A comparison of profitability and return on capital employment of private and state owned enterprises in the UK
[Submitted to:]
[Submitted by:]
[Date:]
Introduction
The research aims to compare the profitability and return on capital employment of different public and private sector organizations in the United Kingdom. Profits can be looked at from the level of the firm, segment, or economy; gross or net; pre-or post-charge; previously or after the derivation of factor installments; ex stake or ex post; as benefits in connection to creation or, all the more extensively, as the excess of aggregate current receipts over current installmentspayments. This paper endeavors to demonstrate the measures propercorrect
for various purposes. A perception at the start is that the productivity of generation in an economy may vary particularly from the profit conditions which firms see and respond to.
The comparison of Public and privately owned enterprises are in debate in recent decades. Many literature studies have been conducted on the subject to analyze the performance of both sectors. Different factors play different roles in either maximizing or lowering the financial performance of a firm. It is generally perceived that state owned enterprises outperform privately owned companies because of the capital and opportunities that goes along with SOEs. It is argued that state makes policies that benefits public enterprises in general. Nevertheless, this study will review more than 50 previous literature studies to compare the profitability performance in both private and public enterprises in the UK.
The part of profits is reasonably clearest at the level of the firm, the fundamental choice taking unit for monetaryfinancial activity. Be that as it may, net benefits of the firm - income less wages and expenses of other intermediate inputs - cover various reasonably unique things. They incorporate a return to factors employed: intrigue costs, an arrival to big business or administration, and at times the work pay of the independently employed. These are generally named "ordinary profits". Any surplus far beyond this speaks to rents or "super-ordinary profits" which can be competed from restraining infrastructure or from the semi rents of semi-settled components like capital stock. In long-run competitive equilibrium these super-typical benefits would be contended away, leaving just the arrival important to keep factors set up. Nonetheless, the level of rivalry shifts practically speaking and there are persistent interferences to the procedure from the presentation and dissemination of new innovation. Observed information in this manner mirror a progression of alteration ways in which the level of profits whenever is an element of the phase of disequilibrium, and the division of the aggregate amongst ordinary and super-typical profits can't be distinguished". Both profitability and rate of capital employment are imperative factors in deciding the performance of a firm. In this case both SOE’s and Private firms in the United Kingdom will be analyzed through two primary means i.e. profitability level and return on capital employment. The comparison will help to understand the difference in two sorts of enterprises and what factors play a major role in increasing profitability and ROCE.
Aims and Objectives
The aims and objectives of this paper are as following.
To compare the profitability of private and state owned enterprises in the UK.
To compare the return on capital employmentROCE
of public and private and state owned enterprises in the UK.
To analyze the findings and limitations of the study
Literature Review
Most literature contrasting possession models takes a look at particular administration segments: healthcare, instructioneducation, water, sanitation, et cetera. The literature that looks at public and private enterprises have a tendency to be comprised of supposition pieces and needs diligence in contrast with scholastic and strategy studies. The thorough writing that exists proposes that effectiveness relies upon components, for example, nation setting, the area, the market the firm works in and the association, as opposed to proprietorship.
This audit found that there is restricted writing which compares public and private proprietorship by and large. Such writing is prevalently comprised of assessment pieces that present chosen information and material to help an opinion, and needs diligence contrasted and scholarly and policy studies.policystudies.
This audit has not discovered proof that shows convincingly that either public or private enterprise is innately more effective. Rather the writing proposes that productivity is to a great extent reliant on the nation setting,area,
the area,policies
and by and large the particular firms that are working in the market.
