Performance management system for Marks and Spencer - Research Paper Example

? Performance management system for Marks and Spencer Table of contents Executive summary 3 Introduction 4 Chapter One 0 Overview of the Organization 5 1.1 Performance management policies used in Marks and Spencer 6 Chapter Two 2.0 Balanced Scorecard 7 2.1 Implementation of Balanced Scorecard for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 8 2.1.1 Requirements of the balanced scorecard 8 2.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Balanced Scorecard in Marks and Spencer 10 Chapter Three 3.0 Goal Setting 11 3.1 Implementation of Goal Setting for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 3.1.1 Requirements of the Goal Setting 12 3.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Goal Setting in Marks and Spencer 13 Chapter Four 4.0 Individual Reward System 13 4.1 Implementation of Individual Reward System for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 14 4.1.1 Requirements of the Individual Reward System 14 4.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Individual Reward System in Marks and Spencer 15 Chapter Five 5.0 Justification for approach 16 5.1 Fit with your organisation 16 5.2 Possible implementation issues 17 Chapter Six 6.0 Conclusions 18 References 19 Executive summary The competitiveness of organizations in the context of the global market is often depended on their ability to control their performance. Still, the measures taken in organizations worldwide for the standardization of performance are often inadequate. Particular problem seems to exist in regard to the ability of managers to identify effective performance management (PM) systems. In practice, it has been proved that the findings of these systems do not always reflect the actual status of organizations, in terms of their performance. Thus, the identification of effective PM systems is a key challenge for managers internationally. The potential use of a performance management system for measuring the performance of Marks and Spencer (UK) is examined in this paper. Three performance management systems are set under examination, as of their appropriateness for Marks and Spencer: the Balanced Scorecard, the Goal Setting and the Individual Reward System. It is proved that all these systems could be used for measuring the performance of Marks and Spencer under the terms that their implications and challenges, as analyzed below, are taken into consideration. In any case, it seems that these systems can reflect rather the current performance of the specific organization, or, at least, the firm’s performance in the short term. If used for studying the potentials of the organization for a long term growth, these systems would be appropriately alternated, as explained below. Introduction The measurement of performance is a key part of organizational strategy. However, the criteria on which the measurement of performance of modern organizations is based are not standardized, meaning that each organization can employe different methods for measuring and evaluating its performance. Most commonly, the following issue needs to be addressed: how could a particular organization choose a performance management (PM) system that will offer accurate findings, in regard to the organizational performance? In practice, it has been proved that the use of a popular PM system, such as the Balanced Scorecard, can minimize the risks for failures in measuring organizational performance. Due to its high effectiveness, the Balanced Scorecard is preferred by firms of various sizes; in a relevant research it has been revealed that ‘about 60% of the Fortune 1000 has a Balanced Scorecard in place’ (Niven 2006, p.2). However, under certain terms, the findings of a Balanced Scorecard may not fully reflect the performance of a particular organization. In this context, the use of other performance management (PM) systems, as alternative, is often considered as unavoidable. The three PM systems presented in this paper, i.e. the Balanced Scorecard, the Goal Setting and the Individual Reward System, are analyzed in particular as of their use in measuring the performance of Marks and Spencer. The overall requirements and challengs of these PM systems are also presented aiming to show the terms under which PM systems can help the long term growth of an organization operating in a highly competitive market, as in the case of Marks and Spencer (UK). Recommendations are made so that the risks and challenges related to the three above PM systems to be controlled, as possible. Chapter One 1.0 Overview of the Organization Marks and Spencer is one of the most powerful competitors in the retail industry of UK. According to the information provided through the organization’s website, the current workforce of the firm is estimated to ‘78,000 people in UK and abroad’ (Marks and Spencer Company Overview 2012). The presence of the firm in the UK market is impressive with a network of about 700 stores across the country (Marks and Spencer Company Overview 2012). Marks and Spencer, in its initial form, was established in 1901 (Marks and Spencer Timeline 2012). Through the years, the growth of the organization has been significant and rapid; by 1915, the stores of the organization across UK were estimated to 145 (Marks and Spencer Timeline 2012). In 2010, the organization’s strategic managers