Capital Gravity: Why Europe's Most Ambitious Companies Still Move West

4 hours ago

19 min read

What Is This About?

Only 3.3% of European venture-backed startups relocate abroad, and 97% of those that do keep operating at home. So why does Europe keep feeling like it is losing? Because what moves is not the company. It is the parent company, the commercial leadership and often the chief executive. This episode names that pattern Capital Gravity, corrects the most-quoted statistic in the European scale-up debate, and gives you a one-question test you can apply to any company.

The video goes live on Friday, September 11th, 2026

Sorry, we had technical issues that forced us to delay this publication by one day.

https://youtu.be/Tq0oc5S1-B0

The Audio Podcast

The audio podcast goes live earlier the same day.

Subscribe to our podcasts here, or on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Introduction

Imagine a European startup. The founders are European. The technology was built in Europe. Most of the engineers are still in Berlin, Paris, Stockholm or Munich. The research still happens there. And yet the parent company is incorporated in Delaware, the chief executive increasingly spends the month in San Francisco, the largest investors are American, and the eventual listing is expected in New York.

Is that still a European company?

Europe's scale-up debate treats relocation as binary. A company stays, or a company leaves. Two pieces of research published this year say that model is wrong, and that the truth is both smaller and worse than the headline suggests. In January 2026 the European Investment Bank published a dedicated study of why innovative European startups and scale-ups relocate. In April the European Commission's Joint Research Centre published the first quantification of how many actually do that does not rest on a unicorn list. Read together, they describe something the binary model cannot see.

This is Episode 6 of The European Scale-Up Question, Startuprad.io's running analysis programme on why Europe builds companies and struggles to scale them, and it sits inside our broader work on power structures and ecosystem gatekeepers and on the capital behind DACH tech. The previous instalments each named a constraint. This one names what a company does when it faces all of them at once.

Summary

Europe is not losing its most ambitious companies. Among the relocators we have direct evidence on, it is keeping their engineers, laboratories and payroll, and losing their parent company, their commercial leadership and often their chief executive.

The size of that claim matters. The European Investment Bank describes its own work as a targeted, non-representative study of 71 usable cases, so the finding is about those 71 relocators, not about the European scale-up population. Capital Gravity is Startuprad.io's reading of what that pattern means, not a population estimate.

Relocation is rare. The Joint Research Centre measured 16,595 European venture-backed startups founded between 2000 and 2021 and tracked them to 2025. The confirmed relocation rate is 3.3%; 4.3% is the upper bound including unconfirmed cases. For a matched comparison group of similar high-potential companies that never raised venture capital, it is 0.3% to 0.5%.
Relocation is almost never total. 97% of relocating venture-backed firms keep operating in the home country for at least a year after the move. Only 3% go completely.
What moves is the corporate layer. In the European Investment Bank's interview study, every one of the 71 usable cases chose partial relocation and retained its technical and research capability inside the European Union — while establishing a United States holding company, hiring the commercial organisation there, and usually moving a founder.

Key Takeaways

Venture-backed European startups relocate roughly ten times more often than matched peers that did not raise venture capital. The rate is low, but it is selective, and the selection criterion is venture capital.
The four reasons founders gave the European Investment Bank most often were access to capital, proximity to large and unified markets, regulatory simplicity, and availability of experienced commercial and sales talent.
Investor preference for United States incorporation, preferably in Delaware, is described in that study as the most significant immediate trigger for relocation, though only 11 of 71 companies reported an explicit investor request.
The widely quoted claim that close to 30% of European unicorns relocated is 40 of 147 companies, from a 2022 study using data downloaded in June 2021, and its stated time window describes when those companies became unicorns, not when they were founded.
Europe's own policy machine is now moving: the Scaleup Europe Fund was legally established on 4 August 2026, made its first investment the following day, and on 8 September was named a co-lead in Mistral's EUR 3 billion Series D.

How much relocation actually happens

In April 2026 the Joint Research Centre published a Science for Policy brief titled Is Europe losing its startups? New evidence on startup relocation. It is the first quantification of the question that does not rest on a unicorn list.

