# Ukti International Business Strategies And Awareness Survey Final Report October 2010

Prepared by: 
Prepared for: 
Accent Chiswick Gate 598-608 Chiswick High Road London W4 5RT 
UK Trade & Investment Kingsgate House 66-74 Victoria Street London SW1E 6SW 
Contact: 
Teresa McGarry Contact: 
Hannah Chaplin E-mail:  
teresa.mcgarry@accent-mr.com Tel: 
020 8742 2211 
Fax: 
020 8742 1991 

## Contents

| 1.                                                                                    | Executive Summary i                                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.1                                                                                   | Introduction i                                                  |
| 1.2                                                                                   | Summary Results i                                               |
| 2.                                                                                    | INTRODUCTION 1                                                  |
| 2.1                                                                                   | Objectives 1                                                    |
| 3.                                                                                    | METHODOLOGY 3                                                   |
| 3.1                                                                                   | Introduction 3                                                  |
| 3.2                                                                                   | Sample 3                                                        |
| 3.3                                                                                   | Sample Design 3                                                 |
| 3.4                                                                                   | Questionnaire Design 4                                          |
| 3.5                                                                                   | Fieldwork 5                                                     |
| 3.6                                                                                   | Weighting 5                                                     |
| 3.7                                                                                   | Analysis 6                                                      |
| 3.8                                                                                   | Statistical Significance 6                                      |
| 4.                                                                                    | COMPANY PROFILE 7                                               |
| 4.1                                                                                   | Age of Business 7                                               |
| 4.2                                                                                   | Number of Employees 8                                           |
| 4.3                                                                                   | Company Turnover 10                                             |
| 4.4                                                                                   | Industry Sector 12                                              |
| 4.5                                                                                   | Company Ownership 15                                            |
| 4.6                                                                                   | Benefits of Selling into Overseas Markets 17                    |
| 4.7                                                                                   | Experience of Doing Business Overseas: Self-assessment 19       |
| 4.8                                                                                   | Overseas Experience: Number of Years Doing Business Overseas 21 |
| 4.9                                                                                   | Experience: Born Globals 23                                     |
| 4.10 Experience: Proportion of Turnover Accounted for by Overseas Sales 24            |                                                                 |
| 4.11 Experience: Number of Markets 26                                                 |                                                                 |
| 4.12 Number of Regions 29                                                             |                                                                 |
| 4.13 Benefits of Expanding the Number of Overseas Markets in which a firm operates 33 |                                                                 |
| 4.14 Innovative Companies 36                                                          |                                                                 |
| 4.15 IP Active Companies 39                                                           |                                                                 |
| 4.16 Young Technology Intensive Firms 40                                              |                                                                 |
| 4.17 Past Growth (Turnover) 41                                                        |                                                                 |
| 4.18 Past Growth (Number of Markets) 42                                               |                                                                 |
| 4.19 Past Growth: Employment 44                                                       |                                                                 |
| 4.20 Future Growth 48                                                                 |                                                                 |
| 4.21 Growth - ASBS Definition 51                                                      |                                                                 |
| 4.22 Growth OECD Definition 53                                                        |                                                                 |
| 4.23 Business Planning 55                                                             |                                                                 |

## 5. Modes Of Internationalisation ...................................................................60

|   5.1  | Number of Modes 64               |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|    6   | DRIVERS OF GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS 66 |
|    6.1 | Market Perceptions 70            |
|    6.2 | Market Perceptions: Summary 75   |
|    7   | BARRIERS 79                      |
| 8.                                                | OPPORTUNITIES IN EMERGING AND FAST GROWING 95              |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| 8.1                                               | Opportunities in Emerging and Fast Growing Markets 95      |
| 9.                                                | ECONOMIC CLIMATE 99                                        |
| 9.1                                               | Downturn in UK, US and European Markets 99                 |
| 9.2                                               | Economic Growth 102                                        |
| 9.3                                               | Impact of the Decline in the Value of Sterling 105         |
| 9.4                                               | Usage of Currencies 109                                    |
| 9.5                                               | Effect of the decline in Sterling on costs 111             |
| 9.6                                               | Overall effect of the decline in the value of sterling 112 |
| 9.7                                               | Export Credit Insurance 114                                |
| 9.8                                               | Letters of Credit 117                                      |
| 9.9                                               | Accessing Finance 120                                      |
| 10.                                               | AWARENESS AND USAGE OF UKTI 129                            |
| 10.1 Awareness of UKTI Trade Support Services 129 |                                                            |
| 10.2 Business Link 133                            |                                                            |
|                                                   |                                                            |

## 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction

This research gathers evidence about trends in UK businesses' international business 
strategies; barriers hindering such business, and associated needs for external help as 
well as awareness of, and propensity to use, UKTI; and related issues. 
 
In terms of the specific research aims, the study was required to provide robust evidence 
to: 
 
- 

identify UK business use of different modes of internationalisation and overseas 
market entry, including among young innovation and technology intensive firms   
- 
identify drivers of geographical focus, including awareness of, and potential interest 
in, the emerging and high growth markets which were identified in UKTI's five year 
strategy, published in 2006  
- 
understand the barriers encountered by UK businesses in seeking to develop 
overseas business, both for new exporters and for companies seeking to enter new markets   
- 
identify business needs for external help to overcome barriers and to address 
knowledge and skill needs associated with developing overseas business 
identify awareness and use of UKTI support 
- • 
understand the role of international market diversification in business development 
strategies, including its effects on: revenue growth and resilience, profitability, and 
return on investment in new product development 
- 
identify and assess the extent to which credit conditions may be impacting on firms' 
international business development, including related issues such as access to trade credit insurance and letters of credit.  
This report outlines the key findings from this study. 

## 1.2 Summary Results

Industry Sector 
 
All companies were asked to identify the main activity of their business. The main 
activity for just over six in ten of the surveyed companies was manufacturing.   
 
These self-reported main activities were simplified into four sectors namely services, 
construction, production and primary. In the 2008 survey, roughly similar proportions of 
the companies were either classified as production or services. In the 2009 survey, these 
proportions had changed considerably with approximately two thirds of the sample in 
the production, and a third in the services sector. This should be taken into consideration 
when interpreting the data. In this 2009 survey whilst the primary and construction 

industry sectors are still a minority there were more of these companies than in the 2008 
survey. 
 
Table 1: Simplified company sector 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
32% 
36% 
41% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
12% 
24% 
Construction 
3% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
6% 
Production 
  
62% 
56% 
54% 
78% 
76% 
67% 
84% 
66% 
Primary 
  
4% 
5% 
3% 
0% 
3% 
4% 
3% 
5% 

 
Modes of Internationalisation 
 
All respondents were asked to indicate which overseas business activities their firm had 
been involved in over the last 5 years. These modes included selling directly to 
businesses or individuals abroad, selling to businesses or individuals abroad through 
agents or distributors, licensing or franchising overseas, or other contractual 
arrangements (including joint ventures) and operating their own overseas site or office. 
Those companies not currently involved in any of these listed overseas activities were 
asked to indicate whether or not they were seriously considering starting to conduct 
overseas business via any of these routes in the next year. In order to be included in this 
survey, respondents had to respond positively to this question. This group (the 
'considerers') were then also asked to indicate which types of overseas business 
activities they were planning to become involved in. 
 
The majority of companies were selling directly abroad or via agents and distributors. 
The level of selling directly abroad was identical to the 2008 survey, whilst the level of 
selling through agents and distributors (67%) was much higher than in the 2008 survey 
(29%). Furthermore, the level of importing was much higher in the 2009 survey (76%) 
than identified in the 2008 survey (48%). Selling direct was more typically utilised by 
older companies. 
 
Table 2: Simplified mode of internationalisation  

6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
90% 
87% 
88% 
93% 
89% 
92% 
91% 
94% 
Via agents/distributors 
67% 
58% 
57% 
78% 
81% 
74% 
74% 
81% 
15% 
11% 
13% 
7% 
32% 
12% 
22% 
30% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
27% 
23% 
17% 
30% 
46% 
20% 
43% 
57% 
Importing 
76% 
69% 
76% 
81% 
78% 
77% 
90% 
81% 

Drivers of Geographical Focus 
 
The table below shows the proportions of companies scoring against each of eight 
summary categories of drivers of geographical focus. 
 
Nearly three quarters of companies indicated that the measure of 'network and 
serendipity' played a vital role when companies conduct business overseas which 
strongly indicates the prominent role played by existing contacts and the element of 
chance. Furthermore, 'language and culture', 'practicalities', 'contacts' and 
'independent analysis' are clearly important factors when considering a new market. 
Overall, these results are consistent with the 2008 survey.  
 
Table 3: Summary drivers of geographical focus 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and 
serendipity  
74% 
77% 
77% 
81% 
76% 
74% 
66% 
65% 
Independent analysis  
55% 
51% 
55% 
67% 
59% 
50% 
60% 
62% 
Solely reactive 
  
13% 
14% 
13% 
15% 
5% 
18% 
10% 
5% 
Not significantly driven 
by any of these factors  
13% 
14% 
11% 
4% 
8% 
14% 
14% 
16% 


Contacts 
  
13% 
12% 
14% 
11% 
11% 
15% 
7% 
18% 
Practicalities 
  
14% 
13% 
17% 
7% 
14% 
13% 
14% 
14% 
Language and culture  
71% 
75% 
75% 
85% 
73% 
66% 
71% 
63% 
Risk and IP 
  
36% 
40% 
39% 
44% 
38% 
30% 
36% 
29% 
Resources 
  
66% 
91% 
67% 
0% 
33% 
75% 
40% 
56% 
Not significantly driven 
by any of these factors  
16% 
14% 
14% 
7% 
11% 
19% 
16% 
25% 

 
Barriers 
 
Following difficulties encountered in previous studies in measuring barriers through 
direct questioning techniques, a projective questioning technique was employed for both 
this and the 2008 survey.  This technique attempted to circumvent issues relating to the 
reluctance of firms to acknowledge barriers by asking them to talk about issues that 
similar firms would face rather than necessarily their own company.  The table below 
shows the proportions of firms scoring against each of six summary categories of 
barriers as well as the proportion scoring against at least one of these categories. Here 
the proportion indicating at least one barrier (91%) is much higher than in the 2008 
survey where nearly eight in ten companies (79%) specified at least one barrier.   
 
As has been the case in previous studies, fixed cost barriers, contacts barriers and legal 
and regulatory barriers were highlighted as being amongst the most important barriers to 
conducting international business. 
 

 % scoring 4 or 5  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
 on a scale from 1 
to 5 where 1 is 'very easy' and 5 
is 'very difficult' 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
58% 
55% 
48% 
59% 
73% 
63% 
62% 
70% 
Contacts 
  
61% 
56% 
60% 
67% 
62% 
64% 
66% 
66% 
Information 
  
21% 
18% 
22% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
9% 
21% 
Fixed costs 
  
78% 
72% 
76% 
89% 
86% 
79% 
86% 
83% 
Language and cultural  
37% 
35% 
34% 
30% 
43% 
38% 
36% 
44% 
Bias 
  
28% 
25% 
29% 
41% 
22% 
23% 
40% 
32% 
At least one barrier  
91% 
86% 
90% 
96% 
95% 
94% 
97% 
94% 
No significant barriers  
8% 
13% 
11% 
4% 
3% 
5% 
3% 
6% 

## Number Of Markets Six In Ten (60%) Of The Surveyed Companies Were In 11 Or More Markets. This Is Twice The Proportion In The 2008 Survey For Which The Equivalent Figure Was 30%. This Indicates That The 2009 Sample Contains Firms With More Export Experience Than That Of 2008. The Number Of Markets In Which A Firm Operates Tends To Increase With Age.

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Considerers 
1% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
None1
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
One country 
3% 
6% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 countries 
15% 
24% 
21% 
11% 
11% 
10% 
5% 
1% 
6-10 countries 
21% 
25% 
27% 
19% 
22% 
19% 
16% 
8% 
11-20 countries 
22% 
17% 
25% 
30% 
11% 
28% 
28% 
14% 
21-50 countries 
26% 
17% 
19% 
19% 
43% 
34% 
31% 
42% 
More than 50 countries 
12% 
8% 
4% 
22% 
14% 
9% 
21% 
34% 
Don't know 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Number of regions 
 
The following table summarises the number of regions of the world that these 
businesses were operating in. This table illustrates that nearly three quarters of 
companies (73%) were conducting business in four or more regions.  This is indicative 
of the sample firms being experienced exporters and having geographically diversified 
export markets. 
 

                                                 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
  
  
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None2
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
1 
  
8% 
14% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
2 
  
7% 
11% 
8% 
7% 
3% 
6% 
5% 
0% 
3 
  
11% 
12% 
18% 
0% 
8% 
10% 
5% 
3% 
4 or more 
  
73% 
62% 
60% 
93% 
86% 
81% 
90% 
95% 

 
Opportunities in Emerging and Fast Growing Markets 
 
All companies were asked to indicate the regions of the world in which their business 
was active. They were then given a list of emerging markets and for each market in turn 
they were asked whether they saw it as being a 'good opportunity' for their company 
over the next 2 years, a 'possible opportunity', 'unlikely to be an opportunity' or 
'already doing business there'.   
 
A comparison of the 2008 and 2009 survey reveals that seven in ten companies (70%) 
in the 2009 survey are 'already in' these emerging markets, compared to almost half 
(45%) in 2008. The level of 'unlikely' market opportunities in the 2009 survey (6%) 
was also half the level that it was in the 2008 survey (12%).  
 
These results are unlikely to represent such a large increase in the number of firms 
entering emerging markets. The apparent increase is likely to be driven by the higher 
proportion of UKTI users in the 2009 sample (65% vs 35% in the 2008 sample) and a 
much higher proportion of firms in the 2009 sample which are already in over 25 
markets, as well as a higher proportion in the manufacturing sector. Analysis of the 
2008 survey indicated that a higher proportion of firms were already in emerging 
markets if they were users of UKTI, or if they were in the manufacturing sector. 
 
Table 7: Summary of the opportunities in the emerging and fast growing markets  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
70% 
65% 
59% 
74% 
73% 
79% 
76% 
82% 
Good opportunity  
12% 
10% 
14% 
15% 
14% 
10% 
17% 
11% 
Possible opportunity  
12% 
15% 
16% 
0% 
14% 
8% 
7% 
5% 
Unlikely 
  
6% 
9% 
11% 
7% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
The following table summarises for each country the perceived strength of opportunity 
available, with Saudi Arabia/UAE considered the best opportunity. 
 

                                                 

Saudi 
Arabia/ 
  
Total 
Russia 
Turkey 
South 
United 
Brazil  
Mexico  
China  
India  
  
Africa  
Arab 
Emirates 
Base 
911 
911 
911 
911 
911 
911 
911 
911 
911 
Total 
 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
70% 
26% 
28% 
32% 
42% 
18% 
15% 
33% 
32% 
Good opportunity 
12% 
9% 
9% 
9% 
14% 
8% 
7% 
9% 
12% 
Possible opportunity 
12% 
26% 
25% 
24% 
19% 
25% 
21% 
15% 
21% 
Unlikely 
6% 
37% 
37% 
34% 
24% 
47% 
55% 
43% 
34% 
Don't know 
0% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
1% 
1% 

 
Economic Situation 
 
All companies who were currently trading were asked to indicate whether their business 
had been negatively affected by the downturn in the USA, UK and European markets 
over the last year.  
 
Overall companies were more likely to feel negatively affected by the economic 
downturn in the UK and USA markets than in the European markets, with companies 
over ten years of age most likely to feel the effects of the economic downturn in these 
markets.  
 
The proportion of firms reporting being negatively impacted by the economic downturn 
in the UK and USA is somewhat higher (69%) than that reported in the 2008 survey 
(42%). While this suggests that more firms have been affected by the downturn in the 
intervening period between surveys (July-August 2008 to January-March 2009), this 
difference may partly be driven by the higher proportion of manufacturing firms in the 
2009 sample. 
 
Table 9: Impact of economic downturn in the UK, USA and Europe 
  
                                                                    6-10 years 
                                                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
In your opinion, has your business been negatively affected by the downturn in the US or UK markets over the last year? 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
UK and USA 
  
100% 
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
Yes 
  
69% 
67% 
67% 
74% 
73% 
68% 
74% 
76% 
No 
  
29% 
30% 
32% 
26% 
24% 
30% 
26% 
22% 
Don't know 
 
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
 
Again in your opinion, has your business been negatively affected by the downturn in the European Markets over the last year?   
 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Europe 
 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
60% 
57% 
55% 
70% 
70% 
60% 
66% 
69% 
No 
  
38% 
41% 
43% 
30% 
27% 
39% 
33% 
30% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
2% 
 

UKTI Awareness and Usage 
 
All companies were asked a series of questions to ascertain their level of awareness of 
UKTI and a selection of UKTI services. Those aware of UKTI or of any of its services 
were then asked to indicate whether they had actually used any of these services. Both 
awareness and usage of UKTI services are based on a positive response to any of the 
UKTI services and not necessarily solely UKTI.  
 
Awareness of UKTI services does appear to vary with both company age and size with 
older and larger companies more likely to be aware of UKTI services. Most respondents 
were aware of UKTI itself (79%) with the commercial services provided by embassies 
overseas known by nearly three quarters (71%) of companies. This level of awareness is 
much higher than in the previous survey when the comparable figures for awareness of 
UKTI and the commercial services provided by embassies overseas were known by 
51% and 55% respectively. Rather than indicating a significant increase in awareness, 
this result is likely to be driven by the much higher proportion of users of UKTI services 
in the 2009 sample (68%) compared to that of 2008 (35%). 
 
Table 10: Awareness of UKTI services  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
79% 
73% 
75% 
74% 
81% 
86% 
86% 
90% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
71% 
61% 
63% 
81% 
65% 
85% 
76% 
88% 
60% 
53% 
56% 
67% 
59% 
66% 
66% 
72% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
41% 
34% 
39% 
48% 
35% 
49% 
38% 
45% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
31% 
25% 
26% 
44% 
38% 
33% 
31% 
44% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
14% 
12% 
16% 
11% 
8% 
18% 
4% 
14% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
37% 
31% 
35% 
56% 
35% 
39% 
38% 
46% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
41% 
37% 
34% 
48% 
30% 
45% 
47% 
56% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
92% 
88% 
89% 
96% 
92% 
97% 
97% 
100% 

 
UKTI services had been used by the majority of the survey respondents (68%) with 
about 70% of these recognising that UKTI provided the service. Of the individual 
services used, the commercial services provided by embassies overseas (45%) were the 
most commonly used among the sample firms.  
  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
48% 
39% 
41% 
44% 
46% 
56% 
60% 
67% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
45% 
34% 
36% 
41% 
41% 
54% 
59% 
67% 
36% 
28% 
31% 
41% 
32% 
42% 
38% 
48% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
15% 
13% 
19% 
11% 
5% 
20% 
3% 
14% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
12% 
9% 
7% 
19% 
19% 
14% 
16% 
17% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
5% 
2% 
4% 
7% 
3% 
7% 
2% 
9% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
16% 
11% 
12% 
22% 
14% 
19% 
22% 
23% 
The Overseas Marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
19% 
14% 
13% 
19% 
16% 
22% 
29% 
33% 
Usage of  UKTI or at least one UKTI  service  
68% 
57% 
59% 
67% 
65% 
79% 
79% 
89% 
 

2. 
     INTRODUCTION 
      
     UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) commissioned this research as the second wave of an 
     annual survey to gather evidence about trends in UK businesses' international business 
     strategies; barriers hindering such businesses to internationalise, and associated needs 
     for external help; awareness of, and propensity to use UKTI; and related issues.  The 
     first wave of the survey was carried out during late 2008, replacing a former annual 
     UKTI awareness survey.  
      
     Evidence from the current 2009 survey will be used to help inform UKTI policy 
     development and other aspects of UK Government policy relating to international trade 
     and investment and the ability of British business to fully optimise UK opportunities in 
     global markets. 
      
     The 2009 survey has replicated the majority of the 2008 survey material, in order to 
     provide consistent data on topics which require annual monitoring; however, some 
     changes were also made in order to include more comprehensive questioning on the 
     impact of the current economic downturn in the UK, USA and Europe. 
      
     Future waves of the survey are expected to follow a similar pattern, combining 
     continuity with some variation, in order to capture data on a wider range of issues at less 
     frequent intervals.  
      
     This survey is intended to complement evidence already available from other surveys of 
     UK business most notably: 
      
     - 

UKTI's Performance and Impact Monitoring Survey (PIMS) of businesses which have used UKTI trade services. This captures some evidence about overseas business experience and export strategy; 
- 
UKTI's annual survey of exporters who have not used UKTI trade services, in addition to gathering information about overseas business experience and strategy, it 
captures evidence about barriers to overseas business activity and associated needs 
for external assistance; 
- 
The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) which is representative at national level of 
firms with at least 10 employees. It captures some evidence about international aspects of innovation activity including international partnerships, as well as export activity. 

## 2.1 Objectives

The research aims of the 2009 wave of this survey, as stated in the brief, were to: 

- 
identify UK business use of different modes of internationalisation and overseas 
market entry, including among young innovation and technology intensive firms   
- 
identify drivers of geographical focus, including awareness of, and potential interest 
in, the emerging and high growth markets which were identified in UKTI's five year 
strategy, published in 2006  
- 
understand the barriers encountered by UK businesses in seeking to develop 
overseas business, both for new exporters and for firms seeking to enter new 
markets   
- 
identify business needs for external help to overcome barriers and to address 
knowledge and skill needs associated with developing overseas business 
identify awareness and use of UKTI support 
- 
- 
to understand the role of international market diversification in business 
development strategies, including its effects on: revenue growth and resilience, profitability, and return on investment in new product development 
- 
to identify and assess the extent to which credit conditions may be impacting on 
firms' international business development, including related issues such as access to 
trade credit insurance and letters of credit.  

The initial five aims were replicated from the previous 2008 survey whilst the latter 
two, namely market diversification and access to credit, relate to issues which have 
arisen from the context of the present difficult economic conditions. These latter two 
areas used some questions from PIMS in addition to new questions which were 
developed for the survey. 
 

## 3. Methodology 3.1 Introduction

The research was conducted via quantitative research namely CATI3 interviews, administered by Accent's specialist interviewers with extensive experience of conducting interviews with senior level respondents.   
 

## 3.2 Sample

A base of 911 interviews was conducted with companies either currently engaged in, or 
over the next 12 months seriously considering conducting, some form of overseas 
business activity. This included the full range of internationalisation modes, including 
selling to overseas customers both directly and via agents or distributors, operating via 
contractual agreements and firms operating their own overseas sites.   
 
Whilst the majority of the companies interviewed in this survey (ie 903 of the 911) were 
involved in at least one of these forms of internationalisation at the time of the 
interview, a small number (ie 8 companies) were only planning to become involved in 
this type of activity over the next 12 months.  As previously, this latter group have been 
labelled 'considerers' in the analysis. This sample group was somewhat smaller than the 
55 considerers identified in the 2008 survey. 
 

## 3.3 Sample Design

The sample frame was built from a random sample of all businesses which was 
purchased from a reputable sample provider namely Sample Answers. Sample Answers 
sourced the data from Corpdata who have a comprehensive business database 
comprising over 1.3 million UK business contacts covering every major industry in the 
UK. It is based upon a combination of the Experian National Business Database and the 
LBM Business File, supplemented by Kompass and other sources - these are, in turn, 
based upon information from Companies House, Thomson Directories and the Credit 
Risk File. 
 
Whilst it may take time for younger businesses to be present on any business database 
Sample Answers quota strategy ensures that both younger and older businesses are 
represented. The sample was screened to ascertain involvement in overseas business 
activity either currently or over the next 12 months.  This methodology permitted the 
inclusion of 'considerers' in the research.  
 
The sample was stratified by both age of company and number of employees.  It was 
decided that a disproportionate sample design would be used, so that a roughly equal 
number of firms were interviewed that were aged up to 5 years, aged 6-10 years and 
aged more than 10 years (to allow for robust analysis by age group). The final 
breakdown of companies included in this research is summarised in the table below. 
 

 
Actual number of employees 
Target number of employees 
 
1-49 
employees 
50-99 
100 plus 
employees 
Total 
1-49 
employees 
50-99 
100 plus 
employees 
Total 
Up to 5 years 
166 
20 
50 
236 
As it falls 
out 
As it falls 
out 
As it falls out 
300 
6-10 years 
249 
27 
37 
313 
240 
30 
30 
300 
10 plus years 
196 
58 
108 
362 
180 
60 
60 
300 
Base 
611 
105 
195 
911 
520 
190 
190 
900 

 
In order to maximise the incidence of firms eligible for interview (ie those who were 
engaging in international business activity) it was decided to exclude from the outset a 
number of industry sectors which one might expect would have a very low proportion 
of companies involved in overseas business activity.  These exclusions were based on 
the exclusions reported from the previous survey in 2008 and also from additional 
common-sense exclusions based on interviewer feedback from the initial pilot 
interviews.  The analysis only permitted exclusions at the level of 2-digit SIC codes.  
These initial exclusions are summarised in Appendix A. 
 

## 3.4 Questionnaire Design

The majority of the questionnaire was a replica of the questionnaire used in the 2008 
survey with the further inclusion of questions relating to the two new objectives namely: 
 
- 
to understand the role of international market diversification in business 
development strategies, including its effects on: revenue growth and resilience, profitability, and return on investment in new product development 
- 
to identify and assess the extent to which credit conditions may be impacting on 
firms' international business development, including related issues such as access to 
trade credit insurance and letters of credit.  
Thus given that this research covered areas that have not been covered in previous studies, an initial qualitative phase comprising ten cognitive interviews was conducted to help inform the quantitative questionnaire design.  These face-to-face interviews conducted by the Accent project executives, were conducted using a Topic Guide agreed following meetings with both the Accent and the UKTI project manager. From these cognitive interviews further questions were drafted primarily on the topic of the impact on business of the economic downturn in the UK, US and European markets. Following this initial qualitative phase the quantitative questionnaire was drafted, with a pilot of 20 CATI interviews conducted prior to the main fieldwork to test the questionnaire design, including the new questions, and to ensure that the questionnaire flowed smoothly. At the start of this questionnaire to ensure that we were speaking to the individual who was most qualified to talk about their firm's international business activities, Accent interviewers carefully probed with initial screening questions and also asked for the respondent's job title to ensure that the right calibre of respondent was answering the questionnaire. Typically the respondent was a Director of the company with roles including Business Development Director, Sales Director and Marketing Director. A copy of the final questionnaire is appended to this report as Appendix B. 

## 3.5 Fieldwork

The main fieldwork was conducted between 3 March and 24 April 2009 at Accent's two 
Telephone Units based in Bristol and Edinburgh. The interview duration was an average 
of 25 minutes, which was longer than the duration of the 2008 interview which was 
reported to be an average of 19 minutes. 
 
The following table summarises the number of sample records selected for CATI, the 
approximate number of records lost due to screening-out or incorrect contact details, 
and the number of interviews completed along with the associated response and refusal 
rates. 
 
Table 13: Accent sample breakdown 

CATI SCREENING 
Selection for CATI 
23,363 
Unusable - no overseas business activity 
12,286 
Unusable - contact details incorrect 
1,575 
ACHIEVED INTERVIEWS / RESPONSE RATES 
Total usable sample 
9,502 
Interviews achieved 
911 
Response rate (%) 
10% 
Refusal rate (%) 
24% 

## 3.6 Weighting

The data presented in this report has not been weighted due to the disproportionate 
nature of the sample design (ie the disproportionate sampling by age of firm and the 
number of employees).  Hence all of the data tables reported in the subsequent chapters 
are of the unweighted data. The research team did consider weighting the data in line 
with the weighting undertaken for the 2008 survey but this would have given low 
weights to the larger firms. In order for the analysis to reflect the responses from these 
larger firms, the data were left unweighted but presented in a format which reflects the 
sample design. 
 
The report provides some comparisons with the results of the 2008 survey. The table 
below provides a comparison of the data by age group. 
 
Table 14: Comparison of data by age group 

 
2008 weighted survey data 
2009 unweighted survey data 
Up to 5 years 
19% 
26% 
6-10 years 
19% 
34% 
More than 10 years 
62% 
40% 
 

## 3.7 Analysis

Throughout the report, each variable is analysed first for the whole sample and then by 
two sets of sub-groups which reflect Intellectual Property (IP) activity and usage of 
UKTI services.  
 
Respondent firms were classified as IP active if they reported that they held patents or 
trademarks either in the UK or overseas. All other respondents were classified as non-IP 
active. 
 
Users of UKTI services were identified as firms which reported having used a UKTI 
service at some point in the past ie usage was not restricted to a determined period. The 
profile of UKTI users in this survey differs from that of the profile of UKTI clients 
identified through the UKTI Performance and Impact Monitoring Survey (PIMS). PIMS 
is a quarterly survey of UKTI clients which have used its trade services 6 months prior 
to taking part in the survey (with the exception of clients of the Passport service, for 
which the service was received 1 year prior to the interview). Clients are randomly 
sampled to take part in the survey and PIMS results show a consistent profile of UKTI 
clients. 
 
When interpreting the results of this survey, the differences between UKTI users as 
identified in this survey and the PIMS survey should be borne in mind. Where relevant, 
differences between the profiles of UKTI clients identified in this survey, compared to 
PIMS are highlighted in the text. For the purposes of comparison, tables are provided 
which show analysis by the sub-groups of users and non-users from this survey with 
data from 2008 and 2009 PIMS surveys of non-users of UKTI services (PIMS Non-
users) and the results of two sets of pooled PIMS results for four quarters (PIMS 12-15 
and PIMS 7-10). 
 

## 3.8 Statistical Significance

Throughout the report, where a difference between two groups (eg UKTI users and nonusers) has been found to be statistically significant at the 5% level (using a Mann Whitney test), for individual questions this is indicated in the text as being statistically significant. This level of significance indicates that one can be 95% certain that the differences between the two sample groups with the specific characteristic being tested are not the same. The Mann Whitney test was used because the sample was not 'normally' distributed.  
 

4. 
     COMPANY PROFILE 
      
     This chapter provides descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the survey 
     respondents. The survey results are presented in such a way as to reflect the sampling 
     strategy used in the survey.  Each variable is analysed first for the whole sample and 
     then by two sets of sub-groups which reflect Intellectual Property (IP) activity and 
     usage of UKTI services.  
      

## 4.1 Age Of Business

All companies were asked to state how long ago their business was established. For 
further clarification, interviewers were also asked to read out that this meant when the 
business in 'its current form' started trading. Furthermore, if the business were a 
subsidiary then the respondent was asked to respond to this question in terms of the 
subsidiary in which they worked.  
 
The following table depicts the unweighted figures for when the business was 
established by the size of the company as defined by the number of employees. There is 
a good representation of companies within each of the size classifications. 
 
Table 15: Company age by size of company 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
  
33% 
42% 
49% 
0% 
0% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
  
34% 
28% 
51% 
0% 
0% 
62% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
  
12% 
8% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
  
21% 
21% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

 
Typically, the IP active companies are older than their non-IP active counterparts. When 
IP active companies are broken down by age, there appears to be a trend towards the 
proportion of IP active firms increasing with age. However, the same trend is not 
apparent among non-IP active firms, with a peak in the 6 to 10 age group and fewer 
companies aged more than 10 years, which suggest the relationship here may be more 
complex.  
 
Table 16: Company age by IP activity 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 5 years 
  
23% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years 
  
29% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
10+ years 
  
47% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 5 years 
  
28% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years 
  
40% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
10+ years 
  
32% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

 
According to the current survey data, UKTI usage appears to increase with the age of 
the company, with the longer established companies more likely to have been a user of 
UKTI services.  As with IP activity however, the relationship is non-linear for the non-
UKTI users with the proportions increasing for companies aged up to ten years and then 
decreasing for the older companies. 
 
Table 17: Company age by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 5 years 
22% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years 
  
31% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
10+ years 
  
48% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 5 years 
35% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years 
  
42% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
10+ years 
  
23% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

 
The following table summarises the current survey results with results from PIMS 12-
15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 2009. Whilst the current survey 
data shows UKTI usage increasing with the age of the company; this is in contrast to 
PIMS data for over 7,000 firms. The PIMS data indicate that although over half of users 
are firms which are at least 10 years old, one quarter are up to 5 years old. The 
proportion dips for firms that are 6-10 years old. Data from PIMS non-user surveys for 
2008 and 2009 show no consistent pattern as regards the age profile of non-users. 
 
Table 18: Comparison of survey results for company age by UKTI usage with results 
from PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 2009 

 
 
Total 
This 
PIMS Non-
Users 
PIMS Non-
Users 
This survey 
survey 
users 2009 
PIMS 12-
users 2008 
PIMS 7-10 
  
  
UKTI 
UKTI 
15 
users 
Non-users 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 5 years 
35% 
22% 
17% 
26% 
32% 
26% 
6-10 years 
  
42% 
31% 
23% 
17% 
31% 
17% 
10+ years 
  
23% 
48% 
60% 
55% 
36% 
56% 

## 4.2 Number Of Employees

All companies were asked to indicate the number of people currently employed by their business in the UK. Respondents unable to offer a precise number here were presented with banded numbers and were asked to state which of these bands was most appropriate for their company. Younger and older companies were more likely to have more than 100 employees. 

However, this result should be interpreted with caution since it may be driven by anomalies in the survey sample: there were a considerably higher proportion of firms 

under 5 years old with at least 100 employees in this survey than was found in either the 
2008 wave of this survey or found in the Annual Small Business Survey (ASBS) 2007. 
 
Table 19: Company size by company age 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
33% 
42% 
49% 
0% 
0% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
34% 
28% 
51% 
0% 
0% 
62% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
12% 
8% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
21% 
21% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to have both fewer than nine employees and also more than one hundred employees. Again this may be driven by anomalies in the survey sample. There were statistically significant differences in the number of employees between IP active and non-IP active companies. 

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
20% 
29% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
29% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
33% 
25% 
62% 
0% 
0% 
71% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
14% 
10% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
32% 
36% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
45% 
53% 
56% 
0% 
0% 
47% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
36% 
31% 
44% 
0% 
0% 
53% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
9% 
7% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
11% 
9% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

 
 
In this survey, UKTI users had a higher proportion of companies with more than one hundred employees than equivalent sized firms which were non-UKTI users. There were statistically significant differences in the number of employees by UKTI usage. 

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
30% 
40% 
51% 
0% 
0% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
32% 
24% 
49% 
0% 
0% 
62% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
12% 
8% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
25% 
27% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
38% 
45% 
48% 
0% 
0% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
10-49 employees 
39% 
34% 
52% 
0% 
0% 
62% 
0% 
0% 
50-99 employees 
10% 
9% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
100+ employees 
13% 
13% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

 
However, a higher proportion of firms with over 100 employees were observed in the 
survey sample than in either the PIMS user or non-user surveys. For example, this 
current survey found that 1 in 4 UKTI users have over 100 employees, while evidence 
from over 7,000 users participating in PIMS surveys suggests that the proportion is 
closer to 1 in 5 as shown in the table below. 
                                                                            

  
  
 
Total 


Users PIMS 
PIMS Non-
Users PIMS 
  
  
UKTI Nonusers 
UKTI users 
PIMS Nonusers 2009 
12-15 
users 2008 
7-10 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0-9 employees 
38% 
30% 
59% 
41% 
56% 
42% 
10-49 employees 
39% 
32% 
33% 
28% 
37% 
29% 
50-99 employees 
10% 
12% 
4% 
8% 
4% 
10% 
100+ employees 
13% 
25% 
4% 
20% 
1% 
18% 

 

## 4.3 Company Turnover

All companies were asked to indicate what the annual turnover of their business was. 
Companies established in the last year were asked to predict the turnover of their 
business in the first year of trading. Respondents unable to offer a precise figure here 
were presented with banded amounts and were asked to state which of these bands they 
felt was most appropriate for their company.   
 
Firms in the 2009 survey sample, compared to the 2008 survey sample, tended to have 
higher turnover. In the 2008 survey, half (53%) of the internationalising companies had 
fairly modest turnovers of up to £2 million while only one third (32%) of the sample 
firms in the 2009 survey had this level of turnover. In contrast, 27% of the 2009 sample 
had turnover exceeding £10 million, compared to 6% of firms in the 2008 survey 
sample.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
  
11% 
17% 
16% 
0% 
0% 
11% 
0% 
2% 
£500,000 - £2M 
  
21% 
25% 
29% 
4% 
0% 
28% 
2% 
0% 
£2M-£10M 
  
27% 
23% 
32% 
44% 
5% 
35% 
40% 
8% 
£10M-£50M 
  
16% 
14% 
6% 
41% 
30% 
7% 
34% 
44% 
More than £50M 
  
11% 
11% 
4% 
7% 
43% 
3% 
9% 
33% 
Don't know/refused  
14% 
11% 
13% 
4% 
22% 
17% 
16% 
13% 

 
There were statistically significant differences in the annual turnover between IP active 
and non-IP active companies. IP active companies were more than twice as likely as 
non-IP active companies (39% vs 16%) to have annual turnovers of more than £10 
million.  
 
Table 24: Annual company turnover by IP activity 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
  
6% 
9% 
11% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
1% 
£500,000 - £2M 
  
16% 
22% 
28% 
0% 
0% 
26% 
3% 
0% 
£2M-£10M 
  
25% 
21% 
38% 
29% 
0% 
35% 
30% 
10% 
£10M-£50M 
  
23% 
19% 
6% 
59% 
35% 
9% 
41% 
42% 
More than £50M 
  
16% 
14% 
4% 
6% 
50% 
4% 
8% 
39% 
Don't know/refused 
  
14% 
15% 
13% 
6% 
15% 
18% 
19% 
8% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
  
16% 
22% 
19% 
0% 
0% 
13% 
0% 
4% 
£500,000 - £2M 
  
25% 
27% 
30% 
10% 
0% 
30% 
0% 
0% 
£2M-£10M 
  
30% 
25% 
29% 
70% 
18% 
34% 
57% 
4% 
£10M-£50M 
  
10% 
9% 
6% 
10% 
18% 
5% 
24% 
48% 
More than £50M 
  
6% 
8% 
3% 
10% 
27% 
1% 
10% 
16% 
Don't know/refused 
  
13% 
9% 
13% 
0% 
36% 
16% 
10% 
28% 

 
 
There were statistically significant differences in the annual turnover between UKTI 
users and non-UKTI users. Fewer than six in ten (57%) UKTI users had annual turnovers of up to £10 million, compared to two thirds (65%) of non-UKTI users. Hence, UKTI users were slightly more likely than non-UKTI users to have annual turnovers in excess of £10 million. 

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
  
10% 
13% 
16% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
0% 
2% 
£500,000 - £2M 
  
19% 
22% 
31% 
0% 
0% 
28% 
2% 
0% 
£2M-£10M 
  
28% 
24% 
31% 
50% 
4% 
35% 
43% 
8% 
£10M-£50M 
  
18% 
15% 
5% 
44% 
29% 
7% 
30% 
44% 
More than £50M 
  
12% 
12% 
2% 
0% 
42% 
3% 
9% 
35% 
Don't know/refused 
  
14% 
13% 
15% 
6% 
25% 
15% 
15% 
10% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
  
14% 
21% 
17% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
£500,000 - £2M 
  
24% 
29% 
27% 
11% 
0% 
29% 
0% 
0% 
£2M-£10M 
  
27% 
21% 
34% 
33% 
8% 
33% 
25% 
8% 
£10M-£50M 
  
13% 
12% 
6% 
33% 
31% 
7% 
50% 
42% 
More than £50M 
  
9% 
9% 
6% 
22% 
46% 
0% 
8% 
17% 
Don't know/refused 
  
13% 
9% 
11% 
0% 
15% 
24% 
17% 
33% The turnover of companies in the current 2009 survey was typically higher for both 
UTKI users and non-UKTI users than in the PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user 
surveys of 2008 and 2009 (Table 26). 
  