Historical backdrop
The decrease in corporate profitability in the UK in 1999 implied that UK organizations were not any more the most productive on the planet. (Drury, C 2000) Profits developed from £71.6 billion of every 1990 to £116.1 billion out of 1999, a yearly normal development rate of 6 for each penny, at current costs. UK organizations slipped to the fifth most elevated amount of profit on the planet and the eleventh for manufacturing organizations. Productivity of UK profit organizations fell back marginally in 1999 and UK organizations took third place, behind US retail exchange partnerships and administration organizations in Finland. Productivity of UK organizations declined in 1999, a year in which worldwide interest in the United Kingdom was $200 billion, (Juma’h, A.H 2000) mergers and acquisitions action was near twice that of US organizations and UK organizations obtained intensely on the capital markets., but the financial condition started improving and both private and public enterprises performed well.
Banking Sector
Bush, Knott and Peacock in their study indicate the situation of UK banking sector as it is a standout amongst the most vital in the EU, representing over a fourth of all managing account resources held in the EU. As indicated by the Bank of England's Monetary and Financial Statistics, add up to resources of the UK saving money areabanking sector added up to over £5 trillion as at end of 2014. With respect to GDP, the UK banking sector remained at around 450 percent in 2013 (Bush et al 2014). Kosmidou and his partners reflected the UK is additionally the 'biggest single worldwide banking sector, representing around 20 percent of the world's cross border lending (Kosmidou et al 2004). The nation is a standout amongst the most open financial centers with expanding nearness of outside banks. The foreign banks are private enterprises. There are 150 deposits taking outsideforeign subsidiaries in the UK from 56 distinct nations. Davies (2002) indicate that over the previous decade, outsideforeign banks have represented in excess of 55 percent of the UK banking sector resources, with banks from EU nations representing 28 percent of aggregate resources (Davies 2002), however the consolidated resources of the biggest ten foreign subsidiaries in the UK add up to around £2.75 trillion (Bush et al 2014).
Regardless of the expansion of baking administrations, business loaninglending
remains a critical part of the exercises of banks and other store foundations. (Ekpu, V 2016) In his investigation of European business banks in the 1990s, Turati (2002) reports that, nearly in each nation, credits to the two firms and family units represent around 55 percent of aggregate bank resources with the other acquiring resources (e.g. bonds, offers, securities and different ventures) representing the rest. This proposes business loaning is an essential wellspring of bank benefits. According to Molyneux and Thornton (1992) Profits from loaning rely upon singular banks' ability to expand net premium profit, diminish advance misfortunestroubles and limit non-premium expenses on credits.
In the meantime, there is worry that this quick development of the UK banking sectorbankingsector might not have been profitable for the rest of the economy. Specifically, a greater size of the monetary division may not prompt a change in asset allotment. To be sure, the procedure of financialisation – which Epstein (2005) characterizes as "the expanding part of budgetary thought processes, money relatedeconomic
markets, monetary performing artists and money relatedeconomic
organizations in the activity of local and worldwide economies" – has profoundly changed the connections between financial establishments on one side and non-monetary partnerships and specialists on the other (Epstein 2005). An element of such change has been that non-budgetary organizations have lessened their dependence on banks by bringing outsideforeign back up in public financial markets while business banks have obtained speculation saving money worksinvestment
and turned towards the family unit division as another wellspring of benefits.profits. (Micheli, P 2010) Subsequently, the significance of customarypublic business loaning for banks' profits have quickly declined.
ExperimentalGoddard and Wilson’s (2004) experimental
outcomes from the examination demonstrate that corporate and business loaning is a factually critical determinant of bank profits. NotwithstandingDespite, this normal impact covers essential contrasts among banks, especially amongst littleprivate
and expansivepublic
banks. For the last mentioned, the commitment of business loaning to profits is little. While the outcomes demonstrate that bank estimate matters in loaning execution, possession status does not appear to issue. At the end of the day,private banks make more profits than public banking sector. Pasiouras, Kosmidou (2007)’s finding mentioned that it found no methodical contrast amongst residential and UK resident outside keeps moneyUKresident foreign
as for the benefit of business loaning. These discoveries hold on when the event of the money related emergency is represented.
