RECRUITER HOT 100 COMPANIES 2017

↗

‘added value’ from their own employees (before allocating overheads) yet still nurture the right atmosphere over the long term to encourage a profitable and sustainable sales approach? Take a look at the 2017 HOT 100 list of companies (pp23-24).

HOT 100 group sales turnover rose 9.3%, almost three times faster than the wider recruitment industry

KE Y FIN D I N G S

60% of HOT 100 firms expanded their workforce either organically or by acquisition

27% achieved a simultanious growth in productivity and internal headcount

of HOT 100 companies rose by 6.7% over the year to an aggregated average £102,592 to stand 4.1% above last year’s HOT 100 group average. However, a simple average of each of the GPH figures, negating the lower quartile high-weighted skew of those large employers across both years, stood at £111,753 and 1.5% ahead of the 2016 HOT 100. ● HOT 100 average gross margin was unchanged for this group of companies at 20.6%, with a small shift in the business mix towards permanent offset by temporary margin pressure. ● This HOT 100 group in their past financial year added £290m in net fees with an additional 706 staff at an incremental gross margin of 19.9%, making an incremental £410,764 additional GPH. This incremental margin was balanced by a permanent fees presence and an incremental GPH reflecting the

strong focus on productivity. ● Entry level GPH (ranked 100) to the 2017 HOT 100 was £85,283, standing £1,627 below the prior year threshold for the ‘cut’, which was at £86,910. Extending beyond the HOT 100, the average GPH only begins to fall away, below £80k, at 116th, illustrating the closeness of the ‘following pack’. ● Just 27% of HOT 100 companies achieved the dream combination of expanding productivity simultaneously with increasing their internal headcount. This compares with a similar 29% last year but just two years ago it was 49%. There was also a strong bias towards larger companies. Company trends: productivity (GPH) growth less certain as recent years’ expansion policy not yet paid off As mentioned, the bar for HOT 100 success this year dropped again to

↗

2017 HOT 100 group sales turnover rose 9.3%, almost three times faster than the wider recruitment industry sales turnover growth of just 3.2% reported for calendar 2016 by the ONS. Like for like, comparing this group against their own figures for the previous year, overall headcount rose just 2.1% but a much greater 9% rise in GP was achieved as productivity pushed upwards to post GPH rising by 6.7%. Gross margin was unchanged at 20.6%. Like for like: ● The 2017 HOT 100 companies collectively reported an increase from their previous year in latest available sales of 9.3% to around £17.1bn. ● HOT 100 combined GP exceeded £3.5bn, a gain of 9% versus their prior year. ● HOT 100 companies’ in-house headcount rose 2.1% to total 34,398 employees. ● Productivity (GPH) for this group

Methodology The data has been rigorously filtered by turnover, gross profit and employee numbers. The companies featured in this edition employ over 34,000 in-house staff and generate £17.1bn of industry sales revenue; very many more were evaluated as part of the overall analysis. Latest available accounts have been used — dated 2016 or 2017 for all companies – a few companies are excluded due to filing timings. Companies filing abbreviated accounts 22 RECRUITER

p20-27 Hot 100 2017.indd 22

and not providing their full figures separately are excluded. Increasingly, with the internationalisation of many UK recruitment firms, group accounts are now used for UK corporations where these prove more up to date — examples would be Hays, Harvey Nash, Robert Walters, Page Group and several IT recruiters. Companies operating primarily overseas have been excluded, although UK engineering specialists placing talent

worldwide are included. Overseas-based groups eg. Adecco, Randstad or Hudson may be included, using their UK operating companies or group disclosed divisions. Two prominent exclusions from the analysis are Manpower and Reed due to accounting differences, which invalidate comparisons. Furthermore companies combining temporary employees in their employee count are not included as

this grossly underestimates their performance. The most specialist of search or ‘headhunters’ are omitted for a variety of reasons – incomplete disclosure, overseas business, incompatibility and a shortage of data for peer group comparison. Disclaimer: while every effort has been made to ensure accurate reporting and analysis no guarantees are made regarding the information portrayed in this document.

JANUARY 2018

07/12/2017 14:11