. 2,  
pp. 87–96.

Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C., Fratocchi, L., Orzes, G. and 
Sartor, M. (2015), ‘Prior to reshoring: A duration analysis of 
foreign manufacturing ventures’, International Journal of 
Production Economics, Vol. 169, pp. 141–155.

Ashby, A. (2016), ‘From global to local: Reshoring for 
sustainability’, Operations Management Research, Vol. 9, 
Nos. 3–4, pp. 75–88.

Bals, L., Kirchoff, J. F. and Foerstl, K. (2016), ‘Exploring the 
reshoring and insourcing decision making process: Toward 
an agenda for future research’, Operations Management 
Research, Vol. 9, Nos. 3–4, pp. 102–116. 

Baraldi, E., Ciabuschi, F., Lindahl, O. and Fratocchi, L. 
(2018), ‘A network perspective on the reshoring process: 
The relevance of the home and the host-country 
contexts’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 70, 
pp. 156–166.

Barbieri, P., Ciabuschi, F., Fratocchi, L. and Vignoli, 
M. (2018), ‘What do we know about manufacturing 
reshoring?’, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic 
Sourcing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 79–122.

Benstead, A. V., Stevenson, M. and Hendry, L. C. (2017), 
‘Why and how do firms reshore? A contingency-based 
conceptual framework’, Operations Management Research, 
Vol. 10, Nos. 3–4, pp. 85–103. 

Bettiol, M., Burlina, C., Chiarvesio, M. and Di Maria, E. 
(2017a), ‘From delocalisation to backshoring? Evidence 
from Italian industrial districts’, Investigaciones Regionales 
– Journal of Regional Research, Vol. 39, pp. 137–154.

Bettiol, M., Burlina, C., Chiarvesio, M. and Di Maria, E. 
(2017b), ‘Industrial district firms do not smile: Structuring 
the value chain between local and global’, in Pedersen, T., 
Devinney, T. M., Tihanyi, L. and Camuffo, A. (eds.), Breaking 
the value chain: Opportunities and consequences, Emerald 
Publishing, Bingley, UK, pp. 269–291.

Canham, S. and Hamilton, R. T. (2013), ‘SME 
internationalisation: Offshoring, ‘backshoring’, or staying 
at home in New Zealand’, Strategic Outsourcing: An 
International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 277–291.

Cranfield University (2015), ‘An analysis of the UK’s 
capability to reshore production’, White Paper, National 
Manufacturing Debate, 20 May, Bedford, UK. 

Dachs B. and Kinkel, S. (2013), ‘Backshoring of production 
activities in European Manufacturing’, in Fynes B., 
Coughlan P., Operations management at the hearth of the 
Recovery, Proceedings of the 20th EurOMA Conference, UCD 
and TCD Schools of Business.

Dachs, B. and Zanker, C. (2014), ‘Backshoring of production 
activities in European manufacturing. European 
Manufacturing Survey’, EMS Bulletin No. 3, Fraunhofer 
Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany. 

De Backer, K., Menon, C., Desnoyers-James, I. and 
Moussiegt, L. (2016), Reshoring: myth or reality?, OECD 
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 27, 
OECD Publishing, Paris.

Di Mauro, C., Fratocchi, L., Orzes, G. and Sartor, M. (2018), 
‘Offshoring and backshoring: A multiple case study 
analysis’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 108–134.

Direction Générale des Entreprises (n.d.), Référents uniques 
à l’investissement, web page, available at https://www.
entreprises.gouv.fr, accessed 8 February 2019.

Engström, G., Hilletofth, P., Eriksson, D. and Sollander, K. 
(2018), ‘Drivers and barriers of reshoring in the Swedish 
manufacturing industry’, World Review of Intermodal 
Transportation Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 195–220.

Engström, G., Sollander, K., Hilletofth, P. and Eriksson, 
D. (2018), ‘Reshoring drivers and barriers in the Swedish 
manufacturing industry’, Journal of Global Operations and 
Strategic Sourcing, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 174–201.

Eurofound (n.d.), European Reshoring Monitor, web page, 
available at https://reshoring.eurofound.europa.eu, 
accessed 8 February 2019.

European Parliament (2013), Reindustrialising Europe to 
promote competitiveness and sustainability, press release, 
Brussels, 28 November.

Fel, F. and Griette, E. (2017), ‘Near-reshoring your supplies 
from China: A good deal for financial motives too’, Strategic 
Direction, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 24–26. 

