Putting the economy back on track Crimes Against Business

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track:
Crimes Against
Business
Lifting <strong>the</strong> Barriers to Growth in UK Small Businesses 2008

‘The crimes most
frequntly reported
by members were
vandalism (26.6%),
burglary (24.7%),
vehicle damage
(22.1%) and vehicle
<strong>the</strong>ft (15.2%)’.
page 2 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
contents
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................................................Page 4
Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................................................Page 5
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................................Page 6
Methodology and Background ..................................................................................................................................Page 7
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By Sector .........................................................................................................Page 9
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By English Regions and Countries .................................................. Page 10
Businesses Experiencing Crime – Urban/Rural ................................................................................................ Page 11
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By Types of Premises.............................................................................. Page 11
Reporting Crime – By Sector ................................................................................................................................... Page 12
Reporting Crime – By English Regions and Countries ................................................................................ Page 13
Reporting Crime – Urban/Rural .............................................................................................................................. Page 14
The Cost and Effect of Crime .................................................................................................................................... Page 15
The Effectiveness of Crime – Reduction Methods .......................................................................................... Page 16
Special Focus: Neighbourhood Policing Units ................................................................................................. Page 17
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................... Page 18
Key Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. Page 19
Annex of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... Page 20
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 3

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
acknowledgements
This report was produced for <strong>the</strong> Federation of Small Businesses by <strong>the</strong> Welsh Enterprise Institute, which
is part of <strong>the</strong> Business School at <strong>the</strong> University of Glamorgan. The project also included expert input from
four external consultants. The Project Team was as follows:
University of Glamorgan
Dr Gary Packham Head of Enterprise, Centre for Enterprise
University of Glamorgan
Dr David Pickernell Head of The Welsh Enterprise Institute
Glamorgan Business School, University of Glamorgan
Dr Christopher Miller Deputy Head of The Welsh Enterprise Institute
External Consultants
Glamorgan Business School, University of Glamorgan
Professor David Brooksbank Director of Enterprise, Cardiff School of Management
University of Wales Institute Cardiff
Professor Oswald Jones Centre for Enterprise and Entrepreneurial Leadership
Management School, University of Liverpool
Professor David Smallbone Associate Director, Small Business Research Centre
Kingston University London
Dr Piers Thompson Senior Lecturer, in Economics, Cardiff School of Management
University of Wales Institute Cardiff
Acknowledgements
The project team would like to thank <strong>the</strong> FSB Project
Working Group for <strong>the</strong>ir guidance in producing <strong>the</strong>se
reports. The team would also like to acknowledge <strong>the</strong>
assistance provided by Alex Bakos, Martyn Jarvis and
Dr Brychan Thomas in producing <strong>the</strong> regional data
tables that supplement <strong>the</strong>se reports.
page 4 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
foreword
The stark reality is that 64% of businesses fell victim to crime over a twelve-month period, and crime
costs each business an average of £13,354 a year. The uncertainty in <strong>the</strong> fi nancial markets is a
concern for many small businesses, and an effective response to tackle crimes that are eating away
at our local communities and national <strong>economy</strong> is now more important than ever.
The survey results show that crimes targeted against small business are on <strong>the</strong> rise. Crime affects a
business’ ability to meet customer deadlines and attract customers and adversely affects its profi tability,
ultimately resulting in businesses closing down and jobs and local economies being put at risk. Valuable
time and resources are spent dealing with <strong>the</strong> aftermath of a crime and businesses are feeling <strong>the</strong>
squeeze of narrowing profi t margins and rising insurance premiums.
Businesses, and <strong>the</strong>ir staff in <strong>the</strong> local community, are victims of repeat crime in <strong>the</strong> form of vandalism,
vehicle damage and threatening behaviour. Crimes against business make up a signifi cant 20%, or <strong>the</strong>
‘Forgotten Fifth’, of all recorded crime in <strong>the</strong> UK. An effective response at a national, regional and local
level is necessary for <strong>the</strong> sustainability of our local communities and <strong>the</strong> national <strong>economy</strong>.
Neighbourhood Policing Units (NPUs) are hailed as <strong>the</strong> answer to local crime problems. Businesses
<strong>the</strong>mselves have some faith in NPUs as an effective response to crime at a local level. However, far fewer
businesses have had any direct contact with <strong>the</strong>ir local unit. This needs to change, especially when it is
claimed that businesses are a ‘strategic partner’. NPUs should be engaging directly with <strong>the</strong> business
community and making it a priority to factor <strong>the</strong>ir views and interests into local strategies to tackle crime
against business.
At a time of such economic uncertainty, businesses need increased support from police and local
authorities in dealing with crime issues that are a major concern to <strong>the</strong>m. This is <strong>the</strong> fourth in a series of
reports setting out positive proposals for putting <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track.
John Walker
John Walker
Policy Chairman
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 5

1 This compares with <strong>the</strong>
FSB surveys of 2004=58%
and 2006: 57% when <strong>the</strong>
statistics were calculated
from a slightly different
question
2 i.e. <strong>the</strong>se sectors had <strong>the</strong>
highest percentages of
firms experiencing crime
in <strong>the</strong> greatest numbers of
crime types
3 See Tables 1 and 2 in
appendix
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
executive summary
• The total percentage of businesses that have experienced crime, according to <strong>the</strong> FSB survey, was 63.5%. 1
The most frequent crimes experienced by UK businesses overall in 2008 were vandalism (which dominated
<strong>the</strong> findings), vehicle damage, threatening behaviour, graffiti, shoplifting and burglary. In addition, fly tipping,
credit card fraud, vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft and employee <strong>the</strong>ft also affected almost one in three businesses.
• Hotel and restaurants and motor vehicle sales and repair sectors were <strong>the</strong> sectors experiencing crime
to <strong>the</strong> greatest extent. 2 These were closely followed by <strong>the</strong> mining and construction sector and transport,
communications and utilities.
• In respect of vandalism specifically, hotels and restaurants experienced <strong>the</strong> most vandalism with <strong>the</strong> lowest
level reported by <strong>the</strong> business services sector. With regard to regional data <strong>the</strong> highest level of vandalism was
experienced in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland (45.9%), closely followed by Scotland (44.7%) and Yorkshire and Humberside
(44.6%). The lowest incidence was in <strong>the</strong> East of England (35.6%).
• There was also considerable difference in <strong>the</strong> incidences of certain types of crime occurring in different
types of business. The highest levels of credit card fraud, e-crime and identity fraud occurred in warehouse/
factory businesses. These businesses also experienced <strong>the</strong> highest levels of most o<strong>the</strong>r crimes. The highest levels of
shoplifting, vandalism, threatening behaviour and graffiti were experienced by retail/shop businesses.
• A dichotomy was also found to exist between <strong>the</strong> incidence and <strong>the</strong> reporting of crime. The survey results
indicate that only around 45% of firms that experienced a crime actually reported at least one of <strong>the</strong>se
instances. The results from rural and urban businesses also revealed that urban businesses experiencing crime
reported it more often than rural businesses (47.1% compared with 40.5%).
• Certain types of crime were perceived to be more important and taken more seriously in relation to businesses
actually reporting <strong>the</strong>m. Of all <strong>the</strong> crimes reported by respondents, only vandalism and burglary were
consistently reported to <strong>the</strong> police. In respect of policy this may be important, given that shoplifting is often
‘punished’ with a caution. Repeated small losses from shoplifting can actually close a shop down, as small
businesses still have to pay <strong>the</strong> VAT on losses, unless <strong>the</strong> losses can be quantified and substantiated in some way.
• Unsurprisingly, retail/shop-located businesses were <strong>the</strong> most likely to report <strong>the</strong> crimes that <strong>the</strong>y suffered.
The reporting of crime also varied quite considerably across all business sectors but, again unsurprisingly <strong>the</strong>
wholesale and retail areas reported crime above <strong>the</strong> UK average, followed closely by hotels and restaurants.
• The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) report (2008) highlights that UK businesses experience a £12.6 billion
annual cost of crime. The average level of crime in financial terms was £13,354 per small business. 3 The highest
average cost of crime was found in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland, and <strong>the</strong>re were large regional differences in relation to <strong>the</strong>
direct cost of crime, though <strong>the</strong>se differences were often accounted for by a small number of highly problematic
crimes. There are also, however, indirect costs, which have an impact on firms experiencing crime generally, in
terms of staff time, increased insurance premiums, and increased security measures. Across <strong>the</strong> UK over a quarter
of businesses installed extra security alarms. In response to <strong>the</strong> often increased levels of crime many businesses
also increased <strong>the</strong>ir level of CCTV security. Only <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant and wholesale and retail sectors, however,
seemed to be using, or setting up, Business Watch schemes to any effective extent. The overall cost of crime to <strong>the</strong>
UK <strong>economy</strong> can <strong>the</strong>refore be considered to be an important issue.
• Crime-reduction methods were not perceived to be tackling <strong>the</strong> problem to any significant degree. Across
<strong>the</strong> majority of sectors <strong>the</strong> issues of faster police response and tougher sentencing were perceived to be <strong>the</strong> most
effective method of tackling crime. Increased levels of CCTV were also considered to be an effective measure in
reducing crime levels.
• In addition, most sectors also considered Neighbourhood Policing Units to be a fairly effective method of
tackling crime. The results in respect of Neighbourhood Policing Units (NPUs) also showed, however, that around
67% of <strong>the</strong> businesses surveyed were not aware that NPUs exist. This lack of profile with small businesses is
<strong>the</strong>refore a problem that needs to be addressed.
page 6 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