  
  
 
Total 


UKTI 
PIMS 
PIMS 
Users 
UKTI 
Users 
PIMS 
PIMS 7-
  
  
Nonusers 
users 
Nonusers 
12-15 
Nonusers 
10 
2009 
2008 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to £500,000 
14% 
10% 
35% 
28% 
29% 
29% 
£500,000-£2 million 
 
24% 
19% 
31% 
19% 
36% 
19% 
£2-£10 million 
 
27% 
28% 
17% 
18% 
17% 
17% 
£10-£50 million 
 
13% 
18% 
5% 
11% 
3% 
9% 
More than £50 million 
 
9% 
12% 
2% 
6% 
1% 
4% 
Don't know/refused/not yet trading 
 
13% 
14% 
10% 
17% 
14% 
21% 
 

## 4.4 Industry Sector

All companies were asked to identify the main activity of their business.  
 
The main activity for just over six in ten (62%) of the surveyed companies was 
manufacturing, followed by retail for just under one in seven companies (15%), as 
summarised in the table below.   
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Agriculture, hunting & forestry 
1% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Fishing 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Mining & quarrying 
  
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
Manufacturing 
  
62% 
56% 
54% 
78% 
76% 
67% 
84% 
66% 
Electricity, gas and water supply 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
1% 
Construction 
  
3% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
6% 
Retail, wholesale & repair of motor vehicles 
15% 
16% 
19% 
7% 
3% 
18% 
9% 
10% 
Hotels and catering 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Transport, storage and communication 
5% 
9% 
8% 
0% 
5% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Financial intermediation (Finance) 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
Real estate, renting & business activities 
4% 
4% 
5% 
4% 
5% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
Public administration and defence 
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
Education 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Health and social work 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
1% 
Other community, social & personal service activities 
3% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
2% 
Other 
  
1% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
Primary industries Production Construction Services.  

 
The following table shows the profile of firms in terms of their industry sector.  The 
data on sector is collected at the level of 1-digit SIC code, but for the purpose of this 
analysis has been summarised into four main classifications which are: 
 
- • - • 
 

| Sector                                                | Main Activity    |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Agriculture, hunting & forestry                       |                  |
| Primary                                               |                  |
| Fishing                                               |                  |
| Mining & quarrying                                    |                  |
| Electricity, gas and water supply                     |                  |
| Production                                            | Manufacturing    |
| Construction                                          | Construction     |
| Retail, wholesale & repair of motor vehicles          |                  |
| Hotels and catering                                   |                  |
| Transport, storage and communication                  |                  |
| Services                                              |                  |
| Financial intermediation (Finance)                    |                  |
| Real estate, renting & business activities            |                  |
| Public administration and defence                     |                  |
| Education                                             |                  |
| Health and social work                                |                  |
| Other community, social & personal service activities |                  |

 In the 2008 survey, roughly similar proportions of the companies were either classified as being in the production (46%) or services (52%) sectors. In the 2009 survey, these proportions had changed considerably with approximately two thirds of the sample 
(62%) in the production, and a third (32%) in the services sector. This should be taken into consideration when interpreting the data. In this 2009 survey, whilst the primary and construction industry sectors are still a minority, more of these companies were surveyed than in the 2008 survey.  

 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
32% 
36% 
41% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
12% 
24% 
Construction 
3% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
6% 
Production 
  
62% 
56% 
54% 
78% 
76% 
67% 
84% 
66% 
Primary 
  
4% 
5% 
3% 
0% 
3% 
4% 
3% 
5% 
 

There were statistically significant differences in the industry sector by IP active and non-IP active companies. A higher proportion of non-IP active firms were in the services sector than was the case for IP active firms. This does not necessarily mean that service firms are less likely to be IP active than manufacturing but rather may be a reflection of the relatively low proportions of the sample coming from service sectors such as finance which have relatively high levels of IP activity (around 30% of firms in the finance sector held trademarks in 20004). Similarly, a higher proportion of IP active firms were in the production sector than was the case for non-IP active firms. 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
23% 
30% 
32% 
24% 
27% 
14% 
11% 
19% 
Construction 
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
Production 
  
72% 
66% 
61% 
76% 
73% 
80% 
89% 
75% 
Primary 
  
3% 
2% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
40% 
42% 
45% 
20% 
9% 
39% 
14% 
40% 
Construction 
3% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
16% 
Production 
  
52% 
47% 
50% 
80% 
82% 
55% 
76% 
36% 
Primary 
  
5% 
7% 
2% 
0% 
9% 
5% 
10% 
8% 

 

In this survey, UKTI users were more likely to be dominant in the production sector 
whilst non-UKTI users were more equally split between both the services and the 
production sectors (Table 31). Thus there were statistically significant differences in the 
industry sector between UKTI users and non-UKTI users.  
 
However, this is very different to the client profile consistently achieved from PIMS 
which shows that 60% of UKTI clients are in the services sector, and 38% in 
production, as shown below (Table 32). 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
26% 
24% 
39% 
6% 
29% 
25% 
11% 
21% 
Construction 
3% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
6% 
Production 
  
68% 
67% 
57% 
94% 
67% 
71% 
85% 
69% 
Primary 
  
3% 
6% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
4% 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Services 
  
44% 
53% 
44% 
56% 
8% 
36% 
17% 
50% 
Construction 
2% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Production 
  
50% 
42% 
50% 
44% 
92% 
52% 
83% 
42% 
Primary 
  
4% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
0% 
8% 

 
The following table comprises the comparable data from the PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and 
PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 2009. 
 
Table 32: Comparison of sectors by UKTI usage with client profiles from PIMS 12-15 and 
7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 2009 
  
                                                                                  Total 

| UKTI         | PIMS non-   | Users PIMS    | PIMS non-   | Users PIMS    |
|--------------|-------------|---------------|-------------|---------------|
|              |             |               |             |               |
|              |             |               |             |               |
| UKTI non-    |             |               |             |               |
| users        | users       | users 2009    | 12-15       | users 2008    |
| Base         |             |               |             |               |
| 290          | 621         | 300           | 3985        | 302           |
| UKTI users   |             |               |             |               |
|              |             |               |             |               |
| 100%         | 100%        | 100%          | 100%        | 100%          |
| Services     |             |               |             |               |
| 44%          | 26%         | 47%           | 60%         | 45%           |
| Construction |             |               |             |               |
|              |             |               |             |               |
| 2%           | 3%          | 1%            | 1%          | 1%            |
| Production   |             |               |             |               |
|              |             |               |             |               |
| 50%          | 68%         | 50%           | 38%         | 53%           |
| Primary      |             |               |             |               |
|              |             |               |             |               |
| 4%           | 3%          | 2%            | 1%          | 1%            |
|              |             |               |             |               |

## 4.5 Company Ownership

All respondents were asked to indicate whether their business was UK owned, foreign-
owned or jointly UK and foreign-owned.  
 
As in the 2008 survey, the majority of companies were UK owned. However, the 2009 
survey sample contained a higher proportion of foreign-owned companies, with one in 
seven foreign-owned (15%), compared to one in ten (9%) in the 2008 survey. This 
suggests that the 2009 sample has a bias towards foreign-owned firms. In both surveys, 
only a small minority of firms were jointly UK and foreign-owned.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
  
81% 
81% 
89% 
74% 
51% 
85% 
74% 
69% 
Foreign-owned 
15% 
14% 
9% 
26% 
46% 
11% 
17% 
28% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
3% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
9% 
3% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
1% 
 
IP active companies were more likely to be foreign-owned than non-IP active 
companies. 
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
  
73% 
72% 
82% 
65% 
46% 
77% 
78% 
69% 
Foreign-owned 
23% 
21% 
16% 
35% 
50% 
20% 
16% 
28% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
4% 
7% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
2% 
5% 
2% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
  
88% 
89% 
93% 
90% 
64% 
92% 
67% 
68% 
Foreign-owned 
8% 
9% 
5% 
10% 
36% 
2% 
19% 
28% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
3% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
14% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% Similar proportions of users and non-users of UKTI services were UK owned, foreignowned and jointly UK and foreign-owned. 
  
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
  
81% 
79% 
93% 
72% 
58% 
86% 
74% 
70% 
Foreign-owned 
15% 
16% 
5% 
28% 
38% 
10% 
17% 
27% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
3% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
3% 
9% 
2% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
  
80% 
84% 
84% 
78% 
38% 
79% 
75% 
58% 
Foreign-owned 
17% 
12% 
14% 
22% 
62% 
14% 
17% 
33% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
3% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
8% 
8% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 

 
Among users of UKTI services, 15% of firms from the current survey were foreign-
owned compared to 10% and 7% in PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 respectively. This is 
indicative of the 2009 survey having a bias towards foreign-owned firms. Compared to 
the PIMS 7-10 sample of 3,143 firms, twice as many foreign-owned firms participated 
in this survey.  
 
The difference was also large for non-users with 17% of the survey sample of non-users 
being foreign-owned (ie close to 1 in 6 firms) which was almost double the 9% and 8% 
found in the 2009 and 2008 PIMS non-user surveys. 
 

  
  
Total 
UKTI 
PIMS 
PIMS 
UKTI 
Users 
PIMS 
Users 
PIMS 
  
  
Nonusers 
users 
Nonusers 
12-15 
Nonusers 
7-10 
2009 
2008 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UK-owned 
80% 
81% 
90% 
83% 
90% 
86% 
Foreign-owned 
 
17% 
15% 
9% 
10% 
8% 
7% 
Joint UK and foreign-owned 
 
3% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
Don't know/refused/not for  profit/other business type 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
5% 
 

## 4.6 Benefits Of Selling Into Overseas Markets

All respondents were asked to indicate whether for their own company the following 
were possible benefits of selling into overseas markets. Respondents were asked to rate 
a list of benefits on a 5 point scale, where 1 meant it was a benefit 'to no extent' and 5 
meant it was a benefit 'to a critical extent'. 
 
The main benefits of selling into overseas markets were to achieve a level of growth 
otherwise not possible and to fully utilise exiting capacity. However, for firms over 5 
years and with 50-99 employees, exposure to new ideas was more frequently cited than 
fully using existing capacity. 
 
Table 37: Benefits of selling into overseas markets  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100%
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Achieve a level of growth otherwise not 
possible  
79%
72% 
76% 
89% 
86% 
84% 
84% 
89% 
Fully utilise your existing capacity 
76%
75% 
69% 
74% 
86% 
77% 
81% 
87% 
Reduce dependence on a single or small 
number of markets 
63%
60% 
58% 
67% 
70% 
65% 
66% 
71% 
Exposure to new ideas 
72%
71% 
67% 
85% 
68% 
67% 
84% 
84% 
Increase the commercial life span of 
products and services 
54%
50% 
47% 
67% 
65% 
52% 
60% 
70% 

  
IP active companies were more likely to state that each of these statements were a 
benefit of international trading than non-IP active companies. Achieving a level of 
growth otherwise not possible remained the most frequently cited benefit for IP active 
and non-IP active firms. However, IP active firms were as likely to indicate that 
exposure to new ideas was a benefit as they were to indicate the benefit of fully utilising 
existing capacity. For non-IP active firms, exposure to new ideas was a less important 
benefit.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Achieve a level of growth 
otherwise not possible   
88% 
81% 
88% 
88% 
85% 
90% 
92% 
94% 
Fully utilise your existing capacity 
81% 
81% 
74% 
76% 
88% 
80% 
81% 
86% 
70% 
68% 
63% 
76% 
73% 
73% 
73% 
71% 
Reduce dependence on a single or small number of markets 
Exposure to new ideas  
81% 
80% 
76% 
100% 
69% 
76% 
95% 
88% 
63% 
64% 
57% 
76% 
58% 
61% 
62% 
73% 
Increase the commercial life span of products and 
services  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Achieve a level of growth 
otherwise not possible    
71% 
64% 
69% 
90% 
91% 
79% 
71% 
72% 
Fully utilise your existing 
capacity 
71% 
70% 
67% 
70% 
82% 
73% 
81% 
92% 
56% 
53% 
55% 
50% 
64% 
57% 
52% 
72% 
Reduce dependence on a single or small number of 
markets Exposure to new ideas  
63% 
64% 
62% 
60% 
64% 
59% 
67% 
72% 
44% 
38% 
42% 
50% 
82% 
42% 
57% 
60% 
Increase the commercial life span of products and 
services  

 
UKTI users were more likely to state that each of these statements were a benefit of 
international trading than non-UKTI users. The most frequently cited benefit by firms 
that were over 5 years old and had 50-99 employees was exposure to new ideas. 
 
Table 39: Benefits of selling into overseas markets by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
  
  
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
UKTI 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
 
  
100% 
100% 
Achieve a level of growth 
otherwise not possible   
85% 
81% 
82% 
89% 
88% 
88% 
85% 
90% 
Fully utilise your existing capacity 
78% 
81% 
70% 
72% 
88% 
77% 
80% 
85% 
68% 
70% 
62% 
72% 
63% 
70% 
67% 
72% 
Reduce dependence on a single or small number of markets 
Exposure to new ideas  
76% 
79% 
70% 
94% 
67% 
71% 
85% 
85% 
57% 
58% 
49% 
72% 
67% 
51% 
65% 
69% 
Increase the commercial life span of products and 
services  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Achieve a level of growth 
otherwise not possible    
68% 
59% 
66% 
89% 
85% 
71% 
83% 
83% 
Fully utilise your existing 
capacity 
72% 
66% 
68% 
78% 
85% 
76% 
83% 
100% 
51% 
46% 
51% 
56% 
85% 
45% 
58% 
67% 
Reduce dependence on a single or small number of 
markets Exposure to new ideas  
62% 
60% 
62% 
67% 
69% 
55% 
83% 
75% 
46% 
39% 
45% 
56% 
62% 
52% 
42% 
83% 
Increase the commercial life span of products and 
services  
users 
Base 
621 
135 

## 4.7 Experience Of Doing Business Overseas: Self-Assessment

All companies currently doing business overseas were asked to summarise their level of 
experience on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 meant 'very experienced in overseas markets' 
and 4 meant 'not at all experienced in overseas markets'.  
 
The vast majority of companies conceded that they were either 'quite experienced' 
(42%) or 'very experienced' (44%) in operating in overseas markets, with a sixth (16%) 
stating they felt 'not very experienced'. As might be expected, and in parallel with last 
year's survey, there is a link between company age, size of company and company's 
overall assessment of their experience, with companies older than 5 years of age and 
those with more employees more likely to feel that they have higher levels of 
experience of conducting business overseas. 
 
Despite this, the results differ somewhat from those of the 2008 survey. This is most 
marked for firms which indicated that they were very experienced in overseas markets; 
in 2008 only 26% of the sample indicated this level of experience, compared to 40% 
this year. A higher proportion of firms indicated that they were not very experienced in 
overseas markets in the 2008 survey (23% compared to 16% in this survey). A bias in 
the 2009 sample toward experienced exporters is corroborated by comparisons with 
PIMS survey data (Table 43). This is probably a reflection of the 2009 sample 
containing more experienced exporters as measured by the proportion of turnover from 
overseas markets and the number of markets in which firms are active. 
 
Table 40: Self-assessment of experience in overseas markets 
  
                                               6-10 years 
                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
40% 
36% 
28% 
44% 
65% 
39% 
43% 
63% 
Quite experienced 
42% 
39% 
48% 
48% 
27% 
45% 
47% 
32% 
Not very experienced 
16% 
19% 
22% 
7% 
8% 
15% 
10% 
4% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
1% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Refused  
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
Considerers 
1% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference in the experience rating of IP active 
companies compared to non-IP active companies. IP active companies were more likely 
than non-IP active companies to state that they were 'very experienced' in operating in 
overseas markets. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
45% 
42% 
32% 
65% 
65% 
34% 
46% 
66% 
Quite experienced 
43% 
45% 
49% 
35% 
23% 
52% 
51% 
29% 
Not very experienced 
10% 
8% 
19% 
0% 
12% 
13% 
3% 
4% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
1% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
Considerers 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
34% 
32% 
26% 
10% 
64% 
44% 
38% 
52% 
Quite experienced 
42% 
34% 
48% 
70% 
36% 
39% 
38% 
44% 
Not very experienced 
21% 
27% 
23% 
20% 
0% 
16% 
24% 
4% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
2% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Considerers 
1% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference in the experience rating of 
UKTI users and non-UKTI users. UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to 
state that they were both 'very experienced' and 'quite experienced' in operating in 
overseas markets. 
 
Table 42: Self-assessment of experience in overseas markets by UKTI usage  
  
                                                                              6-10 years 
                                                                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
42% 
39% 
32% 
44% 
54% 
38% 
50% 
63% 
Quite experienced 
44% 
43% 
48% 
56% 
38% 
49% 
39% 
32% 
Not very experienced 
13% 
16% 
18% 
0% 
8% 
12% 
11% 
4% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
0% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
Considerers 
0% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
34% 
34% 
22% 
44% 
85% 
43% 
17% 
67% 
Quite experienced 
39% 
34% 
49% 
33% 
8% 
33% 
75% 
33% 
Not very experienced 
22% 
22% 
27% 
22% 
8% 
24% 
8% 
0% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
2% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Considerers 
2% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 In summary, UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to state that they were either 'quite experienced' or 'very experienced' in operating in overseas markets which is consistent with evidence from the PIMS surveys. However, this survey found a 

somewhat higher proportion of UKTI users to be very experienced in overseas markets 
(42%) compared to 34% and 27% in PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 respectively. 
usage with client profiles from PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 
  
  
Total 
UKTI 
PIMS 
PIMS 
Users 
UKTI 
nonnon-
Users 
PIMS 
non-
PIMS 7-
  
  
users 
users 
users 
12-15 
users 
10 
2009 
2008 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very experienced in overseas markets 
34% 
42% 
23% 
34% 
22% 
27% 
Quite experienced 
 
39% 
44% 
39% 
44% 
45% 
42% 
Not very experienced 
 
22% 
13% 
34% 
14% 
27% 
20% 
Not at all experienced in overseas markets 
 
2% 
0% 
4% 
2% 
4% 
4% 
Not currently exporting 
 
- 
- 
0% 
6% 
0% 
7% 
Don't know 
 
1% 
0% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Considerers 
 
2% 
0% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
 

## 4.8 Overseas Experience: Number Of Years Doing Business Overseas

All companies were asked to indicate how long ago their company had started to 
conduct business overseas. 
 
There is clearly a strong correlation between the age of the company and the number of 
years conducting overseas business.  
 
Compared to the 2008 survey, a higher proportion of firms have been active in overseas 
markets for at least 20 years (25% vs 18% in the 2008 survey). 
 
Table 44: Company age by number of years doing business overseas  
  
                                           6-10 years 
                                                                 10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total Years doing business overseas 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
10% 
34% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
2-5 years 
  
21% 
63% 
12% 
11% 
11% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years 
  
32% 
0% 
84% 
89% 
89% 
9% 
9% 
6% 
11-20 years 
  
11% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
31% 
36% 
13% 
More than 20 years 
25% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
56% 
55% 
80% 
Don't know/refused/Considerers 
1% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference in the longevity of conducting business overseas of IP active companies compared to non-IP active companies. IP active companies were more likely to have been conducting business overseas for a longer period of time than non-IP active companies. This is consistent with the proportion of IP 
active firms in the sample increasing with the age of company (Table 16). Thus, this result does not necessarily indicate that IP activity increases with the number of years of overseas experience; it may be driven by the age profile of IP active firms in the sample. 

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active Years doing business overseas 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
10% 
38% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
2-5 years ago 
17% 
60% 
7% 
6% 
15% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years ago 
  
29% 
0% 
90% 
94% 
85% 
7% 
5% 
6% 
11-20 years ago 
  
12% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
33% 
30% 
13% 
More than 20 years ago 
31% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
54% 
65% 
78% 
Don't know/refused/Considerers 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
10% 
30% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 years ago 
24% 
65% 
15% 
20% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years ago 
  
36% 
0% 
81% 
80% 
100% 
11% 
14% 
4% 
11-20 years ago 
  
9% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
29% 
48% 
12% 
More than 20 years ago 
19% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
58% 
38% 
84% 
Don't know/refused/Considerers 
2% 
5% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference in the longevity of conducting business 
overseas of UKTI users compared to non-UKTI users. UKTI users were more likely to 
have been conducting business overseas for a longer period of time than non-UKTI 
users. Almost a third (31%) of UKTI users had been conducting business overseas for 
more than twenty years compared to just over one in ten (11%) non-UKTI users. This is 
consistent with the proportion of UKTI users in the sample increasing with the age of 
company (Table 17). 
 
Table 46: Number of years doing business overseas by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                               6-10 years 
                                                                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users Years doing business overseas 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
9% 
34% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
2-5 years ago 
18% 
65% 
10% 
6% 
13% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years ago 
  
30% 
0% 
86% 
94% 
88% 
8% 
11% 
3% 
11-20 years ago 
  
11% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
28% 
35% 
13% 
More than 20 years ago 
31% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
59% 
54% 
82% 
Don't know/refused/Considerers 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
13% 
34% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 years ago 
27% 
59% 
15% 
22% 
8% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
6-10 years ago 
  
38% 
0% 
81% 
78% 
92% 
12% 
0% 
25% 
11-20 years ago 
  
9% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
43% 
42% 
17% 
More than 20 years ago 
11% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
43% 
58% 
58% 
Don't know/refused/Considerers 
2% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 However, PIMS data shows that less than one-quarter of UKTI clients have been conducting business overseas for more than 20 years.  PIMS also shows that only 16% 
of UKTI clients have been conducting business overseas for 6-10 years, compared to 

30% in this survey. These differences may partly be due to some of the sampling 
anomalies highlighted earlier in the chapter such as over sampling of: older and larger 
firms; firms in the production sector; and firms with more experience of overseas 
markets as measured by self-assessment and number of markets. 
 
Table 47: Comparison of number of years experience in overseas markets by UKTI usage 
with client profiles from PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 
2009 

  
  
Total 
Users 
UKTI 
PIMS non-
PIMS non-
Users 
  
  
UKTI non-
PIMS 12-
users 
users 
users 2009 
users 2008 
PIMS 7-10 
15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 Years doing business overseas 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Within last two years 
13% 
9% 
5% 
15% 
5% 
17% 
2-5 years ago 
 
27% 
18% 
19% 
16% 
36% 
21% 
6-10 years ago 
 
38% 
30% 
26% 
16% 
30% 
15% 
11-20 years ago 
 
9% 
11% 
26% 
15% 
13% 
16% 
More than 20 years ago 
11% 
31% 
21% 
23% 
12% 
23% 
Not  currently exporting 
- 
- 
2% 
13% 
2% 
7% 
Not applicable 
 
2% 
1% 
- 
- 
- 
- 

## 4.9 Experience: Born Globals

The following table shows the proportion of companies that are defined as 'born 
global'. In this context 'born globals' were defined as firms which have been 
established for up to 5 years and have been doing business since they were established. 
Nearly a quarter (23%) of these internationalising companies were 'born global', which 
is higher than the proportions from the 2008 survey of one in ten companies (10%) 
which were 'born global'.  Whereas in the 2008 survey 'born globals' accounted for 
about half the sample firms which had been established in the last five years; in the 
2009 survey, they accounted for 88% of these younger firms. This may reflect bias in 
the survey sample towards firms with more export experience. 
 
Table 48: Born Globals 
  
                                        6-10 years 
                                                                10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Born global  
23% 
88% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
26% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
74% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

 
When the total sub samples of IP active and non-IP active firms are considered, almost 
equal proportions of the subgroups are 'born globals' (22% and 24% respectively). 
However, this reflects differences in the age profiles of the sub-samples. When only 
firms established for up to five years are considered, a higher proportion of IP active 
firms are born globals (93%) than non-IP active firms (84%). This is consistent with the 
concept that firms internationalise early due to their products and services being 
innovative and in niche markets. Consequently, internationalisation is needed in order to 
reach a sufficiently large market. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Born global  
22% 
93% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
23% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
77% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Born global  
24% 
84% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years  
28% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
72% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

 
When the sub-sample of firms established for up to five years is considered, similar proportions of UKTI users (90%) and non-UKTI users (86%) are 'born global'.  
 

 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Born global  
19% 
90% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years  
22% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
78% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Born global  
30% 
86% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
35% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
65% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
 

## 4.10 Experience: Proportion Of Turnover Accounted For By Overseas Sales

All companies currently doing business overseas were asked about their current/planned overseas business activity (ie selling goods or services to either businesses or individuals based abroad specifically in the last financial year) and approximately what percentage of their turnover was accounted for by overseas sales. Those unable to offer a percentage were presented with banded amounts and asked to indicate which one was the most relevant. The following tables show overseas experience as measured by the proportion of turnover accounted for by overseas sales. For around four in ten companies up to 25% 
of their turnover is accounted for by overseas business, whilst for just over a third of companies (30%) over half of their turnover is accounted for by overseas business, as shown in the table below. Therefore, a higher proportion of the turnover from companies from this current research is accounted for by overseas business than was found in the 2008 survey. This is most marked for firms generating up to 10% of their turnover from overseas sales which accounted for half the 2008 sample but only one quarter of the current (2009) survey sample. This again indicates that this year's survey 

contains firms with a greater level of experience in overseas markets than has been 
found in previous UKTI surveys.  
 
Table 51: Proportion of turnover accounted for by overseas sales  

  
  
Total 
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
  
  
2008 survey 
Base 
900 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Zero 
 
5% 
1% 
2% 
1% 
- 
- 
1% 
- 
1% 
Up to 10% 
  
51% 
24% 
30% 
28% 
22% 
19% 
15% 
17% 
21% 
11-25% 
  
12% 
16% 
20% 
15% 
11% 
19% 
12% 
17% 
20% 
26-50% 
  
14% 
22% 
19% 
20% 
37% 
24% 
25% 
26% 
20% 
51-75% 
  
5% 
14% 
9% 
15% 
7% 
14% 
19% 
19% 
13% 
More than 75% 
11% 
20% 
16% 
18% 
22% 
24% 
26% 
21% 
19% 
Don't know/ refused 
7% 
3% 
5% 
2% 
- 
- 
3% 
- 
6% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of turnover accounted 
for by overseas sales between IP active and non-IP active companies. IP active 
companies are more likely to have a higher percentage of their turnover accounted for 
by overseas sales (ie more than 50%) than non-IP active companies. 
 
Table 52: Proportion of turnover accounted for by overseas sales by IP activity 
  
                                                                                  6-10 years 
                                                                                                                               10+ years 

Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Zero 
 
0% 
1% 
- 
- 
- 
1% 
- 
- 
Up to 10% 
  
19% 
26% 
23% 
12% 
23% 
11% 
14% 
19% 
11-25% 
  
18% 
23% 
14% 
6% 
23% 
15% 
16% 
22% 
26-50% 
  
21% 
19% 
16% 
41% 
15% 
28% 
30% 
17% 
51-75% 
  
16% 
10% 
21% 
12% 
12% 
20% 
16% 
16% 
More than 75% 
23% 
17% 
24% 
29% 
27% 
24% 
24% 
23% 
Don't know/ refused 
2% 
4% 
1% 
- 
- 
1% 
- 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Zero 
 
2% 
2% 
2% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
4% 
Up to 10% 
  
28% 
33% 
31% 
40% 
9% 
18% 
24% 
28% 
11-25% 
  
15% 
17% 
15% 
20% 
9% 
9% 
19% 
16% 
26-50% 
  
23% 
19% 
23% 
30% 
45% 
22% 
19% 
32% 
51-75% 
  
12% 
9% 
11% 
0% 
18% 
19% 
24% 
4% 
More than 75% 
17% 
16% 
14% 
10% 
18% 
27% 
14% 
4% 
Don't know/ refused 
4% 
5% 
3% 
- 
- 
4% 
- 
12% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of turnover accounted 
for by overseas sales between UKTI users and non-UKTI users. According to this 
survey, UKTI users were more likely to have in excess of 50% of their turnover 
accounted for by overseas sales than non-UKTI users (Table 53). However, evidence 
from PIMS demonstrates no difference in the proportion of users and non-users of 
UKTI services generating at least half their turnover from overseas sales, as shown 
below (Table 54).  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Zero 
 
1% 
1% 
1% 
- 
- 
1% 
- 
1% 
Up to 10% 
  
20% 
27% 
22% 
11% 
25% 
13% 
15% 
22% 
11-25% 
  
16% 
19% 
13% 
11% 
25% 
12% 
20% 
21% 
26-50% 
  
23% 
21% 
21% 
50% 
29% 
24% 
24% 
20% 
51-75% 
  
17% 
12% 
19% 
11% 
13% 
21% 
20% 
14% 
More than 75% 
20% 
16% 
21% 
17% 
8% 
26% 
22% 
18% 
Don't know/ refused 
3% 
3% 
3% 
- 
- 
3% 
- 
5% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Zero 
 
1% 
2% 
1% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Up to 10% 
  
31% 
34% 
37% 
44% 
8% 
21% 
25% 
17% 
11-25% 
  
17% 
21% 
18% 
11% 
8% 
14% 
8% 
17% 
26-50% 
  
20% 
15% 
20% 
11% 
15% 
29% 
33% 
25% 
51-75% 
  
9% 
6% 
9% 
0% 
15% 
12% 
17% 
8% 
More than 75% 
19% 
16% 
14% 
33% 
54% 
24% 
17% 
25% 
Don't know/ refused 
3% 
7% 
2% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
8% 

 
The following is a summary of the proportion of turnover accounted for by overseas 
sales by UKTI usage from this survey compared with the PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and 
PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 and 2009. 
 
Table 54: Comparison of proportion of turnover accounted for by overseas sales by UKTI 
usage with client profiles from PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 and PIMS non-user surveys of 2008 
and 2009 

  
  
Total 
Users 
UKTI 
PIMS non-
PIMS non-
Users 
  
  
UKTI non-
PIMS 12-
users 
users 
users 2009 
users 2008 
PIMS 7-10 
15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Up to 10% 
31% 
20% 
46% 
25% 
39% 
30% 
11-25% 
 
17% 
16% 
15% 
12% 
12% 
17% 
26-50% 
 
20% 
23% 
13% 
13% 
17% 
16% 
51-75% 
 
9% 
17% 
8% 
10% 
8% 
10% 
More than 75% 
 
19% 
20% 
14% 
20% 
14% 
12% 
Not currently exporting 
- 
- 
2% 
13% 
2% 
7% 
Not applicable 
 
4% 
4% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Don't know/refused 
- 
- 
2% 
7% 
8% 
7% 

## 4.11 Experience: Number Of Markets

All companies currently conducting business overseas were asked to indicate the number of overseas countries they had done business in (in any form) over the last 5 years, excluding countries from which they had only imported. They were presented with numbers in bands and were asked to identify the most relevant. Later in the questionnaire, after indicating in which world regions they were active, they were also asked to state whether the number of countries in which they did business had 

increased, decreased or remained the same in the last three years. After this they were 
asked to specify whether over the next three years they expect the number of countries 
to do business with to increase, decrease or remain the same. 
 
As can be seen from the following table six in ten (60%) of these companies were in 11 
or more markets. This is twice the proportion in the 2008 survey for which the 
equivalent figure was 30%. This indicates that the 2009 sample contains firms with 
more export experience than that of 2008. The number of markets in which a firm 
operates tends to increase with age. 
 
Table 55: Number of markets 
  
                                             6-10 years 
                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Considerers 
1% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
None5
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
One country 
3% 
6% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 countries 
15% 
24% 
21% 
11% 
11% 
10% 
5% 
1% 
6-10 countries 
21% 
25% 
27% 
19% 
22% 
19% 
16% 
8% 
11-20 countries 
22% 
17% 
25% 
30% 
11% 
28% 
28% 
14% 
21-50 countries 
26% 
17% 
19% 
19% 
43% 
34% 
31% 
42% 
More than 50 countries 
12% 
8% 
4% 
22% 
14% 
9% 
21% 
34% 
Don't know 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding the number of countries in which they had done business in any 
form in the last 5 years. IP active companies were much more likely to be in more 
countries than non-IP active companies, with this propensity increasing by age. As with 
other experience measures, this may reflect the age profile of IP active firms in the 
sample (Table 16). 
 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Considerers 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
None 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
One country 
1% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 countries 
10% 
20% 
12% 
0% 
12% 
11% 
3% 
0% 
6-10 countries 
15% 
21% 
23% 
12% 
15% 
13% 
11% 
5% 
11-20 countries 
22% 
16% 
31% 
29% 
8% 
31% 
30% 
10% 
21-50 countries 
33% 
26% 
26% 
29% 
46% 
32% 
35% 
46% 
More than 50 countries 
18% 
14% 
4% 
29% 
19% 
11% 
22% 
39% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Considerers 
1% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
None 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
One country 
4% 
9% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2-5 countries 
20% 
28% 
26% 
30% 
9% 
8% 
10% 
4% 
6-10 countries 
27% 
29% 
28% 
30% 
36% 
24% 
24% 
20% 
11-20 countries 
22% 
18% 
22% 
30% 
18% 
25% 
24% 
28% 
21-50 countries 
19% 
9% 
15% 
0% 
36% 
36% 
24% 
28% 
More than 50 countries 
6% 
3% 
3% 
10% 
0% 
6% 
19% 
20% 
Don't know 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding the number of countries in which they had done business in any form in the 
last 5 years. UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users (14% vs 6%) to have 
conducted business in more than 50 countries in the last five years (Table 57). As for IP 
active firms, this may be related to the age profile of UKTI users in the survey sample 
(Table 17). 
 
The equivalent data is not available from PIMS. 
 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
 
Considerers 
0% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1%
 
None 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0%
 
One country 
1% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0%
2-5 countries 
13% 
22% 
18% 
11% 
13% 
9% 
4% 
1% 
6-10 countries 
19% 
23% 
25% 
22% 
25% 
18% 
15% 
7% 
11-20 countries 
23% 
17% 
28% 
33% 
17% 
27% 
28% 
14% 
21-50 countries 
28% 
19% 
20% 
17% 
38% 
34% 
33% 
42% 
More than 50 countries 
14% 
12% 
6% 
17% 
8% 
10% 
20% 
35% 
 
Don't know 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0%
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
 
Considerers 
2% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0%
 
One country 
5% 
8% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0%
 
2-5 countries 
21% 
27% 
27% 
11% 
8% 
12% 
8% 
0%
6-10 countries 
25% 
28% 
29% 
11% 
15% 
21% 
17% 
17% 
11-20 countries 
20% 
17% 
22% 
22% 
0% 
31% 
25% 
17% 
21-50 countries 
21% 
13% 
17% 
22% 
54% 
33% 
25% 
42% 
More than 50 countries 
6% 
3% 
0% 
33% 
23% 
2% 
25% 
25% 
 

## 4.12 Number Of Regions

All companies were given a list of world regions and were asked to indicate in which 
their business was active. A definition of the EEA was provided for those who required 
it.   
 
Most typically businesses were active in the EEA and Asia, with older and larger 
companies more likely to be active in Asia.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
EEA 
  
93% 
92% 
95% 
100% 
97% 
89% 
98% 
94% 
Russia and Eastern Europe, 
outside of the EEA 
54% 
47% 
42% 
70% 
73% 
56% 
66% 
75% 
USA/Canada 
 
63% 
53% 
58% 
78% 
81% 
63% 
79% 
80% 
Latin America and 
Caribbean 
45% 
38% 
28% 
52% 
73% 
49% 
52% 
75% 
Africa 
 
56% 
47% 
45% 
56% 
68% 
62% 
74% 
79% 
Middle East 
 
69% 
61% 
55% 
81% 
81% 
79% 
78% 
92% 
Asia 
 
73% 
63% 
61% 
81% 
89% 
82% 
83% 
92% 
Australia/New Zealand 
57% 
46% 
48% 
56% 
65% 
64% 
72% 
78% 
None6
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
1% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding the number of regions they reported they were active in for their 
international business. A higher proportion of IP active respondents reported being in 
any of these regions than non-IP active respondents. Outside the EEA both groups were 
most likely to be in Asia, the Middle East and the USA/Canada and least likely to be in 
Latin America and the Caribbean. However, a higher proportion of IP active firms were 
in Russia and Eastern Europe outside the EEA than in Africa. For non-IP active firms, 
this order was reversed. 
 

                                                 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
EEA 
  
96% 
95% 
99% 
100% 
100% 
93% 
100% 
95% 
Russia and E Europe 
  
65% 
57% 
54% 
76% 
73% 
63% 
78% 
81% 
USA/Canada 
  
70% 
58% 
62% 
88% 
85% 
68% 
81% 
84% 
Latin America/Caribbean 
  
53% 
45% 
38% 
53% 
77% 
48% 
54% 
80% 
Africa 
  
63% 
55% 
50% 
65% 
73% 
61% 
81% 
81% 
Middle East 
  
79% 
76% 
63% 
88% 
85% 
78% 
84% 
93% 
Asia 
  
81% 
77% 
69% 
94% 
92% 
80% 
86% 
93% 
Australia/New 
Zealand 
  
69% 
58% 
60% 
71% 
77% 
72% 
78% 
81% 
None 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non- IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
EEA 
  
90% 
88% 
92% 
100% 
91% 
85% 
95% 
92% 
Russia and E Europe 
  
43% 
40% 
35% 
60% 
73% 
49% 
43% 
56% 
USA/Canada 
  
56% 
50% 
55% 
60% 
73% 
59% 
76% 
64% 
Latin America/Caribbean 
  
36% 
33% 
23% 
50% 
64% 
51% 
48% 
60% 
Africa 
  
49% 
40% 
43% 
40% 
55% 
63% 
62% 
72% 
Middle East 
  
60% 
50% 
51% 
70% 
73% 
79% 
67% 
88% 
Asia 
  
64% 
52% 
57% 
60% 
82% 
83% 
76% 
88% 
Australia/New Zealand 
  
45% 
36% 
42% 
30% 
36% 
57% 
62% 
68% 
None 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
1% 
0% 
4% 

 There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding the number of regions they reported they were active in for their international business. Although roughly the same proportion of UKTI users as non-users are active in the EEA, outside the EEA a higher proportion of UKTI users are in any one region 
than non-UKTI users.  There are also differences in the apparent popularity of different 
regions for the two groups. Whereas UKTI users are almost equally likely to be in Asia and the Middle East (77% and 76% respectively), a higher proportion of non-UKTI users are in Asia than the Middle East (66% and 54% respectively). While for non- UKTI users, the USA/Canada is the third most popular region, for UKTI users, it falls behind EEA, Asia and the Middle East.  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
EEA 
  
93% 
91% 
95% 
100% 
96% 
89% 
98% 
94% 
Russia and E Europe 
  
59% 
50% 
53% 
72% 
67% 
60% 
63% 
75% 
USA/Canada 
  
65% 
54% 
59% 
78% 
79% 
62% 
78% 
78% 
Latin America/Caribbean 
  
49% 
44% 
34% 
44% 
67% 
49% 
48% 
74% 
Africa 
  
62% 
53% 
51% 
61% 
75% 
63% 
74% 
81% 
Middle East 
  
77% 
72% 
63% 
83% 
83% 
80% 
80% 
95% 
Asia 
  
76% 
66% 
64% 
94% 
88% 
80% 
83% 
92% 
Australia/New Zealand 
  
62% 
51% 
53% 
56% 
71% 
66% 
74% 
80% 
None 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
EEA 
  
94% 
92% 
95% 
100% 
100% 
88% 
100% 
100% 
Russia and E Europe 
  
42% 
44% 
27% 
67% 
85% 
40% 
75% 
75% 
USA/Canada 
  
61% 
52% 
55% 
78% 
85% 
67% 
83% 
92% 
Latin America/Caribbean 
  
37% 
31% 
20% 
67% 
85% 
50% 
67% 
83% 
Africa 
  
43% 
38% 
37% 
44% 
54% 
57% 
75% 
58% 
Middle East 
  
54% 
48% 
45% 
78% 
77% 
74% 
67% 
67% 
Asia 
  
66% 
59% 
56% 
56% 
92% 
88% 
83% 
92% 
Australia/New Zealand 
  
46% 
39% 
42% 
56% 
54% 
57% 
67% 
58% 
None 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
The following table summarises the number of world regions that these businesses were 
operating in. This table illustrates that nearly three quarters of companies (73%) were 
conducting business in four or more regions. Again, this indicates that the survey 
sample is biased towards firms which are experienced in international activity.  
 
