Respondents to the survey were requested to indicate the growth in their turnover from the supply of security products and services over the last 5 years and their expectations for growth in turnover for the next 5 years. In addition, respondents were requested to indicate their expectations for the development of demand for security products and services in the foreseeable future for different broad customer groups (cf. public sector, critical infrastructure sectors, business sector, and private individuals and households) and by geographical area (cf. national market, Europe, outside Europe).
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Moreover, growth in the cyber security area has been stronger than for ‘other’ security products and ‘other’ security services; for example, 29% of respondents whose main security activities are in the area of cyber security report growth between 3% and 10% (i.e. ‘increased by between 3% and
10%’), compared to only 21% and 14% of respondents whose main business is in the area of ‘other’ security products and ‘other’ security services, respectively.6
At the other end of the growth distribution, 7% of respondents whose main area of business is in the supply of ‘other’ security products and 8% of respondents who provide ‘other’ security services reported negative growth by more than 25% in the last 5 years.
3.10.2 Future turnover growth prospects
Respondents offer a moderately positive outlook for turnover growth for the next 5 years, as shown in Figure 3.31 and Figure 3.32. Overall, a total of 39% of respondents7 indicate that they expect turnover to remain the same (i.e. is ‘remained more or less the same [+/- 2%]’) over the next 5 years and a further 54% expecting turnover to increase (i.e. ‘increase by between 3% and 10%’, ‘increase by between 11% and 25%’, ‘increase by more than 25%’). Only 7% of respondents expect their turnover from the supply of security products and services to decline over the coming 5 years.
At the same time, there appears to be a positive outlook for cyber security. In fact, a comparison of responses on past turnover performance and future turnover expectations shows that among respondents whose main security business relates to cyber security, 63% of respondents expect future turnover growth to exceed that of the past 5 years and only 9% expect it to decrease.8 The corresponding percentages for ‘other’ security products are 52% and 6% respectively. Among companies providing ‘other’ security services 50% of respondents expect future turnover growth to exceed that of the past 5 years and 7% expect it to decrease.
Figure 3.29 Turnover growth over past 5 years (number of respondents)
41 38 53 70 18 23 15 42 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 3.30 Distribution of turnover growth by main broad industry category (% of respondents in broad industry category, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
Figure 3.31 Turnover growth expectation for next 5 years (number of respondents)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland) 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
All respondents Cyber security Other security products Other security services
32 45 63 101 7 7 4 41 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 3.32 Distribution of turnover growth expectations for next 5 years by main broad industry category (% of respondents in broad industry category, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
3.10.3 Future demand prospects by broad customer group and geographical area
Respondents offer a positive outlook for future demand prospects for security products and services in terms of expected geographical distribution, with more than 70% of respondents indicating that they expect positive growth in demand across all geographical regions; see Figure 3.33.9 Overall, demand expectations appear to be strongest for markets in Europe (i.e. ‘Europe’) and weakest for the domestic market (i.e. ‘national market as a whole’). At the same time, looking at the balance of expectations for different customer groups, the strongest positive expectations are for the ‘business sector’ (i.e. private industry and services) (64% of respondents overall) and weakest for ‘private individuals and households’ (50% of respondents overall) expecting positive growth in demand among this customer group.
Figure 3.34 and Figure 3.35 provide a breakdown based on respondents main broad industry category (see Section 3.3). As with turnover growth expectations (overall, not taking account of future growth expectations relative to past growth performance), respondents whose main security activities are in the area of cyber-security have (on balance) the strongest positive expectations for future demand growth across all geographical areas and all broad customer groups. Although it is necessary to be cautious in interpreting findings for respondents in the area of cyber-security due to the small sample for this question, it nevertheless appears that cyber-security respondents have (on balance) a relatively positive outlook on future demand prospects. The patterns of demand growth expectations for ‘other’ security products and ‘other’ security services are very similar across broad customer groups, but there appear to be stronger expectations for future growth on the European and international markets for respondents whose main activities are in ‘other’ security
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Figure 3.33 Distribution of demand growth expectations by customer groups and geographical area (% of respondents, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
Figure 3.34 Distribution of demand growth expectations by customer groups and by main broad industry category (% of respondents, excluding no answer / don't know)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Public sector
Critical infrastructure sectors
Business sector
Private individuals and households
National market as a whole
Europe
Outside Europe
Increase strongly Increase slightly Stay roughly the same Decrease slightly Decrease strongly
Cyber security Public sector Critical infrastructure sectors Business sector Private individuals and… Other security products
Public sector Critical infrastructure sectors Business sector Private individuals and… Other security services
Public sector Critical infrastructure sectors Business sector Private individuals and…
Cyber security
Other security products
Figure 3.35 Distribution of demand growth expectations by geographical area and by main broad industry category (% of respondents, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
Feedback from national stakeholders Key drivers to industry development
Companies in security industry in Poland are characterized by a highly skilled and experienced staff and are an important factor for the development of the security sector in Poland.
