DOCSLIB.ORG

Bringing Quality, Safety and Sustainability to Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bringing Quality, Safety and Sustainability to Life Bringing quality, safety and sustainability to life Annual Report 2019 In this year’s report Strategic report IFC Financial highlights 01 Welcome to Intertek 02 Business summary 02 What we do Financial highlights 04 How we do it 06 Why we do it 08 Investment case 10 Business model 12 Our 5x5 strategy 14 Chief Executive Officer’s review 22 Key performance indicators 24 Sustainability Group revenue growth of +4.8% at constant 36 Operating reviews Continued progress in rates, +6.6% at actual rates 36 Products revenue, margin, ROIC Good organic revenue growth at constant 40 Trade rates of 3.3%: Products +2.3%, Trade +4.1%, 42 Resources Resources +5.7% 44 Financial review and cash reflecting the Portfolio strength and performance 50 Principal risks and uncertainties Group’s performance management discipline driving margin 56 Our stakeholders – Section 172 statement progression: adjusted +10bps at constant Directors’ report management discipline, rates, stable at actual rates 58 Chairman’s introduction focused on margin- Adjusted operating profit of £513m, +5.2% 60 Board of Directors at constant rates and +6.5% at actual rates 62 Leadership team accretive revenue Statutory operating profit of £486m, +10.2% 63 Corporate governance at constant rates and +11.4% at actual rates 74 Nomination Committee report growth and cash Strong adjusted diluted EPS growth: 76 Audit Committee report adjusted +5.2% at constant rates, +6.8% at 81 Remuneration Committee report conversion. actual rates; statutory +8.9% at constant 100 Other statutory information rates, +10.2% at actual rates 103 Statement of Directors’ Responsibilities Full-year dividend per share of 105.8p, an increase of 6.8% Financial statements Free cash flow of £380m, +8.4% year-on-year 105 Consolidated statement of comprehensive income Statutory net profit after tax of £334m, 106 Consolidated statement of financial position +8.1% at constant rates and +9.3% at 107 Consolidated statement of changes in equity actual rates 108 Consolidated statement of cash flows ROIC of 22.8%, +150bps at constant rates 109 Notes to the financial statements and +220bps at actual rates 159 Intertek Group plc – Company balance sheet 160 Intertek Group plc – Company statement of changes in equity 161 Notes to the Company financial statements 164 Independent Auditors’ Report £2,987M £2,926M 172 Shareholder and corporate information Revenue Organic revenue1 (2018: £2,801m) (2018: £2,783m) Quality £513M £486M Adjusted operating profit1,2 Statutory operating profit3 Safety (2018: £482m) (2018: £436m) 17.2% 16.3% Sustainability Adjusted operating margin1,2 Statutory operating margin3 (2018: 17.2%) (2018: 15.6%) 1. Definitions of the above metrics and constant rates are set out on page 22. 2. Adjusted operating profit, adjusted diluted earnings per share (‘EPS’) are non-GAAP measures. Adjusted 211.7P 192.6P 1,2 3 measures are stated on an IAS 17 basis and before Adjusted diluted earnings per share Statutory diluted earnings per share Separately Disclosed Items, which are described in (2018: 198.3p) (2018: 174.7p) note 3 to the financial statements. Reconciliations between statutory and adjusted measures, as well as return on invested capital and cash conversion, are shown in the Financial review. £380M 105.8P 3. The Group adopted IFRS 16 on 1 January 2019; as Free cash flow Dividend per share4 such the statutory measures are on an IFRS 16 basis (2018: £351m) (2018: 99.1p) for 2019 and IAS 17 basis for 2018. Reconciliations between IAS 17 and IFRS 16 measures are disclosed in note 24 to the financial statements on pages 153 to 158. 4. Dividend per share for 2019 is based on the interim 22.8% dividend paid of 34.2p (2018: 31.9p) plus the Return On Invested Capital1,2 proposed final dividend of 71.6p (2018: 67.2p). (2018: 20.6%) Printed in the UK by CPI Colour a CarbonNeutral® company, certificated to Environmental Management System ISO14001 and holders of FSC® chain of custody certification. The report is printed on UPM Fine SC. This paper is made from virgin wood fibre from well-managed forest independently certified according to the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®) and other controlled sources. It is manufactured at a mill that is certified to ISO14001 and EMAS environmental standards. The mill uses pulps that are totally chlorine free (TCF), and some pulp is bleached using an elemental chlorine free (ECF) process. The inks in printing this report are all vegetable-based. INTERTEK GROUP PLC Tel +44 20 7396 3400 33 Cavendish Square, [email protected] London, W1G 0PS intertek.com United Kingdom Strategic report Welcome to Intertek Welcome to Intertek Strategic report Total Quality report Directors’ Assurance for Financial statements complex times. In these complex and fast-moving times, consumers and businesses everywhere are looking for safety, quality and sustainability. How can today’s risks be more effectively managed? What’s the best way to meet challenges we all face on a daily basis? At Intertek, we offer innovative solutions that encompass every aspect