EIB investment survey 2022 : Sweden overview.
Date: 2022-12-17
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: Sweden, aid to undertakings, corporate finance, data collection, investment abroad, investment policy, large business, loan, sample survey, small and medium-sized enterprises

Sweden

Overview

EIB INVESTMENT SURVEYSweden

Overview

EIB INVESTMENT SURVEY 2022EIB Investment Survey Country Overview 2022: Sweden
© European Investment Bank (EIB), 2023. All rights reserved. 

About the EIB Investment Survey (EIBIS)
The EIB Group Survey on Investment, which has been administered since 2016, is a unique, annual survey of some 13 000 firms. It covers 
firms in all European Union Member States and also includes a sample of firms in the United States.

The survey collects data on firm characteristics and performance, past investment activities and future plans, sources of finance, financing 
issues and other challenges that businesses face, such as climate change and digital transformation. The EIBIS, which uses a stratified 
sampling methodology, is representative across all 27 EU Members States and the United States, as well as across four classes of firm 
size (micro to large) and four main economic sectors (manufacturing, construction, services and infrastructure). The survey is designed to 
build a panel of observations, supporting the analysis of time-series data. Observations can also be linked back to data on firm balance 
sheets and profit and loss statements. The EIBIS was developed by the EIB Economics Department. It is managed by the department 
with the support of Ipsos MORI.

About this publication
These reports provide an overview of data collected for the 27 EU Member States and the United States. They are intended to provide a 
snapshot of the data. For the purpose of these publications, data are weighted by value-added to better reflect the contribution of different 
firms to economic output. Contact: eibis@eib.org.

Download the findings of the EIB Investment Survey for each EU country or explore the data portal at www.eib.org/eibis.

About the Economics Department of the EIB
The mission of the EIB Economics Department is to provide economic analyses and studies to support the Bank in its operations and in 
the definition of its positioning, strategy and policy. The department and its team of 40 economists is headed by Debora Revoltella, director 
of economics.

Main contributors to this publication
Matteo Gatti, Julie Delanote, Francisca de Novais e Silva.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the EIB.
To accommodate scheduling limitations, the content of this publication has not been subject to standard EIB copyediting or proofreading.

About Ipsos Public Affairs
Ipsos Public Affairs works closely with national governments, local public services and the not-for-profit sector, as well as international and 
supranational organisations. Its around 200 research staff in London and Brussels focus on public service and policy issues. Its research 
makes a difference for decision makers and communities.

For further information on the EIB’s activities, please consult our website, www.eib.org. You can also contact our InfoDesk, info@eib.org.

Published by the European Investment Bank. 
Printed on FSC® Paper.

pdf:

QH-BL-22-029-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-5462-1 ISSN 2599-8005 doi:10.2867/222831

EIB Investment Survey 2022
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden
European Union overview

EIBIS 2022 – Sweden Overview

KEY RESULTS

Investment Dynamics and Focus
When interviewed (April-July 2022), Swedish firms were exiting from COVID-19 in a relatively good shape but
had, on balance, a negative outlook. A very large share of firms reported to be investing in 2021 (92%), well
above the EU average (81%). However, investment levels could fall as the net balance of firms expecting to
increase rather than decrease investments (23%) decreased from EIBIS 2021 (30%).

Investment Needs and Priorities
The share of Swedish firms claiming to have invested about the right amount over the past three years (80%)
is similar to the share of the previous year (76%) and to the EU average (80%). Capacity expansion (45%) will
be the biggest investment priority for Swedish firms over the next three years.

Covid-19 Impact
More than two in five (44%) Swedish firms were negatively impacted by COVID-19. However, more than a
third (37%) of firms expected to recover and to see 2022 sales coming back to their 2019 levels. Moreover,
72% of Swedish firms expected their 2022 sales to be above those achieved prior to 2019 as opposed to the
57% of firms across the EU.

Almost three-quarters (74%) of Swedish firms received some form of financial support as a response to
COVID-19 and one in ten (8%) are still receiving financial support.

Firms’ Transformation, Innovation and Digitalisation
Uncertainties related to the economic shocks hitting Sweden over the past years have not hampered
Swedish firms’ incentives to spur innovation. On the contrary, almost half (47%) of Swedish firms developed
or introduced new products, processes or services as part of their investment activities. This is higher than
results presented in the previous wave (EIBIS 2021 41%) and well above the current EU average (34%).

Over two-thirds of Swedish firms (68%) have taken at least one action in response to COVID-19, while 62% of
firms took action to become more digital. Moreover, 76% of them use at least one advanced digital
technology, slightly above the EU average (69%) and similar to the US (71%).

International Trade
90% of Swedish firms are facing disruptions associated to international trade. When asked about their
reaction to different shocks, three-quarters (75%) of Swedish firms claim to be impacted by COVID-19, the
Russia/Ukraine conflict or both. Almost two-thirds of Swedish firms facing disruptions are taking actions to
mitigate their impact on international trade. Moreover, Swedish firms are more focused on increasing or
diversifying trading partners, than on domestic suppliers or markets (49% versus 33%).

Drivers and Constraints
improvement in outlook in 2021, Swedish firms are more pessimistic about the
Following a general
investment conditions for the years ahead.
In net terms, economic climate expectations have turned
dramatically into negative territory (from +38% to -58%). While the most frequently mentioned long-term
barriers to investment in Sweden are availability of skilled staff (90%), energy costs (74%) and uncertainty
about the future (70%). Compared to EIBIS 2021, the cost of energy has become a barrier for many more
Swedish firms (74% versus 45%).

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

1

EIB Investment Survey 2022
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden
European Union overview

EIBIS 2022 – Sweden Overview

Investment Finance
The share of financially constrained firms in Sweden (8.1%) is much higher than in EIBIS 2021 (3.5%) and it is
the highest share ever recorded among the previous waves. For the first time, the share of finance
constrained Swedish firms is higher than the EU average. Down from 29% in EIBIS 2021, the proportion of
Swedish firms’ investment financed from external sources is 14%, about half of what is reported across the
EU (28%). Less than a quarter (23%) of Swedish firms investing in the last financial year used external finance.
This is far lower than the EU average (45%) and it represents a large drop from EIBIS 2021 (48%).

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Just over 50% of Swedish firms (53%) report that weather events impact their business. This share has
increased since EIBIS 2021 (45%) and it is in line with the EU average (57%). A third of Swedish firms (34%)
have developed or invested in measures to build resilience to the impact of climate change, in line with the
EU average (33%).

More Swedish firms consider the transition to stricter climate standards and regulations an opportunity
rather than a risk (43% versus 29% respectively). Results are broadly in line with EIBIS 2021 and are higher
than the EU average for opportunity (43% versus 29%). Moreover, 92% of Swedish firms are taking actions to
reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions while two-thirds (67% vs an average of 41% in the EU) monitor
targets for their own GHG emissions. Half of Swedish firms (51%) are investing in measures to improve
energy efficiency in 2021, a large increase from in EIBIS 2021 (38%) and well above the EU average (40%).

Over half (56%) of Swedish firms have already invested in tackling the impacts of weather events and dealing
with the process of reducing carbon emissions. A similar share is planning to invest over the next three years
(60%). The future intentions figure is higher than the EU average (51%).

