Attracting foreign investments and the arrival of the largest ones global companies is one of the strongest cards that the ruling regime has been using in its political marketing for years. Photos from the opening of new factories, promises of thousands of jobs and billions of euros of investment have become an obligatory part of the political narrative about the "economic revival of Serbia". However, behind those figures hides a more complex picture - in which the benefits of foreign investment for local communities must be weighed together with their social, environmental and economic consequences.
Fortune Global 500 companies have taken center stage in that strategy: from the automotive industry and food processing, to energy and mining. According to available data, more than 47 billion dollars have entered the country since 2007 foreign direct investment, and multinational corporations made the biggest contribution.
Nevertheless, the year 2025 brought significant losses in this field - according to the words of the president himself, Serbia faced a loss of 700 million euros this year. In the first four months of 2025, the net inflow of foreign direct investments in Serbia amounted to only 385,4 million euros (a drop of 76,7 percent). According to the MAT newsletter, this decline occurred because the inflow of investments by non-residents decreased by 49,8 percent (to EUR 948,7 million), while at the same time the outflow of investments from Serbia more than doubled - it increased by 141,6 percent and reached EUR 563,3 million.
The departure of foreign companies from Serbia overnight has long been no surprise since such moves often fit into broader strategies and the duration of state subsidies. However, there are also examples of companies that, despite these trends, strive to maintain business and connect with local communities. Such attempts do not erase the dominant image of investors who see Serbia primarily as a source of cheaper and qualified labor, but they show that there are nuances in the way different multinationals approach their presence in Serbia.
The greatest effects of foreign investments are observed in certain industrial centers. Kragujevac became a symbol of transformation through Fiat Chrysler (today Stellantis), which started the production of cars, which made the city once again an important point of the domestic automotive industry and exports. The Michelin Group in Pirot employs around 3.500 people and thus represents the backbone of the regional economy, while Philip Morris in Niš remains one of the largest taxpayers in the country, with a strong influence on the local labor market.
In addition to these examples, the investments of German companies are also significant. Bosch in Pećinci and Siemens in Subotica connected the education system with industry through dual programs that offer students and apprentices internships and easier entry into the labor market. A positive example was certainly brought by Chinese Serbia Ziđin Mining, which signed a contract with local agricultural producers who will deliver food to the company.
However, a not so impressive reality is often hidden behind the impressive figures. Wages in the factories of foreign investors are very often on the edge of the legal minimum, which is still below the European average and indicates that Serbia is positioned in global value chains primarily as a country of cheap labor. Most of the profits go to the home countries, while reinvestments in local communities are limited. This makes the economy vulnerable - decisions made in headquarters in Paris, Beijing or Moscow directly affect jobs and budget revenues in Serbia.
The environmental aspect further complicates the picture. In Zrenjanin, Linglong's investment opened up issues of working conditions and contract transparency, while NIS, despite the modernization of the refinery in Pancevo, was repeatedly criticized for its impact on the environment. Such examples show that the economic growth carried by multinationals is not always accompanied by adequate standards of environmental protection and labor rights.
Decades of presence of Fortune Global 500 companies in Serbia show both the good and bad sides of that model. They have brought capital, new technologies and jobs, but most of them operate here primarily because of cheap labor and large government subsidies. Such an approach brings results that look good in statistics and political speeches, but rarely brings about more lasting development of the communities in which these factories operate. Only a small number of companies really invest in education, health or the local economy, while most focus exclusively on production and export.
Because of this, Serbia remains in a kind of vicious circle - multinationals are important for the economy, but their benefit remains limited as long as they rely almost exclusively on subsidies and low labor costs. Without clear rules and the obligation to return part of the profits to the communities in which they operate, the risk is that such investments will remain a short-term profit for companies, and a missed opportunity for the country in the long term.
For the future, the key question will be whether the state can establish stricter rules of the game - from protecting the environment and labor rights, to encouraging the reinvestment of profits in local communities. Without these mechanisms, the risk is that foreign investments will remain more of an instrument of political marketing than of real economic empowerment.
