Business Performance Analysis: Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc
The main aim of this report is to prepare the report on the comparative analysis. For this report, two companies of the property renting industry are selected. In this, Grainger Plc is selected as the primary company and Rightmove Plc is selected competitor company. In order to complete this research aim, the researcher is critically analysed each both companies. For this, SWOT and PESTEL analyse are studied by the researcher.
At the same time, the researcher also conducted the financial analysis of the both companies. It helps the researcher to analysis to complete the comparative analysis. In this report, the researcher also provides the discussion on the company back ground information. Moreover, literature review is developed to critically analysis the past research findings.
This report is also important to enhance the knowledge and understating on the various financial analysis tools including the ratio analysis, vertical analysis and horizontal analysis. In regard of this, last five years financial analysis of the both companies is developed.
This research paper is also effective to develop the theoretical understanding of the various significant topics such as SWOT and PESTEL analysis as well as ratio, vertical and horizontal analysis.
Grainger Plc:
Grainger plc is a well know British company in the proper and rental sector. It is a public company that was founded in 1912 by Dickinson. Initially the company was hired or acquired tenanted residential properties. Even through, the main joinery of the company was started between the 1970 and 1980.
The main of the company is to be leading organisation in the property market of UK. Along with this, the company also has an aim to develop the value on customers and share holders mind.
Rightmove Plc:
Rightmove Plc is the UK’s largest property portal. The main objective of the company is to empower the UK’s decisions around property. The company helps the people to search the best place for their residence where they can feel happy. Rightmove business strategy is to increase the sales of the company in the UK’s market.
Along with this, it also wants to reach the largest audience of UK. Rightmove was founded in 2000 by the top four corporate estate agencies including Connells, Halifax and Royal and Sun Alliance and Country wide. During the starting, the website of the company was free to list with charging introduced in January 2002.
The company offers the excellence service for the peoples that have intend to buy new home. It expanded business in the mid of the financial year 2002 and 2004. The company was hired agents for increase sell. In 2006, the company has registered the London Stock Exchange. Furthermore, in 2007, the company introduced property advertising products to attract the new customers and agents.
Literature review helps to conduct the research on past researches and literature of the pervious researchers. In this report, literature review is a significant part that enhances the quality of the research. Researcher discuses the research topic to achieve the research aims and objective.
At the same time, in this section, the researcher critically analyse PESTEL and SWOT analysis. Additionaly, it also supports the report by the ratio analysis, vertical analysis and horizontal analysis (Hollensen, 2015). Literature review is the best way of developing the depth understanding of the research topic. In this part, the researcher has focuses to discuss the qualitative and relevant researches.
For this, the researcher only focused on the secondary research including research article, blogs, newspapers, books that are important to increase the validity and reliability of the research topic as well as developing the understating.
SWOT Analysis, Financial Analysis and Corporate and Social Responsibility
According to Pucciarelli and Kaplan (2016), Swot analysis is effective to measure the environment around an organisation where it is operating. Swot analysis is acronym form of the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats. SWOT analysis helps the organisation to analysis its strengths and weakness.
It is also effective to measure the new project and industry on the basis of for main element of the analysis. It is helpful to analyse the operation of the company in the context of the firm’s objective. It enables the analyst to internal and external operation.
In the views of Devitt, et al. (2016), elements of the SWOT analysis such as strengths and weaknesses are related to the internal environment while the opportunity and threat are linked with the external environment. Swot analysis is helpful to define the supporting and non supportive factors of an organisation. It also suggests the way by company can earn more.
In the support this Ayub, et al. (2013) depict that in the strategic management, Swot analysis is a significant technique to understand the strengths and weakness of the company.
In the same concern of this, Swot analysis also enables the organisation to determine the external environment opportunities and threats. In the swot analysis, strength refers to the some special characteristic that provides the competitive advantage to the company. Beside of this, the element weakness refers to area where organisation is weak to earn profit.
The external topic such as opportunity indicates to the some factors of the environment that the business or project could feat to its advantage. At the end, threat points out the factors in the business environment that can be cause to problem for the business.
The research study of Chen, et al. (2014) draws that SWOT analysis is quite important for an organisation to future planning for achieving the research aim and objective. On the basis of the finding of the SWOT analysis, the decision maker can identify whether research objective are achievable or not. In the situation, when the objective are not achievable then are company can make different objectives.
In oppose of this, the research findings of Yuan, (2013) define that during the application of the SWOT analysis, the business analyst should keep in mind that it is an important stage where company will develop strategy and plan to achieve profit. Therefore, it is important to conduct the SWOT analyse carefully.
It also suggests that researcher should always keep in mind that swot analysis only concern on issue by focusing on strengths, weakness, opportunities and threat. Due to this, it is critical to identify the each business problem for management. In the same concern of this, Posch, et al. (2015) determines that SWOT analysis includes some limitation because it does not priorities issues in the business environment.
Along with this, it does not provide the alternative solution of the issue. However, SWOT analysis depicts the some ideas but it does not suggest which one is better. This analysis is provides the lots of information but it does not ensure that all information are useful.
Yuan (2013) discusses the SWOT analysis in the different meaning and words. In this, it posits that the business analyst that take the help SWOT analyse should ask and answer questions that should also generate relevant information on the elements of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
It is helpful to make an effective strategy that can provide the competitive advantage. In oppose of this, Slack (2015) explores that SWOT analysis is a subjective process that shows the bias of the researcher on order to collect the data and information. Along with this, it is also possible that the collected data and information may be outdated.
On the other hand, financial analysis is the procedure of assessment of a business utilizing data from financial statements and reports including income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement.
Through this, firms use accounting ratios and other information sources to make a comparison against business’ past performance or competitors’ performance to decide the market position, prospects and appropriateness for investment.