Firm Management, Gender Balance and Employment
The majority (56%) of Swedish firms use a strategic monitoring system. This is a similar proportion to the EU
average (51%) and it is higher than the US (44%).
With respect to gender balance, a higher share of Swedish firms (77%) are striving for diversification within
their business than in the EU (58%) or in the United States (62%).

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

2

EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Investment dynamics and focus

INVESTMENT DYNAMICS BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

• During the first year of the pandemic (Q1 2020 to Q1 
2021), aggregate investment in Sweden remained 
fairly stable and above pre-pandemic levels, followed 
by a steady increase of 1 - 2 percentage points 
relative to Q4 2019. This was mainly on account of 
the positive contribution from households 
investment.

•

The level of aggregate investment increased between 
Q2 2021 and Q2 2022, a 11.2 percentage points rise 
relative to Q4 2019. This upward trajectory was 
primarily driven by the corporate sector as well as by 

the increasingly positive contribution from 
households. In contrast, government investments 
had a negative contribution that turned from positive 
(but already subdued) to negative at the start of 
2022.

• A similar trend is visible when considering quarterly 
year-on-year changes. Aggregate investments rose 
by 11.2% in Q2 2021 from Q2 2020. This increase was 
almost entirely driven by the corporate sector 
(10.7%).

2022 Q2 vs. 2008 Q4: +36.8%

12%

8%

4%

%
0

-4 %

15%

10%

5%

%

0

-5 %

-1 0%

-1 5%

1
Q
0
2
0
2

2
Q
0
2
0
2

3
Q
0
2
0
2

4
Q
0
2
0
2

1
Q
1
2
0
2

2
Q
1
2
0
2

3
Q
1
2
0
2

4
Q
1
2
0
2

1
Q
2
2
0
2

2
Q
2
2
0
2

1
Q
9
1
0
2

2
Q
9
1
0
2

3
Q
9
1
0
2

4
Q
9
1
0
2

1
Q
0
2
0
2

2
Q
0
2
0
2

3
Q
0
2
0
2

4
Q
0
2
0
2

1
Q
1
2
0
2

2
Q
1
2
0
2

3
Q
1
2
0
2

4
Q
1
2
0
2

1
Q
2
2
0
2

2
Q
2
2
0
2

Corporat ions

Governmen t

Households

Total

Corporat ions

Governmen t

Households

Total

The LHS chart shows the evolution of total gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) by institutional sector, in real terms and non seasonally nor calendar adjusted. The nominal GFCF source data 
was transformed into four-quarter sums and deflated using the implicit deflator for total GFCF (2015=100 euro). The four-quarter sum of total GFCF in 2019Q4 is normalised to 0. 
The RHS chart shows the y-o-y % change in total real GFCF by institutional sector. The implicit deflator for total GFCF (2015=100 euro) was used for deflating the nominal GFCF source data. 
Source: Eurostat, authors’ own calculations.

INVESTMENT CYCLE AND EVOLUTION OF INVESTMENT EXPECTATIONS

•

•

•

Similarly to EIBIS 2021 (88%), a large share of Swedish 
firms were investing in their businesses (92%). 
Investment growth rates might reduce however, as 
the net balance of firms expecting to increase rather 
than decrease investment (23%) is lower than in EIBIS 
2021 (30%). 

The share of Swedish firms that were investing in their 
businesses is above the EU average (81%). 

Large firms were more likely to invest and have a 
brighter investment outlook than SMEs. 
Manufacturing had the largest share of firms investing 
and the brightest investment outlook of all sectors. 
Construction firms have the least positive investment 
outlook.

2018 - 2019

2019 - 2020

2020 - 2021

Exp ec tati on for
2022 relative  to
2021

Realised 
change (%)

Expected 
change (%)

15,3%

-2,4%

-3,3%

-25,5%

29,6%

17,1%

23,4%

n

i

t
n
e
m

t
s
e
v
n

i

e
s
a
e
r
c
e
d
/
e
s
a
e
r
c
n

i

o
t
g
n
i
t
c
e
p
x
e

)

%
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
t
e
n
(

2
2
0
2

s

m

r
i
F

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-1 0%

-2 0%

-3 0%

Low investment 
expanding

EU 2022 

SE 2021 

High investment 
expanding

SE 2022 

EU 2021 

Services

Manufacturing

Construction

SME

Large

Infrastructure

SE 2019 

SE 2020 

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100 %

Low investment 
contracting

High investment 
contracting

Share of firms investing

‘Realised change’ is the share of firms who invested more minus those who invested less; 
‘Expected change’ is the share of firms who expect(ed) to invest more minus those who 
expect(ed) to invest less.

Share of firms investing shows the percentage of firms with investment per employee 
greater than EUR 500. 
Base for share of firms investing: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Base for expected and realised change: All firms 

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Investment dynamics and focus

PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR (% of firms’ investment)

• Almost two-fifths (38%) of Swedish firms’ investment 
is directed towards capacity replacement, well below 
the EU average (46%). 

• Capacity expansion increased in 2021 (30% from 

22%), reaching the EU average (28%) of all 
investments. 

•

Swedish firms are currently directing 18% of their 
investment towards new products/services, in line 
with the firms across the EU (16%).

• Compared to other firms, capacity replacement is a 

greater investment motive in the infrastructure sector 
(45%), it accounts for 36% of investment in other 
sectors. Manufacturers direct a far higher level of 
investment than constructions firms towards new 
products/services (21% versus 12%).

• Capacity replacement is also a greater investment 

motive for large firms than SMEs (43% versus 34%). 
Moreover, SMEs are allocating more of their 
investments to new products/services than large firms 
(20% versus 15%).

Q. What proportion of total investment was for (a) replacing capacity (including existing 

buildings, machinery, equipment, IT) (b) expanding capacity for existing 
products/services (c) developing or introducing new products, processes, services?

Base: All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/ 

refused responses)

INVESTMENT AREAS

Organisation/business processes

Training of employees

Software, data, IT and website activities

R&D

Machinery and equipment

Lan d, busin ess buildings and in frastructure

e
r
a
h
S
t
n
e
m

t
s
e
v
n
I

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Capacity expansion

Replacement

Ne w produ cts/services

Other

e
r
a
h
S
t
n
e
m

t
s
e
v
n
I

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

Swedish firms invest almost two-fifths (38%) in 
intangible assets (R&D, software, training and 
business processes). The share is similar both to EIBIS 
2021 (41%) and to the EU average (37%). Similarly to 
EIBIS 2021, the largest share (48%) of investments 
made by Swedish firms was directed towards 
machinery and equipment.

• Compared to other sectors, construction firms (47%) 
and service sector firms (41%) are directing a larger 
share of their investment towards intangibles. Almost 
a fifth of construction firms’ investment was towards 
employee training (19%), at least double that of any 
other sector. 

•

SMEs (43%) invested more than large firms (32%) in 
their intangible assets.

Q. In the last financial year, how much did your business invest in each of the following 
with the intention of maintaining or increasing your company’s future earnings?

