Impact evaluation of Sharing in Growth 2021 (HTML)
Published 31 March 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-evaluation-of-sharing-in-growth-2021/impact-evaluation-of-sharing-in-growth-2021-html
1. Impact evaluation of Sharing in Growth 2021
The programme / policy:
- Established in 2013, Sharing in Growth (SiG) provides funding for training and development in the management and leadership of UK aerospace supply chain businesses.
It aims to:
- help improve workforce capabilities and transform the overall competitiveness of participating businesses,
- address barriers to investment in innovation,
- improve business-level productivity and
- secure high-value jobs in economically deprived areas.
SiG covers a range of relevant business disciplines to support these aims. For example by improving/promoting: - lean operations, - manufacturing processes, - strategy development and - leadership.
Since 2013, 76 businesses have received support via SiG, with an average of 50,000 hours of training per business.
2. Methodology
The SiG evaluation used a mixed-method approach to investigate the process and implementation of the scheme as well as to test the extent to which outcomes and impacts have occurred as a result of the SiG programme.
Using a theory-based approach to understand the complex environment in which the SiF operates, this involved:
- collation and analysis of programme monitoring data;
- interviews with management staff, delivery partners and wider external stakeholders;
- and in-depth case studies with eight beneficiary businesses.
A Difference-in- Differences (DiD) approach was also used to estimate the net impact of SiG on participating businesses. The DiD focused on five key outcome measures:
- Employment,
- Turnover,
- Average wages,
- Turnover per employee,
- Ratio of costs of sales to turnover.
A panel dataset (made up of observations on companies over time) covering 2010 to 2019, containing data on outcome measures and relevant observable characteristics, was used to establish a comparator group.
The treatment group was drawn from a list of beneficiaries provided by SiG in April 2020 and included 73 firms that had received, or were currently receiving, SiG support.
3. Findings
Overall feedback collated via the theory-based evaluation was positive: most beneficiaries (29 out of 33 surveyed) were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their engagement with SiG, and 24 out of 30 respondents would recommend the scheme to other businesses.
Beneficiaries also reported the positive impact of SiG on their leadership attitudes and behaviours, business culture and workforce skills, and knowledge and capability building.
The results from the DiD suggest that SiG had a statistically significant impact on employment and turnover of beneficiaries.
From 2013 to 2019, SiG directly generated approximately:
- 2,500 to 3,495 additional jobs across all beneficiaries
- £799m to £1,145m in additional turnover for beneficiaries.
However, the DiD found no statistically significant effects on wages, turnover per employee, or the ratio of costs of sales to turnover.
4. Impacts
Reported impacts of SiG included knowledge spill-overs to wider sectors, including:
- Firms who were previously considered collaborators with the aerospace sector. This spill-over has led to stronger networks, ranging from informal networks through to new commercial relationships between beneficiaries.
- Collaborators not already involved in SiG. As participants of SiG’s became more willing / confident to engage in more collaborative R&D activities. However, only a small case of participants reported this as a clear impact of SiG.
- Participating firms, for example, good practice from the automotive sector. In part this was due to SiG providers and the beneficiary base serving non-aerospace markets, although the extent of spill-overs varied across those surveyed from small to large.
5. Next steps
- There is further scope to adjust the SiG model to maximise its effectiveness in the future by better integrating SiG into the wider business support landscape.
- The evaluation also raised questions as to whether the “one intensive size fits all” approach is necessary or appropriate for all. This includes whether all firms need this level of support to achieve the programme’s aims.