Official Statistics

Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey

Updated 5 October 2023

Applies to England and Wales

Frequency of release: Annual

Forthcoming release: To be announced

Home Office responsible statistician: John Flatley

Press enquiries: pressoffice@homeoffice.gov.uk Telephone: 020 7035 3535

Public enquiries:crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk

Personal Information Charter:Personal information charter - Home Office - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

This bulletin reports on prevalence, frequency and impact of crime experienced by businesses in the last 12 months, from interviews conducted between August 2022 and November 2022 in the Commercial Victimisation Survey.

1. Main results

The data from the 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey, showed that:

• an estimated 28% of all business premises had been a victim of any crime asked about in the survey during the last 12 months (Figure 1)

• the most common type of crime experienced was theft (15%), followed by burglary (including attempts) (9%), vandalism (9%), and assaults or threats (7%)

• for premises in the wholesale and retail sector, 42% experienced any crime in the last 12 months.

• premises which were accessible to the public were more likely to have been a victim of any crime (34%) than those which were not accessible to the public (21%)

• medium-sized premises with between 10 and 49 employees were more likely to be victims of crime (38%) than those with nine or fewer employees (26%), however, large premises (50 or more employees) showed no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of crime compared with either small or medium-sized premises

• the most prevalent type of theft was theft by a customer (11% of premises), with 17% of victimised premises experiencing it at least once per day

• for premises that experienced assaults or threats at least once in the previous 12 months, approximately one-third (32%) reported being victims at least once a month.

Figure 1: Proportion of business premises which experienced at least one incident of crime in the previous 12 months, by crime type

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: headline findings from the CVS 2022

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 1: bar chart comparing the prevalence of different crime types. Just over one-quarter of business premises were a victim of crime in the previous 12 months, with the most common crime type being theft.

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

This bulletin presents findings from the 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) that examines the extent of crime against business premises in England and Wales. The CVS is a premises-based crime survey, where a sample of business premises in England and Wales were asked questions relating to their experiences of crime and anti-social behaviour, the impacts these had, and their interaction with law enforcement.

The CVS was first run as a standalone survey in 1992, followed by a second standalone survey in 2002. The CVS was then run as an annual series from 2012 to the 2022 CVS. A break occurred between 2019 and 2021 due to a re-design of the survey and effects of coronavirus (COVID-19). A standalone CVS was run in 2021 covering the wholesale and retail sector to provide insights on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector.

Following consultation with users, a decision was made to expand the coverage of the CVS to include all commercial business sectors in 2022 to provide a better understanding of the extent of crime affecting all commercial business premises in England and Wales.

The 2022 CVS is therefore the first year to cover all commercial business sectors. Due to the limitations of the sample size it is not possible to present separate analysis for most individual business sectors, as the margins of error around the estimates would be too large to draw conclusions about trends when comparing to previous survey years.

2.2 Premises coverage

The CVS is designed to measure crime at the premises rather than the enterprise level. Premises do not include mobile vehicles, although the CVS does cover crime affecting vehicles used by premises as part of their business activities, or businesses run from domestic properties. As such, for a national chain the CVS will measure the level of crime affecting an individual outlet rather than crime affecting the entire business entity.

The CVS is also designed to be representative at the premises level and as a result it is possible that multiple premises in the same enterprise could be sampled.

The sample was drawn from the Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR), a list of UK businesses covering almost all UK economic activity, which is maintained by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and widely used as a sample frame for national surveys of businesses. Companies are included on the IDBR if they are registered with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for VAT purposes, operate a PAYE scheme, or are registered at Companies House.

In practice, the VAT registration threshold means that all companies in the UK with a turnover of taxable goods and services over £85,000 per annum are included in the sampling frame. Those with a turnover below this are excluded and, as a result, it is likely that some recently formed companies and small companies will not be covered by the survey.

For further detail on the design of the survey and analysis, see Section 9: Technical annex.

2.3 Crime against businesses: data tables and technical report

Headline Tables

Data on the proportion and total number of premises that experienced crime, including breakdowns by size band, country (breakdowns for England and Wales separately), and location (urban or rural).

