Technical ReportPDF Available

Green Port Impact Assessment: Summary Report

  • Wolds Environmental Consulting Ltd

Abstract and Figures

This report summarises the impact of the Green Port Growth Programme and ABP Siemens Gamesa investments in Hull and East Riding as of December 2018. The Greenport Impact Assessment (GIA) was performed by researchers from the University of Hull, supported by representatives and stakeholders of the Green Port Growth Programme (GPGP) and several prominent industries operating within the Humber region. The objectives of the GIA project were; to assess Green Port Hull’s ability to attract renewable energy inward investment to the area; to identify opportunities for improvement in processes and organisation of a one stop inward investment service; to identify threats posed by competitor regions (national and European); to identify development incentives and gaps in policies, infrastructure, skills and knowledge; to assess the socioeconomic-environmental impact of Siemens investment in Hull, provide insights on how to maximise the benefits of this investment for the region, attract businesses in the supply chain and provide Green Port Hull, Siemens and the Local Authorities with KPIs and analytics on an on-going basis. This report was published and distributed at the GPGP end of year business networking event, December 2018. For confidentiality reasons, it is a heavily summarised version of the full report which will be updated with final GPGP impact metrics and published in Spring 2019. Contents of Report: 1. Introduction (B. Holleman) 2. Methodology (Q. Do; B. Louw) 3. Green Port Hull Region: Secondary Data Analysis 3.1.1 Economic Indicators (F. Cox) 3.1.2 Social Indicators (R. Getor) 3.1.3 Environmental Indicators (P. Jensen) 4.1 Green Port Hull Region: Primary Data Analysis 4.1 Development of Robust and Locally Inclusive Renewables Industry (P.Jensen; D. Gibbs) 4.2 Residents Survey (R. Getor; P. Jensen) 4.3 Pathway to Employment (R. Getor) 4.4 Employment and Skills Development Impact (R. Getor) 4.5 Business Support and Advice Impact (R. Getor) 4.6 Representative Green Port Growth Case Studies (F. Cox) 4.7 Siemens Gamesa and ABP's Socioeconomic Impact (F. Cox) 4.8 Siemens Gamesa Supply Chain Mapping (Q. Do; B. Louw) 4.9 A Summary View of Sustainability (S. Barnard) 5. Green Port Growth Programme Impact and Strand Assessment (GIA Team) 6. Lessons Learnt, Conclusions and Recommendations (B. Holleman)
Content may be subject to copyright.
Green Port
additional GVA
jobs created/
University of Hull, Hull , HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)1482 462190
Like us on facebook
Follow us on Twitter
© University of Hull_151117_CB.
Photos provided by Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy
1. Introduction
1.1 About Green Port Growth Program (GPGP)..........................6
1.2 About the Green Port Impact Assessment Project .............6
2. Methodology
2.1 Secondary Data Collection and Analysis ................................7
2.2 Primary Data Collection and analysis .......................................9
2.2.1 Primary Data Collection .....................................................9
2.2.2 Data Analysis ..........................................................................11
2.3 Data Storage and Presentation ...................................................11
2.4 Evaluation and Reporting .............................................................11
2.5 Ethical Consideration and Risk Assessment ..........................11
3. Green Port Hull Region: Secondary Data Analysis
............ 13
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Economic Indicators .......................................................... 13
3.1.2 Social Indicators ..................................................................14
3.1.3 Environmental Indicators ................................................. 15
3.1.4 Conclusion ............................................................................. 15
4. Green Port Hull Region: Primary Data Analysis
4.1 Development of a Robust and Locally Inclusive
Renewables Industry: A Regional Comparator Study .......17
4.1.1 Introduction and Background .........................................17
4.1.2 National Development Context ..................................... 18
4.1.3 Local Development Context ........................................... 19 The Humber, United Kingdom ......................... 19 Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven, Federal
Republic of Germany .........................................20
4.1.4 Regional Development Lessons .....................................21
4.1.5 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........22
4.2 Residents’ Survey Summary...................................................... 24
4.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Key Survey Summaries and Results ............................ 24 Background Information ................................... 24 Main Results of the Survey ............................... 24
i. Impact of Siemens Gamesa/Green Port
Hull Activities on Employment Status ....................... 24
ii. Well-being Impact of Current
Employment Status ............................................................25
4.2.3 Conclusion .............................................................................27
4.3 Pathway to Employment Case Study .................................... 28
4.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 28
4.3.2 Background and Context ................................................ 28
4.3.3 Data Description................................................................. 29
4.3.4 Analysis and Interpretation of Data ............................ 30 Training and Development ...............................30 Work Experience ..................................................32 Transition into Permanent employment ..... 33
4.3.5 Key Findings and Recommendations ......................... 34 Sustainable Employment .................................. 34 Benefit Savings ..................................................... 34 Contribution to Gross Value Added
(GVA) and Earnings ............................................ 34 Creating an Enabling Environment for
Local Businesses .................................................. 34
4.3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................ 35
4.4 Employment and Skills Development Impact .................... 36
4.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 36
4.4.2 Background and Context ................................................ 36
4.4.3 Data Description..................................................................37
4.4.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation ................................. 38 Wage Subsidy Support (job outcomes) ..... 38 Apprenticeships Wage subsidy ..................... 38 Linking Lower Level Packages to
Advanced Apprenticeships (LLPs)
Wage subsidy .........................................................41 Disadvantaged Groups Wage Subsidy ........ 41 Upskilling Training Support ............................. 42 Pathway to Employment
(Back to Work Programme) ............................44
4.4.5 Key findings ..........................................................................44 Labour Market Outcomes ................................44 Potential Boost in Earnings .............................45 Improvement in Skills level/Qualifications . 45 Well Being .............................................................. 46 Contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA) 46 Eect on Business’ Operations ...................... 46
4.4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 51
4.5 Business Support and Advice Impact ....................................52
4.5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................52
4.5.2 Background and Context .................................................52
4.5.3 Data Description................................................................. 53
4.5.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation ................................. 53 Impact of Business Support Type ................. 53
Business Support Type by Business Location
54 Sector of Business Operation ......................... 55 Direct Outputs Jobs Created .......................... 56 Eectiveness of Suppliers Directory .............57 Supply Chain Mapping and Successes .........57
4.5.5 Key Findings and Recommendations ......................... 58 Impact on Business’ Operations ....................58 Labour Market Outcomes ................................59 Cross Strand Impact ........................................... 59 Contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA) 60 Supply Chain Impact ..........................................60 Supplier Directory ................................................ 61
4.5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 61
4.6 Representative Green Port Hull Case Studies .................... 62
4.6.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 62
4.6.2 Case Study Approach and Building the Network .62
4.6.3 Highlights and Conclusion .............................................. 64
4.7 Siemens Gamesa and ABP’s Socioeconomic Impact ...... 65
4. 7. 1 Introduction .......................................................................... 65
4.7.2 The Multiplier ....................................................................... 65 Theory and Model ...............................................65 Results .....................................................................68
4.7.3 Discussion and Implications for
Green Port Hull .................................................................... 69
4.7.4 A Note about Revisions to the Model ........................ 69
4.8 Siemens Gamesa Supply Chain Mapping ..........................................71
4.8.1 Life Cycle of the Oshore Wind Farm .........................71
4.8.2 Supply Chain for Construction Phase ..........................71
4.8.3 Supply Chain Mapping for the Operational
Phase of the Siemens Gamesa Renewable
Energy the Blade Factory ................................................72
4.9 A Summary View of Sustainability ..........................................73
The Ecological Importance of the Humber Estuary
4.9.2 Defining Sustainability ......................................................73
4.9.3 Sustainability Assessment ...............................................74
4.9.4 Compliance Against the Ten Tenets;
Summary Conclusions .......................................................74
5. GPGP Impact and Comprehensive Strand Assessment
5.1 Introduction and Background ...................................................77
5.1.1 GPGP Programme Board ................................................ 78
5.2 Programme Performance ........................................................... 82
5.3 Strand Performance ..................................................................... 85
5.3.1 Site Assembly ...................................................................... 85
5.3.2 Inward Investment .............................................................86
5.3.3 Employment and Skills Development ........................ 88
5.3.4 Research Development and Innovation ....................90
5.3.5 Business Investment Grants ........................................... 92
5.3.6 Business Support and Advice ....................................... 93
5.4 Chapter Summary and Outlook ............................................... 94
6. Lessons Learnt, Conclusions and Recommendations
..... 95
6.1 Green Port Hull: What Worked Well ...................................... 95
6.2 Green Port Hull: Obstacles......................................................... 96
6.3 Green Port Hull: Recommendations ....................................... 97
6.3.1 Theme 1: Continue Development Eorts for
the O-shore Wind Industry ..................................................... 97
6.3.2 Theme 2: Focus on the Renewable Energy
Industry and the Low Carbon Energy Industry ...... 97
6.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................99
1.shore-wind- manufacturing-
1. Introduction
by Barry Holleman
Green Port Hull was established in 2010 by Hull City
Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Associated
British Ports (ABP) to promote investment in the
renewable energy sector in the Humber region, support
investors in the development of their supply chain and to
secure long-term economic growth for the region. Green
Port Hull’s strategy is to oer the right environment
for investors with dedicated investor support and
facilitation for business setup and Enterprise Zone
incentives. It will also ensure land availability, investment
in developing a skilled workforce, as well as research and
the development of knowledge in the renewable sector
in collaboration with the University of Hull through the
Regional Growth Fund (RGF).
Green Port Hull helped in attracting Siemens (now
Siemens Gamesa) to the region, and in 20141 Siemens
announced its decision to invest £160 million in an
assembly and service facility in Hull. Siemen’s port
partner ABP announced an additional investment of £150
million in the Green Port Hull development. At the time
it was announced the combined investments of £310
million would provide a huge boost to the Humber region
and to UK’s oshore wind industry including an estimated
creation of up to 1,000 jobs directly, with anticipated
additional jobs during construction and indirectly in the
supply chain.
1.1 About Green Port Growth Programme
RGF provided a £25.7 million investment to enable Hull
City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council to
develop the sustainable energy market. The Green Port
Growth Programme defined six delivery strands for the
execution of the Programme:
Inward Investment
Employment and Skills Development
Business Support and Advice
Business Investment Grants
Site Assembly
Research, Development and Innovation
Together these six strands were designed to oer an
ambitious programme to change the industrial face of the
The Green Port Growth Programme defined a deliverable
for a wide-ranging impact assessment to be executed so
that there would be transparency of the operations of the
Programme; not only output but also outcome would be
measured, and the assessment would serve as a means
for understanding what activities of the Programme were
most successful and should potentially continue beyond
the period of the Programme.
The Research, Development and Innovation strand,
managed by the University of Hull, tasked the Logistics
Institute to execute the work.
1.2 About the Green Port Impact
Assessment Project
The three-year Green Port Hull Impact Assessment
project began in January 2016. The intention was not
simply to assess the impact of the 2014 Siemens and
ABP (or any other) investment; rather it was to look at
Green Port Hull’s success at attracting similar investment
and thus their contribution to the development of a new
renewable energy industry, for the Green Port Hull region
which is composed of Hull and East Riding.
The assessment involved, not only a socioeconomic-
environmental assessment of the region, but also
a critical review of Green Port Hull’s processes and
achievements, with the fundamental intention being
able to identify and improve areas of weakness so that
the original Green Port Hull objectives are not only
met but surpassed, thereby creating the right business
environment for Hull and the East Riding to become the
go-to place and a world leader for renewable energy.
In summary, the objective for the project was; to assess
Green Port Hull’s ability to attract inwards investment in
the area of renewable energy; to identify opportunities
for improvement in processes, organisation and
provide a true one stop for inward investors; to identify
threats posed by competitor regions (national and
European); to identify the right incentives and gaps in
policies, infrastructure, skills and knowledge; to assess
the socioeconomic-environmental impact of Siemens
investment in Hull, and to provide insights on how to
maximise the benefits of this investment for the region,
and also to attract businesses in the supply chain and
to provide Green Port Hull, Siemens and the Local
Authorities with KPIs and analytics on an on-going basis.
Working closely with Green Port Hull and Siemens, a
cross-disciplinary team was formed within the University
of Hull, drawing on expertise in the fields of economics,
geography, engineering and logistics. A governance
structure was equally put in place.
The project has generated a number of project
deliverables and publications that have been made
available to the project stakeholders and the general
public. These can be accessed through the Green Port
Impact Assessment website
2. Methodology
by Quynh Do and Barrie Louw
Figure 1: Overall Methodology
1. Define KPIs and Metrics to establish a base
line based on Existing or Secondary date
2. Identify those Metrics for which
primary data needs to be collected
3. Data Analysis and Representation
4. Evaluation and reporting
5. Ethical consideration
Project Management
Project Processes
The main impact assessment methodology consists
of project management and project process, in which
project process can be disaggregated into five parts as
illustrated in the figure 1.
2.1. Secondary Data Collection and
Metrics based on secondary data collection and analysis
have been used for setting the baseline for Hull and East
Riding of Yorkshire local authority areas, and tracking
the changes in the region along with GPH specific events
qualitatively and quantitively.
2.1.1. Metrics based on secondary data collection
Qualitative data is used to evaluate Hull and East Riding
from historical, geographical and political perspectives,
from which lessons were learned about local labour
markets, skill sets and resource endowments.
Quantitative data provided a review of the critical
indicators and their trends over time with a view to
assessing their change, following Siemens’ investment. A
list of economic, social, and environmental indicators is
presented in the Table 1.
In addition, the timeline for changes was also captured
in the policy and regulation directly or indirectly
influencing the development of the UK oshore wind
industry to provide the context for the research.
2.1.2. Secondary Data Analysis
Two methods to analyse the quantitative and qualitative
secondary data include industry-standard method and
trend analysis.