Table 61: Number of regions 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None7
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
1 region 
  
8% 
14% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
2 regions 
  
7% 
11% 
8% 
7% 
3% 
6% 
5% 
0% 
3 regions 
  
11% 
12% 
18% 
0% 
8% 
10% 
5% 
3% 
4 or more regions  
73% 
62% 
60% 
93% 
86% 
81% 
90% 
95% 

 
IP active companies were more likely to be in four or more regions than non-IP active companies (84% vs 62%). This is consistent with the findings for the number of markets 

                                                 
7 Four respondents stated they had not done business in any region despite previously stating that they 
had sold directly to businesses or individuals abroad and had imported goods or services over the last five 
years. They were not classified as 'considerers'. 
 

in which respondents were active. As with other experience measures this may reflect 
the age profile of IP active firms in the sample (Table 16). 
 
Table 62: Number of regions by IP activity 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None 
 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1 region 
  
3% 
6% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
2 regions 
  
5% 
10% 
7% 
0% 
4% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
3 regions 
  
8% 
9% 
16% 
0% 
8% 
8% 
3% 
2% 
4 or more regions  
84% 
75% 
72% 
100% 
88% 
85% 
97% 
96% 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
1 region 
  
13% 
22% 
18% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2 regions 
  
9% 
12% 
9% 
20% 
0% 
8% 
14% 
0% 
3 regions 
  
14% 
15% 
19% 
0% 
9% 
11% 
10% 
4% 
4 or more regions   
62% 
51% 
53% 
80% 
82% 
78% 
76% 
92% 

 
UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to be conducting business in four or 
more regions (78% vs 62%). This is consistent with the survey results showing the 
number of markets in which respondents were active. As with these results, the 
difference found between users and non-users of UKTI services may be related to the 
age profile of UKTI users in the survey sample (Table 17). 
  
Table 63: Number of regions by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
1 region 
  
5% 
10% 
9% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
2 regions 
  
6% 
10% 
8% 
6% 
0% 
6% 
4% 
0% 
3 regions 
  
10% 
13% 
17% 
0% 
13% 
9% 
2% 
2% 
4 or more regions  
78% 
67% 
66% 
94% 
83% 
82% 
93% 
96% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
None 
 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1 region 
  
14% 
21% 
20% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2 region 
  
9% 
12% 
9% 
11% 
8% 
7% 
8% 
0% 
3 region 
  
14% 
12% 
20% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
17% 
8% 
4 or more regions  
62% 
55% 
51% 
89% 
92% 
79% 
75% 
92% 

## 4.13 Benefits Of Expanding The Number Of Overseas Markets In Which A Firm Operates

All respondents were read a list of reasons which have been given for expanding the number of countries in which a business operates.  Respondents were then asked to indicate the extent to which each applied to their business using a score between 1 and 

5, where 1 meant that it was 'not at all beneficial' and 5 meant that this was 'very 
beneficial'. 
 
The main reasons for expanding the number of countries in which they operated were to 
enable them to meet growth objectives and to reduce dependence on a small number of 
markets. Among older firms with at least 50 employees, allowing full use of existing 
capacity was as important as, or slightly more important than, reducing dependence on a 
small number of markets. 
 
Table 64: Reasons for expanding the number of countries in which a business operates 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Enabling you to meet growth 
objectives  
67% 
62% 
68% 
74% 
76% 
63% 
69% 
76% 
Allowing you to fully utilise 
your existing capacity  
56% 
56% 
54% 
59% 
65% 
56% 
57% 
61% 
60% 
60% 
59% 
59% 
62% 
61% 
53% 
61% 
Reducing your dependence on a single or small number of markets 
51% 
48% 
49% 
59% 
43% 
52% 
53% 
56% 
Enabling you to offset declining revenues in other 
markets  
39% 
38% 
37% 
48% 
32% 
38% 
43% 
44% 
Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of your products or services Not selected beneficial rating 
to any of the 5 questions   
18% 
21% 
16% 
15% 
19% 
22% 
17% 
13% 

 
IP active companies were more likely to state each of these benefits were reasons for 
expanding the number of countries in which their company operates than non-IP active 
companies.  
 

by IP activity 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Enabling you to meet growth 
objectives  
72% 
67% 
79% 
65% 
77% 
65% 
73% 
78% 
Allowing you to fully utilise your 
existing capacity  
61% 
56% 
62% 
59% 
65% 
62% 
65% 
64% 
63% 
59% 
69% 
65% 
58% 
68% 
57% 
63% 
Reducing your dependence on a single or small number of markets Enabling you to offset declining 
revenues in other markets  
54% 
51% 
52% 
65% 
42% 
55% 
59% 
57% 
44% 
43% 
41% 
59% 
31% 
42% 
51% 
46% 
Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of 
your products or services Not selected beneficial rating to 
any of the 5 questions  
14% 
20% 
9% 
18% 
15% 
16% 
14% 
10% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Enabling you to meet growth 
objectives  
62% 
57% 
62% 
90% 
73% 
62% 
62% 
68% 
Allowing you to fully utilise your 
existing capacity  
52% 
56% 
49% 
60% 
64% 
49% 
43% 
52% 
56% 
61% 
54% 
50% 
73% 
54% 
48% 
56% 
Reducing your dependence on a single or small number of markets Enabling you to offset declining 
revenues in other markets  
47% 
45% 
48% 
50% 
45% 
48% 
43% 
56% 
34% 
34% 
35% 
30% 
36% 
33% 
29% 
40% 
Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of your products or services Not selected beneficial rating to 
any of the 5 questions  
23% 
22% 
20% 
10% 
27% 
28% 
24% 
24% 

 UKTI users were more likely to state each of these benefits were reasons for expanding the number of countries in which their company operates than non-UKTI users. 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Enabling you to meet growth 
objectives  
70% 
70% 
74% 
78% 
71% 
64% 
67% 
73% 
Allowing you to fully utilise your 
existing capacity  
60% 
64% 
57% 
61% 
63% 
59% 
57% 
58% 
63% 
65% 
64% 
78% 
63% 
64% 
54% 
58% 
Reducing your dependence on a single or small number of markets Enabling you to offset declining 
revenues in other markets  
54% 
53% 
53% 
72% 
42% 
53% 
57% 
55% 
41% 
44% 
38% 
56% 
38% 
39% 
46% 
43% 
Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of 
your products or services Not selected beneficial rating to 
any of the 5 questions  
17% 
19% 
13% 
11% 
21% 
20% 
17% 
15% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Enabling you to meet growth 
objectives  
60% 
50% 
59% 
67% 
85% 
60% 
75% 
100% 
Allowing you to fully utilise your 
existing capacity  
50% 
46% 
49% 
56% 
69% 
43% 
58% 
83% 
53% 
53% 
53% 
22% 
62% 
50% 
50% 
83% 
Reducing your dependence on a single or small number of markets Enabling you to offset declining 
revenues in other markets  
44% 
42% 
44% 
33% 
46% 
45% 
42% 
67% 
34% 
30% 
37% 
33% 
23% 
33% 
33% 
58% 
Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of your products or services Not selected beneficial rating to 
any of the 5 questions  
22% 
24% 
21% 
22% 
15% 
31% 
17% 
0% 

## 4.14 Innovative Companies

Information on the engagement of employees in R&D and new product (or service) 
development activity, externally commissioned product (or service) development and sales of new products and services has been used to classify firms as either 'innovative' or 'non-innovative'.  The details of this classification are provided below, which is similar to the definition used in both the equivalent 2008 survey and the PIMS survey.  
 

Companies have been classified as 'innovative' if they… 
 
- Have more than one employee engaged either wholly or partly in R&D activity 
(Q77) and have more than one employee engaged either wholly or partly in new 
product or service development (Q79) 
- Or, have employed someone external to the business to conduct new product or 
service development activity in the last year (Q80). The key difference is that it omits the following criterion: 
- Or, derive some of their turnover from products & services introduced in the last 3 
years except firms established in the last 2 years 

 
Another 'tighter' definition of innovation was constructed that also considers whether 
employees have been engaged in R&D activity in 'the development of scientific or 
technical knowledge that is not commonly available' and whether any new products 
they have developed can be described as 'novel' (ie new to the sector or new to the 
world as opposed to just new to their business).  
 
Table 68: Tight definition of 'Innovative' companies 

Firms have been classified as 'innovative' under the alternative (tight) definition if 
they… 

 

- Have more than one employee engaged either wholly or partly in R&D activity 
(Q77) and have more than one employee engaged either wholly or partly in new 
product or service development (Q79) 
- Or, have employed someone external to the business to conduct new product or 
service development activity in the last year (Q80). 
- Or, their products & services are completely new and have not been introduced by 
anyone else previously (Q76). This was similar to the tighter definition of innovative firms used in PIMS and the 2008 
survey, but with the omission of the following criteria: 
 
- Or, derive at least some of their turnover from products & services introduced in the 
last 3 years *except firms established in the last 2 years* and these products & services 
are completely new and have not been introduced by anyone else previously. 

 
The following table summarises the proportion of companies that can be defined as 
innovative using both definitions. Using this 'loose' definition just under two thirds 
(60%) of companies were defined as being innovative, compared to nearly three 
quarters (72%) in the 2008 survey. In comparison, the proportion of companies defined 
as innovative using the tight definition (48%) is almost identical to the findings in the 
2008 survey (47%). Firms identified as innovative using the tight definition, form a 
subset of innovative firms defined using the loose definition. 
 
Table 69: Innovative firms  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Loose definition 
60% 
54% 
50% 
81% 
86% 
53% 
78% 
81% 
Tight definition 
48% 
45% 
41% 
70% 
59% 
45% 
62% 
58% 
IP active 
  
50% 
45% 
36% 
63% 
70% 
49% 
64% 
77% 
Neither Innovative nor IP active 
28% 
33% 
35% 
15% 
11% 
31% 
14% 
9% 

 There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding whether or not they were innovative. As might be expected, a higher proportion of IP active, than non-IP active firms are innovative. Using the 'loose' definition, over three quarters (77%) of IP active companies were defined as innovative using the 'loose' definition, compared to just over four in ten (42%) of non-IP active companies. When the tight definition is applied, almost two thirds (62%) of IP active firms, but only one third (34%) of non-IP active firms are innovative.  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Loose definition  
77% 
75% 
64% 
94% 
96% 
68% 
86% 
89% 
Tight definition  
62% 
62% 
54% 
88% 
62% 
62% 
65% 
64% 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Non Innovative or IP 
active  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Loose definition  
42% 
37% 
42% 
60% 
64% 
38% 
62% 
56% 
Tight definition  
34% 
31% 
33% 
40% 
55% 
29% 
57% 
40% 
IP active 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Non Innovative or IP 
active  
55% 
60% 
55% 
40% 
36% 
61% 
38% 
40% 

 
Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-
UKTI users regarding whether or not they were innovative. Nearly two thirds (64%) of 
UKTI users were defined as innovative using the 'loose' definition, reducing to just 
over half (52%) of companies using the 'tight' definition of innovative. In comparison, 
half (50%) of the non-UKTI users are defined as innovative using the 'loose' definition, 
reducing to just under four in ten (38%) of companies using the 'tight' definition. 
Therefore, a higher proportion of UKTI users than non-UKTI users are defined as 
innovative, using both the 'loose' and the 'tight' definitions. Over half (56%) of UKTI 
users are IP active compared to less than four in ten (38%) of non-users. Again, this 
indicates that UKTI users are more innovative than non-users.  
 
Table 71: Innovative firms by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Loose definition 
  
64% 
64% 
52% 
83% 
88% 
56% 
76% 
80% 
Tight definition 
  
52% 
53% 
43% 
83% 
71% 
49% 
63% 
57% 
IP active 
  
56% 
58% 
40% 
67% 
67% 
52% 
65% 
76% 
Non Innovative or IP 
active  
23% 
25% 
32% 
11% 
13% 
27% 
13% 
10% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Loose definition 
  
50% 
42% 
47% 
78% 
85% 
43% 
83% 
92% 
Tight definition 
  
38% 
34% 
39% 
44% 
38% 
33% 
58% 
67% 
IP active 
  
38% 
29% 
31% 
56% 
77% 
40% 
58% 
83% 
Non Innovative or IP 
active  
37% 
43% 
40% 
22% 
8% 
43% 
17% 
0% 

 
However, the proportions in this current survey for the 'loose' definition of innovative 
companies are somewhat lower than the 80% indicated consistently by PIMS. 
 

  
  
 
Total 

 
  
UKTI nonusers 
UKTI users 
PIMS nonusers 2009 
PIMS nonusers 2008 
Users PIMS 7-10 
Users PIMS 12- 15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Innovative 
50% 
64% 
71% 
82% 
80% 
80% 
 

## 4.15 Ip Active Companies

The following is the definition used to define whether companies were considered IP 
active or not.  
 
Table 73: Definition of IP active 
Companies have been classified as 'IP active' if they currently hold any patents or 
trademarks, either in the UK or overseas (Q81). 
 
The following Table 74 summarises the proportion of companies that have been defined 
as IP active. The incidence of IP activity increases with both company age and size, as 
was also evident for the 2008 survey. In this survey half of the companies were defined 
as being IP active in comparison to just under a third in the 2008 survey. 
  
Table 74:  IP activity  
  
                                          6-10 years 
                                                                    10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
50% 
45% 
36% 
63% 
70% 
49% 
64% 
77% 
No/Don't Know 
50% 
55% 
64% 
37% 
30% 
51% 
36% 
23% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users regarding whether or not they were IP active.  A higher proportion of UKTI users were IP active than was evident among non-UKTI users. 


 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
56% 
58% 
40% 
67% 
67% 
52% 
65% 
76% 
No/Don't Know 
44% 
42% 
60% 
33% 
33% 
48% 
35% 
24% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
38% 
29% 
31% 
56% 
77% 
40% 
58% 
83% 
No/Don't Know 
62% 
71% 
69% 
44% 
23% 
60% 
42% 
17% 

 
The higher proportion of UKTI users who were IP active is consistent with evidence 
from the PIMS survey. 
 

Total 
  
  
UKTI nonusers 
UKTI users 
PIMS nonusers 2009 
Users PIMS 12-15 
PIMS nonusers 2008 
Users PIMS 4- 7 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
459 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
IP active 
56% 
38% 
18% 
46% 
26% 
52% 
 

## 4.16 Young Technology Intensive Firms

Companies that are aged up to 5 years old which were classified as either 'innovative' 
or IP active under the previous definitions have also been classified as 'young, 
technology intensive firms'. 
 
Although the proportion of these firms in the total sample was slightly higher than in 
2008 (17% vs 14%), the proportion in the sub-sample of firms established up to five 
years ago was lower (66% vs 74%). 
 
Table 77: Young, technology intensive firms 
  
                                              6-10 years 
                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Young technology intensive  
17% 
66% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
26% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
  
74% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding whether or not they were young, technology intensive. Given the definition of young technology intensive firms used in this study, it is not surprising that all (100%) IP active companies established for up to five years were 'young technology intensive' firms compared to only 37% of non-IP active firms in this age group. Young technology firms in the non-IP active sub-sample represent firms established for up to 5 years which are not IP active but can be classified as innovative.  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Young technology intensive  
23% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
23% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
  
77% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Young technology intensive  
11% 
37% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
28% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
  
72% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

UKTI users and non-UKTI users were equally likely to be defined as 'young, 
technology intensive' when the separate groups were considered. However, among 
firms of the relevant age category, ie up to 5 years, the incidence of young, technology 
intensive firms is higher amongst UKTI users than non-UKTI users (74% vs 54%). This 
is consistent with the observation that UKTI users are more likely to be classified as 
innovative or IP active than non-UKTI users.  
 
Table 79: Young, technology intensive firms by UKTI usage  
  
                                        6-10 years 
                                                             10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Young technology intensive  
16% 
74% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
22% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
  
78% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Young technology intensive  
19% 
54% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Up to 5 years 
  
35% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
More than 5 years 
  
65% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

## 4.17 Past Growth (Turnover)

All companies were asked to indicate whether, compared to this time three years ago, 
their turnover was much higher, a bit higher, lower, or had stayed the same. 
 
For just over six in ten companies (61%) their turnover was higher than it was three 
years ago. However, 37% of firms indicated that their turnover was lower or was about 
the same as it was three years ago. This compares with 30% in the 2008 survey.  
 
Table 80: Past growth (turnover) 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
789 
114 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Much higher 
  
27% 
33% 
30% 
22% 
49% 
18% 
21% 
28% 
A bit higher 
  
34% 
31% 
33% 
30% 
16% 
35% 
45% 
42% 
About the same size 
18% 
18% 
16% 
33% 
8% 
21% 
21% 
13% 
Lower 
  
19% 
18% 
21% 
15% 
24% 
22% 
9% 
16% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
5% 
2% 

 
IP active and non-IP active companies reported similar levels of increases and decreases 
in company turnover over the last three years. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
396 
46 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Much higher 
  
28% 
33% 
33% 
24% 
42% 
20% 
14% 
30% 
A bit higher 
  
35% 
28% 
28% 
29% 
19% 
37% 
51% 
43% 
About the same size 
18% 
17% 
20% 
35% 
12% 
21% 
24% 
8% 
Lower 
  
17% 
22% 
18% 
12% 
27% 
20% 
5% 
16% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
5% 
2% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
393 
68 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Much higher 
  
26% 
34% 
28% 
20% 
64% 
16% 
33% 
20% 
A bit higher 
  
33% 
32% 
35% 
30% 
9% 
33% 
33% 
36% 
About the same size 
17% 
18% 
13% 
30% 
0% 
22% 
14% 
28% 
Lower 
  
21% 
16% 
23% 
20% 
18% 
25% 
14% 
16% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
9% 
3% 
5% 
0% 

 
Similarly UKTI users and non-UKTI users reported similar levels of increases and 
decreases in company turnover over the last three years. 
 
Table 82: Past growth (turnover) by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
547 
61 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Much higher 
  
28% 
39% 
32% 
11% 
42% 
21% 
24% 
27% 
A bit higher 
  
33% 
20% 
31% 
33% 
13% 
36% 
46% 
41% 
About the same size 
17% 
20% 
15% 
39% 
13% 
19% 
20% 
14% 
Lower 
  
20% 
21% 
21% 
17% 
29% 
22% 
7% 
18% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
2% 
4% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
242 
53 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Much higher 
  
25% 
26% 
27% 
44% 
62% 
7% 
8% 
33% 
A bit higher 
  
36% 
43% 
35% 
22% 
23% 
31% 
42% 
50% 
About the same size 
18% 
15% 
17% 
22% 
0% 
31% 
25% 
8% 
Lower 
  
18% 
15% 
21% 
11% 
15% 
24% 
17% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
8% 
8% 
 

## 4.18 Past Growth (Number Of Markets)

All companies were asked to indicate whether the number of countries in which they 
were doing business overseas has increased or decreased in the last three years.  
 
Just over six in ten companies (61%) indicated an increase in the number of countries in 
which they were conducting business in the last three years, which was especially true 
for older companies. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased 
  
61% 
56% 
59% 
67% 
68% 
62% 
74% 
59% 
Decreased 
  
10% 
11% 
8% 
7% 
11% 
10% 
3% 
13% 
Stayed the same 
  
28% 
29% 
31% 
26% 
22% 
28% 
21% 
26% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
1% 
Not Applicable8
  
1% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding the number of countries in which they had done business in any 
form in the last 3 years.  IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active 
companies to indicate an increase in the number of countries in which they were doing 
business over the last three years.  
 
Table 84: Past growth (number of markets) by IP activity 
  
                                                                           6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased 
  
66% 
61% 
67% 
76% 
69% 
65% 
78% 
65% 
Decreased 
  
10% 
10% 
10% 
12% 
15% 
7% 
5% 
12% 
Stayed the same 
  
23% 
25% 
23% 
12% 
15% 
27% 
16% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Not Applicable9
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased 
  
55% 
52% 
55% 
50% 
64% 
60% 
67% 
40% 
Decreased 
  
9% 
11% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
0% 
16% 
Stayed the same 
  
33% 
32% 
35% 
50% 
36% 
28% 
29% 
40% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
4% 
Not Applicable10
  
2% 
5% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding the number of countries in which they had done business in any form in the 
last 3 years.  UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to indicate an increase 
in the number of countries in which they were doing business over the last three years, 
which was especially true for medium sized companies.  
 

                                                 

Up to 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased 
  
64% 
61% 
63% 
72% 
63% 
66% 
76% 
58% 
Decreased 
  
10% 
12% 
9% 
11% 
13% 
11% 
4% 
13% 
Stayed the same 
  
24% 
24% 
27% 
17% 
25% 
23% 
17% 
27% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
1% 
Not Applicable11
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased 
  
54% 
50% 
54% 
56% 
77% 
50% 
67% 
67% 
Decreased 
  
8% 
9% 
8% 
0% 
8% 
5% 
0% 
17% 
Stayed the same 
  
36% 
35% 
37% 
44% 
15% 
45% 
33% 
17% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Not Applicable12
  
2% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
 

## 4.19 Past Growth: Employment

Companies that had been established for at least three years were asked to compare the number of people they employed currently with the number employed three years ago. Those who indicated that their employee numbers had grown were also asked to indicate the number of people that were employed by their company three years ago. This data has been combined into a single indicator of past growth as shown below. 

 
Table 86: Past growth (employment) 

Their employee numbers have decreased over the last 3 years (Q69) 
Companies have been classified as having 'decreased' if… 
 
- Companies have been classified as having 'stayed the same' if… 
 
Their employee numbers are the same as they were 3 years ago (Q69) 
- Companies have been classified as having 'grown slightly' if… 
 
Their employee numbers have grown by less than 30% over the last 3 years (Q71) 
- Companies have been classified as having 'grown moderately' if… 
 
                                                 

- 
Their employee numbers have grown by between 30-75% over the last 3 years (Q71) 
 
Companies have been classified as having 'grown substantially' if… 
 
- 
Their employee numbers have grown by more than 75% over the last 3 years (Q71). 

  
Overall 27% of respondents in the 2009 survey indicated that their company had grown, 
compared to 30% in the 2008 survey. The proportion of firms indicating that they had 
grown moderately was similar in the 2008 (12%) and 2009 (13%) surveys. However, 
the proportion that had grown substantially was somewhat lower in the 2009 survey 
(6%) than in 2008 (13%). Firms which reported having grown moderately or 
substantially over the past three years tended to have been established 6-10 years. 
 
In the 2008 survey about a sixth (16%) of companies had become smaller and just over 
four in ten (43%) had stayed the same size when growth was measured in terms of 
changes in employee numbers. However, the proportion of companies in this 2009 
survey reporting that they had become smaller was higher, at around one quarter (25%), 
whilst the proportion which had stayed the same size was lower (33%) than recorded in 
the 2008 survey. Firms which were both older and larger were more likely to experience 
a decrease in employee numbers in the past three years. 
 
Table 87: Past growth (employment)  
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                   10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Became smaller 
  
25% 
14% 
24% 
33% 
24% 
26% 
40% 
39% 
Stayed the same size 
33% 
16% 
44% 
33% 
30% 
48% 
21% 
27% 
Grown slightly 
8% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
14% 
11% 
14% 
13% 
Grown moderately 
13% 
6% 
20% 
15% 
16% 
10% 
14% 
10% 
Grown substantially 
6% 
6% 
7% 
11% 
8% 
3% 
7% 
6% 
Not Applicable13
16% 
53% 
0% 
4% 
8% 
2% 
5% 
6% 



Non-IP active companies were slightly more likely to have stayed the same size. This was most notable amongst firms which had been established for up to 5 years: of those that were not IP active, 20% had remained the same size compared to 10% of those which were IP active. IP active companies were slightly more likely than non-IP active firms to have become smaller in terms of employee numbers. IP active and non-IP active companies were as likely to have grown in the last three years. 

 
                                                 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
  
28% 
18% 
21% 
41% 
31% 
27% 
41% 
40% 
Stayed the same size 
29% 
10% 
41% 
29% 
31% 
43% 
22% 
27% 
Grown slightly 
9% 
5% 
6% 
0% 
15% 
11% 
16% 
12% 
Grown moderately 
13% 
7% 
24% 
12% 
15% 
13% 
11% 
10% 
Grown substantially 
6% 
4% 
8% 
18% 
4% 
4% 
5% 
6% 
Not Applicable14
15% 
57% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
5% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
  
22% 
12% 
25% 
20% 
9% 
25% 
38% 
36% 
Stayed the same 
37% 
20% 
46% 
40% 
27% 
54% 
19% 
28% 
Grown slightly 
7% 
5% 
4% 
10% 
9% 
10% 
10% 
16% 
Grown moderately 
12% 
6% 
18% 
20% 
18% 
7% 
19% 
12% 
Grown substantially 
6% 
7% 
7% 
0% 
18% 
2% 
10% 
4% 
Not Applicable15
16% 
50% 
0% 
10% 
18% 
2% 
5% 
4% 


The profile of UKTI users and non-users in terms of past growth is similar, with around 
a third of companies remaining the same size and around a quarter of companies 
becoming smaller. However, this is not consistent with evidence from PIMS  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Became smaller 
  
26% 
13% 
27% 
39% 
21% 
27% 
35% 
39% 
Stayed the same size 
33% 
16% 
41% 
28% 
33% 
48% 
22% 
27% 
Grown slightly 
9% 
4% 
5% 
6% 
8% 
10% 
15% 
15% 
Grown moderately 
13% 
6% 
20% 
22% 
17% 
11% 
13% 
10% 
Grown substantially 
5% 
4% 
7% 
0% 
8% 
3% 
9% 
5% 
Not Applicable16
14% 
56% 
0% 
6% 
13% 
1% 
7% 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Became smaller 
  
22% 
16% 
19% 
22% 
31% 
24% 
58% 
42% 
Stayed the same size 
34% 
16% 
49% 
44% 
23% 
50% 
17% 
25% 
Grown slightly 
7% 
5% 
5% 
0% 
23% 
12% 
8% 
0% 
Grown moderately 
12% 
7% 
21% 
0% 
15% 
7% 
17% 
8% 
Grown substantially 
7% 
7% 
7% 
33% 
8% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
Not Applicable17
19% 
50% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
17% 

 
Evidence from the PIMS user and non-user surveys demonstrates that UKTI users are 
more likely to report having grown substantially and less likely to have reported having 
become smaller than firms which have not used UKTI services. 
 
Table 90: Comparison of firm growth (employment) by UKTI usage with client profiles 
from PIMS 12-15 and PIMS 7-10 and PIMS Non-user surveys of 2008 and 200918

  
  
Total 
  
  
UKTI nonusers 
UKTI users 
PIMS nonusers 2009 
PIMS nonusers 2008 
Users PIMS 7-10 
Users PIMS 12- 15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Became smaller 
  
22% 
26% 
13% 
4% 
9% 
5% 
Stayed the same 
34% 
33% 
22% 
15% 
15% 
16% 
Grown slightly 
7% 
9% 
0% 
0%- 
)%- 
0% 
Grown moderately 
12% 
13% 
50% 
47% 
57% 
46% 
Grown substantially 
7% 
5% 
13% 
28% 
19% 
30% 
Not Applicable 
19% 
14% 
1% 
4% 
2% 
0% 

 
16 In this table 'Not applicable' refers to those companies that are less than 3 years old or did not know their change in growth in terms of employees over the last 3 years.  

## 4.20 Future Growth

Future Growth (Number of Markets) 
 
Those companies who had conducted business in at least one overseas country in the 
last five years were asked to indicate whether the number of countries in which they 
would do business overseas over the next three years was likely to increase, decrease or 
stay the same.  
 
Just over six in ten companies (61%) projected an increase in the number of countries in 
which they expected to do business over the next three years. Firms with 50-99 
employees were more likely to expect to increase the number of markets in which they 
do business.   
 
Table 91: Future growth (number of markets)  
  
                                     6-10 years 
                                                          10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
899 
228 
247 
27 
37 
195 
58 
107 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increase 
  
61% 
65% 
62% 
70% 
57% 
56% 
72% 
55% 
Decrease 
  
3% 
3% 
2% 
4% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
Stay the same 
  
34% 
30% 
36% 
26% 
35% 
38% 
24% 
40% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
3% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding the number of countries they are likely to do business in over the 
next three years. IP active companies are more likely to predict an increase in the 
number of countries they do business in over the next three years than non-IP active 
companies. This was especially true of younger IP active companies. 
 
Table 92: Whether number of countries doing business in will increase or decrease in the 
next three years by IP activity 
  
                                                                           6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
453 
105 
90 
17 
26 
96 
37 
82 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increase 
  
68% 
73% 
74% 
71% 
50% 
63% 
78% 
60% 
Decrease 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
6% 
8% 
2% 
5% 
0% 
Stay the same 
  
29% 
22% 
24% 
24% 
38% 
34% 
16% 
39% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
446 
123 
157 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increase 
  
55% 
59% 
54% 
70% 
73% 
49% 
62% 
40% 
Decrease 
  
3% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
8% 
Stay the same 
  
40% 
37% 
43% 
30% 
27% 
42% 
38% 
44% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
8% 

 There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users regarding the number of countries they are likely to do business in over the next three years. UKTI users were more likely to indicate an increase in the number of countries in which they are doing business over the next three years than non-UKTI users. This is especially true of younger companies and those with 50-99 employees. 

 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
614 
132 
146 
18 
24 
153 
46 
95 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increase 
  
65% 
71% 
68% 
72% 
58% 
62% 
74% 
53% 
Decrease 
  
2% 
2% 
2% 
6% 
4% 
3% 
4% 
2% 
Stay the same 
  
31% 
26% 
29% 
22% 
33% 
33% 
22% 
42% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
285 
96 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increase 
  
53% 
57% 
52% 
67% 
54% 
33% 
67% 
75% 
Decrease 
  
4% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
8% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
Stay the same 
  
42% 
36% 
47% 
33% 
38% 
57% 
33% 
25% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Future Growth (objectives) 
 
All companies, with the exception of those not yet trading, were asked to consider their 
business as a whole, and to state what growth objectives their company had for the 
business over the next five years in terms of whether they would remain the same size, 
become smaller, grow moderately or grow substantially in this time period. The 
business objectives for all companies is summarised in the following table. 
 
Nearly six in ten (57%) of these companies stated that their growth objective for the 
next five years was to grow moderately, compared to half (50%) of the companies in 
2008. Whilst just under a third (31%) of companies in the 2008 survey stated that their 
growth objective was to 'grow substantially' this was reduced slightly to 28% in the 
2009 survey.  Companies which had been established for up to 10 years were more 
likely to indicate an expectation that they would grow substantially in the next five 
years. 
 
Table 94: Future growth 
  
                                                                        6-10 years 
                                                                                                                    10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
1% 
0% 
1% 
4% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
1% 
Remain the same size 
11% 
9% 
10% 
15% 
3% 
20% 
7% 
7% 
Grow moderately 
57% 
57% 
60% 
41% 
57% 
54% 
64% 
56% 
Grow substantially 
28% 
30% 
29% 
37% 
41% 
20% 
26% 
31% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
4% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
Refused 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their future growth predictions over the next five years. IP active 
companies were more likely than non-IP active firms to state that their business 
objective was to 'grow substantially' in the next 5 years.   
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
1% 
0% 
1% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
Remain the same size 
8% 
6% 
4% 
12% 
4% 
16% 
3% 
10% 
Grow moderately 
55% 
51% 
60% 
41% 
50% 
56% 
73% 
51% 
Grow substantially 
34% 
39% 
33% 
41% 
46% 
26% 
22% 
36% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
2% 
Refused 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
2% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
Remain the same size 
14% 
12% 
14% 
20% 
0% 
23% 
14% 
0% 
Grow moderately 
59% 
61% 
60% 
40% 
73% 
52% 
48% 
76% 
Grow substantially 
22% 
22% 
26% 
30% 
27% 
15% 
33% 
12% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
5% 
0% 
10% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
8% 
Refused 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 

Both UKTI users and non-UKTI users had similar expectations for growth for the next five years, with similar proportions predicting growth or reductions.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
1% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
3% 
4% 
1% 
Remain the same size 
10% 
6% 
7% 
11% 
0% 
21% 
9% 
8% 
Grow moderately 
57% 
60% 
61% 
50% 
58% 
51% 
63% 
55% 
Grow substantially 
29% 
29% 
31% 
33% 
42% 
23% 
24% 
31% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
Refused 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
Remain the same size 
13% 
13% 
15% 
22% 
8% 
17% 
0% 
0% 
Grow moderately 
56% 
52% 
57% 
22% 
54% 
62% 
67% 
67% 
Grow substantially 
26% 
31% 
25% 
44% 
38% 
10% 
33% 
25% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
0% 
11% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
Refused 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
8% 

 
However, PIMS data shows UKTI users to be less likely than non-UKTI users to be 
considering staying the same size and more likely than non-users to aim to grow 
substantially. 
 

  
  
Total 
UKTI non-
PIMS non-
Users 
PIMS Non-
Users 
  
  
users 
UKTI users 
users 2009 
PIMS 12-
users 2008 
PIMS 7-10 
15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Become smaller 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
5% 
1% 
Remain the same size 
13% 
10% 
24% 
8% 
10% 
5% 
Grown moderately 
56% 
57% 
52% 
48% 
57% 
50% 
Grown substantially 
26% 
29% 
18% 
38% 
27% 
41% 
Don't know 
2% 
3% 
5% 
5% 
2% 
4% 
Refused 
1% 
0% 
Not Applicable 
0% 
1% 
 

## 4.21 Growth - Asbs Definition

Companies were divided into four 'growth categories', as described in the box below; a 
categorisation that takes account of both past and future growth.  This analysis has 
sought to replicate, as far as is possible with the data available, an analysis of growth 
conducted for BERR's Annual Small Business Survey (ASBS). 
 
Table 98: Definition of Growth - ASBS definition 
Companies have been classified as displaying 'sustained growth' if… 
 

- Their employee numbers have grown over the last 3 years (Q69) - And, they are anticipating substantial growth over the next 5 years (Q85) 
 
Companies have been classified as displaying 'contained growth' if… 
 
- Their employee numbers have grown over the last 3 years (Q69) - But, they are not anticipating substantial growth over the next 5 years (Q85) 
 
Companies have been classified as displaying 'new growth' if… 
 
- Their employee numbers have not grown over the last 3 years including firms 
established in the last 3 years  (Q69) 
- But, they are anticipating substantial growth over the next 5 years (Q85) 
 
Companies have been classified as displaying 'no growth' if… 
 
- Their employee numbers have not grown over the last 3 years including firms 
established in the last 3 years (Q69) 
- And, they are not anticipating substantial growth over the next 5 years (Q85). 

 
According to the ASBS definition of growth, 39% of the sample firms displayed 
growth, which was below the 47% of growth observed in the 2008 survey. When the 
types of growth are analysed, a similar pattern is observed to the 2008 survey with a 
fairly even split between 'sustained growth', 'contained growth' and 'new growth'. The 

following table also illustrates that according to the ASBS definition of growth, older 
companies and also smaller companies were more likely to predict 'no growth'.  
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sustained 
  
12% 
6% 
12% 
19% 
24% 
11% 
17% 
17% 
Contained 
  
15% 
11% 
21% 
19% 
19% 
11% 
21% 
14% 
New growth  
12% 
7% 
16% 
19% 
16% 
9% 
9% 
13% 
No growth 
  
43% 
18% 
49% 
41% 
38% 
62% 
52% 
49% 
Established less than 3 years/not yet trading 
18% 
58% 
2% 
4% 
3% 
7% 
2% 
7% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their future growth predictions. IP active companies were more 
likely to predict 'new growth' and 'sustained growth' than non-IP active companies. 
New growth is predicted more by IP active companies aged six to ten years of age.     
 
Table 100: ASBS definition of growth by IP activity 
  
                                                                              6-10 years 
                                                                                                                   10+ years 

Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sustained 
  
14% 
6% 
14% 
24% 
23% 
15% 
11% 
19% 
Contained 
  
15% 
8% 
26% 
12% 
15% 
10% 
27% 
11% 
New growth  
14% 
10% 
19% 
18% 
23% 
10% 
11% 
16% 
No growth 
  
40% 
14% 
39% 
47% 
38% 
58% 
51% 
48% 
Established less than 3 years/not yet trading 
17% 
62% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sustained 
  
10% 
7% 
11% 
10% 
27% 
7% 
29% 
8% 
Contained 
  
16% 
12% 
18% 
30% 
27% 
12% 
10% 
24% 
New growth  
9% 
5% 
15% 
20% 
0% 
8% 
5% 
4% 
No growth 
  
46% 
22% 
54% 
30% 
36% 
66% 
52% 
52% 
Established less than 3 years/not yet trading 
19% 
54% 
2% 
10% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
12% 

 
Both UKTI users and non-UKTI users predicted similar levels of growth over the next 
five years. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sustained 
  
13% 
5% 
11% 
17% 
25% 
12% 
20% 
19% 
Contained 
  
15% 
11% 
20% 
22% 
17% 
11% 
22% 
13% 
New growth  
12% 
6% 
20% 
17% 
17% 
11% 
4% 
13% 
No growth 
  
44% 
17% 
48% 
44% 
38% 
60% 
52% 
50% 
Established less than 3 years/not yet trading 
16% 
61% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
5% 
2% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sustained 
  
10% 
8% 
13% 
22% 
23% 
7% 
8% 
0% 
Contained 
  
16% 
10% 
23% 
11% 
23% 
12% 
17% 
25% 
New growth  
11% 
9% 
12% 
22% 
15% 
2% 
25% 
17% 
No growth 
  
40% 
20% 
50% 
33% 
38% 
67% 
50% 
42% 
Established less than 3 years/not yet trading 
22% 
53% 
3% 
11% 
0% 
12% 
0% 
17% 

## 4.22 Growth Oecd Definition

Additional analysis was conducted seeking to replicate the OECD categories of growth.  
Again, this analysis has replicated the approach as far as possible given the data available, with the details of the analysis provided in the panel below. 

 

Companies have been defined as 'high-growth' if… 
 
- 
Their employee numbers have grown by more than 75% over the last 3 years except firms established in the last 3 years (Q71) 
 
Companies have been defined as 'gazelles' if… 
- 
Their employee numbers have grown by more than 75% over the last 3 years except firms established in the last 3 years (Q71) And, they are less than 5 years old (Q12). 
- 

  
Only a minority of companies displayed 'high growth' under this definition.  
 
The proportion of firms in the sample classified as 'high growth' or 'gazelles' was 
somewhat lower than found in the 2008 survey. In 2008, 13% of firms were classified 
as 'high growth' compared to just 6% in this survey.  
 