Crime against businesses: headline findings from the 2022 CVS

Additional tables

Further data from the survey on the frequency of crime, impact of crime on businesses, crime prevention, reporting rates and perceptions of crime and the police.

Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Bulletin tables

Data used as a source for figures and tables in the bulletin.

Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: bulletin tables

Technical report

Further information on the methodology including the survey and sample design, the fieldwork, weighting, and response rates. Copies of the questionnaire and fieldwork materials are also included.

Commercial Victimisation Survey, Technical Report 2022, Ipsos Social Research Institute

3. Prevalence of crime

The prevalence rate of crime is the proportion of premises which experienced a crime in the previous 12 months. The 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) estimated that 28% of business premises experienced any crime asked about in the survey in the last 12 months. It is not possible to directly compare this to previous surveys due to a change in the design of the 2022 survey to include all business sectors.

Theft was the most prevalent crime type reported by businesses with 15% of premises experiencing theft in the previous 12 months. The most common type of theft was theft by a customer, experienced by 11% of premises. Other types of theft were relatively uncommon, theft by unknown persons (4%); theft by others (1%); and theft by an employee (1%).

Data for other crime types showed:

• burglary and vandalism were both experienced by 9% of business premises
• assaults or threats were experienced by 7% of business premises
• robbery and vehicle-related theft were both experienced by 3% of business premises

For computer misuse, 9% of premises that reported having a computer at their premises experienced at least one type of computer misuse offence. The most common type was receiving emails attempting fraud (7%), followed by hacking (2%) and computer viruses (1%).

Staff receiving fraudulent emails was the most prevalent type of cyber-attack experienced by businesses, consistent with findings from the 2023 Cyber Security Breaches Survey. The survey found that most attempts to target businesses’ networks use social engineering, manipulating individuals into divulging information to be used for fraudulent purposes rather than malicious software.

Table 3.1 Proportion of business premises that experienced at least one incident of crime in the previous 12 months, by crime type

Crime Type	Percentage of premises which experienced crime
All Burglary (including attempts)	9
Vandalism	9
All Vehicle-related Theft	3
All Robbery (including attempts)	3
Assaults or threats	7
All Theft	15
All Fraud	4
All CVS Crime	28
All Computer misuse [Note 1]	9

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: headline findings from the CVS 2022

Notes:

1. Questions about computer misuse were asked to premises which had a computer for business use.

3.1 Factors effecting victimisation

There are a range of factors that may affect the likelihood of victimisation and many of these are asked about in the 2022 CVS such as: business size; whether a premises is accessible to the public; whether it is in a rural or urban area; and the industrial sector of the premises.

It is important to note that the relationship between these characteristics and the likelihood of being a victim of crime is complex, with multiple characteristics being inter-related. For example, the relationship between sector and victimisation may be related to whether premises are accessible to the public.

Business size (number of employees)

For all crime, victimisation varied by business size. Medium-sized premises with 10 to 49 employees experienced a higher prevalence rate (38%) than smaller premises with 1 to 9 employees (26%) (Figure 3.1). Large premises (50 or more employees) showed no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of crime compared with either small or medium-sized premises.

The variation in victimisation between different business sizes was particularly evident for theft offences, with 22% of medium-sized premises having experienced theft compared with 13% of small premises and 14% of large premises. This difference was primarily driven by theft by a customer, which made up the majority of theft offences. 17% of medium-sized premises experienced theft by a customer, compared with 10% of small premises and 9% of large premises.

Figure 3.1: Proportion of premises that were a victim of crime, by crime type and business size (number of employees)

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: headline findings from the CVS 2022

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 3.1: bar chart comparing the prevalence of different crime types by the number of employees at the premises. Medium-sized premises had the highest prevalence of all crime and all theft offences.

Public access to premises

Premises where the public had access experienced a higher rate of victimisation for overall crime than those where the public did not have access, 34% compared with 21% (Figure 3.2). This pattern was seen across most crime types including burglary, vandalism, robbery, assaults or threats, and theft offences.

The largest difference was seen for theft offences, where over twice as many premises accessible to the public had been a victim (20%) compared with non-public premises (8%).

