ANNEX 6 DRIVERS BEHIND PARTICIPATION

Transcription

1 ANNEX 6 DRIVERS BEHIND PARTICIPATION

2 DRIVERS BEHIND PARTICIPATION 1 INTRODUCTION This short paper describes the drivers behind participation in the Environmental Protection Expenditure Survey It considers both motivating and de-motivating factors for the current as well as for future surveys. All the feedback from the 2004 correspondence (phone calls to the help desk, phone calls through the dedicated top company follow-up, fax back forms, s and letters returned to explain company s non-participation) was recorded. The correspondence often highlighted the different reasons why companies did not wish to participate and also their opinions on the survey form itself. The main findings, which should be taken into consideration when deciding on incentives for future surveys, are discussed below. 2 GENERAL DRIVERS BEHIND PARTICIPATION An understanding of the general drivers for participation in the survey has been developed over a number of years of involvement in the survey. There are also a number of specific but often less significant findings each different year of the survey. For the 2004 survey, and considering analysis over time, key factors driving participation include: The topic of the survey, Environmental Protection, is an issue that is of concern to many people. As such, the completion of the questionnaire is viewed as a way to help the environment. Defra is a well-known government agency. The connection of the survey to Defra increases participation. DTI logo was also added into the 2004 questionnaire in order to raise the response rate. The reminder postcard and letter caused hundreds of phone calls to the help desk during the following days. The reminder cards and letters were an efficient way of boosting the response rate. It is to be noted that these are not sent out to pester companies and should only be considered as gentle reminders about the survey due date. 1

3 The annual nature of the survey is another clear driver. If companies know that they will be contacted again next year regarding the survey they are likely to record their responses and in some instances companies have changed their accounting systems to include the information required to fill in the survey. As data capture mentioned above, some companies are keen to modify their accounting procedures in order to participate in the following years surveys. Explanation about the survey to callers of the Helpdesk reduced the number of smaller companies that were self-excluding and did not think that the survey was applicable to them. The explanations included the background of the survey and the random selection method. Most companies were happy to provide answers to questions wherever possible. These companies were always advised to fill in at least section 1.2 boxes B and C and sections 4, Contact Details and Classification Details. The provision of a Helpdesk encouraged participation as it is a quick and easy way to get help with any elements of the survey that were proving difficult to complete. The Helpdesk also supplies companies with survey resends as they are often requested by phone. Companies are directed firstly to download a copy from the website (an interactive questionnaire was available for download in 2004), then an copy is suggested and finally a postal copy is sent if no other means are appropriate. The timing of the survey was one of the main concerns within the correspondence. While allocating a survey period, to suit all the companies is impossible, avoiding the Christmas / end of year period is considered an important factor to increase participation within many companies. 3 REASONS FOR NON-PARTICIPATION The key reasons for non-participation have remained fairly similar throughout the years. These include the following: A lack of resources and being too busy to complete the survey are key reasons given for non-participation. The timing of the 2003 and 2004 surveys aimed to avoid the end of financial year as well as Christmas periods and therefore, to reduce the burden on respondents. It was noted that the queries and complaints about the survey timing were remarkably reduced from 2002 and it is therefore recommended that similar timing would be applied in the future survey years. Some confusion was caused in a few cases by the timing of the survey, for participants who were surveyed for a second time and felt they had only 2

4 recently completed the same survey. This affected only a very small minority of participants. This year more companies stated that the burden of surveys from Government and non Governmental Organisations had increased. This is thought to have affected the response rate. Therefore several companies stated that they will not respond to non-compulsory surveys. Accounting procedures were not set up to collect the necessary information. Some companies are prepared to modify and further develop their accounting procedures in order to capture the appropriate information. This is positive feedback for the future surveys. Data was not available because company has ceased trading. This includes companies that ceased trading, company is dormant, site / company due to close, company in liquidation / receivership and company sold. All these reasons are fairly common and could be avoided if more accurate company information was available. Data was not available (due to reorganisation of the company for example) and that no manufacturing facilities were present because it was an office only site. Amongst the top companies (defined on the basis of number of employees and turnover) the most common reasons for non-participation were that resources were not available or accounting procedures were not set up to separately identify environmental information. However many companies, regardless of their size, gave these reasons. The terminology in the questionnaire is not often clear in case of smaller companies that do not have environmental managers. Some people filling in the survey have never come across the terminology used and are therefore likely to be put of by the survey. Flexibility in the terminology is limited due to the EU requirements in collecting the data. 3

5 4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION Based on the analysis of the drivers behind participation, initial recommendations can be made to aim to improve response rates for future surveys: Clarification of the survey form making it clearer from the start that all companies should participate even if they think that the survey is not applicable to them. Clearly stating this should reduce the volume of phone calls to the help desk. The reminder postcards, in general, were found to be a very efficient way of getting companies to contact the Helpdesk and to participate, although some companies gave negative feedback stating that it was unnecessary to send a reminder before the survey deadline. This and the reminder letter, which was sent out three weeks later, increased the calls to the Helpdesk and the response rate considerably. Due to the voluntary nature of the survey a greater Government push to encourage proactive and more real time collection and management of the information was recommended by several top companies. Also linking the survey to other Defra initiatives or work might help to increase the incentive to participate, and in turn improve the response rate. 4