introduced a plan which lasts for three years, i.e. from 2010-2013 and focuses on the following targets: a) the improvement of the firm’s stores across UK, b) the increase of ‘the pace of space growth in UK’ (Marks and Spencer Our plans 2012) and c) the improvement and further expansion of the firm’s channels for promoting its products to the market; in this contenx, new features have been introduced in the organization’s website so that online shopping is enhanced (Marks and Spencer Our plans 2012). During the last four years, the performance of the organization seems to be declined (Figure 1), a phenomenon probably related to the global financial crisis and the financial pressures that characterize the UK market. Figure 1 – Operating profit of the organization from 2008 to 2011 (Source: Marks and Spencer, Online Annual Report 2011) For many years, the firm has emphasized on the development of effective performance management policies, as explained below. However, it seems that the measures taken have not been appropriate, at least in regard to current market conditions. The introduction of particular performance management (PM) systems, such as the Balanced Scorecard or the Goal Setting, would help the firm’s managers to be aware of the firm’s actual status and perspectives, a fact that would secure the standardization of the organizational performance. 1.1 Performance management policies used in Marks and Spencer In Marks and Spencer, the enhancement of employee performance seems to be based on particular practices: reference can be made, as an example, to the values on which the employment relationship is based. According to the organization’s website, the promotion of ‘trust, fairness, commitment and involvement’ (Marks and Spencer Our Values 2012) is highly supported. At the same time, emphasis is given on the high standards of services and the value of innovation, as prerequisites for the growth of the organization (Marks and Spencer Our Values 2012). At the same time, a series of rewards and benefits is used, such as performance-based payment, rewards, bonuses and pension (Marks and Spencer Careers-Rewards and Benefits 2012), for keeping employee satisfaction at high levels (Marks and Spencer Careers-Rewards and Benefits 2012). In this way also, employee performance is expected to be at high levels, a fact that benefit the performance of the organization. In addition, the firm offers to its employees a high range of ‘lifestyle options, as for example, flexible working plans and leisure schemes’ (Marks and Spencer Careers-Rewards and Benefits 2012) that address particular needs of individuals, such as the increased needs of time in case of family plans or the need or in the case of changing roles within the organization, (Marks and Spencer Careers-Rewards and Benefits 2012), meaning the transfer of employees from one department to another, a practice that would result to the need of extra time to employees in order to become familiar with the demands of their new role. Through the above schemes, employee loyalty in increased, leading to the increase of performance. In other words, performance management in Marks and Spencer is developed through the introduction of a series of schemes for supporting performance; no reference is made to a scheme for measuiring employee performance or for measuring the performance of organization as of its other aspects, as for example, its relationship to its customers. Chapter Two 2.0 Balanced Scorecard The Balanced Scorecard is commonly used in modern organizations in order to develop a precise, as possible, view on organizational performance. Niven (2006) defines the Balanced Scorecard as ‘a carefully selected set of quantifiable measures derived from an organization’s strategy’ (Niven 2006, p.13). In general, a Balancded Scorecard is based on the following perspectives: ‘Customer, Internal Process, Employee Learning and Growth and Financial’ (Niven 2006, p.13). These perspectives, as incorporated in the Balanced Scorecard, should be based on particular measures. Identifying the measures of each of these perspectives can be a challenging task especially in highly competitive markets where changes in organizational processes are continuous (Niven 2006, p.14). The value of Balanced Scorecard, a performance management tool created by Norton and Kaplan (Cokins 2010), is that it helps managers to understand the actual status of the organization using a high range of measures; indeed, in the context of the specific methodology the performance is measured by using both ‘the organization’s financial and non-financial measures, such as customers, internal processes and employees’ (Cokins 2010, p.93). Niven (2006) notes that, traditionally, the measurement of organizational performance has been based on financial measures, i.e. figures reflecting the performance of the organization’s various departments (Niven 2006, p.2). The use of the Balanced Scorecard in Marks and Spencer could help the organization’s managers to understand the effects of both financial and non-financial measures on organizational performance. In this way, strategies would be retrieved for supporting the increase of the firm’s profitability which seems to be declined, as analyzed in section 1.0 above. 