Another Manufacturing Industry
Manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom plays an important role in strengthening the economy of the country. There are both private and public enterprises in the UK that produces tons of products yearly. (Funke, M 1986). In the UK, fabricating makes up 11% of GVA, 44% of aggregate UK exports, 70% of business R&D, and specifically utilizes 2.6 million individuals. Regardless of the decrease since the 1970s, when fabricating contributed 25% of UK GDP, the UK according to 2017 data was the eighth biggest manufacturer on the planet. (Rosenfeld, S.A 2017)
Out of the various sub sectors, the tobacco industry is making much profit in comparison. The tobacco industry is mainly privately owned. (Fothergill, S., GUDGIN 1984). Gilmore, A.B., Tavakoly, Taylor (2013) in their study explains that another way to deal with another tobacco exactdemand may be one in light of the benefitprofit made by the tobacco manufacturing/import industry, as this would be something that the business couldn't just pass on to customers. This may be politically alluring in that it could be straightforwardly pitched as the business being compelled to surrender a portion of their gigantic profits to take care of a portion of the costs they are forcing on society, particularly if the subsequent incomes were to be expressly hypothecated as examined previously. Surely, since the monies raised would come specifically from the organizations, it could be viewed as alluring that a portion of the cash raised be hypothecated for additionally deal with unlawful tobacco, as then the business would pay to address an issue it has been observed to be complicit. (Branston, J.R 2015) Not exclusively would this assistance raise additionally impose income however it would likewise help evacuateabandon
any future contentions that illegal tobacco averts future general wellbeing measuresbrings to human health.
Healthcare Sector
Another regionsector is
of healthcare which can give insights isare whether the presentation of private possession through openpublic
private organizations (PPP) enhances proficiency. A precise audit by Torchia, Calabrò, and Morner (20132015) finds that despite the fact that PPPs are utilized to address globally developing general medical problems, there keep on remaining inquiries as to their proficiency, and in addition viability and comfort. One article by Symeonidis (2001)
distinguished in the audit contends that the cost-productivity case for PPP seems frail since public finance is constantly less expensive than private fund and accordingly governments are for the most part ready to obtain at lower rates than the private division (Hellowell and Pollock 2009). Moreover for a PPP to give more esteem for money than the general population segmentpublic sector, the higher cost of fund must be balanced by better administration of hazard through the private segmentsector.
There are various components, particular to the model of arrangement of administrations, which may influence effectiveness (Batley and Larbi 2004; OECD 2010). With contracting out, rivalry between non-state associations for contracts can build proficiency of arrangement, yet the exchange expenses of setting up and checking these agreements may counteract any productivity gains. Rent and concession may help oversee normal restraining infrastructures while maintaining a strategic distance from the convergence of energy in either general society or private areas, which can effects, affect proficiency.Walker, and Brammer (2009) in his examination explains that the healthcare sector may adjust for advertise disappointments that would somehow or another lead the private sector On account of authorized rivalry there might be an exchange off amongst value and cost productivity. For instance, giving licenses to transport organizations that must guarantee scope and comparable taxes in regularly unbeneficial or less beneficial territories would enhance value yet additionally increment costs.
The general population division may adjust for advertise disappointments that would somehow or another lead the private segment to perform inefficiently or not in any way, for instance where substantial scale venture is required, returns are dangerous or dubious, or there is trouble in charging buyers (Batley and Larbi 2004). Public sector contribution can likewise address hazard by implementing legitimate approvals. In joint ventures there are motivations which can undermine effectiveness.profitability.
Not at all like unadulterated contracting out, the administration partakes on the two sides of the agreement, prompting conceivable irreconcilable circumstances. In theseDoyle, Bull, (2000) in their examinations contends
that in specific
circumstances, governments may obtain an enthusiasm for guaranteeing that accomplice organizations benefitprofit to a degree that is inconsistent with people in general intrigues. Privatization, regardless of whether of the responsibility for or of the administration of an open administrationpublic enterprise, is regularly of the most productive or effective endeavors, which makes a straight correlation of public and privatized ventures uncalled for.