Non-publicly accessible premises had a higher prevalence of vehicle-related theft (5%) compared with publicly accessible premises (1%). A higher proportion of non-public premises owned or leased a vehicle (46%) compared with premises accessible to the public (31%).

Figure 3.2: Prevalence of crime by whether the premises was accessible to the public

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: headline findings from the CVS 2022

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 3.2: bar chart comparing the prevalence of different crime types by whether the premises was accessible to the public. Publicly accessible premises experienced a higher prevalence of all crime; as well as all theft, all burglary, vandalism, and assaults or threats.

Computer misuse offences were more prevalent in premises not accessible to the public (12%) than those that were (7%). This may reflect that non-public premises were more likely to be in business sectors which make more use of technology and thus more likely to be targeted by cyber-criminals, for example: information and communication; and professional, scientific, and technical services.

Urban and rural business premises

Premises in urban areas experienced higher rates of robbery (3%) than those in rural areas (1%).

However, for burglary, fraud, and assaults or threats, premises in both urban and rural areas experienced similar levels of victimisation.

Sector

To better understand the different experience of premises, this section explores the association between premises reporting being a victim of a crime in the previous 12 months and industry sector^{[footnote 1]}.

The 2022 CVS showed that 42% of premises in the Wholesale and retail sector were a victim of any crime. This level has remained broadly consistent since CVS data was first collected (Figure 3.3)^{[footnote 2]}. The Information and financial services and Business services sectors were the least victimised, at 16% and 14% respectively.

Figure 3.3: Proportion of premises in the Wholesale and retail sector that were a victim of crime in each year the CVS was run

England and Wales, 2014 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) to 2022 CVS

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: bulletin tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 3.3: line chart comparing the prevalence of all crime types affecting the wholesale and retail sector from the 2014 CVS to the 2022 CVS inclusive. The prevalence of crime experienced by wholesale and retail premises has remained consistent since 2014 at around 40% of premises.

Table 3.2: Proportion of business premises that experienced any crime, by sector

Sector [Note 1]	Percentage
Wholesale and retail	42
Transport, accommodation, and food	36
Other services	35
Manufacturing	30
Construction	27
Primary and utilities [Note 2]	26
Information and financial services	16
Business services	14
All sectors	28

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Sector is based on the groupings from the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), detailed information on groupings can be found in Section 9: Technical annex.

2. Primary and utilities includes the sectors: “agriculture, forestry and fishing”; “mining and quarrying”; “electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply”; and “Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities”.

Results from multi-variate analysis showed that only the information and financial services and business services sectors had decreased odds of victimisation after controlling for a range of characteristics such as location and size. These sectors were statistically significantly less likely to experience victimisation compared with the Wholesale and retail sector. The information and financial services sector were about a quarter as likely to be a victim of crime in the last 12 months and business services sector were about a third as likely.

However, it is worth noting that these findings do not infer causality, as there may be other factors influencing this relationship that have not been accounted for.

For more information on the characteristics included in the regression analysis, see Section 9: Technical annex.

Figure 3.4: Likelihood of victimisation (odds ratios with confidence intervals) for sectors compared with Wholesale and Retail, adjusted models

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 3.4: chart showing odds ratios for victimisation by sector. The “business services” and “information and financial services” sectors had a statistically significantly lower odds of being victims of crime compared with the wholesale and retail sector.

2. Sector is based on the groupings from the UK Standard Industrial Classification.

3. The odds ratios indicate the likelihood of experiencing a crime for each sector compared with the wholesale and retail sector.

4. Where the confidence interval around the odds ratio overlaps one (odds ratio just as likely) on the chart, there is no statistically significant difference.

4. Frequency of crime

4.1 Frequency of victimisation

The 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) estimated that 42% of victims experienced only a single incident of crime in the previous 12 months. For individual crime types, victims were most likely to suffer from single crime events in relation to: burglary (61%); vehicle-related theft (59%); and fraud (72%) (Figure 4.1).

Victims of theft were more likely to be repeat victims, with 65% being a victim more than once in the year. This was primarily driven by theft by a customer, where 75% were a victim more than once in the past year. Theft by a customer was also the offence that had the largest proportion of premises reporting high volume repeat victimisation, with 17% of victims being victimised at least once a day.