Base: All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused 

responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Investment needs and priorities

PERCEIVED INVESTMENT GAP

•

•

17% of Swedish firms perceive investment gaps, while 
the proportion believing they invested the right 
amount over the past three years (80%) is similar to 
EIBIS 2021 (76%) and the EU average (80%).

Perceived investment gaps are larger for 
manufacturing firms (22%) than construction firms 
(13%) and services (15%).

• A higher share of large firms than SMEs report 

investing the right amount over the past three years 
(83% versus 77%).

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Invested too much
Invested too little

About the  righ t am oun t
Don't  kn ow/ refused

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. Looking back at your investment over the last 3 years, was it too much, too little, or 

about the right amount?

Base: All firms (excluding ‘Company didn’t exist three years ago’ responses)

FUTURE INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

Capacity expansion

Replacement

Ne w produ cts/services

No in ve stmen t pla nned

100 %

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. Looking ahead to the next three years, which is your investment priority (a) replacing 

capacity (including existing buildings, machinery, equipment, IT) (b) expanding 
capacity for existing products/services (c) developing or introducing new products, 
processes, services?

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

5

• Capacity expansion (45%) is the biggest investment 
priority for Swedish firms over the next three years. 
This is higher than the EU average (29%) and EIBIS 
2021 (39%). 

• New products and services are a lower investment 

priority for Swedish firms than they were in EIBIS 2021 
(20% in 2022 versus 30% in 2021) and less than the 
EU average (24%).

•

Future investment priorities vary substantially across 
different industries. While only 3% of infrastructure 
firms do not plan to invest, this increases to 23% for 
construction firms

• More than a half (53%) of manufacturing firms will 

prioritise capacity expansion over the next three years, 
while capacity replacement is a relatively higher 
priority for infrastructure firms (43%). 

•

14% of SMEs have no intention to invest over the next 
three years, although approximately half large firms 
expect to prioritise investment in capacity expansion.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Impact of COVID-19

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON SALES OR TURNOVER BY END OF 2022 COMPARED TO 2019

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

Low er in 20 22

About the  same

High er in 202 2

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

The majority of Swedish firms expected their 2022 
sales to be above those achieved prior to 2019 (72% 
versus 57% in the EU), while fewer than one in ten 
(9%) expected sales to be lower.

• Construction industry has been recovering more 

slowly from the pandemic than other industries as 
only 57% of firms claimed that sales in 2022 would be 
higher than those achieved in 2019. Recovery has 
been faster in manufacturing (83%), services (70%) 
and infrastructure (68%). 

• A higher share of large firms than SMEs expected a 

recovery in sales for 2022 from pre-COVID-19 levels. 
(81% versus 65%).

Q. Compared to 2019, do you expect your sales or turnover in 2022 to be higher, lower 

or about the same? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

IMPACT ON FIRMS’ SALES OR TURNOVER AND EXPECTED RECOVERY

Winn ers

Un affected

Expected to recover

Not yet re covered

Ne wly hit

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

2
2
0
2
U
E

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

•

•

44% of Swedish firms were negatively impacted by 
COVID-19. Nevertheless, more than a third (37%) 
expected to recover and expected 2022 sales to be 
back to their 2019 levels.

43% of Swedish firms can be classified as COVID-19 
‘winners’, as they did not experience a drop in sales 
during the COVID-19 crisis and expected higher sales 
in 2022 than before the pandemic.

Services sector has the largest share of firms that have 
not yet recovered from the impact of COVID-19 in 
terms of sales (9%) as well as the largest share of 
firms (48%) that are ‘expected to recover’ from the 
pandemic. Around a half (52%) of manufacturing firms 
are ‘winners’.

• A larger share of SMEs (9%) than large firms (3%) 

have not yet recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Q. Compared to 2019, before the pandemic started, did your company’s sales and 

turnover in 2020 decline, increase or stay the same?

Q. Compared to 2020, did your company’s sales and turnover in 2021 decline, increase 

or stay the same?

Q. Compared to 2019, do you expect your sales or turnover in 2022 to be higher, lower 

or about the same? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Impact of COVID-19

FINANCIAL SUPPORT RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19

• Almost three-quarters (74%) of Swedish firms 
received some form of financial support as a 
response to COVID-19. This is well above the EU 
average (60%).

•

The majority of Swedish firms report receiving 
support consisting of subsidies/support that will not 
need to be paid back (70%), well above the EU 
average (40%).

•

•

Swedish firms are far less likely than EU firms to be 
supported by deferrals of payment (10% versus 17%), 
or benefit from new subsidised or guaranteed credit 
(4% versus 18%). 

Similarly to the EU average (10%), less than one in 
ten Swedish firms (8%) still receives financial support 
for their business.

Received financial support

Still receiving any financial support

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

Any su pport

Ne w su bsidised or  guran teed
credit

Deferr al of payme nt

Su bsidies/support th at will not
ne ed to be paid back

Other fin ancial support

Q. Since the start of the pandemic, have you received any financial support?
Q. Are you still receiving {any of} this financial support?

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

ACTIONS AS A RESULT OF COVID-19

Any action

Develop new products

Sh orten  your su pply chain

Be come more digital

2021

100 %

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EU 202 2

SE 202 2

SM E

Large

Q. As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have you taken any actions or made 

investments to…?

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

7

• Over two-thirds of Swedish firms (68%) claim to have 
taken at least one action in response to COVID-19. 
The figure is almost unchanged from EIBIS 2021 (66%) 
and it is in line with the EU average (63%).

•

•

Becoming more digital is the action reported by the 
majority of Swedish firms (62%). As documented in 
EIBIS 2021, relatively few Swedish firms have 
developed new products (23%) or have transformed 
their supply chain (14%).

Large firms are far more likely than SMEs to have 
taken action of some kind (78% versus 58%). In 
particular they have responded by becoming more 
digital businesses. Three-quarters of large firms have 
taken steps such as moving to online service 
provision, as compared to half of SMEs (74% versus 
50%).

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Innovation activities

INNOVATION ACTIVITY 

• Almost half (47%) of Swedish firms developed or 

introduced new products, processes or services as 
part of their investment activities. This is higher than 
EIBIS 2021 (41%) and above the current EU average 
(34%). Sweden has a broadly similar proportion of 
innovating firms to the US  (53%), as Stockholm is one 
of the main startup and innovation hubs in Europe.

•

•

In EIBIS 2022, 19% of Swedish firms report the 
development/ introduction of products, processes or 
services that were new to either the country or global 
market. The proportion among infrastructure firms  
(25%) is higher than for any other sector.

Innovation is a greater feature of Sweden’s large firms 
(54%) than its SMEs (40%). Large firms are almost 
twice as likely as SMEs to develop or introduce 
products, processes or services that are new to either 
the country or global market (24% versus 14%).