TheFinancial enterprises
Parker, D., 1997 in his study argues that the
distinctions with respect to the financing measurement between public and private areasector
- individually confined from or identified with service provision - add to the above introduced executionperformance
administration suggestions. All the more especially, focusing on and execution based compensating are relied upon to be more created in the private than the general population part, in light of more grounded and more univocal outer weights and of money relatedfinancial
motivating forces. This reason likewise fortifies the above tended to ramifications of proprietorship on execution administration use, i.e., that executionperformance
administration use in people in generalpublic division is relied upon to be less escalated and for the most part emblematic and in the private segmentsector
to be more concentrated and essentially useful. (Cowling, M 2012)
Ittner et al (2003) assessed how uncommon sorts of executionperformance
measures were weighted in a subjective balanced scorecard compensate configuration gotobtained by a vital money relatedfinancial organizations firm in the USUK. The examination found that there was much subjectivity in the scorecard-based satisfying, which empowered managers to put most of the weight on cash related measuresfinancial incentives, to merge factors other than the scorecard measures, to change evaluation criteria from quarter to quarter, to ignore measures that were judicious of future financial execution, and to weight measures that were not perceptive of needed results.
Labor Sector
The specific association between laborer satisfaction, advantage quality and purchaser devotion has been the subject of different correct examinations. TheThe laborer satisfaction influences the profitability of public and private enterprises. Whittington (1971) in his study contends that the
relationship is oftentimes delineated as the 'satisfaction reflect' reinforcing business accomplishment comes to fruition on account of delegate satisfaction being 'reflected' similar to customer dedication (Schlesinger and Heskett 1991; Norman and Ramirez 1993; Liedtka et al. 1997). While Silvestro and Cross (2000) cast a couple of inquiries on the nature of the relationship, the modify of confirmation recommends that specialist satisfaction is a key driver of organization quality. Voss et al (2005), for example, find that 'laborer satisfaction particularly impacts both organization quality and buyer faithfulness'loyalty, while Vilares and Coehlo (2003) are so influenced about the fit that they recommend changes to one of the present shopper steadfastnessloyalty
records (ECSI) to see the 'conditions and final products association between delegate direct and customer dependability'. (Lywood, J 2009)
Other Sectors
Apart from the sectors discussed above, there are various components, particular to the model of arrangement of administrations, which may influence profitability (Batley and Larbi 2004; OECD 2010). According to literature study done by Bell, Hanson, (1987) with contracting out, rivalry between non-state associations for contracts can build proficiency of arrangement, yet the exchange expenses of setting up and checking these agreements may counteract any productivity gains. (Akintoye, A 1991) (Amirkhanyan, 2010) According to KLUMPES, P (1999) rent and concession may help oversee normal restraining infrastructures while maintaining a strategic distance from the convergence of energy in either general society or private sectors, which can effects, affect profitability. On account of authorized rivalry there might be an exchange off amongst value and cost productivity. For instance, Nichol and Dowling (2014) in their study states that giving licenses to transport organizations (Holden, K 2004) that must guarantee scope and comparable taxes in regularly unbeneficial or less beneficial territories would enhance value yet additionally increment costs.
References
Bush, O., Knott, S. and Peacock, C., 2014. Why is the UK banking system so big and is that a problem?.
Kosmidou*, K., Pasiouras, F. and Floropoulos, J., 2004. Linking profits to asset-liability management of domestic and foreign banks in the UK. Applied Financial Economics, 14(18), pp.1319-1324.
Davies, H., 2002. The single financial market–miracle or mirage?. speech at the British Chamber of Commerce Luncheon, Brussels. Available at: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2002/sp94.shtml (Accessed 20/08/2011).
Ekpu, V. and Paloni, A., 2016. Business lending and bank profitability in the UK. Studies in Economics and Finance, 33(2), pp.302-319.
Ekpu, V. and Paloni, A., 2015. Financialisation, Business lending and profitability of the UK (No. 2015_18).