Not just the financial analysis is imperative for potential and existing speculators; it is additionally an essential instrument for the business to set up venture, financing and dividend distribution. Investment approach helps to determine different elements of total assets of business, financing policy is used to decide capital structure of business and fund sources, and dividend policy decides how much divided should be given to investors (Ayub, et al. 2013).
The fundamental objective of a business is to augment investors’ or partners’ investment and financial analysis is essential to evaluate business’ position in the market and summarizes future objectives, upgrades and directions.
For the betterment of representativeness and exactness of financial data in analysis, financial information should be combined with various different tools like market information, time series data and theories like CAPM.
Accounting ratios are effective strategy of examining financial information to make the financial information more useful and informative to make decisions by the professionals and non-professionals (Yuan, 2013).
Examination of ratios can be done in two ways; one of them is to determine financial performance for the same business by analysing the ratios to know any deterioration or improvement.
Another way is to determine the financial performance for the business by comparing with the industry or competitor’s performance. Ratios can be categorised in different forms. One of the key ratios is profitability ratio that measures profit margins and market to book value of business to determine the ability of the firm in providing returns to the investors (Posch, et al. 2015).
Moreover, it focuses on the return on investment of the company in stock as well as on the assets. It also helps the company to analyse whether the operational profit is made by the company from their assets. Hence, it is in context of the efficiency ratio because it shows how well the assets are adopted by the company for generating the maximum number of profit.
It can also be called as the key concept of the going concern as well as solvency. Additionally, the profitability ratio purpose is to analyse the operating efficiency of the business as well as the business returns that is generated by the business (Buckley, et al. 2016).
It consists of various types of profitability ratio that includes gross margin ratio, profit margin, return on assets, return on capital employed and return on equity.
Solvency or liquidity ratios are useful to know the effectiveness of the firm in meeting the obligations. Furthermore, it mainly focuses on the sustainability of the company for the long term instead of current liability payments of the company.
It also shows whether the company is able to make payments or pay off for its obligations for the long term to creditors, banks and bondholders (Zalengera, et al. 2014).
It is also helpful to know how much there is dependency on its creditors as well as by the banks by the organization. Solvency ratio includes debt to equity ratio, equity ratio and debt ratio.
Efficiency ratios are used to determine the efficiency of the assets utilized. Moreover, it also estimate the time that takes company to assemble the cash from the customers.
It also takes time to convert stock into cash. This ratio goes hand in hand with the ratio that is profitability ratios. Its main focus is on analysing the turnover of receivables, liabilities repayment, quantity as well as equity usage. With the help of efficiency ratio the commercial as well as investment banks performance can be analysed (Finkler, et al. 2016).
The solvency ratio can be compared to the peers within the same industry as well as helpful in identifying the businesses that can be managed in the better way.
On the other hand, shareholder ratios are effective to determine the performance level of the firm in perspective of share price, dividend and market capital. At the same time, capital structure or leverage ratios are used to decide the strategic level decisions based on the financial position of the company.
Apart from ratio analysis, horizontal and vertical analyses are used to analyze the business performance of the firms. In the views of Finkler, et al. (2016), horizontal analysis is useful in comparing the financial data and ratios during different periods to analyze trend and determine the unpredicted changes for future examination.
On the other hand, vertical analysis is used to analyze different elements in the financial statements in terms of percentage of key variable such as total assets, total liabilities or total revenue. It helps the firms and investors to know the changes in policies and business models.
Financial analysis is an imperative instrument utilized by various distinctive market members. Banks and debtors have interest in determining the capacity of a business to pay back the obligation and how soon the obligations might be gotten back to, concentrating on cash flow measures (Li, et al. 2016).
On the other hand, investors want to determine whether the firm will continue to pay dividends and adequate returns. At the same time, managers are interested to determine the outcomes of the firm’s operations for planning the future strategies and making decisions.
Regulatory bodies are interested to analyse the financial statements of the firms to check whether the firms are complying with all accounting standards and rules.
According to Crosby and Henneberry (2016), financial analysis is helpful in simplifying financial statements for developing understanding about the financial performance and comparing different sizes firms.
At the same time, this analysis is also significant for different stakeholders like investors, competitors, government agencies, regulatory bodies and organization itself to make decisions regarding the firm’s performance. But at the same time, Jones, et al. (2016) argued that the financial analysis has own disadvantages like difficulty in comparing the farms’ performance from different industries.
In addition, it may lead to wrong decisions based on financial analysis because it is done on the basis of the past performance and the business environment keeps changing that may also change the financial results for the firm in current time.
In the words of Barkham and Frodsham (2015), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be referred as the obligation of the firm towards the fulfilment of stakeholders’ expectations including customers, employees and communities and environment.
It is required for the firms to fulfil their duties towards the environmental protection and community development. In relation to this, Chegut, et al. (2014) also stated by focusing on 3Ps theory that the firms need to focus on people and planet with the consideration of profit motives of the organization.
On the other hand, Wardhaugh (2014) opined that CSR is based on shared values as firms need to create value for the society by contributing in community development and environmental protection.
Due to increasing awareness among the people, the concerns towards CSR has increased for the firms as they try to reduce their carbon footprint and donate a significant amount in the development of community in different areas like education, poverty and health.
The use of CSR helps the firms to develop strong brand image among the customers and persuade their buying behaviour towards their products and services to increase revenues and get more profits.
According to Li, et al. (2016) PESTEL analysis is acronym form of the political, economic, social, technology, legal and environmental. It is a significant framework that is used to evaluate the macro factors of the business environment. The main objective of developing the PESTEL analysis is to identify the critical factors such as that can affect the operation of the company. Moreover, PESTLE analysis is the macro environment factor by, which organization is influenced but out of direct out of its direct control.
In the views of (Niederwieser, et al. 2016) with the help of the PESTEL analysis an organisation can have impact on political, economic, social, technology, legal and environmental factor of the country where it is operating. This analysis concerns on the macro environment analysis. It can also be called as the framework that is useful for the organization to scan the macro environment externally.