Assaults or threats had a similar pattern of repeat victimisation to theft offences, 64% of premises were victims more than once and 11% were victims roughly once a week or more.

Figure 4.1: Frequency of crime affecting all premises by crime type

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 4.1: 7 bar charts comparing the frequency distribution of different crime types.

4.2 Factors effecting frequency of victimisation

Business size

The frequency of theft varied by business size; with a higher proportion of large premises (50 or more employees) experiencing theft once a month or more (51%), compared with small premises (one to 9 employees) (26%) (Figure 4.2).

This may be a result of large premises having a greater exposure to the risk of theft than smaller premises. For example, larger retailers are likely to have higher customer footfall and to carry more stock.

Figure 4.2: Frequency of theft offences experienced by premises by the number of employees.

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 4.2: 3 bar charts comparing the frequency distribution of theft offences by the number of employees at the premises. Large premises who were victims of theft were more likely to be repeat victims than small premises who were victims of theft.

Publicly accessible premises

For theft offences, publicly accessible premises were more likely to be victims more than once a year (73%) than non-publicly accessible premises (33%).

5. Crime prevention measures

The 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) asked respondents whether they had crime prevention measures in place for non-computer misuse crime. These questions relate to a list of specific measures within defined categories. As such, this section does not cover all possible measures that a business could implement to reduce the risk of victimisation.

The 2022 CVS found that all premises had some form of crime prevention measure in place.

The most mentioned measures generally related to prevention of, or monitoring, entry to the premises when closed. The 3 most common security measures for this purpose were: a working alarm (73%); security windows or door locks (66%); and external CCTV (63%) (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Proportion of premises in England and Wales with crime prevention measures

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: bulletin tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 5.1: bar chart comparing the percentage of premises which had types of crime prevention measures. The most common prevention measure was a working alarm with 73% of premises having one installed.

2. Vehicle crime prevention measures are not included in this figure. These questions are only asked to premises which own or lease a car.

5.1 Soft crime prevention measures

When looking at the types of security measures used, all premises reported having some form of soft prevention measure in place. The most common forms of soft prevention measures included:

• a sign-in process for visitors (36%)

• staff vigilance training (34%)

• notices to customers and visitors (33%).

These softer measures are likely to require lower financial investment than ones related to physical building security.

5.2 Window and door crime prevention measures

A large proportion of premises (86%) had some form of window or door protection. The most common of these measures were security windows or door locks (66%). Other more substantial measures were less common, such as shutters on doors and windows (33%).

5.3 Entry-control crime prevention measures

Over half of premises reported having no entry-control measures (56%), the low proportion measured was likely due to premises that were publicly accessible where entry-control measures were not required.

The most common types of measures to restrict entry were:

• receptionists (24%)

• security guards (12%)

• caretakers (6%)

5.4 Vehicle crime prevention measures

For premises which had a vehicle that they used for business, 90% reported having some form of vehicle protection measure.

The most common types were:

• a vehicle alarm (74%)

• an immobiliser (48%)

• vehicle tracking system (45%)

5.5 Crime prevention networks

Only 9% of premises stated that they were a member of a crime-prevention network. The most common types of crime prevention networks which these premises reported being members of included Neighbourhood Watch type groups (35%) and, local Community Safety Partnerships (17%).

5.6 Changes after victimisation

When asked about crime prevention measures that had been put in place as a result of a previous experience of crime, the most common changes premises made were:

• installing alarms (15%)
• staff monitoring the premises as part of their role (15%)
• installing gates (11%)

6. Impacts of victimisation

6.1 Types of impact

Premises which were victims of crime were asked in what ways any of the incidents of crime they experienced in the 12 months before the interview impacted their business.

The most common type of impact was financial loss (cited by 45% of victims) (Figure 6.1). However, many victims also experienced stolen goods and services (32%) which could also be considered a direct financial cost.

Other impacts on premises did not relate to financial loss or the loss of goods or services. These included 33% of victims reported additional staff time being used to deal with the incident and 13% reported experiencing reputational damage. These impacts may also impose a financial cost to victims.