4 Firm growth orientation
is broken up into four
categories using answers
to questions in <strong>the</strong>
questionnaire. Sustainedgrowth
fi rms are defi ned as
both having grown in <strong>the</strong>
last two years and aiming
for growth in <strong>the</strong> next two.
New-growth fi rms have
not grown in <strong>the</strong> previous
two years but are aiming
for growth in <strong>the</strong> next
two. Contained-growth
fi rms have grown in <strong>the</strong>
previous two years but are
not aiming to do so in <strong>the</strong>
next two. Finally, No-growth
fi rms have not grown in <strong>the</strong>
previous two years and do
not intend to in <strong>the</strong> next
two years
5 This compares with <strong>the</strong>
FSB surveys of 2004 = 58%
and 2006: 57%, when <strong>the</strong>
statistics were calculated
from a slightly different
question
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
methodology & <strong>back</strong>ground
Survey Methodology
This report presents part of <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> fi fth biennial survey of <strong>the</strong> FSB membership.
The data for <strong>the</strong> reports were ga<strong>the</strong>red using a single questionnaire of around 100 questions that was
sent to members in England, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The questions were divided into a
range of topics covering <strong>the</strong> following areas: business <strong>back</strong>ground; location and premises; home-based
enterprises; past performance; suppliers, customers and markets; fi nance; employment; skills and training;
business advice and services; crime; <strong>the</strong> environment; transport; business continuity; insurance; patents and
intellectual property; future business aspirations; and characteristics of <strong>the</strong> business and its owners, along
with supplementary nation-specifi c questions.
The questionnaire was <strong>the</strong>n publicised via <strong>the</strong> FSB website and by e-mailing <strong>the</strong> FSB membership at
<strong>the</strong> beginning of March 2008. Printed copies of <strong>the</strong> questionnaire were sent out in <strong>the</strong> post and <strong>the</strong>
questionnaire was also made available electronically on <strong>the</strong> FSB website. From this process, a total of 8,742
questionnaires were obtained.
From an initial analysis of <strong>the</strong> data, fi ve topics were identifi ed as requiring specifi c focus:
• Business Support and Finance
• Skills and Training
• Infrastructure (Transport, Environment and ICT)
• Crimes against Business
• Work–Life Balance
The survey questions were analysed against a number of issues, such as industry, region (including urbanrural
differences), fi rm growth intentions4 , fi rm size, and fi rm age. Where applicable, gender, owner age,
owner education level and type of premises were also factors against which <strong>the</strong> data were evaluated.
Background
The extent of business crime in <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom (UK) continues to be a growing concern. AxA
Insurance reported a 10% increase in <strong>the</strong> fi rst half of 2008 and an increase of 18% in <strong>the</strong> cost of crime. A
report published by <strong>the</strong> British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2008) also highlighted that UK business
experiences a £12.6 billion annual cost of crime. This fi gure has increased by 20% since <strong>the</strong> BCC’s last survey
on business crime in 2004, and now equates to over a sixth of <strong>the</strong> total cost of all crime in <strong>the</strong> UK.
The FSB looked at <strong>the</strong> broad issue of crime in its 2002 survey. It reported at <strong>the</strong> time that <strong>the</strong>re were
insuffi cient data to examine <strong>the</strong> incidence and effect of crime on small businesses in any depth. The 2004
and 2006 surveys took <strong>the</strong> opportunity to explore <strong>the</strong> extent to which businesses had been <strong>the</strong> victims
of crime, <strong>the</strong> types of crime experienced, <strong>the</strong> types of business most affected, and <strong>the</strong> impact of crime on
<strong>the</strong> small-business sector. This report takes a fur<strong>the</strong>r look at <strong>the</strong>se topics, as well as comparing <strong>the</strong> levels of
crime affecting urban and rural businesses.
Businesses Experiencing Crime
In respect of <strong>the</strong> broad results, <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey found that <strong>the</strong> total percentage of businesses
having experienced crime to at least some extent was 63.5%. 5 The most frequent crimes experienced
by UK businesses in 2008 were vandalism, experienced by (40.8%) of businesses, vehicle damage (35.7%),
threatening behaviour (34.1%), graffi ti (32.7%), shoplifting (32.1%) and burglary (30.8%). Fly tipping and
credit card fraud was experienced by almost one in three businesses (29.6%). Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft and employee
<strong>the</strong>ft also affected almost one in three in <strong>the</strong> UK (29.2%) with cheque fraud at 29% also being signifi cant.
Robbery and employee fraud were also of concern to 27.4% and 27.3% of businesses. Over <strong>the</strong> past two
years, one in four businesses experienced e-crime, assaults on owners and staff, identity fraud and arson.
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 7

‘The average cost of
crime was £13,354
per UK business.
There are very large
differences in <strong>the</strong>
average cost of
crime for businesses
in different regions’.
page 8 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

Figure 1
Experiencing
crime by sector
6 See Tables 3 and 4 in
appendix. Percentages
conveyed in <strong>the</strong> tables
measure <strong>the</strong> percentage of
businesses in a particular
sector experiencing a
particular crime to at least
some extent
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By Sector
% of industry respondents
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture, forestry & fi shing
Mining & construction
Manufacturing
Transport, communications & utilities
Motor vehicle sales and repair
Hotels & restaurants
As Figure 1 indicates, <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant and motor vehicle sales and repair sectors had <strong>the</strong> greatest
percentage of respondents experiencing crime to at least some extent. These were followed by <strong>the</strong>
wholesale and retail, and transport, communications and utilities sectors.
The specifi c types of crime experienced by business in <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey of FSB members varied
considerably across sectors. 6 Vandalism dominated <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey, with all sectors stating that
<strong>the</strong>y suffered from this crime above almost all o<strong>the</strong>r. Hotels and restaurants experienced <strong>the</strong> most
vandalism (53%). Motor vehicle sales and repair (48.7%) and transport, communications and utilities
(46.7%) also reported considerable levels of vandalism. It is also worth noting that businesses in <strong>the</strong>
wholesale and retail (43.8%), consumer & personal services (42.3%), manufacturing (41.6%) and mining
and construction (41.8%) sectors experienced vandalism to a signifi cant degree. The lowest level of
vandalism was reported by <strong>the</strong> business services sector (30.1%).
Graffi ti was mostly a problem for <strong>the</strong> hotels and restaurants (36.9%), mining and construction (35.3%)
and manufacturing (33%) sectors. Remaining sectors also experienced substantial incidences, with <strong>the</strong>
business services sector again experiencing <strong>the</strong> lowest level of this type of crime (26.6%). Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
and vehicle damage were experienced mostly by transport, communications and utilities (35.3% and
47.4%) and motor vehicles sales and repairs (41.6% and 47.8%). The results indicate that this seems to
be a common area of concern for all small businesses, with <strong>the</strong> lowest levels of this type of crime still
experienced by at least one in fi ve businesses in each sector.
Considerable incidences of threatening behaviour occurred in <strong>the</strong> hotels and restaurants sector
(45.3%). The results indicate that across most o<strong>the</strong>r sectors this was a problem for more than 30%
of businesses. The wholesale and retail sector suffered considerable levels of shoplifting (49.1%) with
almost one in two businesses in this sector having experienced this form of crime. Signifi cant levels were
also reported by motor vehicle sales and repairs (36.3%) and hotels and restaurants (33.6%). The highest
incidences of fl y tipping were in <strong>the</strong> agriculture, forestry and fi shing (37.2%), and motor vehicle sales and
repair (35%) sectors, with over 30% of <strong>the</strong> manufacturing, transport, communications and utilities, and
hotel and restaurant businesses reporting this type of crime.
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 9
Financial, insurance & real estate
Business services
Health, education & social services
Consumer & personal services
Wholesale & retail
O<strong>the</strong>r/uncodeable

