General experiences of and views of UK exporting firms on UKEF
To begin with, we asked UK exporting firms who are familiar with UKEF how they have previously engaged with UKEF, inviting them to select all the financing, products or services they have applied for or received. As seen in Table 1 below, UK exporting firms have used or sought out a wide range of UKEF financing, products and services.
Table 1. Proportion of UK exporting firms that are familiar with UKEF who have used or sought out specific UKEF financing, products or services[xvii]
The most popular UKEF financing, product or service is Export Insurance, which has been used or sought out by 29% of UK exporting firms, followed by Export Credits at 24% of UK exporting firms and Advisory Services at 22%. Just under a quarter (23%) of firms who are familiar with UKEF have not sought or obtained financing, products or services from UKEF.
Micro-sized firms familiar with UKEF were much more likely not to have engaged with UKEF (51%) than firms of all other sizes. Similarly, exporting firms familiar with UKEF located in the South (32%), rest of the UK (30%) and the North (26%) were less likely to have engaged with UKEF than those in the Midlands (17%) or London (14%).
We then asked UK exporting firms to share their evaluations of UKEF and to rate the overall importance of its financing, products and services for sustaining their firm’s exporting business.
As seen in Chart 1 below, the reviews of UKEF from exporting firms are generally positive. Among UK exporting firms who are familiar with UKEF, the majority (57%) rate their overall experience positively (‘very good’ or ‘good’), while very few (3%) rate it negatively (‘poor’ or ‘very poor’).
As shown in Chart 1 above, the positive assessments of engaging with UKEF are more likely to be observed among large-sized firms who are familiar with UKEF (67%). For medium-sized exporting firms who are familiar with UKEF, a majority were positive (55%). The views expressed by small-sized firms familiar with UKEF are roughly similar, though with a smaller majority assessing its engagement with UKEF positively (51%). Finally, the views among micro-sized firms familiar with UKEF were notably less positive, with only 28% rating the experience positively. The responses among this group, however, had a large number of firms for which UKEF was not applicable (40%), suggesting that although they had heard of UKEF, they had not applied for any support from it.
There are also some small differences between firms located in different regions, with those in London familiar with UKEF most likely to evaluate the experience positively (66%), while those in the South of England familiar with UKEF were the least likely to do so (48%), though it is notable that negative evaluations are at very low levels across all regions.
There is also some minor variation in positive evaluations of UKEF by the regions to which firms export to, ranging from 68% for those exporting to South Asia to 56% for those exporting to South America. However, there are no differences in negative evaluations, indicating that a large majority of firms have a positive view regardless of the export region.
Next, we wanted to assess the importance of UKEF financing, products and services for UK firms who were familiar with UKEF. When examining the importance of UKEF financing, products and services for firms who were familiar with it, we find that a majority (68%) state that they are important (including both ‘important’ and ‘very important’ responses) for sustaining their firms’ exporting firms, as displayed in Chart 2 below.
There is an association between larger firm size and greater importance of UKEF financing, products and services, as Chart 2 above shows. A substantial majority of large exporting firms familiar with UKEF (77%) consider UKEF financing, products and services as important, but this falls slightly to 66% for medium-sized firms familiar with UKEF and 63% for small-sized firms familiar with UKEF. The importance of UKEF financing, products and services was lowest among micro-sized firms familiar with UKEF, with only 42% stating their importance.
Chart 2 above also shows views on the importance of UKEF financing, products and services by business location, highlighting that importance of UKEF differs slightly across UK regions. A strong majority of exporting firms familiar with UKEF located in the Midlands (77%) indicate that UKEF financing, products and services are important for sustaining their business, closely followed by a large majority of firms familiar with UKEF in London (74%) and in the North (71%). However, firms familiar with UKEF were notably less likely to describe UKEF as important in the South (56%) and in the rest of the UK (61%).
Additionally, there are minor differences between firms in terms of their export region, with 80% of firms familiar with UKEF exporting to Africa describing UKEF financing, products and services as very important, as opposed to 68% of firms familiar with UKEF which export to South America, with other regions falling in between, meaning that large majorities describe UKEF financing, products and support as important regardless of their export market.
With UKEF seen as both positive and important for a broad range of UK exporting firms, we also asked those familiar with UKEF to share their views on the three reforms which would most improve the UKEF application process, as highlighted in Chart 3 below.
Exporting firms that are familiar with UKEF would like a broad range of reforms to the UKEF application process, but each reform only garners minority support, highlighting that firms differ substantially on what matters to them. For example, more guidance about Brexit-related impacts is the most popular reform, but only by 33% of firms familiar with UKEF. Other concerns such as more financial support for COVID-affected export sectors (29%), reduced amount of paperwork during applications (29%), more support during the application process (28%), more coordination with bank lenders (27%) and shorter length of applications (25%) are cited by firms familiar with UKEF at broadly similar rates, indicating a diverse range of requested reforms. Overall, only 12% of firms familiar with UKEF say there is no need for improvement, suggesting that UKEF could make a series of reforms to improve their application process.
We also observe some differences between firms of different sizes, as shown in Chart 3 above. Overall, large- and medium-sized firms familiar with UKEF are consistently more likely to want all the different reforms to UKEF in comparison to small- and micro-sized firms familiar with UKEF. For micro- and small-sized firms familiar with UKEF, the most popular reform is reducing the amount of paperwork in the application process (29% and 26% respectively). Contrastingly, for medium- and large-sized firms familiar with UKEF, the most popular reform is more guidance about Brexit-related impacts (39% and 35% respectively).
We then asked exporting firms that are familiar with UKEF whether they were planning to utilise more or less UKEF financing, products and services in the next two years, as shown in Chart 4 below. Most exporting firms familiar with UKEF (51%) expect to use more, with 17% expecting to use much more and 34% planning to use slightly more. In contrast, only 7% expect to use them slightly or much less. Thirty seven percent expect to use them at the same rate.
Bigger exporting firms are more likely to expect to use UKEF financing, products and services more in the next two years. While only 36% micro- and 40% small-sized exporting firms think they will be engaging with UKEF much or slightly more, this rises to 50% for medium-sized firms and 57% for large-sized firms.
Exporting firms located in London are also more likely to expect to use UKEF financing, products and services much or slightly more in the next two years (59%), especially compared to firms located in the South (38%).
We then asked for a specific reason for firms familiar with UKEF on why they are planning to use UKEF financing more over the next two years, with results in Chart 5 below. As this was only asked of those who are making such plans, this question has a smaller sample size, as the base in Chart 5 details.
As can be observed in Chart 5 above, firms familiar with UKEF that intend to apply for more UKEF financing, products and services over the next two years are most likely to do so to mitigate Brexit-related impacts (38%). After this, firms familiar with UKEF want to use UKEF to develop new export projects (34%) and to mitigate COVID-19-related impacts (34%). These responses are followed by the reason to access new export markets, with 33% of firms familiar with UKEF reporting this. Just over a quarter (26%) wish to apply to UKEF more to manage existing projects.
There are some minor differences by firm attributes, with small-sized firms familiar with UKEF being substantially more likely to increase their applications to UKEF to mitigate Brexit-related impacts (46%) in comparison to firms of other sizes.