Secondary Data
No Indicator
Types Indicator Lists Areas Sources
Gross Value Added (GVA):
Nominal GVA 2004–2016
GVA growth rates 2004–2016
GVA by dierent sectors in 2016
GVA in manufacturing 1997–2016
4 areas: Tyneside, Tees Valley,
East Riding of Yorkshire, and
Kingston upon Hull
Oce for National
Statistics (ONS)
2Labour Market
Annual employment rates and
Unemployment rates
Economic inactive from 2005–2017
7 areas: East Riding of Yorkshire,
Kingston upon Hull, Tees Valley;
Yorkshire and Humber, Tyneside,
London, and overall UK
Human capital
- Employment by Occupation
from 2004–2017
- Qualifications (Aged 16–64)
from 2008–2017
3 areas: Kingston upon Hull, East
Riding of Yorkshire and overall GB.
Nomis, ONS Annual
Population Survey
Personal well-being
- Life satisfaction (mean values)
from 2011–2018
4 areas: East Riding of Yorkshire,
Kingston upon Hull, UK , North East
Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire
Annual Population
Survey Personal
well-being dataset, ONS
Air quality
- Comparative port city air quality for
PM2.5, PM10, N02 from 2010–2016
- Roadside air quality
Hull, Middlesbrough, Newcastle Department for
Environment, Food &
Rural Aairs (Defra)
Annual average daily flow (AADF)
of cars including taxi
Annual average daily flow (AADF)
of commercial vehicles (light
goods vehicles and all heavy goods
Three survey areas leading directly
to Alexandra Dock
Department for
Operational noise monitoring
Victoria Dock Kingston upon
Hull City Council
Table 1: List of Indicators for Quantitative Data
2.2. Primary Data Collection and Analysis
2.2.1. Primary Data Collection
Data were collected from three dimensions: economic,
social and environmental; later a holistic approach was
then adopted to bring the dierent dimensions together,
to provide a robust perspective. Dierent sub-sections in
section 5 use dierent techniques. In general, there are
four main methods.
1. Survey
Three residents surveys: online and field questionnaires
(face-to-face). Online questionnaires used input from
local stakeholders, councils and authorities were
helpful in this regard, in terms of distributing electronic
questionnaires using mailing lists and/or in suitable
Two business surveys: in the form of questionnaires.
The intention was to collect data pertaining to both
resident and business perspectives regarding the
investment and organisation under assessment; questions
were designed to resemble national surveys, in order for
comparisons to be made later in the analysis2.
2. Case Studies
Semi-structured briefings and interviews to build up
case studies regarding business impact have been
conducted with relevant parties as a means to support
quantitative data collection; this additional information
has been analysed as part of a stand-alone exercise
to generate specific case studies that showcase a
particular impact in their own right and to add colour
to the quantitative findings derived from survey data.
3. Interviews
History of the investment research.
Strand assessment: Green Port process review
(interviews quantitative assessment).
Renewable Energy Policy review (workshops and
Competitor review.
Economic multiplier.
Supply chain mapping and carbon footprint model.
4. Reports
Data were collected from projects in the Employment
and Skills Development strand, Business Support and
Advice strand reports, and purchasing order reports
and output reports of Siemens Gamesa Renewable
2. Ethical clearance were sought as necessary
2.2.2. Data Analysis
Main methodology includes interview transcription;
case-study analysis; and multiplier model; statistical
analysis of questionnaires, and surveys, strand reports,
and operational report.
2.3. Data Storage and Presentation
Once collected, the data used throughout the Green
Port Impact Assessment project was put on the website,, forming an online dynamic repository for
use by Green Port Impact Assessment researchers and
analysts, and by the client. The website is also accessible
to the general public, although confidential data and
resources are secured behind a login and not available to
the public. The website was also used as a presentation
tool during monthly Steering Committee meetings and
Advisory Boards, as well as showcase events.
2.4. Evaluation and Reporting
Monthly Steering Committee meetings and quarterly
Advisory Boards had a significant impact on the
operation of the project. These allowed immediate action
of recommendations to be taken by main stakeholders
and ensured the research team remained on track
to meet the impact assessment brief, with feedback
provided in a continuous 3600 loop. Milestone events,
such as the launch of ‘early findings’ punctuated the
project and created local awareness.
This final report was generated, bringing together all
of the sub-reports and activities, into a comprehensive
assessment document, which included recommendations.
2.5. Ethical Consideration and Risk
Ethical consideration and risk assessment, were
considered to comply with University of Hull Research
Ethics Policy and the guidelines/ethical standards of Hull
City Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Green
Port Hull.
3. Tassey, G., 2003. Methods for Assessing the Economic Impacts of Government R&D (Planning Report 03-
1). United States: National Institute of Standards and Technology
5. Observations drawn over a time period of two years (2014–2016) should be used with caution; for a trend
to hold more significance, a greater period of time would need to be considered. Since the baseline year is
2014, some further time will need to elapse before further deductions about the impact of any intervening
events can be made.
3. Green Port Hull Region:
Secondary Data Analysis
by Dr Roland Y Getor, Fiona Cox and Dr Paul Jensen
3.1 Introduction
The Green Port Impact Assessment began with a review
of the economic, social and environmental composition
of the Green Port Hull region, together with selected
comparators, and the UK. As well as enabling researchers
to become acquainted with the latest socio-economic-
environmental context, the purpose of this review was
to assess how the Green Port Hull region compared to
its closest comparators, and to the UK; it also provided
a starting point for trends to be determined, from which
projections could be made about the likely impact of
Green Port Hull on local socio-economic conditions, from
the baseline year of 2014.
The literature3 suggests that it is necessary to gain an
understanding of the context in which an investment
or intervention is set; this will help to ensure eective
development of the expected economic impact.
Identification of the status quo, and how it came to
be, will, among other things, help to explain the results
of this impact assessment and may also be useful for
future studies whose scope regions possess similar
characteristics, and perhaps even, a similar past.
3.1.1 Economic Indicators
A review of the economic indicators revealed that, in
terms of productivity, the Green Port Hull region is
largely in line with the selected UK comparators (Tees
Valley and Tyneside), however, the UK as a whole is
markedly ahead of the Green Port Hull region, and the
comparators, indicating that they are not as productive
as the UK average. In a recent study4, the UK was found
to have below average productivity growth, in both
output per hour and output per worker in 2016, when
compared with the other six G7 economies. If the UK
average is falling below that of the G7, and the Green
Port Hull region is falling short of the UK average,
this could be a cause for concern, since increasing
productivity is important in ensuring long run economic
However, it is encouraging to note that since the GIA
baseline year, 2014, nominal GVA growth in Hull has
exceeded all other regions, including the UK, with a
growth rate of 9.5% between 2014 and 2016. In fact,
all Humber local authorities have all experienced a
GVA growth of more than 7% between 2014 and 2016,
exceeding the UK achieving only 6.6%5.
It is also useful to look at the disaggregation of GVA
by sector, with a view to identifying, at the baseline,
which sectors contribute most to GVA across the Green
Port Hull region, thus providing guidance to Green Port
Hull as to which areas are important to promote for
sustained growth in GVA. In contrast to other regions,
the manufacturing sector is the dominant contributor to
GVA in Hull, accounting for nearly 27% of GVA in 2016. In
fact, the manufacturing sector is a more dominant sector
in both local authority areas of Green Port Hull region,
when compared to the UK comparators and to the UK
average; indeed, it has been of decreasing importance
to the UK since the late 1990s and a levelling o can
be seen over the last decade. It is interesting to note
opposite directions of change experienced by the Green
Port Hull region, when compared to, clearly with Tees
Valley, but also (though to a lesser extent) with Tyneside
and the UK immediately following the 2007/2008
financial crisis: a marked spike in the contribution of GVA
coming from manufacturing can be seen in both Hull and
the East Riding during 2009, before a sharp fall in 2011
and since then, something of a plateau, in fact, a slight
decline since the baseline year of 2014.
It is not realistic to assume that the total impact of Green
Port Hull’s work will be felt immediately in terms of GVA;
as detailed in the GIA Final Report, there is a substantial
lag period that ought to be considered when using GVA
as an indicator of economic performance, not least
because of the complicated data collection process, but
also to allow for multiplier impacts to be realised over
time. However, an eventual, expected contribution can be
inferred in a number of ways; for example: GVA per job
across the range of Green Port Hull-supported industries
can be estimated and scaled by the number of jobs
created in those industries. That value would provide
an estimation of the expected contribution arising from
those jobs. Moreover, if they were enabled by, or indeed
a direct result of Green Port Hull, that contribution can
be directly attributed to Green Port Hull. Similarly, any
increase in wage potential implies an uplift in GVA.
3.1.2 Social Indicators
The literature reveals that, ‘The acquisition of knowledge
and skills that have economic value and are in great
part the product of investment and, combined with
other human investment, predominantly account for
the productive superiority of the technically advanced
countries6’. In other words, investing in education,
training and upskilling can be of enormous economic
value, as well as causing individuals to experience
feelings of greater well-being and life satisfaction.
The relationship between skill levels and local/regional
competitiveness is reasonably well established. The
fastest-growing economies tend to be associated with
higher skill levels, both in terms of the supply of and
the demand for skills. All things being equal, higher
skill levels will reflect more qualified and experienced
employees which will translate into a more productive
workforce and higher economic output, as measured
by GVA. Therefore, the GIA Secondary Data Analysis
also looked at the qualification profile of the Green Port
Hull region, and the employment profile. Theoretically,
those in managerial roles will be earning a larger wage
than those in elementary roles; seeing an increase in the
number of individuals taking up manager and director
roles can be expected to align with an increase in
regional GVA over time7.
In terms of employment, the category with the smallest
overall proportion of employees in Hull is ‘Managers,
directors and senior ocials’; while there is some
fluctuation, overall there were fewer individuals in that
employment category in September 2017 than there
was in September 2005. Across the UK overall, however,
and indeed, the UK minus London, the proportion of
individuals working in that category is increasing.
Using NVQ as a proxy for qualification, where NVQ
Level 1 is the lowest level of qualification (under this
classification) and Level 4 is the highest, it can be seen
that, in 2017, with the exception of Hull, all the regions
have a population in which more than 80% of individuals
are qualified to NVQ1+, and in all cases, the proportion
of people with no qualifications is less than 10%. Hull
and North East Lincolnshire are the two regions with
the smallest proportion of individuals who are qualified
to NVQ4+, and, indeed, NVQ3+ and NVQ2+. The East
Riding of Yorkshire follows an almost identical pattern
to Great Britain, with a slightly smaller proportion of
individuals holding no qualifications, at 5.9%, compared
to 7.7% in Great Britain.
When drilling down into the two Green Port Hull local
authorities, it can be seen that, over the last 10 years
(2008-2017), there has been an overall increase in
the proportion of individuals qualified to NVQ4 and
upwards, with a particular rise in Hull between 2015
and 2016, though this has since fallen in 2017. Despite
this, the proportion of individuals qualified to NVQ4+ in
Hull has increased from 14.6% in 2008 to 26.7% in 2017.
In line with this, the proportion of individuals with no
qualifications during the same time period, and for the
same regions, has fallen considerably, from almost 20%
in 2008 for Hull, to less than 10% in 2017. The decline in
the East Riding of Yorkshire and Great Britain has been
less dramatic, but the starting position in both cases was
far lower.
6. Schultz, T.W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review, Vol. 51,
No. 1 (March): pp. 1 – 17. American Economic Association.
7. Whether a region seeks to promote training into managerial roles will depend on the
nature of demand for those roles in that region
3.1.3 Environmental Indicators
In terms of environmental indicators, the GIA Final
Report looked at air quality, trac and noise; the
following conclusions were drawn for each:
Air quality: Despite being one of the busier areas in
the city leading to the city’s primary port complex
and the Siemens site, recorded annual NO2 levels at
the five Hedon Road monitoring points remained
relatively consistent and, for three of the five sites,
within recommended limits. Notably, between 2012
and 2016 the monitoring site at the junction of Hedon
Road and Marfleet Lane, one of the busiest areas in
the city, did show an elevated level of NO2 above the
40µg m-3 UK air quality objective (in the region of 55µg
m-3). These measurements, however, are taken at the
roadside. Measurements 10m from the kerbside (i.e. at
building facades), at other Hull monitoring sites, show a
reduction in emissions of approximately 29%. Applying
this reduction factor to the Marfleet Lane data would
bring emissions within the recommended limits,
albeit still too high at the roadside to meet national
objectives. Moreover, the consistency of the recorded
NO2 levels suggests that trac levels, again, have not
increased in the area as a result of Green Port Hull
developments (notwithstanding an increase in modern
vehicles with less polluting engines)
Trac: even considering a small increase in the number
of buses in the area (56)8, there was still a net reduction
in total levels of trac in the vicinity of Alexandra Dock.
In terms of emissions and the other negative aspects
of increased vehicle numbers in a given area, this result
provides further evidence that the Green Port Hull
and Siemens developments did not outwardly create
adverse environmental health impacts during their
initial phase of construction. Pending data for 2016, this
result also currently suggests that residents’ concerns
over increased trac in the area are unfounded. It
should be noted, however, given the small increase
in commercial vehicles and buses, which tend to be
diesel operated, one could perhaps expect a small rise
in harmful PM2.5; To confirm or reject this suggestion,
further research and a dedicated PM2.5 monitoring site
in the vicinity of Siemens would be required.
Noise: Determining the actual level of noise pollution
will form part of ongoing data collection and
noise impact research into the zoning category
of the boundary between the Victoria Dock
residential area and the Alexandra Dock industrial
area. Notwithstanding current noise levels being
commensurate with those recorded pre-construction
of the Siemens facility, if the area being monitored
is deemed residential, average ambient noise levels
should fall with 45 dB(A) as per the 1997 Environmental
Protection Act. If it is deemed an industrial area, noise
levels, during the day, should not exceed 65 dB(A).
Which zone the monitored areas is classed as would
clearly provide dierent interpretations of noise
pollution currently witnessed in the Victoria Dock area.
Given the relative consistency of sound levels pre- and
post-construction, attributing any such perceived noise
pollution to the Siemens development would, however,
be dicult and, ostensibly, an incorrect thing to do.