Foerstl, K., Kirchoff, J. F. and Bals, L. (2016), ‘Reshoring 
and insourcing: Drivers and future research 
directions’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & 
Logistics Management, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 492–515.

Fratocchi, L. (2018), ‘Additive manufacturing technologies 
as a reshoring enabler: A why, where and how 
approach’, World Review of Intermodal Transportation 
Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 264–293.

Fratocchi, L., Ancarani, A., Barbieri, P., Di Mauro, C., 
Nassimbeni, G., Sartor, M. et al (2015), ‘Manufacturing 
back-reshoring as a nonlinear internationalization process’, 
in Van Tulder, R., Verbeke, A. and Drogendijk, R. (eds), The 
future of global organizing, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, 
UK, pp. 367–405. 

37

Fratocchi, L., Ancarani, A., Barbieri, P., Di Mauro, C., 
Nassimbeni, G., Sartor, M. et al (2016), ‘Motivations of 
manufacturing reshoring: An interpretative framework’, 
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics 
Management, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 98–127.

Kinkel, S. (2012), ‘Trends in production relocation and 
backshoring activities: Changing patterns in the course 
of the global economic crisis’, International Journal of 
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32, No. 6, 
pp. 696–720. 

Fratocchi, L., Barbieri, P., Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C., 
Troiano, A., Vignoli et al (2015), ‘Manufacturing back- and 
near-reshoring: A comparison of European and North 
American companies’, in Stentoft, J., Paulraj, A. and Vastag, 
G. (eds.), Research in the decision sciences for global supply 
chain network innovations: Best papers from the 2014 
Annual Conference, Pearson Education Inc., Old Tappan, 
NJ, pp. 107–128. 

Fratocchi, L., Barbieri, P., Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C., 
Troiano, A., Vignoli, M., Zanoni, A. (2013), Manufacturing 
Back-and Near-Reshoring: A Comparison of European and 
North American Evidence, in Stentoft J., Paulrai A., Vastag 
G. 'Research in Decision Sciences for Global Supply Chain 
Network Innovations: Best Papers from the 2014 Annual 
Conference', Pearson Education, pp. 107-128. 

Fratocchi, L., Di Mauro, C., Barbieri, P., Nassimbeni, G. 
and Zanoni, A. (2014), ‘When manufacturing moves back: 
Concepts and questions’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply 
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 54–59.

Gray, J. V., Esenduran, G., Rungtusanatham, M. J. and 
Skowronski, K. (2017), ‘Why in the world did they reshore? 
Examining small to medium-sized manufacturer decisions’, 
Journal of Operations Management, Vols. 49–51, pp. 37–51.

Gray, J. V., Skowronski, K., Esenduran, G. and 
Rungtusanatham, M. J. (2013), ‘The reshoring 
phenomenon: What supply chain academics ought 
to know and should do’, Journal of Supply Chain 
Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 27–33.

Heikkilä, J., Martinsuo, M. and Nenonen, S. (2018), 
‘Backshoring of production in the context of a small 
and open Nordic economy’, Journal of Manufacturing 
Technology Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 658–675.

Kinkel, S. (2014), ‘Future and impact of backshoring: 
Some conclusions from 15 years of research on German 
practices’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 
Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 63–65. 

Kinkel, S. and Maloca, S. (2009), ‘Drivers and antecedents 
of manufacturing offshoring and backshoring: A 
German perspective’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply 
Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 154–165. 

Kinkel, S., Lay, G. and Maloca, S. (2007), ‘Development, 
motives and employment effects of manufacturing 
offshoring of German SMEs’, International Journal of 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 4, No. 3, 
pp. 256– 276.

Moon, J. (2018), ‘Institutionalization of the reshoring 
facilitation policy and difficulties: From Korean experience’, 
conference presentation, Korea Institute for Industrial 
Economics and Trade (KIET) 14th East Asia Institute Forum, 
15 October, Singapore.

Moore, M. E., Rothenberg, L. and Moser, H. (2018), 
‘Contingency factors and reshoring drivers in the textile 
and apparel industry’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology 
Management, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 1025–1041.

Moradlou, H. and Tate, W. (2018), ‘Reshoring and additive 
manufacturing’, World Review of Intermodal Transportation 
Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 241–263.

Nujen, B. B. and Halse, L. L. (2017), ‘Global shift-back’s: 
A strategy for reviving manufacturing competences’, in 
Pedersen, T., Devinney, T. T., Laszlo, L. and Camuffo, A. 
(eds.), Breaking up the global value chain: Opportunities 
and consequences, Emerald Publishing, pp. 245–267.