As 'gazelles' are a subset of high growth firms, the proportion of companies defined as 
'gazelles' was lower than high growth firms with 3% of firms being identified as 
gazelles in 2008 and only 1% in the current survey. This could be driven in part by the 
lower proportion of firms established for up to 5 years in the 2009 survey compared to 
the 2008 survey. 
 

A further key difference between the 2008 survey and the current survey is that 16% of 
firms up to 5 years of age were identified as high growth in the 2008 survey, but only 
6% in the current survey. This is surprising given the higher proportion of young firms 
with over 100 employees in the 2009 survey sample which are suggestive of recent 
growth than found in the 2008 survey.  
 
In both surveys, 'gazelles' were restricted to firms under 5 years of age so are not 
observed among older and larger firms.  
 
Table 103: OECD definition of growth 
  
                                            6-10 years 
                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
High growth 
6% 
6% 
7% 
11% 
8% 
3% 
7% 
6% 
Gazelles 
 
1% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

Similarly small proportions of IP active and non-IP active companies displayed 'high 
growth' with levels rising for those IP active companies of between 6 and 10 years of 
age with 50 to 99 employee and non-IP active companies of between 6 and 10 years of 
age with more than 100 employees, although the bases for both are small and should be 
treated with caution. 
                       

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90
17
26
97 
37 
83
IP active 
  
100% 
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
High growth 
6% 
4% 
8% 
18% 
4% 
4% 
5% 
6% 
Gazelles 
 
1% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  


Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
High growth 
6% 
7% 
7% 
0% 
18% 
2% 
10% 
4% 
Gazelles 
 
2% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Again for UKTI users and non-UKTI users there were similar small proportions of 
companies displaying 'high growth'. Although PIMS data does not provide the same 
measure, PIMS 12-15 and 7-10 contained a higher proportion of firms which reported 
having grown substantially over the past five years, which was somewhat higher than 
reported by UKTI users in the survey sample.   
                                                                                      

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
High growth 
5% 
4% 
7% 
0% 
8% 
3% 
9% 
5% 
Gazelles 
 
1% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
High growth 
7% 
7% 
7% 
33% 
8% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
Gazelles 
 
2% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
 

## 4.23 Business Planning

All companies were asked to indicate whether they had a current, written business plan.  
Those that had a current, written business plan were then asked to indicate whether this 
current business plan contained any targets relating to business in overseas markets.  
 
Table 106 depicts whether companies have a current, written business plan by age of 
company. This table illustrates that older and larger companies are more likely to have a 
current, written business plan. Furthermore, the proportion of companies with a written 
business plan was lower in the 2008 survey, with just over six in ten (61%) with a 
written business plan, increasing to seven in ten companies with a written business plan 
in 2009 (70%). This may be due to the higher proportion of UKTI users in the 2009 
survey sample. 
 
Table 106: Existence of current, written business plans 
  
                                            5-10 years 
                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
70% 
69% 
64% 
81% 
89% 
57% 
81% 
93% 
No 
  
27% 
30% 
34% 
15% 
11% 
38% 
14% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
1% 
1% 
4% 
0% 
3% 
5% 
4% 
Refused 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies. IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to have 
a current, written business plan. That said, whether companies were IP active or not, it 
was the case that the vast majority of larger companies have a current, written business 
plan. 
 

  
  
5-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
78% 
74% 
73% 
82% 
88% 
70% 
84% 
93% 
No 
  
19% 
26% 
22% 
12% 
12% 
28% 
11% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
0% 
3% 
6% 
0% 
2% 
5% 
4% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
61% 
65% 
58% 
80% 
91% 
44% 
76% 
92% 
No 
  
36% 
33% 
41% 
20% 
9% 
48% 
19% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
5% 
4% 
Refused 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
0% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
in terms of whether they had a current, written business plan. UKTI users were more 
likely than non-UKTI users to have a current, written business plan. However again it 
should be noted that the vast majority of larger companies have a current, written 
business plan.  
 
Table 108: Existence of current, written business plans by UKTI usage  
  
                                                                      6-10 years 
                                                                                                                   10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
75% 
75% 
69% 
83% 
88% 
64% 
85% 
92% 
No 
  
23% 
24% 
28% 
17% 
13% 
35% 
13% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
2% 
4% 
Refused 
  
0% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
59% 
61% 
56% 
78% 
92% 
33% 
67% 
100% 
No 
  
36% 
37% 
43% 
11% 
8% 
50% 
17% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
1% 
11% 
0% 
10% 
17% 
0% 
Refused 
  
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
0% 

 
The level of UKTI users with a written business plan in this current survey is consistent 
with the PIMS 12-15 and PIMS 7-10 user follow-up interviews of 2008 and 2009. 
 

  
  
Total 
  
  
UKTI Non-users 
UKTI users 
PIMS Nonusers 2009 
PIMS Nonusers 2008 
Users PIMS 7-10 
Users PIMS 12-
15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3995 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
59% 
75% 
37% 
74% 
51% 
73% 
No 
36% 
23% 
58% 
23% 
49% 
26% 
Don't know 
3% 
1% 
5% 
3% 
Refused 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% For just over half of these companies (54%) their current written business plans 
contained targets relating to business in overseas markets, which was more prevalent 
among larger companies. 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
54% 
47% 
49% 
67% 
78% 
41% 
74% 
79% 
No 
  
14% 
19% 
14% 
15% 
8% 
15% 
5% 
8% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
5% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
30% 
31% 
36% 
19% 
11% 
43% 
19% 
7% 
No/ don't know/refused/ No current written business plan 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their likelihood of having a current, written business plan that 
contains targets relating to business in overseas markets. IP active companies were more 
likely than non-IP active companies to have a current, written business plan that 
contained targets relating to business in overseas markets.  
 

  
  
5-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
67% 
61% 
60% 
76% 
77% 
57% 
84% 
84% 
No 
  
9% 
10% 
13% 
6% 
8% 
12% 
0% 
5% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
22% 
26% 
27% 
18% 
12% 
30% 
16% 
7% 
No/ don't know/refused/ No current written business plan 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
40% 
36% 
42% 
50% 
82% 
26% 
57% 
60% 
No 
  
19% 
27% 
15% 
30% 
9% 
17% 
14% 
20% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
5% 
8% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
39% 
35% 
42% 
20% 
9% 
56% 
24% 
8% 
No/ don't know/refused/ No current written business plan 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding their likelihood of having a current, written business plan that contains targets 
relating to business in overseas markets. UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI 
users to have a current, written business plan that contained targets relating to business 
in overseas markets.  
 
Table 112: Existence of current, written business plans containing targets relating to 
business overseas by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
61% 
59% 
55% 
72% 
79% 
47% 
78% 
77% 
No 
  
12% 
13% 
13% 
11% 
4% 
16% 
4% 
8% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
2% 
5% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
25% 
25% 
31% 
17% 
13% 
36% 
15% 
8% 
No/ don't know/refused/ No current written business plan 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
39% 
32% 
39% 
56% 
77% 
21% 
58% 
92% 
No 
  
19% 
28% 
17% 
22% 
15% 
12% 
8% 
8% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
41% 
39% 
44% 
22% 
8% 
67% 
33% 
0% 
No/ don't know/refused/ No current written business plan 

 For UKTI users, the level of those with a current, written business plan that contained targets relating to business in overseas markets is consistent with the PIMS 12-15 and PIMS 7-10 and PIMS non-user interviews of 2008 and 2009. There is no data available which indicates the percentage of firms in the PIMS non-user survey 2008 and PIMS 
users 7-10 surveys which do not have overseas targets. 

  
  
Total 
PIMS 
UKTI 
Users 
PIMS 
Users 
UKTI 
  
  
PIMS 12-
Non-users 
PIMS 7-
users 
Nonusers 
Nonusers 
15 
2008 
10 
2009 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
3985 
302 
3143 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, contains overseas targets 
  
39% 
61% 
17% 
59% 
26% 
53% 
No overseas targets 
19% 
12% 
19% 
18% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
1% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
49% 
27% 
Not applicable 
41% 
25% 
62% 
21% 
 

5. 
     MODES OF INTERNATIONALISATION 
      
     All respondents were asked to indicate which of the following overseas business 
     activities their firm had been involved in over the last 5 years. These included selling 
     directly to businesses or individuals abroad, selling to businesses or individuals abroad 
     through agents or distributors, licensing or franchising overseas, or other contractual 
     arrangements (including joint ventures) and operating their own overseas site or office.  
      
     Companies not currently involved in any of these listed overseas activities were asked if 
     they were seriously considering starting to conduct overseas business via any of these 
     routes in the next year. In order to be included in this survey, respondents had to 
     respond positively to this question. This group (the 'considerers') were asked which 
     types of overseas business activities they were planning to become involved in. 
      
     This was a multi-code question and so respondents could offer more than one response.  
      
     Firms who indicated that they were involved in contractual arrangements were asked to 
     specify the form used eg licensing, franchising etc.  
      
     Those companies who were involved in 'other partnership or joint venture 
     arrangements' were asked to state what the main purpose of this partnership or joint 
     venture was or will be.  
      
     Those firms who are currently conducting business overseas were asked to indicate 
     whether they had imported any goods or services over the last 5 years (excluding 
     through partnerships, joint ventures and production sites).Where required, a definition 
     of importing was read out which was: 
      

"By importing I mean the buying in of goods or services from overseas 
suppliers." 

 
All those who did import were asked to indicate whether they imported directly from an 
overseas supplier, or through a UK-based intermediary or both.  
 
Those with overseas offices and sites were asked to indicate how many of these they 
had and their purpose. 
 
As shown in the table below, the majority of companies were selling directly abroad 
(90%) or via agents and distributors (67%). The proportion of companies selling (ie 
selling direct and/or through agents or distributors) was 98% which was identical to the 
proportion in 2008. 
 
Although the proportion of firms selling direct (90%) was similar to the 2008 survey 
(86%), there was a higher prevalence of the use of other modes of internationalisation in 
the 2009 survey. This may be driven in part by the higher proportion of manufacturing 
firms in the 2009 survey sample; results of the 2008 survey indicated that more firms in 
the production sector sold through agents and distributors than in the services sector 
(39% vs 26%). In the 2008 survey, firms in production were also more likely to import 
than firms in the services sector (64% vs 43%). 
 

- 
In this 2009 survey, 67% of respondents indicated that they sold through agents and 
distributors compared to 30% in the 2008 survey 
- 
Only 7% of firms reported using contractual arrangements in the 2008 survey but 
15% reported doing so in this 2009 survey 
- 
Overseas sites were also more prevalent: 27% of respondents operated these in 2009 
but only 11% in the 2008 survey 
- 
The level of importing was much higher in the 2009 survey than was identified in 
the 2008 survey (76% vs 48%).  

Use of modes other than selling direct was most prevalent among firms with at least 100 
employees which had been established for at least 5 years.  However, firms with at least 
50 employees (and had been established for at least 5 years) were more likely to have an 
overseas sales site than smaller firms while firms which had been established for at least 
5 years were more likely to sell via agents or distributors than younger firms.   
 
Franchising was the least commonly practiced form of contractual arrangement amongst 
the surveyed firms. Equal proportions of firms in the sample used licensing and other 
contractual arrangements.  
 
Table 114: Mode of internationalisation  

| 6-10 years               | 10+ years    |
|--------------------------|--------------|
|                          |              |
| Total                    |              |
| Up to 5                  |              |
| years                    |              |
|                          |              |
| 0 - 49                   | 50 - 99      |
| 911                      | 236          |
| Total                    |              |
| 100%                     | 100%         |
| Selling directly to      |              |
| businesses or            |              |
| 90%                      | 87%          |
| 67%                      | 58%          |
| individuals abroad       |              |
| Selling to businesses or |              |
| individuals abroad       |              |
| through agents or        |              |
| distributors             |              |
| Licensing overseas       |              |
| 8%                       | 5%           |
| Franchising overseas     |              |
| 3%                       | 3%           |
| 8%                       | 6%           |
| Other contractual        |              |
| arrangements (including  |              |
| joint ventures)          |              |
| Own overseas site or     |              |
| office : production      |              |
| 6%                       | 6%           |
| Own overseas site or     |              |
| office : call centre     |              |
| 0%                       | 0%           |
| Own overseas site or     |              |
| office : sales           |              |
| 20%                      | 17%          |
| Own overseas site or     |              |
| office : R&D             |              |
| 1%                       | 0%           |
| Importing                |              |
| 76%                      | 69%          |

 For the purposes of further analysis, modes have been simplified into the groupings 
shown in the following table.  
 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
90% 
87% 
88% 
93% 
89% 
92% 
91% 
94% 
Via agents/distributors 
67% 
58% 
57% 
78% 
81% 
74% 
74% 
81% 
15% 
11% 
13% 
7% 
32% 
12% 
22% 
30% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
27% 
23% 
17% 
30% 
46% 
20% 
43% 
57% 
Importing 
76% 
69% 
76% 
81% 
78% 
77% 
90% 
81% 

 
IP active companies are more likely than non-IP active companies to use non-traditional 
modes of internationalisation ie modes other than selling direct. IP active firms were 
almost twice as likely as non-IP active firms to be engaged in contractual arrangements 
(21% vs 9%) and to have overseas sites (36% vs 18%). A slightly higher percentage of 
IP active firms import (80%) than non-IP active firms (72%). These results show a 
broadly similar pattern to those found in the 2008 survey. 
 
Table 116: Simplified mode of internationalisation by IP activity 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
89% 
86% 
89% 
94% 
85% 
92% 
89% 
93% 
Via agents/distributors 
81% 
78% 
74% 
88% 
85% 
82% 
81% 
88% 
21% 
19% 
20% 
6% 
31% 
14% 
27% 
33% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
36% 
27% 
26% 
41% 
54% 
26% 
46% 
61% 
Importing 
80% 
76% 
77% 
82% 
77% 
76% 
95% 
86% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
91% 
88% 
88% 
90% 
100% 
93% 
95% 
100% 
Via agents/distributors 
52% 
42% 
48% 
60% 
73% 
66% 
62% 
56% 
9% 
4% 
9% 
10% 
36% 
9% 
14% 
20% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
18% 
19% 
13% 
10% 
27% 
14% 
38% 
44% 
Importing 
72% 
64% 
76% 
80% 
82% 
77% 
81% 
64% 

 
UKTI users and non-UKTI users were equally likely to use different modes of 
internationalisation, with the exception of selling via agents and distributors which was 
more likely to be used by UKTI users.     
 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
91% 
93% 
90% 
89% 
92% 
91% 
89% 
95% 
Via agents/distributors 
72% 
67% 
62% 
78% 
79% 
75% 
74% 
82% 
16% 
13% 
12% 
6% 
25% 
12% 
22% 
29% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
28% 
24% 
15% 
33% 
38% 
19% 
43% 
57% 
Importing 
78% 
72% 
77% 
83% 
92% 
77% 
89% 
79% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Direct sales 
87% 
80% 
86% 
100% 
85% 
98% 
100% 
92% 
Via agents/distributors 
56% 
46% 
50% 
78% 
85% 
69% 
75% 
67% 
14% 
8% 
15% 
11% 
46% 
10% 
25% 
33% 
Contractual arrangements (licensing, franchising and joint ventures) Overseas sites 
26% 
22% 
21% 
22% 
62% 
21% 
42% 
58% 
Importing 
72% 
65% 
75% 
78% 
54% 
76% 
92% 
92% 

 Only companies either with overseas sites or who where planning to have overseas sites within the next 12 months were asked to indicate how many overseas sites they either had or would have.  

 
The number of overseas offices or sites is summarised in the following table which 
illustrates that, as in the 2008 survey, the majority of firms with overseas sites have up 
to 5 sites. However, the 2009 survey sample contained a higher proportion of firms with 
21-50 sites (8% of firms with overseas sites compared with 2% in the 2008 survey) but 
fewer with 6-10 sites (6% vs 11% in 2008). This may be related to firms in the 2009 
sample being active in more markets than firms in the 2008 sample.  
 
Table 118: Number of overseas offices or sites  
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
248 
54 
43 
8 
17 
39 
25 
62 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One  
36% 
31% 
51% 
38% 
6% 
54% 
28% 
29% 
2-5  
40% 
35% 
44% 
25% 
35% 
41% 
64% 
34% 
6-10  
6% 
11% 
2% 
0% 
12% 
0% 
8% 
8% 
11-20  
5% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
18% 
3% 
0% 
10% 
21-50  
8% 
7% 
2% 
38% 
24% 
3% 
0% 
13% 
More than 50 
3% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
Don't know 
1% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
The following table summarises the main purpose of these overseas offices or sites with 
nearly six in ten (56%) classified as distribution/sales offices and one in five (20%) 
classified as manufacturing. Whilst the proportion of offices/sites for manufacturing is 
similar to that of the 2008 survey (22%), the proportion of distribution/sales offices is 
higher in the 2009 survey sample (56%) than in the 2008 sample (38%). In the 2008 
sample, there were 2 call centres; the 2009 survey sample contained none. 
 

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
248 
54 
43 
8 
17 
39 
25 
62 
Total 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Manufacturing 
20% 
22% 
26% 
13% 
29% 
13% 
8% 
21% 
Assembly 
2% 
2% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
Distribution/sales office 
56% 
59% 
47% 
50% 
41% 
67% 
72% 
50% 
After-sales office 
4% 
2% 
2% 
25% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
6% 
Service delivery 
13% 
11% 
12% 
13% 
24% 
5% 
16% 
15% 
Research, product or process development 
2% 
2% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
2% 
Don't know 
4% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
6% 
8% 
0% 
5% 

## 5.1 Number Of Modes

In terms of the number of modes that companies utilised, most typically this was one 
(33%) or two (41%). Larger and older companies were more likely to adopt more 
modes for conducting international business. 
 
Table 120: Number of modes 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One 
  
33% 
44% 
43% 
22% 
16% 
28% 
17% 
13% 
Two 
  
41% 
37% 
42% 
52% 
38% 
50% 
43% 
28% 
Three 
  
19% 
14% 
12% 
22% 
27% 
17% 
31% 
41% 
Four or more 
  
7% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
19% 
5% 
9% 
19% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding the number of modes they utilise for conducting international business.  Non-IP active companies were more likely than IP active companies to adopt a single mode for selling internationally with around half (47%) of non-IP active firms using only one mode compared to around one fifth (19%) of IP active firms. Over a third (37%) of IP active firms used at least three modes of internationalisation, but only 
about one in seven (15%) non-IP active firms used as many modes.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One mode 
  
19% 
28% 
23% 
6% 
15% 
20% 
11% 
10% 
Two modes 
  
44% 
44% 
50% 
65% 
35% 
54% 
43% 
24% 
Three modes 
  
26% 
19% 
21% 
24% 
31% 
19% 
38% 
45% 
Four or more modes  
11% 
9% 
6% 
6% 
19% 
8% 
8% 
22% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One mode 
  
47% 
58% 
53% 
50% 
18% 
36% 
29% 
24% 
Two modes 
  
38% 
31% 
37% 
30% 
45% 
46% 
43% 
40% 
Three modes 
  
12% 
10% 
7% 
20% 
18% 
15% 
19% 
28% 
Four or more modes  
3% 
1% 
3% 
0% 
18% 
2% 
10% 
8% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding the number of modes they utilise for conducting international business. Non-
UKTI users were more likely than UKTI users to adopt a single mode for international 
trade (45% vs 28%). 
 
Table 122: Number of modes by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One mode 
  
28% 
33% 
37% 
28% 
21% 
27% 
15% 
13% 
Two modes 
  
44% 
44% 
49% 
44% 
42% 
51% 
48% 
28% 
Three modes 
  
21% 
17% 
11% 
22% 
21% 
18% 
30% 
41% 
Four or more modes  
7% 
6% 
3% 
6% 
17% 
5% 
7% 
19% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One mode 
  
45% 
59% 
50% 
11% 
8% 
31% 
25% 
17% 
Two modes 
  
33% 
28% 
32% 
67% 
31% 
48% 
25% 
25% 
Three modes 
  
16% 
10% 
13% 
22% 
38% 
14% 
33% 
42% 
Four or more modes  
6% 
3% 
5% 
0% 
23% 
7% 
17% 
17% 

6. 
     DRIVERS OF GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS 
      
     All companies were asked to nominate 'the most challenging country' in which they 
     had done business and to focus their attention on one mode in that market for the 
     sections of the interview relating to drivers of market and barriers. In those instances 
     where the respondent was not able to identify a single, 'challenging' market the 
     interviewer proceeded to ask them to focus on the one they had started doing business in 
     most recently.  
      
     With specific reference to the respondent's selected challenging market, interviewers 
     read out the following statement: 
      

"I'm going to read out some of the individual circumstances that other 
firms have found themselves in when looking at doing business in 
specific overseas locations and I'd like you to tell me the extent to which 
each one applied to you when you were FIRST CONSIDERING doing 
business < in country>." 

 
All companies were read out a list of five statements, which were randomised to prevent 
order bias, and asked to rate each one on a 5-point scale where 1 meant 'not at all 
applicable' and 5 meant 'completely applicable'.  The following table is a summary of 
those who said either 'applicable' or 'completely applicable' to these statements (i.e. 
gave a score of 4 or 5).  
 
Responses were similar to those of the 2008 survey sample with the highest proportion 
of companies indicating that they had received an approach from someone in the 
market, or had identified internally that the country offered a potential opportunity.  
 
Firms which had been established for at least 6 years and had over 50 employees were 
more likely to indicate that they had identified internally that a market offered an 
opportunity than to have received an approach. This suggests that as firms become more 
experienced (older firms were more likely to have had more export experience in terms 
of the number of years exporting) they become more pro-active and less reactive when 
selecting a market. 
 
In this table and the two subsequent tables on 'drivers of market' the 'none applicable' 
refers to those companies that did not give either an 'applicable' or a 'completely 
applicable' rating to any of these five statements on drivers of market. 
 
Table 123: Drivers of market  

 % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Received an approach  
55% 
57% 
56% 
56% 
54% 
59% 
52% 
42% 
Suggested  by someone external to the company  
23% 
23% 
26% 
26% 
24% 
21% 
19% 
21% 
Someone within the company who already had experience 
26% 
32% 
25% 
33% 
24% 
20% 
14% 
31% 
Considering a number  of countries  
19% 
17% 
19% 
37% 
14% 
18% 
22% 
20% 
Identified internally as potential opportunity 
52% 
48% 
52% 
59% 
57% 
48% 
57% 
58% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
13% 
14% 
11% 
4% 
8% 
14% 
14% 
16% 

 
IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to have identified 
internally that the selected country had offered a potential opportunity. They were also 
more likely to have considered a number of markets at the time and to have decided to 
focus on the market in question. This suggests that IP active firms are more strategic 
when selecting a market than non-IP active firms. 
 
Table 124: Drivers of market by IP activity 

Up to 
  % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
5 
Total 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Received an approach  
50% 
55% 
53% 
41% 
46% 
56% 
49% 
39% 
Suggested  by someone external to the company  
25% 
26% 
26% 
35% 
27% 
24% 
22% 
23% 
Someone within the company who already had experience 
26% 
34% 
20% 
35% 
27% 
20% 
16% 
31% 
Considering a number of countries  
23% 
24% 
26% 
35% 
12% 
19% 
30% 
24% 
Identified internally as potential opportunity 
58% 
57% 
61% 
82% 
58% 
48% 
59% 
61% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
  
12% 
10% 
11% 
6% 
8% 
14% 
14% 
13% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non- IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Received an approach  
59% 
59% 
58% 
80% 
73% 
62% 
57% 
52% 
Suggested  by someone external to the company  
21% 
21% 
26% 
10% 
18% 
18% 
14% 
16% 
Someone within the company who already had experience 
26% 
30% 
28% 
30% 
18% 
20% 
10% 
28% 
Considering a number of countries  
14% 
11% 
15% 
40% 
18% 
17% 
10% 
8% 
Identified internally as potential opportunity 
45% 
40% 
47% 
20% 
55% 
47% 
52% 
48% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
  
14% 
16% 
11% 
0% 
9% 
14% 
14% 
24% 

 UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to have identified internally that the selected country had offered a potential opportunity (55% vs 44%). They were also more likely to have considered a number of markets at the time and to have decided to focus on the market in question (23% vs 10%). This suggests that like IP-active firms, users of UKTI services are more likely to have been strategic when selecting a market. 

Up to 
  % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Received an approach  
56% 
59% 
55% 
61% 
54% 
59% 
59% 
45% 
Suggested  by someone external to the company  
23% 
24% 
26% 
22% 
29% 
21% 
20% 
22% 
Someone within the company who already had experience 
27% 
34% 
27% 
33% 
29% 
21% 
17% 
32% 
Considering a number of countries  
23% 
23% 
25% 
44% 
13% 
19% 
26% 
23% 
Identified internally as potential opportunity 
55% 
54% 
53% 
67% 
67% 
51% 
59% 
57% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
  
10% 
9% 
9% 
0% 
4% 
13% 
9% 
16% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Received an approach  
53% 
55% 
58% 
44% 
54% 
57% 
25% 
17% 
Suggested  by someone external to the company  
23% 
23% 
25% 
33% 
15% 
21% 
17% 
17% 
Someone within the company who already had experience 
23% 
29% 
23% 
33% 
15% 
17% 
0% 
17% 
Considering a number of countries  
10% 
9% 
10% 
22% 
15% 
12% 
8% 
0% 
Identified internally as potential opportunity 
44% 
40% 
50% 
44% 
38% 
36% 
50% 
67% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
  
18% 
20% 
14% 
11% 
15% 
19% 
33% 
17% 

 
These drivers were summarised into three categories: serendipity and networks; 
independent analysis and solely reactive. The definitions of these are set out in the table 
below.  
 
Table 126: Definition of networks and serendipity, independent analysis and solely 
reactive 

Companies have been defined as being motivated to a significant extent by 
'networks & serendipity' if they scored 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 
- 
- 

Received an approach from someone in the market Or, it had been suggested to them by an external source that the market might 
offer them an opportunity 
- Or, Someone in the company already had connections in that market 
 
Firms have been defined as being motivated to a significant extent by 'independent 
analysis' if they scored 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 
- 
Had been considering a number of markets and decided to focus on this one 
- 
Or, Identified internally that the market offered a potential opportunity for them 
 
Firms have been defined as **'solely reactive'** if… 
 
- They score 4 or 5 for 'received an approach from someone in the market' - 
But did not score 3, 4 or 5 for having connections, considering a number of 
markets or internal identification of an opportunity. 

 
Nearly three quarters (74%) of companies indicated that 'networks and serendipity' 
played a vital role which strongly indicates the prominent role played by existing 
contacts and the element of chance when companies conduct business overseas. Overall 
these results are very comparable to the 2008 survey, although the proportion of sample 
firms agreeing that 'networks and serendipity' was a driver of geographical focus is 
slightly lower than the 81% in the 2008 survey sample. 
 
Table 127: Summary of drivers of market 
  
                                                                                     6-10 years 
                                                                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and serendipity  
74% 
77% 
77% 
81% 
76% 
74% 
66% 
65% 
Independent analysis 
  
55% 
51% 
55% 
67% 
59% 
50% 
60% 
62% 
Solely reactive 
  
13% 
14% 
13% 
15% 
5% 
18% 
10% 
5% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these 
factors  
13% 
14% 
11% 
4% 
8% 
14% 
14% 
16% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies with regards to each of these drivers of market. Independent analysis is more 
prevalent among IP active companies than non-IP active companies (61% vs 49%). IP 
active firms were also less likely to be solely reactive than non-IP active firms (9% and 
17% respectively). This suggests that IP active companies are more considered than 
non-IP active firms when selecting an overseas market. 
 
Table 128: Summary of drivers of market by IP activity 
  
                                                                                      6-10 years 
                                                                                                                              10+ years 

Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and serendipity 
  
72% 
77% 
72% 
71% 
73% 
74% 
68% 
65% 
Independent analysis 
  
61% 
59% 
64% 
82% 
58% 
52% 
62% 
65% 
Solely reactive 
  
9% 
13% 
8% 
0% 
4% 
14% 
11% 
4% 
Not  significantly driven by any of 
these factors  
12% 
10% 
11% 
6% 
8% 
14% 
14% 
13% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and serendipity 
  
76% 
77% 
80% 
100% 
82% 
74% 
62% 
64% 
Independent analysis 
  
49% 
44% 
50% 
40% 
64% 
48% 
57% 
52% 
Solely reactive 
  
17% 
15% 
16% 
40% 
9% 
22% 
10% 
8% 
Not  significantly driven by any of 
these factors  
14% 
16% 
11% 
0% 
9% 
14% 
14% 
24% 

 There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users with regards to 'networks and serendipity' and independent analysis.  Independent analysis is much more prevalent among UKTI users than non-UKTI users (59% vs 46%). UKTI users are only slightly less likely to be solely reactive than non-UKTI users (11% and 17% respectively). These findings are broadly consistent with results from PIMS users and non-user survey although these surveys also find that PIMS users are less likely than non-users to report 'networks and serendipity' as drivers of market choice. The difference between the two groups is less marked in this 2009 survey.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and serendipity 
  
76% 
81% 
77% 
83% 
79% 
75% 
72% 
69% 
Independent analysis 
  
59% 
57% 
59% 
78% 
67% 
53% 
63% 
61% 
Solely reactive 
  
11% 
13% 
9% 
11% 
4% 
16% 
11% 
5% 
Not  significantly driven by any of 
these factors  
10% 
9% 
9% 
0% 
4% 
13% 
9% 
16% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Networks and serendipity 
  
70% 
70% 
77% 
78% 
69% 
71% 
42% 
33% 
Independent analysis 
  
46% 
43% 
50% 
44% 
46% 
38% 
50% 
67% 
Solely reactive 
  
17% 
15% 
19% 
22% 
8% 
26% 
8% 
0% 
Not  significantly driven by any of 
these factors  
18% 
20% 
14% 
11% 
15% 
19% 
33% 
17% 

 
The following table depicts the comparable data from the 2008 PIMS non-user survey 
and PIMS 7-10. 
 
Table 130: Comparison of drivers of market choice by UKTI usage with client profiles 
from PIMS 7-10 and the 2008 and 2009 PIMS Non-user surveys 
 
                                                                                                     Total 

| PIMS                                              | PIMS    |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------|
| UKTI                                              | Users   |
| UKTI                                              |         |
|                                                   |         |
|                                                   |         |
| Users                                             |         |
| PIMS                                              | PIMS 7- |
| users                                             |         |
| Non-                                              |         |
| users                                             |         |
| Non-                                              |         |
| users                                             |         |
| Non-                                              |         |
| users                                             | 12-15   |
| 2009                                              | 2008    |
| Base                                              |         |
| 290                                               | 621     |
| UKTI users                                        |         |
|                                                   |         |
| 100%                                              | 100%    |
| Networks and serendipity                          |         |
| 76%                                               | 70%     |
| Independent analysis                              |         |
|                                                   |         |
| 59%                                               | 46%     |
| Solely reactive                                   |         |
|                                                   |         |
| 11%                                               | 17%     |
| Not  significantly driven by any of these factors |         |
|                                                   |         |
| 10%                                               | 18%     |

## 6.1 Market Perceptions

Firms were also asked a series of questions about their perceptions of their chosen market in respect to a number of characteristics (covering the ease of doing business there, perceptions on levels of demand/costs and levels of risk). Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant 'very easy' and 5 meant 'very difficult', how easy or difficult it has been or that they expected it to be to do business in the nominated country.  Some of the statements were relevant only to certain modes of internationalisation and were only read to firms which had reported using the relevant mode eg ease of finding a suitable partner was only relevant to those where the mode involved some form of partnership.  Thus, the bases here reflect those for whom the mode was relevant. Again all statements were randomised to prevent order bias. The scale used differs slightly from that used in the 2008 survey in that a semantic, rather than numeric scale was used in 2008. In 2008, respondents were asked to indicate whether the issue in question had been very easy, fairly easy, average, fairly hard or very hard.  As indicated above, the current survey used a numeric scale. 

 

The majority of companies found each of these aspects of conducting business overseas 
to be either 'fairly easy' or 'very easy'. For the majority of companies, understanding 
the financial risk (75%) in the selected country posed a low risk.   
 
Table 131: Summary of drivers of market  

 % Not scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of finding customers  
64% 
67% 
64% 
63% 
76% 
64% 
50% 
63% 
Base 
 
332 
77 
79 
13 
12 
79 
24 
48 
 
Ease of finding suitable partner  
 
54% 
56% 
57% 
46% 
42% 
51% 
42% 
60% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of negotiating the legal and regulatory framework or standards 
54% 
57% 
61% 
48% 
46% 
50% 
52% 
47% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of negotiating the culture and language 
71% 
75% 
75% 
85% 
73% 
66% 
71% 
63% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of IP protection  
57% 
61% 
55% 
70% 
65% 
53% 
52% 
56% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
65% 
71% 
69% 
52% 
59% 
61% 
62% 
54% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Risk : getting paid and enforcing contracts 
69% 
70% 
72% 
67% 
68% 
68% 
76% 
60% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Risk: ability to make a profit 
75% 
78% 
76% 
78% 
76% 
74% 
71% 
67% 
Base 
38419
89 
104 
11 
12 
77 
29 
62 
78% 
80% 
74% 
91% 
92% 
79% 
66% 
79% 
Making any modifications to your products or services so that they are suitable for customers 
Base20
38 
11 
6 
0 
3 
4 
5 
9 
Ease of recruiting and retaining suitable staff  
66% 
91% 
67% 
0% 
33% 
75% 
40% 
56% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
5% 
3% 

## Ip Active Companies And Non-Ip Active Companies Were Most Likely To State That Understanding The Financial Risk Was Regarded As A Low Risk.

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of finding customers 
65% 
68% 
64% 
65% 
73% 
63% 
57% 
65% 
Base 
214 
49 
35 
11 
10 
50 
17 
42 
Ease of finding a suitable partner 
 
49% 
45% 
46% 
45% 
50% 
46% 
47% 
60% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
54% 
53% 
64% 
47% 
38% 
56% 
54% 
47% 
Ease of negotiating the legal and regulatory framework or standards Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of negotiating the culture and 
language 
69% 
69% 
74% 
88% 
69% 
64% 
76% 
61% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of IP protection  
60% 
64% 
58% 
71% 
58% 
62% 
59% 
55% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of logistics of doing business 
61% 
66% 
69% 
47% 
62% 
61% 
54% 
53% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
 
Risk: getting paid and enforcing contracts 
68% 
72% 
66% 
59% 
69% 
70% 
78% 
58% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
 
Risk: Ability to make a  profit  
75% 
77% 
74% 
88% 
73% 
80% 
68% 
66% 
Base 
220 
45 
44 
8 
10 
45 
22 
46 
76% 
78% 
68% 
88% 
90% 
78% 
64% 
80% 
Making any modifications to your products or services so that they are suitable for customers Base 
 
17 
3 
0 
0 
3 
1 
3 
7
Ease of recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
47% 
67% 
0% 
0% 
33% 
0% 
33% 
57%
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83
Not significantly driven by any of 
these factors 
2% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
2%
 
 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
25 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of finding customers 
63% 
65% 
64% 
60% 
82% 
66% 
38% 
56% 
Base 
118 
28 
44 
2 
2 
29 
7 
6 
Ease of finding a suitable partner 
63% 
75% 
66% 
50% 
0% 
59% 
29% 
67% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
55% 
60% 
59% 
50% 
64% 
44% 
48% 
48% 
Ease of negotiating the legal and regulatory framework or standards Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of negotiating the culture and language 
74% 
79% 
75% 
80% 
82% 
69% 
62% 
68% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of IP protection  
53% 
58% 
53% 
70% 
82% 
44% 
38% 
56% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of logistics of doing business 
68% 
75% 
69% 
60% 
55% 
62% 
76% 
56% 
Base 
454  
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Risk: getting paid and enforcing contracts 
71% 
69% 
75% 
80% 
64% 
67% 
71% 
68% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Risk: Ability to make a  profit  
75% 
80% 
77% 
60% 
82% 
69% 
76% 
68% 
Base 
164 
44 
60 
3 
2 
32 
7 
16 
80% 
82% 
78% 
100% 
100% 
81% 
71% 
75% 
Making any modifications to your products or services so that they are suitable for customers 
Base 
21 
8 
6 
0 
0 
3 
2 
2 
Ease of recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
81% 
100% 
67% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
50% 
50% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Not significantly driven by any of these factors 
3% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
10% 
4% 

 Again UKTI users and non-UKTI users were most likely to state that understanding the 
financial risk was a low risk associated with conducting business abroad. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of finding customers 
64% 
69% 
64% 
61% 
75% 
66% 
48% 
61% 
Base 
242 
46 
51 
11 
8 
65 
19 
42 
Ease of finding a suitable 
partner 
49% 
46% 
49% 
45% 
38% 
49% 
42% 
57% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
52% 
54% 
55% 
56% 
50% 
48% 
52% 
49% 
Ease of negotiating the legal and regulatory  
framework or standards Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of negotiating the culture and language 
70% 
73% 
71% 
89% 
79% 
63% 
72% 
66% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of IP protection  
57% 
61% 
52% 
61% 
75% 
55% 
59% 
58% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of logistics of doing 
business 
62% 
69% 
66% 
50% 
58% 
60% 
61% 
52% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Risk: Getting paid and 
enforcing contracts 
69% 
73% 
74% 
61% 
67% 
67% 
78% 
58% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Risk: Ability to make a profit  
 
75% 
76% 
80% 
78% 
75% 
73% 
74% 
66% 
Base 
 
274 
58 
63 
7 
6 
61 
23 
56 
80% 
84% 
78% 
86% 
100% 
80% 
61% 
80% 
Making any modifications to your products or services so that 
they are suitable for customers 
Base 
 
23 
4 
3 
0 
1 
4 
4 
7 
Recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
61% 
100% 
67% 
0% 
0% 
75% 
50% 
43% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Not significantly driven by any 
of these factors 
2% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
4% 
2% 
 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of finding customers 
64% 
63% 
64% 
67% 
77% 
57% 
58% 
75% 
Base 
 
90 
31 
28 
2 
4 
14 
5 
6 
Ease of finding a suitable 
partner 
67% 
71% 
71% 
50% 
50% 
57% 
40% 
5% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
60% 
60% 
69% 
33% 
38% 
57% 
50% 
33% 
Ease of negotiating the legal and regulatory  
framework or standards 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of negotiating the culture 
and language 
76% 
76% 
80% 
78% 
62% 
79% 
67% 
42% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of IP protection  
56% 
59% 
59% 
89% 
46% 
48% 
25% 
33% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of logistics of doing 
business 
71% 
74% 
73% 
56% 
62% 
64% 
67% 
67% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
 
69% 
66% 
69% 
78% 
69% 
74% 
67% 
75% 
Risk: Getting paid and enforcing contracts Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Risk: Ability to make a profit  
 
75% 
81% 
69% 
78% 
77% 
79% 
58% 
75% 
Base 
 
110 
31 
41 
4 
6 
16 
6 
6 
73% 
71% 
68% 
100% 
83% 
75% 
83% 
67% 
Making any modifications to your products or services so that 
they are suitable for customers Base 
15 
7 
3 
0 
2 
0 
1 
2 
Recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
73% 
86% 
67% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Not significantly driven by any 
of these factors 
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
8% 
8% 

## 6.2 Market Perceptions: Summary

The eight elements of conducting overseas business have been summarised into the 
following five market perceptions.   
 