3.1.4 Conclusion
Theoretically, each of the socioeconomic indicators
should link together as follows: providing the appropriate
level of training, upskilling or qualification, in fields
related to the dominant sectors of the economy
will enable individuals to enter employment, which
could have a double benefit of: a) possibly reducing
the claimant count if the individual was previously
unemployed and b) contributing towards economic
output, as measured by GVA or otherwise. In turn, these
events may enhance the individual’s perception of well-
being, as measured by life satisfaction, for example, and
possibly sustain longer term health.
According to the indicators used in this assessment,
the baseline socioeconomic situation of the Green Port
Hull region is somewhat below the UK average; this is
not new information and there is certainly work to be
done to raise the profile of Hull and the East Riding.
Discovering that the Manufacturing sector is dominant
in the region is useful, and bodes well, since Green
Port Hull’s eorts will continue to strengthen that
sector, which has started to see a plateau in growth. It
is important that individuals receive relevant training
throughout their professional journeys, not simply to
secure roles in the first instance – though that alone
would be of immediate benefit from a claimant count
and economic contribution perspective – but also
to help career progression into roles that are better
8. From 2014 to 2015, the total number of bicycles in the Alexandra Dock area fell by 51,
motorcycle numbers increased by 3 and bus numbers in the area increased by 56. This
amounts to a net increase of 8 modes of transport or a total increase of motorised
vehicles of 59.
4. Green Port Hull Region:
Primary Data Analysis
4.1 Development of a Robust and Locally
Inclusive Renewables Industry:
A Regional Comparator Study
by Dr Paul Jensen and Professor
David Gibbs
4.1.1 Introduction and Background
This section summarises key findings and lessons
derived from a study of the renewables based
development of three regions in comparison and
contrast to the operational region of the Green Port
Growth (GPG) programme (i.e., Hull and the East Riding).
Great Grimsby (UK), Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven (both
Germany) were chosen as the Green Port comparator
regions as they facilitated both intra and inter-regional
comparisons to be made. The overriding goal of the
comparator study was to identify regional development
lessons that are transferable to the Green Port region
in respect of promoting development which is locally
inclusive and, importantly, robust. Throughout the study,
regional development and investment in renewables
was considered in its widest form. However, given the
physical geography, existing industrial strengths and
most recent development foci of the Humber, there
was a particular emphasis on the manufacturing of
oshore wind turbine components and oshore turbine
operations and maintenance. The study was performed
via an extensive evidence review and a series of semi-
structured interviews with key regional stakeholders.
Interview questions were broad in nature but primarily
focussed on understanding why particular development
decisions had been made, the consequent success (or
otherwise) of these decisions and any lessons learned in
respect of future development planning and activities.
Although the literature and interviews revealed a general
agreement in regional development storylines, as would
perhaps be expected there were subtle nuances in the
portrayal of how some development decisions were
made and the outcomes of resultant development
activities. As such, the following summary of
development lessons and recommendations are largely
presented as points for discussion and debate.
4.1.2 National Development Context
To understand the circumstances in which each of the
comparator regions have embraced or actively pursued
renewables as a vehicle for regional development, some
understanding of wider national contextual matters
was sought. Provided below is an overarching summary
of the development of the two comparator countries,
their relationships with energy and their attractiveness
to businesses operating within the renewables industry.
The summary is based on an extensive document
analysis and is presented as a series of development
and decision-making assumptions. The intention of the
assumptions is to provide insight into the possible mind-
set and drivers of comparator stakeholders and their
decision-making processes.
Assumption 1: all other investment drivers being equal,
with a significantly larger manufacturing base and
greater spending on innovation, in addition to the
ancillary industrial clusters that these activities attract
and create, for a prospective inward investor Germany
outwardly appears to be a better place to invest than
the UK, particularly for those engaged in innovative
and rapidly evolving manufacturing industries (e.g.,
Assumption 2: in areas relevant to operating a successful
and innovative business in the renewables industry,
both countries have strong demand for those with a
higher and intermediate education. Both countries,
however, have concerns over being able to meet future
demands for suciently skilled labour in the areas key
to renewables (e.g., engineers). As such, neither country
outwardly appears to have an upper hand in respect of a
potential investor’s recent past, current or future access
to skilled labour.
Assumption 3: based on national surveys, both the UK
and Germany have a high population of people who are
aware of the environmental impact of their activities.
This population largely lay within the middle-upper
social classes and are supportive of activities able to
reduce their impact, e.g. renewables. Those within the
middle-upper classes are known to be more likely to
vote and by definition more likely to influence relevant
policymaking. Both regions possess strongly receptive
local communities and markets for both renewables
infrastructure and the businesses who manufacture such
Assumption 4: historically Germany has a longer and
greater relationship with all forms of renewables than
the UK. In addition to a high per capita energy demand,
such a country would be understandably attractive to
a potential inward investor operating within all spheres
of low carbon development. However, in respect of
oshore wind, the UK is an undoubted leader and has
made a concerted eort to develop an industry which
it is intrinsically suited to exploiting on a national basis
from a variety of socioeconomic development and
indeed energy security perspectives. For the foreseeable
future, the UK will remain a/the market leader in the
development and use of oshore wind.
Assumption 5: with industry innovations rapidly driving
down LCOE, subsidies and other cost considerations
such as proximity will become less critical to the oshore
wind industry. Despite its growth as an industry, notable
clustering of OSW manufacturers and their immediate
supply chains has not occurred (in the UK or Germany).
With the current market dominance of a handful of
companies who already possess a strong presence in the
primary OSW markets (i.e. Germany and the UK), and
the increasing ability to easily transport people, materials
and growing components over long distances, it is
unlikely that further significant OSW inward investments
will take place in either country.
Summary: though Germany is far ahead of the UK in
terms of its uptake of many renewables technologies,
the UK is rapidly developing its own renewable energy
capacity in all areas, but particularly OSW. Outwardly,
both countries are seemingly good places to ‘do
business’ in respect of renewables, whether this is due
to the simple economics of absolute renewable energy
demand, subsidised production or national propensity
for adoption of a given technology. In terms of ongoing
development, OSW market dominance is likely to limit
further significant localised inward investment. Areas of
exploitation for continued local economic development
are more likely to be found in renewables enabling
technologies and other complementary industries, such
as smart grids, energy storage and, at the end-of-life
stage of the industry, the circular economy.
4.1.3 Local Development Context The Humber, United Kingdom
Early in its inception, Yorkshire Forward (the Regional
Development Agency for Yorkshire and the Humber) had
identified renewables as a potential growth area for the
wider Humber region. Research commissioned by Hull
City Council in 2006 rearmed this position with the
renewables industry being specifically seen a source of
low carbon economic development opportunity for the
City9. Though the report largely focussed on biobased
energy, it recognised that there might be opportunities
for the city in other areas, most notably wind, solar, tidal
and wave energy. Several early eorts to develop wave
and tidal projects within the Humber fell by the wayside.
However, drives for creating a centre of excellence in
oshore wind in Hull persisted, culminating most notably
in the city’s largest single inward investment and the
construction of the Siemens oshore wind turbine blade
Attracting Siemens (now Siemens Gamesa) to Hull was
seen as a major coup for the wider region. However,
while much publicity and focus was placed upon
the development of the renewables industry in Hull,
and particularly the Siemens Gamesa investment,
substantive renewables focussed developments was
already occurring in North East Lincolnshire and
particularly in Grimsby. Grimsby’s port is the closest
major port to existing Round 1 and 2 wind farms and to
the major Round 3 sites at Hornsea and Dogger Bank
and has become a centre for oshore wind companies’
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities. Indeed,
dockside development specifically took place in Grimsby
to improve vessel access and berthing in order to
attract O&M operations10, culminating most notably in
investment from Ørsted, Centrica, E.On, Siemens, MHI
Vestas, Windcat, Turbine Transfers and others.
To-date, these local investments have created a myriad
of benefits for the area, including in the region of 1,000
skilled jobs in Hull alone. Nevertheless, the anticipated
(inward) clustering of other turbine component
manufacturers and/or other high-value elements of the
ancillary supply chain has (so-far) not occurred. This has
led to disappointment being felt in some areas. However,
according to one prominent industry representative,
this stance risks ignoring the investment ABP made in
the Green Port development and wider region and the
investments local companies made in new vessels – or
indeed that the wider Green Port concept, for example,
was supposed to be about renewables in the widest
sense not just oshore wind. Indeed, in respect of local
economic development, it was argued that as good as
the Siemens investment was for the area: “there is a
distinct risk of people thinking Siemens is the end goal
and job done” (Interview, Industry Representative).
In respect of continued economic development,
stakeholders suggested that decision-makers need to
now look beyond OSW because for the foreseeable
future the make-up of the Humber’s OSW ‘cluster’: “is
what is” (Interview, Local Authority#1). Regardless of
the form of low carbon focussed development that is
pursued, it was noted that in respect of the area’s smaller
businesses being in a position to quickly integrate
themselves into innovative and rapidly evolving supply
chains, ongoing third-party support was needed. This, it
was stated, is where the value of the services provided
through Green Port (the Business Support and Advice
programme) is evident. There was, however, some
regret in the fact that: “It was there at the beginning
and has a long run up: [And] as they get going, will
end” (Interview, Industry Representative). Furthermore,
to eliminate disappointment from developments not
meeting expectations, stakeholders were keen to explore
and identify more holistic ways of benefiting from local
future low carbon developments that goes beyond
typical development metrics, such as jobs.
9. IEDC – International Economic Development Council (2007), Hull Economic Development Plan. Washington
DC, USA: International Economic Development Council, Prepared for Hull CItybuild.
10. NELC - North East Lincolnshire Council (2017), Stronger Economy, Stronger Communities: A Vision of a Low
Carbon Future for North East Lincolnshire, Grimsby, UK: Dragongate/NELC.
11. BIS - Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsförderung und Stadtentwicklung (2017), Bremerhaven: More
than just a Port for the Oshore Wind Industry. Bremerhaven, Germany: Economic Development Agency.
12. BIS (2017), Bremerhaven: More than just a Port for the Oshore Wind Industry. Bremerhaven, Germany:
Economic Development Agency.
13. Stietzel, H-J. (2016), Cuxhaven: Base Port for the Oshore Wind Industry in Germany. Presentation, Port
Association of Cuxhaven. Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven, Federal
Republic of Germany
Funded by the local and state governments, the State
of Bremen started to promote itself as a centre for the
oshore wind industry as early as 2002. Bremerhaven’s
aim was to become “Europe’s premier location for
oshore wind energy projects”11. Bremerhaven plans
for developing an OSW industry was undertaken
strategically: it was an attempt to build on existing
assets (Interview, University Academic). Initially the
policy was a success, with six wind industry OEMs
locating there in a ‘boom’ period up to 2009 producing
components for the construction and placement of
oshore wind turbines, including turbines, blades, towers
and foundations. Employment reached a peak of around
3,500 jobs in 2014, with local business development
agency stating that: “no other location has such a strong
cluster of oshore wind energy producers and service
providers on all levels along the value-added chain as in
Initially, local stakeholders thought that they had got
“lucky” with the decision to invest in OSW: indeed it
was thought that the industry would prove to be the
solution to mass unemployment (Interview, Development
Agency). However, the oshore wind sector suered a
decline in the city. Initially development had a supportive
environment nationally with ambitious Federal
renewable energy targets, subsidies and the phase out
of nuclear energy. However, in 2014, Federal policy saw
a move away from renewable energy and oshore wind
due to consumer concerns over the increasing costs.
The sector was also undergoing consolidation into a
smaller number of companies and by 2016 Siemens had
an 80% share of the German North Sea oshore wind
sector meaning that smaller companies, such as those
located in Bremerhaven, were marginalised. As such,
closures occurred in Bremerhaven at Power Blades (wind
turbine blades) and Senvion, while Adwen, partly owned
by Gamesa, will be absorbed and wound down by the
Siemens Gamesa partnership.
From a peak of 3,500 jobs in 2014 this declined to
1,500 by 2017, although both were markedly short of
the initial projected target of 8,000 jobs. Bremerhaven
was dealt another blow by Siemens decision to locate
a new nacelle construction plant in nearby Cuxhaven.
Bremerhaven was believed to be Siemens first choice,
but this had been dependent on the development of
a new terminal – the Oshore Terminal Bremerhaven
(OTB). However, OTB development plans ran into
problems, partly due to mistakes in the planning
application and also due to opposition and litigation
from an environmental NGO. At the same time the
demand for such a facility was called into question both
by the changing Federal policy away from renewables
and, from a technical perspective, an industry shift to
larger capacity turbines that meant a reduced number of
turbines would be handled by the OTB.
Delays in approval for Bremerhaven’s OTB gave
competitor cities such as Cuxhaven the opportunity to
attract port-based investment. This was most notably
witnessed with the eventual above noted decision
of Siemens to locate their nacelle plant in Cuxhaven,
just 50km from Bremerhaven. A ‘Cuxhaven Oshore
Masterplan’, that had identified opportunities to attract
the oshore wind industry through state government
investment in a heavy load platform and an oshore test
site, had seemingly paid o. The Cuxhaven plant was
Siemens first oshore wind plant in Germany and is a
‘one stop’ production facility for generators, hubs and
the back end (cabin) sections for direct drive turbines13.
Cuxhaven’s learned development ‘success’, at the
expense of Bremerhaven, was seen as part of the
process by those involved in promoting local economic
development: “you have to know that if you are a
forerunner you make mistakes” (Interview, Development
Agency). While in the early stages of oshore wind
development there were a number of potential investors
who could have located in Bremerhaven, market
consolidation means this is now down to one or two, “so
that one decision can make or break a region’s fortunes”
(Interview, University Academic). For example, the local
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Stratergy
the Bremerhaven Economic Development Company’s
(BIS) view was that Siemens can now supply the
European market from its locations in Hull and Cuxhaven
and that the opportunity to attract other turbine
manufacturers had passed (Interview, Development
Agency). Going forward, however, whilst Cuxhaven
actively seek to attract a diversity of industries,
particularly to its port estates, Bremerhaven “like to be
brave” and are keen to continue promoting the local
economy through innovative low carbon development
agendas and technologies.