Q. What proportion of total investment was for developing or introducing new products, 
processes, services?                                                                                                         
Q. Were the products, processes or services new to the company, new to the country, new 

to the global market? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

INNOVATION PROFILE 

No in novation  an d no R&D

Developer

Adopte r only

Active in novat ors - increme ntal

Active in novat ors - leading

EU 202 2

SE 202 1

SE 202 2

US 202 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Share of firms

No In novat ion

Ne w to the firm

Ne w to the cou ntry/globa l market

EU 202 2

SE 202 1

SE 202 2

US 202 2

Man ufacturing

Con stru ction

Services

Infrastructure

SM E

Large

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Share of firms

• A fifth (20%) of Sweden’s firms can be classified as 

active innovators — firms that invested significantly in 
research and development and introduced a new 
product, process or service. This is similar to EIBIS 
2021 (23%) and to the EU average (18%). 

• As in EIBIS 2021, Sweden’s  innovators are equally 

divided between those that are incremental 
innovators and leading innovators (11% and 10% 
respectively).

• Compared to the EU average, a relatively high 

proportion of Swedish firms innovated or invested in 
R&D in 2021 (62% versus 51%). This is also higher 
than EIBIS 2021 (55%). Examples of innovating 
companies are Volvo, Spotify and Northvolt.

Q. What proportion of total investment was for developing or introducing new products, 

processes, services? 

Q. Were the products, processes or services new to the company, new to the country, new 

to the global market?

Q. In the last financial year, how much did your business invest in Research and 

Development (including the acquisition of intellectual property) with the intention of 
maintaining or increasing your company’s future earnings? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

The ‘No innovation and no R&D’ group comprises firms that did not introduce any
new products, processes or services in the last financial year. The ‘Adopter only’
introduced new products, processes or services but without undertaking any of their
own research and development effort. ‘Developers’ are firms that did not introduce
new products, processes or services but allocated a significant part of their investment
activities to research and development. ‘Incremental’ and ‘Leading innovators’ have
introduced new products, processes and services and also invested in research and
development activities. The two profiles differ in terms of the novelty of the new
products, processes or services. For incremental innovators these are ‘new to the firm’;
for leading innovators‘ these are new to the country/world’.

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

8

EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Innovation activities

USE OF ADVANCED DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

•

Three-quarters (76%) of Swedish firms are using at 
least one advanced digital technology, above the EU 
average (69%) and similar to the US (71%).

• Construction firms have the lowest share of firms 

using digital technologies (60%), while manufacturing 
is the sector employing the largest share of multiple 
technologies (54%).

•

Large firms are more likely than SMEs to implement 
digital technologies (91% versus 63%) and they are 
also twice more likely to rely on multiple technologies 
(61% versus 30%).

• Compared to firms across the EU, Sweden’s 

businesses have been greater adopters of the Internet 
of Things and Big Data / AI.

Single techn ology

Mu ltiple t ech nologies

EU 202 2

SE 202 1

SE 202 2

US 202 2

Man ufacturing

Con stru ction

Services

Infrastructure

SM E

Large

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Share of firms

EIBIS 2022
Q. To what extent, if at all, are each of the following digital technologies used within 
your business? Please say if you do not use the technology within your business?

EIBIS 2021
Q. Can you tell me for each of the following digital technologies if you have heard about 
them, not heard about them, implemented them in parts of your business, or whether 
your entire business is organised around them?

Please note: question wording and definitions changed between 2021 and 2022, 
comparisons between the two waves should not be made.

Reported shares combine used the technology ‘in parts of business’ and ‘entire business 
organised around it’

Single technology is where firms have used one of the technologies asked about.
Multiple technologies is where firms have used more than one of the technologies asked 
about

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

ADVANCED DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

The technologies asked about differed 
by sector

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

EU

SE

US

Intern et of thin gs
* 1, 2,3, 4

Big data/AI
* 1, 2,4

3-D printin g
* 1, 3,4

Augmen ted or vir tual
reality
* 2, 3

Digital platform
techn ologies
* 2, 4

Automation via
robotics
* 1

Drones
* 3

* Sector: 1 = Asked of Manufacturing firms, 2 = Asked of Services firms, 3 = Asked of Construction firms, 4 = Asked of Infrastructure firms

Reported shares combine used the technology ‘in parts of business’ and ‘entire business 
organised around it’

Please note: question wording changed between 2021 and 2022, comparisons between 
the two waves should not be made.

Q. To what extent, if at all, are each of the following digital technologies used within 
your business? Please say if you do not use the technology within your business?

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses);
Sample size SE: Manufacturing (156); Construction (89); Services (115); Infrastructure (113).

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

9

 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

International trade

ENGAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

•

Swedish firms are more engaged with international 
trade than those across the EU as a whole (72% versus 
63%). Most of these traders are both exporters and 
importers.

• While 96% of Sweden’s manufacturers and 72% of its 

service sector firms are engaged in international trade, 
relatively few construction firms (40%) trade outside 
their home market. 

•

•

The composition of firms active in international trade 
varies considerably across sectors. The share of firms 
that are only importers ranges from 35% for the 
services industry to 8% in manufacturing.

Large firms are more likely than SMEs to trade 
internationally (83% versus 62%), but less likely to be 
exporters only (1% versus 10%).

Q. In 2021, did your company export or import goods and/or services?

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Exported an d Im ported

Imported only

Exported only

Ne ith er

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

2
2
0
2
U
E

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

DISRUPTIONS RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE

•

In line with the EU average, 90% of Swedish firms are 
facing disruptions related to international trade. 

• Overall, disruptions to global logistics (83%) and 

reduced access to raw materials, services or other 
inputs (78%) are the main obstacle to firms in 
Sweden.

• Unsurprisingly, disruptions related to global trade are 
larger for Swedish traders (93%) than for non-traders 
(80%). 

•

The share of Swedish firms reporting trade 
restrictions, customs and tariffs as an obstacle to 
their activities is far lower than the EU average (23% 
versus 45%).

EU - Major obstacle

EU - Minor obstacle

EU - Any obstacle

SE - Major obstacle

SE - Minor obstacle

SE - An y obstacle

SE Traders - Major obstacle

SE Non-Traders - Major obstacle

SE Traders - Minor obstacle

SE Non-Traders - Minor obstacle

SE Traders - Any obstacle

SE Non-Traders - Any obstacle

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EU

SE

SE
Traders

SE Non-
Traders

EU

SE

SE
Traders

SE Non-
Traders

EU

SE

SE
Traders

SE Non-
Traders

EU

SE

SE
Traders

SE Non-
Traders

Any obstacle

Disru ption  to globa l logistics
(e.g. marit ime tran sport issu es,
delay in  delivery t ime etc)

Disru pted or reduced access to raw
materials, se rvices or other  inputs
(excludin g issu es related to logistics)

Ne w trade restriction s, custom s
and tariffs

Q. Since 2021, did any of the following present an obstacle to your business’s activities? 

Base:  “Any obstacle” - All firms (excluding those who said don’t know/refused/not applicable 

responses to all three international trade obstacles)

Base: Individual obstacles  - All firms (excluding those who said don’t know/refused/not applicable)

10

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

Any obstacle combines ‘minor’ and ‘major’ obstacles 
into one category

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

International trade

EXTERNAL FACTORS IMPACTING INTERNATIONAL TRADE

•

•

•

Three-quarters (75%) of Swedish firms are impacted 
by either the COVID-19 pandemic, by the 
Russia/Ukraine conflict or both.