Figure 2
Experiencing
crime by
region /
country of
<strong>the</strong> UK
7 See Tables 5 and 6
in appendix
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Arson was experienced by more than 20% of businesses in all sectors, and burglary was a
problem for almost one in three in all business sectors. Motor vehicle sales and repair (32.7%),
mining and construction (32.7%), agriculture, forestry and fi shing (31.4%) and hotels and restaurants
(30.6) experienced <strong>the</strong> highest levels of robbery. This particular problem was of great concern for all
remaining sectors, affecting over one in fi ve businesses. Assault on owners and staff was more likely to be
experienced by hotels and restaurants (31.8%) and mining and construction sectors (29.4%). Hotels and
restaurants also experienced <strong>the</strong> highest level of employee fraud (32.5%) and employee <strong>the</strong>ft (36.6%).
Cheque fraud was experienced mostly by motor vehicle sales and repair (35.8%) whilst credit card fraud
mainly affected mining and construction (33.4%) and transport, communications and utilities (32.3%).
Episodes of e-crime (29.8%) and identity fraud (30.5%) were mostly experienced by <strong>the</strong> mining and
construction sector, possibly <strong>the</strong> because of <strong>the</strong> transient nature of <strong>the</strong> employment in <strong>the</strong> construction
industry.
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By English Regions and Countries
% of industry respondents
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
North East
North West
Yorkshire & Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
Figure 2 shows that, overall, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and London had <strong>the</strong> highest percentage of fi rms
indicating that <strong>the</strong>y had experienced crime to at least some extent. Different crimes were more
prevalent in different regions and countries, however. 7 The highest level of vandalism, for example,
was experienced in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland (45.9%), closely followed by Scotland (44.7%) and Yorkshire and
Humberside (44.6%). The lowest incidence was in <strong>the</strong> East of England (35.6%). Graffi ti was a problem in
all regions, especially in London (38.8%), Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland (38.1%) and Scotland (37.7%). All o<strong>the</strong>r regions
experienced around <strong>the</strong> UK average of 32.5%. Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft and vehicle damage were experienced by
growing numbers of respondents in all geographical areas, with Scotland, London and Yorkshire and
Humberside all experiencing above-average occurrences of vehicle damage.
London experienced <strong>the</strong> greatest level of threatening behaviour (41.3%), whilst Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and
Scotland also experienced episodes above <strong>the</strong> UK average. High levels of shoplifting affected businesses
in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland (39.8%) and Scotland (37.9%). All o<strong>the</strong>r regions showed much lower occurrences,
around <strong>the</strong> UK average. Fly tipping was particularly troublesome in <strong>the</strong> North East (34%) and Scotland
(33%). Arson was a problem for around 25% of all businesses, with Scotland scoring <strong>the</strong> highest (29.1%)
and <strong>the</strong> East of England <strong>the</strong> lowest (22.3%). Around a third of businesses in each region were victims of
burglary. Only three areas registered considerably lower amounts, <strong>the</strong>se being <strong>the</strong> South East (28.2), <strong>the</strong>
East of England (28.8) and <strong>the</strong> South West (29.8).
page 10 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
London
South East
South West
England
Wales
Scotland
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland

Figure 3
Crime
experienced
urban/rural
■ Urban
■ Rural
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
The East of England experienced signifi cantly lower levels of robbery (23.6%) than <strong>the</strong> UK average
(27.1%), with Scotland having <strong>the</strong> highest number of incidences (30.9%), as well as <strong>the</strong> most assaults on
owners/staff (29.1%). The least incidences of this type of crime were in <strong>the</strong> South East (23.7%). Nor<strong>the</strong>rn
Ireland showed high levels of employee fraud ( 30.3%), employee <strong>the</strong>ft (32.9%) and cheque fraud (36.8%),
whilst credit card fraud(33.4%), e-crime (30.2%) and identity fraud (29.9%) were most prevalent in
Scotland.
Businesses Experiencing Crime – Urban/Rural
Vandalism
Graffi ti
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
Vehicle damage
Threatening behaviour/intimidation
Shoplifting
Fly tipping
Arson
Burglary
Robbery
Assault on owners/staff
Employee fraud
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
Cheque fraud
Credit card fraud
E-crime
Identity fraud
O<strong>the</strong>r
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
In comparing <strong>the</strong> incidence of crime in urban and rural businesses, <strong>the</strong>re was a higher level of
‘some experience of crime’ for urban businesses (65%) than for rural businesses (59%). There was
also, however, a great difference in <strong>the</strong> incidence of certain crimes (see Figure 3) .The most signifi cant
difference can be seen with regard to vandalism, which was experienced by 42.8% of urban businesses,
but only 36.7% of rural businesses. A considerable variation also occurred with graffi ti, vehicle damage
and threatening behaviour, with differences of more than 3%. The results indicate that all o<strong>the</strong>r crimes
showed a lesser variation.
Businesses Experiencing Crime – By Types of Premises
There is a considerable difference in <strong>the</strong> incidences of certain types of crime occurring in different
types of business. It is worthy of note, though perhaps unsurprising, that businesses operating from
home experienced <strong>the</strong> lowest levels of all crimes except for e-crime and identity fraud. These crimes were
least experienced by retail/shops. Conversely, <strong>the</strong> highest levels of credit card fraud, e-crime and identity
fraud occurred in warehouse/factory businesses. These businesses also experienced <strong>the</strong> highest levels
of o<strong>the</strong>r crimes such as vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft (34.3%), vehicle damage (41.3%), fl y tipping (36.2%), arson (28.3%),
burglary (38.4%), robbery (31.3%), assault on owners and staff and employee fraud. The highest levels of
shoplifting (51.5%), vandalism (49%), threatening behaviour (41%) and graffi ti (38.5%) were experienced
by retail/shop businesses.
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 11

Figure 4
% reporting
at least one
crime that was
experienced
by sector
8 See Tables 7 and 8 in
appendix. Percentages
conveyed in <strong>the</strong>se tables
measure <strong>the</strong> percentage of
businesses in a particular
sector that experienced a
particular crime to at least
some extent and actually
reported this to <strong>the</strong> police
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Reporting Crime
Offi cial crime statistics may understate <strong>the</strong> true incidence of business-related crime in <strong>the</strong> UK. The FSB
initiative Every Crime Every Time (ECET) (www.fsb.org.uk/ecet) advises businesses to report crimes. The
results of <strong>the</strong> 2008 FSB survey, however, indicate that many crimes against businesses were still not
reported. More specifi cally, only around 45% of fi rms that experienced a crime actually reported
at least one of <strong>the</strong>se instances. Reporting levels differed, however, by crime type, sector and region /
nation.
Reporting Crime – By Sector
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture, forestry & fi shing
Mining & construction
Manufacturing
Transport, communications & utilities
Motor vehicle sales and repair
Hotels & restaurants
The sectors that were most likely to report any crime <strong>the</strong>y experienced were, as Figure 4 indicates,
motor vehicles, sales and repair, followed by <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant and wholesale and retail
sectors. The reporting of types of crime also varied quite considerably across business sectors. 8
With regard to individual crimes, less than 20% of <strong>the</strong> businesses in <strong>the</strong> mining and construction and
business services sectors reported vandalism. All o<strong>the</strong>r sectors reported it to a greater degree, with
<strong>the</strong> highest being hotels and restaurants (35.4%), motor vehicle sales and repair (32.7%), consumer
and personal services (30.5%) and wholesale and retail (32.1%). Transport businesses were most likely
page 12 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
Financial, insurance & real estate
Business services
Health, education & social services
Consumer & personal services
Wholesale & retail
O<strong>the</strong>r/uncodeable