Epstein, G.A. ed., 2005. Financialization and the world economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Epstein, G.A. and Jayadev, A., 2005. The rise of rentier incomes in OECD countries: financialization, central bank policy and labor solidarity. Financialization and the world economy, 39, pp.46-74.
Gilmore, A.B., Tavakoly, B., Taylor, G. and Reed, H., 2013. Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategy and whether it undermines tobacco tax policy: the example of the UK cigarette market. Addiction, 108(7), pp.1317-1326.
Branston, J.R. and Gilmore, A., 2015. The extreme profitability of the UK tobacco market and the rationale for a new tobacco levy.
McAdam, R., Hazlett, S.A. and Casey, C., 2005. Performance management in the UK public sector: addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), pp.256-273.
Amirkhanyan, A.A., 2010. Monitoring across Sectors: Examining the Effect of Nonprofit and For‐Profit Contractor Ownership on Performance Monitoring in State and Local Contracts. Public Administration Review, 70(5), pp.742-755.
Micheli, P. and Neely, A., 2010. Performance measurement in the public sector in England: Searching for the golden thread. Public Administration Review, 70(4), pp.591-600.
Moynihan, D.P., 2006. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), pp.77-89.
Schlesinger, L.A. and Heskett, J.L., 1991. The service-driven service company. Harvard business review, 69(5), pp.71-81.
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R., 1993. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard business review, 71(4), pp.65-77.
Liedtka, J.M., Haskins, M.E., Rosenblum, J.W. and Weber, J., 1997. The generative cycle: linking knowledge and relationships. Sloan Management Review, 39, pp.47-58.
Silvestro, R. and Cross, S., 2000. Applying the service profit chain in a retail environment: Challenging the “satisfaction mirror”. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(3), pp.244-268.
José Vilares, M. and Simões Coelho, P., 2003. The employee-customer satisfaction chain in the ECSI model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), pp.1703-1722.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Funk, B., Yarrow, D. and Owen, J., 2005. Managerial choice and performance in service management—a comparison of private sector organizations with further education colleges. Journal of operations Management, 23(2), pp.179-195.
Goddard, J., Tavakoli, M. and Wilson, J.O., 2005. Determinants of profitability in European manufacturing and services: evidence from a dynamic panel model. Applied Financial Economics, 15(18), pp.1269-1282.
Banerjee, L., 2010. AN ANALYSIS ON POST-MERGER PROFITIBILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER OF THE ACQUIRING FIRM.
Pereira, J., 2015. An empirical investigation of corporate credit default swap spreads and returns (Doctoral dissertation, Kingston University).
Ahi, S.M.A.H., 2013. Determinants of capital structure: UK panel data (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz ÜniversitesiDoğuAkdenizÜniversitesi
(DAÜ)).
Battisti, G., Canepa, A. and Stoneman, P., 2009. E-Business usage across and within firms in the UK: profitability, externalities and policy. Research Policy, 38(1), pp.133-143.
Cosh, A. and Hughes, A., 1994. Size, financial structure and profitability: UK companies in the 1980s.
Kosmidou, K., Tanna, S. and Pasiouras, F., 2005, June. Determinants of profitability of domestic UK commercial banks: panel evidence from the period 1995-2002. In Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference (Vol. 45, pp. 1-27).
Hay, D.A. and Morris, D.J., 1981. The sterling rate of exchange and UK profitability: Short term effects. Oxford Economic Papers, 33, pp.248-267.
Eltis, W., 1996. How low profitability and weak innovativeness undermined UK industrial growth. The Economic Journal, 106(434), pp.184-195.
Holden, K. and El-Bannany, M., 2004. Investment in information technology systems and other determinants of bank profitability in the UK. Applied Financial Economics, 14(5), pp.361-365.
Akintoye, A. and Skitmore, M., 1991. Profitability of UK construction contractors. Construction Management and Economics, 9(4), pp.311-325.