The distribution of Swedish firms affected by external 
factors mimics the one for European firms. 48% of 
Swedish firms were impacted both by the Russia-
Ukraine conflict and by COVID-19, as opposed to 50% 
in the EU.

The infrastructure sector (65%) has the lowest share 
of firms impacted by the international obstacles 
mentioned. Services and manufacturing has the 
highest share (both 79%).

• A higher share of traders (78%) than non-traders 

(64%) are impacted by COVID-19, the Russia/Ukraine 
conflict or both.

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

COVID-19
Both COVID-19  an d Russia /Ukraine conflict
Russia/Ukraine conflict

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

s
r
e
d
a
r
T

s
r
e
d
a
r
t
-
n
o
N

Q. You have just said that you experienced {an obstacle/obstacles} to your business 

activities since 2021.  Did Covid-19 and/or the Russia-Ukraine conflict, including the 
sanctions imposed by the International community, contribute to this in anyway? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused / not applicable responses)

ACTIONS TO MITIGITATE INTERNATIONAL TRADE DISRUPTIONS

Yes - any
Yes - in cre asing th e n umber of trade  partne rs to diversify
Yes - focusin g more on domestic su ppliers / market s

• Almost two-thirds of Swedish firms are taking action 
to mitigate the impact of the international trade 
disruptions, above the EU average (63% versus 57%).

•

Firms in Sweden are more inclined to focus on 
increasing or diversifying trading partners, than on 
domestic suppliers or markets (49% versus 33%). 

• A larger share of large firms than SMEs (69% versus 
55%) and of traders than non-traders (66% versus 
51%) have taken action to mitigate the impact of 
international trade disruption.

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EU 202 2

SE 202 2

SM E

Large

Traders

Non-
traders

Q. Is your company taking any actions to mitigate the impact of these disruptions? 

Base: All firms facing trade disruptions (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

11

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Drivers and constraints 

SHORT-TERM FIRM OUTLOOK

•

•

Following a general improvement in outlook in EIBIS 
2021, Swedish firms have become more pessimistic. 
In net terms, economic climate expectations have 
turned dramatically negative (from +38% to -58%). 

Perceptions of the availability of finance have also 
reversed from a previously upward trend. For 
external finance the outlook has dropped from +12% 
to -4%, and for internal finance from +31% to 
+13%).

• Optimism about business prospects has also 

dropped, although it remains positive at +23% 
(down from +51%). The outlook for the 
political/regulatory climate continues its slow 
downward trend (down from -6% to -16%).

• Compared to the EU, Swedish firms are not as 

pessimistic about the political climate and business 
prospects as the EU average. 

EU net balan ce*

SE net balan ce

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

70%

50%

30%

10%

-1 0%

-3 0%

-5 0%

-7 0%

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

Political/
regulatory climate

Econ omic
climate

Bu siness prospects
in  t he sector

Availability of
extern al finan ce

Availability of
in tern al finan ce

Q, Do you think that each of the following will improve, stay the same, or get worse over 

*Net balance is the share of firms seeing improvement minus the share of firms 
seeing a deterioration

the next 12 months?

Base: All firms

SHORT-TERM FIRM OUTLOOK BY SECTOR AND SIZE (net balance %) 

Political / 
regulatory  
climate 

Economic 
climate 

Business 
prospects

External 
finance 

Internal 
finance

Sweden

16%

58%

23%

4%

13%

Manufacturing

18%

60%

35%

1%

16%

Construction

9%

62%

4%

11%

14%

Services

18%

59%

3%

7%

12%

Infrastructure

17%

53%

37%

2%

11%

SME

15%

52%

27%

4%

19%

Large

18%

64%

19%

4%

7%

Please note: green figures are positive, red figures are negative

•

•

The net balance of future economic sentiment 
conditions is -52% or lower. Pessimism over the 
political/regulatory climate is also present by sector 
and firm size. Apart from construction (-9%) it ranges 
from -15% to -18%.

Expectations about business prospects in the sector 
are much higher among infrastructure (+37%) and 
manufacturing firms(+35%), than firms in construction 
(+4%) or services (+3%).

• With the exception of construction firms (-11%), the 
balance of pessimistic firms on the availability of 
external finance is in low single-digit figures.

• Across the four sectors, optimism about the 

availability of internal finance ranges from +11% 
(infrastructure) to +16% (manufacturing). On this 
aspect of the trading environment, SMEs (+19%) are 
far more optimistic than large firms (+7%).

Q. Do you think that each of the following will improve, stay the same, or get worse over 

the next twelve months?

Base: All firms

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

12

 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Drivers and constraints 

LONG-TERM BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT 

•

•

•

The most frequently mentioned long-term barriers to 
investment in Sweden are availability of skilled staff 
(90%),  energy costs (74%) and uncertainty about the 
future (70%).

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, energy 
costs have become a barrier to long-term 
investments for a larger share of Swedish firms (74% 
versus 45%). 

Except for skilled staff (90% versus 85%) Swedish 

firms are less inclined than firms across the EU to say 
each factor is an obstacle to their investment 
activities.

•

Labour market regulations (39% versus 60%), 
business regulations (48% versus 61%), the 
availability of finance (31% versus 43%), and access 
to digital infrastructure (33% versus 44%) are 
considered less of a barrier in Sweden than they are 
in the EU as a whole.

n
n

EU - Minor obstacle
EU - Major obstacle
EU - 2021

n
n

SE - Minor obstacle
SE - Major obstacle
SE - 2021

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

U
E

E
S

Dem and for
products/
services

Availability of
skilled staff

Ene rgy
costs

Acce ss to digita l
in frastr ucture

Labour market
regulations

Bu siness
regulations

Ade qua te
tran sport
in frastr ucture

Availability of
fin ance

Un cer tainty
about  th e
futu re

Q. Thinking about your investment activities, to what extent is each of the following an 

obstacle? Is it a major obstacle, a minor obstacle or not an obstacle at all?

Base: All firms (data not shown for those who said not an obstacle at all/don’t 

know/refused)

LONG-TERM BARRIERS BY SECTOR AND SIZE 

Demand for 
products/ 
services

Availability of 
skilled staff

Energy 
costs

Access to digital 
infrastructure 

Labour market 
regulations

Business 
regulations

Adequate transport 
infrastructure

Availability 
of finance

Uncertainty 
about the future

SE

43%

90%

74%

33%

Man ufacturing

47%

86%

74%

32%

39%

39%

48%

41%

31%

55%

43%

31%

Con stru ction

54%

96%

89%

27%

58%

47%

34%

40%

Services

41%

86%

75%

33%

34%

41%

47%

26%

Infrastructure

33%

96%

67%

38%

36%

48%

36%

32%

SM E

42%

89%

71%

24%

Large

44%

91%

76%

43%

39%

39%

Share of firms

51%

39%

36%

46%

44%

25%

70%

68%

81%

74%

64%

70%

71%

Reported shares combine ‘minor’ and ‘major’ 
obstacles into one category

Q. Thinking about your investment activities, to what extent is each of the following an 

obstacle? Is it a major obstacle, a minor obstacle or not an obstacle at all?