Political factor
Posch, et al. (2015) stated that in order to run the business, an organisation has to face the political issue. The political factor involves trade restrictions, environmental regulations, political stability, employment laws, tariffs, and trade reforms.
In the same concern of this, the political factor that is related to the pressures as well as opportunities and the degree to, which the government policies impact the business. It includes government policies, government term and change, trading policies, and corruption.
Economic factors
Ayub, et al. (2013) examined the economic factors play a significant role in the business environment. Economic factor has a vital impact on the organisational performance that includes economic growth, recession, inflation rate, interstate taxes, interest rates, minimum wage, maximum working hours, wage rates, embargoes and exchange rate.
In the views of Posch, et al. (2015), the economic factor includes currency inflation rate, currency exchange rate, level of economic rate, and interest rates.
Social factor
Social factors are also considered in the PESTLE analysis. It concern on the cultural, community and society where the organisation running its business operation. Social factors concerns on the cultural expectations, population dynamics, career altitudes, global warming, norms, healthy consciousness etc (Jaber, et al. 2015).
Technological factors
In the current business environment, the role of the technology is important to minimise the cost of the company and increase the profit. It involves the use of the technology in the production and operation.
Along with this, the innovation and development also comes under the technology factors. Devitt, et al (2016) stated that the technological factor includes the development of technology in the country or the region. This factor can be determined by the current rate of technological development as well as diffusion.
Legal factor
According to the views of Jannesson, et al. (2014) legal factor helps to focus on the legal the factor of the business environment that includes the employment, quotas, taxation, imports, exports, resources, etc. It also includes the legal basis for property rights and contract enforcement.
Environmental Factor
Under the environmental factor, an organisation focuses on the ecological and environmental elements with the focusing on the corporate social responsibility. It also includes natural calamities, as well as other nearby sources. Environmental factor includes environment analysis of the number of issues of the country that have affected the companies.
According to Gunawardena, et al. (2015) in the economic growth of UK, the role of the property industry is significant. The market value of UK property industry is £1,662bn that is 21% of the total net wealth. At the same time, property market contributes £94 bn to UK economy which represent the 5.4% of GDP.
The property industry of the UK also provides employee to the people in significant number. The UK’s real estate industry provides employment to 2.1 million people that include the 6.8% of the total labour force. In UK, property industry plays a significant role to minimise the unemployment rate that provide strength to the economic performance of the country.
In the view of Crosby and Henneberry, (2016) real estate or property is important part of the human being life. It is because people spend their lots of time in the building and homes etc. In UK, the mostly building are private home of the citizen.
In the UK’ property sector, there are both kind of buildings including commercial and non commercial. In the commercial building, there are corporate office of the different companies while in the non commercial building, there are home residence of the peoples.
The commercial properties enable the owner to raise the return in the context of rent and lease. It contains the medical, hotel properties office, retail, industrial, leisure, and residential property. At the same time, it is important to development of the different cities in UK.
Nowadays, UK’s people have trend to invest in the real estate that provides direct benefit to companies that are involving in this sector. The development of the cities and rural are by the help of real estate sector helps to improve the lifestyle of the peoples (Jones, et al. 2016).
Along with this, it also found that that the financial service providing companies including banks and financial institution also supports the property sector in UK. They provide the sufficient capital to the companies to complete their projects. As well as financial firms also provide fund to people that want to buy their own home.
The research study of Barkham and Frodsham, (2015) define that in the growth of the UK’s real estate market, there is a significant role of the online portal. Nowadays, companies in the UK are taking help of the online activities to increase the sell and market share and it can be seen that there is good repose of the online activities on the business of the companies.
The above graph shows that housing price UK has been remain fluctuate in the last decades. It can be seen the graph that annual house price inflation running is at 5.3%. After the global financial crisis 2008, the house price in UK decreased at the great extent. However, in London, there is high price of the properties that provides the benefit to the both Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc to raise the good revenue (Chegut, et al. 2016).
Generally, home price in UK is recorded £198,564 in 2016. However, it is increasing continuously that is significant indication of the growth of UK’s property companies. From the above graph, it can be seen that 1969 average house prices were £4,312. After this, in 1975, house prices were recorded £10,388. From1980, it has increased rapidly and in 2007, house prices were recorded approx £180000.
Real house price shows the house price with the adjusting the inflation. It depicts the actual price of the property and provides a more meaningful guide. It also shows that house price has raise compared to typical prices in the economy.
The above graph shows that in UK, first time buyers, the average house prices are 5.1 times average earnings. This ratio is higher in London; there it is recorded at 9.2 times average earning. At the same time, in the North UK, it is recorded at 3.4 average house earning. Hence, it can be assumed that in UK there are different opportunities for Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc on the basis of different area.
Bank loan in UK is available at the very reasonable and affordable rate. It attracts and encourages the people to buy or invest in properties.
Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc
Grainger Plc:
| Ratio Analysis | |||||||
| Ratio | Formula | Grainger Plc ORD 5P (£m) | |||||
| Liquidity Ratios | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | ||
| Current ratio | (Current assets ÷ Current liabilities) | 3.26 | 5.23 | 8.21 | 5.56 | 6.80 | |
| Current assets | 1354.4 | 1092.9 | 1172.9 | 1,274.60 | 1,062.70 | ||
| Current liabilities | 415.2 | 209 | 142.9 | 229.4 | 156.2 | ||
| Quick ratio | (Current assets -Inventories) ÷ Current liabilities | 0.80 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 0.53 | 1.01 | |
| Inventories | 1023.4 | 949.6 | 1020.2 | 1152.2 | 904.3 | ||
| Profitability Ratios: | |||||||
| Return on capital employed | EBIT ÷ (Total Assets -Current liabilities) *100 | 7.12% | 6.90% | 6.43% | 5.41% | 7.96% | |
| EBIT | 119.2 | 103.6 | 106.1 | 91.5 | 115.9 | ||
| Total Assets | 2090.3 | 1711.3 | 1793.9 | 1921.6 | 1612.9 | ||
| Current Liabilities | 415.2 | 209 | 142.9 | 229.4 | 156.2 | ||
| Net profit margin | (Net profit ÷ Revenue) *100 | 0.13% | 18.93% | 23.41% | 22.79% | 33.88% | |
| Net Profit | 0.40 | 53.6 | 74.7 | 44 | 74.5 | ||
| Revenue | 311 | 283.2 | 319.1 | 193.1 | 219.9 | ||
| Return on Equity | (Profit before Tax ÷ Equity) | -0.43% | 13.81% | 15.08% | 9.10% | 12.47% | |
| PBT | -1.70 | 64.30 | 81.1 | 51.4 | 84.2 | ||
| Equity | 390.9 | 465.5 | 537.7 | 564.9 | 675.2 | ||
| Efficiency Ratios: | |||||||
| Inventory turnover | (Costs of Goods sold ÷ Average Inventory) | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.12 | |
| Costs of Goods sold | 192.2 | 179.6 | 213 | 101.6 | 104 | ||
| Average Inventory | 1023.4 | 949.6 | 1020.2 | 1152.2 | 904.3 | ||
| Asset turnover | (Revenue ÷ (Total assets – Current liabilities) | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.15 | |
| Revenue | 311 | 283.2 | 319.1 | 193.1 | 219.9 | ||
| Total Assets | 2090.3 | 1711.3 | 1793.9 | 1921.6 | 1612.9 | ||
| Current Liabilities | 415.2 | 209 | 142.9 | 229.4 | 156.2 | ||
| Shareholder Ratios | |||||||
| Dividend yield | (Dividend per share ÷ Market price of share) | 1.72% | 1.11% | 1.12% | 1.07% | 1.55% | |
| DPS (in penny) | 1.85 | 1.95 | 2.07 | 2.53 | 3.56 | ||
| MPS | 107.70 | 175.8 | 185.5 | 235.9 | 230 | ||
| Price to earnings ratio | (Market price of share ÷EPS) | 1077.00 | 13.42 | 10.25 | 22.05 | 12.78 | |
| MPS | 107.70 | 175.8 | 185.5 | 235.9 | 230 | ||
| EPS | 0.1 | 13.1 | 18.1 | 10.7 | 18 | ||
| Capital Structure | |||||||
| Debt to Asset ratio | Debt ÷ Assets | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.58 | |
| Total Debt | 1699.4 | 1245.8 | 1256.2 | 1356.7 | 937.7 | ||
| Total Assets | 2090.3 | 1711.3 | 1793.9 | 1921.6 | 1612.9 | ||
| Debt to Equity ratio | Debt ÷ Equity | 4.35 | 2.68 | 2.34 | 2.40 | 1.39 | |
| Debt | 1699.4 | 1245.8 | 1256.2 | 1356.7 | 937.7 | ||
| Equity | 390.9 | 465.5 | 537.7 | 564.9 | 675.2 | ||
| Cash Flows Ratios | |||||||
| Total cash from operations | 85.6 | 84.3 | -70.5 | -2 | 54 | ||
| Total cash from investing | 57.1 | 212.3 | 26.7 | 15.8 | 172.9 | ||
| Total cash from financing | -155.9 | -280.2 | 31 | 1.2 | -226.8 | ||
| Cash flow from operations to net sales ratio | CFO ÷ Net sales | 0.2749 | 0.2977 | -0.2209 | -0.0104 | 0.2456 | |
RIGHTMOVE PLC:
| Ratio Analysis | |||||||
| Ratio | Formula | RIGHTMOVE PLC ORD 1P (£m) | |||||
| Liquidity Ratios | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | ||
| Current ratio | (Current assets ÷ Current liabilities) | 0.78 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.91 | |
| Current assets | 25.56 | 29.64 | 35.5 | 39.94 | 47.70 | ||
| Current liabilities | 32.63 | 29.47 | 40.5 | 43.48 | 52.24 | ||
| Quick ratio | (Current assets -Inventories) ÷ Current liabilities | 0.78 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.91 | |
| Inventories | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Profitability Ratios | |||||||
| Return on capital employed | EBIT ÷ (Total Assets -Current liabilities) *100 | 1087.43% | 1069.68% | 4606.04% | 1996.80% | 1968.94% | |
| EBIT | 83.08 | 97.02 | 122.06 | 137.18 | 161.65 | ||
| Total Assets | 40.27 | 38.54 | 43.15 | 50.35 | 60.45 | ||
| Current Liabilities | 32.63 | 29.47 | 40.5 | 43.48 | 52.24 | ||
| Net profit margin | (Net profit ÷ Revenue) *100 | 52.40% | 53.12% | 57.59% | 56.98% | 58.88% | |
| Net Profit | 62.55 | 74.34 | 96.18 | 109.47 | 129.54 | ||
| Revenue | 119 | 139.94 | 167.01 | 192.13 | 219.99 | ||
| Return on Equity | (Profit before Tax ÷ Equity) | 1107.72% | 1088.89% | 4981.22% | 2067.87% | 2009.33% | |
| PBT | 83.19 | 97.02 | 122.04 | 137.1 | 161.55 | ||
| Equity | 7.51 | 8.91 | 2.45 | 6.63 | 8.04 | ||
| Efficiency Ratios | |||||||
| Inventory turnover | (Costs of Goods sold ÷ Average Inventory) | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |
| Costs of Goods sold | 36 | 43 | 45 | 55 | 58 | ||
| Average Inventory | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Asset turnover | (Revenue ÷ (Total assets – Currrent liabilities) | 15.62 | 15.43 | 63.02 | 27.97 | 26.80 | |
| Revenue | 119 | 139.94 | 167.01 | 192.13 | 219.99 | ||
| Total Assets | 40.27 | 38.54 | 43.15 | 50.35 | 60.45 | ||
| Current Liabilities | 32.63 | 29.47 | 40.5 | 43.48 | 52.24 | ||
| Shareholder Ratios | |||||||
| Dividend yield | (Dividend per share ÷ Market price of share) | 1.39% | 0.92% | 1.35% | 0.92% | 1.17% | |
| DPS (in penny) | 20 | 25 | 30 | 38 | 46 | ||
| MPS | 1436 | 2720.05 | 2230 | 4125 | 3941 | ||
| Price to earnings ratio | (Market price of share ÷EPS) | 21.87 | 33.56 | 22.24 | 33.98 | 27.61 | |
| MPS | 1436 | 2720.05 | 2230 | 4125 | 3941 | ||
| EPS | 65.67 | 81.04 | 100.28 | 121.4 | 142.76 | ||
| Capital Structure Ratios | |||||||