Currently there are not many security associations and confederations in Poland, who would act on behalf of small businesses and organize them, thus increasing the "visibility" of security firms on the market. Increasing the number of security associations and confederations is important for the future development of the security sector in Poland. In addition, association should be authorized to certify small businesses. Certification of small businesses would raise their competitiveness - the company would have necessary certificate to compete with other companies and enter new markets. This could be a second, in addition to low prices, factor representing the competitiveness of SMEs in the Polish security sector.
Key barriers to industry development
One of the key barriers for the development of security industry in Poland is the current legislation, which does not provide sufficient support for SMEs in the security sector. Due to current regulations, it is difficult for SMEs to export abroad. In addition, Poland has a rather restrictive fiscal policy, which imposes high economic obligations on businesses and makes it burdensome to set up new companies.
Maintenance costs and customer retention costs for a company in the security sector are very high. In addition, SMEs do not have the resources for marketing activities.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cyber security National market as a whole Europe Outside Europe Other security products National market as a whole Europe Outside Europe Other security services National market as a whole Europe Outside Europe
Increase strongly Increase slightly Stay roughly the same Decrease slightly Decrease strongly
Cyber security
Other security services Other security products
3.11 Competitors
Respondents to the survey were requested to indicate the geographical region from which their main competitors come from, using the following classification: Local/regional area (i.e. sub-national level); National area (i.e. from within the country as a whole); European countries (EU and non-EU); Outside of Europe. In addition, where respondents indicated that they faced competition from companies from a particular geographical region they were requested to indicate their expectations for development of competition from that geographical region in the future (i.e., over the next 5 years).
3.11.1 Geographical origin of main competitors – all products and services
Overall, as show in Figure 3.36, approximately 80% of respondents indicate that their main competitors come from within the domestic sector only, of which 38% indicate that their main competitors are only at a local (sub-national) level (i.e. ‘Domestic: regional only’) and 31% state that their main competitors are at national level (i.e. ‘Domestic: national’). Only 16% of respondents indicate that their main competitors come from both the domestic sector and from abroad (i.e. ‘Domestic and international’ sub-categories), while only 4% of companies indicate that their main competitors come exclusively from abroad.
Figure 3.36 Geographical origin of main competitors (number and % of respondents, excluding no answer / don't
knows)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
3.11.2 Breakdown by main broad category of security products and services
Figure 3.37, Figure 3.38 and Figure 3.39 provide a breakdown of main competitors for, respectively, Domestic: regional only, 114,
38%
Domestic: regional and national, 33, 11% Domestic: national, 93, 31%
Domestic & International, 49, 16%
area of ‘other’ security products indicate that their main competitors come from abroad, compared to just 3% of respondents whose main activity relates to the supply of cyber-security products and services.
Figure 3.37 Cyber-security products and services: geographical origin of main competitors (number and % of respondents, excluding no answer / don't knows)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
Figure 3.38 'Other' security products: geographical origin of main competitors (number and % of respondents,
excluding no answer / don't knows)
Domestic: regional only, 20, 30% Domestic: regional and national, 4, 6% Domestic: national, 30, 46% Domestic & International (Europe only), 8, 12% Domestic & International (Europe and outside Europe),
2, 3%
International: Europe only, 2, 3%
Domestic: regional only, 54, 40%
Domestic: regional and Domestic: national, 33, 25%
Domestic & International (Europe only), 16, 12%
Domestic & International (Europe and outside Europe),
7, 5%
Domestic & International
Figure 3.39 'Other' security services: geographical origin of main competitors (number and % of respondents,
excluding no answer / don't knows)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
3.11.3 Future competition prospects by geographical origin of main competitors
Conditional on respondents’ identification of the geographical origin of their main competitors, Figure 3.40 and Figure 3.41 show the distribution of respondents’ expectation for the future development of competition based on the geographical origin of competitors. Overall, the general pattern is that respondents expect (on balance) stronger increases in competition from foreign companies – particularly from Europe – than from domestic rivals. This is especially the case for ‘other’ security services (71%) and ‘other’ security products (68%); however given the small sample size of respondents, these finding should be interpreted cautiously. The same is true for cyber security regarding expectations on competition from abroad.10 Looking at expectations on domestic competition, 60% of respondents whose main security related activities are in ‘other’ security services expect domestic competition to increase in the future. The corresponding figure for ‘other’ security products is 53% and 50% for cyber security.
Domestic: regional only, 40, 41%
Domestic: regional and national, 11, 11% Domestic: national, 30, 31%
Domestic & International (Europe only), 9, 9%
Domestic & International (Europe and outside Europe),
2, 2%
Domestic & International
Figure 3.40 Distribution of expectations of change in competition by geographical origin of competitors (% of respondents, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
Figure 3.41 Distribution of expectations of change in competition by geographical origin of competitors and by main broad industry category (% of respondents, excluding no answer / don't know)
Source: Ecorys SSS (Poland)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Regional
National
International (Europe)
International (outside Europe)
Increase strongly Increase slightly Stay roughly the same Decrease slightly Decrease strongly
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cyber security Regional National International (Europe) International (outside Europe) Other security products Regional National International (Europe) International (outside Europe) Other security services Regional National International (Europe) International (outside Europe)
Increase strongly Increase slightly Stay roughly the same Decrease slightly Decrease strongly
Cyber security
Other security products