Figure 6.1: Proportion of premises which experienced each type of impact due to being a victim of crime

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 6.1: bar chart showing the impacts of crime incidents experienced by victims of crime. The most common impact of crime experienced by victims was financial loss, 45% of victims, 12 percentage points higher than the next most common impact (additional staff time to deal with the incident).

6.2 Financial impacts

All victims of crime were also asked about the severity of the financial impact of all crime they experienced in the previous 12 months. Thirty-three percent of victims reported having had no financial impact, with business operations continuing as normal. Most victims experienced a moderate financial impact from crime (63%), although a small proportion of victims (4%) experienced a financial impact severe enough result in them considering permanently closing the premises.

6.3 Impacts of crime types

All premises that were a victim of at least one crime were asked what type of crime they considered to have the most negative overall impact on their business.

The most common response was that theft by a customer had the most negative impact (21%), followed by vandalism (18%). This is consistent with the findings that theft by a customer and vandalism were 2 of the most common types of crime experienced by victims.

6.4 Impacts of anti-social behaviour

As well as experiencing criminal offences, premises also reported that they were adversely affected by what they perceived as anti-social behaviour (ASB) (9% of premises). The most common types of ASB cited by premises were (Figure 6.2):

• youths congregating in the street (35%)
• street drinking (25%)
• intimidating / threatening behaviour (18%)

The most frequently cited impacts were:

• putting off or preventing customers (25%)
• a general nuisance (23%)
• upsetting or disruptive for customers (21%) or staff (20%)

Figure 6.2: Proportion of premises which perceived experiencing each type of impact due to being a victim of anti-social behaviour

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 6.2: bar chart showing the impacts of ASB incidents experienced by victims of ASB. The most common impact of ASB experienced by victims was putting off or preventing customers (25% of victims), followed by it being a general nuisance (23% of victims).

7. Attitudes and reporting to the police

7.1 Reporting to the police

For premises that were victims of crime in the previous 12 months, over half (58%) reported at least one crime to the police. Of these victims, 46% said that they tend to routinely report every crime to the police.

The most common reason given for not reporting crimes to the police was that the crime was perceived as too trivial (37%) (the value of any loss being too small). Other reasons related to the severity of the incident were that the incident was not considered to be a crime (9%), or that the business dealt with the matter internally (8%) (Figure 7.1).

The second and third most common reasons given for not reporting were that they thought the police would not be interested in the incident (13%), and that the police would not be able to do anything about the incident (12%).

Figure 7.1: Proportion of victims who gave each reason for not reporting crime they experienced to the police

Source: Home Office, Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

Notes:

1. Description of Figure 7.1: bar chart showing the reasons premises that were a victim of crime in the previous 12 months gave for not reporting the crime to the police. The most common reason given was that the incident was considered too trivial (37% of victims who didn’t report at least one incident they experienced to the police).

7.2 Police response to crime

Victims that reported at least one incident of crime they experienced in the previous 12 months to the police were asked what the police did in response to all the incidents they experienced:

• 40% said they received a crime reference number

• 39% said that the police attended the scene

• 10% said a suspect was arrested

• 9% said the police addressed the cause of the crime

• 19% said that the police did nothing or did very little in response

Premises’ satisfaction with the police response was mixed with 39% of victims reporting they were satisfied and 42% being dissatisfied. This was lower than a similar measure asked of all adults in the resident population from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The March 2020 CSEW showed that 66% of adults were satisfied with the police response to incidents that they had reported.

Satisfaction was found to be related to the type of police response. Around 2 in 3 (67%) of victims where the police attended the scene of the crime were satisfied with the police response, compared with 1 in 5 (20%) where the police didn’t attend.

7.3 Attitudes to the police

When asked more generally about their satisfaction with local policing of business crime, half of victims (51%) said that they were dissatisfied with the police in their local area, while 46% reported they were satisfied.

When asked why they were dissatisfied, the most common reasons given were that the police took too long to respond to incidents (39%), and that the police weren’t seen in the area enough (30%).

Around one-fifth of victims (19%) also said that they believed that the police did not have enough resources to tackle crime in their local area.