| Debt to Asset ratio | Debt ÷ Assets | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.87 | |
| Total Debt | 32.76 | 29.63 | 40.7 | 43.72 | 52.41 | ||
| Total Assets | 40.27 | 38.54 | 43.15 | 50.35 | 60.45 | ||
| Debt to Equity ratio | Debt ÷ Equity | 4.36 | 3.33 | 16.61 | 6.59 | 6.52 | |
| Debt | 32.76 | 29.63 | 40.7 | 43.72 | 52.41 | ||
| Equity | 7.51 | 8.91 | 2.45 | 6.63 | 8.04 | ||
| Cash Flows ratios | |||||||
| Total cash from operations | 71.374 | 82.958 | 71.374 | 116.129 | 141.234 | ||
| Total cash from investing | -1.807 | -0.931 | -1.81 | 0.0158 | 0.173 | ||
| Total cash from financing | -84.253 | -82.310 | -84.53 | 0.0012 | -0.2268 | ||
| Cash flow from operations to net sales ratio | CFO ÷ Net sales | 0.5979 | 0.5928 | 0.4274 | 0.6044 | 0.6420 | |
| CFO | 71.374 | 82.958 | 71.374 | 116.129 | 141.234 | ||
| Net Sales | 119 | 139.94 | 167.01 | 192.13 | 219.99 | ||
Profitability ratio is helpful in determining the income statements as well as the category to evaluate the ability of the company for generating the profits from the operations conducted by the business. It is determined by net profit margin, return on capital employed and return on equity.
Net profit margin shows the after tax profit as a portion of the sales. It can be calculated by using the below formula:
Net profit margin = Net profit / Sales
The below graph shows the net profit margin for Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc:
From the above graph, it is obvious that Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc are moving forward continuously with proper management of operational costs during period between year 2012 and year 2016. However, Rightmove Plc is performing better as compared to Grainger Plc in terms of net profit. But, in 2015, there is a decline in net profit for both firms due to increase in operational costs.
Return on capital employed (ROCE) indicates the profitability of the firm by employing the capital properly. It measures profitability after factoring in the amount of capital used. It can be calculated by using the following formula:
ROCE= EBIT ÷ (Total Assets -Current liabilities) *100
The below graph shows the ROCE calculated for both firms:
On the basis of the above graph, it can be stated that Rightmove has employed the capital in better way as compared to Grainger showing its ability to provide better returns on capital employed by the investors. However, there is a decline in ROCE for Rightmove in 2016 due to increase in liabilities.
ROE can be calculated by using the below formula:
ROE= (Profit before Tax ÷ Equity)
The below graph shows the ROE for both firms providing information about the returns on the capital invested by the equity shareholders. From this, it can be identified that Rightmove providing better returns on equity to the shareholders as compared to Grainger due to high revenues and profits during 2012 to 2016.
Liquidity ratio can also be called as the leverage ratio by the ability of the company is estimated in order to sustain the operations as well as making comparison of debt level with earnings, equity as well as assets. With the help of solvency ratio the going concern issues are being identified. It also evaluates the ability of the firm for paying the obligations. It can be measured in current ratio and liquid ratio.
Current ratio provides ratio between current assets and current liabilities showing the ability of the firm to pay the short-term obligations by the current assets. However, liquid ratio does not include inventory in current assets as it considers illiquid part of current assets.
From the above figure, it can be stated that there are fluctuations in liquidity ratios for both firms during the period between 2012 and 2016. It can be noticed that Grainger has more favourable liquidity position in comparison of Rightmove.
It is because Grainger has more current assets to repay its current obligations but Rightmove has insufficient current assets to pay its current liabilities. However, Rightmove has less secured position and tendency to decrease in both ratios because of decline in assets and increase in liabilities showing the dangerous condition.
Rightmove can face difficulty in meeting its short-term obligations in contingency. Grainger has high values of current and liquid ratios because of increase in receivables and short term borrowings.
It is also known as activity ratio that is helpful to evaluate how well company uses its assets for generating income. It is adopted by the management in order to develop company as well as the investors from outside that look for the operations of the company. It can be determined by measuring asset turnover and inventory turnover by using the below formulas:
Inventory Turnover = (Costs of Goods sold ÷ Average Inventory)
Asset turnover = (Revenue ÷ (Total assets – Current liabilities)
The below graphs show inventory turnover and asset turnover for both companies:
From the below graph, it can be stated that inventory turnover of Grainger has decline from 2012 to 2016 implies the declining efficiency of the firm to convert inventory into sales due to ineffective sales strategy. But at the same time, there is no inventory turnover for Rightmove as it does not have any inventory.
At the same time, it is also identified that asset turnover ratio of Grainger is very low in comparison of Rightmove. In addition, Grainger’s asset turnover has declined from 2012 to 2016 due to overinvestment in assets and declining sales indicating the reducing efficiency of the firm to utilize the assets in generating profit.
However, asset turnover of Rightmove increased in 2014 then declined in subsequent years due to declining sales.