4.1.4 Regional Development Lessons
In researching the contextual background of each
comparator regions development, several commonalities
came to light. These commonalities largely related to
oshore wind but are arguably applicable to all large-
scale inward investment aspirations and directly relate
to promoting development that is locally-inclusive and
robust. Notable lessons include:
1. Being a forerunner in attempts to attract a nascent
high-value industry can pay big dividends but can also
be risky if you are not able to keep pace with changing
needs of the industry. Somebody, however, has to take
the plunge and be a first mover. In areas where there is
less capacity to adapt to changing industry needs, it is
sensible not to overload existing infrastructure carrying
capacity with one industry and limit regional industrial
2. In respect of oshore wind, geographic proximity
to wind farms important but is proving less so
with the physical growth in industry support and
installation vessels that are able to operate from/
within increasingly distant areas. The more important
feature in each area’s success in attracting investment
was the presence of existing and suitable industrial
3. Being a frontrunner in attempts to attract a given
industry, and getting the necessary infrastructure in
place, is helped by the presence of a supportive local
community working to aligned objectives in respect
of socioeconomic aspirations. A unified voice is not
only cost-eective it facilitates collaboration and
strengthens the oering of a given region.
4. With the maturation of industry technologies and
markets, any success in attracting a large manufacturer
will not necessarily lead to mass (re)location of first
or second tier supply chains or other complementary
manufacturers. Risk management of investments
typically means big businesses do not make new
investment decisions in expensive manufacturing
facilities without having (the majority of) their critical
supply chain already in place.
5. Business development opportunities for in-situ local
businesses are most likely to arise within the lower
tiers of the inward investors supply chain. To ensure
smaller businesses are able to pick up the low-hanging
or indeed innovative contract ‘fruits’, they need support
to understand and meet the needs of the industries a
given region is seeking to attract or develop.
6. There is a need to be realistic with development
aspirations. Big promises can lead to local business
disappointment. Drives for ambitious socioeconomic
development based on attracting new and developing
industries can cloud decision-making and, in turn,
measures of success. The absolute value or success of
an investment needs to be redefined to reflect values
and benefits that resonate with the wider community.
14. RUK (2017), Oshore Wind: Regenerating Regions – Investment and Innovation in the UK. London, UK: RenewableUK.
15. Chamberlain (2016):shore-operators-act-early-decommissioning-data-limit-costs.
16. Oshore Wind Innovation Hub: Research and Innovation Roadmaps: https://o
17. See: Purnell, P. et al. (2018) Developing Technology, Approaches and Business Models for Decommissioning of Low carbon Infrastructure.
4.1.5 Summary of Findings and Recommendations
In respect of limitations to research lessons and the
following recommendations, it has to be noted that
their content was shaped by the observations of all
comparator regions’ stakeholders. These observations
were nuanced and reflect their respective areas of
interest and industry or local authority expertise. The
stories of the development of these regions, however, are
very similar and tell of four towns and their surrounding
areas’ attempts to make the best of their natural assets
and reinvigorate their local economies. In the four
comparator regions’ case, their most prominent natural
asset is a waterfront with industrial infrastructure. In
respect of nascent industries prime for exploitation,
such as the renewables sector and other innovative low
carbon development, the obvious industry to solicit was
manufacturers of oshore wind. Each region succeeded
in their objectives to lesser or greater degrees, albeit
Hull, Bremerhaven and perhaps Grimsby would possibly
feel disappointed that they were not able to build on
their investment successes to a greater degree. This,
‘failure’, however, is largely down to movements in the
OSW market beyond their control, such as market
consolidation and supply chain risk management
In respect of local collaboration, self-promotion
dominates at the strategic level. This is understandable
and basic self-preservation (in pursuit of socioeconomic
development). Such a stance, however, does not overly
bother industry decision-makers. In general, businesses
have shown that they do not let individuals and local
authority aspirations overly influence or interfere with
multimillion/billion pound investment decisions, as
these entail too much risk. As with many industries,
long-term O&M contracts are essential to keeping
some level of local economic stability. This is an area
where Hull and the East Riding could do more and
could perhaps benefit from Grimsby’s alleged issues
with accommodating larger SOVs. Aside from a little
luck, place and natural assets have proven to be a key
driver in the OSW industry (as you would expect). As
such there is no reason to believe that the Humber will
be the epicentre of solar research and manufacturing.
Surprisingly, RenwablesUK claims that the Humber
is currently engaged in the whole lifecycle of OSW14
. This, however, is not correct. In particular, the end-
of-life stage of OSW is currently under researched
and under-represented in all areas. Durability of
components has been considered by manufacturers and
numerous research institutes but aspects of repowering,
decommissioning and resource recovery have been
largely ignored and certainly not present in the Green
Port region (or elsewhere) on any organised scale.
The circular economy is a growth area throughout
the world and, with regard to renewables and low
carbon development, could be an area of growth for
the Green Port region. Normally, suitable classification,
quantification and recovery of waste products is one of
the biggest obstacles to the resource reuse and recycling
industries and indeed development of the wider circular
economy. In respect of the OSW industry, however, it is
in a relatively unique position of knowing exactly what
materials are out at sea, at what point they are likely to
come back and in what quantities. It is acknowledged
that repowering and/or decommissioning is, relatively,
far away in some areas and indeed in the minds of many.
However, decommissioning projects will “surge” over
the next decade as numerous wind farms come to the
end of their life and older technologies are replaced15.
There is consequently an opportunity to gradually
build expertise and critical infrastructure in this area16.
Decommissioning of turbines with onshore recovery and
innovative reprocessing of component materials is likely
to prove to be a multi-billion pound industry with high
socioeconomic benefits for early movers in this area17.
Beyond further development opportunities within the
oshore wind power industry, there is an opportunity
for the region to lead in wider renewables and
complementary low carbon technologies, particularly
in the areas of smart grids, heat networks and energy
storage (including the production of hydrogen for fuel
cells and high capacity batteries). Indeed, given that
oshore wind farms are located out at sea and regularly
in areas away from peak electricity demand, there is
a distinct argument for exploring energy storage as
a means of local socioeconomic and environmental
development. This can be achieved in terms of being
seen as leaders in the research and development of
storage technologies and through innovative use of
local communities as energy and/or heat sinks. This can
be achieved directly within homes or by feeding excess
electricity into large community batteries and/or storing
heat within accumulators to be fed back to residents at
times of higher demand. Such a development agenda
would fit into several local authority moves in the GPG
area to explore other ways of deriving local community
benefit from industrial developments that goes beyond
jobs and total monetary investment.
With its high levels of fuel poverty, being at the forefront
of innovative community energy storage is an area
where Hull and the East Riding could positively impact
the lives of residents and develop proven exportable
equipment and expertise. This would, however, require
a large shift in the business models of the likes of the
National Grid and/or, ultimately, the ownership of local
distribution networks. However, immediate priorities
for the Green Port region would be to lobby for the
upgrade of the region’s infrastructure for those aspects
which they control or can influence (e.g., road networks),
work closely with private entities in possession of key
regional assets (e.g., ports) and ensure that the myriad
of smaller local business in the area have the support
required to create and exploit low carbon regional
development opportunities. In essence, many of the
mechanisms required to support low carbon economic
development already exist in a variety of formats within
local authorities, research institutes and within dedicated
business support organisations. Smaller businesses,
however, need business support which they can rely
on and trust: there is an argument that such a support
mechanism is best provided by a neutral publicly funded
or charitable body. Today, this is the Business Support
and Advice strand of the Green Port Growth programme.
Overall, there is an absolute need to broaden the
region’s horizon and pursue a low carbon future and
its facilitating industries, rather than having oshore
wind ‘tunnel vision’. Arguably, this is what happened in
the past with other industries in all of the comparator
areas and with a long-term negative impact on the
socioeconomic prosperity of each region. Related
to this, research into how inward investment and the
performance of support bodies bring value to a given
area, beyond absolute monetary benefits and total jobs
created, should be performed. In this respect, exploring
other impacts and benefits that can bring tangible
benefits to local communities at the heart of inward
investments, is required.
4.2 Residents’ Surveys Summary
by Dr Roland Y Getor
4.2.1 Introduction
The purpose of the residents’ surveys undertaken
annually over the three years duration of the Green
Port Impact Assessment was to capture the views of
residents residing in the initial catchment area of the
Siemens Gamesa investment and the wider Hull and
East Riding of Yorkshire area, and gather information
on Green Port Hull initiatives (Apprenticeships and
Upskilling, Business Support and Advice) and the
Siemens Gamesa Hull blade factory.
4.2.2 Key Survey Summaries and Results
The summaries and key findings are based on the third
survey undertaken during the operational phase of the
Siemens Gamesa blade factory in the summer of 2018. A
total of 101 residents from the Hull and East Riding area
responded with the majority of the respondents from the
Victoria Dock housing estate. Background Information
The evidence shows that about 50% (50 respondents)
are aged between 35–54 years inclusive with those
aged 65 years and over accounting for a further 20%
(20 respondents). Overall, most of the respondents
(72.3%) are from the economically active group with the
economically inactive group (26.7%) made up of mainly
retirees (16 respondents). Main Results of the Survey
i. Impact of Siemens Gamesa/Green Port Hull Activities
on Employment Status
In terms of whether their current employment status had
been impacted positively or negatively by Siemens and
Green Port Hull activities: 8.9% (9 respondents) said they
‘didn’t know’; 14.9% (15 respondents) stated ‘negatively’;
12.9% (13 respondents) stated ‘positively’, with the
majority 61.4% (62 respondents) stating they had not
been impacted either way.
Employment Status
Negatively Positively
No. Details No. Details
Economically Inactive 5
Continuous throbbing noise, Loss of
riverside path, the wall, ship docking/
working very noisy and unacceptable
black smoke from funnel, Impacted
view of estuary
Employed 6
Increase in trac congestion, Noise
pollution, View spoiled and loss of
footpath/bird habitat; Ugly factory
2Employment for family member,
Got job from it
Self-employed 2Trac congestion, Loss of footpath
Unemployed 2Lots of dust, Loud noise
Total 15 2
Source: Survey of Residents in Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire, 2018
The details of the type of impact (Table 2) points mainly
to negative impact of the Siemens Gamesa blade
facility and irrespective of the employment status all the
negative responses seemed to relate to perceived noise
from the factory or vessels, loss of footpath/bird habitat
and trac. The positives reported did not relate to
respondents but mainly to perceived benefits of Siemens
Gamesa/Green Port Hull activities. One person was
employed by Siemens Gamesa and a family member of
another was also employed by Siemens Gamesa.
ii. Well-being Impact of Current Employment Status
From Figure 2, respondents in the Green Port Hull area
stated they were generally happy with 64% reporting
high or very high happiness levels. Only five reported low
happiness levels. Investigation of the employment status
does not show any clear pattern (that is, employed
people feeling happier than economically inactive
people). Similarly, most respondents reported low or
very low levels of anxiety (65%), with only 6 reporting
high anxiety levels.
Table 2: Impact of Siemens Gamesa/Green Port Hull Activities on Current Employment
Source: Survey of Residents in Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire, 2018
Figure 2: Well-being Impact of Current Employment Status
Low: 0-4 Medium: 5-6 High: 7-8
Very High: 9-10
Happiness Level (Average Mean Score)
Very Low: 0-1Low: 2-3Medium 4-5
High: 9-10
Anxiety Level (Average Mean Score)
A few reported happiness levels impacted positively
by apprenticeship support, vibrant local area and
economic progress and development due to Siemens
Gamesa/Green Port Hull activities but quite a number
of respondents reported negative impact concerns like
continuous throbbing noise from factory/ships docking
and loadings and wall. Similar views were given for
impact on anxiety levels also.
4.2.3 Conclusion
A significant number of respondents, especially those
dwelling in the immediate vicinity of the Siemens
Gamesa blade manufacturing facility still had issues
regarding noise levels from what they perceived to be
continuous throbbing, ships loading and ooading,
amenity losses associated with the loss of a footpath
and the construction of a wall erected by the factory to
mitigate noise which respondents believed had spoiled
their scenic value of the area.
Happiness and anxiety levels may reflect judgements by
a person about their overall well-being. Given that the
majority of the respondents are quite happy and less
anxious, we could say there was general good feeling
amongst the respondents.
4.3 Pathway to Employment Case Study
by Dr Roland Y Getor
4.3.1 Introduction
The purpose of the Pathway to employment case study
is to undertake a review of the Employment and Skills
Development strand’s Back to Work programme to
ascertain how eective it has been in helping long-term
unemployed individuals mostly from disadvantaged
backgrounds re-engage with the labour market. It is
hoped that the findings and recommendations will
enable Green Port Hull and the local authorities (Hull and
East Riding of Yorkshire Councils and their partners) to:
firstly, justify the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) funding
by showing its impact on the disadvantaged groups
individuals in terms of job creation, benefit savings and
contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA)
going forward, make the case for more investment
opportunities/funding in these activities.
4.3.2 Background and Context
The UK government has over the years invested in work
programmes as a means of getting workless individuals
(that is, those who are unemployed and economically
inactive) back into work. The UK government’s “The
Work Programme”, a major payment-for-results welfare-
to-work programme, was introduced in Great Britain
in June 2011 as part of the 2010-2015 UK Coalition
Government flagship welfare-to-work. The original
2015 Work Programme has since been replaced by a
new Work and Health Programme for the longer-term
unemployed and those with health conditions.