Table 134: Market perceptions summary 

Companies have been defined as perceiving the market favourably with respect to 
'contacts' if they do not score 4 (fairly hard) or 5 (very hard) on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- Ease of finding customers - And, the ease of finding a suitable partner 

 
Firms have been defined as perceiving the market favourably with respect to 
'practicalities' if they do not score 4 (fairly hard) or 5 (very hard) on a 5-point scale 
for… 
 

- Ease of negotiating the legal & regulatory framework or standards - And, the ease of dealing with the logistics of doing business - And, the ease of making product/service modifications (including those 
making no product/service modifications) 

 
Firms have been defined as perceiving the market favourably with respect to 
'language & culture' if they do not score 4 (fairly hard) or 5 (very hard) on a 5-point 
scale for… 
 

- Ease of negotiating the culture and language 

 
Firms have been defined as perceiving the market favourably with respect to 'risk & 
IP' if they do not score 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for … 
 

- Ease of protecting your Intellectual Property (not 4 (fairly hard) or 5 (very 
hard)) 
- And, risk of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts (not 4 (fairly high 
risk) or 5 (very high risk)) 
- And, the financial risk in terms of ensuring a return on investment (not 4 
(fairly high risk) or 5 (very high risk)) 

 
Firms have been defined as perceiving the market favourably with respect to 
'resources' if they scored as follows… 
 

- Ease of recruiting and retaining suitable staff (not 4 (fairly hard) or 5 (very 
hard). 
 It is apparent from the following table that, as in 2008, 'language and culture' plays a key role in international business and that it can be an especially pertinent consideration for younger companies. In the following three tables the 'Not Applicable' category refers to those who have not selected a score of 1-3 (ie very easy - average) to any of the questions relating to conducting business overseas. Furthermore, for each of these tables the bases refer to the number of respondents who were asked the question, that is based on routing, rather than the overall sample. 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Contacts 
  
13% 
12% 
14% 
11% 
11% 
15% 
7% 
18% 
Base 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Practicalities 
  
14% 
13% 
17% 
7% 
14% 
13% 
14% 
14% 
Base 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Language and culture 
  
71% 
75% 
75% 
85% 
73% 
66% 
71% 
63% 
Base 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Risk and IP 
  
36% 
40% 
39% 
44% 
38% 
30% 
36% 
29% 
Base21
 
38 
11 
6 
0 
3 
4 
5 
9 
Resources 
  
66% 
91% 
67% 
0% 
33% 
75% 
40% 
56% 
Base 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
16% 
14% 
14% 
7% 
11% 
19% 
16% 
25% 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 

                                                 
21 Note that these are very small base sizes since only respondents answering about overseas sites were asked this question. Take great care when interpreting these results. 

 Whilst issues of 'language and culture' were important for both IP active and non-IP 
active companies, it was more an issue for non-IP active companies. 
 
 % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Contacts 
 
16% 
14% 
17% 
18% 
15% 
18% 
5% 
18% 
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Practicalities 
 
14% 
13% 
19% 
6% 
12% 
16% 
11% 
13% 
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Language and culture 
 
69% 
69% 
74% 
88% 
69% 
64% 
76% 
61% 
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Risk and IP 
 
35% 
36% 
37% 
41% 
38% 
37% 
38% 
29% 
Base22
 
17 
3 
0%  
0% 
3 
1 
3 
7 
Resources 
 
47% 
67% 
0%  
0% 
33% 
- 
33% 
57% 
Base 
 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Not  significantly driven by any 
of these factors 
18% 
17% 
14% 
6% 
15% 
21% 
14% 
24% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Contacts 
 
11% 
10% 
12% 
0% 
0% 
12% 
10% 
16% 
Base 
 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Practicalities 
 
14% 
13% 
16% 
10% 
18% 
9% 
19% 
16% 
Base 
 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Language and culture 
 
74% 
79% 
75% 
80% 
82% 
69% 
62% 
68% 
Base 
 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Risk and IP 
 
37% 
44% 
40% 
50% 
36% 
23% 
33% 
28% 
Base23
 
21 
8 
6 
0%  
0% 
3 
2 
2 
Resources 
 
81% 
100% 
67% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Not  significantly driven by any 
of these factors 
15% 
12% 
14% 
10% 
 0% 
18% 
19% 
28% 

 
Similarly, whilst issues of 'language and culture' were important for both UKTI users 
and non-UKTI users, it was more an issue for non-UKTI users. 
 

                                                 

 % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Contacts 
 
13% 
9% 
13% 
17% 
8% 
15% 
9% 
16% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Practicalities 
 
14% 
15% 
15% 
6% 
13% 
12% 
11% 
16% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Language and culture 
 
70% 
73% 
71% 
89% 
79% 
63% 
72% 
66% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Risk and IP 
 
36% 
39% 
39% 
33% 
42% 
31% 
46% 
28% 
Base24
 
23 
4 
3 
0% 
1 
4 
4 
7 
Resources 
 
61% 
100% 
67% 
0% 
0%  
75% 
50% 
43% 
Base 
 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
 
17% 
14% 
17% 
6% 
4% 
22% 
11% 
24% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Contacts 
 
15% 
16% 
15% 
0% 
15% 
14% 
0% 
33% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Practicalities 
 
16% 
11% 
21% 
11% 
15% 
17% 
25% 
0% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Language and culture 
 
76% 
76% 
80% 
78% 
62% 
79% 
67% 
42% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Risk and IP 
 
37% 
43% 
38% 
67% 
31% 
29% 
0% 
33% 
Base25
 
15 
7 
3 
0% 
2  
0% 
1 
2 
Resources 
 
73% 
86% 
67% 
0% 
 50% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Base 
 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Not  significantly driven by any of these factors 
 
14% 
14% 
11% 
11% 
23% 
10% 
33% 
33% 

                                                 

7. 
     BARRIERS 
      
     All respondents were asked to think not about their own company but about the 
     difficulties or problems that a firm in a similar position to themselves in terms of size, 
     sector and structure might face doing business in the nominated country. They were 
     then read out a list of possible issues and asked to indicate the extent to which a firm 
     similar to themselves would encounter each one when trying to do business in the 
     nominated country. This type of projective questioning was employed following 
     difficulties encountered in previous studies in measuring barriers through direct 
     questioning techniques. Employing a projective technique attempts to circumvent the 
     reluctance of firms to acknowledge barriers by asking them to talk about issues that 
     other firms 'in a similar position' to them might face.   
      
     All companies were asked to provide a score in the range of 1 to 5 for the extent to 
     which they felt that specific issues were likely to be a difficulty, where 1 meant that it 
     would 'not be a problem at all' and 5 meant it would be 'extremely difficult'. The 
     statements were rotated to avoid bias with some, however, still placed in the same order. 
      
     A series of 11 potential barriers were tested with this questioning approach. The 
     following table summarises proportions scoring either a 4 or a 5 on the 5-point scale for 
     each of these elements, that is, those who said 'difficult' or 'extremely difficult'.  The 
     responses to these questions are referred to in the analysis as projected barriers, due to 
     the projective questioning technique used. 
      
     Again these questions were only put to companies for whom they were relevant. For 
     example, the question about 'problems obtaining work permits or visas for staff to allow 
     them to relocate to <market>' was only asked of those with an overseas site or office. 
     Hence, the base for this element of the question is only the subgroup that has a site or 
     office overseas.  
      
     The analysis illustrates that the greatest barrier to conducting business overseas is 
     'identifying who to make contact with in the first instance [or finding a suitable 
     partner]', with nearly half of all companies (45%) identifying this as being problematic. 
     These findings are in line with the 2008 survey. Indeed the largest discrepancy between 
     the two surveys was for 'identifying who to make contact with in the first instance [or 
     finding a suitable partner]' which in 2008 had fewer companies stating that this was 
     'difficult' or 'very difficult' (34%) compared to the 2009 survey. 
         

Total 
Up to 
 5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
6-10 years 
10+ years 
  
 % scoring 4 or 5 
  
  
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Obtaining basic information  
21% 
18% 
22% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
9% 
21% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Identifying who to make contact with  
45% 
39% 
45% 
56% 
38% 
49% 
52% 
49% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Establishing an initial dialogue  
33% 
29% 
34% 
37% 
38% 
34% 
38% 
33% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Building relationships  
37% 
36% 
36% 
44% 
49% 
34% 
36% 
42% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Cultural differences outside of any 
language barriers  
23% 
25% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
22% 
17% 
28% 
Base 
863 
222 
240 
27 
34 
191 
52 
97 
Not having  an office or site  
33% 
31% 
32% 
41% 
44% 
34% 
31% 
37% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Home bias 
28% 
25% 
29% 
41% 
22% 
23% 
40% 
32% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
The costs associated with doing business  
32% 
28% 
32% 
41% 
35% 
31% 
36% 
39% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Finding the necessary management time 
36% 
35% 
35% 
41% 
35% 
36% 
36% 
41% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Exchange rates and currency 
33% 
28% 
34% 
41% 
35% 
32% 
36% 
42% 
Base27
38 
11 
6 
0 
3 
4 
5 
9 
Problems obtaining work permits or visas 
16% 
18% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
25% 
20% 
22% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
None of these barriers significant  
14% 
19% 
14% 
11% 
8% 
13% 
10% 
10% 

Perceptions of the market (defined as being fairly difficult and very difficult) 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of negotiating framework28
36% 
34% 
28% 
41% 
54% 
39% 
38% 
44% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of negotiating language and culture  
26% 
23% 
22% 
15% 
27% 
30% 
29% 
32% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of protecting Intellectual Property  
22% 
19% 
16% 
15% 
24% 
24% 
28% 
31% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
33% 
27% 
30% 
48% 
41% 
36% 
36% 
43% 
Base29
38 
11 
6 
0 
3 
4 
5 
9 
Ease of recruiting and retaining suitable 
staff  
29% 
9% 
33% 
0% 
67% 
25% 
60% 
22% 
Base30
384 
89 
104 
11 
12 
77 
29 
62 
Ease of making modifications to your 
products or services  
19% 
18% 
19% 
9% 
8% 
19% 
34% 
16% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts 
27% 
26% 
24% 
26% 
33% 
29% 
20% 
35% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Ease of making a profit  
22% 
18% 
22% 
19% 
24% 
24% 
26% 
30% 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
None of these barriers significant   
24% 
31% 
30% 
15% 
8% 
20% 
9% 
17% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies with regards to obtaining basic information, identifying who to make contact 
with, establishing an initial dialogue, not having an office or site, having a home bias 
and exchange rates and currency. IP active companies were more likely to indicate that 
each of these difficulties or problems were apparent.  
 
Furthermore, IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to 
indicate that at least one of these was a barrier to conducting business overseas.  
 

 % scoring 4 or 5 
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Obtaining basic information  
25% 
24% 
29% 
18% 
27% 
29% 
14% 
20% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Identifying who to make contact with  
49% 
46% 
51% 
65% 
38% 
51% 
49% 
51% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Establishing an initial dialogue  
36% 
34% 
36% 
41% 
46% 
37% 
35% 
35% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Building relationships  
39% 
41% 
42% 
41% 
50% 
31% 
35% 
42% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Cultural differences outside of any 
language barriers  
25% 
28% 
28% 
18% 
23% 
19% 
11% 
31% 
Base 
437 
104 
89 
17 
23 
95 
34 
75 
Not having  an office or site   
40% 
38% 
43% 
47% 
48% 
41% 
32% 
39% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Home bias 
32% 
30% 
32% 
47% 
23% 
30% 
32% 
35% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
The costs associated with doing business   
34% 
31% 
32% 
47% 
35% 
33% 
38% 
39% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Finding the necessary management time 
39% 
45% 
38% 
47% 
31% 
34% 
32% 
42% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Exchange rates and currency 
37% 
31% 
34% 
41% 
38% 
38% 
43% 
41% 
Base31
17 
3 
0 
0 
3 
1 
3 
7 
Problems obtaining work permits or visas 
12% 
 0% 
0% 
0% 
0%  
0%  
0%  
29% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
None of these barriers significant 
9% 
9% 
11% 
6% 
8% 
8% 
8% 
11% 

                                                 

Perceptions of the market (% scoring 4 or 5) 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of negotiating framework 
40% 
40% 
33% 
41% 
62% 
37% 
43% 
45% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of negotiating language and culture  
30% 
31% 
26% 
12% 
31% 
33% 
24% 
35% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of protecting Intellectual Property  
26% 
21% 
24% 
18% 
31% 
26% 
27% 
35% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
37% 
33% 
30% 
53% 
38% 
37% 
43% 
43% 
Base32
17 
3 
0 
0 
3 
1 
3 
7 
Ease of recruiting and retaining suitable 
staff  
47% 
33% 
0% 
0% 
67% 
100% 
67% 
29% 
Base33
220 
45 
44 
8 
10 
45 
22 
46 
Ease of making modifications to your 
products or services  
20% 
18% 
23% 
13% 
10% 
22% 
36% 
13% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts 
29% 
26% 
32% 
35% 
31% 
25% 
19% 
38% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
Ease of making a profit 
23% 
19% 
25% 
12% 
27% 
18% 
29% 
30% 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
None of these barriers significant 
14% 
16% 
20% 
6% 
4% 
14% 
3% 
16% 
 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Obtaining basic information  
18% 
13% 
19% 
30% 
9% 
24% 
0%  
24% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Identifying who to make contact with  
41% 
34% 
42% 
40% 
36% 
47% 
57% 
44% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Establishing an initial dialogue  
30% 
25% 
33% 
30% 
18% 
30% 
43% 
28% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Building relationships  
34% 
31% 
33% 
50% 
45% 
36% 
38% 
40% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Cultural differences outside of any 
language barriers  
22% 
22% 
19% 
30% 
36% 
25% 
29% 
16% 
Base 
426 
118 
151 
10 
11 
96 
18 
22 
Not having  an office or site   
27% 
25% 
26% 
30% 
36% 
27% 
28% 
32% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Home bias 
24% 
21% 
26% 
30% 
18% 
17% 
52% 
24% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
The costs associated with doing business   
30% 
26% 
31% 
30% 
36% 
29% 
33% 
40% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Finding the necessary management time 
33% 
26% 
33% 
30% 
45% 
37% 
43% 
36% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Exchange rates and currency 
30% 
25% 
34% 
40% 
27% 
26% 
24% 
44% 
Base34
21 
8 
6 
0 
0 
3 
2 
2 
Problems obtaining work permits or visas 
19% 
25% 
0%  
0% 
0% 
33% 
50% 
0%  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
None of these barriers significant  
19% 
27% 
16% 
20% 
9% 
17% 
14% 
8% 

                                                 

Perceptions of the market (defined as being  fairly difficult and very difficult) 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of negotiating framework 
31% 
29% 
25% 
40% 
36% 
40% 
29% 
44% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of negotiating language and culture  
22% 
16% 
21% 
20% 
18% 
26% 
38% 
24% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of protecting Intellectual Property  
17% 
18% 
12% 
10% 
9% 
23% 
29% 
20% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
30% 
22% 
30% 
40% 
45% 
35% 
24% 
40% 
Base35
21 
8 
6 
0 
0 
3 
2 
2 
Ease of recruiting and retaining suitable 
staff  
14% 
0% 
33% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
Base36
164 
44 
60 
3 
2 
32 
7 
16 
Ease of making modifications to your 
products or services  
18% 
18% 
17% 
 0% 
0%  
16% 
29% 
25% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts 
26% 
27% 
20% 
10% 
36% 
33% 
24% 
28% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Ease of making a profit  
22% 
17% 
20% 
30% 
18% 
29% 
19% 
32% 
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
None of these barriers significant  
33% 
43% 
35% 
30% 
18% 
26% 
19% 
20% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users with regards to identifying who to make contact with, building relationships, 
cultural differences outside of any language barriers and having a home bias. UKTI 
users were more likely than non-UKTI users to indicate that at least one of these was a 
barrier to conducting business overseas. 
 

Total 
Up to  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
6-10 years 
10+ years 
  
 % scoring 4 or 5 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Obtaining basic information  
21% 
20% 
24% 
22% 
13% 
27% 
9% 
19% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Identifying who to make contact with  
49% 
44% 
49% 
72% 
46% 
49% 
50% 
51% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Establishing an initial dialogue  
35% 
30% 
39% 
44% 
42% 
32% 
39% 
32% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Building relationships  
39% 
38% 
44% 
44% 
42% 
34% 
41% 
42% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Cultural differences outside of any 
language barriers  
26% 
30% 
27% 
28% 
25% 
23% 
15% 
27% 
Base 
593 
129 
144 
18 
23 
150 
42 
87 
Not having  an office or site  
33% 
29% 
32% 
33% 
48% 
33% 
31% 
39% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Home bias 
30% 
27% 
31% 
44% 
25% 
25% 
46% 
32% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
The costs associated with doing 
business  
33% 
27% 
32% 
50% 
29% 
32% 
35% 
39% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Finding the necessary management time 
38% 
40% 
35% 
50% 
38% 
35% 
41% 
40% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Exchange rates and currency 
33% 
21% 
34% 
50% 
42% 
32% 
39% 
41% 
Base37
23 
4 
3 
0 
1 
4 
4 
7 
Problems obtaining work permits or visas 
22% 
25% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
25% 
25% 
29% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
None of these barriers significant  
11% 
19% 
7% 
 0% 
13% 
12% 
9% 
9% 

                                                 

Perceptions of the market (defined as being fairly difficult and very difficult) 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of negotiating framework 
38% 
38% 
34% 
33% 
50% 
40% 
37% 
43% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of negotiating language and 
culture  
28% 
26% 
27% 
11% 
21% 
32% 
28% 
29% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of protecting Intellectual 
Property  
22% 
19% 
19% 
22% 
17% 
23% 
24% 
30% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
36% 
31% 
32% 
50% 
42% 
36% 
37% 
44% 
Base38
23 
4 
3 
0 
1 
4 
4 
7 
Ease of recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
30% 
0%  
33% 
0% 
100% 
25% 
50% 
29% 
Base39
274 
58 
63 
7 
6 
61 
23 
56 
Ease of making modifications to 
your products or services  
18% 
14% 
17% 
14% 
0%  
20% 
39% 
14% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts 
28% 
26% 
24% 
34% 
33% 
30% 
17% 
36% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
Ease of making a profit  
23% 
20% 
17% 
23% 
25% 
25% 
22% 
31% 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
None of these barriers significant  
20% 
27% 
22% 
17% 
8% 
20% 
9% 
18% 

                                                 

 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Obtaining basic information  
21% 
16% 
21% 
22% 
38% 
24% 
8% 
42% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Identifying who to make contact with  
38% 
34% 
39% 
22% 
23% 
48% 
58% 
33% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Establishing an initial dialogue  
30% 
27% 
28% 
22% 
31% 
38% 
33% 
42% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Building relationships  
31% 
33% 
25% 
44% 
62% 
33% 
17% 
42% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Cultural differences outside of any 
language barriers  
18% 
17% 
16% 
11% 
31% 
17% 
25% 
33% 
Base 
270 
93 
96 
9 
11 
41 
10 
10 
Not having  an office or site  
34% 
33% 
32% 
56% 
36% 
37% 
30% 
20% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Home bias 
23% 
23% 
25% 
33% 
15% 
19% 
17% 
33% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
The costs associated with doing 
business  
31% 
29% 
31% 
22% 
46% 
29% 
42% 
42% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Finding the necessary management time 
32% 
28% 
34% 
22% 
31% 
38% 
17% 
50% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Exchange rates and currency 
34% 
36% 
34% 
22% 
23% 
33% 
25% 
50% 
Base40
15 
7 
3 
0 
2 
0 
1 
2 
Problems obtaining work permits or visas 
7% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
None of these barriers significant  
20% 
20% 
24% 
33% 
 0% 
14% 
17% 
17% 

                                                 

Perceptions of the market (defined as being fairly difficult and very difficult) 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of negotiating framework 
31% 
30% 
20% 
56% 
62% 
36% 
42% 
58% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of negotiating language and 
culture  
21% 
19% 
16% 
22% 
38% 
21% 
33% 
58% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of protecting Intellectual 
Property  
21% 
21% 
13% 
0%  
38% 
29% 
42% 
42% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of logistics of doing business  
28% 
22% 
27% 
44% 
38% 
36% 
33% 
33% 
Base41
15 
7 
3 
0 
2 
0 
1 
2 
Ease of recruiting and retaining 
suitable staff  
27% 
14% 
33% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
Base42
110 
31 
41 
4 
6 
16 
6 
6 
Ease of making modifications to 
your products or services  
22% 
26% 
22% 
0% 
17% 
19% 
17% 
33% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts 
26% 
27% 
25% 
11% 
30% 
24% 
33% 
25% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Ease of making a profit  
22% 
14% 
28% 
11% 
23% 
21% 
42% 
25% 
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
None of these barriers significant  
31% 
36% 
42% 
11% 
8% 
21% 
8% 
8% 

## These Projected Barriers Were Summarised Along With Barriers Captured In The Drivers Of Market Section Of The Questionnaire, Which Provided Data On 'Own Experience' Barriers Where Respondents Indicated That Something Had Been Difficult Or Very Difficult. Table 141: Barriers Summary

Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'legal & regulatory'** barriers if they scored 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- Problems obtaining work permits or visas for staff to allow them to relocate to 
<market> (projected) 
- Or, Difficulty negotiating the legal and regulatory framework or standards in 
<market> (own experience) 
- Or, Difficulty protecting Intellectual Property (own experience) - Or, Difficulty ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts (own experience) 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'contacts'** barriers if they scored 4 
or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- Identifying who to make contact with in the first instance or finding a suitable 
partner (projected) 
- Or, Establishing an initial dialogue with prospective customers or business 
partners (projected) 
- Or, Building relationships with key influencers or decision makers (projected) 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'information'** barriers if they scored 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- Obtaining basic information about doing business in <market> (projected) 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'fixed costs'** barriers if they scored 
4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- The costs associated with doing business in <market> (projected) - Or, Finding the necessary management time to devote to doing business in 
<market> (projected) 
- Or, Exchange rates and currency (projected) - Or, Not having an office or site in <market> (projected) 
- Or, Difficulty dealing with the logistics of doing business in <market> (own 
experience) 
- Or, Difficulty with staff recruitment and retention (own experience) 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'language & cultural'** barriers if they scored 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale for… 
 

-  Cultural differences outside of any language barriers (projected) -  Or, Difficulty negotiating the culture and language in <market> (own 
experience) 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving significant **'bias'** barriers if they scored 4 or 5 
on a 5-point scale for… 
 

- A bias or preference on the part of overseas customers for dealing with 
domestic firms (projected) 
- Or, A bias or preference on the part of UK customers for UK goods/call 
centres/R&D (projected). 

  
The table below shows the proportions of companies scoring against each of these 
summary categories as well as an analysis of the number of barriers mentioned (with 
this latter analysis not taking account of the market perceptions data, in order to provide 
comparability with previous research). 
 
The results follow the same pattern as the 2008 survey with fixed costs barriers and 
contacts barriers being the most important barriers, followed by legal and regulatory 
barriers.   
 
The 'legal and regulatory' category is mainly based on market perceptions data (rather 
than data specifically on barriers), covering perceptions in relation to negotiating the 
legal and regulatory framework or standards, intellectual property protection and 
contract enforcement (as well as opinions on the extent to which the obtaining of work 
permits or visas is a barrier in the case of firms with overseas sites).   
 
In the 2009 survey, with the exception of 'information', the survey sample was more 
likely to report barriers than that of 2008. In 2009, nearly eight in ten (78%) companies 
stated that 'fixed costs' were problematic in comparison to nearly two thirds (63%) in 

the 2008 survey. Similarly, in the 2009 survey around six in ten companies stated that 
legal and regulatory (58%) or contacts (61%) were barriers in comparison to under half 
in the 2008 survey (42% and 46% respectively).  Almost all companies (91%) 
mentioned at least one barrier to international trade whereas in 2008 this was just under 
eight in ten (72%). 
 
These differences are again likely to be driven by the differences in sample structure. 
Firstly, the 2009 sample contains firms which are more experienced exporters than that 
of 2008. One consequence of this, given that firms tend to enter the easiest markets first, 
moving to more difficult countries as they increase their international activities, is that a 
sample of firms which have entered more markets is more likely to include firms which 
have entered more difficult markets. Focusing questions on the most challenging market 
is therefore likely to give rise to the reporting of more barriers. 
 
A second reason may be the higher proportion of users of UKTI services (65%) than in 
the 2008 sample (35%). Previous surveys of users and non-users of UKTI services 
indicate that users are more likely to report barriers. A higher proportion of users in the 
sample are therefore likely to increase the reporting of barriers. 
 
Table 142: Barriers to conducting overseas business  
  
                                                 6-10 years 
                                                                         10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
58% 
55% 
48% 
59% 
73% 
63% 
62% 
70% 
Contacts 
  
61% 
56% 
60% 
67% 
62% 
64% 
66% 
66% 
Information 
  
21% 
18% 
22% 
22% 
22% 
27% 
9% 
21% 
Fixed costs 
  
78% 
72% 
76% 
89% 
86% 
79% 
86% 
83% 
Language and cultural  
37% 
35% 
34% 
30% 
43% 
38% 
36% 
44% 
Bias 
  
28% 
25% 
29% 
41% 
22% 
23% 
40% 
32% 
At least one barrier 
 
91% 
86% 
90% 
96% 
95% 
94% 
97% 
94% 
No significant barriers 
  
8% 
13% 
11% 
4% 
3% 
5% 
3% 
6% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies with regard to all barriers to conducting overseas business. Furthermore, IP 
active companies were more likely to identify at least one barrier to international trade 
than non-IP active companies. As with the 2008 sample, IP active firms were more 
likely to report barriers of all types.  
 
Across both groups, fixed cost barriers, contacts barriers and legal and regulatory 
barriers were the most prevalent.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
64% 
60% 
61% 
65% 
77% 
60% 
68% 
71% 
Contacts 
  
66% 
63% 
68% 
71% 
62% 
66% 
65% 
69% 
Information 
  
25% 
24% 
29% 
18% 
27% 
29% 
14% 
20% 
Fixed costs 
  
82% 
79% 
76% 
94% 
85% 
86% 
95% 
82% 
Language and cultural  
40% 
41% 
37% 
24% 
42% 
40% 
30% 
48% 
Bias 
  
32% 
30% 
32% 
47% 
23% 
30% 
32% 
35% 
At least one barrier 
 
95% 
94% 
93% 
100% 
96% 
97% 
100% 
94% 
No significant barriers 
  
5% 
6% 
9% 
0% 
4% 
4% 
0% 
7% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
52% 
51% 
40% 
50% 
64% 
66% 
52% 
68% 
Contacts 
  
56% 
50% 
55% 
60% 
64% 
62% 
67% 
56% 
Information 
  
18% 
13% 
19% 
30% 
9% 
24% 
0% 
24% 
Fixed costs 
  
73% 
67% 
75% 
80% 
91% 
72% 
71% 
88% 
Language and cultural  
34% 
29% 
33% 
40% 
45% 
36% 
48% 
32% 
Bias 
  
24% 
21% 
26% 
30% 
18% 
17% 
52% 
24% 
At least one barrier 
  
87% 
80% 
88% 
90% 
91% 
91% 
90% 
96% 
No significant barriers 
  
11% 
19% 
12% 
10% 
0% 
6% 
10% 
0% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users with regards to contacts, language and culture, and bias. UKTI users were more 
likely to identify at least one barrier to international trade than non-UKTI users. As with 
the 2008 sample, UKTI users were more likely to report barriers of all types. Across 
both groups, fixed cost barriers, contacts barriers and legal and regulatory barriers were 
the most prevalent. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
60% 
57% 
53% 
61% 
71% 
61% 
57% 
70% 
Contacts 
  
65% 
59% 
68% 
78% 
63% 
64% 
67% 
68% 
Information 
  
21% 
20% 
24% 
22% 
13% 
27% 
9% 
19% 
Fixed costs 
  
79% 
72% 
78% 
89% 
88% 
80% 
89% 
83% 
Language and cultural  
41% 
40% 
42% 
33% 
42% 
40% 
37% 
43% 
Bias 
  
30% 
27% 
31% 
44% 
25% 
25% 
46% 
32% 
At least one barrier 
 
93% 
87% 
95% 
100% 
92% 
94% 
98% 
95% 
No significant barriers 
  
6% 
12% 
5% 
0% 
4% 
5% 
2% 
5% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Legal and regulatory  
54% 
52% 
40% 
56% 
77% 
69% 
83% 
75% 
Contacts 
  
53% 
51% 
49% 
44% 
62% 
64% 
58% 
50% 
Information 
  
21% 
16% 
21% 
22% 
38% 
24% 
8% 
42% 
Fixed costs 
  
74% 
73% 
72% 
89% 
85% 
74% 
75% 
83% 
Language and cultural  
29% 
28% 
23% 
22% 
46% 
31% 
33% 
58% 
Bias 
  
23% 
23% 
25% 
33% 
15% 
19% 
17% 
33% 
At least one barrier 
 
87% 
86% 
82% 
89% 
100% 
93% 
92% 
92% 
No significant barriers 
  
13% 
14% 
19% 
11% 
0% 
7% 
8% 
8% 

 
In terms of the number of barriers mentioned by companies these are similar to last 
year. However in the 2008 survey just two in ten (21%) indicated that they had 
experienced no significant barriers to conducting international business whilst in 2009 
this has reduced to one in seven (14%).   
 
Table 145: The number of barriers to conducting overseas business 
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                 10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One 
12% 
11% 
13% 
11% 
11% 
14% 
7% 
10% 
Two 
14% 
16% 
15% 
15% 
22% 
12% 
16% 
12% 
Three 
17% 
16% 
14% 
19% 
11% 
19% 
24% 
19% 
Four or more 
43% 
39% 
44% 
44% 
49% 
42% 
43% 
49% 
At least  one barrier  
86% 
81% 
86% 
89% 
92% 
87% 
90% 
90% 
No significant barriers 
14% 
19% 
14% 
11% 
8% 
13% 
10% 
10% 

 
IP active companies were more likely to indicate significant barriers to conducting 
international business than non-IP active companies.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to  
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
100% 
100% 
One 
9% 
9% 
9% 
6% 
8% 
11% 
5% 
7% 
Two 
15% 
18% 
11% 
18% 
19% 
12% 
24% 
12% 
Three 
18% 
16% 
18% 
24% 
12% 
22% 
16% 
18% 
Four or more 
49% 
48% 
51% 
47% 
54% 
46% 
46% 
52% 
At least  one barrier 
91% 
91% 
89% 
94% 
92% 
92% 
92% 
89% 
No significant barriers 
9% 
9% 
11% 
6% 
8% 
8% 
8% 
11% 


Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
100% 
100% 
One 
15% 
12% 
16% 
20% 
18% 
17% 
10% 
20% 
Two 
14% 
14% 
17% 
10% 
27% 
11% 
0% 
12% 
Three 
15% 
16% 
12% 
10% 
9% 
16% 
38% 
20% 
Four or more 
37% 
32% 
40% 
40% 
36% 
38% 
38% 
40% 
At least  one barrier  
81% 
73% 
84% 
80% 
91% 
83% 
86% 
92% 
No significant barriers 
19% 
27% 
16% 
20% 
9% 
17% 
14% 
8% 

 
UKTI users were more likely to indicate significant barriers to conducting international 
business than non-UKTI users.  
 
Table 147: The number of barriers to conducting overseas business by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One 
12% 
7% 
14% 
11% 
8% 
16% 
9% 
10% 
Two 
13% 
13% 
16% 
17% 
17% 
12% 
11% 
13% 
Three 
18% 
20% 
14% 
28% 
8% 
18% 
24% 
20% 
Four or more 
46% 
41% 
49% 
44% 
54% 
43% 
48% 
48% 
At least  one barrier  
89% 
81% 
93% 
100% 
87% 
88% 
91% 
91% 
No significant barriers 
11% 
19% 
7% 
0% 
13% 
12% 
9% 
9% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
One 
12% 
15% 
13% 
11% 
15% 
10% 
0% 
8% 
Two 
17% 
20% 
13% 
11% 
31% 
12% 
33% 
8% 
Three 
14% 
10% 
15% 
0% 
15% 
24% 
25% 
8% 
Four or more 
37% 
36% 
36% 
44% 
38% 
40% 
25% 
58% 
At least  one barrier 
80% 
80% 
76% 
67% 
100% 
86% 
83% 
83% 
No significant barriers 
20% 
20% 
24% 
33% 
0% 
14% 
17% 
17% 

## 8. Opportunities In Emerging And Fast Growing 8.1 Opportunities In Emerging And Fast Growing Markets

All companies were asked to indicate if they considered that a range of emerging 
markets offered a 'good opportunity' for their company over the next 2 years, a 
'possible opportunity', or if it was 'unlikely to be an opportunity' or if they were 
'already doing business there'. 
 
In the 2009 survey sample, the highest proportion of firms were in Saudi Arabia (42%), 
followed by China (33%), India (32%) and South Africa (32%). These were somewhat 
higher proportions in each market than found in the 2008 sample, and there was also a 
greater difference between the proportions in the most, and second most popular 
markets. In 2008 the sample firms were most likely to report being in India (19%), 
Saudi Arabia (18%) or China (17%).  
 
Table 148: Opinions on the opportunities in emerging and fast growing markets 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Russia 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already doing business  
26% 
24% 
17% 
52% 
30% 
28% 
22% 
43% 
Good opportunity  
9% 
10% 
8% 
4% 
11% 
11% 
19% 
6% 
Possible opportunity  
26% 
30% 
29% 
22% 
19% 
22% 
33% 
22% 
Unlikely 
  
37% 
35% 
46% 
19% 
41% 
38% 
26% 
28% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Turkey 


Already doing business  
28% 
21% 
19% 
33% 
38% 
32% 
34% 
50% 
Good opportunity  
9% 
8% 
9% 
4% 
11% 
11% 
12% 
5% 
Possible opportunity  
25% 
29% 
26% 
22% 
19% 
22% 
26% 
22% 
Unlikely 
  
37% 
41% 
45% 
37% 
30% 
34% 
28% 
23% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
4% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
South Africa 


Already doing business  
32% 
26% 
20% 
48% 
32% 
32% 
57% 
53% 
Good opportunity  
9% 
10% 
9% 
7% 
8% 
8% 
10% 
6% 
Possible opportunity  
24% 
24% 
29% 
15% 
24% 
28% 
17% 
15% 
Unlikely 
  
34% 
39% 
41% 
26% 
32% 
32% 
16% 
26% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
2% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Saudi Arabia 


Already doing business  
42% 
37% 
30% 
52% 
51% 
47% 
52% 
64% 
Good opportunity  
14% 
16% 
12% 
22% 
11% 
15% 
16% 
11% 
Possible opportunity  
19% 
23% 
24% 
11% 
22% 
17% 
12% 
10% 
Unlikely 
  
24% 
23% 
33% 
11% 
16% 
21% 
21% 
15% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
2% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Brazil 


Already doing business  
18% 
14% 
10% 
19% 
32% 
20% 
22% 
37% 
Good opportunity  
8% 
6% 
11% 
7% 
11% 
7% 
12% 
6% 
Possible opportunity  
25% 
22% 
23% 
30% 
30% 
28% 
29% 
25% 
Unlikely 
  
47% 
56% 
53% 
37% 
24% 
45% 
36% 
32% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
2% 
7% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
 
 
Mexico 


Already doing business  
15% 
14% 
6% 
19% 
24% 
16% 
17% 
31% 
Good opportunity  
7% 
5% 
6% 
15% 
8% 
9% 
10% 
6% 
Possible opportunity 
21% 
17% 
23% 
19% 
16% 
22% 
24% 
23% 
Unlikely 
  
55% 
63% 
62% 
41% 
49% 
50% 
48% 
36% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
2% 
7% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
3% 
China 


Already doing business  
33% 
25% 
23% 
33% 
46% 
37% 
43% 
51% 
Good opportunity  
9% 
10% 
8% 
4% 
11% 
8% 
12% 
11% 
Possible opportunity  
15% 
15% 
17% 
19% 
11% 
15% 
9% 
12% 
Unlikely 
  
43% 
49% 
51% 
37% 
30% 
39% 
36% 
26% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
7% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
India 


Already doing business  
32% 
25% 
20% 
33% 
35% 
35% 
52% 
54% 
Good opportunity  
12% 
14% 
12% 
4% 
16% 
10% 
10% 
15% 
Possible opportunity  
21% 
24% 
22% 
30% 
22% 
22% 
12% 
13% 
Unlikely 
  
34% 
36% 
45% 
26% 
24% 
33% 
26% 
19% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
7% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 

## The Results From The 2009 Survey Have Also Been Summarised As Follows: Table 149: Summary Of Opportunities In Emerging And Fast Growing Markets They Are Already In At Least One Emerging/Fast Growing Market Firms Have Been Defined As **'Already In'** If… •

 
Firms have been defined as perceiving a **'good opportunity'** if… 
 

Not already in any of the emerging/fast growing markets But feel that at least one is a 'good' opportunity 

- • 
 
Firms have been defined as perceiving a **'possible opportunity'** if… 
 

Not already in any of the emerging/fast growing markets Feel that none of the markets are a 'good' opportunity But feel that at least one is a 'possible' opportunity 

- • - 
 
Firms have been defined as **'unlikely'** if… 
 

Not already in any of the emerging/fast growing markets And feel that none of the markets are either a 'good' or 'possible' opportunity. 

- • 

  
The table below depicts the results of this analysis. A comparison of the 2008 and 2009 
survey reveals that seven in ten companies (70%) in the 2009 survey sample are 
'already in' these emerging markets, compared to almost half (45%) in 2008 sample. 
The proportion of firms in the 2009 survey sample which indicated that they considered 
that all of the emerging markets listed were 'unlikely' to offer market opportunities 
(6%) was also half that of the 2008 survey sample (12%). These differences are likely to 

be due to a higher proportion of experienced firms in the 2009 sample and the higher 
proportion of UKTI users in the sample than that of 2008. 
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
70% 
65% 
59% 
74% 
73% 
79% 
76% 
82% 
Good opportunity 
  
12% 
10% 
14% 
15% 
14% 
10% 
17% 
11% 
Possible opportunity 
  
12% 
15% 
16% 
0% 
14% 
8% 
7% 
5% 
Unlikely 
  
6% 
9% 
11% 
7% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Just over three quarters (76%) of IP active companies reported already being in these 
markets compared to  just under two thirds (63%) of non-IP active companies. 
Furthermore, the propensity to be 'already in' these markets is greater for larger and 
older companies.  A lower proportion of IP active (2%) than non-IP active (10%) firms 
indicated that they considered emerging markets to be unlikely to offer market 
opportunities. 
 