This ratio can be determined as percentage and is evaluated by dividing the total shareholders’ equity by the total assets. It represents the ownership part of the company. The company buys the shares for two main reasons such as capital gain and dividend. Shareholder ratio includes two types of shares such as earning price ratio and dividend yield ratio.
Dividend Yield = DPS/EPS
P/E Ratio = (Market price of share ÷ EPS)
The dividend yield can be shown by the below graph:
On the basis of the above graph, it can be determined that there are some fluctuations in dividend yield curve during last five years in both firms. The dividends payments are decreasing during five years period with little fluctuations in share prices.
However, in 2016, the yield increased for Grainger and Rightmove due to decreasing prices of share. But, dividend yield is more for Granger as compared to Rightmove indicating fairly stable value of its shares for the investors.
The following graph indicates the P/E ratio for both companies:
Price to earnings ratio of Grainger has dropped significantly after 2012 because of fall in price after decline in dividend payments. On the other hand, P/E ratio has increased for Rightmove from 2012 to 2016 due to decline in earnings per share and increase in share prices.
It is the process by, which the company perform its overall financial operations as well as growth by adopting the sources of funds. Moreover, in this the debt comes under the bond issues as well as long term notes payable. It can also be the mixture of long term debt, short term debt as well as equity.
It can also be called as the combination of equity share capital, preference share capital, and long term loans and retained earnings (Moffett, et al. 2014). Hence, the financial structure is the part of capital structure. Capital structure ratios can be measured by debt to asset ratio and debt to equity ratio as below:
Debt to assets ratio = Debt / Assets
Debt to equity ratio = Debt / Equity
The below graph shows debt to asset ratio for both firms:
Rightmove has a constant and increasing debt to asset ratio at the level on approx 0.9. There is stable debt to asset ratio for Rightmove, but it fluctuates for Grainger during last five years. It is not higher for both firms as both firms can be considered less risky to invest in and loan to because they are less leveraged.
There is a significant decline in debt to asset ratio of Granger in 2016 because of increasing assets and declining debts. Grainger has more favourable debt to asset ratio because it has fewer amounts of liabilities as it has assets. This company is less leveraged and risky as compared to Rightmove.
Debt to equity ratio shown as below graph indicating the capital structure:
Similar situation can be seen for debt to equity ratio for both companies. It can be observed from the above graph that both firms prefer debt more in their capital structure as compared to equity but there is higher amount of debt rather than equity in Rightmove.
The focus of Grainger has increased towards equity during the last five years, but Rightmove started to focus more on debt in its capital structure indicating more risky position which can negatively impact the earnings and increase costs.
Cash Flows:
The above graph shows cash flow of the Grainger. By the help of the above graph, the cash flow statement of the company can be understood. The cash flow from the operating, investing and financial activities remain different in the past five years. In the financial year 2015, it is identifies that cash position of the company declined.
Grainger Plc
| Profits | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Revenue | 311.4 | 283.2 | 319.1 | 193.1 | 219.9 |
| EBIT | 119.2 | 103.6 | 106.1 | 91.5 | 115.9 |
| PBT | -1.70 | 64.30 | 81.10 | 51.40 | 84.20 |
| Net Income | 0.40 | 53.6 | 74.7 | 44 | 74.5 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| EBIT | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.53 |
| PBT | -0.01 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.38 |
| Net Income | 0.0013 | 0.1893 | 0.2341 | 0.2279 | 0.3388 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Non-Current Assets | 735.9 | 618.4 | 621 | 647 | 550.2 |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 525.1 | 353.5 | 330.8 | 356.2 | 260.2 |
| Intangible Assets | 5.3 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 2.1 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 0.7135 | 0.5716 | 0.5327 | 0.5505 | 0.4729 |
| Intangible Assets | 0.0072 | 0.0023 | 0.0035 | 0.0042 | 0.0038 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Current Assets | 1354.4 | 1092.9 | 1172.9 | 1274.6 | 1062.7 |
| Inventories | 1023.4 | 949.6 | 1020.2 | 1152.2 | 904.3 |
| Trade & Other Receivables | 35.6 | 43.1 | 74.9 | 31.6 | 64 |
| Cash at Bank & in Hand | 73.3 | 90.3 | 74.4 | 88.8 | 90.7 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Current Liabilities | -415.2 | -209 | -142.9 | -229.4 | -156.2 |
| Borrowings | -27.3 | -42.4 | -33.7 | -133.3 | -99 |
| Other Current Liabilities | -387.9 | -166.6 | -109.2 | -96.1 | -57.2 |
Financial analysis of Rightmove
| Vertical Analysis | |||||
| Profits | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Revenue | 119.37 | 139.94 | 167.01 | 192.13 | 219.99 |
| EBIT | 83.08 | 97.02 | 122.06 | 137.18 | 161.65 |
| PBT | 83.19 | 97.02 | 122.04 | 137.10 | 161.55 |
| Net Income | 62.55 | 74.34 | 96.18 | 109.47 | 129.54 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| EBIT | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| PBT | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| Net Income | 0.5240 | 0.5312 | 0.5759 | 0.5698 | 0.5888 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Non-Current Assets | 14.71 | 8.91 | 7.65 | 10.41 | 12.76 |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 1.67 | 1.68 | 1.58 | 2.24 | 2.29 |
| Intangible Assets | 1.62 | 1.59 | 1.57 | 1.38 | 3.53 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 0.1135 | 0.1886 | 0.2065 | 0.2152 | 0.1795 |
| Intangible Assets | 0.1101 | 0.1785 | 0.2052 | 0.1326 | 0.2766 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Current Assets | 25.56 | 29.64 | 35.5 | 39.94 | 47.7 |
| Inventories | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trade & Other Receivables | 18.48 | 22.84 | 24.3 | 27.52 | 29.92 |
| Cash at Bank & in Hand | 7.08 | 6.8 | 11.21 | 8.42 | 13.75 |
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |
| Current Liabilities | -32.63 | -29.47 | -40.5 | -43.48 | -52.24 |
| Borrowings | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other Current Liabilities | -32.63 | -29.47 | -40.5 | -43.48 | -52.24 |
Comparison of Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc
| Comparison of Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc | |||||
| Current ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 3.262042 | 5.229187 | 8.207838 | 5.556234 | 6.803457 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 0.783328 | 1.005769 | 0.876543 | 0.918583 | 0.913093 |
| Quick ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.797206 | 0.685646 | 1.068579 | 0.533566 | 1.014085 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 0.78 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.91 |