of life; through Assurance, Testing, Inspection and Certification. With our unique TQA offering, we make the world a safer, better and more sustainable place. That’s Total Quality Assurance. Find out more online: investors.intertek.com Our year in review PDF downloads Intertek Group plc Annual Report and Accounts 2019 01 Strategic report Business summary Business summary What we do We provide our clients with a risk-based approach to Quality Assurance As the world changes, operating safely, sustainably and delivering quality products and services becomes more difficult. Supply chains are rapidly growing in both size and complexity, bringing unprecedented levels of risk. In these challenging times, companies need a trusted partner. Intertek’s innovation-led, end-to-end Total Quality Assurance (‘TQA’) proposition is designed to support our clients 24/7, providing – on a global scale – a fully integrated portfolio of Assurance, Testing, Inspection and Certification (‘ATIC’) services to give our customers complete peace of mind for their products and services. 130 years of industry-leading services Delivering our TQA For more than 130 years, Intertek has promise to our customers been innovating to mitigate risk and deliver To become the most trusted partner quality and safety to organisations. From for Quality Assurance, we have made a We enable our clients our beginnings, certifying grain cargoes promise to our customers: Intertek TQA and then testing and ensuring the safety expertise, delivered consistently with to progress their product of Thomas Edison’s products, today we precision, pace and passion, enabling development by delivering are a global force; the industry leader for our customers to power ahead safely. quality, safety and now sustainability. expert services with The three words of precision, pace and consistent quality Although Testing, Inspection and passion are central to everything we do. Certification (‘TIC’) remain core to our They are what make us different. They mean and accuracy. industry, because of the growing risk from the consistent quality and accuracy of our Scott Rickard vast and complex supply chains, increasingly work; the speed of response, delivering rapid Senior Scientist, UK the focus is also on systemic assurance. and accurate feedback for clients; and the Our clients need to take an end-to-end desire and belief in what we do. We place approach to quality and safety across their our clients at the centre of our universe. entire value chain. TIC has become ATIC. To deliver this, we employ people with The ATIC solutions we deliver go beyond the right potential, attitude, intellect and the quality and safety of a corporation’s entrepreneurial spirit. Then we introduce physical components, products and assets to them to our culture of excellence and also look at the reliability of their operating innovation, and our demanding service processes and quality management standards. They become our TQA experts. systems. This is our Total Quality Assurance By aligning the quality of our people with offering, enabling our clients to mitigate our high-performance culture we can deliver risk at every stage of their operations. our promise to customers and build long- term and mutually rewarding relationships. Intertek Group plc 02 Annual Report and Accounts 2019 Strategic report Business summary OUR TQA CUSTOMER PROMISE Intertek’s Total Quality Assurance expertise, delivered Strategic report consistently with precision, pace and passion, enabling our customers to power ahead safely. OUR SERVICES report Directors’ Financial statements ASSURANCE TESTING INSPECTION CERTIFICATION Enabling our customers to Evaluating how our customers’ Validating the specifications, Formally confirming that our identify and mitigate intrinsic risk products and services meet and value and safety of our customers’ products and services in their operations, their supply exceed quality, safety, sustainability customers’ raw materials, meet all trusted external and and distribution chains and and performance standards. products and assets. internal standards. quality management systems. THE ATIC ADVANTAGE, OUR TIC EXPERTISE PLUS OUR ASSURANCE SOLUTIONS. RESEARCH & Our TQA DEVELOPMENT value proposition Read more on how RAW MATERIALS The Intertek roundel > we are transforming our CONSUMER SOURCING Our roundel is a shorthand business on page 8 MANAGEMENT for our logo and is inspired by a key moment in our history – the invention of the incandescent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RSPO Letterhead