Heikkilä, J., Nenonen, S., Olhager, J. and Stentoft, J. 
(2018), ‘Manufacturing relocation abroad and back: 
Empirical evidence from the Nordic countries’, World 
Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, 
pp. 221– 240.

Pal, R., Harper, S. and Vellesalu, A. (2018), ‘Competitive 
manufacturing for reshoring textile and clothing supply 
chains to high-cost environment: A Delphi study’, The 
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 11, 
No. 1, pp. 79–122.

Industrie du Futur (n.d.), Alliance Industrie du Futur, web 
page, available at http://www.industrie-dufutur.org, 
accessed 8 February 2019. 

Plattform i40 (n.d.), Shared action plan Industrie du Futur/
Industrie 4.0/Industria 4.0 in France – Germany – Italy, web 
page, accessed 6 February 2019. 

Johansson, M. and Olhager, J. (2018), ‘Comparing 
offshoring and backshoring: The role of manufacturing 
site location factors and their impact on post-relocation 
performance’, International Journal of Production 
Economics, Vol. 205, pp. 37–46.

Johansson, M., Olhager, J., Heikkilä, J. and Stentoft, J. 
(2018), ‘Offshoring versus backshoring: Empirically derived 
bundles of relocation drivers, and their relationship with 
benefits’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 
in press.

Repubblica (n.d.), Call center, il piano di rimpatrio del 
governo, web page, accessed 6 February 2019.

Reshore UK (n.d.), Reshore UK, web page, available at 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-government-
support-to-encourage-manufacturing-production-back-to-
the-uk, accessed 8 February 2019.

Reshoring Initiative USA (n.d.), Reshoring initiative: 
Bringing manufacturing back home, web page, available at 
http://www.reshorenow.org, accessed 8 February 2019.

38

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018References

Srai, J. S. and Ané, C. (2016), ‘Institutional and strategic 
operations perspectives on manufacturing reshoring’, 
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54, 
No. 23, pp. 7193–7211. 

Stentoft, J., Mikkelsen, O. S., Jensen, J. K. and Rajkumar, C. 
(2018), ‘Performance outcomes of offshoring, backshoring 
and staying at home manufacturing’, International Journal 
of Production Economics, Vol. 199, pp. 199–208.

Stentoft, J., Olhager, J., Heikkilä, J. and Thoms, L. (2016), 
‘Manufacturing backshoring: A systematic literature 
review’, Operations Management Research, Vol. 9, Nos. 3–4, 
pp. 53–61.

Tate, W. L. and Bals, L. (2017), ‘Outsourcing/offshoring 
insights: Going beyond reshoring to rightshoring’, 
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics 
Management, Vol. 47, Nos. 2–3, pp. 106–113.

Wan, L., Orzes, G., Sartor, M. and Nassimbeni, G. (2018), 
‘Reshoring: Does home country matter?’, conference 
presentation, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: 
Fostering Innovation, 27th International Purchasing and 
Supply, Education and Research Association Conference, 
25–28 March, Athens.  

Wiesmann, B., Snoei, J. R., Hilletofth, P. and Eriksson, 
D. (2017), ‘Drivers and barriers to reshoring: A literature 
review on offshoring in reverse’, European Business Review, 
Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 15–42.

39

Annexes

Annex A: Multilingual glossary

English

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Back-reshoring

Backreshoring

Backshoring

Reshoring

Back-sourcing

Backsourcing

De-internationalisation

Divestment

Home-shoring

Homeshoring

In-shoring

Inshoring

Manufacturing relocation

Near-shoring

Right-shoring

Nearshoring

Rightshoring

On-shoring

Onshoring

Re-industrialisation

Reindustrialisation

Reshore

Re-shoring

Reshoring

Reverse globalisation

Reverse relocation

‘Move back manufacturing’

‘Move manufacturing back’

‘Move production back’

‘Move back production’

‘Relocate production’

‘Relocate manufacturing’

‘Repatriate production’

‘Repatriate manufacturing’

‘Return production’

‘Return manufacturing’

‘Transfer production’

‘Transfer manufacturing’

‘Move back services’

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

‘Move R&D back’

‘Relocate R&D’

‘Repatriate R&D’

‘Return R&D’

‘Transfer R&D’

‘Transfer to local supplier’

‘Transfer to local suppliers’ 