| Return on capital employed | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 7.12% | 6.90% | 6.43% | 5.41% | 7.96% |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 1087.43% | 1069.68% | 4606.04% | 1996.80% | 1968.94% |
| Net profit margin | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.13% | 18.93% | 23.41% | 22.79% | 33.88% |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 52.40% | 53.12% | 57.59% | 56.98% | 58.88% |
| Return on Equity | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | -0.43% | 13.81% | 15.08% | 9.10% | 12.47% |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 1107.72% | 1088.89% | 4981.22% | 2067.87% | 2009.33% |
| Inventory turnover | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.188 | 0.189 | 0.209 | 0.088 | 0.115 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | |||||
| Asset turnover | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.186 | 0.189 | 0.193 | 0.114 | 0.151 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 15.62 | 15.43 | 63.02 | 27.97 | 26.80 |
| Dividend yield | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 1.72% | 1.11% | 1.12% | 1.07% | 1.55% |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 1.39% | 0.92% | 1.35% | 0.92% | 1.17% |
| Price to earnings ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 1077 | 13.41985 | 10.24862 | 22.04673 | 12.77778 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 21.87 | 33.56 | 22.24 | 33.98 | 27.61 |
| Debt to Asset ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.812993 | 0.727985 | 0.700262 | 0.706026 | 0.581375 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| Debt to Equity ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 4.347403 | 2.676262 | 2.336247 | 2.401664 | 1.388774 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 4.36 | 3.33 | 16.61 | 6.59 | 6.52 |
| Cash flow from operations to net sales ratio | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Grainger Plc | 0.274888 | 0.297669 | -0.220934 | -0.010357 | 0.245566 |
| RIGHTMOVE PLC | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.64 |
Corporate and Social Responsibility
In the current business environment, the corporate social responsibility has become essential for organisations maintain their good image in the market.
A company that is involved in the corporate social responsibility becomes successful to develop the good image among the shareholders. In the context of Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc, it is found that both companies are deeply emerging in the CSR practices (Tchibozo, 2012).
The both companies have sufficient investment on CSR activities that enables their shareholders to keep interest in the organisational activities. In the concern of this, the annual CSR report of Grainger Plc depict that company is achieving the satisfactory progress in the corporate social responsibility (Taylor, 2014).
The company has adopted the various significant strategies to achieve the CSR goal and objective. In this, it is identified that the main objective Grainger Plc to conduct the CSR practices is to minimise the risk including environmental risks and health and safety risks.
The company has established a CSR committee that see or organise all the relevant activities. In Grainger Plc, Rupert Dickinson is head of the CSR committee that is liable for conducting and managing all CSR practices regard of the organisation.
Rupert has responsibility of managing the community issues (Soytas & Sari, 2009. Even though, top management also supports CSR committee through the involvement in the CSR.
Along with this, it is also identified that the main objective of CSR committee of Grainger Plc is to disseminate information around the employees of the company. It also emphasises on the employees’ involvement on the CSR activities where the rules and skills are relevant.
Grainger is a forward-looking enterprising firm that looks to conduct its business practices in the social welfare. The company also believes that it can achieve standard of CSR by the help of the suitable working practices for the employees at the workplace.
At the same time, in the context of Rightmove Plc it is found that the company believes that human resource is most valuable asset for the company. In the success of the company, the role of the human resource is commendable (Woods, 2012).
Rightmove has proud on its employees and their skills that they in the growth of the company. Hence, the company is depended the employees’ skills, commitment and talent to achieve the organisational objectives. In concern of this, company also looks the employment and society welfare with applying various social strategies.
In this, it is identified that company considers employment health and safety at the workplace that is why, it is adopted all essential safety instruments at the workplace. In the current business environment, it is legal requirement to establish the safety equipments at the workplace.
The current organisational policies of Rightmove Plc regarding the CSR provide adequate control of the health and safety risk of employees (Neilson & Pritchard, 2011). Along with this, the company run the training and development program for employee to teach them safe use of the machinery.
Furthermore, it is also found that Rightmove actively focuses on the environment protection activities and it is one of the major aims of its corporate social responsibility activities. The company development and implement effective strategy to reduce the overall environmental harm form its business operation.
The company continuously is searching the new ways of the innovation to provide the advantage of the natural resources to the coming generation. Along with this, company regulate participants in the charitable activities. Each year company provides an amount of profit for the charitable activities (Royle, 2010). It helps the company to contribute in the society development.
This chapter represents the financial summary of the both companies Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc. It includes the discussion financial ratio, horizontal and vertical analysis.
In this, it is found that in context of liquidity ratio, the situation of Grainger Plc is more strong compared to Rightmove Plc. It is because current ration of both companies are 6.8 and 0.91. Furthermore, it is also analysed that in the reference of the profitability situation is inverse.
It is because net profit margin of Grainger Plc and Rightmove Plc is 33.885 and 58.88%. It shows that Rightmove Plc is leading in the context of the profit over Grainger Plc. At the same time, through ratio analysis, the researcher identified that Rightmove is also good in managing the assets. It generates £26.80 against the invested one pound.
On the other hand, Grainger Plc only generates £0.15 against the invested one pound. At the same time, debt to equity indicates that Grainger Plc is managed debt and equity more effectively compared to Rightmove. It is because debt to equity ratio for Grainger Plc is 1.38 as compared to Rightmove 6.52.