Base: All firms (data not shown for those who said not an obstacle at all/don’t 

know/refused)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

13

 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Access to finance

SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FINANCE

•

Internal sources account for three-quarters of Swedish 
firms’ investment finance (75%), up from 67% in EIBIS 
2021. 

• Down from 29% in EIBIS 2021, the proportion of 
Swedish firms’ investment financed from external 
sources is 14%, about half of what is reported across 
the EU (28%).

•

•

External finance accounts for not much of the 
investment made by manufacturing (9%) and service 
firms (10%). 

Large firms have made more use of intra-group 
funding than SMEs (15% versus 6%) while SMEs have 
been making greater use of external sources (18% 
versus 11%).

e
r
a
h
s

e
c
n
a
n
i
f

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Externa l

Intern al

Intra- group

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. What proportion of your investment was financed by each of the following?

Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/

refused responses)

USE OF EXTERNAL FINANCE

202 1

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

Fewer than a quarter (23%) of Swedish firms, who 
invested in the last financial year, relied on external 
finance for at least some of their investments. This is 
far lower than the EU average (45%) and a large drop 
from EIBIS 2021 (48%).

• Compared to other sectors, construction (36%) and 

infrastructure firms (34%) are industries most likely to 
access external finance. However, in every sector the 
proportion using external finance is much lower than 
in EIBIS 2021.  In manufacturing the proportion has 
dropped by almost two-thirds and in services and 
infrastructure it is half the level of EIBIS 2021.

•

In the last financial year, SMEs (29%) are far more 
likely than large firms (18%) to have accessed external 
finance for their investment. For large firms this is 
about a third of the proportion seen in EIBIS 2021 
(18% versus 51%).

Q. Approximately what proportion of your investment in the last financial year was 

financed by each of the following

Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/

refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Access to finance

ACCESS TO BANK FINANCE AND CONDITIONS

• Over 80% of Swedish firms using external finance 

received bank finance and 22% obtained bank finance 
on concessional terms. The proportion benefitting 
from concessional terms is lower than the EU average 
(22% versus 32%).

•

•

Service (94%) and construction firms (88%) that used 
external finance are most likely to have received bank 
finance. Infrastructure firms most frequently obtained 
it on concessional terms (29%).

SMEs are less likely than large firms to have received 
bank finance (78% and 85% respectively), but far 
more likely to have obtained it on concessional terms 
(29% versus 9%).

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Ban k finan ce

Ban k finan ce  on concession al terms

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. Which of the following types of external finance did you use for your investment 

activities in the last financial year?

Q. Was any of the bank finance you received on concessional terms (e.g. subsidised 

interest rates, longer grace period to make debt payments)?

Base: All firms who used external finance (excluding don't know/refused responses)

SHARE OF FIRMS WITH FINANCE FROM GRANTS

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

U
E

E
S

*
g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

*
n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

*
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

*
e
g
r
a
L

• Compared to the EU average, a relatively small 

proportion of Swedish firms using external finance, 
received grants (13% versus 21%). 

• Grants also account for a relatively smaller share of 

total investments in Sweden than the EU (12% versus 
33%).

• Over one in ten service (14%) and infrastructure firms 
(17%) firms using external finance received grants. 
This is approximately five times higher than firms in 
the construction industry (3%).

Q. What proportion of your total investment in your last financial year was financed by 

grants?

Base: All firms using external finance (excluding don't know/refused responses)
*Caution base size <30

15

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Access to finance

DISSATISFACTION WITH EXTERNAL FINANCE RECEIVED (% of firms)

• Among Swedish firms that relied on external finance 

in the last financial year, only a small share are 
dissatisfied with the conditions received. 

•

•

The main reasons for dissatisfaction are the cost of 
external finance (7%) and the collateral required (7%).

For each element considered, the level of 
dissatisfaction among Swedish firms is within two 
percentage points of the EU average.

EU

SE

Amount

Type s

3%

1%

1%

5%

7%

Cost

5%

2%

6%

3%

7%

Collate ral

Maturity

Q. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with …?

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t 

know/refused responses) 

DISSATISFACTION BY SECTOR AND SIZE (% of firms)

• Overall dissatisfaction levels are low. The highest 
sources of dissatisfaction are linked to the cost of 
finance and collateral.

•

The pattern is similar across all sectors, although in 
relative terms construction firms are more dissatisfied 
in terms of the amount (14%), cost (23%) and 
collateral required (27%). 

• Dissatisfaction levels for SMEs and large firms are 

similar across lending conditions and within two or 
three percentage points of each other. 

Amount

Cost

Maturity

Collateral

Type

SE

5%

7%

2%

7%

3%

Man ufacturing

5%

9%

3%

3%

3%

Con stru ction

14%

23%

0%

27%

0%

Services

0%

2%

2%

4%

0%

Infrastructure

2%

3%

2%

2%

1%

SM E

3%

8%

3%

8%

2%

Large

6%

6%

0%

6%

0%

Q. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with …?

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t 

know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

16

EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Access to finance

SHARE OF FINANCE CONSTRAINED FIRMS

•

•

•

•

The share of financially constrained firms in Sweden 
has increased over the previous year (8.1% versus 
3.5%) and it is larger than the EU average (6.2%).

Swedish firms are far more likely to report rejection 
(6.2%) than any other form of financial constraint.

The infrastructure sector (6.2%) is the least finance 
constrained. Loan rejection is the only source of 
financial constrain for firms in the services industry.

Large firms are twice as likely as SMEs to be financially 
constrained (10.7% versus 5.6% respectively).

Finance constrained firms include: those dissatisfied with the amount of finance obtained 
(received less), firms that sought external finance but did not receive it (rejected) and 
those who did not seek external finance because they thought borrowing costs would be 
too high (too expensive) or they would be turned down (discouraged)

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Rejected

Received less

Too expen sive

Discou raged

EU 202 2

SE 202 1

SE 202 2

Man ufacturing

Con stru ction

Services

Infrastructure

SM E

Large

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Share of finance constrained firms

FINANCING CONSTRAINTS OVER TIME

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

• Access to finance has become more relevant over the 

6,1%

6,8%

5,0%

4,9%

5,6%

4,7%

6,2%

2,2%

2,3%

1,9%

2,0%

3,2%

3,5%

8,1%

last year as the share of Swedish firms who are 
finance constrained is well above the figure recorded 
in any previous wave of the study.

•

The share of finance-constrained firms more than 
doubled since last year and increased more than four 
times since the beginning of the pandemic.

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

17

EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Climate change and energy efficiency

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE – PHYSICAL RISK

•

•

•

Just over half of Swedish firms claim that weather 
events have an impact (major or minor) on their 
business. 12% of firms claim that physical risk has a 
major impact. 

The proportion reporting some level of physical risk 
has increased since EIBIS 2021 (45%) and is in line 
with the EU average (57%).

Firms in less capital-intense industries such as services 
sector (61%) are more likely to report climate change 
having a negative impacting on their business. 

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

A major impact

A min or impact

No impact at all

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. Thinking about the impact of climate change on your company, such as losses due to 
extreme climate events, including droughts, flooding, wildfires or storms or changes in 
weather patterns due to progressively increasing temperature and rainfall. What is the 
impact, also called physical risk, of this on your company?