    EB 02-08 Minutes of Executive Board Meeting Date : 27 May 2008 Venue : Teleconference Start time : 0800 (UK), 0900 (Nl), 1400 (Ina), 1500(My) Attendees: Apologies: 1. Derom Bangun ( GAPKI) 2. Paul Norton (HSBC Malaysia) 1. Johann Zueblin (Migros) 3. Ian McIntosh (AAK) 2. Tim Stephenson ( AAK) 4. Christophe Liebon (Intertek) 3. Simon Lord ( Kulim Malaysia Bhd 5. Don Grubba ( IOI) ) 6. Johan Verburg (Oxfam) 4. Tony Lass ( Cadbury 7. Jan Kees Vis ( Unilever) – Chair Schweppes) 8. Chew Jit Seng (MPOA) 5. Fitrian Adrianshah (WWF- 9. Mamat Salleh (MPOA) Indonesia) 10.MR Chandran (RSPO EB Advisor) 6. Matthias Diemer ( WWF – 11.Thomas Barano ( WWF- Indonesia) Switzerland) 12.Robert Keller ( MIGROS) 7. Mohd Nor Kailany ( Felda) 13.Rudy Lumuru ( Sawit Watch) 8. Samantha Lacey ( CIS) 14.Chong Wei Kwang ( HSBC Malaysia) 9. Darrel Webber ( WWF- Malaysia) 15.Vengeta Rao (VR, Secretariat) 10.Didiek Hajar Gunadi (GAPKI) 16.Desi Kusumadewi ( RILO) AGENDA 1. Introduction and RSPO Antitrust laws 2. Confirmation of minutes of EB 01-08 3. Secretariat 3.1 Accounts & finances 3.1.1 Update on RSPO Accounts to end March 2008 3.1.2 Update on RSPO Sdn Bhd Accounts to end March 2008 3.2 Secretariat updates 3.2.1 Update from Secretary General including RILO matters 4. Membership 4.1 Outstanding/defaulting RSPO Members 4.2 Grievances 4.3 Outstanding Membership applications 4.4 Revised membership application procedures and flowchart 5. Executive Board matters 5.1 Welcome New Members / Alternates / Changes 5.2 EB Retailers seat 5.3 Approval of Ina – NI 5.4 Approval of CBs – PT Mutu Agung (Ina), PT TUV Nord (Ina) 5.5 RT6 theme, delegates fees, exhibition rentals and sponsorships 5.6 RSPO FAQ on C7.3 – cut off date 6.
    [Show full text]
  • CSR Self-Assessment Handbook for Companies
    Enhancing Transparency and Credibility of CSR Practices through Establishment of CSR Performance Assessment and Monitoring Systems in New EU Member States CSR Self-Assessment Handbook for Companies 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The main part of the present handbook, the self-assessment questionnaire was developed by ACONA Ltd experts Mr. Peter de Graaf and Dr. Christian Toennesen (UK). The team of national experts including Ms. Elitsa Barakova (Bulgaria), Ms. Reka Matolay (Hungary), Ms. Audronė Alijošiutė (Lithuania), Mr. Jacek Dymowski (Poland) and Mr. Michal Kissa (Slovakia) conducted a pilot testing of a self-assessment tool during August 2010 and have contributed substantially to the development of the practical tips for users (user guide) for this publication. The handbook development was coordinated by Ms. Audronė Alijošiutė. The project team also wishes to acknowledge in particular the contribution of the companies that have participated in the testing exercise of the questionnaire and have provided examples of good practices. 2 Table of contents Glossary of acronyms ...........................................................................................4 1. Introduction .................................................................................................5 2. Before you start to use the self assessment tool: Quick Tips .......................................................................................................7 3. The self assessment tool: Questionnaire and guidelines for uses ....................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Intertek Annual Report 2008
    FC1 Intertek Group plc Annual Report 2008 Report Annual Bringing competitive advantage to business Annual Report 2008 IFC2 Contents 01 Financial Highlights 02 At a Glance 04 Chairman’s Statement Directors’ Report – Business Review 06 Chief Executive Officer’s Review 09 Operating Review 23 Chief Operating Officer’s Review 24 Financial Review 28 Risks and Uncertainties Directors’ Report – Governance 32 Board of Directors 34 Intertek Operations Committee 36 Corporate Governance Report 42 Remuneration Report 56 Other Statutory Information 58 Statement of Directors’ Responsibilities 59 Corporate Social Responsibility Report Financial Statements 66 Independent Auditors’ Report 68 Consolidated Income Statement 69 Consolidated Balance Sheet 70 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 71 Consolidated Statement of Recognised Income and Expense 72 Notes to the Financial Statements 112 Intertek Group plc Company Balance Sheet 113 Notes to the Company Financial Statements Shareholder Information 116 Corporate and Shareholder Information 117 Financial Calendar and Contact Information Cautionary statement This Annual Report contains certain forward- looking statements with respect to the financial condition, results, operations and business of Intertek Group plc. These statements and forecasts involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to events and depend upon circumstances that will occur in the future. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results or developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking
    [Show full text]
  • In February 2013, Glaxosmithkline (GSK) Announced a Commitment To
    In February 2013, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced a commitment to further clinical transparency through the public disclosure of GSK Clinical Study Reports (CSRs) on the GSK Clinical Study Register. The following guiding principles have been applied to the disclosure: Information will be excluded in order to protect the privacy of patients and all named persons associated with the study Patient data listings will be completely removed* to protect patient privacy. Anonymized data from each patient may be made available subject to an approved research proposal. For further information, please see the Patient Level Data section of the GSK Clinical Study Register. Aggregate data will be included; with any direct reference to individual patients excluded *Complete