Table 151: Summary of the opportunities in emerging and fast growing markets by IP 
activity 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
76% 
76% 
67% 
82% 
77% 
76% 
84% 
83% 
Good opportunity 
  
12% 
7% 
16% 
12% 
12% 
12% 
14% 
13% 
Possible opportunity 
  
9% 
14% 
14% 
0% 
12% 
9% 
3% 
2% 
Unlikely 
  
2% 
4% 
3% 
6% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
1% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
63% 
57% 
54% 
60% 
64% 
82% 
62% 
80% 
Good opportunity 
  
12% 
13% 
13% 
20% 
18% 
8% 
24% 
4% 
Possible opportunity 
  
14% 
16% 
18% 
0% 
18% 
7% 
14% 
12% 
Unlikely 
  
10% 
14% 
15% 
10% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Users of UKTI services were more likely to be 'already in' the emerging markets than 
non-users and conversely were less likely to say that these regions were 'unlikely' to 
offer market opportunities.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
74% 
73% 
65% 
78% 
75% 
78% 
74% 
84% 
Good opportunity 
  
12% 
10% 
14% 
17% 
13% 
12% 
20% 
10% 
Possible opportunity 
  
10% 
13% 
14% 
0% 
13% 
8% 
7% 
3% 
Unlikely 
  
4% 
4% 
6% 
6% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Already in 
  
60% 
54% 
50% 
67% 
69% 
83% 
83% 
67% 
Good opportunity 
  
11% 
11% 
13% 
11% 
15% 
5% 
8% 
17% 
Possible opportunity 
  
17% 
19% 
20% 
0% 
15% 
10% 
8% 
17% 
Unlikely 
  
12% 
16% 
18% 
11% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
11% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
 

## 9. Economic Climate 9.1 Downturn In Uk, Us And European Markets

All companies who were currently trading were asked to indicate whether their business 
has been negatively affected by the downturn in either the UK and US or European 
markets over the last year. Those who said 'Yes' to either of these were then asked 
whether this had prompted their company to devote more attention to any of the 
emerging or fast growing economies (namely Russia, Turkey, South Africa, Saudi 
Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Mexico, China and India).    
 
Overall companies were more likely to feel negatively affected by the economic 
downturn in the UK and USA markets than in Europe, with companies over six years of 
age most likely to feel the effects of economic downturn in the UK and USA but least 
likely to feel the impact of economic downturn in Europe.  
 
The proportion of companies negatively affected by the economic downturn in the UK 
and USA (69%) is much higher than the comparable level reported in 2008 when just 
over four in ten (42%) reported being negatively impacted by the economic downturn in 
the UK and USA.  
 
Table 153: Impact of economic downturn in UK and USA 
  
                                             6-10 years 
                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
69% 
67% 
67% 
74% 
73% 
68% 
74% 
76% 
No 
  
29% 
30% 
32% 
26% 
24% 
30% 
26% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
2% IP active companies were more likely to state that they were negatively impacted by the 
downturn in the UK and USA markets than non-IP active companies, most especially 
larger, older companies. This is in contrast to the 2008 survey sample in which almost equal proportions of IP active and non-IP active firms indicated that they had been affected by the downturn. 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
74% 
73% 
72% 
76% 
69% 
74% 
70% 
77% 
No 
  
25% 
24% 
27% 
24% 
27% 
23% 
30% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
65% 
62% 
64% 
70% 
82% 
62% 
81% 
72% 
No 
  
33% 
34% 
35% 
30% 
18% 
36% 
19% 
24% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
 

UKTI users and non-UKTI users were equally likely to indicate that their business was 
negatively affected by the downturn in the UK and USA markets.  
 
In a UKTI PIMS survey of 834 users of UKTI services which took place in 
October/November 2008 44% indicated that they had been affected by the downturn in 
the US or UK; this is similar to the 42% in the 2008 survey sample who were surveyed 
in July/August 2008. In a UKTI PIMS survey of 979 users of UKTI services which took 
place in January/February 2009, 60% indicated that they had been affected by the 
downturn. This rose to 65% in the survey of 985 users in March/April 2009. This is 
somewhat lower than the 70% of UKTI users in this survey 
 
Table 155: Impact of economic downturn in UK and USA by UKTI usage 
  
                                            6-10 years 
                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
70% 
70% 
70% 
78% 
67% 
65% 
70% 
79% 
No 
  
28% 
27% 
30% 
22% 
29% 
32% 
30% 
20% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
67% 
62% 
63% 
67% 
85% 
79% 
92% 
50% 
No 
  
31% 
34% 
36% 
33% 
15% 
19% 
8% 
42% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
8% The impact of the economic downturn in Europe appears to have had less impact than in 
the UK and USA, with the impact greatest for older and larger companies.  
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
60% 
57% 
55% 
70% 
70% 
60% 
66% 
69% 
No 
  
38% 
41% 
43% 
30% 
27% 
39% 
33% 
30% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
2% 

 
IP active companies were more likely to state they were impacted by the economic 
downturn in Europe than non-IP active companies. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
63% 
57% 
58% 
76% 
65% 
67% 
65% 
70% 
No 
  
35% 
41% 
41% 
24% 
31% 
33% 
35% 
29% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
57% 
57% 
54% 
60% 
82% 
54% 
67% 
64% 
No 
  
41% 
40% 
45% 
40% 
18% 
45% 
29% 
32% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
5% 
4% 

 
UKTI users were slightly more likely to agree that their business had been negatively 
affected by the downturn in the European markets than non-UKTI users. 
 
Table 158: Impact of the economic downturn in Europe by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                           6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
62% 
59% 
57% 
72% 
67% 
62% 
61% 
71% 
No 
  
37% 
39% 
42% 
28% 
29% 
38% 
37% 
28% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
2% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
57% 
54% 
53% 
67% 
77% 
55% 
83% 
50% 
No 
  
42% 
43% 
46% 
33% 
23% 
45% 
17% 
42% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
8% 

 
All companies were asked to indicate whether the decline in the UK, USA or European 
markets has prompted them to devote more attention to any of the emerging or fast 
growing economies.  There was some ambivalence here with nearly a third saying 'yes' 
and just over four in ten saying 'no'. Older and larger companies were more likely to 
indicate that they had devoted more attention to the emerging or fast growing markets 
as a result of the decline in the UK, USA or European markets.  
 
Table 159: Whether devoted more attention to any of the emerging or fast growing 
markets  
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
32% 
31% 
25% 
41% 
32% 
34% 
36% 
41% 
No 
  
41% 
39% 
47% 
41% 
38% 
39% 
45% 
37% 
Don't know 
  
27% 
30% 
28% 
19% 
30% 
28% 
19% 
22% 

 
IP active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to indicate that they 
had devoted more attention to the emerging or fast growing markets as a result of the 
downturn in the UK, USA or European markets. 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
39% 
42% 
34% 
41% 
27% 
37% 
38% 
45% 
No 
  
38% 
31% 
41% 
41% 
38% 
39% 
43% 
37% 
Don't know 
  
24% 
27% 
24% 
18% 
35% 
24% 
19% 
18% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
25% 
22% 
20% 
40% 
45% 
30% 
33% 
28% 
No 
  
45% 
46% 
50% 
40% 
36% 
38% 
48% 
36% 
Don't know 
  
30% 
32% 
30% 
20% 
18% 
31% 
19% 
36% 

 
UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to indicate that they had devoted 
more attention to the emerging or fast growing markets as a result of the economic 
downturn in the UK, USA or European markets. 
 
Table 161: Whether devoted more attention to any of the emerging or fast growing 
markets by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
35% 
39% 
28% 
50% 
38% 
33% 
37% 
43% 
No 
  
39% 
36% 
45% 
39% 
29% 
38% 
41% 
38% 
Don't know 
  
26% 
26% 
27% 
11% 
33% 
29% 
22% 
20% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
24% 
22% 
22% 
22% 
23% 
36% 
33% 
25% 
No 
  
46% 
44% 
50% 
44% 
54% 
43% 
58% 
33% 
Don't know 
  
29% 
35% 
29% 
33% 
23% 
21% 
8% 
42% 
 

## 9.2 Economic Growth

All companies that were currently exporting were asked whether, in the last year, their 
business has benefited from sustained economic growth or increasing demand in any 
overseas countries. They were then asked to consider their overseas business and 
whether they saw the economic downturn as offering their company increased, reduced, 
or about the same opportunities. 
 
Firms established for more than 5 years and with over 50 employees were more likely to 
feel that their business had benefited from sustained growth or increased demand in 
overseas countries.   

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
903 
230 
248 
27 
37 
196 
58 
107 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
53% 
47% 
46% 
59% 
65% 
55% 
67% 
68% 
No 
  
44% 
51% 
52% 
37% 
24% 
41% 
31% 
27% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
2% 
4% 
11% 
4% 
2% 
5% There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding whether or not they had benefited from sustained growth or 
increased demand in overseas countries. Those companies described as IP active were more likely than non-IP active firms to indicate that in the last year they had benefited 
from sustained growth or increased demand in overseas countries. 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
454 
105 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
82 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
63% 
56% 
61% 
71% 
62% 
60% 
68% 
76% 
No 
  
34% 
42% 
38% 
24% 
23% 
38% 
30% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
1% 
6% 
15% 
2% 
3% 
2% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
449 
125 
158 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
43% 
39% 
37% 
40% 
73% 
49% 
67% 
44% 
No 
  
53% 
59% 
60% 
60% 
27% 
44% 
33% 
44% 
Don't know 
  
4% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
12% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding whether or not they had benefited from sustained growth or increased 
demand in overseas countries. UKTI users were more likely than non-UKTI users to 
report that in the last year they had benefited from sustained growth or increased 
demand in overseas countries. 
 
In this survey 58% of respondents who were UKTI users indicated that they had 
benefited from sustained growth or increased demand in any overseas country. This is 
the same proportion as that in a UKTI PIMS survey of UKTI users in January/February 
2009. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
618 
134 
147 
18 
24 
154 
46 
95 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
58% 
57% 
48% 
61% 
71% 
56% 
72% 
69% 
No 
  
39% 
41% 
48% 
39% 
21% 
41% 
26% 
27% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
1% 
3% 
0% 
8% 
3% 
2% 
3% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
285 
96 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
42% 
32% 
42% 
56% 
54% 
50% 
50% 
58% 
No 
  
54% 
66% 
57% 
33% 
31% 
43% 
50% 
25% 
Don't know 
  
4% 
2% 
1% 
11% 
15% 
7% 
0% 
17% 

 
Almost equal proportions of the survey sample indicated that the economic downturn 
had offered increased opportunities or about the same opportunities or reduced 
opportunities (32%, 33% and 32% respectively). Younger companies were slightly 
more likely to indicate that the downturn had offered them increased opportunities. 
 
Table 165: Whether economic downturn has offered increased or reduced opportunities  
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased opportunities  
32% 
36% 
32% 
33% 
24% 
31% 
26% 
31% 
About the same/no impact  
33% 
29% 
34% 
37% 
32% 
37% 
36% 
30% 
Reduced opportunities  
32% 
32% 
32% 
26% 
41% 
30% 
29% 
40% 
Don't know  
3% 
3% 
2% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
9% 
0% 

 
Equal proportions of IP and non-IP active firms indicated that the downturn offered 
increased opportunities (32%). A lower proportion of IP active firms indicated that 
opportunities were about the same (29% vs 37% of non-IP active firms). Companies 
who were IP active were more likely to state that the economic downturn had offered 
their company reduced opportunities (36% vs 29%). 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased opportunities 
  
32% 
30% 
39% 
24% 
31% 
35% 
19% 
33% 
About the same/no impact 
  
29% 
29% 
23% 
29% 
35% 
32% 
38% 
27% 
Reduced opportunities 
  
36% 
37% 
36% 
41% 
31% 
31% 
32% 
41% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
4% 
2% 
6% 
4% 
2% 
11% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased opportunities 
  
32% 
41% 
28% 
50% 
9% 
26% 
38% 
24% 
About the same/no impact 
  
37% 
29% 
40% 
50% 
27% 
41% 
33% 
40% 
Reduced opportunities 
  
29% 
27% 
30% 
0% 
64% 
29% 
24% 
36% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
5% 
0% 

 
UKTI users and non-UKTI users were equally likely to report increased opportunities, 
reduced opportunities and no impact on their company from the economic downturn. 
 
Table 167: Whether economic downturn has offered increased or reduced opportunities 
by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                                 6-10 years 
                                                                                                                         10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased opportunities 
  
32% 
40% 
31% 
33% 
21% 
32% 
24% 
30% 
About the same/no impact 
  
33% 
27% 
32% 
33% 
38% 
37% 
39% 
30% 
Reduced opportunities 
  
32% 
29% 
35% 
33% 
38% 
27% 
26% 
40% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
4% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
3% 
11% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Increased opportunities 
  
31% 
31% 
34% 
33% 
31% 
24% 
33% 
33% 
About the same/no impact 
  
34% 
32% 
38% 
44% 
23% 
36% 
25% 
25% 
Reduced opportunities 
  
33% 
36% 
27% 
11% 
46% 
40% 
42% 
42% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
2% 
11% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

## 9.3 Impact Of The Decline In The Value Of Sterling

All respondents were asked a series of questions about pricing and currency and the 
impact on their business of currency fluctuations.  
 
Firstly companies were asked about the effect of the recent decline in the value of 
sterling and whether their company would be able to take advantage of the decline in 
the value of sterling. All respondents were asked to indicate whether they expected to 
increase their sales in any market as a result of the decline in the value of sterling. 
Following on from this, respondents who said yes were asked whether it has been 
necessary or would be necessary to discount products or services to achieve an increase 
in sales in any market. 
 

Almost two thirds (64%) of companies felt they would be able to take advantage of the 
decline in the value of sterling.  Companies aged over 5 years were more likely to feel 
that they would be able to take advantage of the decline in the value of sterling than 
younger companies.   
 
Table 168: Ability to take advantage of the decline in the value of sterling  
  
                                              6-10 years 
                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
64% 
58% 
62% 
67% 
70% 
69% 
66% 
65% 
No 
  
32% 
38% 
35% 
26% 
24% 
27% 
26% 
25% 
Don't know 
  
5% 
3% 
3% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
9% 
10% 
 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding whether or not they would be able to take advantage of the decline 
in the value of sterling. Companies defined as IP active were more likely to indicate that they would be able to take advantage of the decline in the value of sterling than non-IP active companies (69% and 59% respectively). 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
69% 
67% 
64% 
76% 
69% 
75% 
65% 
67% 
No 
  
25% 
29% 
36% 
12% 
23% 
21% 
22% 
19% 
Don't know 
  
6% 
4% 
0% 
12% 
8% 
4% 
14% 
13% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
59% 
51% 
61% 
50% 
73% 
63% 
67% 
56% 
No 
  
38% 
46% 
35% 
50% 
27% 
33% 
33% 
44% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding whether or not they would be able to take advantage of the decline in 
the value of sterling. UKTI users were more likely to feel that they could take advantage 
of the decline in the value of sterling compared to non-UKTI users. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
68% 
66% 
67% 
72% 
63% 
74% 
70% 
65% 
No 
  
26% 
32% 
30% 
17% 
29% 
21% 
22% 
24% 
Don't know 
  
5% 
2% 
3% 
11% 
8% 
5% 
9% 
11% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
54% 
49% 
55% 
56% 
85% 
50% 
50% 
67% 
No 
  
43% 
47% 
42% 
44% 
15% 
48% 
42% 
33% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
5% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
8% 
0% 

 
All those currently exporting were asked to indicate whether they have increased or 
expected to increase their sales in any market as a result of the decline in the value of 
sterling. 
 
Most companies (64%) had not increased, and did not expect to increase, their sales in 
any market as a result of the decline in the value of sterling. 
 
Table 171: Effect of the decline in the value of sterling on sales 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
31% 
30% 
29% 
41% 
32% 
35% 
29% 
30% 
No 
  
64% 
66% 
68% 
56% 
62% 
61% 
67% 
60% 
Don't know  
  
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
10% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding whether or not they would be able to increase their sales in 
overseas markets as a result of the decline in the value of sterling.  Around a third 
(34%) of IP active companies felt that they would increase their sales in overseas 
markets as a result of the decline in the value of sterling in comparison to just under 
three in ten (28%) non-IP active companies. 
 
Table 172: Effect of the decline in the value of sterling on sales by IP activity 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
34% 
34% 
31% 
41% 
38% 
37% 
30% 
35% 
No 
  
60% 
60% 
67% 
53% 
54% 
58% 
68% 
53% 
Don't know  
  
6% 
7% 
2% 
6% 
8% 
5% 
3% 
12% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
28% 
27% 
27% 
40% 
18% 
33% 
29% 
12% 
No 
  
69% 
71% 
69% 
60% 
82% 
65% 
67% 
84% 
Don't know  
  
3% 
2% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
5% 
4% 
 

There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding whether or not they would be able to increase their sales in overseas markets as a result of the decline in the value of sterling. A third (33%) of UKTI users felt that they would increase their sales in overseas markets as a result of the decline in the value of sterling, in comparison to just under three in ten (26%) non-UKTI users. 

 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
33% 
35% 
30% 
44% 
33% 
37% 
28% 
30% 
No 
  
61% 
59% 
65% 
50% 
63% 
60% 
67% 
58% 
Don't know  
  
6% 
6% 
5% 
6% 
4% 
3% 
4% 
11% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
26% 
24% 
26% 
33% 
31% 
29% 
33% 
25% 
No 
  
72% 
75% 
72% 
67% 
62% 
67% 
67% 
75% 
Don't know  
  
2% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
5% 
0% 
0% All respondents who expected to increase their sales as a result of the decline in the 
value of sterling were asked whether it was necessary to discount their products and 
services in order to increase their sales. For most this was not a consideration. 
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
283 
71 
71 
11 
12 
69 
17 
32 
Total 
  
100% 
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 
100% 
100%
Yes 
  
25% 
27% 
24% 
27% 
17% 
29% 
18% 
22% 
No 
  
75% 
73% 
76% 
73% 
83% 
70% 
82% 
78% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 

 
For both IP active and non-IP active companies, only a minority (25%) would have to 
discount their products or services to increase sales. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
157 
36 
28 
7 
10 
36 
11 
29 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
25% 
31% 
18% 
29% 
20% 
31% 
18% 
24% 
No 
  
74% 
69% 
82% 
71% 
80% 
67% 
82% 
76% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
  
  


Base 
126 
35 
43 
4 
2 
33 
6 
3 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
25% 
23% 
28% 
25% 
0% 
27% 
17% 
0% 
No 
  
75% 
77% 
72% 
75% 
100% 
73% 
83% 
100% 

 
For both UKTI users and non-UKTI users, only a minority (24% vs 28%) had had to 
discount their products or services to increase sales. 
 
Table 176: Discounting products or services to increase sales in any market by UKTI 
usage 
  
                                                                            6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
207 
47 
45 
8 
8 
57 
13 
29 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
24% 
23% 
20% 
25% 
25% 
32% 
15% 
21% 
No 
  
75% 
77% 
80% 
75% 
75% 
67% 
85% 
79% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
  
  


Base 
76 
24 
26 
3 
4 
12 
4 
3 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
28% 
33% 
31% 
33% 
0% 
17% 
25% 
33% 
No 
  
72% 
67% 
69% 
67% 
100% 
83% 
75% 
67% 

 

## 9.4 Usage Of Currencies

All respondents were asked to indicate when they were operating in overseas markets 
whether they priced their products or services in sterling, overseas currencies or both.   
 
A higher proportion of younger companies and smaller companies priced their products 
or services exclusively in sterling when trading overseas.  However, the majority of 
firms (55%) reported pricing in both sterling and overseas currencies. Usage of this 
mixture of currencies was most popular among firms which had been established for at 
least 10 years. 
  

  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sterling 
  
29% 
36% 
36% 
22% 
8% 
28% 
12% 
16% 
Overseas currencies 
  
16% 
18% 
20% 
26% 
19% 
10% 
16% 
6% 
Both 
  
55% 
45% 
44% 
48% 
73% 
63% 
71% 
78% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Not applicable as no overseas sales in the last year  
  

 
IP active companies were more likely to price their products and services in both 
sterling and overseas currencies, with the propensity to do this increasing for older 
companies.  
 
Table 178: Currency usage by IP activity 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sterling 
  
22% 
34% 
27% 
18% 
8% 
22% 
8% 
14% 
Overseas currencies 
  
14% 
19% 
22% 
35% 
12% 
8% 
16% 
4% 
Both 
  
63% 
46% 
51% 
41% 
81% 
70% 
76% 
82% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Not applicable as no overseas 
sales in the last year 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sterling 
  
35% 
37% 
41% 
30% 
9% 
33% 
19% 
20% 
Overseas currencies 
  
17% 
18% 
19% 
10% 
36% 
11% 
14% 
16% 
Both 
  
48% 
44% 
40% 
60% 
55% 
56% 
62% 
64% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
Not applicable as no overseas 
sales  in the last year 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
UKTI users were more likely to price in both sterling and overseas currencies than non- 
UKTI users. This is consistent with UKTI users in the survey sample operating in more 
overseas markets and more world regions than non-users. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sterling 
  
27% 
34% 
32% 
28% 
0% 
29% 
15% 
17% 
Overseas Currencies 
  
13% 
14% 
21% 
17% 
13% 
9% 
15% 
5% 
Both 
  
60% 
51% 
47% 
50% 
88% 
62% 
67% 
78% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
Not applicable as no overseas  
sales in the last year 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Sterling 
  
32% 
38% 
41% 
11% 
23% 
24% 
0% 
8% 
Overseas Currencies 
  
21% 
24% 
19% 
44% 
31% 
12% 
17% 
17% 
Both 
  
46% 
37% 
41% 
44% 
46% 
64% 
83% 
75% 
Not applicable as no overseas  
sales in the last year 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

## 9.5 Effect Of The Decline In Sterling On Costs

All companies were asked whether, taking account of imports, the recent decline in the 
value of sterling has raised the costs of conducting business overseas for their firm. 
 
For almost six in ten companies (56%) the recent decline in the value of sterling has 
raised the cost of conducting business overseas either 'moderately' or 'a lot'. 
 
Table 180: Effect on costs of the recent decline in the value of sterling  
  
                                           6-10 years 
                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
No 
  
21% 
24% 
24% 
15% 
3% 
19% 
19% 
18% 
Not significantly 
  
7% 
7% 
7% 
11% 
3% 
6% 
9% 
10% 
A little 
  
13% 
11% 
13% 
11% 
8% 
16% 
10% 
12% 
Moderately 
  
27% 
31% 
23% 
30% 
38% 
24% 
34% 
25% 
A lot 
  
29% 
25% 
30% 
26% 
43% 
31% 
26% 
26% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
1% 
3% 
7% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
9% 

 
IP and non-IP active companies were equally likely to feel that the recent decline in the 
value of sterling had raised the cost of conducting business overseas either moderately 
or a lot. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
No 
  
18% 
21% 
22% 
18% 
4% 
19% 
11% 
13% 
Not significantly 
  
8% 
9% 
6% 
18% 
4% 
6% 
8% 
12% 
A little 
  
14% 
13% 
16% 
6% 
12% 
18% 
14% 
11% 
Moderately 
  
29% 
29% 
27% 
29% 
35% 
32% 
32% 
24% 
A lot 
  
27% 
25% 
28% 
18% 
42% 
23% 
32% 
30% 
Don't know 
  
4% 
2% 
2% 
12% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
10% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
No 
  
24% 
26% 
26% 
10% 
0% 
20% 
33% 
32% 
Not significantly 
  
6% 
5% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
10% 
4% 
A little 
  
11% 
9% 
11% 
20% 
0% 
15% 
5% 
16% 
Moderately 
  
26% 
33% 
21% 
30% 
45% 
17% 
38% 
28% 
A lot 
  
30% 
26% 
31% 
40% 
45% 
39% 
14% 
12% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
1% 
3% 
0% 
9% 
3% 
0% 
8% 

 
UKTI users were only slightly more likely than non-UKTI users to feel that the recent 
decline in the value of sterling has raised the cost of conducting business overseas either 
moderately or a lot (58% vs 53%). 
Table 182: Effect on costs of the recent decline in the value of sterling by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
No 
  
20% 
24% 
22% 
17% 
0% 
19% 
20% 
18% 
Not significantly 
  
8% 
8% 
7% 
11% 
4% 
6% 
9% 
10% 
A little 
  
11% 
10% 
13% 
11% 
0% 
16% 
7% 
10% 
Moderately 
  
29% 
33% 
26% 
28% 
46% 
26% 
37% 
25% 
A lot 
  
29% 
24% 
30% 
28% 
46% 
30% 
26% 
27% 
Don't Know 
  
4% 
1% 
3% 
6% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
9% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
No 
  
23% 
24% 
28% 
11% 
8% 
19% 
17% 
17% 
Not significantly 
  
6% 
6% 
7% 
11% 
0% 
5% 
8% 
8% 
A little 
  
15% 
13% 
13% 
11% 
23% 
19% 
25% 
25% 
Moderately 
  
24% 
29% 
20% 
33% 
23% 
19% 
25% 
25% 
A lot 
  
29% 
27% 
30% 
22% 
38% 
36% 
25% 
17% 
Don't Know 
  
3% 
2% 
3% 
11% 
8% 
2% 
0% 
8% 

## 9.6 Overall Effect Of The Decline In The Value Of Sterling

All companies were asked what the effect had been of the decline in the value of sterling on their business. Just over four in ten companies (41%) felt that the decline in the value of sterling had had a negative effect on their business. Firms established for less than 5 years were most likely to indicate that the effect had been negative. 

Just under one third of respondents (30%) indicated that the decline in sterling had been 
beneficial to their business. 
 
Table 183: Overall effect of the recent decline in the value of sterling  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Been beneficial to your 
business  
30% 
26% 
32% 
37% 
24% 
33% 
28% 
29% 
Had no effect 
  
26% 
25% 
24% 
26% 
38% 
27% 
29% 
26% 
Had a negative effect on 
your business  
41% 
47% 
43% 
37% 
32% 
36% 
36% 
41% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
Had positive effects on some aspects of business, 
negative on others Too early to tell 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Other  
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
5% 
0% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding whether the decline in the value of sterling has had a negative 
effect on their business. IP active companies were less likely than non-IP active 
companies to state that the decline in the value of sterling has had a negative effect on 
their business. Conversely, they were also more likely to indicate that the decline in the 
value of sterling had been beneficial to their business. 
 
Table 184: Overall effect of the recent decline in the value of sterling on businesses by IP 
activity  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Been beneficial to your business  
33% 
32% 
36% 
35% 
23% 
35% 
30% 
33% 
Had no effect 
  
27% 
29% 
23% 
24% 
38% 
30% 
22% 
24% 
Had a negative effect on your 
business  
37% 
38% 
39% 
41% 
31% 
30% 
43% 
39% 
2% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
3% 
2% 
Had positive effects on some aspects of business, negative on others Too early to tell 
  
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Other 
  
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Been beneficial to your business  
27% 
22% 
30% 
40% 
27% 
31% 
24% 
16% 
Had a negative effect on your 
business  
46% 
53% 
46% 
30% 
36% 
42% 
24% 
48% 
Had no effect 
  
25% 
22% 
24% 
30% 
36% 
24% 
43% 
32% 
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
Had positive effects on some aspects of business, negative on others Too early to tell 
  


Other  
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
10% 
0% 

 There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding whether the decline in the value of sterling has had a negative effect on their business. UKTI users were less likely than non-UKTI users to state that the effect 

of the decline in the value of sterling had been negative for their business. They were 
also more likely to indicate that the effect had been positive (32% vs 24%)  
 
Table 185: Overall effect of the recent decline in the value of sterling on businesses by 
UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Been beneficial to your 
business  
32% 
30% 
39% 
33% 
21% 
35% 
28% 
26% 
Had no effect 
  
26% 
21% 
25% 
33% 
42% 
27% 
33% 
27% 
Had a negative effect 
on your business  
38% 
47% 
35% 
33% 
38% 
33% 
30% 
43% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
2% 
2% 
Had positive effects on 
some aspects of business, negative on others Too early to tell 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
2% 
Other  
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
7% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Been beneficial to your 
business  
24% 
21% 
22% 
44% 
31% 
26% 
25% 
50% 
Had no effect 
  
25% 
31% 
22% 
11% 
31% 
26% 
17% 
17% 
Had a negative effect 
on your business  
48% 
47% 
55% 
44% 
23% 
48% 
58% 
25% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
Had positive effects on some aspects of business, negative on others Too early to tell 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Other 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

## 9.7 Export Credit Insurance

All companies were asked whether they either currently used or would use export credit 
insurance. Those who did use export credit insurance were asked whether they had 
experienced any difficulties in accessing export credit insurance in the last six months.  
 
Export credit insurance was used by one in five companies (21%). It was most likely to 
be used by older companies and larger companies. These results are consistent with 
those from PIMS. Over 3 waves of the quarterly survey of UKTI PIMS trade clients, 
(Jan/Feb - Jul/Aug 2009) 73% of respondents indicated that they did not use export 
credit insurance. 
 
Table 186: Use of export credit insurance  
  
                                             6-10 years 
                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
21% 
20% 
12% 
19% 
41% 
17% 
29% 
42% 
No 
  
73% 
74% 
84% 
78% 
51% 
80% 
62% 
47% 
Don't know 
  
6% 
6% 
5% 
4% 
8% 
4% 
9% 
11% 
 
Up to 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding their use of export credit insurance. IP active companies were 
more likely than non-IP active companies to use export credit insurance. 
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
28% 
26% 
17% 
24% 
38% 
22% 
35% 
47% 
No 
  
64% 
65% 
77% 
71% 
62% 
73% 
57% 
40% 
Don't know 
  
8% 
8% 
7% 
6% 
0% 
5% 
8% 
13% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
14% 
16% 
9% 
10% 
45% 
12% 
19% 
24% 
No 
  
82% 
81% 
87% 
90% 
27% 
86% 
71% 
72% 
Don't know 
  
4% 
4% 
4% 
0% 
27% 
2% 
10% 
4% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding their use of export credit insurance. Users of UKTI were more likely to 
use export credit insurance than non-UTKI users (24% vs 15%).  
 
Table 188: Use of export credit insurance by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                           6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
24% 
24% 
12% 
22% 
33% 
19% 
33% 
43% 
No 
  
71% 
71% 
86% 
72% 
54% 
77% 
59% 
47% 
Don't know 
  
5% 
5% 
1% 
6% 
13% 
3% 
9% 
10% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
15% 
16% 
11% 
11% 
54% 
7% 
17% 
33% 
No 
  
77% 
77% 
79% 
89% 
46% 
88% 
75% 
50% 
Don't know 
  
8% 
7% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
8% 
17% 

 
As a comparison the following table reports data from the UKTI PIMS non-user surveys 
of 2008 and 2009 which illustrates that the findings are consistent between surveys. 
 
Table 189: Comparison of Use of export credit insurance by UKTI usage with client 
profiles from PIMS 14-16 and the PIMS non-user survey of  2009 
  
                                                                                               Total 

Users PIMS 14-
  
  
UKTI non-users 
UKTI users 
PIMS non-users 
2009 
16 
Base 
290 
621 
291 
2548 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
15% 
24% 
11% 
16% 
No  
77% 
71% 
85% 
73% 
Don't know 
8% 
5% 
4% 
11% 
 

Fewer than one in ten companies (9%) reported difficulties in accessing export credit 
insurance over the last 6 months, most typically this was reported by larger companies. 
This is somewhat higher than indicated by UKTI PIMS 14-16 in which 4% of UKTI 
users indicated that they had had difficulties and with the UKTI 2009 non-user survey 
which found that 3% of respondents had experienced difficulties.  
 
Table 190: Difficulties in accessing export credit insurance 
  
                                               6-10 years 
                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
9% 
7% 
5% 
7% 
19% 
4% 
16% 
25% 
No 
  
11% 
11% 
6% 
11% 
19% 
13% 
12% 
16% 
Do not use export 
credit insurance 
  
79% 
81% 
88% 
81% 
59% 
83% 
71% 
58% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
1% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their reported difficulties in accessing export credit insurance. IP 
active companies were more likely than non-IP active companies to use export credit 
insurance and to have more difficulties accessing it. 
 
Table 191: Difficulties in accessing export credit insurance by IP activity 
  
                                                                            6-10 years 
                                                                                                                    10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
14% 
9% 
10% 
12% 
15% 
6% 
22% 
30% 
No 
  
13% 
14% 
7% 
12% 
19% 
15% 
14% 
16% 
Do not use export credit insurance 
  
72% 
76% 
83% 
76% 
62% 
78% 
65% 
53% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
4% 
5% 
3% 
0% 
27% 
2% 
5% 
8% 
No 
  
9% 
9% 
6% 
10% 
18% 
10% 
10% 
16% 
Do not use export credit insurance 
  
87% 
85% 
91% 
90% 
55% 
88% 
81% 
76% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
0% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding their reported difficulties in accessing export credit insurance. UKTI 
users were more likely than non-UKTI users to use export credit insurance and to have 
difficulties accessing it, especially larger companies.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
12% 
10% 
7% 
11% 
17% 
5% 
20% 
27% 
No 
  
12% 
12% 
5% 
11% 
17% 
14% 
13% 
16% 
  
76% 
77% 
88% 
78% 
67% 
81% 
67% 
57% 
Do not use export credit insurance Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
3% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
23% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
No 
  
10% 
10% 
8% 
11% 
23% 
7% 
8% 
17% 
  
86% 
86% 
89% 
89% 
46% 
93% 
83% 
67% 
Do not use export credit insurance Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
8% 
8% 

 
However, the proportion of UKTI users experiencing difficulties is considerably higher 
than that reported through the UKTI PIMS surveys of 2,548 users of UKTI services 
(4%). This difference may have arisen due to the higher levels of export experience in 
this 2009 survey sample. Analysis of the PIMS survey data by years export experience 
showed firms which had exported for longer were more likely to have experienced 
difficulties. 
 
Table 193: Comparison of Difficulties in accessing export credit insurance by UKTI usage 
with client profiles from PIMS 14-16 and the PIMS non-user survey of 2009 
  
                                                                                              Total 

Users PIMS 14-
  
  
UKTI Nonusers 
UKTI users 
PIMS Nonusers 2009 
16 
Base 
290 
621 
291 
2548 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
3% 
12% 
3% 
4% 
No  
10% 
12% 
8% 
11% 
Do not use export credit insurance 
86% 
76% 
85% 
73% 
Don't know/refused 
1% 
0% 
4% 
12% 

## 9.8 Letters Of Credit

All companies were asked whether they either currently used or would use letters of credit when doing business overseas.  For those who said that they did use letters of credit and were currently exporting, they were asked whether they had experienced any difficulties in accessing letters of credit or with the terms and conditions relating to the letters of credit in the last six months. Just under half of the companies had used letters of credit, with firms with more than 50 
employees more likely to use letters of credit when conducting business overseas. A high proportion of firms in the survey sample (48%) reported using letters of credit compared to the 291 respondents to the UKTI PIMS non-user survey of 2009 and 1,698 users of UKTI services surveyed in 2009 of whom 24% and 28% reported using letters 

of credit respectively. This disparity may be related to the bias in this survey sample towards firms in many markets and world regions.  
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
48% 
39% 
34% 
63% 
78% 
50% 
60% 
73% 
No 
  
50% 
59% 
65% 
37% 
14% 
47% 
36% 
24% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
3% 
3% 
3% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies in terms of whether they used letters of credit. IP active companies were 
more likely to use letters of credit when conducting business overseas, especially those 
with over 50 employees. 
 
Table 195: Use of letters of credit by IP activity 
  
                                                                               6-10 years 
                                                                                                                             10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
57% 
50% 
38% 
71% 
85% 
49% 
70% 
80% 
No 
  
41% 
48% 
60% 
29% 
15% 
47% 
30% 
18% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
38% 
29% 
31% 
50% 
64% 
51% 
43% 
52% 
No 
  
59% 
68% 
67% 
50% 
9% 
46% 
48% 
44% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
27% 
3% 
10% 
4% There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
in terms of whether they used letters of credit. UKTI users were more likely than non-
UKTI users to use letters of credit when conducting business overseas, especially those 
with over 50 employees. 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
53% 
47% 
35% 
72% 
79% 
52% 
65% 
76% 
No 
  
45% 
53% 
64% 
28% 
8% 
45% 
33% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
13% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
36% 
29% 
32% 
44% 
77% 
43% 
42% 
50% 
No 
  
61% 
67% 
65% 
56% 
23% 
55% 
50% 
42% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
8% 
8% 
 

Most typically, companies who accessed letters of credit did not have any problems either accessing them or with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing the 
letters of credit  
3% 
3% 
3% 
7% 
3% 
3% 
5% 
2% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
4% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
6% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit Yes - both 
  
2% 
1% 
2% 
4% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
No 
  
37% 
31% 
25% 
48% 
65% 
38% 
48% 
58% 
Do not use letters of credit  
  
53% 
62% 
66% 
37% 
22% 
50% 
40% 
28% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 

 
IP active companies were more likely to access letters of credit. Most typically 
companies did not have any problems either accessing letters of credit or with the terms 
and conditions relating to these letters of credit whether IP active or not. 
 
Table 198: Difficulties with letters of credit by IP activity 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing 
the letters of credit  
4% 
6% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
8% 
2% 
5% 
2% 
4% 
6% 
4% 
7% 
8% 
7% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit Yes - both 
  
3% 
1% 
3% 
6% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
2% 
No 
  
44% 
41% 
24% 
59% 
77% 
33% 
51% 
63% 
Do not use letters of 
credit  
43% 
50% 
62% 
29% 
15% 
51% 
30% 
22% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing 
the letters of credit  
2% 
2% 
3% 
20% 
9% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
4% 
3% 
0% 
9% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit Yes - both 
  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
9% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
No 
  
31% 
22% 
26% 
30% 
36% 
43% 
43% 
44% 
Do not use letters of 
credit  
62% 
71% 
69% 
50% 
36% 
49% 
57% 
48% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 

 
Most typically, companies did not have any problems either accessing letters of credit 
or with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit whether UKTI users or 
not.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing 
the letters of credit  
4% 
4% 
3% 
11% 
4% 
3% 
4% 
2% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
6% 
8% 
4% 
7% 
6% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit Yes - both 
  
2% 
1% 
1% 
6% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
1% 
No 
  
42% 
36% 
28% 
50% 
67% 
41% 
52% 
61% 
Do not use letters of credit  
  
47% 
53% 
65% 
28% 
21% 
48% 
35% 
25% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing 
the letters of credit  
2% 
2% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
10% 
0% 
8% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit Yes - both 
  
2% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
15% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
No 
  
27% 
24% 
22% 
44% 
62% 
29% 
33% 
33% 
Do not use letters of credit  
  
65% 
73% 
68% 
56% 
23% 
57% 
58% 
50% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 

 
However, a higher proportion of firms indicated that they had experienced difficulties 
than PIMS evidence suggests. 
  
Table 200: Comparison of difficulties with letters of credit by UKTI usage with client 
profiles from PIMS 14-16 and the PIMS non-user survey of 2009 
  
                                                                                                                   Total 

PIMS 
UKTI 
Users 
UKTI 
  
  
PIMS 14-
users 
Nonusers 
Nonusers 
16 
2009 
Base 
290 
621 
291 
2548 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes - difficulty accessing the letters of credit  
  
2% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit 
3% 
5% 
1% 
1% 
Yes - both 
2% 
2% 
1% 
2% 
No 
27% 
42% 
21% 
24% 
Do not use letters of credit 
65% 
47% 
76% 
64% 
Don't know 
1% 
1% 
0% 
8% 
 

## 9.9 Accessing Finance

All companies were asked whether over the past 6 months their company had attempted to access finance either from within the company or from external sources. Those who had, were asked whether their business had any difficulties in accessing finance, either from within the company or from external sources. If they responded 'Yes' to this they were then asked whether these difficulties related to accessing internal finance from within the business or, raising finance from external sources such as a bank. For those 

who had experienced difficulties relating to accessing finance they were asked whether 
any of these difficulties specifically related to financing their overseas business activity. 
If these difficulties related to overseas sales they were further asked whether these 
difficulties accessing finance had had any negative impact on the value of their overseas 
sales over the last 6 months. However, if they responded 'no' or 'don't know' ie the 
difficulties did not specifically relate to financing their overseas business activity they 
were instead asked, 'Although they did not specifically relate to financing your overseas 
business, would you say that these difficulties accessing finance had any negative 
impact on the value of your overseas sales over the last 6 months".  
 