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

Please note: question wording changed between 2021 and 2022.  Comparisons should 
be treated with caution.

•

Similarly to the EU average (33%), a third of Swedish 
firms (34%) have developed or invested in measures 
to build resilience to the physical risks caused by 
climate change. 

• Relatively few Swedish firms have bought insurance to 
off-set climate-related losses (7%) and are more likely 
to have invested in solutions to avoid or reduce 
exposure to physical risk (19%).

•

Large firms are far more likely than SMEs (43% versus 
26% respectively) to have developed or invested in 
measures to build resilience to physical risks.

BUILDING RESILIENCE TO PHYSICAL RISK

Any
Adaptation strategy for  th e physical risks
Invested in  solution s to avoid/reduce exposur e to physical risk
Bought in su rance products to off-set climate-relate d losses

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

EU 202 2

SE 202 2

SM E

Large

Q. Has your company developed or invested in any of the following measures to build 

resilience to the physical risks to your company caused by climate change? 

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Climate change and energy efficiency

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE – RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION TO A NET ZERO 
EMISSION ECONOMY OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

•

Looking at the next five years, Swedish firms consider 
the transition to stricter climate standards and 
regulations as an opportunity rather than a risk (43% 
versus 29% respectively). 

• Results are broadly in line with EIBIS 2021, but differ 

from the EU average as only 29% of EU firms consider 
the transition to a net zero economy an opportunity.

• Results also differ across industries. A majority of 

construction firms (52%) consider the transition to net 
zero an opportunity for their company, while this 
share is lowest for infrastructure firms (40%).

•

Finally, large firms (53%) are more optimistic than 
SMEs (35%) in the opportunity of the transition.

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

A risk

No impact

An opportu nity

2
2
0
2
U
E

1
2
0
2

E
S

2
2
0
2

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. Thinking about your company, what impact do you expect this transition to stricter 
climate standards and regulations will have on your company over the next five 
years?

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

ACTIONS TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS

•

92% of Swedish firms are taking actions to reduce 
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, slightly above the 
EU average (88%).

• With the exception of renewable energy generation, 

Swedish firms have a higher share of firms investing or 
implementing each of the actions than across the EU. 

• Among different actions, Swedish firms are active in 

waste minimization and recycling (77%), investments in 
energy efficiency (66%) and use of sustainable 
transport options (65%).

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

EU

SE

Implemen ting any

Investing in n ew, le ss
polluting, bu siness areas
and technologies

Investing in en ergy
efficiency

Onsite/offsite renew able
en ergy ge neration

Waste minimization and
recycling

Su stainable transport
options

Q. Is your company investing or implementing any of the following, to reduce 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions? 

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Climate change and energy efficiency

INVESTMENT PLANS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT

• Over half (56%) of Swedish firms have already 

invested in tackling the impacts of weather events and 
dealing with the process of reducing carbon 
emissions. A similar share of firms is planning to 
invest over the next three years (60%). 

•

•

The share of Swedish firms planning to invest to 
tackle climate risk is higher in Sweden than in the EU 
and it is approximately similar across sectors. The 
share of firms that have already invested to reduce 
the effects of climate change is highest in 
infrastructure (65%) and lowest in construction (44%).

Large firms are the most likely to have already 
invested and to also have plans to invest over the next 
three years (65% and 68% respectively). So far, only a 
minority of SMEs has invested to tackle the effects of 
climate change and only a slightly larger proportion 
plans to do so (47% and 52% respectively).

t
s
e
v
n

i

o
t
n
a
l
P

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

Large

Construction

SE 2022

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Manufacturing

EU 2022

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Already Invested

EIBIS 2022
Q. Which of the following applies to your company regarding investments to tackle the 

Please note: question change and an additional answer option was included in 2022, 
this may have influenced the data. Treat comparison to previous waves with caution.

impacts of weather events and to help reduce carbon emissions?

EIBIS 2021
Q. Now thinking about investments to tackle the impacts of weather events and to deal 
with the process of reduction in carbon emissions, which of the following applies?

Base: All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses)

CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS FOR OWN GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS

100 %

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

Two-thirds (67%) of Swedish firms report to have set 
and monitored targets for their own GHG emissions. 
This is well above the proportion of firms reporting 
this across the EU (41%). 

• At least 60% of firms in each sector set and monitor 

these targets. 

• While almost nine in ten large firms (87%) are setting 
and monitoring targets for their own GHG emissions, 
only a minority of SMEs (47%) are taking such steps.

Q. Does your company… set and monitor targets for its own Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

emissions

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

20

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Climate change and energy efficiency

SHARE OF FIRMS INVESTING IN MEASURES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

202 2

202 1

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

•

The share of Swedish firms investing in measures to 
improve energy efficiency in 2021 (51%) is much 
higher than in EIBIS 2021 (38%) and it is also higher 
than the average for all EU countries (40%) .

• Compared to EIBIS 2021, the proportion of firms 

investing in measures to improve energy efficiency has 
increased in every sector. 

• With the exception of construction industry (43%), the 
majority of firms in each sector is investing to improve 
energy efficiency. The share of firms investing is 
highest among infrastructure firms (54%).

• A higher share of large firms than SMEs are investing 

in energy efficiency (65% versus 37% respectively). The 
share of large firms increased by approximately 20 
percentage points since EIBIS 2021 (45%).

Q. What proportion of the total investment in the last financial year was primarily for 

measures to improve energy efficiency in your organisation?

Base: All firms

AVERAGE SHARE OF INVESTMENT IN MEASURES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

• Among Swedish firms, the average share of  total 
investment directed towards measures to improve 
energy efficiency is 12%. This is in line with both EIBIS 
2021 (9%) and the current EU average (10%).

•

The share of investment directed towards energy 
efficiency is higher among infrastructure firms (17%) 
than those in service activities (9%) or manufacturing 
(10%).

202 2

202 1

100 %

e
r
a
h
S
t
n
e
m

t
s
e
v
n
I

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

U
E

E
S

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q. What proportion of the total investment in the last financial year was primarily for 

measures to improve energy efficiency in your organisation?

Base: All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t 
know/refused responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

21

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

Firm management, gender balance and 
employment

FIRM MANAGEMENT AND GENDER BALANCE

•

The majority (56%) of Swedish firms use a strategic 
monitoring system. This is a similar proportion to the 
EU average (51%) and higher than the US (44%). 

• With respect to gender balance, a higher share of 
Swedish firms (77%) are striving for diversification 
within their business than in the EU (58%) or in the 
United States (62%).

• Constructions firms are the least likely to use strategic 
monitoring systems and to strive for gender balance 
(45% and 64% respectively). In all other sectors, at 
least 52% of firms use strategic monitoring systems 
and at least 78% of firms are working to achieve 
gender balance. 

•

Large firms are more inclined than SMEs to implement 
both strategic monitoring systems (73% versus 40%) 
and be striving for gender balance (89% versus 66%).

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Use of strategic mon itorin g system

Strive for gen der balan ce

U
E

E
S

S
U

g
n

i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

I

E
M
S

e
g
r
a
L

Q Does your company…?