removal of patient data listings may mean that page numbers are no longer consecutively numbered Document Name RH205051 Synopsis Type Version Document Identifier Effective Date eldo_controlled 1.0; CURRENT; Most-Recent; Effective 090032d580d18c62 Reason For Issue Synopsis Report Study Number 205051 Study Title A Study to Investigate the Ant imicrobial Activity of two Test toothpastes in a Plaque Glycolysis and Regrowth Model. Test Product(s) Test toothpaste containing 0.6% w/w zinc chloride and 0.1% w/w isopropylmethylpheno l (IPMP) and 1426ppm fluoride as sodium fluoride. Indication Ant imicrobial activity Phase Not Applicable Authors: Clinical Operations PPD , HND BioStatistics PPD , BSc, MSc Clinical Research PPD , BS Approvers: Clinical Operations PPD , PhD BioStatistics PPD , BSc, CStat Clinical Research PPD , BSc, MSc, CStat Copyright: GlaxoSmithKline. An unpublished work subject to trade secret protection. This work contains confidential and proprietary information of GlaxoSmithKline and should not be copied, circulated, or distributed to persons not employed by GlaxoSmithKline unless specifically authorized.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Stakeholders and Key Performance Indicators for District And
    1 Identifying stakeholders and key performance indicators for district and building energy performance analysis Li Yehonga, James O´Donnellb, Raúl García-Castroc, Sergio Vega-Sáncheza aDepartment of Construction and Building Technology, School of Architecture, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Avda. Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain bSchool of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, ERC & UCD Energy Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland cOntology Engineering Group, ETSI Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo, s/n, Boadilla del Monte 28660, Spain [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Corresponding Author: Yehong Li Department of Construction and Building Technology School of Architecture Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Avda. Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain Tel: +34 672332653 Email: [email protected] 2 Abstract Integrated energy management at both the district and building scales can potentially improve multi-level energy efficiency, but such a solution requires the exchange and analysis of energy performance information from different stakeholders. With the complexities of energy management, there are numerous potential stakeholders and a considerable amount of information to consider. Therefore, a primary challenge is the development of a method that identifies the key stakeholders and extracts key information that supports their performance goals. In this paper, a systematic approach to identify stakeholders and key performance indicators (KPIs) is proposed to draw key information for multi-level energy performance analysis. Firstly, a three-task method for the identification and prioritization of stakeholders is suggested; secondly, a bi-index method to select the KPIs that underpin the stakeholders’ performance goals is defined; finally, the proposed methodology is validated using a case study.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Process-Oriented Performance Indicators
    Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article Sustainability and Continuous Improvement of Organization: Review of Process-Oriented Performance Indicators Aija Medne and Inga Lapina * Institute for Quality Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Kalnciema iela 6, LV 1048 Riga, Latvia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 June 2019; Accepted: 24 July 2019; Published: 26 July 2019 Abstract: Nowadays, organizations are trying to have, not only a competitive advantage in the market, but also in sustainable development. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the process of measuring organizations’ sustainability using process-oriented indicators. The research seeks to address the following research question: How are process-oriented indicators linked to an organization’s strategy in the context of sustainable development? This research is based on reviewing the literature on organizational performance analysis in the context of sustainable development. The literature review highlights the main elements of organizational performance analysis and linkages to the overall business strategy. There are many ways of how to conduct an in depth assessment of an organization’s performance regarding sustainability. The research shows the elements that are integrated in the process and the organization’s performance analysis. These elements are—objectives, metrics, data measures, indicators and key performance indicators (KPIs). The research shows that growing organizations with a strategic focus on sustainability integrate these elements in the process analysis. Keywords: sustainable development; process-orientation; key performance indicators; continuous improvement; article 1. Introduction More organizations are pressured by their stakeholders to report on their performance in a much wider perspective, such as triple bottom line (TBL) reporting [1–3].