Respondents were also asked about their confidence in the police response if they were to experience a crime in the next 12 months following the interview. Seventy percent of premises said they were very or fairly confident that the police would respond effectively, while 30% said they were not very or not at all confident.

8. Terminology

Number of victims

This is the total number of business premises that had been victims of crime estimated by the survey. This is weighted (that is, scaled-up) to the population of business premises as a whole, which the sample was designed to represent.

Prevalence rate

This is the proportion of business premises that were victims of crime estimated by the survey (also referred to as the victimisation rate). This is the estimated number of business premises that were victims, divided by the total number of premises in that sector, multiplied by 100 to give a percentage.

Frequency of victimisation

If a premises experienced an incident of crime, they were asked how frequently in the previous 12 months they experienced that type of crime: once only; several times a year; roughly once a month; roughly once a week; roughly once a day; several times a day.

Business size

Defined by the number of staff employed at the premises (as opposed to turnover, for example). A small business was one with one to 9 employees; a medium sized business was one having 10 to 49 employees; and a large business had 50 or more employees at that site.

All CVS crime

The Commercial Victimisation Survey only measures a specific set of crimes against businesses compared to Police Recorded Crime. These include: burglary; vandalism; vehicle-related theft; robbery; assaults or threats; theft; and fraud. This measure does not include computer misuse offences.

Computer misuse

Online crime covering a range of possible offences carried out over computer networks including:

• hacking or unauthorised access: having a computer, network or server accessed without permission

• computer viruses or malware: having computers infected with files or programmes intended to cause harm

• staff receiving fraudulent emails

9. Technical annex

This technical annex outlines a summary of the methodology used in producing the published statistics from the 2022 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS).

For more details of the survey methodology, please see the Commercial Victimisation Survey, Technical Report 2022, Ipsos Social Research Institute

9.1 Sample and survey coverage

Sector coverage

Following the 2019 User Consultation, a decision was made to change the design of the Commercial Victimisation Survey so that it included all business sectors. The original plans were for the 2021 CVS to cover all commercial business sectors for the first time, but these plans were put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2022 CVS is therefore the first iteration of the survey to cover all commercial business sectors.

The business sectors covered by the CVS include: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,R,S, as defined by the UK Standard Industrial Classification 2007.

The following is a summary of the changes to the coverage of the CVS:

• the 2012, 2013, focussed on 4 sectors

• the 2014 CVS focussed on 3 sectors but doubled the sample size for the wholesale and retail sector to better meet user requirements

• the 2015 CVS returned to 4 sectors but the target number of interviews in the information and communication sector was reduced to 200. This was to conduct a feasibility study to survey head offices

• the 2016 CVS was reduced once again to 3 sectors to enable more resource for the pilot head office survey. Following the pilot in March 2017, a decision was taken not to pursue a full head office survey (‘Commercial Victimisation Survey, Head Office Feasibility Study: Pilot survey report’ for further details)

• the 2017 CVS returned to 4 sectors as more resources were available following the decision not to pursue the head office survey

• the 2018 CVS returned to interviewing 3 sectors but doubled the target interviews for the wholesale and retail sector

• the 2021 CVS was a standalone survey that covered only the wholesale and retail sector

Annual decisions on sector coverage were made following discussions with the CVS Expert Reference Group (ERG)^{[footnote 3]} and in response to user needs.

A detailed breakdown of what sectors are covered in each year and their target number of interviews can be found in the Technical Report.

Where data has been disaggregated by sector the following groupings have been made using the UK Standard Industrial Classification Hierarchy.

Industrial sector	Section
Primary and utilities	A, B, D, E
Manufacturing	C
Construction	F
Wholesale and retail	G
Transport, accommodation, and food	H, I
Information and financial services	J, K, L
Business services	M, N
Other services	R, S, T

9.2 Fieldwork

The 2022 CVS was conducted as a series of telephone interviews between August and November 2022. Premises were first contacted to identify the appropriate respondent for the interview and arrange a suitable time to carry out the interview. The respondent was generally the person responsible for security and crime-related issues at the premises.