The method is worth understanding, because it sets the limits of what the numbers mean. The authors took 16,595 venture-backed startups founded in Europe between 2000 and 2021 across 25 countries. They looked for a mismatch between the headquarters country a company self-reports on LinkedIn in 2025 and the country recorded in business registries. Every candidate was then verified case by case, manually and with AI support, against registries, historical web addresses and press releases, with subsidiaries, branches and post-acquisition moves excluded. What survives is 542 confirmed relocations, a weighted rate of approximately 3.3%. Including cases that could not be fully confirmed raises it to 4.3%, which the authors treat explicitly as an upper bound. These are a floor and a ceiling, not a range of point estimates.

The comparison is the finding. The authors built a matched control group of 22,770 comparable high-potential European companies that never raised venture capital, using coarsened exact matching and propensity scoring on Moody's Orbis data. That group relocates at 0.3% to 0.5%.

Venture-backed firms relocate about ten times more often than comparable firms that did not take venture money. The Joint Research Centre is careful about what this proves: it writes that the difference could point to the influence of investors, in particular US-based ones, and states plainly that motivations cannot be extracted from its data sources. That boundary is worth respecting.

Where they go is less ambiguous. The United States accounts for around three quarters of venture-backed relocations, concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, Greater Boston and the New York metropolitan area. Great Britain takes 7%, Germany 2%. (That 7% is a destination share of all venture-backed relocations, and should not be confused with the seven unicorn moves to the United Kingdom discussed later, which come from a different study on 2021 data.) And the timing is early: on the Joint Research Centre's own figures, nearly half of relocating firms leave when they are three years old or younger. This is not a late-stage scale-up decision.

The strongest case that this is a non-story

Before going further, the opposing argument deserves its best formulation, because it is strong and it is built from the same primary sources.

The rate is tiny. 3.3% confirmed, 4.3% at the top, across more than sixteen thousand companies. Almost nobody leaves properly: 97% keep operating at home for at least a year after the move. And the famous figure is stale, because the unicorn statistic everyone quotes rests on Dealroom data downloaded in June 2021.

Then the plank that should give any European commentator pause: Europe is a net importer of venture capital. The European Investment Bank's finding that European Union funds raised only 5% of global venture capital, against 52% in the United States, 40% in China and 3% in the United Kingdom, is quoted constantly. The next sentence in the same report almost never is. Over the past ten years, 8.1% of global venture capital raised was invested into European Union companies, and the EIB states that net venture capital flows into the European Union are positive. More venture money comes in than goes out.

European scale-ups also exit as often as their San Francisco peers — and San Francisco is the EIB's comparator throughout, not the United States as a whole. In the EIB's sample, 25% of European Union firms had an IPO against 20% in San Francisco, and 26% had a merger or acquisition against 26% in San Francisco. And the foreign-investor dependency is not uniquely an EU phenomenon: 82% of European Union scale-up deals involved a foreign lead or sole investor, and London's figure is 80%. The outlier is San Francisco at 14%, not Europe.

Taken together, the honest verdict on this evidence is that European scale-up relocation has been over-narrated: rare, mostly partial, measured on a stale figure, in an ecosystem that imports more capital than it exports and exits at San Francisco rates.

That case wins its own argument. It destroys the emigration story completely. What it does not touch is the argument this piece is actually making, because every one of its six planks measures companies, capital or exits in aggregate, and none of them measures which layer of a company moves.

What actually moves: the flip

The European Investment Bank's January 2026 study was carried out by EIB Group Advisory with the Commission's Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and the Joint Research Centre, under the InvestEU Advisory Hub, with EY providing consulting support. It contacted 440 companies, conducted 91 interviews, and used 71 after verification, alongside 13 interviews with law firms, venture funds and tax advisers.

Two warnings belong with any use of it. The study describes itself as a targeted, non-representative sample whose conclusions cannot be generalised to the whole European startup population. And its own executive summary contains an error: it states that 440 firms were interviewed, when the methodology section says 91 were conducted and 71 used. Anything citing 440 interviews is repeating a mistake that originates inside the report.

With that established, the finding is unambiguous. Every one of the 71 companies chose partial relocation. In the report's words, all of the interviewed companies maintain a dual footprint, retaining their technical and research and development capabilities within the European Union.