In this case study, we would the inputs (training &
development, work experience, wage and training
costs) into the work programme alongside the outputs
(benefits saved, jobs created, companies engaged and
supported with wage subsidies) from the Programme to
enable us measure how successful and eective it has
The aims and objectives of the Programme were to:
Provide support and training to long-term unemployed
individuals from disadvantaged groups to enable them
to enter the labour market
Provide wage subsidy support to eligible businesses
in the oshore wind OEM and supply chain to employ
these individuals
Similarly the criteria for selection onto the Programme is
that participants are unemployed for at least 6 months
and selected through process of assessment involving
Maths, English and Mechanical/Electrical assembly and
Technical drawing and interviewed to pick out relevant
experience, transferrable & communication skills. As
at the start of this case study, 491 disadvantaged
individuals (478 males and 13 females) have passed
through the assessment and interview process.
4.3.3 Data Description
The Pathway to employment data covers the period
from January 2016 to about December 2017 (24 months)
and captures information on 225 long term unemployed
individuals (216 males and 9 females) who were
successful in the assessment and interview process and
progressed onto the Programme in 14 dierent cohorts
as shown in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3: Pathway to Employment Cohorts by Training Start Date
Individuals Selected for Training by Cohort
Cohorts by Training Start Date
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Pathway to Employment data, January 2016–December 2017
The evidence shows 73.8% of the beneficiaries (166
individuals) are aged between 25 – 54 years with the
most active being the 25 – 34 and 35 – 44 age groups,
both having at least 60 beneficiaries each. A majority
of them went on to work in the caravan industry. On the
other hand, the younger (18 – 24) and older (55 – 64)
age groups are made up of relatively fewer individuals in
the caravan sector.
4.3.4 Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This section focuses on the analysis and interpretation
of the data of the three dierent stages (Training and
development, Work experience and Employment) that
individuals go through from the beginning to the end of
the Programme as depicted in the process map in Figure
4. The training and development and work experience
stages together cover a duration of 11 weeks in total
(5 weeks training and development; 5 weeks work
placement and 1 week holiday) Training and Development
The 225 individuals who progressed onto the Pathway to
Employment programme were employed by the training
provider (Unity Training) at the onset of the Programme,
signed o benefits and paid wages during the 5 weeks
duration of the training and development. As depicted
in the process map (Figure 4), they were put through
a combination of classroom work and employability
workshops. The individuals were recruited in 14 separate
cohorts, 13 of which had completed and the last was still
in training at the time of data collection. Figure 4
captures the 13 cohorts and overall, 193 individuals
completed their training and development, 21 were
sacked due to non-attendance/poor timekeeping, 1
withdrew to go to University with 10 still in training.
Due to getting these individuals wholly or partially o
benefit, this resulted in benefit savings of nearly £77,000
during this period.
Figure 4: Pathway to Employment Process Mapping
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Pathway to Employment Data, January 2016–December 2017
Completed Sacked/Withdrawn
Figure 5: Individual Cohorts by Training End Date
Beneficiaries per cohort
Training Recipients by Cohorts
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Pathway to Employment Data, January 2016–December 2017
32 | GIA.HULL.AC.UK Work Experience
As a result of successfully completing the training stage
of the Programme, these 193 individuals were linked up
with 27 local businesses mostly in the manufacturing
sector to gain some work experience to boost their
employment prospects. Figure 6 shows a breakdown
of the beneficiaries according to the 13 cohorts, with all
those in 4 of the cohorts successfully completing their
placement whereas between 1 and 3 of the beneficiaries
in the other 9 cohorts not completing their placement.
In all, 14 individuals were sacked and 1 withdrew due
to suering from non-work related injury. As before,
by Unity Training partially or wholly employing these
individuals during this period, it resulted in benefit
savings of about £73,463.60. These individuals did their
placement in businesses in the local area with majority of
them (125 of 193 [64.8%]) based in caravan and related
industries and also the top 8 companies employed 170
(88.1%) of them.
Completed Sacked/Withdrawn
Figure 6: Individual Cohorts by Training End Date
Beneficiaries per cohort
Work Experience Recipients by Cohorts
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Pathway to Employment data, January 2016–December 2017
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 33 Transition into Permanent Employment
The evidence shows that at the end of the work
placement, 124 of the 178 beneficiaries (69.7%) transited
into permanent employment (Figure 7) surpassing the
60% target set by the Programme. Figure 7 shows the
individuals who transited into work according to the
cohorts of recruitment with cohorts 1, 2 and 3 being
some of the most successful.
These individuals are employed by 38 companies in the
local area including Swift Group (25), Kwiktuf (23) and
Willerby Homes (20). Most of the employers are based
in the caravan industry and have had to take on new
employees as a result of expansion of many Hull-based
caravan companies since 2016 with huge investments in
additional factory space.
Figure 7: Employment by Cohort and Employee Occupational Category
a: Employment by cohort
Number Employed
Employed Recipients by Cohorts
4.3.5 Key Findings and Recommendations
This section presents key findings to emphasis the
significance and contributions of the Programme based
on the review of the Back to Work project and analysis
of the associated data from the assessment (entry) stage
to the employment (exit) stage. It also pinpoints the
challenges faced by the Programme and provides the
basis for highlighting the recommendations. Sustainable Employment
The study has highlighted the need for local authorities
(Hull City and East Riding of Yorkshire Councils) to
continue to work together as well-structured, resourced
and funded work programmes like the Pathway to
employment project do have a vital role to play in
assisting those disengaged from the labour market to
reengage with the labour market. The collaborative
working relationship between the strand, Jobcentre
Plus, local training institution and local companies has
worked very well with over 60% of beneficiaries (124)
from disadvantaged groups ending up in permanent
jobs. This is consistent with the significant rise in Oce
for National Statistics (ONS) employment rate and a
corresponding fall in unemployment rate in 2017 in the
Hull and East Riding area since the start of the impact
assessment in 2014. Benet Savings
This programme has demonstrated the potential
of delivering significant benefit savings by getting
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds o the
cycle of poverty and welfare benefit dependency. As a
result of getting the 225 individuals onto the Pathways
programme, they were signed o benefits for the period
spent on the Programme resulting in total benefit
savings of about £153,132 over the 11 weeks period or
annual savings of about £723,900. This is consistent with
the continuous fall in claimant count over the period this
programme has been running. However, given the low
progression rate of 52% (below the 80% target) onto the
Programme more needs to be done by providing more
one-to-one support tailored to the particular needs of
these individuals to better prepare them for the labour
market. Contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA)
and Earnings
We estimate that the Pathways contribution to
GVA based on the 105 jobs created mainly in the
manufacturing sector would be about £8.4 million for
the GPH sub region (based on 2016 figures). This was
computed using the GVA per jobs by sector for Hull and
East Riding of Yorkshire multiplied by the jobs created
in that sector. The total wage and training cost of the
Programme was a little over £1 million, equivalent to
about £8470 each for the 124 employees. This cost could
be more than compensated for by the average earnings
of these employees of about £20,000/annum. Creating an Enabling Environment for
Local Businesses
The skills strand seems to have built a healthy working
relationship and trust among the participating
companies on the Programme by virtue of existing
working relationship on other programmes like
apprenticeships and upskilling. However, the findings
show that employment by cohorts by the main
employers dwindled over time as the vacancies
were filled. Therefore, the viability of the Programme
going forward depends on local authorities creating
the enabling environment, for existing and potential
businesses wishing to relocate, especially those in the
manufacturing sector to operate and thrive. Thus, Hull
City Council’s initiative of making available new industrial
development sites as part of the Green Port Enterprise
Zone development to caravan companies like Ultimate
Leisure Homes to expand their business and create new
jobs is a step in the right direction.
4.3.6 Conclusion
This case study sought to evaluate and ascertain how
eective the Programme had been in achieving its
objectives as outlined in the Yearly Strand Delivery
Plans. The findings show that it did exceed its target
of ensuring 60% of those who completed their
placement transited into work. It has demonstrated the
potential in delivering significant benefit savings by
assisting disadvantaged individuals o welfare benefit
dependency. Similarly, collaborative working relationship
between the local authorities, Department for Work and
Pensions (DWP) and local Training Provider significantly
contributed to the successful delivery of the Programme.
In addition, the willingness of local authorities like
Hull City Council to make available new industrial
development sites as part of a Green Port Enterprise
zone to businesses to expand their operations and
create jobs is crucial for the growth and development of
the local area.
However, it is also essential to provide these individuals
from disadvantaged backgrounds with the required
support network they may be lacking such as creating a
nurturing environment for them to build their confidence
and develop their sense of self-worth.
4.4 Employment and Skills
Development impact
by Dr Roland Y Getor
4.4.1 Introduction
The Employment and Skills Development impact
assessment aimed to measure the eectiveness of
the Employment and Skills Development strand’s
programme activities as well as judging the significance
of the changes brought about by these activities.
This exercise is an important way of communicating
the contribution of the strand’s interventions to the
Programme outcomes and the overall vision of Green
Port Hull (GPH) of making the sub region a “world
class centre for Employment, Wealth Creation and
It is expected that the findings and recommendations
will enable sub-regional development bodies such as to:
Justify Regional Growth Fund [RGF] funding by
showing the impact of the grant on the lives of the
individual beneficiaries and the operations of the
businesses who employed them
Demonstrate the wider societal benefit to the local
economy of the strand’s operations such as job
creation, earnings potential and Gross Value Added
(GVA) contribution.
4.4.2 Background and Context
The relationship between skill levels and local
competitiveness is well established and the fastest
growing economies tend to be associated with higher
skill levels, both in terms of the supply of and the
demand for skills, and predominantly account for the
productive superiority of the technically advanced
countries. The UK Governments Industrial Strategy
Green Paper argued a modern industrial strategy can
create the right framework to incentivise business
to invest in skills alongside public investment. More
involvement is also needed from industry experts in
delivering technical education to drive up standards
and that the new Apprenticeship Levy ensures business
invests in apprenticeships thereby putting business in
control of apprenticeship provision.
GPH acknowledges the need to upskill, train or attract
individuals with the right and adequate skills set and
technical knowledge to the area especially for businesses
who are involved either directly in the renewable energy
sector or indirectly through the associated supply chain.
This is more so given GPH’s aim to develop indigenous
business growth within the renewable energy sector
and secure long-term economic growth (Green PortHull,
The strand’s aims and objectives which reflects changing
needs of the renewable sector and accommodates the
employment and skills development demands of the
wider manufacturing sector are:
Raising skills levels in the wider workforce
Meeting the employment and skills demands of the
renewables sector
Addressing the eects of churn arising from
renewables sector investments
Supporting a manufacturing route to renewables sector
employment by providing employment and skills
support to the wider manufacturing sector
4.4.3 Data Description
This impact study uses primary data drawn from the
strand’s projects (Apprenticeships, Upskilling and Back
to Work programme) that have been running since
mid-2012 with the data used in this study covering the
period June 2012 to November 2018. The projects are
categorised into two according to the support available
and the associated activities delivered as shown below:
i. Apprenticeship and Training subsidy support
from 2012/13 Quarter 2 (June) to 2017/18 Quarter 3
(November). Employers can access funding to train or
upskill employees or for employing them permanently.
o Wage Subsidies, “Equivalent to 20% of Total Wage
Costs or about £4,000 for beneficiaries taken on over
a sustained period” for those on:
Apprenticeships, Disadvantaged Groups, Linking
Lower Level Training Packages to Advanced
Apprenticeships (LLPs) programmes
o Training Subsidy, “Up to 50% of Total Training Cost”
to upskill existing employees at National Vocational
Qualification (NVQ) Levels 3, 4 and 5 on
Upskilling programme
ii. Back to Work Programme from January 2016 to
December 2017
o Pathway to Employment Project
Available to long-term unemployed individuals from
disadvantaged backgrounds
4.4.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
The analytical technique adopted in this study relies
mainly on the use of statistical analysis to describe
key features of the project activities and also to derive
explanations of the impact (direct and indirect) of
these project activities on the individual and business
beneficiaries in particular and the local region as a
whole. We proceed with the analysis according to the
support available and the activities delivered. Wage Subsidy Support (job outcomes)
The project activities attracting this subsidy support are
Apprenticeships, LLPs and Disadvantaged Groups. Apprenticeships Wage Subsidy
This wage subsidy and associated apprenticeship
framework is delivered by the strand in conjunction with
local training providers and marketed to local employers.
The activities to be delivered to achieve the outcomes
and outputs outlined earlier are:
850 Apprenticeships wage subsidy for employers
resulting in 850 jobs being created, 340 businesses
being supported and 850 individuals receiving
The apprenticeship support initially concentrated
on apprenticeship frameworks originally specified
by Siemens Gamesa (Engineering Manufacturing &
Engineering Technician) but has since 2016/17 evolved
to other areas like Business Administration; Construction;
IT, Software & Web Design and Warehousing & Storage
to provide support to local businesses in the renewables
sector supply chain. In this regard, the direct outputs
delivered as at 2017/18 (Quarter 3) by the apprenticeship
frameworks are presented in Table 3 below.
To date the strand has done very well having exceeded
its target of training 850 individuals by 25 (2.94%)
whilst just falling short of the businesses supported
target of 340 by 6.2%. It is evident that majority of the
Apprenticeships employment support (93%) are in
Engineering Manufacturing and Engineering Technician
frameworks due to the heavy focus initially on Siemens
Gamesa and related supply chain.
18. These figures are only for part of the year (that is, up to Quarter 3)
19. The sum of the yearly business beneficiaries are more than the total business beneficiaries because some
businesses benefited across dierent years
Qualification Studying Towards
(Adv. Level 3 framework) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
18 Total
Individual Beneficiaries (Job Created)
Engineering Manufacturing 105 107 125 158 1 74 149 818
Warehousing & Storage 26 26
Business Administration 211 13
Construction 7 6 13
IT, Software & Web Design 4 1 5
Total 105 107 125 158 187 193 875
Businesses supported
Number in receipt of subsidy19 67 70 74 92 101 84 319
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Employment and Skills Development Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2017/18
Table 3: Apprenticeships Beneficiaries and Businesses Supported by Year of Enrolment
Our investigation indicates the strand did ensure the
beneficiary businesses were those with skills needs/gaps
and mainly from the sectors expected to spearhead
the growth in the economy of the local area. Thus, the
Manufacturing [including Renewables] sector dominates
(61.7%) and together with supporting sectors like
Construction (15.4%); Professional & Technical (9.3%)
and Admin & support (4.3%) are driving the observed
change in the GPH region. The map below (Figure 8)
shows the individual beneficiary’s home location by
wards (and as such free from any selection criteria or
screening by the strand) with the areas with the highest
concentration mainly in the Hull area and it is interesting
to observe that a traditionally deprived ward like
Holderness is one such area.