Figure 5
% reported at
least one crime
experienced
by region /
country
9 See Tables 9 and 10
in appendix
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
to report vehicle damage. Motor vehicle sales and repair were most likely to report vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft but
agriculture, forestry and fi shing, mining and construction and transport communications and utilities
were still experiencing diffi culties in this area. Financial insurance and real estate, consumer and personal
services and wholesale and retail reported graffi ti-related crime more than o<strong>the</strong>r sectors. Wholesale
and retail businesses reported shoplifting and e-related crime. Threatening behaviour was mostly
encountered and reported to <strong>the</strong> police in <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant and consumer and personal services
sectors, with over one in fi ve businesses reporting such behaviour when it occurred.
Assaults on owners and staff were also reported more often by hotels and restaurants than o<strong>the</strong>r sectors.
Shoplifting was mainly reported by those businesses in <strong>the</strong> wholesale and retail sector (22.7%). Burglary
was reported by over 30% of those in agriculture, forestry and fi shing, manufacturing and <strong>the</strong> transport
businesses. All remaining sectors also reported a high degree of burglary (over 20%), with <strong>the</strong> exception
of business services and health, education and social services. Robbery was reported by all sectors, with
motor vehicle sales and repair, agriculture, forestry and fi shing and hotels and restaurants most likely to
report it. Hotels and restaurants and business services reported <strong>the</strong> most employee fraud. Hotels and
restaurants, consumer and personal services businesses, transport, communications and utilities and
fi nancial insurance and real estate also reported incidences of employee <strong>the</strong>ft. Wholesale and retail
businesses reported <strong>the</strong> most signifi cant levels of cheque fraud and, along with hotels and restaurants,
credit card fraud. Business services were also prone to report credit card fraud, with almost one in ten
businesses reporting such crime. Financial, insurance and real estate businesses reported <strong>the</strong> highest
levels of identity fraud, with almost one in ten advising <strong>the</strong> police.
Reporting Crime – By English Regions and Countries
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
North East
North West
Yorkshire & Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
As Figure 5 indicates, <strong>the</strong> reporting of crime was fairly consistent across regions and countries of <strong>the</strong> UK,
with fi rms in Yorkshire and Humberside most likely to report and those in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland least likely
to do so. In respect of <strong>the</strong> specifi c crimes reported by respondents in this survey, 9 only vandalism and
burglary were fairly consistently reported to <strong>the</strong> police. With regard to <strong>the</strong> crimes reported, fi rms in <strong>the</strong>
North East were particularly hesitant about reporting vandalism and graffi ti. Graffi ti, however, was rarely
reported across all regions. Burglary was more likely to be reported in <strong>the</strong> West Midlands, <strong>the</strong> North West
and London. It is worthy of note that <strong>the</strong>re were relatively few regional variations in reported crime.
The crimes most frequently reported by members were vandalism (26.6%), burglary (24.7%),
vehicle damage (22.1%) and vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft (15.2%). Robbery was reported to <strong>the</strong> police by only just
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 13
South East
South West
England
Wales
Scotland
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland

Figure 6
Types of crime
reported
urban/rural
■ Urban
■ Rural
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
over one in eight (12.5%) of responding businesses. Many small businesses were reluctant to report crime
and <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey provides similar results to <strong>the</strong> 2006 survey in relation to <strong>the</strong> respondents’ view that
reporting crime would achieve very little. The results of <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey indicate that almost 30%
of respondents doubt <strong>the</strong> ability of <strong>the</strong> police to solve <strong>the</strong> crime, especially those from <strong>the</strong> West
Midlands (37.5%) and Scotland (36.3%). Almost one-quarter of businesses responding did not feel that
<strong>the</strong> crime committed was serious enough (24.4%) and a signifi cant number felt that <strong>the</strong> police would
not take <strong>the</strong> issue seriously (22.9%). Almost one in fi ve of respondents felt that <strong>the</strong>y would not make an
insurance claim (19.5%) in regard to <strong>the</strong> crime committed.
Reporting Crime – Urban/Rural
Vandalism
Graffi ti
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
Vehicle damage
Threatening behaviour/intimidation
Shoplifting
Fly tipping
Arson
Burglary
Robbery
Assault on owners/staff
Employee fraud
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
Cheque fraud
Credit card fraud
E-crime
Identity fraud
O<strong>the</strong>r
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
An analysis of rural and urban businesses, however, revealed that, overall, urban businesses were more
likely to report crime than rural businesses (47.1% compared with 40.5%). In some areas of crime
reported (see Figure 6), such as burglary and credit card fraud, <strong>the</strong> fi ndings are that both rural and urban
reported similar crime levels. Vandalism, vehicle damage, threatening behaviour, graffi ti, and shoplifting
dominated <strong>the</strong> fi ndings for both rural and urban businesses.
page 14 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

Figure 7
Average cost of
crime over past
year by region
/ country
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
The Cost and Effect of Crime
North East
East Midlands
South West
London
West Midlands
South East
East of England
England
North West
Yorkshire & Humber
Wales
Scotland
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland
£1,192
£1,938
£2,320
£4,9091
£5,742
£6,606
£8,022
£8,215
£21,256
£25,108
£30,197
£41,255
£76,715
£0 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 £40,000 £50,000 £60,000 £70,000 £80,000 £90,000
The average cost of crime was £13,354 per UK business. There are very large differences in <strong>the</strong>
average cost of crime for businesses in different regions (see Figure 7). It is clearly evident that <strong>the</strong>
average cost of crime in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland was much higher than in <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> sampled regions and
countries. It must be noted, however, that a very small number of crimes accounted for much of <strong>the</strong>
overall cost of crime, distorting <strong>the</strong> averages for <strong>the</strong> regions in which <strong>the</strong>se crimes took place. With <strong>the</strong>
current economic down-turn being experienced by UK businesses, however, <strong>the</strong> cost of crime as a total
proportion of a small-business owners’ effort in running a business should not be overlooked or ignored.
Owning a business has its trials and tribulations, and in most cases <strong>the</strong> economic impact of crime is
minor. Crime can, however, be an extremely upsetting and stressful experience for <strong>the</strong> victim.
Unsurprisingly, <strong>the</strong>refore, many businesses continued to follow <strong>the</strong> trend of <strong>the</strong> 2006 FSB survey by
increasing security measures. Across <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>the</strong> 2008 survey found that 27.6% of businesses had installed
extra security alarms and 13.6% of respondents had installed additional or upgraded security systems.
In response to <strong>the</strong> often increased levels of crime, many businesses also increased <strong>the</strong>ir level of CCTV
security (16.4%). In addition, a relatively signifi cant percentage of businesses sought additional advice
from <strong>the</strong> police (13.8%). The responses also varied by sector. The motor vehicle sales and repair sector
were most likely to have installed or upgraded security alarms toge<strong>the</strong>r with those from <strong>the</strong> wholesale
and retail (35.6%) sectors. Only <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurants and wholesale and retail sectors seemed to be
using, or setting up, Business Watch schemes (9.2% & 7.0% respectively) to any degree.
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 15