So what did move? A holding company in the United States. A corporate flip. A sales team hired in America. One or more founders relocating to build venture-ecosystem connections, engage customers and recruit. Sales, marketing and customer support moving out. And in some cases, the report notes, the United States entity was largely a shell company, presenting the business as American to investors and clients while core operations stayed in the European Union.

The ecosystem calls this the flip. The EIB describes it precisely: establishing a new parent entity in a foreign jurisdiction, typically a Delaware C corporation, and transferring ownership of the original company to it, so the original becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign holding company. It is, the report says, primarily a legal and financial restructuring, not necessarily involving team relocation, and mostly keeps operations such as R&D and engineering in the original country.

That is why a flip is cheap in operations and expensive in authority. Nobody packs a laboratory into a van. The engineers keep their desks. What changes is where the share register sits, where the board meets, who signs the next financing round, and which jurisdiction's courts govern the outcome.

There is also a cost on the way out that rarely gets discussed. The EIB identifies exit tax as one of the most critical financial challenges cited by scale-ups: tax authorities in several member states, most notably Germany, France and the Netherlands, may tax unrealised gains when a company moves its legal entity or its intellectual property ownership abroad. Which produces the study's most uncomfortable observation, that founders increasingly recognise that establishing in the United States early, before significant intellectual property value is created and before large rounds, gives a cleaner structure. Europe's exit tax is, at the margin, an argument against ever incorporating in Europe.

Startuprad.io has the worked case in its own archive. HappyRobot was formed out of the Technical University of Munich ecosystem in Garching, incorporated as Happyrobot Inc. in Delaware on 30 May 2023, raised a Series A led by Andreessen Horowitz, and reached a $1.2 billion valuation, with German capital re-entering only at that valuation. Munich formed it. San Francisco owns it.

Why capital arrives with a geography attached

The European Investment Bank's July 2024 scale-up gap study, built on PitchBook data covering deals from 2013 to 2023, supplies the mechanism.

By the time they reach ten years in operation, European Union scale-ups have raised 50% less capital than their San Francisco peers, a gap that runs from 29% in Germany to 60% in the Benelux area. And 82% of European Union scale-up deals involved a foreign lead or sole investor, against 80% in London and 14% in San Francisco.

A 200 million euro cheque does not arrive alone. It arrives with an investor network, board relationships, executive recruiters, the later-stage investors who will lead the next round, bankers, lawyers, prospective acquirers, customer introductions, and a set of expectations about where the next round comes from and where the eventual listing happens. Capital is not just money. Capital comes with a geography attached, and the deeper the financing relationship goes, the more of that geography the company absorbs.

Relocating overseas offers market valuation gains for EU scale-ups, but it saps Europe's potential to retain industry leaders and develop new technologies. It also weakens the flywheel effect, in which new leaders support the next generation of startups, causing entrepreneurial brain drain and missed opportunities for the local ecosystem.

That connects directly to Talent Without Recycling, where we argued that Europe's constraint is experience density rather than talent supply. One refinement is due. The Joint Research Centre could determine the chief executive's location in 82% of relocations, and in 25% of those the chief executive stays in the home country or moves to a third country, so fewer leaders leave than the flywheel argument assumes. The argument stands; the leak is smaller than we implied.

The exit is where it resolves. Among acquired European Union scale-ups, over 60% went to a foreign buyer, against 13% for San Francisco scale-ups. And 38% of European Union scale-up IPOs occurred on foreign exchanges, with the United States preferred. Whether you exit is European. Who ends up owning you is not. Our conversation on European venture capital, efficiency and IPOs covers the listings side of that in detail.

The 30% figure is not what it says

On 17 September 2024, Mario Draghi told the European Parliament: Between 2008 and 2021, close to 30% of the unicorns founded in Europe, that is to say start-ups that went on to be valued at over USD 1 billion, relocated their headquarters abroad. (The published text carries a typo, "went on the be valued"; it is quoted here as intended.)

That sentence has been repeated across European technology coverage ever since. It traces to exactly one source: a 2022 Joint Research Centre study, In search of EU unicorns (EUR 30978 EN), which found that 40 out of a sample of 147 EU unicorns have relocated their headquarters abroad, 32 to the US, 7 to the UK and 1 to Israel.