Figure 8: Apprenticeships Recipients in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire Area
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Employment and Skills Development Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2017/18
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 41 Linking Lower Level Packages to Advanced
Apprenticeships (LLPs) Wage Subsidy
This project was developed in Year 4 (2015/16) in
direct response to a need for trainees on lower level
engineering training packages (Traineeships or Level
2 Vocational qualifications) with potential, to access
Level 3 Apprenticeships with additional training
support. The training provider (HETA) employs the
trainees on Apprenticeship National Minimum Wage
over the duration of the project linking up with local
employers through their employer engagement activities
with a view to facilitating employment on a Level 3
Apprenticeship framework in the North and South
Bank. In line with the outputs outlined by the strand, the
activities to be delivered to achieve it are:
100 Advanced Level Apprenticeships Training
Packages resulting in 100 individuals being trained.
Our findings show 122 trainees have benefited from the
15 weeks of training in the North and South Bank, across
various sectors of the economy the most prominent
being Manufacturing (39.3%) and Construction
(14.8%). In addition, as at November 2017, the strand
had recorded 50 job outcomes (mainly Skilled trade
occupations) for those who had successfully completed
an apprenticeship. Disadvantaged Groups Wage Subsidy
Under this project the wage subsidy support is available
to businesses in the manufacturing sector who employ
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The
activities to be delivered to achieve the outputs are:
300 wage subsidies for Disadvantaged groups –
including 156 Pathways to Employment recipients
gaining sustainable employment, 90 businesses being
supported and 300 jobs being created.
The focus here is on the Pathways to employment
recipients employed in the manufacturing sector and the
businesses who employed them since they are eligible
for this subsidy. Our analysis under the Pathways to
employment case study shows that 124 beneficiaries
transited into employment with 85% of them based in
the manufacturing sector especially the caravan (47.6%).
15 companies have benefited or are due to benefit from
47 wage subsidies corresponding to subsidy of about
£4,000 each per individual in sustainable employment
20. These figures are only for part of the year (that is, up to Quarter 3)
21. The sum of the yearly business beneficiaries are more than the total business beneficiaries because some
businesses benefited across dierent years Upskilling Training Support
The delivery of this upskilling training support involves
working closely with the network of training providers
and employers in the GPH region to market training
subsidy packages to eligible businesses (including those
in renewable industry and those aected by employment
churn arising from renewables investments). In addition,
support upskilling of employees in the engineering
sector or assist them achieve an additional accredited,
certified qualification.
In line with the strand’s overall outputs, the activities to
be delivered are:
940 Upskilling support for employers - resulting
in 940 jobs being safeguarded, 210 businesses being
supported, and 940 individuals being trained.
Table 4 shows that as at Year 6 (Quarter 3) the strand
was on course to meet its target having provided 735
(78.1%) training subsidies and thereby supporting 149
(71%) businesses with upskilling subsidy of up to 50%
of training costs across Vocational, Professional and
Academic qualifications. The subsidy ensured 555
employees were able to upskill themselves or achieve
an additional qualification in courses of a year’s duration
whereas another 83 were able to upskill and/or acquire
an additional accredited qualification in courses of 2 to
4 years duration thereby enhancing their employability
and safeguarding their jobs.
Qualification Gained/Studying
Towards (NVQ Level 3 - 5) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Individual Beneficiaries (Jobs safeguarded)
NVQ 3 712 74 40 62 273 468
NVQ 4 22 43 39 62 23 65 254
NVQ 5 3 2 1 2 1 4 13
Total 32 57 114 104 86 342 735
Businesses supported
Number in receipt of subsidy21 11 22 28 39 29 85 149
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Employment and Skills Development Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2017/18
Table 4: Upskilling Beneficiaries and Businesses Supported with Subsidy by Year of Enrolment
Similarly, in line with the training support objectives
the majority of the upskilling beneficiaries who are
employed in the Manufacturing (including Renewables)
sector (72.1%) and supporting sectors like Construction
(9.9%) and Admin and Support (9.0%) have had their
jobs safeguarded or secured as a result of upgrading
themselves. We also found that Vocational qualifications
dominate especially City & Guilds, HNC/HND and NVQs
based Mechanical/Electrical/Electronic Engineering;
Welding and wind turbine technician qualifications. The
map below (Figure 9) shows the individual beneficiary’s
home location by ward, free from any selection
criteria or screening by the strand with the highest
concentration located in the Hull area.
Figure 9: Upskilling Beneficiaries by Qualification Type
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Employment and Skills Development Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2017/18
44 | GIA.HULL.AC.UK Pathway to Employment (Back to Work
The Pathway to employment has been covered
extensively as a case study in section 4.3 and the
Disadvantaged groups section As such, only a
summary of these activities are provided in this section
along the lines of the deliverables below:
260 Pathways to Employment support to individuals
from disadvantaged backgrounds – with 60%
(156) gaining sustainable employment and about 78
businesses supported.
A total number of 225 individuals progressed onto the
pathway programme in 14 separate cohorts and as at
the end of December 2017 with 193 trainees successfully
completing the training and development stage of
which 178 completed their work placement resulting
in benefit savings of £76,660.10 and £73,463.60 in the
Training and Work Placement stages respectively. In
addition, 124 of those who completed their placement
went on to successfully gain employment mainly in the
Manufacturing sector.
4.4.5 Key Findings
This section presents key findings and recommendations
of the strand’s projects based on a detailed analysis of
the activities delivered over the past six years by looking
at the impact on the individuals and businesses as the
main beneficiaries of the skills intervention, extend it to
cover the Green Port Hull region. Labour Market Outcomes
The social benefit of such an intervention has also been
established through locally created jobs for individuals
who previously did not have any skills and/or training
as well as for those from disadvantaged backgrounds
who hitherto were on welfare benefits. These projects
together created about 1,050 new jobs as at December
2017 with the Manufacturing (including Renewables)
sector accounting for over 60% of these jobs in line
with Green Port Hull’s vision of creating jobs through
the renewable energy industry. The supporting supply
chain like Construction (13.8%) and Professional &
Technical (8.5%) sectors also contributed to boosting
the local labour market. This intervention it is hoped will
contribute significantly towards strengthening the local
manufacturing workforce and addressing the impacts of
churn in the local engineering and manufacturing sector.
Similarly, 735 employees’ jobs have been safeguarded
or secured in the Manufacturing (including Renewables)
sector and supporting supply chain as a result of the
project helping these individuals to develop themselves
thereby making them more competitive.
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 45 Potential Boost in Earnings
An important eect of the Apprenticeships, Upskilling
and Back to work projects is the potential boost in
earnings of these newly skilled individuals across
Vocational, Academic and Professional qualifications.
Our findings show that a Vocational qualification at NVQ
3 and NVQ 4 equivalent levels will earn you between
£19,000 and £47,000 inclusive depending on whether
you have an HNC/HND, City and Guilds (C & G) or
NVQ qualification. For example, an NVQ 3 in Siemens
Blade D Technician will earn a beneficiary on average,
£23,755 and an NVQ 4 in Engineering Management,
£46,469. For an Academic qualification, an NVQ 4 (a
Degree equivalent) and NVQ 5 (a Masters equivalent)
will earn you between £28,000 and £50,000 inclusive.
For instance, a BA Eng. in Energy & Sustainability
Pathway will earn you on average, £29,000 and an MSc
in Strategic Project Management, £50,000. Similarly, a
Professional Qualification at NVQ 3, 4 and 5 equivalent
levels will earn you between £25,000 and £41,000
inclusive. A Professional Qualification at NVQ 4 in
Chartered Procurement & Supply will earn on average,
£41,000 whereas an NVQ 5 for a Chartered Management
Accountant will pay on average £40,000 Improvement in Skills Level/Qualifications
To achieve GPHs vision of making the Hull and East
Riding of Yorkshire area a world class centre for
renewable energy, the key focus of the strand has been
to raise the skills and attainment levels in the local
workforce to meet expected demand for skilled workers
required in the Renewable and wider Manufacturing
sector and the related supply chain. In all, a total of
1,732 beneficiaries have benefited through the following
project activities:
Apprenticeships Wage subsidy delivered training at
Advanced NVQ 3 Level to a total of 875 individuals
in the following categories: 818 in Engineering
Manufacturing; 26 in Warehousing & Storage; 13 in
Business Administration; 13 in Construction and 5 in IT,
Software & Web Design.
LLPs Wage subsidy provided further training to
122 individuals with Traineeships and NVQ Level 2
Engineering qualifications at NVQ 3 Level in Advanced
Apprenticeships frameworks in the North Bank (69)
and South Bank (53).
Upskilling training subsidy also upgraded or provided
additional accredited qualification to 735 individuals:
468 at NVQ 3 Level; 254 at NVQ 4 Level and 13 at NVQ
5 Level.
46 | GIA.HULL.AC.UK Well Being
As a result of assisting the disadvantaged group
individuals back into work and for that matter o
job seekers benefits, it’s hoped that this would help
break any intergenerational benefit dependency and
associated cycle of poverty and boost their wellbeing.
one of the of the Pathway to employment beneficiaries
currently employed in the caravan sector remarked: “I
feel like I have some self-respect back and I’m enjoying
my role”. Similarly, the Apprenticeship employment
support has enabled hitherto beneficiaries who were
previously unskilled and unemployed to access both
training and employment. Contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA)
As a result of creating jobs through the Apprenticeships
subsidy and the Pathways back to work programme, this
is estimated to contribute about £72.7 million to the GPH
economy. The Manufacturing sector, the largest sector
contributed about £53.4 million with other notable
sectors such as the Construction and Professional,
Scientific & Technical sectors expected to contribute
about £9.5 million and £2.3 million respectively. Effect on Business’ Operations
The subsidy and training support have impacted on
businesses operating in dierent sectors of the economy
with some acknowledging the support has really
impacted on their day to day activities allowing them to
take on new employees, fill existing vacancies as well as
to expand and grow the business. Business beneficiaries
are dominated by those operating in the Manufacturing
(including Renewables) sector (325 businesses) across
the various project activities – Apprenticeships (186);
Upskilling (84); LLPs (36) and Pathway to Employment
(19). A cross section of these businesses are presented
below showing the support type they received, and the
breakdown of the qualification gained.
• Daifuku Logan (Specialist in baggage system manufacture)
64 Upskilled Employees (Total Subsidy = £73,402.25)
16 NVQ 3 (AutoCAD Electrical [6]; Building Information Management [8]; Management;
Primavera Project Management)
46 NVQ 4 (BEng Engineering Technology [9]; BEng Mechanical Design; BSc
Engineering/Engineering Management[7]; Foundation Degree in Mechanical Engineering
[15]; Open Leadership Development; HNC [13])
5 NVQ 5 (MSc Mechanical Engineering; MSc Strategic Project Management [4])
12 Apprenticeships
(Total Grants Payable = £78,000)
Advanced NVQ Level 3 Framework
(Engineering and Manufacturing)
Daifuku Logan
Main activity: Specialist
in baggage handling
system manufacture
and integration
• Spencer Group (Pioneering Engineering Solutions)
33 Upskilled Employees (Total Subsidy = £45,882.53)
9 NVQ 3 (Abrasive Wheels – Setters & Instructors; Accident Investigation; BREAM 2014
UK New Construction Assessor Training Course; Cultural Safety & Implementing
Behavioural Safety [2]; Designing Bridges to Eurocodes; IOSH Managing Safely; Internal
Quality Management; Level 3 Fundamentals Course in Printer Repair)
21 NVQ 4 (AAT Diploma in Accounting [4]; CIM Diploma in Marketing; BEng Engineering
Technology; BSc Construction Project Management; BSc Quality Surveying; HNC
Construction and the Buiolt Environment [4]; HNC Electrical Engineering [2]; HNC
General Engineering [6])
3 NVQ 5 (ACCA; MBA Business Administration [2])
18 Apprenticeships (Total Grants Payable = £18,120)
1 Advanced NVQ 3 (Engineering Manufacturing)
6 Advanced NVQ 3 (Business Administration)
7 Advanced NVQ 3 (Construction)
4 Advanced NVQ 3 (IT, Software & Web Design)
Spencer Group
Main activity:
• Boston Energy (Renewable Energy Recruitment Specialist)
23 Upskilled Employees (Total subsidy = £40,860.33)
20 NVQ 3 (AP Low/High Voltage – Senior/Advanced [2]; Limpet Training [2]
Siemens Level 1-4 [13]; Siemens Zero Energy Training [3]
3 NVQ 5 (ACCA [3])
2 Apprenticeships
(Total Grants Payable = £7,980)
2 Advanced NVQ 3 (Business Administration)
Boston Energy
Main Activity:
Renewable energy
recruitment specialist
4.4.6 Conclusion
This report aimed at reviewing and measuring the
eectiveness of the strand’s programme activities on
the individual and business beneficiaries and the impact
on the Green Port Hull region. Though there were
some issues at the beginning of the Programme which
delayed the delivery, once operational it has performed
well. We have demonstrated that programmes like the
skills support activities do work and could help justify
the RGF funding in terms of training and upskilling
individuals as well as supporting at least 548 businesses
with apprenticeship and upskilling subsidy towards their
employee development and business productivity.
The overall impact of the strand activities and
interventions is boosting the skills base of the local
economies of Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire
especially for the Renewable Energy and the wider
Manufacturing sector. We have provided sucient proof
and evidence for the management of the Green Port
Growth Programme to use going forward to generate
further investment to ensure there is continuity in similar
important interventions/project activities.