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Measurement of Supreme Audit Institutions in 4 Anglo-Saxon Countries: Leading by Example
    Performance Measurement of Supreme Audit Institutions in 4 Anglo-Saxon Countries: Leading by Example Performance Measurement of Supreme Audit Institutions in 4 Anglo-Saxon Countries: Leading by Example Nobuo AZUMA* Director, Study Division, Board of Audit I. Introduction In Japan, performance measurement has been introduced into government ministries and agencies since January 2001, and to independent administrative institutions since April of the same year. Nonetheless, throughout the country, a working system for performance measurement has yet to be established, and measures have not yet achieved their anticipated results. Also, even in advanced countries, such as America and many European nations (which Japan models itself after), performance measurement is still in the process of trial and error. The supreme audit institutions (SAIs) of these countries are currently conducting performance measures in order to establish the foundations for evaluation and improve their quality by leading other government agencies and government- funded institutions by example. In this paper, as a reference for Japan’s government ministries and agencies, as well as for independent administrative institutions, etc., in conducting performance measurement, I would like to introduce the type of performance measurement presently conducted by SAIs in Europe and America, and examine approaches to improve the quality of such measurement. Specifically, as examples from advanced countries, this paper will introduce performance measurement as carried out in the following four countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, where the author conducted field surveys between 2001 and 2002. (Please note that this paper presents the author’s personal views and does not represent any official opinion of the Board of Audit of Japan.) II.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Performance Indicators for Social Development
    Key Performance Indicators for social development Danica Radovanovic, PhD prof. Josef Noll Digital equality advisor and Ambassador at Co-Founder and Evangelist at Basic Internet Foundation Basic Internet Foundation White paper version 1.0 November 20, 2017 1 Introduction The internet technologies play a key role in providing insights into people's activities, opinions and everyday lives. These detailed user-generated information-online streams offer a unique opportunity for individuals to engage, communicate, socialize, and create sustainable infrastructures that lead to social development. However, there are almost 4 billion people on this planet without the internet access, basic information and skills to education or health. The situation is problematic with regards to the notion of a digital divide being primarily focused on the technological affordability: computers and access. As many scholars have noted, the digital divide is also a divide of literacy and skills (van Dijk 2005; Hargittai and Hinnant (2008); Radovanovic et al., 2015). Though, access is still seen as a necessary condition (Warschauer, 2002), in the case of education and business, many people could more practically engage the technology if they had the basic skills. Thus, digital literacies present the relevant factor in bridging this digital divide by providing the social development. With regards to the social development and sustainable infrastructure, we are entering a critical period where emerging technologies and societal disruptive changes are happening around us. The focus of many studies on inequalities in the context of social development are mainly on differences in socio-economic backgrounds and in available resources, such as money or skills, or focused on developing inequalities such as access to basic human resources including equipment, knowledge, or education.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolters Kluwer Governance Roadshow
    Wolters Kluwer Governance Roadshow Selection & Remuneration Committee of the Supervisory Board of Wolters Kluwer September, 2020 Governance Roadshow, September 2020 1 Forward-looking statements This presentation contains forward-looking statements. These statements may be identified by words such as "expect", "should", "could", "shall", and similar expressions. Wolters Kluwer cautions that such forward-looking statements are qualified by certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from what is contemplated by the forward-looking statements. Factors which could cause actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, general economic conditions, conditions in the markets in which Wolters Kluwer is engaged, behavior of customers, suppliers and competitors, technological developments, the implementation and execution of new ICT systems or outsourcing, legal, tax, and regulatory rules affecting Wolters Kluwer's businesses, as well as risks related to mergers, acquisitions and divestments. In addition, financial risks, such as currency movements, interest rate fluctuations, liquidity and credit risks could influence future results. The foregoing list of factors should not be construed as exhaustive. Wolters Kluwer disclaims any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Growth rates are cited in constant currencies unless otherwise noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Performance Indicators Initiative (SPI): Summary Report Phase 1