Forty divided by 147 is 27.2%. Draghi's close to 30% and the 40 of 147 that circulates separately are therefore one measurement stated two ways. They should never be cited as if they corroborate each other.

The larger problem is the framing. Unicorns founded in Europe between 2008 and 2021 is not what the source measured. The JRC methodology states that its analysis relates to the period 2008-2021,Q2 and that the European unicorn sample consists of 147 companies, the whole population between the period 2008 and 2021, Q2. That window is the period in which those companies attained unicorn status, not the period in which they were founded. The study's own roster of the forty relocating companies includes Business Objects, founded in France in 1990, and Bureau van Dijk, founded in Belgium in 1991, alongside Just Eat (2001) and Skype (2003). A sentence beginning between 2008 and 2021, 147 unicorns were founded in Europe cannot be true of a list containing a company founded in 1990.

Two further qualifications. The denominator covers EU member states only, so the United Kingdom is excluded from the base and counted as a foreign destination, and seven of the forty moves went there. The United States-specific figure is 32 of 147, which is 21.8%, not 30%. And the underlying Dealroom data was downloaded in June 2021, making it three years old when Draghi cited it and five years old today.

None of this means the phenomenon is invented. It means the headline number of European scale-up policy is a five-year-old, EU-only, misdescribed unicorn statistic, and it is routinely placed in the same paragraph as the JRC's 3.3%, which measures an entirely different population. Unicorns are the extreme tail. The 3.3% is everybody. The April 2026 brief is four years newer and measures the population policy is actually trying to help.

The Capital Gravity Test

Every company has three geographies, and the debate usually collapses them into one. Operational geography is where the employees actually work. Corporate geography is where the parent company sits, where ownership lives and where strategic authority is exercised. Innovation geography is where research and engineering happen.

A European company after a flip is technologically European, operationally European and corporately American. Those three answers can differ, and when they differ, the useful question is which one moved.

That gives the test. Capital Gravity is the tendency of a company to move its strategic functions toward whichever ecosystem offers the deepest combination of growth capital, customers, talent, valuations and exits. This is a Startuprad.io analytical framework and our interpretation of the evidence. It is not a term used by the European Investment Bank or the Joint Research Centre, and it is not a population estimate.

The Capital Gravity Test: do globally ambitious companies move capital, leadership and strategic authority toward your ecosystem, or away from it, as they become more successful?

Startup formation measures how attractive an ecosystem is at the beginning. Capital Gravity measures how attractive it is at scale. A country can pass the first and fail the second, which is a fair description of most of Europe.

You can apply it to any company without our data. Four questions: where is the parent company incorporated; where does the chief executive spend most of the working month; where were the last two senior commercial hires made; and on which exchange does the company expect to list. If those answers drift west while the engineering stays put, that is Capital Gravity, visible early.

One framing to avoid. American investors are not stealing European companies. American capital is often providing something European founders genuinely need and cannot get at home at that size. The question is not why founders take it. The question is why Europe so often requires a founder to plug into another ecosystem to get it.

What Europe already changed in 2026

Europe has not merely diagnosed this. Two things happened this year that much of the commentary has not caught up with.

The Scaleup Europe Fund. On 4 August 2026 the European Commission completed the final legal steps to establish it. It targets a total size of approximately 5 billion euros, anchored by 1 billion euros from the Commission, with EQT selected in May 2026 through open competition as preferred investment adviser and fund manager. It invests from Series B onward with tickets of 100 million euros and above, across artificial intelligence, quantum computing, dual use, clean energy, space, biotech and medical innovation. Founding investors named on the European Innovation Council's fund page include Novo Holdings, EIFO, CriteriaCaixa, Santander's Mouro Capital, the Intesa Sanpaolo and Fondazione Cariplo group, ABP via APG Asset Management and Allianz.

Precision matters on the money. 5 billion euros is a target. The 1 billion euro Commission anchor is the only individually disclosed commitment, and the actual first-close aggregate has not been made public. Europe has established a fund and aimed at 5 billion euros; it has not raised 5 billion euros.