4.5 Business Support and Advice Impact
by Dr Roland Y Getor
4.5.1 Introduction
The aim of the Business Support and Advice impact
assessment is to review and measure the eectiveness
of the various business support, assistance and advice
facility extended to local businesses to make them aware
of the opportunities available in the renewable energy
sector so they could compete and win contracts. This
process would involve analysis of direct and indirect
outputs data collected over the past six years as well
as drawing on information from business surveys
undertaken to gather feedback on support and advice
received, business directory eectiveness, supply chain
opportunities and the renewable sector as a whole. This
study is an important way of communicating the strand’s
contribution to achieving the Programme outcomes and
the overall vision of Green Port Hull (GPH) of making the
sub region a “world class centre for Employment, Wealth
Creation and Development”.
It is expected that the findings and recommendations
would enable Green Port Hull to:
Justify Regional Growth Fund [RGF] funding by
showing the impact of the grant on the local businesses
in terms of ability to participate, compete and win work
in the renewable energy sector and associated supply
Demonstrate the benefit of the Business Support
and Advice facility to the local economies of Hull and
East Riding of Yorkshire in the form of job creation,
contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA) and legacy.
4.5.2 Background and Context
The Business Support and Advice strand has since
2012/13 been providing targeted support activities to
businesses either directly or indirectly. Direct support
businesses are those operating directly in the renewable
and wider manufacturing sector and related supply
chain whom have been assisted to attend 12 hours
or more workshops/networking events or had their
business reviewed or received financial assistance.
Indirect support businesses on the other hand, are all
other businesses who have been helped in some way (in
receipt of advice, monthly news roundup, email alerts
and information on oshore wind related workshops/
networking events).
The processes developed by the strand has involved
business health checks for signs of stagnation,
mentoring and creation of bespoke interventions
leading to activities like business review/diagnostics;
specific business growth workshops to stimulate and
encourage development and referral to other strands
& programmes of support and finance. Similarly, the
strand’s objectives covered making opportunities visible,
accessible and winnable. These involved activities and
processes such as recruitment of dedicated supply chain
coordinator to match local companies with specific
needs/requests; development of 479 supplier directory
categories enabling direct linkage between company
product & services and renewable sector needs; training/
employment opportunities for locals; and workshops/
reviews/business growth mentoring.
The strand’s aims is to assist businesses in the Yorkshire
and Humber region, with a focus on businesses located
in Hull and the East Riding to:
Access the co-located supply chain of renewable
energy manufacturers and their associated suppliers;
as well as
Develop the environmental technologies which will
establish the Hull and East Riding region as a rich
source of accredited suppliers involved with the
emerging ‘green industries’.
Similarly, the strands overall outputs to be delivered are:
Creation of 200 jobs and supporting 200 businesses
4.5.3 Data Description
The data for this study uses primary information on
direct output businesses (together with the direct jobs
created) and indirect output businesses collected by
the Business Support and Advice strand over the 7 year
period from 2012/13 to 2018/19. Our records show that
we have 356 businesses in total, 208 (58.4%) Direct
output and 148 (41.6%) Indirect output. This would be
supplemented with feedback from Business survey
undertaken to gather information on the impact of the
strand’s support and advice facility, eectiveness of the
suppliers’ directory and supply chain in connecting the
businesses to opportunities in the renewable energy and
wider manufacturing sector.
4.5.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
The technique adopted for analysing the strand outputs
data and business survey responses mainly relies on the
use of statistical analysis to describe key features of the
business support activities and also derive explanations
of the impact (direct and indirect) of these activities
on the business beneficiaries in particular and their
employees as well as on the GPH region as a whole.
We would proceed with the analysis by investigating
and measuring the impact of the business support type
(direct and indirect) on businesses and employees,
eectiveness of the suppliers’ directory and the supply
chain impact. Impact of Business Support Type
This section focuses on how the Business Support and
Advice facility extended to businesses has impacted on
their operations over the past seven years especially
those businesses who have benefited from direct
support (12 hours+ workshops, Business review and
Financial Assistance).
54 | GIA.HULL.AC.UK Business Support Type by Business Location
The businesses who benefited from the strand’s activities
over the seven years period from June 2012 – July 2018
are depicted in Figure 10 below. The map shows most of
them are located in the Green Port Hull region with more
businesses in receipt of direct (tailored) than indirect
(basic) support especially in the Hull area.
Figure 10: Number of Businesses by Support Type (Direct and Indirect) and Business Location
Source:: Green Port Growth Programme Business Support and Advice Strand Direct and Indirect Outputs Data, 2012/13–2018/19
The evidence indicates majority of the businesses, 82.3%
(293 out of 356) are based in the Hull (194) and East
Riding of Yorkshire (99) area in line with what we would
expect given the project was intended to assist local
businesses become more competitive. In addition, we
found that 134 (69.1%) of the Hull and 58 (58.6%) of the
East Riding of Yorkshire businesses were in direct receipt
of financial assistance/grant or benefited from business
review or at least 12 hours of workshop/networking
events or a combination of the three.
The support accessed enabled these businesses to
expand and/or diversify their main business activity
or improve upon the eciency of their business
operations leading to growth and development. Of the
57 businesses who responded to the survey, 41 (71.9%)
benefited from direct support and 16 (28.1%) from
indirect support. 40 of the direct support recipients
noted that the support was adequate and tailored to
their needs. The feedback collectively noted that:
The support facility allowed them to gain access to
the renewable sector; financial assistance for business
expansion, sta training and ISO18001/ISO14001
certification. Sector of Business Operation
The strand’s key objectives revolved around making
opportunities visible, accessible and winnable for local
businesses and this involves ensuring the business
support activities and processes undertaken directly
links the business’ product and services with the
renewable sector needs. In this regard, the direct outputs
business sectors dominate since the focus is to make
these businesses competitive with the capability of
tendering for and winning contracts that come into
the local area. The evidence indicates the dominant
sector is Manufacturing – Non Food (81) together with
the following key supporting sectors – Construction
and Building services (44), Business services (27) and
Professional services (15).
Drilling further into the key direct outputs subsector
that the businesses operate in, the information shows
that the Mechanical engineering subsector has at
least 30 businesses (15.5%) engaged in activities
like steel fabrication, manufacturing of lifting and
handling equipment with some of them involved in the
construction of the Siemens Gamesa Blade Factory.
56 | GIA.HULL.AC.UK Direct Outputs Jobs Created
One of the overall project outputs of this strand is that
the support and advice facility extended to businesses
would translate into job creation. Our analysis shows that
44 businesses together employ 180 individuals on part-
time and full-time basis with the three biggest employers
by sector being Construction and building services
(76 employees); Business services (46 employees) and
Manufacturing – Non Food (38 employees).
Additionally, the jobs breakdown by local area indicates
that East Riding of Yorkshire has a greater number of
the jobs (104) whereas Hull’s share is 76. The dominant
occupational category is Associate professional and
technical occupations made up of 47 jobs in East Riding
of Yorkshire and 18 jobs in Hull. Proportionally, East Riding
of Yorkshire’s share is more than twice that of Hull due to
the dominance of wind turbine technician jobs in the East
Riding area. Figure 11 shows the location of these jobs in
the Green Port Hull subregion with a greater concentration
of jobs in the East Riding of Yorkshire area.
Figure 11: Direct Output Jobs by Location in the Green Port Hull Subregion
Source:: Green Port Growth Programme Business Support and Advice Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2018/19
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 57 Eectiveness of Suppliers Directory
To achieve its objective of making opportunities accessible
to businesses in the local area, the Business Support and
Advice team had as its ambition, ‘development of supplier
directory with 479 categories enabling direct linking
between company product & services and renewable
sector needs’. This has been ongoing over the past five
years with over 400 companies registered on the directory.
The business survey sought to find out how many of
the businesses had registered on the directory and how
eective the directory has been for those registered in
terms of being able to tender or compete for contracts and
winning contracts. For the 57 businesses who responded
to the survey, the feedback indicates the majority of them
(73.7%) are registered on the directory with about 25%
not yet registered. In addition, 37 of the 42 businesses
registered (88.1%) also have a company profile on the
directory which is a good way of advertising or marketing
the business to would be clients. Supply Chain Mapping and Successes
From the supply chain perspective, this has been one of
the key focus of the Business Support and Advice team
aimed at making opportunities visible in terms of direct
and indirect future opportunities and prospects open to
the region.
Supply Chain Type Description
Number %
Siemens Gamesa Directly (Contract from Siemens)
Indirectly (Outsourcing-Supplier/subcontractors)
Wider Oshore Wind Supply Chain 15 26.3
No Response/No/Not involved 22 38.6
Total 57 100.0
Table 5: Businesses by Supply Chain Type
Source: Survey of Business Support and Advice Strand Business Beneficiaries, 2017/18
The business survey findings show 20 businesses (35.1%)
supported by the strand are connected to Siemens
Gamesa directly through contracts won and indirectly
as suppliers or subcontractors as outlined in Table 5.
15 businesses (26.3%) are also connected to the wider
oshore wind supply chain. Further analysis of the survey
findings show those involved directly in business dealings
with Siemens Gamesa are: involved in Suitability inspection
of vessel loading blades in Hull; Recruitment Specialists
and as Accredited Siemens Gamesa supplier. Indirectly, the
9 businesses here are engaged in activities like Towage
of ships carrying wind turbine into and out of Green Port;
Supply of innovative cost saving internet broadband
connection on A2SEA Vessel and for the wider supply
chain, some of the activities undertaken are provision of
bid and tender services and commercial contracting advice
and research into proposed cable routes connecting
Oshore and Onshore Renewable Energy generation to
the UK grid network.
As a result of these businesses being involved with
Siemens or the wider oshore supply chain, 13 of them
acknowledged they had to make new investments in the
form of ISO9001 certification (with Business Support
and Advice assistance) as part of Siemens supplier
requirements, increase in sta hiring and training
4.5.5 Key Findings and Recommendations
In this section, we present the main findings of the review
and analysis of the activities undertaken by the Business
Support and Advice team aimed at assisting businesses
operating in the Green Port Hull region and use these as
the basis for highlighting the recommendations of the
study. Impact on Business’ Operations
We have shown the Business Support and Advice team
have to a large extent justified the RGF funding allocated
making a case for the suitability of medium term funding
for projects of this type. The findings have demonstrated
how the strand assisted businesses to become more
confident and with a can do spirit to go out to compete
and win contracts. The approach adopted by the strand
lead and the support team was one of constant interaction,
follow-up, monitoring and feedback leading to a healthy
and visible working relationship. Hence, direct targeted
and tailored support was also given to: 174 businesses in
the form of dedicated business review; 96 businesses who
were assisted to attend at least 12 hours of renewables
workshop/networking events; and also 77 businesses who
were in receipt of financial assistance. It is interesting to
note that these three support facilities were not mutually
exclusive in that 52 businesses benefited from two and
43 businesses benefited from all three support facilities.
Majority of the businesses noted this allowed them to
undertake much needed investment to boost and expand
their core business activity. A cross section of the feedback
from the businesses is as follows:
“Ongoing support specific to our needs and very vital
in getting the business to where it is now.” – Janie
Whitlock, Finance Director (Pure Renewables)
“As a Joint Venture and Start-up, we have received one
to one advice and direction on many occasions” – Leigh
Smith, Business Development Director (TDL Wind)
It has also helped local authorities like East Riding of
Yorkshire Council by leaving a business support legacy like
the newly opened ergo Centre located at the Bridgehead
Business Park.
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 59 Labour Market Outcomes
Business support activities have also impacted the local
economy of East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull in terms
of job creation. In this regard, about 180 new full-time
equivalent and part-time job positions have been created
over the past seven years across 7 sectors dominated
by construction and building services (76 employees),
business services (46 employees) and Manufacturing
sector (38 employees). One of the key players, Boston
Energy has been responsible for recruiting 35 specialist
employees such as Wind Turbine Technicians and
Engineers for wind farms and companies like Siemens
Gamesa over the past 5 years. Cross Strand Impact
There is evidence of very healthy collaboration which is
very visible between the Business Support and Advice,
Business Grants and Employment & Skills Development
strands enabling businesses to be able to access business
support and advice assistance as well as grants for
investment and Apprenticeships & training subsidies for
sta recruitment/training.
Source: Green Port Growth Programme Business Support and Advice Strand Direct Outputs Data, 2012/13–2018/19
Figure 12: Cross-strand Support Type Accessed by Businesses
BS & Skills
Grant & BS
Grant, BS & Skills
This holistic approach ensured all the help available was
accessed leading to businesses reaping the maximum
benefit possible. Figure 12 above indicates 92 businesses
in all benefited from cross strand support with the
collaboration with Employment and Skills Development
strand being the largest which is understandable since
employee development is key to the success and survival
of these businesses. Other strands like Inward Investment
strand played useful marketing and publicity role in
connecting businesses to business support. Contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA)
The contribution of the strand to the GVA of the local
area was estimated for the seven sectors that the jobs
were created in. The calculations show that the activities
of the strand over the past six years contributed about
£9.3 million to the GPH economy. The Construction,
Manufacturing and Administrative and support services
sectors contributed about £4.7 million, £2.8 million and £1.2
million respectively. Supply Chain Impact
The Business Support and Advice team through the
support, funding and advice activities and help of a
dedicated supply chain coordinator, have been able to
make businesses become more visible and confident to
take advantage of current opportunities like the Siemens
Gamesa investment and future opportunities that would
arise in the renewable energy sector. For instance, 16
Business Support and Advice assisted companies were
involved in the Siemens Gamesa supply chain during the
construction and/or operation phases. 13 direct output
companies made up of 7 Tier 1 contractors/suppliers and
6 Tier 2 subcontractors/suppliers and 3 indirect output
companies made up of a Tier 1 contractor and 2 Tier 2
subcontractor/supplier worked on the blade factory or
supplied materials, equipment or services. One of them
(G & S Engineering) worked as both a contractor and a
subcontractor whereas 3 of them were involved in both
the construction and operation phase. A2SEA’s role is very
crucial as they supply the vessels for shipping the blades
and taking engineers to the oshore wind farms. Similarly,
the Business Support and Advice strand introduced
Challenger Handling, an accredited Siemens Gamesa
equipment supplier (who won a contract worth £100,000)
directly to them.