Figure 8
Effectiveness
of crimereduction
methods (1 =
not effective - 5
= very
effective) by
sector
■ Neighbourhood
Policing
Units / Police
Community
Support
Offi cers
■ Tougher
sentencing
■ ASBOs
(anti-social
behaviour
orders)
■ Private security
guard / patrol
■ CCTV
surveillance
■ Grant assistance
for security
■ Faster police
response
■ More visible
police presence
■ Crime and
Disorder
Reduction
Partnership /
Business Crime
partnership
■ Business Watch
/ Shop Watch
■ Crime
prevention
advice
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
The Effectiveness of Crime-Reduction Methods
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
3.6
4.2
2.2
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.2
4.0
2.6
2.7
2.9
Agriculture, forestry & fi shing
3.3
4.1
1.9
3.0
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.8
2.2
2.4
2.5
Mining & construction
3.5
4.2
1.8
3.4
3.6
3.7
4.1
4.0
2.0
2.4
2.6
Manufacturing
3.2
4.1
2.0
3.0
3.8
3.6
4.1
4.0
2.2
2.6
2.6
Transport, communications & utilities
3.5
4.2
1.8
3.2
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.1
2.0
2.2
2.4
Motor vehicle sales and repair
3.6
4.1
2.2
2.7
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.1
2.6
2.9
2.7
Hotels & restaurants
It is evident from Figure 8 that <strong>the</strong> perception of <strong>the</strong> respondents to this survey was that crimereduction
methods were not tackling <strong>the</strong> problem to any signifi cant degree. Across <strong>the</strong> majority of
sectors, faster police response and tougher sentencing were perceived to be <strong>the</strong> most effective methods
of tackling crime. Increased levels of CCTV were also considered by many sectors to act as an effective
measure in reducing crime levels. In addition, most sectors also considered Neighbourhood Policing
Units to be a fairly effective method of tackling crime. The survey has also found that all sectors
believed that a Grant Assistance Initiative for increasing <strong>the</strong> levels of security for businesses would be of
value. This measure, of course, may also have <strong>the</strong> effect of increasing <strong>the</strong> business’ rateable value, which
raises a secondary issue of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> amount by which <strong>the</strong> business’ rateable value is increased should
be discounted, in order to encourage take-up of Grant Assistance Initiatives. Small fi rms’ perception of
crime-reduction initiatives should be of particular concern to government, specifi cally <strong>the</strong> ineffectiveness
of crime-reduction initiatives, and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are perceived as something small businesses do not
need to be involved with because <strong>the</strong>y are seen as a waste of time and resources.
page 16 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
3.2
3.9
1.7
2.7
3.4
3.3
4.1
4.0
2.1
2.5
2.6
Financial, insurance & real estate
3.4
3.8
1.8
3.0
3.4
3.4
4.0
3.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
Business services
3.7
3.7
2.1
3.0
3.7
3.6
4.1
4.0
2.5
2.9
3.0
Health, education & social services
3.5
4.1
2.0
3.1
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.0
2.4
2.5
2.7
Consumer & personal services
3.6
4.2
2.2
3.1
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.1
2.5
3.0
2.7
Wholesale & retail
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
O<strong>the</strong>r/uncodeable

10 See Tables 11 and 12 in
appendix. Neighbourhood
Policing Units operate in
England and Wales only
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
It is also clear that many owners do not consider that <strong>the</strong> criminal justice system is achieving
positive results, which may of course seriously reduce <strong>the</strong> actual amount of crime being reported
across all sectors and regions. Initiatives such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)
are often viewed by business as ineffective. Indeed, Figure 8 indicates that <strong>the</strong> view that CDRPs
actually assisting in crime reduction is fairly rare across all sectors, as <strong>the</strong>y are viewed by members
as having less potential impact upon <strong>the</strong> reduction of crime than current initiatives such as
Business Watch/Shop Watch schemes. These fi gures are surprising, as government aims to increase
<strong>the</strong> level of spending on CDRPs in <strong>the</strong> near future.
Special Focus - Neighbourhood Policing Units
The survey results in respect of Neighbourhood Policing Units (NPUs) 10 showed that, overall, around
67% of <strong>the</strong> businesses surveyed were not aware that NPUs exist. In addition, whilst around 7%
of businesses had been contacted by <strong>the</strong> NPU liaison offi cer, only 3.9% have regular contact
with <strong>the</strong>ir NPU. Of those who commented on <strong>the</strong>ir perception of <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of NPUs, opinion
was more or less equally divided, and 10.5% of businesses believed <strong>the</strong>re was no NPU in <strong>the</strong>ir
area. This is of concern, as previous results indicated that many sectors felt that NPUs could be
effective as a crime-reduction method.
The sector with <strong>the</strong> highest percentage of NPU’s in <strong>the</strong>ir area was health, education and social services
(Only 6.8% with no NPU). This sector also scored <strong>the</strong> lowest in believing that NPUs are ineffective
(2.5%). Their scores were near average in o<strong>the</strong>r areas. The sector least aware of NPUs was <strong>the</strong> mining
and construction industry (72%) closely followed by motor vehicle sales and repair (71.6%), agriculture,
forestry and fi shing (71.3%) and manufacturing (70.5%). The hotels and restaurants sector was <strong>the</strong>
most aware of NPUs (though 60.8% were not aware) and had <strong>the</strong> highest percentage of regular
contact with <strong>the</strong>ir local units. Interestingly, however, <strong>the</strong>y were also <strong>the</strong> third-highest sector with no
NPU in <strong>the</strong>ir area (15.4%). The only o<strong>the</strong>r sectors with higher scores in this regard were agriculture,
forestry and fi sheries (19.3%), and motor vehicle sales and repair (19.7%), both of which tend to
operate in rural, or at least, non residential areas.
Looking into this, <strong>the</strong> results in respect of urban/rural businesses in particular were similar in most
regards, with 66.3% of urban businesses being unaware of NPUs, as opposed to 68.6% of rural
businesses. The results for most of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r questions were near average. The exception was <strong>the</strong>
number of businesses with no NPU in <strong>the</strong>ir area. The results for <strong>the</strong> rural businesses were notably
higher, with 13.8% having no local NPU, as opposed to 9.2% of urban businesses.
Of <strong>the</strong> regions surveyed, <strong>the</strong> least aware of NPUs was <strong>the</strong> East Midlands (73.1%). The North East
also scored above 70%. The most aware by far was London, with only 54.1% not aware. The types of
premises least aware of NPUs were warehouses/factories (71.1%). They also reported above average
for having no NPUs in <strong>the</strong>ir area (13.2%). Unsurprisingly, retail/shop premises were <strong>the</strong> most aware
(61.9% not aware). They also scored <strong>the</strong> highest for having been contacted by <strong>the</strong>ir liaison offi cer
(12.6%) and for having regular contact with <strong>the</strong>ir local NPU (7.5%). They also scored <strong>the</strong> highest
for believing that NPUs are effective (10.6%), though 8.1% believed that <strong>the</strong>y were ineffective
(average 6%).
Finally, as far as business size is concerned, owner-only businesses had <strong>the</strong> highest percentage not
aware of NPUs (68.6%). The percentage decreased correspondingly as employee numbers increased,
with businesses of 20 or more employees having <strong>the</strong> lowest score (64.9%).
Overall, this highlights a clear problem for NPUs in that 60–70% of small businesses are not
even aware of <strong>the</strong>ir existence. This is a consistent problem across sectors, regions and fi rm types.
Of equal concern is that even in <strong>the</strong> retail/shop premises type with most contact, only around 1 in 8
reported having had contact and 1 in 14 had regular contact. This suggests that <strong>the</strong> NPU initiative has
a major task ahead if it is to connect with small business.
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 17