From the above discussion, it can be found that the financial performance of Rightmove is better compare compared to Grainger Plc. Due to this, an investor should choose Rightmore compared to Grainger Plc. It is because Rightmove is generating good profit compared to Grainger Plc and it will provide good return on the investment. However, in the context of the liquidity and debt management, the situation of Grainger Plc is better.
At the same time, it can also be recommend to the lenders that on the investment on Rightmove, there is not risk of losing the money. But, they should invest money after the dept analysis and their risk. Event through, this report is prepared with the full consideration but some limitation are also presented in the context data. It is because all financial data or information is collected by the secondary resources.
Chen, W. M., Kim, H., & Yamaguchi, H. (2014) Renewable energy in eastern Asia: Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Energy Policy, 74, 319-329.
Hollensen, S. (2015) Marketing management: A relationship approach. UK: Pearson Education.
Jaber, J.O., Elkarmi, F., Alasis, E. and Kostas, A., (2015) Employment of renewable energy in Jordan: Current status, SWOT and problem analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, pp.490-499.
Niederwieser, D., Baldomero, H., Szer, J., Gratwohl, M., Aljurf, M., Atsuta, Y., … & Iida, M. (2016) Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation activity worldwide in 2012 and a SWOT analysis of the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group including the global survey. Bone marrow transplantation, 51(6), pp.778-785.
Yuan, H. (2013) A SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, pp.1-8.
Delen, D., Kuzey, C. and Uyar, A. (2013) Measuring firm performance using financial ratios: A decision tree approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), pp.3970-3983.
Lukason, O., Laitinen, E.K. and Suvas, A. (2015) Growth patterns of small manufacturing firms before failure: interconnections with financial ratios and nonfinancial variables. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(2), pp.59-66.
Gunawardena, M.M.D., Peiris, H.R.I., Wijesundera, A.A.V.I., Weerasinghe, D.A.S. and Krishna, T.P.C.R. (2015) Predictability of Stock Returns Using Financial Ratios Empirical Evidence from Colombo Stock Exchange.
Moffett, M.H., Stonehill, A.I. and Eiteman, D.K. (2014) Fundamentals of multinational finance. UK: Pearson.
Finkler, S.A., Smith, D.L., Calabrese, T.D. and Purtell, R.M., (2016) Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. UK: CQ Press.
Zalengera, C., Blanchard, R.E., Eames, P.C., Juma, A.M., Chitawo, M.L. and Gondwe, K.T., (2014) Overview of the Malawi energy situation and A PESTLE analysis for sustainable development of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, pp.335-347.
Buckley, P.J., Burton, F. and Mirza, H. eds. (2016) The strategy and organization of international business. Germany: Springer.
Jannesson, E., Nilsson, F. and Rapp, B. (2014) Strategy, control and competitive advantage. Germany: Springer,.
Slack, N. (2015) Operations strategy, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pucciarelli, F. and Kaplan, A.,(2016) Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), pp.311-320.
Devitt, C., Boyle, L., Teixeira, D.L., O’Connell, N.E., Hawe, M. and Hanlon, A., (2016) Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis. Irish veterinary journal, 69(1), p.17.
Ayub, A., Razzaq, A., Aslam, M.S. and Iftekhar, H. (2013) A conceptual framework on evaluating SWOT analysis as the mediator in strategic marketing planning through marketing intelligence. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), pp.91-98.
Yuan, H., (2013) A SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, pp.1-8.
Posch, A., Brudermann, T., Braschel, N. and Gabriel, M. (2015) Strategic energy management in energy-intensive enterprises: a quantitative analysis of relevant factors in the Austrian paper and pulp industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, pp.291-299.
Li, C.Z., Hong, J., Xue, F., Shen, G.Q., Xu, X. and Luo, L. (2016) SWOT analysis and Internet of Things-enabled platform for prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 57, pp.74-87.
Crosby, N. and Henneberry, J. (2016) Financialisation, the valuation of investment property and the urban built environment in the UK. Urban Studies, 53(7), pp.1424-1441.
Jones, C., Livingstone, N. and Dunse, N. (2016) The changing nature of transactions activity and liquidity in UK commercial property. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 20(4), pp.384-396.
Barkham, R. and Frodsham, M. (2015) Simulating the cyclically adjusted returns to UK property lending. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 33(1), pp.66-80.
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P. and Kok, N. (2014) Supply, demand and the value of green buildings. Urban Studies, 51(1), pp.22-43.
Wardhaugh, B. (2014) Cartels, Markets and Crime: A Normative Justification for the Criminalisation of Economic Collusion. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, M. (2012) Risk Management in Organizations: An Integrated Case Study Approach. UK: Routledge.
Neilson, J. & Pritchard, B. (2011) Value Chain Struggles: Institutions and Governance in the Plantation Districts of South India. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Royle, T. (2010) The ILO’s shift to promotional principles and the ‘privatization’of labour rights: An analysis of labour standards, voluntary self-regulation and social clauses. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 26(3), pp. 249-271.
Soytas, U. & Sari, R. (2009) Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecological economics, 68(6), pp. 1667-1675.
Taylor, M. (2014) The Success of Tesco’s International Expansion in South Korean Market. Examination and Analysis of Key Factors. Germany: GRIN Verlag.
Tchibozo, G. (2012) Cultural and Social Diversity and the Transition from Education to Work. USA: Springer Science & Business Media.
I have read your excellent post. This is a great job. I have enjoyed reading your post first time. I want to say thanks for this post. Thank you…
https://www.skylineuniversity.ac.ae/advisory-council
I truly like you’re composing style, incredible data, thankyou for posting.
https://www.skylineuniversity.ac.ae/advisory-council
https://www.zuj.edu.jo/video-promo-al-zaytoonah-university-of-jodran/