2.1 Implementation of Balanced Scorecard for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 2.1.1 Requirements of the balanced scorecard Figure 2 – Balanced scorecard of Norton and Kaplan (as in Sharma 2009, p.11) As already explained, a balanced scorecard needs to address specific issues, as incorporated in four perspectives (Pienaar and Penzhorn 2000). An indicative example of a balanced scorecard is presented in Figure 2 above. Using the above model, the Balanced Scorecard for Marks and Spencer could be developed, as presented below in Figure 2a. Vision and strategy Figure 2a – Balanced Scorecard for Marks and Spencer (UK) The above Scorecard would be analyzed as follows: The Customers perspective refers to the customers’ needs and expectations (Niven 2006). The Internal Business Processes refer to the processes involved in the ‘production, supply or delivery of the product’ (Niven 2006, p.15). The Financial Perspective refers to the financial performance of the organization, as related to its strategy. As already noted, the profits of Marks and Spencer present a trend for decline. A cost/ benefit analysis should be used for measuring the balance between costs and profits and reduce financial losses. The use of appropriately customized IT systems would help the firm’s auditors and financial managers to have a clearer view of the interaction between profits and expenses. As for the Employer Perspective, this is based on the findings related to the firm’s other three perspectives (Niven 2006). In Marks and Spencer where a problem of limited profitability has been diagnosed, the training provided to employees should be increased; at the same time, fairness and equality should be promoted in the workplace trying to increase employee satisfaction which seems to be low, as revealed by the continuous limitation of the firm’s profits the last 4 years (see Figure 1 above). 2.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Balanced Scorecard in Marks and Spencer Like all other management tools, the Balanced Scorecard is related to certain risks. These risks and challenges need to be taken into consideration every time the particular performance management tool is used for measuring organizational performance. According to Cokins (2010) the key problem related to the Balanced Scorecard is the lack of standardization, meaning especially ‘the confusion regarding the nature and the role of Balanced Scorecard’ (Cokins 2010, p.93). As a result, managers in firms worldwide often fail in developing a complete Balanced Scorecard methodology (Cokins 2010). Also, it is quite often that ‘the key performance indicators (KPIs) used in a Balanced Scorecard methodology are wrong’ (Cokins 2010, p.93), as a result of the lack of awareness of the above methodology’s appropriate form and requirements. In the case of Marks and Spencer the above facts could result to the following risks: the KPIs chosen may not be the appropriate one. Moreover, it is possible that the structure of the Balanced Scorecard Methodology, as implemented in the particular organization, is faulty, i.e. either not feasible or not adequately supported. The above risks would be effectively controlled by employing the following practice: the KPIs used in the Balanced Scorecard will be chosen according to their role in the organizational performance based on relevant findings of the literature. The above practice would be also used when deciding the structure of the Scorecard; the form and the content, refererring especially to the KPIs, of the Scorecard would be aligned with the relevant choices of other firms, as highighted in the literature. In this context, the potential failures, either in relation to the structure or the elements of the Scorecard would be avoided. Chapter Three 3.0 Goal Setting The use of goal setting for measuring performance has the following advantage: the specific performance management system can lead to the rapid increase of employee performance by employing simple techniques (Samsonowa 2011). In fact, just by setting goals in regard to the roles of individuals within a particular organization, the performance of individuals is expected to be increased (Cardy and Leonard 2011). According to Armstrong (2009) goal setting can be effective ‘both for individuals and for groups’ (Armstrong 2009, p.422). It should be noted that the structure of a Goal Setting System can be differentiated according to the characteristics of the organization and the conditions of the environment (Koonmee 2009). This means that in each organization, managers can decide on the goals required, based on the needs of their organization, the competition and the resources available. 3.1 Implementation of Goal Setting for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 3.1.1 Requirements of the Goal Setting Goal setting has to meet certain requirements. These requirements are described in the study of Cardy and Leonard (2011). According to the above study, the goals incorporated in a Goal Setting System need to be ‘SMART, i.e. to be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and have a time-frame’ (Cardy and Leonard 2011, p.219). In this context, the Goal Setting System that could be involved in measuring performance in Marks and Spencer would have the structure/ elements described in Figure 3 below: Goal Setting System in Marks and Spencer Goals (SMART) Targets Increase of daily working hours of employees in sales, by 1hr (May – December 2012) Increase of volume of sales at least by 5% in 2012, compared to 2011 Increase of rewards of employees in marketing (May 2012-May 2013) Increase of volume of sales at least by 5% in both 2012 and 2013 Increase of hourly compensation of employees in all departments by 10% (May 2012-December 2013) Increase of profits at least by 8% for 2012 and 2013 Increase of performance-based compensation by 10% of employees in sales (May 2012-December 2013) Increase of turnover at least by 5% for 2012 and 2013 Improvement of the performance of sales department at least by 5%, in addition to the percentages mentioned above Check of employee performance on a monthly basis (MBO approach, Ghuman 2010) Identification of decline in employee performance or of gaps in regard specific departments of the organization Figure 3 – Goal Setting Performance Management System 3.