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
conclusions
This survey reveals that most businesses have experienced crime to at least some extent in <strong>the</strong> past
year. Vandalism was <strong>the</strong> crime most commonly experienced and reported by all sectors and regions and
continues to be of significant importance to small businesses in <strong>the</strong> UK. The hotel and restaurant, motor
vehicle sales and repair and transport, communications and utilities sectors were particularly susceptible
to this type of crime. The highest rates of crime above <strong>the</strong> UK average were experienced by firms in <strong>the</strong>
wholesale and retail, hotel and restaurant and transport, communications and utilities sectors. The most
susceptible regions to <strong>the</strong> various types of fraud and e-crime were Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and Scotland.
A contrast clearly exists between <strong>the</strong> experiencing and reporting of crime, with only 45% of firms that
experienced a crime actually reporting at least one of <strong>the</strong>se instances. Businesses regarded certain
types of crime as more worthy of reporting to <strong>the</strong> police but not all crime experienced was reported.
For example, burglary was <strong>the</strong> sixth most experienced crime by businesses, but only <strong>the</strong> second most
reported. Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft was <strong>the</strong> ninth most experienced but <strong>the</strong> fourth most reported. In addition,
robbery was <strong>the</strong> twelfth most experienced but <strong>the</strong> fifth most reported.
The issue of loss due to crime should not be ignored or minimised. It is reasonable to assume, on an
individual, case-by-case basis, that <strong>the</strong> cost of crime may on <strong>the</strong> surface seem fairly small, and this may
indicate why many businesses do not report it. This, of course, should not be trivialised, as <strong>the</strong> cost to a
very small business would be viewed as being significant and can often mean <strong>the</strong> difference between
a small profit on <strong>the</strong> one hand, and a yearly loss and in many cases significant increases in insurance
premiums on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. In addition to this, however, it has been reported that small firms do not seem to
have faith in <strong>the</strong> policing of crime or that <strong>the</strong> legal system will provide positive results. Indeed, it could
be argued that many businesses do not see <strong>the</strong> benefits of reporting crime as <strong>the</strong> opportunity cost of
having to deal with <strong>the</strong> legal system may not be viewed as productive. With many owners working
between 60–80 hours per week, <strong>the</strong> reporting of crime may not be seen to provide any financial return or
to prevent future crime from occurring.
Businesses in this survey regard faster police response and tougher sentencing as <strong>the</strong> effective answers
to crime reduction. It is fair to say that initiatives such as Every Crime Every Time are a positive step in
assisting in <strong>the</strong> reduction of crime for small businesses in <strong>the</strong> UK.
Across <strong>the</strong> UK, <strong>the</strong> survey also found that many businesses had installed extra security alarms, and
additional or upgraded security systems. In response to <strong>the</strong> increased levels of crime, many businesses
had increased <strong>the</strong>ir level of CCTV security. In addition, a relatively significant percentage of businesses
sought additional advice from <strong>the</strong> police. The responses also varied by sector. The motor vehicle sales
and repair sector was most likely to have installed or upgraded security alarms, toge<strong>the</strong>r with those from
<strong>the</strong> wholesale and retail (35.6%) sectors. Only <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant and wholesale and retail sectors
seemed to be using, or setting up, Business Watch schemes to any degree.
Finally, 67% of relevant business owners were not even aware of NPUs and <strong>the</strong> 2008 results show that
only 7% of all businesses had been contacted by <strong>the</strong>ir local unit, <strong>the</strong> hotel and restaurant sector being
most aware of this initiative. This suggests that <strong>the</strong> NPU has a job to do as far as engagement and
connection with small business are concerned.
page 18 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008

<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
key policy recommendations
• 64% of businesses are <strong>the</strong> victims of crime and <strong>the</strong>se crimes make up 20% or <strong>the</strong> ‘Forgotten Fifth’ of
all recorded crime. All police forces must adopt a national defi nition for crimes against business and
set targets for its reduction through local policing plans. A local business crime-reduction strategy
agreed with <strong>the</strong> business community would set out how this should be achieved.
• Local authorities should set local strategies and targets for reducing crimes against business through
local structures such as Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) which
<strong>the</strong>n fi lter <strong>the</strong>ir priorities down to <strong>the</strong> work of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs).
• Businesses have a lack of faith that crime-reduction measures such as Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnerships are able to deliver results for <strong>the</strong>m. CDRPs must engage directly with <strong>the</strong> business
community in order to refl ect <strong>the</strong>ir concerns and work to address <strong>the</strong>ir issues at a local level.
• Police authorities should include at least one member from <strong>the</strong> business community or an individual
who can speak on behalf of <strong>the</strong> business community and consult, ei<strong>the</strong>r formally or informally, in
order to refl ect businesses’ views.
• Police forces must make crime reporting easier by providing an easy-access online reporting
mechanism for crime.
• Businesses have some faith in Neighbourhood Policing Units (NPUs) to deliver on local issues but it
is hugely important that NPUs engage directly with businesses, to seek <strong>the</strong>ir views on local priorities
and to ga<strong>the</strong>r intelligence on <strong>the</strong> local area.
References
1. http://www.axa.co.uk/media/pressreleases/2007/pr20070314_1100.html
2. http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/6798219243143333651/crime.html2
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 19

Table 1
Average of
overall cost of
crime over <strong>the</strong>
last two years
Table 2
Percentages
of overall cost
of crime to
business in
last year (eight
categories)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
annex of tables
Cost of
crime
N
North East £1,192 83
North West £21,256 412
Yorkshire & Humber £25,108 347
East Midlands £1,938 345
West Midlands £5,742 358
East of England £8,022 473
London £4,991 145
South East £6,606 812
South West £2,320 791
England £8,215 3997
Wales £30,197 192
Scotland £41,255 350
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland £76,715 119
UK £13,354 4658
£0
£1 to £100
£101 to
£500
page 20 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
£501 to
£1,000
£1,001 to
£2,500
£2,501 to
£5,000
£5,001 to
£10,000
North East 31.3 10.8 25.3 13.3 7.2 3.6 8.4 0.0
North West 27.7 10.2 18.0 12.6 10.9 8.7 6.3 5.6
Yorkshire & Humber 28.0 11.8 21.0 15.0 9.2 6.9 6.1 2.0
East Midlands 27.2 7.5 22.6 16.2 11.0 7.8 4.9 2.6
West Midlands 24.9 9.8 21.8 11.7 8.7 10.6 5.6 7.0
East of England 35.3 12.5 16.3 12.1 7.8 5.3 3.8 7.0
London 32.4 9.0 18.6 7.6 11.0 12.4 5.5 3.4
South East 32.0 10.5 19.6 11.3 10.1 9.1 3.3 4.1
South West 30.6 12.6 23.4 11.1 9.1 7.7 2.7 2.8
England 30.3 10.7 20.4 12.2 9.4 8.4 4.4 4.3
Wales 24.0 12.0 15.6 6.8 6.3 9.9 4.2 21.4
Scotland 20.9 10.9 20.9 8.9 5.1 4.9 4.6 24.0
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 28.6 5.9 16.8 10.9 4.2 9.2 3.4 21.0
UK 29.3 10.6 20.1 11.7 8.8 8.2 4.3 6.9
More than
£10,000

Table 3
Percentage
of members
experiencing a
crime by sector
Table 4
Percentage
of members
experiencing
a crime by
sector (Table 3
continued)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Vandalism
Graffi ti
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 21
Vehicle damage
Threatening
behaviour
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 38.0 31.4 33.3 34.1 32.2 29.5 37.2 27.9 35.3
Mining & Construction 41.8 35.3 35.0 42.5 35.4 29.0 33.1 29.4 36.2
Manufacturing 41.6 33.0 29.2 35.0 31.7 27.6 33.9 25.8 35.1
Transport, Communications &
Utilities
46.7 32.7 35.3 47.4 38.6 30.6 32.3 28.0 33.8
Motor Vehicle Sales and Repair 48.7 35.0 41.6 47.8 35.0 36.3 35.0 28.8 37.6
Hotels & Restaurants 53.0 36.9 29.5 38.1 45.3 33.6 31.5 27.7 34.8
Financial, Insurance & Real
Estate
36.0 30.8 23.4 28.1 29.3 22.8 25.1 21.0 24.6
Business Services 30.1 26.6 25.7 31.2 26.6 22.9 25.3 22.2 25.1
Health, Education & Social
Services
39.2 31.9 26.5 30.2 30.8 24.3 23.9 22.8 27.1
Consumer & Personal Services 42.3 34.8 27.9 35.2 37.3 31.5 28.1 25.4 29.6
Wholesale & Retail 43.8 34.4 26.9 33.5 36.9 49.1 29.4 23.9 29.4
UK 40.8 32.7 29.2 35.7 34.1 32.1 29.6 25.2 30.8
Robbery
Assault on
owners/
Employee fraud
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
Cheque fraud
Shoplifting
Fly tipping
Credit-card
fraud
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 31.4 25.6 28.3 28.3 28.7 27.5 26.0 26.7
Mining & Construction 32.7 29.4 30.9 33.1 30.7 33.4 29.8 30.5
Manufacturing 29.2 25.6 27.6 29.3 26.5 28.0 26.3 25.7
Transport, Communications &
Utilities
28.0 28.5 30.1 31.2 31.8 32.3 28.5 27.6
Motor Vehicle Sales and Repair 32.7 27.9 29.6 31.9 35.8 30.5 27.4 27.4
Hotels & Restaurants 30.6 31.8 32.5 36.6 31.8 31.1 28.0 27.3
Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 22.0 21.4 24.4 24.2 25.1 22.2 22.6 22.6
Business Services 23.1 22.4 23.6 24.5 23.9 28.3 24.5 23.4
Health, Education & Social Services 24.7 23.6 23.9 25.4 25.4 26.2 23.2 22.8
Consumer & Personal Services 27.5 25.6 27.5 31.0 29.8 27.9 25.6 25.0
Wholesale & Retail 26.5 24.7 26.8 29.1 32.7 31.2 26.1 24.7
UK 27.4 25.7 27.3 29.1 29.0 29.6 26.3 25.6
Arson
E-crime
Burglary
Identify fraud