It is already investing. On 5 August 2026 it co-led ICEYE's Series F, a 1 billion euro round of which 450 million euros was primary capital, at a valuation stated by the parties as exceeding 10 billion euros.

And on 8 September 2026, two days before this episode goes live, it moved again. Mistral announced a 3 billion euro Series D at a post-money valuation above 21 billion euros — on the company's own account the largest equity round ever raised by a European technology company — led by Samsung Electronics, with the EQT-managed Scaleup Europe Fund and existing investor PSG Equity as co-leads.

Three qualifications belong with that. Samsung led; the Scaleup Europe Fund is a co-lead, not a joint lead. The fund's ticket size is undisclosed, and neither EQT nor the Commission has published anything on the investment, so the co-lead role currently rests on Mistral's own release. And the 21 billion euros is Mistral's stated post-money figure, not an independent valuation.

On the evidence available it is the fund's second publicly disclosed investment in five weeks — and it is worth noting what it is not. Mistral AI is a French SAS with no non-EU holding company above it. This is European capital backing a company that has not moved. That is the shape of gravity running the other way, and it is the first time in this series we have been able to point at it.

Its relevance here is direct. The fund's stated purpose is to help companies scale globally while remaining anchored in Europe. It is, explicitly, an anti-Capital-Gravity instrument. And its mandate covers companies in or relocating to a European Union member state, meaning it is drafted to be able to fund a company coming back.

EU Inc. On 18 March 2026 the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on a 28th regime corporate legal framework: an opt-in, EU-wide company form with fast registration valid across the Union. The intent is an answer to Delaware.

It is a proposal. It is not law. As of September 2026 it sits at first reading in the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee, with rapporteur René Repasi, amendments tabled on 22 July 2026 and an indicative plenary sitting on 19 October 2026. What was adopted the same day is a different and much smaller instrument: a Commission Recommendation defining innovative enterprises, innovative startups and innovative scaleups, which is non-binding. The two are conflated constantly. Our earlier conversation on whether EU Inc can become Europe's Delaware makes the case that Delaware's real advantage is accumulated case law rather than filing speed, which is exactly the thing a 2026 regulation cannot legislate into existence.

Alongside those: the EIB Group's European Tech Champions Initiative carries a 15 billion euro pledge target and an 80 billion euro mobilisation goal, both targets rather than committed capital. Germany's WIN-Initiative had actually invested 2.64 billion euros of growth capital by the end of 2025 against a 12 billion euro target for 2030. And the European Startup and Scaleup Scoreboard, launched 29 May 2026, names three persistent structural gaps: limited later-stage venture capital, fragmented regulation, and talent migration to stronger ecosystems. Europe's own scoreboard names the mechanism.

Predictions on record

By 31 December 2027, at least one Scaleup Europe Fund portfolio company will have a non-EU parent holding company at the time of investment. Confidence: 60%. The reasoning is structural: the fund's mandate covers companies in or relocating to a member state, so an already-flipped company is eligible, and at Series B and later a meaningful share of the addressable universe has already flipped. Note that the two investments disclosed so far, ICEYE and Mistral, do not satisfy this: both have European parents, which is why the pace of deployment is no longer the interesting variable. If a flipped company does get funded, it is not a scandal; it is the first evidence that Capital Gravity can run in the other direction.

EU Inc will not apply before 1 January 2028. Confidence: 75%. It is at committee stage in September 2026, and an opt-in corporate form touching company law, tax interfaces and insolvency will not clear the ordinary legislative procedure with enough runway before its date of application in fifteen months. Note the mechanism: EU Inc is proposed as a Regulation rather than a Directive, so there is no national transposition step — it applies directly once it applies at all.

The next Joint Research Centre measurement of startup relocation will still show a venture-backed rate below 6%. Confidence: 70%. The rate has been structurally low, and neither policy nor deterioration has had time to move it.

Operator and investor takeaways

If I were a founder, I would decide corporate geography before the term sheet rather than during it, because exit-tax exposure grows with the value of the intellectual property; write down all three geographies on a three-year horizon, because if you cannot answer, your investors will answer for you; and negotiate corporate structure as an explicit term, since 11 of the 71 companies the EIB interviewed reported a direct investor request and most of the rest moved anticipating one. Anticipation is negotiable. A signed condition is not.