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Goal Setting in Marks and Spencer Goal setting can lead to the increase of employee performance but only under the following term: that the goal set is not too easy, otherwise the individual will not be motivated to increase his performance (Cardy and Leonard 2011). Moreover, if goals are not achieved, a chance is given to the individual ‘to increase his performance accordingly reaching the desired level of performance’ (Cardy and Leonard 2011, p.220). At the same time, it is not clear in the organization’s website whether initiatives of individuals are more encouraged than team-work. The above issue is particular important for deciding on the targets of the performance management system chosen: if individuals are more valued in Marks and Spencer, then emphasis should be given on the behaviour of indivuals, otherwise it would be the behaviour of groups (Cummings and Worley 2008) that will be important when deciding on the elements/ structure of the performance management system used for evaluating performance in the particular organization. Chapter Four 4.0 Individual Reward System The measurement of performance management in Marks and Spencer can be based on an Individual Reward System. The particular system is likely to be used in cases that emphasis is given on the reward of each invidual according to the level of his performance (Thorpe and Homan 2000). In the above system, specific criteria need to be established so that the performance of individual and the rewards received are compared (Thorpe and Homan 2000). According to Kandula, an Indivual Reward System requires the introduction of drivers that will be used for assessing performance at two different levels: ‘organizational level and individual level’ (Kandula 2006, p.65). Moreover, Armstrong (2002) defines the Individual Reward System as ‘the policies used for rewarding individuals based on their contribution in the organization’s daily operations’ (Armstrong 2002, p.4). It is made clear that the particular system can incorporate ‘both financial and non-financial components’ (Armstrong 2002, p.4). At the same time, Creelman (2011) notes that ‘the components of an Individual Reward System are not standard’ (Creelman 2011, p.156). Still, it is possible for certain principles to be used so that fairness and equality, in regard to the benefits and rewards provided, are secured (Nacinovic, Galetic and Cavlek 2009) . 4.1 Implementation of Individual Reward System for measuring performance in Marks and Spencer 4.1.1 Requirements of the Individual Reward System As noted earlier, an Individual Reward System is usually developed at two levels: at organizational and at individual level. Each of these levels need to emphasize on specific issues. For example, at organizational level, an Individual Reward System need to highlight how the performance of the organization is improved in terms of ‘sales, turnover, profits and earnings per share’ (Kandula 2006, p.65). At this point, reference should be made to the methods used for the implementation of the system (Kandula 2006) and ‘whether the relevant processes are monitored by experts’ (Kandula 2006, p.65). From a similar point of view, Armstrong (2002) notes that an Individual Reward System should include specific parts, such as: ‘processes for measuring the value of job, for motivating employees and so on’ (Armstrong 2002, p.4). Such system is described, indicatively, below in Figure 4. Individual Reward System in Marks and Spencer A. Processes for estimating job-value Weekly reports on employee performance Weekly review of departments’ performance B. Schemes for motivating employees Monetary (rewards, monetary benefits, performance-based pay) Non-Monetary (leisure and health programs, flexible working) C. Schemes for keeping the balance between reward and performance Weekly review of cost of employees as compared to weekly revenues D. Schemes for providing rewards to individuals Performance-based rewards E. Schemes for assessing the system’s performance Interviews for assessing employee satisfaction Figure 4 – Individual Reward System in Marks and Spencer 4.1.2 Challenges related to the implementation of Individual Reward System in Marks and Spencer Individual Reward Systems, as analyzed above, can be particularly effective, in terms of the enhancement of the employee performance, as related to the organizational performance. However, it should be made clear that these systems ‘can perform differently under different conditions’ (Smither 2009, p.57). Moreover, the requirements of these systems