Table 5
Percentages
by region
experiencing
a crime by
region and
country
Table 6
Percentages
by region
experiencing
a crime by
region and
country (Table
5 continued)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Robbery
Vandalism
Assault on owners/
staff
Graffiti
Employee fraud
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
North East 29.4 28.8 30.7 30.7 32.0 30.7 28.8 28.1 25.5
North West 27.6 25.7 27.5 28.7 27.8 29.4 25.2 25.1 21.7
Yorkshire & Humber 26.9 24.4 26.4 28.2 28.5 28.7 26.3 25.7 19.9
East Midlands 29.2 27.1 29.5 30.3 30.3 31.2 27.4 25.9 23.1
West Midlands 28.0 25.4 27.7 30.5 29.6 29.3 26.3 25.4 23.4
East of England 23.6 23.6 24.6 26.0 27.0 26.8 23.0 22.6 20.8
London 29.6 27.5 26.3 30.4 32.5 30.4 27.9 27.9 21.7
South East 25.3 23.7 25.5 27.5 26.9 28.7 24.7 24.4 20.6
South West 26.9 25.6 26.8 27.9 28.2 29.0 25.9 25.5 22.5
England 26.5 25.0 26.6 28.2 28.0 28.8 25.5 25.0 21.7
Wales 28.5 25.1 27.7 29.0 29.5 27.7 26.7 23.8 22.3
Scotland 30.9 29.1 30.2 32.8 31.9 33.4 30.2 29.9 25.5
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 29.9 26.4 30.3 32.9 36.8 29.9 26.0 25.1 23.8
UK 27.1 25.5 27.1 28.8 28.7 29.2 26.0 25.4 22.2
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
page 22 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
Vehicle damage
Threatening
behaviour
North East 40.5 34.0 29.4 35.9 34.6 33.3 34.0 26.8 31.4
North West 42.3 34.0 30.2 36.8 34.8 31.8 29.9 24.9 31.5
Yorkshire & Humber 44.6 35.1 30.6 38.2 34.7 32.8 29.2 25.0 31.3
East Midlands 41.5 33.6 31.6 36.6 34.2 31.6 30.6 27.1 32.1
West Midlands 40.4 30.8 29.7 33.7 34.1 32.2 29.0 25.1 33.3
East of England 35.6 29.8 25.5 31.3 30.4 28.9 28.0 22.3 28.8
London 41.3 38.8 29.6 38.8 41.3 31.3 30.0 26.3 34.6
South East 37.9 30.3 27.1 34.1 32.1 29.2 27.4 23.4 28.2
South West 39.7 30.2 27.8 35.5 32.9 31.7 29.1 24.9 29.8
England 39.6 31.7 28.4 34.9 33.1 30.8 28.9 24.5 30.2
Wales 42.1 32.1 30.8 34.1 32.3 33.3 29.2 24.9 30.3
Scotland 44.7 37.7 31.9 39.1 38.4 37.9 33.8 29.1 33.2
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 45.9 38.1 31.6 34.2 39.8 39.0 29.0 25.5 32.0
UK 40.4 32.5 28.9 35.3 33.7 31.8 29.3 25.0 30.5
Cheque fraud
Shoplifting
Credit-card fraud
Fly tipping
E-crime
Arson
Identify fraud
Burglary
O<strong>the</strong>r

Table 7
Percentage
of businesses
reporting a
crime by sector
Table 8
Percentage
of businesses
reporting
a crime by
sector (Table 7
continued)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Vandalism
Graffi ti
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 21.2 6.2 22.1 18.2 14.5 5.3 13.5 6.9 33
Mining & Construction 19 6.4 21 26.3 7.5 2.4 4.8 2 22.7
Manufacturing 24.7 7.2 13.9 18.1 7.5 1.7 5.3 3.2 33
Transport, Communications & Utilities 27.9 6.4 25.1 32.7 12.7 3.1 6.4 2.7 28.5
Motor Vehicle Sales and Repair 32.7 7.6 31.9 33.3 6.3 6.1 5.1 7.7 34.1
Hotels & Restaurants 35.4 8.5 8.9 22.9 24.4 5.4 6.3 3 26.1
Financial, Insurance & Real Estate 29.4 11.9 6.1 22.5 13.2 0.9 6.5 1.9 19.8
Business Services 19.2 6.2 11.8 21 6.2 2.9 4.2 2.9 15.4
Health, Education & Social Services 26.3 9.8 11.1 14 9.6 3 1.5 3.2 18.4
Consumer & Personal Services 30.5 12 15.7 20.7 20.7 8.6 3.7 4.9 24.6
Wholesale & Retail 32.1 11.4 12.8 19.4 15.8 22.7 5.9 3.6 27.5
UK 26.7 8.5 15.2 22.1 12.5 9.5 5.3 3.3 24.7
Robbery
Assault on
owners/
Employee fraud
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 17.3 3 2.7 4.1 1.4 4.2 4.5 1.4 5.4
Mining & Construction 11.8 1.7 2.6 4.2 6.5 5.3 2.7 2.9 4.1
Manufacturing 14.8 2.3 2.2 4.9 2.3 7.7 3.2 3.3 6.5
Transport, Communications
& Utilities
10.8 6 4.4 7.9 7.7 7.6 4.6 2.7 7.4
Motor Vehicle Sales and Repair 17.6 1.4 6.2 1.4 3.2 1.6 5.2
Hotels & Restaurants 15.1 13 6.1 9.9 6.7 10.1 4.7 4.8 12.9
Financial, Insurance & Real
Estate
9.3 3.8 5.8 7.6 8.9 1.8 2.7 9 5.9
Business Services 5.7 2.6 5 5.6 5.8 9.7 5.6 3.9 4.3
Health, Education & Social
Services
11.9 4.7 4.6 7.2 7.2 5.6 4.8 1.6 5.9
Consumer & Personal Services 12.9 4.1 3.8 8.1 5.6 10.4 2.4 4.2 5.4
Wholesale & Retail 16.6 5.6 4.7 6.7 13.4 11.6 6 5.4 8.2
UK 12.5 4.5 4.0 6.1 7.5 8.3 4.4 3.9 6.4
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 23
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
Vehicle damage
Cheque fraud
Threatening behaviour
Credit-card fraud
Shoplifting
E-crime
Fly tipping
Arson
Identify fraud
Burglary
O<strong>the</strong>r