The majority of companies (64%) had not attempted to access either internal or external 
finance over the last six months. Those most likely to have accessed internal or external 
finance were younger companies and companies with 100 or more employees.  
 
Table 201: Attempts to access finance 
  
                                              6-10 years 
                                                                       10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
30% 
36% 
31% 
33% 
35% 
23% 
22% 
31% 
No 
  
64% 
61% 
67% 
63% 
54% 
73% 
62% 
53% 
Don't know 
  
6% 
3% 
2% 
4% 
11% 
4% 
16% 
17% There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active companies regarding their attempts to access finance. IP active companies were more 
likely to have attempted to access finance than non-IP active companies (34% vs 26%).  
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
34% 
36% 
41% 
35% 
35% 
28% 
30% 
34% 
No 
  
58% 
58% 
57% 
59% 
65% 
68% 
51% 
49% 
Don't know 
  
8% 
7% 
2% 
6% 
0% 
4% 
19% 
17% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
26% 
36% 
25% 
30% 
36% 
19% 
10% 
20% 
No 
  
70% 
64% 
73% 
70% 
27% 
78% 
81% 
64% 
Don't know 
  
4% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
36% 
3% 
10% 
16% 

 
Similar proportions of UKTI users (31%) and non-UKTI users (28%) had accessed 
finance. Firms established up to 5 years ago were most likely to have attempted to 
access finance.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
31% 
39% 
31% 
33% 
29% 
27% 
24% 
30% 
No 
  
62% 
56% 
68% 
61% 
54% 
70% 
61% 
52% 
Don't know 
  
7% 
5% 
1% 
6% 
17% 
3% 
15% 
18% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
28% 
32% 
30% 
33% 
46% 
12% 
17% 
33% 
No 
  
68% 
68% 
65% 
67% 
54% 
83% 
67% 
58% 
Don't know 
  
3% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
17% 
8% 

 
Difficulty in accessing finance was more likely to be reported by the youngest 
companies, with one in five (20%) reporting such difficulties. This result is likely to be 
driven by this group being more likely to have attempted to access finance. 
 
Table 204: Difficulties in accessing finance  
  
                                                                                 6-10 years 
                                                                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Bas e 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
14% 
20% 
16% 
4% 
11% 
9% 
14% 
11% 
No 
  
15% 
16% 
12% 
30% 
19% 
13% 
9% 
19% 
Did not attempt to access finance 
  
70% 
64% 
69% 
67% 
65% 
77% 
78% 
69% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Whilst IP active firms were more likely to have attempted to access finance than non-IP 
active firms, similar proportions indicated that they had experienced difficulties.  
 
Table 205: Difficulties in accessing finance by IP activity  

Up to 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Tota
5 
l 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 
99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
16% 
22% 
22% 
0% 
12% 
12% 
19% 
10% 
No 
  
17% 
13% 
17% 
35% 
15% 
14% 
11% 
23% 
Did not attempt to access 
finance  
66% 
64% 
59% 
65% 
65% 
72% 
70% 
66% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
13% 
18% 
13% 
10% 
9% 
6% 
5% 
16% 
No 
  
13% 
19% 
9% 
20% 
27% 
12% 
5% 
4% 
Did not attempt to access 
finance 
74% 
64% 
75% 
70% 
64% 
81% 
90% 
80% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
 
Similar proportions of both UKTI users and non-UKTI users (15% and 12% respectively) had experienced difficulties accessing finance. 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
15% 
20% 
19% 
6% 
13% 
11% 
15% 
13% 
No 
  
15% 
19% 
10% 
28% 
13% 
15% 
9% 
17% 
Did not attempt to access finance 
  
69% 
61% 
69% 
67% 
71% 
73% 
76% 
70% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
12% 
20% 
13% 
0% 
8% 
2% 
8% 
0% 
No 
  
14% 
12% 
15% 
33% 
31% 
7% 
8% 
33% 
Did not attempt to access finance 
  
72% 
68% 
70% 
67% 
54% 
88% 
83% 
67% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
2% 
0% 
0% The proportion of UKTI users reporting difficulties was lower than that in  PIMS 14 and 
15 surveys of UKTI trade clients, in which 22% reported difficulties  compared to just 12% in this survey. 
  
  
Total 
PIMS 
Users 
UKTI 
  
  
UKTI nonnon-users 
PIMS 14-
users 
users 
2009 
15 
Base 
290 
621 
300 
1961 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
12% 
15% 
17% 
22% 
No 
14% 
 15% 
80% 
72% 
Did not attempt to access finance 
72% 
69% 
0% 
0% 
Don't know 
1% 
1% 
2% 
6% 

 
For the minority of companies who indicated that they had experienced problems 
accessing finance this more typically related to external finance rather than internal 
finance, especially for younger companies.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Internal finance  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
External finance  
11% 
16% 
13% 
4% 
3% 
8% 
14% 
6% 
Both 
  
2% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
Did not experience difficulties 
  
86% 
80% 
84% 
96% 
89% 
91% 
86% 
89% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Both IP active and non-IP active companies were equally likely (12% and 10% 
respectively) to have experienced problems accessing external finance rather than 
internal finance.  
 
Table 209: Difficulties in accessing internal or external finance either from within the 
company or from external sources by IP activity 
  
                                                                               6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Internal finance  
1% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
External finance  
12% 
15% 
18% 
0% 
0% 
11% 
19% 
7% 
Both 
  
2% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
Did not experience difficulties 
  
84% 
78% 
78% 
100% 
88% 
88% 
81% 
90% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Internal finance  
1% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
External finance  
10% 
17% 
10% 
10% 
9% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
Both 
  
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
8% 
Did not experience difficulties 
87% 
82% 
87% 
90% 
91% 
94% 
95% 
84% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
Both UKTI users and non-users were equally likely (12% and 10% respectively) to have 
experienced problems accessing external finance, with around one in ten indicating this.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Internal finance  
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
External finance  
12% 
16% 
16% 
6% 
0% 
10% 
15% 
7% 
Both 
  
2% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
Did not experience difficulties 
  
85% 
80% 
81% 
94% 
88% 
89% 
85% 
88% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Internal finance 
1% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
External finance  
10% 
17% 
9% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
Both 
  
1% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties 
  
88% 
80% 
87% 
100% 
92% 
98% 
92% 
100% 
Refused 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

 
However, the above proportions are lower than reported in PIMS 14 and 15 surveys of 
users of UKTI services (17%) and a 2009 survey of non-users (13%).  
 
Table 211: Comparison of difficulties in accessing finance by UKTI usage with client 
profiles from PIMS 14-15 and PIMS non-user survey of 2009 
  
                                                                                                       Total 

| UKTI                            | PIMS Non-   | Users PIMS    |
|---------------------------------|-------------|---------------|
|                                 |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
| UKTI                            |             |               |
| Non-users                       | users       | users 2009    |
| Base                            |             |               |
| 290                             | 621         | 300           |
| UKTI users                      |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
| 100%                            | 100%        | 100%          |
| Internal finance                |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
| 1%                              | 1%          | 1%            |
| External finance                |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
|                                 |             |               |
| 10%                             | 12%         | 13%           |
| Both                            |             |               |
| 1%                              | 2%          | 3%            |
| Did not experience difficulties |             |               |
| 88%                             | 85%         | 80%           |
| Don't know                      |             |               |
| 0%                              | 0%          | 2%            |

 
Companies were asked to indicate whether any of these difficulties specifically related 
to financing their overseas business activity.  
 
Although only a minority of companies experienced difficulties accessing finance for 
overseas business activity, this was more prevalent among younger companies. Please 
note that a proportion of respondents were not asked this question who should have 
been. They are classified in this table as 'Not asked the question'.  
 

 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 
  
  
5 years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, related to overseas sales  
5% 
9% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
No 
 
4% 
5% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
3% 
2% 
 
Did not experience difficulties 
 
86% 
81% 
84% 
96% 
92% 
91% 
86% 
89% 
Not asked the question 
5% 
5% 
3% 
4% 
8% 
5% 
7% 
7% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their reported difficulties in accessing finance for overseas 
business. IP active companies were more likely to have experienced difficulties 
accessing finance for overseas business activity than non-IP active companies. This was 
driven in part by the higher proportion of firms which had experienced difficulties in 
accessing finance. 
 
Table 213: Difficulties in accessing finance related to overseas business activity by IP 
activity 
  
                                                                              6-10 years 
                                                                                                                      10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, related to overseas sales  
7% 
9% 
12% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
5% 
2% 
No 
  
4% 
6% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
5% 
1% 
Did not experience difficulties  
84% 
79% 
78% 
100% 
92% 
89% 
81% 
90% 
Not asked the question 
 
5% 
7% 
2% 
0% 
8% 
4% 
8% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, related to overseas sales  
3% 
9% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
No 
  
5% 
5% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
Did not experience difficulties  
88% 
82% 
87% 
90% 
91% 
94% 
95% 
84% 
Not asked the question 
 
5% 
4% 
4% 
10% 
9% 
5% 
5% 
12% 

 
UKTI users and non-UKTI users were as likely to have experienced difficulties 
accessing finance for overseas business activity. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, related to overseas sales  
4% 
9% 
3% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
4% 
2% 
No 
  
5% 
5% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
4% 
2% 
Did not experience difficulties  
85% 
81% 
81% 
94% 
92% 
90% 
85% 
88% 
Not asked the question 
 
6% 
5% 
5% 
6% 
8% 
5% 
7% 
8% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes, related to overseas sales  
6% 
10% 
7% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
No 
  
3% 
5% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties  
88% 
80% 
88% 
100% 
92% 
98% 
92% 
100% 
Not asked the question 
 
3% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
2% 
8% 
0% 

 
Companies were equally likely to report that these difficulties in accessing finance had a 
negative impact on the value of their overseas sales. 
 
Table 215: Whether difficulties in accessing finance had any negative impact on the 
value of overseas sales 

|                                 |         | 6-10 years    | 10+ years    |
|---------------------------------|---------|---------------|--------------|
| Total                           |         |               |              |
| Up to 5                         |         |               |              |
|                                 |         |               |              |
| years                           |         |               |              |
| 0 - 49                          | 50 - 99 | 100 +         | 0 - 49       |
| Base                            | 911     | 236           | 249          |
| Total                           |         |               |              |
|                                 | 100%    | 100%          | 100%         |
| Yes                             |         |               |              |
|                                 | 7%      | 9%            | 9%           |
| No                              |         |               |              |
|                                 | 6%      | 10%           | 6%           |
| Don't know                      |         |               |              |
|                                 | 0%      | 0%            | 1%           |
| Did not experience difficulties |         |               |              |
|                                 | 86%     | 81%           | 84%          |

  
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding whether their reported difficulties in accessing finance had a 
negative impact on the value of their overseas sales. IP active companies were more 
likely to indicate that difficulties in accessing finance had a negative impact on the 
value of their overseas sales. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
10% 
11% 
17% 
0% 
8% 
8% 
14% 
6% 
No 
  
5% 
10% 
4% 
0% 
4% 
3% 
5% 
4% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties  
84% 
79% 
78% 
100% 
88% 
89% 
81% 
90% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
5% 
7% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
5% 
8% 
No 
  
7% 
9% 
8% 
10% 
9% 
4% 
0% 
8% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties  
88% 
84% 
87% 
90% 
91% 
94% 
95% 
84% 

 UKTI users and non-UKTI users were equally likely to report that difficulties in accessing finance had a negative impact on the value of their overseas sales. 

value of overseas sales by UKTI usage 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
9% 
11% 
11% 
0% 
8% 
6% 
11% 
7% 
No 
  
6% 
8% 
7% 
6% 
4% 
5% 
4% 
5% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties  
85% 
81% 
81% 
94% 
88% 
90% 
85% 
88% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
5% 
6% 
6% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
8% 
0% 
No 
  
7% 
12% 
6% 
0% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
Did not experience difficulties  
89% 
82% 
88% 
100%
92% 
98% 
92% 
100% 

 

## 10. Awareness And Usage Of Ukti 10.1 Awareness Of Ukti Trade Support Services

All companies were asked a series of questions to ascertain their level of awareness of 
both UKTI and UKTI's services offerings. Those aware of UKTI or of any of its 
services were then asked to indicate whether they had actually used any of these 
services.  
 
Awareness of UKTI service appears to vary with company age and size with older and 
larger companies more likely to be aware of the UKTI services. Nearly eight in ten 
companies (79%) were aware of UKTI, with nearly three-quarters of respondents (71%) 
aware of the commercial services provided by embassies overseas. These figures are 
much higher than in the 2008 survey where just over half (51%) were aware of UKTI 
and the commercial services provided by embassies overseas (55%). However, this does 
not necessarily reflect an increase in awareness, rather, that this survey sample 
contained a much higher proportion of users of UKTI services (48%) than the 2008 
survey sample (35%). 
 
Table 218: Awareness of UKTI services  

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
79% 
73% 
75% 
74% 
81% 
86% 
86% 
90% 
  
71% 
61% 
63% 
81% 
65% 
85% 
76% 
88% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas  
60% 
53% 
56% 
67% 
59% 
66% 
66% 
72% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
41% 
34% 
39% 
48% 
35% 
49% 
38% 
45% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
31% 
25% 
26% 
44% 
38% 
33% 
31% 
44% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
11% 
8% 
10% 
11% 
8% 
15% 
5% 
13% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
37% 
31% 
35% 
56% 
35% 
39% 
38% 
46% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
41% 
37% 
34% 
48% 
30% 
45% 
47% 
56% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
92% 
88% 
89% 
96% 
92% 
97% 
97% 
100% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their awareness of many of the UKTI services. However the 
notable exceptions to this were Passport to Export, ECR and Business Link where IP 
active and non-IP active firms had similar levels of awareness. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
85% 
79% 
84% 
82% 
81% 
86% 
89% 
92% 
  
75% 
66% 
70% 
76% 
65% 
84% 
68% 
90% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas  
65% 
57% 
59% 
71% 
62% 
69% 
68% 
76% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
44% 
35% 
42% 
41% 
35% 
58% 
38% 
47% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
38% 
32% 
33% 
41% 
38% 
41% 
27% 
53% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
12% 
10% 
12% 
0% 
8% 
18% 
8% 
14% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
45% 
37% 
49% 
53% 
31% 
51% 
43% 
47% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
47% 
44% 
44% 
47% 
31% 
48% 
49% 
59% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
95% 
90% 
93% 
94% 
92% 
98% 
97% 
100% 


Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non- IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
74% 
68% 
69% 
60% 
82% 
86% 
81% 
84% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
67% 
57% 
58% 
90% 
64% 
86% 
90% 
80% 
56% 
50% 
54% 
60% 
55% 
64% 
62% 
60% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
38% 
34% 
37% 
60% 
36% 
40% 
38% 
40% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
23% 
20% 
21% 
50% 
36% 
24% 
38% 
16% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
9% 
6% 
9% 
30% 
9% 
12% 
0% 
8% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
29% 
26% 
27% 
60% 
45% 
27% 
29% 
44% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
34% 
32% 
28% 
50% 
27% 
42% 
43% 
44% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
90% 
86% 
86% 
100% 
91% 
96% 
95% 
100% 

 There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users for all services. Not surprisingly UKTI users were more likely to be aware of each of the UKTI services than non-UKTI users especially the international Trade Advisors in Business Link and the commercial services provided by embassies overseas. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
 
91%
92%
90%
89%
88%
92% 
93% 
91%
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
85% 
77% 
82% 
94% 
83% 
92% 
83% 
90% 
75% 
75% 
76% 
89% 
71% 
75% 
70% 
73% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
52% 
48% 
55% 
61% 
46% 
56% 
41% 
48% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
40% 
37% 
36% 
61% 
50% 
39% 
35% 
45% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
14% 
12% 
16% 
11% 
8% 
18% 
4% 
14% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
46% 
44% 
50% 
72% 
42% 
43% 
41% 
45% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
52% 
49% 
47% 
67% 
38% 
55% 
54% 
57% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 


Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
54%
48%
52%
44%
69%
62% 
58% 
83%
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
42% 
40% 
34% 
56% 
31% 
60% 
50% 
75% 
30% 
24% 
27% 
22% 
38% 
36% 
50% 
67% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
18% 
16% 
15% 
22% 
15% 
24% 
25% 
25% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
12% 
10% 
10% 
11% 
15% 
10% 
17% 
42% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
3% 
3% 
2% 
11% 
8% 
2% 
8% 
8% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
18% 
13% 
13% 
22% 
23% 
24% 
25% 
58% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
18% 
22% 
14% 
11% 
15% 
12% 
17% 
42% 
Awareness of UKTI or at least 
one UKTI  service 
76% 
71% 
72% 
89% 
77% 
86% 
83% 
100% 

 
Usage of UKTI services does appear to vary with both company age and size with older 
and larger companies more likely to have availed of UKTI services most especially the 
commercial services provided by embassies overseas.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
48% 
39% 
41% 
44% 
46% 
56% 
60% 
67% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
45% 
34% 
36% 
41% 
41% 
54% 
59% 
67% 
36% 
28% 
31% 
41% 
32% 
42% 
38% 
48% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
15% 
13% 
19% 
11% 
5% 
20% 
3% 
14% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
12% 
9% 
7% 
19% 
19% 
14% 
16% 
17% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
5% 
2% 
4% 
7% 
3% 
7% 
2% 
9% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
16% 
11% 
12% 
22% 
14% 
19% 
22% 
23% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
19% 
14% 
13% 
19% 
16% 
22% 
29% 
33% 
Usage of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
68% 
57% 
59% 
67% 
65% 
79% 
79% 
89% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their use of UKTI services. IP active companies were more likely 
to be aware of UKTI and each of the listed UKTI services than non-IP active 
companies, most specifically, the commercial services provided by embassies overseas, 
the international Trade Advisors based in Business Links and OMIS.  
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
56% 
47% 
46% 
47% 
38% 
66% 
65% 
71% 
  
53% 
45% 
46% 
47% 
38% 
55% 
54% 
72% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas  
41% 
36% 
33% 
53% 
35% 
47% 
41% 
49% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
18% 
15% 
22% 
6% 
4% 
29% 
5% 
17% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
16% 
11% 
10% 
24% 
19% 
19% 
16% 
22% 
Export Communication 
Reviews (ECR) 
6% 
1% 
7% 
0% 
4% 
8% 
3% 
11% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
23% 
20% 
20% 
33% 
21% 
24% 
28% 
26% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
24% 
19% 
17% 
29% 
15% 
27% 
27% 
37% 
Usage of UKTI or at least one UKTI  service 
76% 
73% 
66% 
71% 
62% 
82% 
81% 
88% 


Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non- IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
UKTI 
  
41% 
33% 
38% 
40% 
64% 
46% 
52% 
52% 
Commercial services provided by embassies overseas   
37% 
25% 
30% 
30% 
45% 
53% 
67% 
48% 
30% 
22% 
30% 
20% 
27% 
37% 
33% 
44% 
The international Trade Advisors based in Business Links Passport to Export 
13% 
12% 
17% 
20% 
9% 
11% 
0% 
4% 
The Export Marketing Research Scheme (EMRS) 
7% 
7% 
6% 
10% 
18% 
9% 
14% 
0% 
Export Communication Reviews (ECR) 
3% 
2% 
2% 
20% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
4% 
The Tradeshow Access Programme (TAP) 
17% 
13% 
12% 
11% 
23% 
24% 
25% 
58% 
The Overseas marketing Information Service (OMIS) 
14% 
9% 
11% 
0% 
18% 
18% 
33% 
20% 
Usage of UKTI or at least one 
UKTI  service 
60% 
44% 
56% 
60% 
73% 
75% 
76% 
92% 

 

## 10.2 Business Link

All companies were asked whether prior to the interview they had heard of Business 
Link. For those who required it there was also an explanation of Business Link as 
follows: 
 

"Business Link is a free business advice and support service, available 
online and through local advisers" 

 
Those who had heard of Business Link were asked whether they had used Business 
Link. All respondents were then asked how likely they would be to use Business Link in 
the future.   
 
Awareness of Business Link was very high, and indeed higher than that of UKTI, 
especially among older companies, as shown in the table below. 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
90% 
85% 
91% 
85% 
81% 
95% 
95% 
94% 
No 
  
9% 
14% 
9% 
15% 
19% 
4% 
5% 
6% 
Don't know 
  
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% Awareness of Business Link is comparable amongst IP active and non-IP active 
companies, as shown in the table below.  
 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
92% 
88% 
91% 
82% 
81% 
95% 
100% 
95% 
No 
  
8% 
12% 
9% 
18% 
19% 
5% 
0% 
5% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
89% 
82% 
91% 
90% 
82% 
96% 
86% 
88% 
No 
  
11% 
16% 
9% 
10% 
18% 
3% 
14% 
12% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 

 
There were statistically significant differences between UKTI users and non-UKTI 
users regarding whether they had heard of Business Link prior to the interview. UKTI 
users were more likely than non-UKTI users to have heard of Business Link. 
 
Table 225: Awareness of Business Link by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                               6-10 years 
                                                                                                                        10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
  
  
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
95% 
92% 
97% 
94% 
83% 
98% 
98% 
93% 
No 
  
5% 
8% 
3% 
6% 
17% 
2% 
2% 
7% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
80% 
75% 
81% 
67% 
77% 
86% 
83% 
100% 
No 
  
19% 
23% 
19% 
33% 
23% 
12% 
17% 
0% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 

 Six in ten companies (60%) had used Business Link with usage being more likely amongst older companies. 

 
  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
60% 
52% 
62% 
56% 
57% 
66% 
66% 
65% 
No 
  
28% 
31% 
28% 
26% 
24% 
27% 
28% 
26% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
3% 
Not  aware of Business Link 
  
10% 
15% 
9% 
15% 
19% 
5% 
5% 
6% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their likelihood of use of Business Link. IP active companies were 
more likely to have used Business Link than non-IP active companies. 
 
Table 227: Usage of Business Link by IP Activity 
  
                                                                              6-10 years 
                                                                                                                    10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Ba se 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
Yes 
  
65% 
62% 
62% 
65% 
58% 
73% 
62% 
65%
No 
  
25% 
23% 
28% 
18% 
23% 
19% 
35% 
28%
Don't know 
  
2% 
3% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
2%
Not  aware of Business Link  
8% 
12% 
9% 
18% 
19% 
5% 
0% 
5%
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Ba se 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%
Yes 
  
56% 
44% 
62% 
40% 
55% 
59% 
71% 
64%
No 
  
31% 
37% 
28% 
40% 
27% 
35% 
14% 
20%
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
10% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
4%
Not  aware of Business Link  
11% 
18% 
9% 
10% 
18% 
4% 
14% 
12%

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding their likelihood of use of Business Link. UKTI users were more likely to have 
used Business Link than non-UKTI users (72% vs 35%). 
 
Table 228: Usage of Business Link by UKTI usage 
  
                                                                             6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
72% 
71% 
78% 
72% 
67% 
73% 
70% 
69% 
No 
  
20% 
19% 
19% 
17% 
17% 
23% 
26% 
21% 
Don't know 
  
2% 
2% 
1% 
6% 
0% 
3% 
2% 
3% 
Not  aware of Business Link  
5% 
8% 
3% 
6% 
17% 
2% 
2% 
7% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Yes 
  
35% 
27% 
40% 
22% 
38% 
40% 
50% 
33% 
No 
  
44% 
48% 
42% 
44% 
38% 
43% 
33% 
67% 
Don't know 
  
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
Not  aware of Business Link  
20% 
25% 
19% 
33% 
23% 
14% 
17% 
0% 

 
Nearly six in ten companies (56%) felt that it was 'very likely' or 'quite likely' that they 
would use Business Link at some stage in the future.   
 
Table 229: Likelihood of using Business Link in the future  
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
911 
236 
249 
27 
37 
196 
58 
108 
Total 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very likely 
  
22% 
21% 
27% 
33% 
14% 
20% 
21% 
20% 
Quite likely 
  
34% 
34% 
28% 
15% 
38% 
38% 
40% 
38% 
Quite unlikely 
  
20% 
17% 
20% 
30% 
22% 
21% 
22% 
19% 
Very unlikely 
  
14% 
14% 
16% 
11% 
22% 
12% 
7% 
17% 
Don't know 
  
10% 
14% 
9% 
11% 
5% 
8% 
10% 
6% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between IP active and non-IP active 
companies regarding their likelihood of use of Business Link in the future. A higher 
proportion of IP active companies (60%) than non-IP active companies (51%) indicate 
that they are likely to use Business Link in the future. 
 
Table 230: Likelihood of using Business Link in the future by IP activity 
  
                                                                          6-10 years 
                                                                                                                     10+ years 

Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
457 
107 
90 
17 
26 
97 
37 
83 
IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very likely 
  
23% 
16% 
33% 
47% 
8% 
25% 
19% 
23% 
Quite likely 
  
37% 
42% 
24% 
12% 
46% 
43% 
46% 
36% 
Quite unlikely 
  
17% 
13% 
16% 
24% 
23% 
16% 
22% 
20% 
Very unlikely 
  
12% 
13% 
16% 
6% 
19% 
6% 
8% 
14% 
Don't know 
  
10% 
16% 
11% 
12% 
4% 
9% 
5% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
454 
129 
159 
10 
11 
99 
21 
25 
Non-IP active 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very likely 
  
21% 
26% 
23% 
10% 
27% 
16% 
24% 
12% 
Quite likely 
  
30% 
28% 
30% 
20% 
18% 
32% 
29% 
44% 
Quite unlikely 
  
23% 
21% 
23% 
40% 
18% 
26% 
24% 
16% 
Very unlikely 
  
17% 
14% 
17% 
20% 
27% 
18% 
5% 
24% 
Don't know 
  
9% 
12% 
8% 
10% 
9% 
7% 
19% 
4% 

 
There was a statistically significant difference between UKTI users and non-UKTI users 
regarding their likelihood of use of Business Link in the future. UKTI users (65%) are 
more likely to indicate that they will use Business Link in the future compared to non-
UKTI users (38%). 
 

  
  
6-10 years 
10+ years 
Total 
Up to 5 
  
  
years 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
0 - 49 
50 - 99 
100 + 
Base 
621 
135 
148 
18 
24 
154 
46 
96 
UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very likely 
  
29% 
30% 
37% 
44% 
21% 
24% 
22% 
23% 
Quite likely 
  
36% 
40% 
26% 
11% 
42% 
40% 
46% 
36% 
Quite unlikely 
  
18% 
13% 
18% 
28% 
21% 
19% 
22% 
20% 
Very unlikely 
  
10% 
7% 
13% 
11% 
13% 
10% 
4% 
15% 
Don't know 
  
7% 
10% 
5% 
6% 
4% 
7% 
7% 
6% 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Base 
290 
101 
101 
9 
13 
42 
12 
12 
Non-UKTI users 
  
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
Very likely 
  
9% 
10% 
11% 
11% 
0% 
7% 
17% 
0% 
Quite likely 
  
29% 
27% 
31% 
22% 
31% 
29% 
17% 
50% 
Quite unlikely 
  
24% 
23% 
23% 
33% 
23% 
31% 
25% 
17% 
Very unlikely 
  
23% 
23% 
22% 
11% 
38% 
21% 
17% 
33% 
Don't know 
  
15% 
18% 
14% 
22% 
8% 
12% 
25% 
0% 

## Appendix A Sic Code Exclusions

SIC Code Exclusions 
Grow cereals & other crops 
01 
Grow vegetables & nursery products 
01 
Grow fruit, nuts, beverage & spice crops 
01 
Farming of cattle, dairy farming 
01 
Farming of poultry 
01 
Other farming of animals 
01 
Other farming of animals 
01 
Crops combined with animals, mixed farms 
01 
Agricultural service activities 
01 
Animal husbandry services, not vets 
01 
Forestry & logging related services 
02 
Fishing 
05 
Operation of fish hatcheries & farms 
05 
Extraction of petroleum & natural gas 
11 
Services to oil and gas extraction 
11 
Mining of non-ferrous metal ores 
13 
Quarrying of stone for construction 
14 
Quarrying of slate 
14 
Production of salt 
14 
Other mining and quarrying 
14 
Manufacture of luggage & the like, saddlery 
19 
Sawmill, plane, impregnation wood 
20 
Manufacture of pulp 
21 
Manufacture of paper & paperboard 
21 
Manufacture corrugated paper & containers 
21 
Manufacture corrugated paper & containers 
21 
Manufacture of household & toilet goods 
21 
Manufacture of paper stationery 
21 
Manufacture of paper stationery 
21 
Manufacture of wallpaper 
21 
Manufacture of paper & paperboard goods 
21 
Other activities to printing 
22 
Manufacture of basic iron & steel (ecsc) 
27 
Manufacture of steel tubes 
27 
Other 1st process iron & steel 
27 
Precious metals production 
27 
Aluminium production 
27 
Copper production 
27 
Other non-ferrous metal production 
27 
Casting of iron 
27 
Forge press stamp & roll form metal 
28 
Treatment and coat metals 
28 
Recycling non-metal waste & scrap 
37 
Manufacture of gas; mains distribution 
40 
Collection, purify etc. of water 
41 
Demolition buildings; earth moving 
45 
Test drilling and boring 
45 
General construction & civil engineering 
45 
General construction & civil engineering 
45 
Erection of roof covering & frames 
45 
Construction roads, airfields etc. 
45 
Construction of water projects 
45 
Other special trades construction 
45 
Installation electrical wiring etc. 
45 
Plumbing 
45 
| Other building installation              |   45  |
|------------------------------------------|-------|
| Plastering                               |   45  |
| Joinery installation                     |   45  |
| Floor and wall covering                  |   45  |
| Painting and glazing                     |   45  |
| Other building completion                |   45  |
| Sale of motor vehicles                   |   50  |
| Maintenance & repair of motors           |   50  |
| Sale of motor vehicle parts etc.         |   50  |
| Sale, repair etc. m'cycles & parts       |   50  |
| Retail sale of automotive fuel           |   50  |
| Retail non-special stores food, etc.     |   52  |
| Other retail non-specialised stores      |   52  |
| Retail of fruit and vegetables           |   52  |
| Retail of meat and meat products         |   52  |
| Retail of fish, crustaceans etc.         |   52  |
| Retail bread, cakes, confectionery       |   52  |
| Retail alcoholic & other beverages       |   52  |
| Retail sale of tobacco products          |   52  |
| Other retail food etc. specialised       |   52  |
| Dispensing chemists                      |   52  |
| Retail sale of textiles                  |   52  |
| Retail sale of clothing                  |   52  |
| Retail of footwear & leather goods       |   52  |
| Retail furniture household etc.          |   52  |
| Retail furniture household etc.          |   52  |
| Retail electric household, etc. goods    |   52  |
| Retail hardware, paints & glass          |   52  |
| Retail books, newspapers etc.            |   52  |
| Other retail specialised stores          |   52  |
| Retail second-hand goods in stores       |   52  |
| Retail sale via mail order houses        |   52  |
| Other non-store retail sale              |   52  |
| Repair boots, shoes, leather goods       |   52  |
| Repair electrical household goods        |   52  |
| Repair of clocks & jewellery             |   52  |
| Repair not elsewhere classified          |   52  |
| Hotels & motels, with restaurant         |   55  |
| Youth hostels and mountain refuges       |   55  |
| Camp sites, including caravan sites      |   55  |
| Other provision of lodgings              |   55  |
| Restaurants                              |   55  |
| Bars                                     |   55  |
| Catering                                 |   55  |
| Transport via railways                   |   60  |
| Other scheduled passenger land transport |   60  |
| Taxi operation                           |   60  |
| Other passenger land transport           |   60  |
| Freight transport by road                |   60  |
| Transport via pipelines                  |   60  |
| Sea and coastal water transport          |   61  |
| Inland water transport                   |   61  |
| Scheduled air transport                  |   62  |
| Non-scheduled air transport              |   62  |
| Storage and warehousing                  |   63  |
| Other supporting water transport         |   63  |
| Travel agencies etc; tourist             |   63  |
| National post activities              |   64  |
|---------------------------------------|-------|
| Non-life insurance                    |   66  |
| Development & sell real estate        |   70  |
| Letting of own property               |   70  |
| Real estate agencies                  |   70  |
| Manage real estate, fee or contract   |   70  |
| Renting of automobiles                |   71  |
| Rent other land transport equipment   |   71  |
| Rent water transport equipment        |   71  |
| Rent civil engineering machinery      |   71  |
| Rent office machinery inc. computers  |   71  |
| Rent personal & household goods       |   71  |
| Industrial cleaning                   |   74  |
| Legal activities                      |   74  |
| Justice and judicial activities       |   75  |
| Public security, law & order          |   75  |
| Fire service activities               |   75  |
| Compulsory social security            |   75  |
| Primary education                     |   80  |
| General secondary education           |   80  |
| Technical & vocational secondary      |   80  |
| Higher education                      |   80  |
| Driving school activities             |   80  |
| Adult and other education             |   80  |
| Hospital activities                   |   85  |
| Medical practice activities           |   85  |
| Dental practice activities            |   85  |
| Other human health activities         |   85  |
| Veterinary activities                 |   85  |
| Social work with accommodation        |   85  |
| Social work without accommodation     |   85  |
| Business & employers organisations    |   91  |
| Professional organisations            |   91  |
| Religious organisations               |   91  |
| Political organisations               |   91  |
| Other membership organisations        |   91  |
| Motion picture projection             |   92  |
| Artistic & literary creation          |   92  |
| Operation of arts facilities          |   92  |
| Operation of arts facilities          |   92  |
| Fair and amusement park activities    |   92  |
| Other entertainment activities        |   92  |
| Library and archives activities       |   92  |
| Museum & preservation of history      |   92  |
| Botanical, zoos & nature reserves     |   92  |
| Operate sports arenas & stadiums      |   92  |
| Other sporting activities             |   92  |
| Gambling and betting activities       |   92  |
| Other recreational activities         |   92  |
| Wash & dry clean textile & fur        |   93  |
| Hairdressing & other beauty treatment |   93  |
| Funeral and related activities        |   93  |
| Physical well-being activities        |   93  |
| Other service activities              |   93  |
| Private households with employees     |   95  |
| Extra-territorial organisations       |   99  |
|                                       |       |

## Appendix B Questionnaire

 
Recruitment 
Could I please speak to either the owner or someone responsible for your firm's strategy 
in 
         relation 
                           to 
                                    your 
                                                  company's 
                                                                         non-UK 
                                                                                             business 
                                                                                                                activity? 
                                                                                                                                    Good 
morning/afternoon/evening. My name is ....... from Accent, an independent market 
research agency and I am carrying out research for the UK Trade & Investment and the 
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) on the topic of UK 
based businesses conducting business outside of the UK. 
 
We are interested in talking to a range of UK based firms either currently involved in 
any form of business activity outside of the UK or who are currently considering any 
form of business activity outside of the UK in the next 12 months. This overseas 
business activity might comprise, for example, selling directly to businesses or 
individuals abroad, selling to businesses or individuals abroad through agents or 
distributors, licensing or franchising overseas, or other contractual arrangements 
(including joint ventures) or operating your own overseas site or office.  We are 
interested in talking to any UK based companies who are either currently, or who are 
intending in the next 12 months, to conduct any international business activity in any 
form. Please note, this call is being recorded for quality control purposes.  
 
INTERVIEWER NOTE - YOU MAY TAKE REFERRALS TO ANOTHER SITE WITHIN THE 
UK. 
 
INTERVIEWER NOTE - IF FIRM IS NOT CURRENTLY DOING BUSINESS OVERSEAS, 
BUT PLANNING ON DOING SO WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR CONTINUE WITH THE 
INTERVIEW ON THIS BASIS 
 
This research will cover areas such as your current or potential overseas business 
activities, covering the way you go about doing business overseas and any issues you 
may have faced.  It will take around 20 minutes to complete, depending upon your 
answers.     
 
AS NECESSARY: We are able to offer all businesses taking part in this research 
an electronic link to a summary report of the research findings  
 
AS NECESSARY: IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE OVERSEAS 
BUSINESS YOU DO - WE'RE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO A RANGE OF FIRMS 
ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES. 
 
AS NECESSARY UKTI is responsible for helping UK firms do business overseas. They 
want to find out more about how firms are going about overseas business and any 
difficulties they have. This will help UKTI develop the type of help they offer to UK firms 
 

The research is being conducted under the Code of Practice of the Market Research 
Society, which means that all of the answers you give are strictly confidential and 
anonymous. Participation in this survey is voluntary. You do not have to answer any 
questions you do not wish to and you can terminate the interview at any point. 
 
The responses of all organisations taking part will be combined into a statistical report. 
 
Your organisation was selected at random from a list of UK businesses held by a 
commercial list broker. 
 
If you wish to check that Accent is a bona fide market research agency, you can contact 
the Market Research Society on 0500 396999, or call Teresa McGarry at Accent on 
0208 742 2211 or Heather Booth di Giovanni at UK Trade & Investment on 020 7215 
4989. 
 

Q1. Is it convenient to speak to you now or would you prefer to make an 
appointment for another time? 
 
1. Speak now 2. Call back 
 
Q2. Can I confirm that you are one of the people best qualified to talk about your 
company's overseas business activity? 

## Interviewer Note: If Know Already That You Are Speaking To The Correct Person Then Code Yes Automatically Referrals Can Be Taken To Any Site When The Contact Feels That There Is Someone Within The Company Better Placed To Answer Questions On The Topic Areas Outlined

1. Yes  
 
2. No - take referral and being transferred 
 
3. No - take referral and arrange call back 
 
4. No - refused referral **THANK AND CLOSE** 

Q2b:  May I ask your name and job title? 
INTERVIEWER: PERSON NEEDS TO BE A SENIOR LEVEL BUSINESS PERSON SUCH AS 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,  GENERAL MANAGER,  COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR, HEAD 
OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT, SALES DIRECTOR ETC. . IF NOT ASK TO SPEAK TO 
SOMEONE ELSE. 

## Screener

Q3. **ASK ALL** Which of the following overseas business activities has your firm been 
involved in, over the last 5 years?  READ OUT - CODE ALL THAT APPLY 
INTERVIEWER: 'ABROAD' MEANS OUTSIDE OF THE UK 

1. Selling directly to businesses or individuals abroad  
 
2. Selling to businesses or individuals abroad through agents or distributors 3. Licensing or franchising overseas, or other contractual arrangements (including joint ventures) 4. Operating your own overseas site or office  
5. (None of these) ASK Q4 6. Don't know **THANK AND CLOSE** 
 
Q4. **IF NONE AT Q3 (CODE 5) ASK:** Are you seriously considering starting to conduct 
overseas business via any of these routes in the **NEXT YEAR**? 
 