    Measuring social performance of micro-finance institutions: A proposal Social Performance Indicators Initiative (SPI) Final Report Manfred Zeller University of Göttingen, Institute of Rural Development, Germany ([email protected]) Cécile Lapenu CERISE, France ; www.cerise-microfinance.org Martin Greeley Institute of Development Studies, UK; www.ids.ac.uk October 2003 Submitted to Argidius Foundation and Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) Zeller, Lapenu and Greeley Summary Report Social Performance Indicators Initiative (SPI): Final Report Manfred Zeller Cécile Lapenu Martin Greeley • Summary Report 1. Background to the SPI........................................................................................................3 2. Definition of social performances...................................................................................... 4 2.1 Social performance in the literature ........................................................................... 4 2.2 Defining dimensions of social performance with respect to microfinance..................... 5 3. Selection of operational indicators of social performances ............................................... 6 3.1 The steps for the selection.......................................................................................... 6 3.2 The indicators proposed ............................................................................................. 8 Dimension 1: Outreach to the poor and excluded.............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1: Parker Review Survey Results As at 2 November 2020
    Annex 1: Parker Review survey results as at 2 November 2020 The data included in this table is a representation of the survey results as at 2 November 2020, which were self-declared by the FTSE 100 companies. As at March 2021, a further seven FTSE 100 companies have appointed directors from a minority ethnic group, effective in the early months of this year. These companies have been identified through an * in the table below. 3 3 4 4 2 2 Company Company 1 1 (source: BoardEx) Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did 1 Admiral Group PLC a 27 Hargreaves Lansdown PLC a 2 Anglo American PLC a 28 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC a 3 Antofagasta PLC a 29 HSBC Holdings PLC a InterContinental Hotels 30 a 4 AstraZeneca PLC a Group PLC 5 Avast PLC a 31 Intermediate Capital Group PLC a 6 Aveva PLC a 32 Intertek Group PLC a 7 B&M European Value Retail S.A. a 33 J Sainsbury PLC a 8 Barclays PLC a 34 Johnson Matthey PLC a 9 Barratt Developments PLC a 35 Kingfisher PLC a 10 Berkeley Group Holdings PLC a 36 Legal & General Group PLC a 11 BHP Group PLC a 37 Lloyds Banking Group PLC a 12 BP PLC a 38 Melrose Industries PLC a 13 British American Tobacco PLC a 39 Mondi PLC a 14 British Land Company PLC a 40 National Grid PLC a 15 BT Group PLC a 41 NatWest Group PLC a 16 Bunzl PLC a 42 Ocado Group PLC a 17 Burberry Group PLC a 43 Pearson PLC a 18 Coca-Cola HBC AG a 44 Pennon Group PLC a 19 Compass Group PLC a 45 Phoenix Group Holdings PLC a 20 Diageo PLC a 46 Polymetal International PLC a 21 Experian PLC a 47
    [Show full text]
  • Ftse4good UK 50
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE4Good UK 50 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.81 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 5.08 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.67 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 2.56 UNITED Halma 0.74 UNITED Rio Tinto 4.68 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.36 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 6.17 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 4.3 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.56 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.64 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 3.75 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 8.25 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.47 UNITED Schroders 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 1.15 UNITED Intertek Group 0.65 UNITED Segro 0.95 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Barclays 2.1 UNITED Legal & General Group 1.1 UNITED Smith & Nephew 0.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BHP Group Plc 3.2 UNITED Lloyds Banking Group 2.39 UNITED Smurfit Kappa Group 0.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BT Group 1.23 UNITED London Stock Exchange Group 2.09 UNITED Spirax-Sarco Engineering 0.72 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Burberry Group 0.6 UNITED Mondi 0.67 UNITED SSE 1.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Coca-Cola HBC AG 0.37 UNITED National Grid 2.37 UNITED Standard Chartered 0.85 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Compass Group 1.96 UNITED Natwest Group 0.77 UNITED Tesco 1.23 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM CRH 2.08 UNITED Next 0.72 UNITED Unilever 7.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM
    [Show full text]