‘Transfer to national supplier’

‘Transfer to national suppliers’

‘Return to local supplier’

‘Return to local suppliers’ 

‘Return to national supplier’

‘Return to national suppliers’

‘Supply basis back home’

‘Supplier back home’

‘Supplier back home’

‘Leave local suppliers’

‘Leave local supplier’

‘Leave offshore supplier’

‘Leave offshore suppliers’

‘Leave foreign supplier’

‘Leave foreign suppliers’

‘Cut off local suppliers’

‘Cut off local supplier’

‘Cut off offshore supplier’

‘Cut off offshore suppliers’

‘Cut off foreign supplier’

‘Cut off foreign suppliers’

‘Transfer out-sourced services’

‘Transfer outsourced services’

‘Reduce offshore outsourcing’

‘Reduce global sourcing’

‘Repatriate jobs’

‘Return jobs’

‘Move back jobs’

‘Move jobs back’

‘Repatriate foreign jobs’

‘Return foreign jobs’

‘Move back foreign jobs’

41

40

41

42

43

44

45

‘Move services back’

‘Relocate services’

‘Repatriate services’

‘Return services’

‘Transfer services’

‘Move back R&D’

85

86

87

88

89

‘Move foreign jobs back’

‘Repatriate offshore jobs’

‘Return offshore jobs’

‘Move back offshore jobs’

‘Move offshore jobs back’

Estonian
  Reshoring/reshore: English term is used

  Onshoring/reshore: English term is used

Inverser la relocalisation, la délocalisation inversée, 
la co-localisation inversée, colocalisation inversée 
(all these French terms have the same meaning, i.e. 
reshoring)

  Reshoring/backshore: English term is used

  Backsourcing/backsource: English term is used

 

Inshoring/inshore: English term is used

  There are also a few terms directly taken from English 
which can also be used in French, although they 
are not used frequently: l’offshoring/l’onshoring/le 
nearshoring/l’inshoring

  Onshoring: English term is used

  Other terms:

  De-internationalisation: tagasitoomine (or English 

term is used)

  Home-shoring/homeshore: English term is used

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 
agasitoomine kodumaale (or English term is used)

  Reverse globalisation: deglobaliseerimine (or English 

term is used)

Finnish
  Reshoring/reshore: työn kotiuttaminen (or English 

term is used)

  Onshoring/reshore: ulkoistaminen (or English term is 

used)

 

 

 

 

le ‘backsourcing’ = French word for insourcing, the 
opposite of outsourcing

la dé-internationalisation = French word for de-
internationalisation

le télétravail/le ‘homeshoring’ = French terms for 
Home-shoring/Homeshore

la mondialisation inversée/renverser la 
mondialisation = French terms for reverse 
globalisation

German
  Reshoring/reshore: English term is used

 

Inshoring/inshore: English term is used

  Reshoring/backshore: työn kotiuttaminen (or English 

  Reverse relocation: Produktionsrückverlagerung, 

term is used)

  Backsourcing/backsource: ulkoistuksen purkaminen 

(or English term is used)

 

Inshoring/inshore: työn kotiuttaminen (or English  
term is used)

  Onshoring: ulkoistaminen (or English term is used)

  De-internationalisation: English term is used

Rückverlagerung, Wiedereingliederung, 
Wiedereinlagerung, Wiedereingliederung, umgekehrte 
Standortverlagerung

  Reverse globalisation: umgekehrte Globalisierung

  Onshoring: The term is also used, but not as an exact 

synonym to reshoring, etc. It is used for relocations 
within the same country. The German term for this is 
Inlandsverlagerung.

  Home-shoring/homeshore: työn teettäminen etänä  

(or English term is used)

Polish
  Reshoring/reshore: repartacja dzialalnosci/produkcji

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 
tuotannon kotiuttaminen (or English term is used)

  Reverse globalisation: käänteinen globalisaatio  

(or English term is used)

  Reverse relocation: paluumuutto (or English term is 

used)

French
  Reshoring, onshoring, reshoring, inshoring, 

manufacturing repatriation, reverse relocation: 
la relocalisation, la relocalisation économique, le 
rapatriement, rapatrier, la relocalisation inversée, 

  Onshoring/reshore: przeniesc dzialanosc/produkcje

  Reshoring/backshore: repartacja dzialalnosci/

produkcji

  Backsourcing/backsource: repartacja pracy

 