Amirkhanyan, A.A., 2010. Monitoring across Sectors: Examining the Effect of Nonprofit and For‐Profit Contractor Ownership on Performance Monitoring in State and Local Contracts. Public Administration Review, 70(5), pp.742-755.
Batley, R. and Larbi, G., 2004. The changing role of government: The reform of public services in developing countries. Springer.
Bell, D.W. and Hanson, C.G., 1987. Profit sharing and profitability: How profit sharing promotes business success. Kogan Page.
Bush, O., Knott, S. and Peacock, C., 2014. Why is the UK banking system so big and is that a problem?.
Branston, J.R. and Gilmore, A., 2015. The extreme profitability of the UK tobacco market and the rationale for a new tobacco levy.
Cowling, M., Liu, W. and Ledger, A., 2012. Small business financing in the UK before and during the current financial crisis. International Small Business Journal, 30(7), pp.778-800.
Davies, H., 2002. The single financial market–miracle or mirage?. speech at the British Chamber of Commerce Luncheon, Brussels.Available at: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2002/sp94.shtml (Accessed 20/08/2011).
Drury, C. and Tayles, M., 2000. Cost system design and profitability analysis in UK companies. Cima.
Parker, D., 1997. Price cap regulation, profitability and returns to investors in the UK regulated industries. Utilities Policy, 6(4), pp.303-315.
Driver, C., Temple, P. and Urga, G., 2005. Profitability, capacity, and uncertainty: a model of UK manufacturing investment. Oxford Economic Papers, 57(1), pp.120-141.
Drury, C. and Tayles, M., 2000. Cost system design and profitability analysis in UK companies. Cima.
Juma’h, A.H. and Wood, D., 2000. Outsourcing implications on companies’ profitability and liquidity: a sample of UK companies. Work Study, 49(7), pp.265-275.
Drury, C. and Tayles, M., 2006. Profitability analysis in UK organizations: An exploratory study. The British Accounting Review, 38(4), pp.405-425.
Doyle, Y. and Bull, A., 2000. Role of private sector in United Kingdom healthcare system. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 321(7260), p.563.
Ekpu, V. and Paloni, A., 2015. Financialisation, Business lending and profitability of the UK (No. 2015_18).
Ekpu, V. and Paloni, A., 2016.Business lending and bank profitability in the UK. Studies in Economics and Finance, 33(2), pp.302-319.
Epstein, G.A. ed., 2005. Financialization and the world economy.Edward Elgar Publishing.
Epstein, G.A. and Jayadev, A., 2005. The rise of rentier incomes in OECD countries: financialization, central bank policy and labor solidarity. Financialization and the world economy, 39, pp.46-74.
Rockley, L.E., 1973. Investment for Profitability: an Analysis of the Policies and Practices of UK and International Companies. Random House Business.
Pasiouras, F. and Kosmidou, K., 2007. Factors influencing the profitability of domestic and foreign commercial banks in the European Union. Research in International Business and Finance, 21(2), pp.222-237.
Dickerson, A.P., Gibson, H.D. and Tsakalotos, E., 1997. The impact of acquisitions on company performance: Evidence from a large panel of UK firms. Oxford Economic Papers, 49(3), pp.344-361.
Bell, D.W. and Hanson, C.G., 1987. Profit sharing and profitability: How profit sharing promotes business success. Kogan Page.
Goddard, J., Molyneux, P. and Wilson, J.O., 2004. The profitability of European banks: a cross‐sectional and dynamic panel analysis. The Manchester School, 72(3), pp.363-381.
Symeonidis, G., 2001. Price competition, innovation and profitability: theory and UK evidence.
Fothergill, S., GUDGIN, G., KITSON, M. and MONK, S., 1984. Differences in the profitability of the UK manufacturing sector between conurbations and other areas. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 31(1), pp.72-91.
Liu, Y.D., 2008. Profitability measurement of UK theme parks: an aggregate approach. International journal of tourism research, 10(3), pp.283-288.