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

FIRMS WHO HAVE INCREASED EMPLOYEE NUMBERS SINCE 2019

• Nearly half (46%) of Swedish firms have increased 
their employee numbers since 2019. This is above 
both the EU average (38%) and the US (41%).

•

Large firms and SMEs are equally as likely to have 
increased their number of employees since 2019 
(46% in both).

100 %

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

s

m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

EU

SE

US

SM E

Large

Q. How many people does your company employ either full or part time at all its 
locations, including yourself?

Q. How many people did your company employ either full or part time at all its locations 
at the beginning of 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused/did not exist in 2019 responses)

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

22

 
 
 
 
EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

EIBIS 2022 – Country technical details

SAMPLING TOLERANCES APPLICABLE TO PERCENTAGES AT OR NEAR THESE LEVELS 

The final data are based on a sample, rather than the entire population of Swedish firms, making the percentage results 
subject to sampling tolerances. These vary with the size of the sample and the percentage figure concerned. 

EU 

US

SE Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large EU vs SE

Manuf vs 
Constr

SME vs 
Large

(12021)

(800)

(482)

(157)

(89)

(115)

(114)

(406)

(76)

(12021 vs 
482)

(157 vs 89) (406 vs 76)

1.1%

4.1% 3.1%

5.2%

6.4%

6.2%

6.2%

2.6% 5.7%

3.2%

8.2%

6.2%

1.7%

6.2% 4.7%

7.9%

9.8%

9.5%

9.4%

3.9% 8.7%

5.0%

12.6%

9.5%

10% or 
90%

30% or 
70%

50%

1.8%

6.8% 5.1%

8.6%

10.7%

10.3%

10.3%

4.3% 9.5%

5.4%

13.7%

10.4%

GLOSSARY

Investment

A firm is considered to have invested if it spent more than EUR 500 per employee on
investment activities with the intention of maintaining or increasing the company’s future
earnings.

Investment cycle

Based on the expected investment in current financial year compared to last one, and the
proportion of firms with a share of investment greater than EUR 500 per employee.

Manufacturing sector

Based on the NACE classification of economic activities: firms in group C (Manufacturing).

Construction sector

Based on the NACE classification of economic activities: firms in group F (Construction).

Services sector

Based on the NACE classification of economic activities: firms in group G (wholesale and
retail trade) and group I (accommodation and food Services activities).

Infrastructure sector

Based on the NACE classification of economic activities: firms in groups D and E (utilities),
group H (transportation and storage) and group J (information and communication).

SME

Firms with between 5 and 249 employees.

Large firms

Firms with at least 250 employees.

Note: the EIBIS 2022 country overview refers interchangeably to ‘the past/last financial year’ or to ‘2021’. Both refer to 
results collected in EIBIS 2022, where the question is referring to the past financial year, with the majority of the 
financial year in 2021 in case the financial year is not overlapping with the calendar year 2021.

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

EIB Investment Survey 2022
Country overview: Sweden

EIBIS 2022 – Country technical details

The country overview presents selected findings based on telephone interviews with 482 firms in Sweden (carried out 
between April and July 2022).

BASE SIZES  (*Charts with more than one base; due to limited space, only the lowest base is shown)

Base definition and page reference

1
2
0
2
/
2
2
0
2
U
E

2
2
0
2
S
U

1
2
0
2
/
2
2
0
2

E
S

All firms, p. 3, p.12, p.13,  p. 21 (top)

12021/11920

800

482/482

All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t 
know/refused responses), p. 4  (top)
All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t 
know/refused responses), p. 4 (bottom)
All firms (excluding ‘Company didn’t exist three years ago’ responses), 
p. 5 (top)

9704/9670

9501/9523

668

668

421/401

428/418

142

11735/11648

778

459/467

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 5 (bottom)

11814/11765

780

476/473

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 6 (top)

11810/NA

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 6 (bottom)

11725/NA

795

784

477/NA

475/NA

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 7 (top)

11945/11857

762

479/481

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 7 (bottom)

11989/11891

796

481/482

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 8 (top)

11735/11648

778

459/467

All firms (excluding not applicable/don't know/refused responses to all 
3 questions), p. 8 (bottom)

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 9

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 10 (top)

8728/8780

11980/NA

11975/NA

615

800

798

383/381

479/NA

478/NA

All firms (excluding those who said don’t know/refused/not applicable 
responses to all three international trade obstacles) p. 10 (bottom)

11382/NA

790

469/NA

155

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 11 (top)

All firms facing trade disruptions (excluding don't know/refused 
responses), p. 11 (bottom)
All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t 
know/refused responses), p. 14
All firms who used external finance (excluding don’t know/ refused 
responses), p. 15 (top)
All firms who used external finance (excluding don't know and refused) 
p. 15 (bottom)

All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding 
don’t know/refused responses) , p. 16

9339/NA

9265/NA

680

707

404/NA

401/NA

144

144

10051/8675

665

441/236

146

4107/4059

4155/4100

275

280

111/107

115/107

3988/3964

270

110/105

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 17

11504/11518

715

471/471

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 18 (top)

11911/11849

790

476/482

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses), p. 18 (bottom)

11909/NA

784

472/NA

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 19 (top)

11172/11384

759

460/459

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 19 (bottom)

11964/NA

794

476/NA

n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

g

157

143

147

155

153

153

155

157

147

129

156

155

29

29

27

154

153

154

151

156

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 20 (top)

11685/NA

763

473/NA

154

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 20 (bottom)

11712/NA

783

471/NA

155

All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t 
know/refused responses),  p. 21 (bottom)*

9752/9617

677

412/391

134

All firms (excluding don't know/refused responses) p. 22 (top)

11696/11616

785

478/481

157

All firms (excluding don't know/refused/did not exist in 2019 
responses) p. 22 (bottom)

11662/11718

783

472/478

155

Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 
Document Name | Date | Version xx | Public : Internal Use Only | Confidential 

n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

89

72

80

84

88

89

89

88

88

84

66

89

89

88

72

72

79

23

24

23

85

88

89

85

86

87

86

74

89

87

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n
I

114

100

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

115

100

E
M
S

406

350

99

101

363

111

114

115

114

115

115

111

92

115

115

110

112

113

112

114

114

110

90

113

112

384

402

404

402

403

405

384

320

405

403

114

105

395

103

101

78

78

333

331

103

107

367

19

19

17

114

115

112

108

115

39

42

39

111

113

110

110

112

98

102

97

397

403

400

389

401

114

112

400

112

111

397

99

99

349

114

111

402

112

111

398

e
g
r
a
L

76

71

65

75

74

73

73

76

76

75

63

74

75

74

71

70

74

13

13

13

74

73

72

71

75

73

74

63

76

74

 twitter.com/EIB

 facebook.com/EuropeanInvestmentBank

 youtube.com/EIBtheEUbank

© European Investment Bank, 02/2023

PDF:

ISBN 978-92-861-5462-1

Sweden

Overview

Economics Departmenteconomics@eib.orgwww.eib.org/economicsInformation Desk+352 4379-22000info@eib.orgEuropean Investment Bank98-100, boulevard Konrad AdenauerL-2950 Luxembourg+352 4379-1www.eib.orgEIB INVESTMENT SURVEY