Inshoring/inshore: przeniesienie dzialanosci/produkcji

  Onshoring: przeniesc dzialanosc na mala odleglosc (or 

English term is used)

  De-internationalisation: de-internacjonalizacja/

wycofanie si

  Home-shoring/homeshore: English term is used

42

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Annexes

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 

  De-internationalisation: internacionalizacija

przeniesc produkcje z powrotem do kraju

  Repatriate production: vratiti proizvodnju, vracena 

  Reverse globalisation: odwrocona globalizajca

proizvodnja

  Reverse relocation: odwrocona relokacja

  Reverse globalisation: obrnuta globalizacija

Portuguese
  Reshoring/reshore: English term is used

  Onshoring/reshore: English term is used

  Reshoring/backshore: English term is used

  Backsourcing/backsource: terceirizar processos de um 
fornecedor dentro do país (or English term is used)

 

Inshoring/inshore: terceirização dentro do país (or 
English term is used)

  Onshoring: desinternacionalização

  De-internationalisation: English term is used

  Home-shoring/homeshore: repatriar a produção

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 

globalização inversa

  Reverse globalisation: deslocalização reversa

  Reverse relocation: English term is used

  Reverse relocation: obrnuto premjestanje

Slovak
  Reshoring/reshore: premiestnenie/premiestnit/

relokacia

  Onshoring/reshore: presun, prestahovat, premiestnit

  Reshoring/backshore: navrat vyroby/firmy/spolocnosti 

do povodnej krajiny

  Backsourcing/backsource: navrat sluzieb spat do 

firmy/spolocnosti

 

Inshoring/inshore: English term is used

  De-internationalisation: de-internacionalizacia

  Home-shoring/homeshore: praca z domu

  Repatriate production/manufacturing: vratit/

repatriovat vyrobu/produkciu

  Reverse globalisation: reverzna/spatna/obratena 

globalizacia

Romanian
  Reshoring/reshore: Activitati tip reshore (or English 

  Reverse relocation: reverzna/spatna/obratena 

relokacia/premiestnenie

term is used)

  Onshoring/reshore: Activitati tip onshore (or English 

term is used)

  Reshoring/backshore: Activitati tip backshore (or 

Spanish
  Reshoring/reshore: English term is used

  Onshoring/reshore: English term is used

English term is used)

  Reshoring/backshore: English term is used

  Backsourcing/backsource: Activitati de tip backsource 

  Backsourcing/backsource: English term is used

(or English term is used)

 

Inshoring/inshore: Activitati de tip inshore (or English 
term is used)

  Onshoring: Activitati de tip onshore (or English term is 

used)

  De-internationalisation: De-internationalizare

  Home-shoring/homeshore: Activitati de tio homeshore 

(or English term is used)

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 

 

Inshoring/inshore: externalizar procesos a un 
proveedor dentro del país (or English term is used)

  Onshoring: English term is used

  De-internationalisation: desinternacionalización

  Home-shoring/homeshore: English term is used

  Repatriate production/repatriate manufacturing: 

repatriar la producción/repatriar la manufactura

  Reverse globalisation: globalización inversa

Productie repatriata

  Reverse relocation: reubicación inversa

  Reverse globalisation: Globalizare inversa

  Reverse relocation: Relocare inversa

Serbo-Croatian/Bosnian
  Onshore: na kopnu, kopneno, na obali

 

Inshore: priobalno

43

Annex B: NACE codes for industries within the ‘Manufacturing’ sector

Code

Subsector

Manufacture of food products

Manufacture of beverages

Manufacture of textiles

Manufacture of wearing apparel

Manufacture of leather and related products

Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting 
materials

Manufacture of paper and paper products

Printing and reproduction of recorded media

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations

Manufacture of rubber and plastic products

Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products

Manufacture of basic metals

Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

Manufacture of electrical equipment

Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.

Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers

Manufacture of other transport equipment

Manufacture of furniture

Other manufacturing

Repair and installation of machinery and equipment

Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment

C10

C11

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C20

C21

C22

C23

C24

C25

C26

C27

C28

C29

C30

C31

C32

C33

C35

44

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018Annexes

Annex C: Reshoring motivations

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Automation of production process

Brand repositioning

Brexit

Change in firm’s business strategy (e.g. new business area, 
vertical integration, etc.)