can change under the influence of changes in the organization’s internal or external environment (Armstrong 2002). For example, in the case of radical decrease of the minimum level of compensation of employees in a particular industrial sector, the benefits related to this compensation are expected to be negatively affected. Another implication of the Individual Reward Systems is that the feasibility of these systems is not guaranteed; for example, if the profits of a firm are significantly decreased during a particular financial year, it would not be possible for an existing Individual Reward System to be used for measuring performance. In other words, Individual Reward Systems have to be continuously reviewed as of their feasibility and their appropriateness for the organization’s needs, in terms of performance management. Chapter Five 5.0 Justification for approach The performance management systems presented above have been chosen because of their advantages, compared to other systems of similar role. More specifically, all these systems are not standardized, neither of their structure nor of their components. This means that they can be alternated anytime so that they can be aligned with the organizational needs and resources. Another common characteristic of these systems is their potential to be used for measuring performance on various drivers, since they are not depended on financial data. Finally, all these systems have been extensively used in markets worldwide, a fact that increases these systems’ credibility and value. (Creelman 2011). For the above reasons the specific systems has been chosen; further, these systems have been analyzed, in order to check the ways in which they can contribute in performance management. 5.1 Fit with your organisation As already noted earlier, the use of a performance management system aims to help managers to understand the status of their organization, in terms of its performance. However, each performance management system is based on different criteria and has different requirements (Smith 2010). This means that each of these systems may lead to different findings in regard to an organization’s current performance. At this point, it would be critical for managers to identify the similarities in regard to the findings of the performance management systems used for measuring the performance of a particular organization (Nair 2004). At the next level, it is important that the performance management system chosen for a specific organization is aligned with the characteristics and the needs of the organization (Avis 2009). Otherwise, the above management system would be of no value in measuring the performance of the organization involved. In the case of Marks and Spencer, the fitting of the performance management systems with the organization can be based on the following facts: a) the requirements of these PM systems, as described above, are met, meaning that these systems could be effectiveley implemented in the organization chosen, b) the risks involved are rather low and can be effectively controlled by taking appropriate measures, as described above, and c) these systems help to highlight different issues related to the performance of Marks and Spencer; for this reason, the use of these PM systems for measuring the performance of the above organization can be characterized as fully justified. 5.2 Possible implementation issues According to the issues discussed above, the implementation of each of the three performance management systems presented in this study can be related to a series of challenges and risks. More specifically, the Balanced Scorecard requires ‘the choice of the appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs)’ (Cokins 2010, p.93). Moreover, the above PM system requires a ‘frequent reporting of results’ (Niven 2006, p.15). As of the Goal Setting and the Individual Reward Systems, similar issues have appeared: both these models need to be highly flexible so they can be appropriately transformed for responding to the characteristics/ trends of the organizational environment. Moreover, in all three models, the ability of managers to control change within their organization has been proved to be quite critical for the success of the PM system chosen, especially in the long term (Niven 2006, p.15). In other words, the successful implementation of the particular performance system is depended both on the system’s structure/ element as also on the capabilities of the individual initiating the relevant processes. Chapter Six 6.0 Conclusions The use of systems that have been appropriately explored in the literature can help managers to measure with accuracy the performance of a particular organization (Cook 2004). However, in order for these systems to be effective they have to be adequately supported by employees, i.e. if they reflect only the willingness of the employer for increase of his profits, then the involvement of these systems in the performance management process would not help towards the achievement of the targets set (Dresner 2009). One of the most important findings of this study has been the following one: modern organizations have a high range of strategies for improving their performance. Still, in many cases, failures appear either during the initial or the later phases of the relevant process (Shields 2007). In addition, it is often difficult