The target number of interviews for the 2022 survey was 4,000 responses. This was not achieved, with 2,090 interviews being completed. The low response rate is believed to be because of changes to the economy and business operations since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Qualitative feedback indicates an increase in phone numbers with no answer or going to an answering machine was a driver of the low response rate, with online conferencing platforms increasing being used in place of telephones. There was also a high refusal rate, relating to premises not having resource to participate in fieldwork.

The broader sector coverage has resulted in a lower number of completed interviews per sector than previous surveys. As such, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between most sectors or conduct robust analysis on most sectors individually. As such, this bulletin focuses on analysis of the overall picture of crime against business affecting all sectors combined.

Further information on response rates and reasons for non-response is included in the Technical Report.

9.3 Questionnaire

For the 2021 questionnaire, a review took place with the CVS Expert Reference Group (ERG). One of the key changes made to the questionnaire, which continues to be part of 2022 questionnaire, was with the incidence data questions being replaced by frequency of crime questions. It was felt that the previous incidence data had spurious accuracy being based often on very rough estimates provided by respondents.

The frequency data (how often a business premise experienced victimisation) was thought to provide a more discriminating measure of the impact of crime against businesses. Questions introduced in the 2021 CVS on the impact of COVID-19 were not included the 2022 questionnaire.

9.4 Comparisons with other sources of crime data

While the CVS is intended to complement existing sources of information on crime, such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), consideration of the methodology and coverage of the surveys means that it is not possible to combine the results from the 2 to obtain a ‘total’ count of crime. Differences in definitions and methodology between the 2 surveys mean figures are not directly comparable.

9.5 Statistical methodology

Any sample survey may produce estimates that differ from the figures that would have been obtained if the whole population had been interviewed. It is, however, possible to calculate a range of values around an estimate, known as the confidence interval (also referred to as margin of error) of the estimate.

Standard 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the survey data. In practice this means that if many different samples of business premises were drawn, the true population value would fall within this interval (error margin) 95% of the time.

9.6 Weighting

The CVS estimates are based on a representative sample of businesses in England and Wales each year.

Data were weighted to take account of both non-response and the stratified sampling design. Non-response is a result of either being unable to identify contact details for sampled business premises or from contacted premises being unwilling to take part in the survey. Weighting accounts for stratification and non-response by ensuring that the sample is representative of businesses in this sector in England and Wales as a whole.

For a detailed description of the weighting methodology, please see the Technical Report.

9.7 Rates and numbers

Estimates of the prevalence of victimisation are produced by scaling up unweighted data from the survey sample to the total number of business premises in each size band combination in England and Wales as a whole. The table below shows the total numbers of premises; crime estimates were grossed up for the sector based on these figures.

Sector	Approximate total premises count
All business premises	1,654,597

9.8 Reporting rates

The CVS included questions about reporting policies and whether staff at premises report crimes to the police, for each crime type experienced. Responses to the latter questions were used to estimate “reporting rates” (the proportion of premises where staff reported incidents of a particular crime type to the police). In previous CVS years, these questions were asked in relation to the most recent incident only.

9.9 Confidence intervals and significance testing

To analyse the responses to a sample survey such as the CVS, it is important to account for the level of uncertainty around estimates based on a survey sample, rather than a census of the whole population of business premises in England and Wales.

To compare estimated levels of crime between different groups, confidence intervals (error margins) at the 95% level were produced around the survey estimates. Where confidence intervals around 2 independent estimates of the same measure (for example, between premise size groups) do not overlap, the difference between the values is said to be statistically significant. It is important to note that the opposite is not always true, that is, overlapping confidence intervals do not always indicate a lack of statistical significance.

9.10 Odds ratios and regression modelling

The historic data indicated there were differences between victimisation and business sector, these were tested for statistical significance using a Chi-square test. Where differences were statistically significant, regression analysis was performed to measure the strength of these associations in unadjusted and adjusted models.

Only the results for all crime including fraud are presented as the sample size was not large enough to produce robust estimates for the other crime types. This analysis used a logistic regression model as the dependent variable was categorical, a victim of crime or not a victim of crime.