Another notable supply chain is that of TDL Wind, a start-
up company directly assisted by the Business Support
and Advice team with their joint venture between Danbrit
Holdings and Thor Shipping & Transport. TDL Wind who
currently provides Vessel agency, Super cargo, Stevedore
and Road transport services to Siemens – Gamesa, has 28
potential companies in its supply chain, 9 of whom have
benefited from direct business support assistance and
created employment as well.
UNIVERSITY OF HULL | 61 Supplier Directory
The potential of the suppliers’ directory as an eective
tool of making businesses visible, accessible and winning
contracts has been demonstrated by the businesses
who have been invited to tender for contracts. From our
investigation, 8 out of the 37 businesses with a company
profile have received some form of benefit or contact
from potential clients. One of these beneficiary companies
won a £100,000 contract for the development of the Hull
Siemens development and another received a tender
enquiry from DONG (Ørsted). Other notable feedback
includes two businesses who sourced suppliers through
the directory with one of them also winning contracts.
However, a significant number of businesses (25) have
gained no direct benefit yet.
However, given the few number of businesses who
actually use it or have won contracts more work needs to
be done. There is the need for the Business Support and
Advice team to continue to work with Bluestorm Design
& Marketing Ltd with ongoing promotion of the directory
due to its potential in helping them become more visible
and thereby boosting their chances of winning contracts.
4.5.6 Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that support structures/
interventions like the Business Support and Advice
facility are helpful in making many smaller less resourced
businesses more visible and competitive through direct
and indirect support. The ripple eect of the direct
business support has been the improvement in business
eciency and business expansion/diversification leading
to the creation of 180 jobs. The potential of the supplier’s
directory in helping businesses win contracts has been
demonstrated and the supply chain impact also shown
through the work done in helping businesses access the
Siemens Gamesa supply chain and, in the case of TDL
Wind, develop the business supply chain. The activities
of the strand have also helped in leaving a legacy like the
ergo Centre.
4.6 Representative Green Port Hull
Case Studies
by Fiona Cox
4.6. 1 Introduction
A further four case studies have been selected for
discussion with a view to highlighting the breadth of
support that Green Port Hull has provided over the
course of its term. Despite being the ‘catalyst’ for, and
‘centrepiece’ of Green Port Hull22, Siemens Gamesa is
not the only case study that ought to be referenced
when assessing the impact of Green Port Hull; in fact,
the services of Green Port Hull have spanned far beyond
participants in oshore wind and the immediate supply
chain; they have stretched into other areas of renewable
energy, including solar, air and ground source, recycling
and materials handling and biomass.
4.6. 2 Case Study Approach and Building the Network
The four companies that were selected for review were:
Pure Renewables
Challenger Handling
Towne Lifting and Testing
Despite the variety of business activities, several of the
companies were contractually connected, and through
this process, it became possible to compose something
of a ‘network’ to illustrate the relationship between the
Figure 12 sets out the network, highlighting in red
circles the four companies that formed the case study
review, and their respective connections to one another,
and to other Green Port Hull supported companies. All
companies featured in the diagram have been supported
directly and indirectly by Green Port Hull. The numbers
given in green circles indicated the number of jobs and
apprentices that have been created at each organisation
since receiving support from Green Port Hull.
Among other things, an intended outcome of the
illustration is to highlight the areas of potential for other
small local businesses that are looking for an opportunity
to enter the renewables industry. It was highlighted,
by local companies themselves, at the Oshore Wind
Connections 2018 conference, held in Hull in April 2018,
that they are keen to become involved in ‘renewables’,
but are not sure how their oerings might meet the
needs of key players; from this limited network alone,
it can be seen that opportunities for participation are
varied and wide reaching, and through the support of
a partner such as Green Port Hull, introductions and
guidance can be oered.
The case study review revealed that Green Port Hull
has been particularly successful in its ability to support
smaller companies in their quest to work with tier one
and tier two organisations in several areas of renewable
energy. Without question, the impact of Green Port
Hull has been most significant in supporting small, local
organisations, as well as established players, such as
Siemens Gamesa.
2 2
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
3 1
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
Contract 1: Deugro
Stevedoring for Siemens
towers, blade and nacelles Contract 2: Siemens Hull
Supply supervising and
stevedoring services of
Contract 3: Siemens Race Bank
Vessel agency for Race Bank
Figure 13: Network of Green Port Hull supported companies (Business Support and Advice Case Studies)
4.6.3 Highlights and Conclusion
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach with the
businesses that Green Port Hull has worked with; to
assume that all forms of support provided can readily
be quantified or packaged into a framework is not
realistic. In some cases, young organisations might not
be aware of the areas in which they need support, but
a partner such as Green Port Hull – especially now with
a breadth of local and industry knowledge – is uniquely
well positioned to oer ad hoc, bespoke guidance on
an ongoing basis, which could, ultimately, be more
fundamental than direct grant funding, or otherwise. It
diers to other consultancies in that it is publicly funded:
therefore, turning a profit is not an objective of Green
Port Hull in the same way that it is for other businesses
and consultancies; it is able to act truly in support of the
greater good.
The impact of Green Port Hull on local businesses, as
illustrated by these selected case studies is apparent,
but not straight forward to sum up in a quantitative
way – which, unfortunately, is often considered to be the
most meaningful when assessing impact. Economically,
it is clear to see that these four businesses, in their own
words and evidenced by their financial performance,
would not have enjoyed the substantial growth that
they have without the support that they have received
from Green Port Hull. It has meant the creation of
employment in all cases, which, in turn, has secured new
wage packets and therefore increased local spending
for the region. From a social perspective, Green Port
Hull’s involvement with these companies has ensured
the provision of training, upskilling and certification of
apprentices and permanent employees, in areas where
there has been a growing skills shortage, and this, in
turn, will secure higher salaries in the future, causing
further economic gain for the local area, together
with the expectation for improved well-being through
securing employment. The fact that two of the four
companies are heavily committed to social enterprise
– Enviromail through its stang and training and Pure
Renewables through its charitable contributions – is an
additional contribution to local well-being, which will,
in turn, yield benefits further economic benefits for the
Humber, theoretically.
23. Formerly ‘Siemens Wind Power’ prior to merger with Gamesa which completed on 3rd April 2017
24. DISCLAIMER: Findings, results and commentary are pertaining to the model in use at the time of writing
(November 2018); changes, revisions and amendments are still highly likely and may alter results and
inferences; the model has been significantly updated since the ‘pilot’ study which reported a multiplier finding
of 1.47; this is now out of date and the new findings presented in this report ought to replace it; a note
detailing the implications of the new model are contain in Section 5.7.5 of the GIA Final Report
25. Brownrigg, M., 1971. The Regional Income Multiplier: An Attempt to Complete the Model. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy Vol. 19(3) p.281-297
4.7 Siemens Gamesa and ABP’s
Socioeconomic Impact
by Fiona Cox
4. 7. 1 Introduction
One of the core objectives of the Green Port Impact
Assessment project was to assess the socioeconomic-
environmental impact of Siemens Gamesa23’s investment
in Hull, to provide insight into maximising the benefits of
the investment for the region, in the hope of attracting
players in the supply chain.
One of the tools used to assess the socioeconomic
impact is the Keynesian multiplier model. Rather than
adopt a standard multiplier specification, the Green
Port Impact Assessment team, through the research of
a Green Port Hull sponsored Economics PhD, was able
to modify the traditional formulation in the hope of
establishing a more representative multiplier estimate,
which is notoriously challenging, according to the
literature24. This was made feasible by the availability
of primary data collected through self-complete
questionnaires, by the Green Port Impact Assessment
team from the employees at the Siemens Gamesa blade
4. 7. 2 The Multiplier Theory and Model
The concept of a multiplier can be explained as follows:
a cash injection will cause an increase in income,
employment and/or output by some multiple of the
initial injection25.
Figure 14 provides a conceptual illustration of this
process, using Siemens Gamesa and ABP’s investment; it
shows the initial investment separating into two phases:
construction and O&M. This investigation has focused
predominantly on estimating a multiplier for the O&M
phase, though some data was also collected for the
construction phase. The multiplicand (injection) that is
being used in this investigation is the total wage bill; in
other words, the cost of the employees. Leakages from
the wages received by the hires are assumed to include:
taxation and National insurance
personal savings
personal propensity to import goods and services from
outside the Humber: direct expenditure on goods and
services outside the Humber (e.g. making a shopping
trip to a neighbouring region and making a purchase
from the region)
regional propensity to import goods and services from
outside the Humber: indirect expenditure on goods
that were imported to the Humber in the first instance
(e.g. purchasing a coee from a major coee shop
chain during a worker’s break– only a very small portion
of that expenditure will remain the Humber, including
the wage of the barista and the business rates and
services charges of the coee shop).
Figure 14: Conceptual illustration of multiplier process – the rounds of spending and associated leakages
Local spending
Local spending
phase costs
Other operating
Taxes and
Local spending
on non-local
Taxes and
Local spending
on non-local
O&M phase
Investment injection typesFirst round of spending
Second round of spending
Whatever income is left after those leakages are
deducted will flow into the next round of expenditure,
and the process continues. Intuitively, therefore, a large
multiplier can be expected when each of the above
leakages are very small, for example, those associated
with individuals who pays base rate tax, save nothing,
and who spend the majority of their money directly in
the Humber region and specifically on locally produced
goods, such as those sold at Beverley Farmers’ market.
Conversely, a small multiplier can be expected if
individuals are paying the highest rate of tax, saving
the majority of what is left, and spending the balance
outside the Humber, or at large retails chains in the
region. A small multiplier might also occur if an individual
does not reside in the Humber (such as those employed
during the construction phase); in that case, despite
earning a wage in the Humber region, all spending might
take place elsewhere, with little left to flow through the
further rounds of spending. The latter is not expected to
be the case in this investigation, since, from the outset,
Siemens Gamesa committed to hiring more than 90%
of its new employees from within 30 miles of the blade
26. Glasson, J., et al. 1988. A Local Income and Employment Multiplier Analysis of a Proposed Nuclear Power
Station Development in Hinkley Point in Somerset. Urban Studies Vol. 25(1988) p. 248-261
27. Armstrong, H. W., 1988. Variations in the local impact of district council assisted small manufacturing firms.
Local Government Studies Vol. 14(3) p. 21-33
28. Greig, M. A., 1971. The Regional Income and Employment Multiplier Eects of a Pulp Mill and Paper Mill.
Scottish Journal of Political Economy Vol. 18(1) p. 31-48 Results
Once the data was collected and an esimation method
was determined, the resultant multiplier estimate was
found to be: 1.08, or, at 95% level of confidence, it is a
value between 1.073 and 1.087. In other words, for every
£1 of Siemens Gamesa’s investment in wages for its new
employees at the blade factory, an additional £0.08
of disposible income is created, through the rounds of
On first view, this might not appear to be a particularly
substantial creation. However, on closer investigation,
it is very much in line with results reported from similar
studies in the literature26,27. Historically, studies assumed
that individuals do not remit their wages outside the
scope region – unless they were commuting into the
region for work and lived elsewhere; the assumption
was: all disposable income was spent locally, and from
that, there might be a regional import leakage where
goods and services had been brought into the region,
to varying extents, based on how industrialised it was.
Those studies28 yielded higher multiplier estimates and
perhaps suitably so for the time period (1960s and 70s).
In 2018, however, it is not reasonable to apply the same
assumptions. The data collected in this investigation
revealed that ~40% of disposable income is directly
remitted outside the Humber by the new employees of
Siemens Gamesa; and of the proportion that is spent
locally, an estimated 80% leaks out through regional
imports of goods and services.
Disaggregation of multiplier estimates by
socioeconomoc group can be viewed in the GIA Final
Std. Err. zF>lzl Normal-based
[95% Conf. Interval]
1.080026 .0035733 302.25 0.000 1.073023 1.08703
Table 6 (a): Bootstrap Results for Individual Multiplier Estimates
4.7.3 Discussion and Implications for Green Port Hull
In summary, these results suggest that, almost regardless
of the type of investment, or the nature of the workforce,
the multiplier is likely to be what it is as a result of how
integrated the Humber region is within the network
of other UK regions. If as much of 80% of the goods
and services sold within the Humber are imported
inter-regionally, or internationally, then the saving and
spending habits of the workers and inhabits of the
region almost do not matter because a large portion will
leak out as a result of the regional import propensity.
This says more about the interconnected position of
the Humber within the wider UK economy and possibly
also says something about the extent of globalisation,
than it does about this particular investment. In order to
generate a larger multiplier, local authorities would need
to provide an incentive for workers to shop, not only
within the region, but at providers of Humber-sourced
goods and services, which, in an ever digital world, is
increasingly challenging.
It also says something about use of the multiplier
concept, in isolation from other tools, as an approach
to impact assessment. While an understanding of how
multipliers vary by socioeconomic group is interesting,
and might, in some contexts, reveal how a larger
multiplier could be achieved, to only use a multiplier
tool for impact assessment research would be limiting
and probably insucient. These results imply that the
Siemens Gamesa investment has a return of 8p per £1 of
investment through employee wages, yet in reality that is
only one very small piece of a much wider story, which is
better assessed through multiple and varied estimation
techniques, including through outcomes, rather than
4. 7.4 A Note about Revisions to the Model
Prior to undertaking the research discussed throughout
Section 5.7, a preliminary study (now referred to as the
‘pilot study’) was conducted using an older version of a
multiplier model and with a sample of 54 observations,
all of whom were employees of Siemens Gamesa and
who were undergoing pre-O&M training outside the
Humber. With such little guidance in the literature –
on the topic of data collection for multiplier studies
– the principle aim of the pilot study was to support
data collection procedures, as well as to gain a better
understanding of how ques