Table 9
Percentage of
respondents
reporting
crime to police
by region and
country
Table 10
Percentage of
respondents
reporting
crime to police
by region and
country (Table
9 continued)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Vandalism
Graffiti
Vehicle <strong>the</strong>ft
Vehicle damage
page 24 lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008
Threatening
behaviour
North East 14.5 3.8 11.1 20.0 9.4 9.8 5.8 0.0 22.9
North West 28.0 10.7 19.6 27.8 16.3 6.8 5.4 3.8 30.8
Yorkshire &
Humber
30.6 9.9 18.1 20.4 13.4 6.8 5.3 2.8 28.2
East Midlands 29.6 8.0 20.9 24.6 11.0 7.6 5.9 6.1 25.7
West Midlands 28.2 8.0 19.2 24.2 14.0 9.6 3.7 4.3 31.0
East of England 25.2 9.2 11.7 22.1 9.8 9.5 8.1 3.2 24.5
London 26.3 16.1 18.3 21.5 16.2 10.7 4.2 3.2 30.1
South East 24.1 6.6 14.8 21.2 12.3 7.8 3.9 2.8 22.0
South West 23.5 5.6 11.6 19.7 10.0 12.1 3.7 2.2 20.5
England 26.1 8.3 16.1 22.5 12.4 9.0 5.1 3.3 25.4
Wales 33.5 8.8 20.0 28.6 15.1 16.2 8.8 5.2 24.6
Scotland 29.2 10.1 6.3 17.6 12.7 10.0 6.7 2.8 18.9
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 21.7 10.2 9.6 12.7 12.0 12.2 3.0 0.0 21.6
UK 26.6 8.6 15.1 22.0 12.5 9.6 5.4 3.2 24.6
Robbery
Assault on owners/
staff
Employee fraud
North East 4.4 0.0 2.1 6.4 10.2 0.0 4.5 2.3 5.1
North West 16.1 7.3 5.9 7.5 9.2 7.8 4.3 3.2 4.3
Yorkshire &
Humber
11.5 3.5 3.9 8.0 7.9 10.2 3.3 2.7 7.0
East Midlands 16.4 5.0 4.6 5.0 8.9 10.6 5.5 2.9 6.5
West Midlands 14.8 3.0 5.0 8.6 5.7 6.3 4.7 1.8 7.2
East of England 12.1 5.6 5.3 4.1 10.6 10.7 3.1 3.2 9.2
London 14.1 4.5 4.8 4.1 9.0 11.0 4.5 10.4 3.8
South East 13.5 3.9 3.1 6.6 8.2 8.8 4.1 6.3 5.8
South West 9.7 3.9 2.0 3.6 4.5 7.0 4.9 3.2 6.0
England 12.8 4.4 3.9 5.9 7.6 8.4 4.4 4.0 6.5
Wales 15.3 6.1 8.3 8.8 12.2 8.3 9.6 2.2 8.0
Scotland 8.4 2.8 3.1 6.5 4.5 7.8 2.4 4.0 7.4
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 15.9 11.5 2.9 3.9 11.8 8.7 1.7 0.0 1.8
UK 12.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 7.6 8.4 4.4 3.8 6.5
Employee <strong>the</strong>ft
Cheque fraud
Shoplifting
Credit-card fraud
Fly tipping
E-crime
Arson
Identify fraud
Burglary
O<strong>the</strong>r

Table 11
Effectiveness
of crime
reduction
methods (1 =
not effective
– 5 = very
effective)
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Crime-prevention advice
Business Watch
Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnership
More visible police presence
North East
Mean 2.9 2.8 2.6 4.2 4.4a,b,c N 62 45 36 101 92
3.9
67
3.8
86
3.0
56
1.9
69
4.1
86
3.6
91
North West
Mean
N
2.6
301
2.7
199
2.2
136
4.0
458
4.1
411
3.7
257
3.8
364
3.2
209
2.1
288
4.2
377
3.5
396
Yorkshire & Mean 2.6 2.7 2.2 3.9 4.0
Humber
a 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.0 4.0 3.5
N 233 138 97 361 327 188 289 159 222 302 318
East Midlands
Mean
N
2.6
288
2.6
167
2.5
135
4.1
413
4.1
373
3.8
236
3.6
319
3.2
200
1.9
258
4.1
361
3.6
363
West Midlands
Mean
N
2.7
265
2.6
177
2.2
134
4.0
383
4.2
359
3.6
224
3.7
336
3.1
202
2.0
256
4.2
327
3.4
337
East of
Mean 2.7 2.5 2.2 4.0 4.0
England
b 3.7 3.6 3.0 1.9 4.0i 3.4
N 324 230 160 487 455 227 387 222 299 414 424
London
Mean
N
2.9
108
2.6
67
2.5
44
4.0
147
4.1
135
3.5
75
3.7
121
3.5
67
1.9
91
4.0
111
3.5
136
South East
Mean 2.7 2.7 2.3 4.0 4.0c 3.4d,e 3.6 3.1g 1.9 3.9j N 523 360 255 840 773 401 668 390 500 689
3.5
745
South West
Mean 2.7 2.7 2.2 3.9 4.0 3.5f N 552 379 242 878 777 442
3.6
677
2.9
393
1.9
528
4.0
736
3.5
766
England Mean 2.7 2.6 2.3 4.0 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.1 1.9 4.0 3.5
N 2807 1872 1324 4294 3901 2246 3428 2002 2656 3585 3795
Wales
Mean 2.5 2.7 2.1 4.0 4.0 3.9d N 129 84 65 223 204 118
3.8
190
3.0
86
2.1
137
4.0
184
3.5
180
Scotland
Mean 2.9 2.7 2.4 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.7 2.7h N 299 183 106 439 398 229 356 166
2.2
241
4.1
359
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Mean 2.7 2.9 2.5 4.1 4.2 4.0
Ireland
e,f 3.9 3.6g,h 2.5 4.4i,j N 86 54 34 138 138 94 118 56 73 123
UK
Mean
N
2.7
3321
2.7
2193
2.3
1529
4.0
5094
4.1
4641
3.6
2687
3.7
4092
3.1
2310
2.0
3107
4.0
4251
3.5
3975
lifting <strong>the</strong> barriers to growth in UK small businesses 2008 page 25
Faster police response
Grant assistance for security
CCTV surveillance
Private security guard
ASBO
Tougher sentencing
Neighbourhood Policing
Units

Table 12
Experiences of
Neighbourhood
Policing Units
<strong>Putting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>back</strong> on track Crimes Against Business
Not aware of <strong>the</strong>m
Had no contact with my
local Unit
Was contacted by <strong>the</strong>
liaison officer
Have regular contact with
Unit
Think <strong>the</strong> Unit is effective
in reducing crime
Think Unit is ineffective in
reducing crime
There is no NPU in my
area
North East 70.2% 56.7% 7.8% 3.5% 3.5% 8.5% 9.9% 141
North West 66.4% 50.8% 7.0% 4.7% 7.0% 6.3% 8.2% 685
Yorkshire & Humber 68.7% 54.6% 7.3% 3.5% 7.1% 5.2% 10.4% 520
East Midlands 73.1% 53.2% 6.4% 2.8% 3.6% 4.6% 11.9% 607
West Midlands 67.1% 55.7% 7.5% 3.1% 5.9% 7.0% 11.4% 589
East of England 67.5% 51.6% 6.4% 3.3% 8.7% 5.9% 11.3% 762
London 54.1% 55.5% 11.9% 7.8% 13.3% 10.1% 6.4% 218
South East 67.1% 51.5% 6.2% 3.7% 7.7% 5.3% 8.5% 1359
South West 66.2% 49.7% 7.4% 4.9% 6.8% 7.1% 11.6% 1345
England 67.4% 52.0% 7.0% 3.9% 7.0% 6.1% 10.3% 6610
Wales 66.0% 44.0% 7.4% 3.1% 6.0% 6.3% 14.6% 350
England and Wales 67.3% 51.6% 7.0% 3.9% 7.0% 6.1% 10.5% 6960
N

ISBN Number 978-0-906779-90-3
November 2008
©Federation of Small Businesses
Copies of this publication may be obtained by writing to:
Federation of Small Businesses
2 Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Place, London SW1E 6HF
Telephone: 020 7592 8100
Facsimile: 020 7233 7899
email: london.policy@fsb.org.uk
website: www.fsb.org.uk
Disclaimer
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
o<strong>the</strong>rwise, without <strong>the</strong> prior permission of <strong>the</strong> Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). While every
effort has been made to ensure <strong>the</strong> accuracy of <strong>the</strong> facts and data contained in this publication,
no responsibility can be accepted by FSB for errors or omissions or <strong>the</strong>ir consequences. Articles
that appear in <strong>the</strong> book are written in general terms only. They are not intended to be a
comprehensive statement of <strong>the</strong> issues raised and should not be relied upon for any specifi c
purposes. Readers should seek appropriate professional advice regarding <strong>the</strong> application to <strong>the</strong>ir
specifi c circumstances of <strong>the</strong> issues raised in any article.
Designed on behalf of <strong>the</strong> Federation of Small Businesses by
Hutton Design, Long Road, Paignton, TQ4 7BB
Telephone: 01803 668718 Fax: 01803 557148
email: luke@huttondesign.net