1. Yes 
2. No **THANK AND CLOSE** 3. Don't know **THANK AND CLOSE** 
 
Q5. **(IF Q4=1) ASK:** Which of the following overseas business activities are you 
planning to become involved in, in the next year?  CODE ALL THAT APPLY 
INTERVIEWER: 'ABROAD' MEANS OUTSIDE OF THE UK 
1. Selling to businesses or individuals abroad 
 
2. Selling to businesses or individuals abroad through agents or distributors 3. Licensing or franchising overseas, or other contractual arrangements (including joint ventures) 4. Operating your own overseas site or office  
5. None of these **THANK AND CLOSE** 6. Don't know **THANK AND CLOSE** 
 
Q6. **IF CODE 3 AT Q3 OR CODE 3 AT Q5** You mentioned licensing or franchising 
overseas, or other contractual arrangements, but is this/ will this be licensing, franchising or some other partnership or joint venture arrangement? CODE ALL 
THAT APPLY  

## Interviewer Note: If Respondent Has Already Provided This Information Do Not Ask Question And Code As Appropriate Interviewer Note: If In Doubt, Respondent Should Select The Most Appropriate Option

1. Licensing 2. Franchising 3. Other partnership or joint venture arrangement 4. Don't know  
 
Q7. **IF CODE 3 AT Q6:**  Would you say that the MAIN purpose of this partnership or 
joint venture is/will be? **READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY** 
 
1. Manufacturing 2. Assembly 3. Call centre 4. Distribution/sales office 5. After-sales office 6. Service delivery 7. Research, product or process development 8. Something else (SPECIFY) 9. Don't know 
Q8. **IF CODE 4 AT Q3 OR CODE 4 AT Q5:** You mentioned operating your own 
overseas office or site. How many overseas sites do you have/ will you have? READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY 
 
1. One 2. 2-5 3. 6-10 4. 11-20 5. 21-50 6. More than 50 7. Don't know 
8. Refused 
 
Q9. **(IF CODE 1 AT Q8) OR (CODE 4 AT Q5) ONLY ONE SITE:** Would you say that the 
MAIN purpose of this office or site is/will be…  
OR **(IF CODE 2-6 AT Q8) OR CODE 4 AT Q5:** Would you say that the **MAIN** purpose of 
these offices or sites are/will be: READ OUT 
 
READ OUT SINGLE CODE 
1. Manufacturing 2. Assembly 3. Call centre 4. Distribution/sales office 5. After-sales office 6. Service delivery 7. Research, product or process development  
8. Don't know   
 
Q10. (**IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3):** Have you **IMPORTED** any goods or services over the last 
5 years **(excluding through partnerships, joint ventures and production sites)**?  
 
PROMPT:  By importing I mean the buying in of goods or services from overseas 
suppliers 
 
1. Yes  
2. No GO TO Q12
3. Don't know GO TO Q12
 
Q11. **IF CODE 1 (YES) AT Q10**: Do you import…? **READ OUT** 
 
1. Direct from an overseas supplier 2. Or, through a UK-based intermediary 3. Or, both 4. Don't know 
INTERVIEWER: READ OUT: FROM NOW ON, WHEN I'M ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR OVERSEAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE IMPORTING  

Q12. **ASK ALL** And can I just ask, how long ago was your business established?   
READ OUT –INTERVIEWER: THIS MEANS WHEN THE BUSINESS IN ITS 
CURRENT FORM STARTED TRADING 
INTERVIEWER: IF THE BUSINESS IS A SUBSIDIARY THIS REFERS TO THE 
SUBSIDIARY IN WHICH THEY WORK 
 
1. Within the last year 2. Over 1, up to 2 years ago 3. Over 2, up to 3 years ago 4. Over 3, up to 4 years ago 5. Over 4, up to 5 years ago 6. Over 5, up to 10 years ago 7. Over 10, up to 20 years ago 8. Over 20 years ago 9. Not yet trading 10. Don't know 11. Refused  
 
Q13. **(ASK IF CODES 1-2 AT Q12) IF ESTABLISHED 1-2 YEARS**. Can I just check, has 
your business actually started trading yet?  
 
1. Yes 2. No 
3. Don't know 
 
Q14. **ASK ALL** And what is the main activity of the business? PROBE FULLY FOR 
INDUSTRY TYPE - IF MANUFACTURING WHAT TYPE OF MANUFACTURING, IF 
FINANCIAL SERVICES WHAT KIND AND SO FORTH  
 
1. Agriculture, hunting & forestry 
 

2. Fishing 
 

3. Mining & quarrying 
 
4. Manufacturing 
 
5. Electricity, gas and water supply 
 
6. Construction 
 
7. Retail, wholesale & repair of motor vehicles 8. Hotels and catering 
 
9. Transport, storage and communication 
 
10. Financial intermediation (Finance) 
 
11. Real estate, renting & business activities 
 
12. Public administration and defence 
 
13. Education 
 
14. Health and social work 
 
15. Other community, social & personal service activities 
 
16. Other (specify) 
 
 
17. Don't know 18. Refused 

## Section A: Overseas Business Activity

Q15. **(ASK IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3)** As a company would you say you are…? READ OUT 
- SINGLE CODE 
 
1. Very experienced in overseas markets 2. Quite experienced 3. Not very experienced 4. Or not at all experienced in overseas markets 5. Don't know 6. Refused 
 
Q16. **(ASK IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3)** And how long ago did your company start 
conducting business overseas?  
 
READ OUT AS NECESSARY - ANSWER MUST NOT BE GREATER THAN Q12
 
1. Within the last year 
 
2. Over 1, up to 2 years ago 3. Over 2, up to 3 years ago 4. Over 3, up to 4 years ago 5. Over 4, up to 5 years ago 6. Over 5, up to 10 years ago6 7. Over 10, up to 20 years ago 8. Over 20 years ago 9. Have not yet started doing business overseas 10. Don't know 11. Refused 
 
Q17. **(ASK IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3)** How many overseas countries have you done 
business in over the last 5 years, in any form? IF IMPORTER (IE CODE 1 AT Q10) READ OUT: although please DO NOT include countries that you have only imported from. READ OUT CODES 
 
1. None  
 
2. One 3. 2-5 4. 6-10 5. 11-20 
6. 21-50 7. More than 50 8. Don't know 9. Refused 
 
Q18. **(IF CODE 2 AT 0)** Which country was this? **WRITE IN**  
 
Q19. (ASK **IF CODE 4  AT Q3 OR CODE 4 AT Q5 OR Q7 NE 4)**: Can I just check, have 
you made any sales at all to customers in overseas markets in the last year?  
 
1. Yes   
2. No **GO TO Q22** 
3. Don't know **GO TO Q22** 
 
Q20. **(ASK IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3):** I would now like to move on to talking a bit more 
about your current/planned overseas business activity. ADD AS NECESSARY: And by that I mean selling goods or services to either 
businesses or individuals based abroad. In the last financial year, approximately what percentage of your turnover was 
accounted for by overseas sales?  **RECORD PERCENTAGE** 
 
IF CODE 3 AT Q3 SAY: Please include any fees received from overseas 
companies or overseas licensing deals. 
 
1. Write in (%) **GO TO Q22** 
2. Don't know 
3. Refused **GO TO Q22** 
 

## Cati To Check Number Is Between 0 And 100

 
Q21. **(IF CODE 2 AT Q20)** If you had to estimate this percentage, into which of the 
following bands would you put your business?  **READ OUT** 
 
1. Up to 5% 2. 6 - 10% 3. 11 - 15% 4. 16 - 25% 5. 26 - 50% 6. 51 - 75% 7. More than 75% 8. Don't know 9. Refused 
 
Q22. (ASK **IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3):** And in a year's time, approximately what percentage 
of your turnover do you anticipate will be accounted for by overseas sales? 
AS NECESSARY: Please just answer for the UK part of your business? 
IF CODE 3 AT Q3 SAY: Please include any fees received from overseas companies or 
overseas licensing deals 
 
1. Write in (%) **GO TO Q24** 
2. Don't know 
3. Refused **GO TO Q24** 

## Cati To Check Number Is Between 0 And 100

Q23. **(IF CODE 2 DON'T KNOW AT Q22):** In a year's time do you think the percentage 
of your turnover that is accounted for by overseas sales will be higher than it is 
now, lower, or about the same?  **READ OUT** 
 
1. Higher 2. Lower 3. About the same 4. Don't know 5. Refused 
Q24. (**IF Q3 =1-4 OR Q4 =1):** I'm going to read out some possible benefits of selling 
into overseas markets, and I'd like you to tell me whether each one applies to 
your business.  So firstly… 

## Has Selling Into Overseas Markets...  Read Out. Order Of Statements To Be Randomised

|                                                                                 |     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
| Yes                                                                             | No  |
| 1 Enabled you to achieve a level of growth otherwise not possible? 1 2 3        |     |
| 2 Allowed you to fully utilise your existing capacity? 1 2 3                    |     |
| 3 Reduced your dependence on a single or small number of markets? 1 2 3         |     |
| 4 Exposed you to new ideas? 1 2 3                                               |     |
| 5 Increased the commercial life span of any of your products or services? 1 2 3 |     |

Q25. ASK FOR EACH OF Q24 CODES 1-5 THAT HAS BEEN A BENEFIT (IE CODE 1).  
ASK Q25 DIRECTLY AFTER EACH Q24 STATEMENT: And on a scale 1 to 5, 
where 1 means 'to no extent' and 5 means 'to a critical extent' to what extent 
(If Q3=1-4) do you feel that this has been a benefit/ (Q4 = 1) do you feel that 
this would be a benefit of selling into overseas markets? .  READ OUT AS 
NECESSARY 

 
 
No 
 
Neither 
   Critical DK
1 Enabled you to achieve a level of growth otherwise not possible? 
 
1........ 2........... 3.............. 4............... 5...............6 
2 Allowed you to fully utilise your existing capacity? 
1........ 2........... 3.............. 4............... 5...............6 
3 Reduced your dependence on a single or small number of markets? 
 
1........ 2........... 3.............. 4............... 5...............6 
4 Exposed you to new ideas? 
1........ 2........... 3.............. 4............... 5...............6 
5 Increased the commercial life span of any of your products or services? 
 
1........ 2........... 3.............. 4............... 5...............6 
 

## Section B - Drivers Of Market

Q26. (**IF Q17=3-7 (AND Q12 = 1-8 OR Q13=1**)): Thinking now about the overseas 
countries that you have done business in within the last 5 years, which was the most challenging to do business in?  Was it?  
OR (**IF Q17=2 AND (Q12 = 1-8 OR Q13=1))** So the only overseas country you have 
done business in is <Q18> Is this correct? 
 
OR (**IF Q4=1)**: Which overseas country is your firm planning to become involved 
in, in the next year? 

PROMPT. SINGLE CODE 
 
INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT CAN'T NAME THE MOST CHALLENGING 
COUNTRY ASK THEM TO LIST THE MOST RECENT OVERSEAS COUNTRY FOR 
DOING BUSINESS/THINKING OF DOING BUSINESS 
 

Q27. And which of the following overseas business activities did this/will this involve 
in <Q26>?  **READ OUT - SINGLE CODE**  
 
1. Selling directly to businesses or individuals abroad  
 
2. Selling to businesses or individuals abroad through agents or distributors 
3. Licensing 4.  Franchising overseas 5. Other contractual arrangements (including joint ventures) 6. Operating your own overseas site or office 7. Don't know 
 
Q28. **(IF CODE 4 AT Q27)** What was/will be the **MAIN** purpose of this site? Was it … 
READ OUT **SINGLE CODE** 1. Manufacturing 2. Assembly 3. Call centre 4. Distribution/sales office 5. After-sales office 6. Service delivery 7. Research, product or process development 8. Don't know 

MODE: 
M1: SELLING DIRECT: IF Q27=1: 
M2: SELLING THROUGH AGENTS/DISTRIBUTORS  IF Q27=2 
M3-M5: SELLING THROUGH LICENSING IF Q27=3 
M6: PRODUCTION SITE: IF Q28 = CODES 1-2  
M7: CALL CENTRE: IF Q28 = CODE 3 
M8: SALES/SERVICE CENTRE: IF Q28 = CODES 4-6  
M9: R & D SITE: IF Q28 = CODE 7  
 

Q29. **(IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3):** How long have you done business < **IN Q26** >? 
 
READ OUT AS NECESSARY - ANSWER MUST NOT BE GREATER THAN Q16
 
1. Less than a year 
2. Over 1, up to 2 years 
3. Over 2, up to 3 years 4. Over 3, up to 4 years 5. Over 4, up to 5 years 6. Over 5, up to 10 years 7. Over 10, up to 20 years 8. Over 20 years 9. Have not yet started 10. Don't know 11. Refused 
 
Q30. **IF M6, M7 OR M9:** Can I just check, does your/ would this (IF M6: 
PRODUCTION SITE/ IF M7: CALLCENTRE/ IF M9 R&D SITE in < **Q26** > sell any products or services directly to any customers < **IN Q26** >?  READ 
OUT - SINGLE CODE  
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q31. **IF M1, M2, M3-M5 OR M8 OR CODE 1 AT Q30:** Have you had to/Do you expect to 
need to modify any of your products or services for customers < **IN Q26** >? 
 
 
1. Yes 
2. No **GO TO Q33** 
3. Don't know **GO TO Q33** 
 
Q32.  **IF YES (CODE 1) AT Q31:** Was this/ Are you expecting this to be …? READ OUT 
- MULTICODE 
 
1. Something cosmetic such as packaging or translation 2. Or something more fundamental 3. None of these 4. Don't know 
 
Q33. **M5 OR M6:** Can I just check, do you / would you import into the UK at all IF M5 
<through this partnership or joint venture>/ IF M6 <from this production site 
>?  READ OUT - SINGLE CODE  
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q34. **ASK ALL**: I'm going to read out some of the individual circumstances that other 
firms have found themselves in when looking at doing business in specific overseas locations and I'd like you to tell me the extent to which each one 
applied to you when you were FIRST CONSIDERING  
doing business < in Q26>. 
 

Please give me a score of 1 to 5, where 1 means that it is 'not at all applicable' 
and 5 means that it is 'completely applicable' and so firstly…READ OUT - 
RANDOMISE  
To what extent did the following (READ OUT CODES 1 -5) apply to you when 
you were FIRST CONSIDERING doing business <in Q26> ? 
 

|     | Not        | Not    | Neither    | Appli    |
|-----|------------|--------|------------|----------|
|     | at all     | appli  |            | -cable   |
|     | applicable |        |            |          |
|     | applicable | cable  |            |          |

 

1. We had received an approach from someone in  
< Q26> 
.........................................................1 ................ 2.............. 3............... 4...............5.............
2. It had been suggested to us by someone external to the 
company that < Q26 > might be an opportunity for us..............1 ................ 2.............. 3............... 4...............5.............
3. There was someone within the company who already had 
 experience of < Q26 > 
.........................................................1 ................ 2.............. 3............... 4...............5.............
4. We had been considering a number of countries at the  
time, and decided to focus on < Q26 >......................................1 ................ 2.............. 3............... 4...............5............. 5. We had identified internally that < Q26 > offered  
a potential opportunity for us ....................................................1 ................ 2.............. 3............... 4...............5.............

 
Q35. **ASK ALL** Thinking now about your (**IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3)** experiences so far of 
(**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** your plans for doing business in < Q26>  how easy or difficult (**IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3)** has it been / (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** do you expect it to be on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is 'very easy' and 5 is 'very difficult'? 
READ OUT - RANDOMISE 
 

 
Very 
Fairly 
Average 
Fairly 
Very 
NA 
 
Easy 
easy 
 
difficult 
difficult 
1How easy or difficult **(IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3**) has  
it been (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** do you expect it to  
be > for you to find customers < in Q26 >1.........................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
2. IF M3-M5:How easy or difficult (IF CODES 1-4 AT Q3) has it been (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)**  
do you expect it to be  for you to find a suitable  
partner  
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
3. How easy or difficult (IF CODES 1 - 4 AT  
Q3) has it been (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** do you  
expect it to be > for you to negotiate the legal and regulatory framework or standards   
< in Q26 > 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
4. How easy or difficult (IF CODES 1 -4 AT  
Q3) has it been (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** do you  
expect it to be for you to negotiate the  
culture and language < in Q26 > 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
5. How easy or difficult (IF CODES 1 -4 AT  
Q3) has it been **(IF CODE 1 AT Q4)** do you  
expect it to be for you to protect your Intellectual Property  
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
6. How easy or difficult has it been for you to deal with the logistics of doing business  
< in Q26 > 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
7. IF M6-M9: How easy or difficult (IF CODES  
1-3 AT Q3) has it been (**IF CODE 1 AT Q4)**  
do you expect it to be for you to recruit and retain suitable staff 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
8 (IF YES AT Q31) How easy or difficult  
(IF CODES 1 -4 AT Q3) has it been (IF CODE  
1 AT Q4) do you expect it to be for you to  
make any modifications to your products or services so that they are suitable for  
customers < in Q26 > 1 
2 .................3 ................ 4.............. 5............... 6...............7 

 
Q36. REMOVE: QUESTION 
 
Q37. **ASK ALL:** And how do you view the RISK of doing business < in Q26 > IF M3-
M7 OR M9 in terms of the following?  **READ OUT - RANDOMISE** 
Would you say that the risk < in Q26 > of <codes 1-3) is…? READ OUT SCALE AS 
NECESSARY 
 

|                                                              | Very    | Fairly      | Average    | fairly    | very    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|------------|-----------|---------|
|                                                              | low     | low         |            | high      | high    |
|                                                              |         |             |            |           |         |
| 1. Ensuring you get paid and enforcing contracts?1 2 3 4 5 6 |         |             |            |           |         |
|                                                              |         |             |            |           |         |
| 2. The financial risk in                                     |         |             |            |           |         |
| terms of whether you will be able to make a profit           |         |             |            |           |         |
| in <Q26>?                                                    | 1       | 2 3 4 5 6 7 |            |           |         |

## Section D - Barriers

Q38. **ASK ALL:** I'd now like you to think about the difficulties or problems that a firm 
IN A SIMILAR POSITION TO YOURSELF in terms of size, sector and 
structure might face doing business <in **Q26>.**. 
 
I'm going to read out a list of possible issues and I'd like you tell me the extent to which a firm **SIMILAR TO YOURSELF** would encounter each one when trying to do business < in Q26 > . 

Please give me a score of 1 to 5 for the extent to which you feel that this is likely to be a difficulty, where 1 means that it would 'not be a problem at all' and 5 means it would be 'extremely difficult' 

## So Firstly, … Read Out - Rotate List Always Ask Statement H After Statement G Always Ask Statements B, C & D In Order On Each Of The E1 Screens Add After Each Statement

 
No problem 
No 
Neither 
Difficult
 
Extremely 
NA 
Don't  
 
at all 
problem 
 
 
difficult
 
 
know 
1. Obtaining basic information about (IF M1)/ DOING  
BUSINESS/(IF M2-M9< in Q26> 
 1.................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 2. Identifying who to make contact with in the first instance , (IF M2-5) or finding a suitable partner> 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 3. Establishing an initial dialogue with prospective <IF M1, M5 OR M8> customers or  business partners < in Country > 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 4. Building relationships with key influencers or decision-makers  
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 5. Cultural differences outside of any language barriers 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 6. IF M1-5 Not having IF M1 an / IF M3-M5 their own  
office or site < in Q26 >  
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 7. IF M1-M6 OR M8 A bias or preference on the part of customers in <Q26> for doing business  
with firms from < Q26 >   
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 8. The costs associated with doing business  
< in Q26 > 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 9. Finding the necessary management time to devote to doing  
business < in Q26 > 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 10. Exchange rates and currency 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6............. 11. IF M6-M9: Problems obtaining work permits or visas for  
staff to allow them to relocate to < Q26 > 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............

## Section F - Diversification And  Emerging/Fast Growing Markets

Q39. (**ASK IF Q17 = 3-7**): Focusing on the overall balance of your international 
activity, can I just check in which regions of the world your business is active. Is your business active in  **READ OUT** 
INTERVIEWER THE EEA COUNTRIES ARE: ICELAND, LIECHTENSTEIN, NORWAY, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BULGARIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, 
DENMARK, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, HUNGARY, 
IRELAND, ITALY, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MALTA, NETHERLANDS, 
POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, UK. 

|      | Yes    | No    | DK    |
|------|--------|-------|-------|
1. European Economic Area ................................... 1............... 2............... 3 2. Russia and Eastern Europe, outside the EEA....... 1............... 2............... 3 3. USA/Canada ........................................................ 1............... 2............... 3 4. Latin America and Caribbean .............................. 1............... 2............... 3 
5. Africa................................................................... 1............... 2............... 3 6. Middle East.......................................................... 1............... 2............... 3 
7. Asia...................................................................... 1............... 2............... 3 8 Australia/New Zealand ......................................... 1............... 2............... 3 

 
Q40. **(ASK IF Q17 = 2 - 7):** Thinking now about the **NUMBER** of countries in which you 
are doing business overseas, has this number increased or decreased in the last 3 years? **READ OUT** 

1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Stayed the same 
4. Don't know 
 

Q41. **(ASK IF Q17 = 2 - 7):** And over the next three years do you expect the number of 
countries you do business with overseas will increase, decrease or stay the same? READ OUT 

 
1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Stayed the stay 4. Don't know 
 

Q42. I am going to read out a list of reasons which have been given for expanding the 
number of countries in which a business operates.  I would like you to tell me the extent to which each applies to your business. Please give me a score between 1 and 5 for the extent to which you feel that this applies, where 1 
means that it is 'not at all beneficial and 5 means that this is 'very beneficial'. 

 
 
Not at 
 
Neither 
 
Very 
NA 
 
all 


beneficial 
 
beneficial 


1 Has enabled you to meet growth objectives? 1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
2 Allowed you to fully utilise your existing capacity? 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
3 Reduced your dependence on a single or small number of markets? 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
4 Enabling you to offset declining revenues in other markets 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............
5 Enabling you to increase the commercial life span of any of your products or services? 
 
1 .................2 ................ 3.............. 4............... 5...............6.............

 

## Interviewer: Read Out: I Am Now Going To Ask You About The Extent To Which You See There Being Opportunities For Your Firm In Some Of The World'S Fastest Growing And Emerging Economies.

Q43. **ASK ALL:** For each of these countries please could you tell me whether you see it 
as being a good opportunity for your firm over the next 2 years, a possible opportunity, unlikely to provide you with an opportunity over this timeframe or 
are you already doing business there. 
 
So firstly, would you say that < INSERT COUNTRY CODES 1- 10> is a…?… ROTATE ORDER OF 1-7, ALWAYS ASKING 8-10 LAST 


 
Good 
Possible Unlikely
 
Already 
DK opportunity 
 
opportunity 
 
doing 


business 
1. Russia .................................................................. 1............... 2............... 3...............4.............
2. Turkey ................................................................. 1............... 2............... 3...............4.............
3. South Africa ........................................................ 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 4. Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates ......... 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 5. Brazil .................................................................. 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 6. Mexico ................................................................ 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 7. China.................................................................... 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 8. India..................................................................... 1............... 2............... 3...............4............. 

Q44. **ASK ALL EXCEPT 'NOT YET TRADING' (CODE 9 AT Q12 OR CODE 2 AT Q13):** In 
your opinion, has your business been negatively affected by the downturn in 
the US or UK markets over the last year?  **SINGLE CODE**.   
 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know  
 

Q45. Again in your opinion, has your business been negatively affected by the 
downturn in the European Markets over the last year?  **SINGLE CODE.**   
 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know  
 

Q46. ASK IF YES (CODE 1) AT Q44 OR Q45. IF NO/DK AT BOTH Q44 AND Q45 GO TO 
Q47: And has this prompted you to devote more attention to any of the 
emerging or fast growing economies I've just mentioned? 

## Interviewer: As Necessary For Example China, India, Brazil Or Russia

1. Yes 
2. No 
3. Don't know 
 

Q47. IF ALREADY EXPORTING (**IF Q3 =1-4**) And, in the last year, has your business 
benefited from sustained economic growth or increasing demand in any overseas countries?   **SINGLE CODE.**   

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 

Q47a: Overall thinking about your overseas business do you see the economic downturn as offering your firm …….READ OUT 
1. increased opportunities  
2. about the same/no impact  
3. reduced opportunities  
4. don't know  
 

## Q48. **Move Quesiton To After Q50**

ASK ALLI would now like to ask you some questions about the effect on your business on the recent decline in the value of sterling  
Q Will your firm be able to take advantage of the decline in the value of sterling ? 

1. Yes  
2. No  
3. Don't know  
 
Q49. ASK ALL IF ALREADY EXPORTING (**IF Q3 =1-4**): So far have you increased/ (IF 
Q4=1) do you expect to increase your sales in any market as a result of the 
decline in the value of sterling? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DK 
Q50.  (IF CODE 1 AT Q49): ASK ALL IF ALREADY EXPORTING (**IF Q3 =1-4**): Has it 
been necessary/(**(IF Q4=1)** Will it be necessary to discount your products or services in order to achieve this? 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
Q48:  ASK ALL:. When operating in overseas markets do you price your products or services in **READ OUT** 

 1. Sterling 2. Overseas Currencies 3. Both 4. Don't know 5. NA 
Q51. **ASK ALL**: Taking account of imports, has the recent decline in the value of 
sterling raised the costs of conducting  business overseas for your firm? 1. No 2. Not significantly 3 A little 4. Moderately 5. A lot 6. DK 
 
Q52. **ASK ALL:** Overall what has the effect been of the decline in the value of sterling 
on your business?. Has it **READ OUT** 1. Been beneficial to your business 2. Had a negative affect your business 3. Had no effect 4. Other (specify) 
 
Q53. **ASK ALL:** Still thinking about the current economic downturn, I would now like 
to ask you some questions about your company's use of export credit insurance, letters of credit and access to finance. 

 
INTERVIEWER: TRADE CREDIT INSURANCE POLICIES COVER AGAINST THE 
RISK OF NON PAYMENT, DUE TO YOUR CUSTOMERS' INSOLVENCY, AND 
PROTRACTED DEFAULT (I.E., NON-PAYMENT SIX MONTHS AFTER ORIGINAL 
PAYMENT DUE DATE). FOR EXPORTING COMPANIES, THEY CAN ALSO EXTEND 
OVER LOSSES ARISING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF POLITICAL (COUNTRY) RISK. 
 
Can I just check, (IF Q3 =1-4) does your firm ever/ (IF Q4 = 1) will your firm use 
export credit insurance?  SINGLE CODE 

## Interviewer Note: If Respondent Does Not Know What Exportcredit Insurance Is Then Code As 'No'

 
1. Yes 
2. No 
3. Don't know 
 
Q54. (IF CODE 1 AT Q53 AND (**IF Q3 =1-3 OR Q3 = 4 AND Q19 = 1**) ASK: And over the 
last 6 months, have you had any difficulties in accessing export credit 
insurance?  **SINGLE CODE** 
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused 
 
Q55. (**IF Q3 =1-4**): Does your firm ever/ **(IF Q4 =1)** will your firm use letters of credit 
when doing business overseas?  SINGLE CODE 
INTERVIEWER: A LETTER OF CREDIT IS WHEN A CREDITOR/SELLER IS OFFERING AN OBLIGATION TO PAY THE AMOUNT STIPULATED IN THE CREDIT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DEFENCE RELATING TO THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT OF SALE.  
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
Q56. (IF CODE 1 AT Q55) AND ALREADY EXPORTING (IF Q3 =1-4):ASK: And over the 
last 6 months, have you had any difficulties in accessing letters of credit or 
with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit?  SINGLE 
CODE.  IF YES PROBE WHETHER THIS RELATES TO ACCESSING 
LETTERS OF CREDIT, THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OR BOTH 
 
1. Yes - difficulty accessing the letters of credit 2. Yes - difficulty with the terms and conditions relating to these letters of credit 
3. Yes - both 4. No 5. Don't know 6. Refused 
 Q56aOver the past 6 months has your firm attempted to access finance either from within the company or from external sources? 

1. Yes  
2. No GO TO Q61 
3. Don't know GO TO Q61
 
Q57. **ASK ALL:** Over the last 6 months, has your business had any difficulties in 
accessing finance, either from within the company or from external sources?  
SINGLE CODE 
 
1. Yes 
2. No GO TO Q61 3. Don't know GO TO Q61 4. Refused GO TO Q61
 

Q58. **(IF CODE 1 AT Q57) ASK**: And did these difficulties relate to accessing internal 
finance from within the business or raising finance from external sources such as a bank? SINGLE CODE 
 
1. Internal finance 
2. External finance 3. Both 
4. Don't know GO TO Q61 5. Refused GO TO Q61
 
Q59. **(IF CURRENTLY EXPORTING IE CODE Q3 = 1-4) ASK**: Did any of these 
difficulties specifically relate to financing your overseas business activity?  
 
1. Yes, related to overseas sales 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q60. **IF CURRENTLY EXPORTING IE CODE Q3 = 1-3 OR Q3 = 4 AND Q19 =1**)  
If yes at Q59 say: Would you say that these difficulties accessing finance have had any negative impact on the value of your overseas sales over the last 6 
months? SINGLE CODE 

If No or Don't know at Q59 say: "Although they did not specifically relate to financing 
your overseas business, would you say that these difficulties accessing finance have had 
any negative impact on the value of your overseas sales over the last 6 months? 
SINGLE CODE 
 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 

SECTION E - AWARENESS & NEEDS 
 
ASK ALL: I'd now like to ask you some questions about any sources of information or 
advice you are aware of that are available to help UK firms do business overseas. 
 

Q61. Prior to this interview, had you heard of ? READ OUT - ROTATE STATEMENTS 
4-8 (1-3 ALWAYS  ASKED FIRST) 
 
Q62. **IF YES AT ANY OF Q61 1-8:** Have you used any of these?  
 

|                                                              | Q61       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|
|                                                              |           |
| Q61                                                          |           |
|                                                              |           |
| Q61                                                          |           |
|                                                              | Q62       |
|                                                              | Yes       |
| 1. UK Trade & Investment or UKTI 1 2 3 1 2                   |           |
| 2. The commercial services provided by embassies             |           |
| overseas                                                     | 1 2 3 1 2 |
| 3. The International Trade Advisors based in Business        |           |
| Links                                                        | 1 2 3 1 2 |
| 4. Passport to Export                                        | 1 2 3 1 2 |
| 5. (                                                         |           |
| IF YES AT CODES 1 OR 3)                                      |           |
| The Export Marketing                                         |           |
| Research Scheme or EMRS 1 2 3 1 2                            |           |
| 6. (IF                                                       |           |
| YES AT CODES 1 OR 3)                                         |           |
| Export Communication                                         |           |
| Reviews or ECR                                               | 1 2 3 1 2 |
| 7. The Tradeshow Access Programme or TAP 1 2 3 1 2           |           |
| 8. The Overseas Market Information Service or OMIS 1 2 3 1 2 |           |

Q63. **ASK ALL:** Prior to this interview, had you heard of Business Link?  
INTERVIEWER: READ OUT IF REQUIRED: Business Link is a free business advice and support service, available online and through local advisers 
 
1. Yes 
2. No **GO TO Q65** 
3. Don't know **GO TO Q65** 
 
Q64. Have you used Business Link? 
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q65. How likely will you be to use Business Link in the future? 
 
1. Very likely 2. Quite likely 3. Quite unlikely 4. Very unlikely 5. Don't know 
 
SECTION G - PROFILE 
I'd now like to ask you some questions about your business just to classify your answers for analysis purposes. You may of course skip any question you do not wish to answer. 

 

Q66. **ASK ALL:** Can I just check, is the business UK or foreign-owned? 
 
1. UK-owned 2. Foreign-owned 3. (Joint UK and foreign-owned) 4. Don't know 
 
Q67. **ASK ALL**: How many people are currently employed by your business in the 
UK?  

## Interviewer Note As Necessary Please Include Both Full And Part-Time Staff.

1. Write in number (0+): **GO TO Q69** 
2. Don't know 
3. Refused **GO TO Q69** 
 (IF DON'T KNOW AT Q67) 

Q68. If you had to estimate, approximately how many people are employed by your 
business in the UK? **READ OUT AS NECESSARY** 
 
1. No employees 2. 1-4 3. 5-9 4. 10-19 5. 20-49 6. 50-99 7. 100-199 8. 200-249 9. 250-499 10. 500 or more 11. Don't know 
12. Refused 
 

Q69. **ASK ALL EXCEPT CODES 1, 2, 3 & 9 AT Q12 OR CODE 2 AT Q13:** Compared to 
this time three years ago, would you say that the number of people employed 
by your company is now…? **READ OUT**  
 
1. Higher 2. Lower 3. Or, about the same as it was three years ago 4. Don't know 5.  
Q70. **IF HIGHER (CODE 1 AT Q69):** How many people were employed by your 
business three years ago? **READ OUT**  
 

 
          INTERVIEWER NOTE AS NECESSARY PLEASE INCLUDE BOTH FULL AND PART-
TIME STAFF. 
 

1. Write in number (0+): **GO TO Q72** 
2. Don't know  
3. Refused **GO TO Q72** 
 
Q71. ASK IF DON'T KNOW/REFUSED AT Q70 OR (HIGHER (CODE 1 AT Q69) & NO 
FIGURE GIVEN IE Q68  OR Q67 (DON'T KNOW/REFUSED): Over the last three 
years would you say that the number of people employed by your company 
has… **READ OUT**  
 
1. Increased by more than 75% 2. Increased by between 30-75% 3. Or, increased by less than 30% compared to 3 years ago 4. Don't know 
 
Q72. IF NOT ESTABLISHED IN THE LAST YEAR (Q12 NOT CODE 1 & NOT CODE 9 AND 
Q13 NOT CODE 2): Can I ask, what is the current annual turnover of your 
business? 
IF ESTABLISHED IN LAST YEAR (CODES 1 OR 9 AT Q12 OR CODE 2 AT Q13): 
What do you anticipate will be the turnover of your business in the first year of trading? 
 
 
AS NECESSARY BY THIS I MEAN YOUR ANNUAL SALES, INCOME OR RECEIPTS.  

## As Necessary Please Give Me The Turnover For The Uk Part Of Your Business, But Include Overseas Sales Made By The Uk

 
1. Write in amount in £ (£0+): **GO TO Q74** 
2. Don't know   
3. Refused **GO TO Q74** 
 
Q73. **IF DON'T KNOW AT Q72**: If you had to estimate your total turnover, into which of 
the following bands would you put yourself? **READ OUT AS NECESSARY** 
 
1. £0 2. £100,000 or less 3. £100,001 - £500,000 4. £500,001 - £2million 5. £2million - £10million 6. £10million - £50million 7. More than £50million 8. Don't know 9. Refused 
 
Q74. **ASK ALL EXCEPT CODES 1, 2 ,3 & 9 AT Q12 OR CODE 2 AT Q13:** Compared to 
this time three years ago, would you say that your turnover is now …? READ 
OUT  
 
1. Much higher 2. A bit higher 3. Lower 4. Or, about the same as it was three years ago 5. Don't know 
 
Q75. ASK ALL UNLESS ESTABLISHED IN LAST TWO YEARS (I.E. NOT 1-2 OR 9 AT 
Q12 & NOT CODE 2 AT Q13: Have you introduced any new products or services over the last three years?   
 
1. Yes 
2. No **GO TO Q77** 
3. Don't know **GO TO Q77** 
 
Q76. **ASK IF YES AT Q75**: And are these new products or services… READ OUT - 
SINGLE CODE 
 
ADD AS NECESSARY: BY COMPLETELY NEW I MEAN THAT, TO THE BEST OF 
YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INTRODUCED BY ANYONE BEFORE YOU READ OUT - SINGLE CODE 

 
1. Just new to your business 2. New to your industry or sector 3. Or, are they completely new to the world 4. (Some are just new to the business and some are completely new) 5. Don't know 
 
 
Q77. ASK ALL EXCEPT NO EMPLOYEES (0 AT Q67 OR CODE 1 AT Q68) OR CODES 2, 
3 OR 4 AT Q76: Approximately how many of your UK employees are engaged 
either wholly or partly in R&D activity? **READ OUT AS NECESSARY** 
 
1. Zero 2. One 3. 2-4 4. 5-9 5. 10-19 6. 20-49 7. 50-99 8. 100-199 9. 200-249 10. 250-499 11. 500 or more 12. Don't know 13. refused 
 
Q78. **ASK IF Q77 IS CODES 2-11:** Can I just check, are any of these employees 
involved in activities that could be described as 'the development of scientific 
or technical knowledge that is not commonly available'?  
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 

Q79. ASK ALL EXCEPT NO EMPLOYEES (0 AT Q67 OR CODE 1 AT Q68) OR CODES 2, 
3 OR 4 AT Q76 OR CODE 1 AT Q77: And approximately how many of your employees are engaged either wholly or partly in new product or service development? **READ OUT AS NECESSARY** 
 
1. Zero 2. One 3. 2-4 4. 5-9 5. 10-19 6. 20-49 7. 50-99 8. 100-199 9. 200-249 10. 250-4990 
11. 500 or more 
12. Don't know 13. Refused 
 
Q80. **ASK ALL EXCEPT CODES 2, 3 OR 4 AT Q76 OR (CODE 1 AT Q78**): In the last year 
have you employed or commissioned anyone external to your business to conduct scientific or technical research, or any new product or service development activity for you? 
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q81. **ASK ALL**: Do you currently hold any patents or trademarks, either in the UK or 
overseas, for any of your products or services?   
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q82. Can I just check, do you have a current, written business plan?  
 
1. Yes 
2. No **GO TO 0** 
3. Don't know **GO TO 0** 
4. Refused **GO TO 0** 
 
Q83. Does the plan contain any targets relating to business in overseas markets?  
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused 
 
Q84. REMOVE QUESTION 
 
Q85. ASK ALL EXCEPT 'NOT YET TRADING' (CODE 9 AT Q12 OR CODE 2 AT Q13): 
Thinking about your business as a whole, what growth objectives do you have 
for the business over the next FIVE years?  Do you plan to…?  **READ OUT** 
 
1. Remain the same size 2. Become smaller 
 
3. Grow moderately 4. Grow substantially 5. Don't know 6. Refused 
 

## Q86. Remove Question

 
Q87. **ASK ALL**: That's almost the end of the interview, thank you very much for 
taking part. Would you be willing to take part in any future UK Trade & Investment research? 
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q88. We will be producing a summary report of the results from this survey. Would 
you like us to send you an electronic link to this summary report? **READ OUT** 
 
ADD AS NECESSARY THE REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE LATE 2009. 
 
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 
 
Q89. **IF YES AT Q88:** Can I take your e-mail address? REASSURE RESPONDENT THAT 
THIS WILL NOT BE PASSED ON & ONLY USED TO MAIL A LINK TO THE 
REPORT 
Q90. **IF YES AT Q88 BUT RESPONDENT DOESN'T HAVE AN EMAIL ADDRESS:** Can I 
confirm your postal address then and we will send you a letter containing the internet address for the electronic report? REASSURE RESPONDENT THAT 
THIS WILL NOT BE PASSED ON & ONLY USED TO MAIL A LINK TO THE 
REPORT 

.................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................  

 
Q91. **ASK ALL**: Finally as proof of this interview please could I just confirm your 
business postcode? Q 91a And can I just confirm whether you are located in England, Scotland, Wales or 
Northern Ireland. 
INTERVIEWER: If England, which Government Office Region? England 
- 
North East North West Yorkshire and The Humber East Midlands West Midlands East of England London South East South West 
Scotland 
 
Wales Northern Ireland Q92. And may I take a note of your name? 

 
          WRITE 
                                                                                   IN…………………………………………… 
 
Q93. UKTI would like Accent to recontact a cross section of businesses interviewed 

in this survey at a later date to undertake further research to investigate some specific issues in greater detail.  Would you be willing for us to recontact you at 
a later date to conduct another interview? 
 

 
1. Yes COLLECT DETAILS 
2. No 
 

Thank you for your help in this research 
 
This research was conducted under the terms of the MRS code of conduct and is 
completely confidential. If you would like to confirm my credentials or those of Accent 
please call the MRS free on 0500 396999.  
 
Please can I take a note of your name and where we can contact you for quality control 
purposes? 
 
Respondent name:  
                    ................................................................................................................. 

 Telephone: 
home:..............................................work:............................................... 

 
Thank you 
 
I confirm that this interview was conducted under the terms of the MRS code of conduct 
and is completely confidential