to understand whether performance management ‘should focus on the behaviour of individuals or groups’ (Cummings and Worley 2008, p.422). Also, there are many chances that the findings revealed through different performance management systems to lead to different assumptions (Samsonowa 2011). At a particular level, such phenomenon would be expected but it should not be extended, as this fact would reveal severe problems in organizing these systems, a problem that could continue in the long term (Smit 2000). In Marks and Spencer, such a problem has appeared; the findings of the performance management systems used for measuring performance in the particular organization seem to be differentiated. However, if they are reviewed more carefully, the following fact would be made clear: the criteria used for enhancing performance in Marks and Spencer may be conflicting but, under certain terms, they seem to be necessary. Instead of considering these findings as conflicting it would be most appropriate to characterize them as complemented. At this point, the following fact should be highlighted: Marks and Spencer has adopted a wide range of rewards and other performance-based benefits, as analyzed earlier. In this context, the use of three different systems for measuring performance in the particular organization has been feasible. In organizations where no such approach is used for enhancing employee performance (Epstein and Manzoni 2006), the potential use of various performance management systems, as alternative solutions, would not be feasible. References Armstrong, M. (2009) Armstrong's Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-Based Guide to Delivering High Performance. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Armstrong, M. (2002) Employee Reward. London: CIPD Publishing. Avis, J. (009) Performance Management: Managerial Level. Oxford: Elsevier. Cardy, R., and Leonard, B. (2011) Performance Management: Concepts, Skills, and Exercises. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Cokins, G. (2010) Performance Management: Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk, and Analytics. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Cook, S. (2004) Measuring Customer Service Effectiveness. London: Gower Publishing, Ltd. Creelman, D. (2011) Management Reset: Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Cummings, T., and Worley, C. (2008) Organization Development & Change. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Epstein, M., and Manzoni, J. (2006) Performance Measurement And Management Control: Improving Organizations And Society. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. Dresner, H. (2009) Profiles in Performance: Business Intelligence Journeys and the Roadmap for Change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Ghuman, K. (2010) Management: Concepts, Practice & Cases. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Kandula, S. (2006) Performance Management: Strategies Interventions. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Koonmee, K. (2009) Effects of Performance Management and Incentive Allocation on Development of Thai Public Services and Officers. The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 12, Num. 2, pp.163-169 Nacinovic, I., Galetic, L., and Cavlek, N. (2009) Corporate Culture and Innovation: Implications for Reward Systems. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53 2009, pp.397-402 Nair, M. (2004) Essentials of Balanced Scorecard. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Niven, P. (2006) Balanced Scorecard Step-By-Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Pienaar, H., and Penzhorn, C. (2000) Using the Balanced Scorecard to Facilitate Strategic Management at an Academic Information Service. Libri, Vol 50, pp.202-209 Samsonowa, T. (2011) Industrial Research Performance Management: Key Performance Indicators in the ICT Industry. New York: Springer. Sharma, A. (2009) Implementing Balance Scorecard for Performance Measurement. The IcFai University Journal of Business Strategy. Vol VI, No 1, pp.7-16 Shields, J. (2007) Managing Employee Performance and Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, R. (2010) Business Process Management and the Balanced Scorecard: Using Processes as Strategic Drivers. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Smither, J. (2009) Performance Management: Putting Research Into Action. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Smit, P. (2000) Strategy Implementation: Readings. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. Thorpe, R., and Homan, G. (2000) Strategic Reward Systems. Essex: Pearson Education. Online Sources Marks and Spencer (2012) “Careers - Rewards and benefits.” http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/mscareers/rewards_benefits Marks and Spencer (2012) “Careers – Our values.” http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/mscareers/careers_about/our_values Marks and Spencer (2012) “Company Overview.” http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/aboutus/company_overview Marks and Spencer (2012) “Timeline.” http://www.marksintime.marksandspencer.com/ms-history/timeline/ Marks and Spencer (2012) “Our plan.” http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/aboutus/our_plan Marks and Spencer (2012) “Online Annual Report 2011.” http://annualreport.marksandspencer.com/ Read More