The results of the fully adjusted model are presented in this report. The results of both unadjusted and adjusted regression models can be found in the Crime against businesses: findings from the 2022 CVS: additional tables

The adjusted model included the following covariates: rural/urban; business size; and whether a premise was accessible to the public or not. These variables were selected based on prior knowledge of what may be associated with victimisation. There will be other variables that will be associated with victimisation.

However, the covariates included were limited to what was included within the Commercial Victimisation Survey. To understand how well the variables included in the model fit the data, the Nagelkerke R^2 was calculated. The value was 0.10, this indicated that there are additional factors influencing victimisation beyond those which were captured in the model.

Odds ratios show the strength of an association between being a premises in the wholesale and retail sector, compared with other sectors, and being a victim of crime. They cannot tell us about causality. The reference category for sector was chosen to be wholesale and retail as this sector experienced the highest victimisation rate.

If a particular sector has an odds ratio of less than one, they are less likely to have been a victim of crime compared with the wholesale and retail sector. However, if the 95% confidence interval overlaps one then there resulting odds ratio is not statistically significant.

9.11 Survey burden

Producers of official statistics are required to be compliant with Value 5.5, on efficiency and proportionality, of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics which states:

“Statistics producers should be transparent in their approach to monitoring and reducing the burden on those providing their information, and on those involved in collecting, recording and supplying data. The burden imposed should be proportionate to the benefits arising from the use of the statistics.”

In order to comply with the Code, the Home Office is required to report the estimated costs to businesses responding to statistical surveys such as the CVS, using a compliance cost model that is used consistently by government departments.

As the CVS is completed by businesses, the Home Office makes estimates of the cost to these organisations of completing the survey. Estimates of survey compliance costs are collated and published by the ONS Survey Control Unit for all government departments, including the Home Office. These can be found in the online list of Government Statistical Surveys (OLGSS).

10. Conventions used in figures and tables

10.1 Table abbreviations

‘0’ indicates less than 0.5 (this does not apply when figures are presented to one decimal point).

‘n/a’ indicates that the question was not applicable or not asked in that particular year.

‘[u]’ indicates that figures are not reported because the unweighted base number of respondents is below 50 or the number of respondents contributing to an individual cell is less than 5 and therefore the quality of resulting estimates is not deemed sufficient for publication.

’..’ indicates that there were no respondents in the category shown.

10.2 Unweighted base

All CVS percentages and rates presented in the tables are based on data weighted to compensate for differential non-response. Tables show the unweighted base, which represents the number of business premises interviewed in the specified group.

10.3 Percentages

Row or column percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Most CVS tables present cell percentages where the figures refer to the percentage of business premises that have the attribute being discussed and the complementary percentage, to add to 100%, is not shown.

A percentage may be quoted in the text for a single category that is identifiable in the tables only by summing 2 or more component percentages. To avoid rounding errors, the percentage has been recalculated for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage point from the sum of the percentages derived from the tables.

10.4 ‘No answers’ (missing values)

All CVS analysis excludes ‘don’t know’ or ‘refusals’ unless otherwise specified.

11. Further information

References

Ipsos Social Research Institute (2022), Commercial Victimisation Survey Technical Report 2022

Cyber security breaches survey (2023), Cyber security breaches survey 2023: technical report - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Previous releases

Previous editions of CVS bulletins are available on the ‘Crimes against business statistics’ page on GOV.UK.

Contact details

For further information about the CVS, please email: CrimeandPoliceStats@homeoffice.gov.uk or write to:

Crime and Policing Statistics
2nd Floor
Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Home Office Responsible Statistician:

John Flatley, Programme Director Crime Statistics Production and Analysis

Contact via email: CrimeandPoliceStats@homeoffice.gov.uk

1. Premises were grouped together by their type of economic activity using Standard Industrial Classification. ↩

2. Whilst the results from the 2022 CVS are not directly comparable to previous years’ CVS, it is possible to compare the prevalence of crime affecting the Wholesale and retail sector, which has been included in every CVS from 2014 onwards. ↩

3. The CVS Expert Reference Group (ERG) comprises: Government analysts and policy officials, Ipsos Contract Managers, representatives from leading industry organisations, police representatives and academics. ↩