UK small and medium-sized businesses spend an estimated 11.4 hours a month administering utilities, equivalent to approximately 17 eight-hour working days a year, according to a survey commissioned by provider Everflow. The estimate covers routine work associated with energy, water, waste and connectivity services.
Censuswide surveyed 250 UK SME decision-makers between 29 May and 9 June 2026. Respondents were middle managers or more senior employees with responsibilities involving utilities, such as finance, procurement and facilities management. The findings therefore reflect a selected group of respondents, rather than time recorded directly across all British businesses.
Everflow found that only 41% of respondents had chosen all of their water, waste and telecommunications suppliers themselves. Many had inherited one or more relationships when occupying premises, while 14% said they had never reviewed those arrangements.
Inherited contracts can remain in place for practical reasons. A small company taking over a premises may prioritise keeping essential services running over examining every supplier agreement. However, contracts left unchanged for years may no longer match usage patterns, staffing or commercial needs.
The survey also identified gaps in monitoring. Fifty-three per cent did not actively monitor all three of the services examined in that part of the research. Some tracked only part of their provision, while others reviewed expenditure without checking the underlying quantity used.
Water, energy and waste contracts have different pricing structures and operational implications. A rising invoice may result from additional consumption, a new tariff, unexpected charges or changes in service delivery. Without reliable records, managers can find it difficult to identify the cause and decide whether action is worthwhile.
Administration can involve reviewing invoices, checking contract dates, resolving errors, reporting faults and comparing suppliers. These tasks may be spread across several employees, especially where a small company does not have a dedicated procurement or facilities team.
The 11.4-hour monthly estimate equates to around 137 hours annually. Expressing that as working days makes the scale easier to understand, but it does not establish a matching financial loss. The value of released time would depend on employees’ responsibilities and whether the business could use it for productive alternative work.
Everflow argues that combining some services with one provider could reduce administrative duplication. As a company selling several utility-related products, it has a commercial interest in that interpretation. Consolidation might simplify billing and communication, but it could also reduce supplier diversity or leave the customer dependent on one organisation for several services.
Other SMEs may benefit from keeping specialist arrangements for individual requirements, particularly where they have unusual waste needs, energy-intensive processes or demanding connectivity systems. The best structure depends on price, service quality, contract flexibility and the consequences of an interruption.
A practical review might establish which contracts are current, when renewals occur, what is consumed and how much staff time is spent resolving queries. That information is more useful for commercial decisions than an average survey result applied without adjustment to an individual company.
Administrative effort is not evenly distributed across the year. Renewals, supplier changes and disputes can create occasional peaks, while routine invoice handling may take relatively little time in other months. A single average does not reveal whether the burden arises from complex contracts, multiple locations, poor supplier service or insufficient internal systems.
The survey was published in October but conducted several months earlier, so it describes respondents’ experience at the time of fieldwork. Utility prices and individual contracts may have changed since then. Managers using the findings should therefore combine them with current bills, their own records and any contractual deadlines rather than assuming a national average applies to their business.
The findings draw attention to an operational activity that can be overlooked until a bill changes or a service fails. The scope for savings will differ between businesses, and neither the survey nor a supplier’s proposed solution provides evidence of an automatic financial return.
You must be logged in to post a comment.