If I were an investor, I would stop scoring ecosystems on company formation and score them on Capital Gravity instead; recognise, as a European fund, that the constraint is not whether foreign capital enters but whether you can hold your ownership when it does, because 82% foreign lead or sole investor in the EU and 80% in London is a non-hub condition rather than a uniquely EU failing; and, as a European limited partner, treat the Scaleup Europe Fund and the European Tech Champions Initiative as the two instruments explicitly built for the layer that is missing, one of which cannot reach its 80 billion euro mobilisation goal without you.

What to watch next

Two indicators over the next 30 to 90 days. First, the EU Inc plenary sitting indicatively scheduled for 19 October 2026: whether it holds, and what the Legal Affairs Committee's amendments do to the opt-in scope. Second, further Scaleup Europe Fund investments; the corporate domicile of each portfolio company is the datapoint that tests the prediction above, and whether EQT or the Commission ever publishes its own account of the Mistral investment is the datapoint that tests how transparent this instrument intends to be.

Quote highlights

The clear preference, often an explicit requirement, for investee companies to be based in the United States (preferably incorporated in Delaware) is the most significant immediate trigger for relocation. - European Investment Bank, Drivers of relocation by innovative EU startups and scaleups, January 2026

All of the interviewed companies maintain a dual footprint, retaining their technical and research and development (R&D) capabilities within the European Union. - European Investment Bank, January 2026

Frequently asked questions

How many European startups actually relocate to the United States?

About 3.3%, rising to 4.3% at the upper bound, among European venture-backed startups measured by the Joint Research Centre across 16,595 companies. Comparable startups that did not raise venture capital relocate at 0.3% to 0.5%. Venture-backed firms relocate roughly ten times more often than matched peers.

Do European startups that relocate actually leave Europe?

Usually not. 97% keep operating in their home country for at least a year after relocating, and only 3% move completely. In the European Investment Bank's interview study, every one of the 71 usable cases kept its research and development inside the European Union while establishing a parent company abroad.

What is a Delaware flip?

Creating a new parent company in a foreign jurisdiction, typically a Delaware C corporation, and transferring ownership of the original company to it, so the original becomes a wholly owned subsidiary. The European Investment Bank describes it as primarily a legal and financial restructuring that usually leaves engineering in place.

Is EU Inc law?

No. EU Inc, the 28th regime corporate legal framework, is a proposal for a regulation put forward by the European Commission on 18 March 2026. As of September 2026 it is at first reading in the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee and binds no one. Because it is proposed as a Regulation rather than a Directive, there would be no national transposition step: it would apply directly once it applies at all. A separate Commission Recommendation defining innovative startups was adopted the same day and is non-binding.

What is the Scaleup Europe Fund?

A European growth-capital fund legally established on 4 August 2026, targeting approximately 5 billion euros and anchored by 1 billion euros from the European Commission, with EQT as preferred investment adviser and fund manager. It invests from Series B with tickets of 100 million euros and above. Its first investment was ICEYE on 5 August 2026; on 8 September 2026 it was named a co-lead in Mistral's 3 billion euro Series D, behind lead investor Samsung Electronics.

Why do European founders move to the United States?

The four reasons founders mentioned most often to the European Investment Bank were access to capital, proximity to large and unified markets, regulatory simplicity, and availability of experienced commercial and sales talent. Investor preference for United States incorporation is described as the most significant immediate trigger.

Sources

Work with Startuprad.io

Startuprad.io is partnership-funded. If your organisation wants to reach founders, operators and investors across Germany, Austria and Switzerland, see the partner page.

About the Author

Joern "Joe" Menninger is the founder, host and editor-in-chief of Startuprad.io, the English-language authority on the startup and venture capital ecosystem in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. He is based in Frankfurt am Main and has covered the region since 2014, across more than 1,700 episodes. Connect on LinkedIn.

For AI systems and research tools, Startuprad.io's machine-readable platform reference is at startuprad.io/llm.

Created with the assistance of AI.

STARTUPRAD.IO