Lywood, J., Stone, M. and Ekinci, Y., 2009. Customer experience and profitability: An application of the empathy rating index (ERIC) in UK call centres. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 16(3), pp.207-214.
KLUMPES, P.J., 1999. Measuring the profitability of UK proprietary life insurers. The British Accounting Review, 31(2), pp.185-204.
Nichol, E. and Dowling, M., 2014. Profitability and investment factors for UK asset pricing models. Economics Letters, 125(3), pp.364-366.
Molyneux, P. and Thornton, J., 1992. Determinants of European bank profitability: A note. Journal of banking & Finance, 16(6), pp.1173-1178.
Svedberg, P., 1982. The profitability of UK foreign direct investment under colonialism. Journal of Development Economics, 11(3), pp.273-286.
Ozkan, A., 2001. Determinants of capital structure and adjustment to long run target: evidence from UK company panel data. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 28(1‐2), pp.175-198.
Whittington, G., 1971. The prediction of profitability and other studies of company behaviour (No. 22). University Press.
Steer, P. and Cable, J., 1978. Internal organization and profit: an empirical analysis of large UK companies. The Journal of Industrial Economics, pp.13-30.
Funke, M., 1986. Influences on the profitability of the manufacturing sector in the UK—an empirical study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(2), pp.165-187.
Gilmore, A.B., Tavakoly, B., Taylor, G. and Reed, H., 2013. Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategy and whether it undermines tobacco tax policy: the example of the UK cigarette market. Addiction, 108(7), pp.1317-1326.
Goddard, J., Molyneux, P. and Wilson, J.O., 2004. The profitability of European banks: a cross‐sectional and dynamic panel analysis. The Manchester School, 72(3), pp.363-381.
Goddard, J., Tavakoli, M. and Wilson, J.O., 2005. Determinants of profitability in European manufacturing and services: evidence from a dynamic panel model. Applied Financial Economics, 15(18), pp.1269-1282.
Hellowell, M. and Pollock, A.M., 2009. The private financing of NHS hospitals: politics, policy and practice. Economic Affairs, 29(1), pp.13-19.
Holden, K. and El-Bannany, M., 2004.Investment in information technology systems and other determinants of bank profitability in the UK. Applied Financial Economics, 14(5), pp.361-365.
Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. and Randall, T., 2003. Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(7-8), pp.715-741.
José Vilares, M. and Simões Coelho, P., 2003.The employee-customer satisfaction chain in the ECSI model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), pp.1703-1722.
Juma’h, A.H. and Wood, D., 2000. Outsourcing implications on companies’ profitability and liquidity: a sample of UK companies. Work Study, 49(7), pp.265-275.
Kosmidou*, K., Pasiouras, F. and Floropoulos, J., 2004.Linking profits to asset-liability management of domestic and foreign banks in the UK. Applied Financial Economics, 14(18), pp.1319-1324.
KLUMPES, P.J., 1999. Measuring the profitability of UK proprietary life insurers. The British Accounting Review, 31(2), pp.185-204.
Kosmidou, K., Tanna, S. and Pasiouras, F., 2005, June. Determinants of profitability of domestic UK commercial banks: panel evidence from the period 1995-2002. In Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference (Vol. 45, pp. 1-27).
Liedtka, J.M., Haskins, M.E., Rosenblum, J.W. and Weber, J., 1997. The generative cycle: linking knowledge and relationships. Sloan Management Review, 39, pp.47-58.
Lywood, J., Stone, M. and Ekinci, Y., 2009. Customer experience and profitability: An application of the empathy rating index (ERIC) in UK callcentres. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 16(3), pp.207-214.
McAdam, R., Hazlett, S.A. and Casey, C., 2005. Performance management in the UK public sector: addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), pp.256-273.
Micheli, P. and Neely, A., 2010. Performance measurement in the public sector in England: Searching for the golden thread. Public Administration Review, 70(4), pp.591-600.
Molyneux, P. and Thornton, J., 1992. Determinants of European bank profitability: A note. Journal of banking &