Change in total costs of sourcing

Changes in taxation

Adoption of clean technology

Collaboration with suppliers

Competitive pressure

Corporate social responsibility image

Cultural and linguistic differences in the host country

Customer demand increase

Customs issue

Reduce delivery time

Duties

Global economic crisis

Energy costs in the host country

Exchange rate risk in the host country

Firm’s global reorganisation

Government support for relocation

High inventory costs in the host country

Implementation of strategies based on product/process 
innovation

Improve customer service

Improvement in efficiency

Increased home country manufacturing productivity

Increased production costs in the host country

Intellectual property protection

IT security

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Know how in the home country

Labour costs’ gap reduction

Lack of ex ante location planning

Adoption of lean manufacturing

Local employees’ poor skills

Logistics costs

Loyalty to the home country

‘Made in’ effect

Need for greater organisational flexibility

Offshored activities’ control complexity

Poor quality of offshored production

Production sustainability

Proximity to customers

Proximity to suppliers

Production quality control

R&D vicinity

Rationalisation of costs

Reduction of administrative costs

Retailer/customer pressure

Risk of brand counterfeiting

Size of the lots

Streamlining of supply chain

Strengthen the brand image

Termination of earlier supply relationships

Unattractiveness of the offshore market

Union pressure in the home country

Untapped production capacity in the home country

Willingness to maintain employment in the home 
country

45

Annex D: Examples of reshoring cases fiches

In total, 253 reshoring cases have been identified during 
this project.  A full list of the cases is available at https://
reshoring.eurofound.europa.eu/reshoring-cases with 
links to individual case details and descriptions (sample 

listings below). The user can choose the order of the cases 
by clicking on the preferred heading (company name; 
company country; announcement date; offshored to; 
reshored to; sector; job gains). 

Company name

Company 
country

Announcement 
date

Offshored 
to

Reshored to

Sector

Job 
gains

Saint-Gobain 
PAM

Pegatron 
Corporation

Schaeffler 
Technologies 
AG & Co. KG

Rīgas 
Dzirnavnieks AS

France

15/11/2018

Germany

France

C24 - Manufacture of basic metals 

Taiwan

09/11/2 018

China

Czech 
Republic

C26 - Manufacture of computer, 
electronic and optical products

Germany

06/11/2018

United 
Kingdom

Germany

C28 - Manufacture of machinery and 
equipment n.e.c.

Latvia

02/11/2018

Estonia

Latvia

C10 - Manufacture of food products

Tikkurila

Finland

03/10/2018

Denmark

Finland

Volvo car

Sweden

19/07/2018

China

Sweden

Amps Electric 
Bikes Ltd

SealSkinz

Credit Suisse 
Group AG

United 
Kingdom

United 
Kingdom

16/07/2018

China

15/07/2018

Bulgaria

Switzerland

27/06/2018

Russia

United 
Kingdom

United 
Kingdom

United 
Kingdom

C20 - Manufacture of chemicals and 
chemical products

C29 - Manufacture of motor vehicles, 
trailers and semi-trailers

C30 - Manufacture of other transport 
equipment

C32 - Other manufacturing

K64 - Financial service activities, 
except insurance and pension 
funding

15

1

Stille AB

Sweden

20/06/2018

United 
States

Sweden

C32 - Other manufacturing

46

Reshoring in Europe: Overview 2015–2018FOMEEF/18/010

T
J
-
0
1
-
1
9
-
1
3
0
-
E
N
N

-

Reshoring – namely the relocation of value 
chain activities back to the home country 
or its nearby region – has attracted an 
increasing interest both among scholars and 
policymakers. The European Reshoring Monitor 
is a collaborative project between Eurofound 
and a consortium of Italian universities aiming 
to monitor reshoring cases in Europe.

This 2018 annual report provides a holistic and 
longitudinal overview of EU reshoring trends 
and characteristics by examining reshoring 
cases (from 2014 to 2018), policy initiatives, and 
the related literature. 

In quantitative terms, reshoring appears to 
be substantially stable, while qualitatively 
significant changes emerge relative to target 
countries, sectors and motivations. Reshoring 
flows have broadened to encompass northern 
and eastern Europe. The concentration in 
labour-intensive sectors observed in the past 
has declined. Cost factors that dominated 
the first wave of the phenomenon have today 
given way to factors linked to the global 
reorganisation of value chain activities.  

The European Foundation for the Improvement 
of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) 
is a tripartite European Union Agency whose 
role is to provide knowledge in the area of 
social, employment and work-related policies. 
Eurofound was established in 1975 by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75 to contribute to 
the planning and design of better living and 
working  conditions in Europe.