Indicators
We are determined to improve our performance each year and to measure those improvements in an effective way.
We use two kinds of indicators to help us continuously improve our performance. Core indicators – highlighted in blue – are the ones that are reported to our Corporate Responsibility Board and our Advisory Panel for Corporate Responsibility. These also feature in our Corporate Responsibility Review, a summary of this report. Indicators marked in yellow are used by particular departments in the business to help improve performance and are only reported in this full report.
Use the tabs below to view our KPIs.
- Camelot & responsibility
- Responsible growth
- Good Causes
- Our people & communities
- Business partnerships
- Environmental impact
Responsible growth
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retailers who refused to sell to an Operation Child test purchaser on first visit (%) | 90 | 92.2 | 87.6 | 87.5 | 92.7 | |
| Total average weekly spend per player (£) | 3.60* | 2.64 | 2.56 | 2.66 | 2.83 | 2.93 |
| Camelot’s ranking in the world on ‘Per capita sales against total sales’ (ranking – th) | To remain outside of the top 10 worldwide | 40 | 47 | 47 | 48 | 58 |
| Adults being positive towards The National Lottery (%) | 40 | 41 | 43 | |||
| Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Retailer score on ‘How helpful is Camelot to your store in preventing underage purchases of National Lottery products’ (%) | 75 | 64 | 73 | |||
| Total average weekly spend per capita (£) | 2.34* | 1.98 | 1.87 | 1.86 | 1.95 | 2.05 |
| First time callers to GamCare who disclosed activity and attributed problems to Lottery games. (%) | 2 | 3 | 2.6 | |||
| General complaints by Players’ (%) | 95% resolved within 10 working days | 99.61 | ||||
| UK adults playing The National Lottery (%) | 75 | 74 | 71 | 68 | 69 |
* This is a cap – a maximum
*2 This figure has previously been aligned with our financial year; however; we report these figures to our regulator the National Lottery Commission and have therefore decided to include them in our report. They cover the period 20/01/05 – 19/01/06.
Responsible lobbying
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP’s agreeing with the statement ‘I trust Camelot to run The National Lottery’ (%) | 70 | 44 | 51 | 67 | 68 |
Good Causes
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative total raised by lottery players available to Good Causes (£ billions) | 11.3 | 14.2 | 15.6 | 17.1 | 18.5 | |
| Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Money raised for Good Causes – annually (£ millions)16 | 1,342 (1,941) |
1,258 (1,378) |
1,216 (1,309) |
1,249 (1,354) |
1,298 (1,509) |
16. The figure in () includes sales and unclaimed prizes and income to the NLDF through investment returns These figures do not include any unclaimed prizes. If a prize is not claimed within 180 days then the amount goes to National Lottery Distribution Bodies (NLDBs) for distribution to Good Causes.
People & communities
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff agreeing with the statement – ‘Camelot is one of the best companies that I have worked for’ (%) | >70 | Not previously measured – new study from 2002/03 | 72 | 63 | 65 | 70 |
| Average sickness days per employee (day) | (Benchmark from CBI) | 8.26 (7.2) |
8.8617 (6.8) |
|||
| Staff agreeing with the statement ‘I receive training which helps me stay on top of my job’ (%) | 54 | 39 | 38 | 51 | ||
| Overall percentage of pre–tax profit spent on Community Investment (%) | (Sustain leading position in % club) | 6.6 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 5.418 |
| Employees participating in community activities (%) | 20 | 4.0 | 9.6 | 7.1 | 25.619 (10.9) |
|
| Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Female employees (& at different levels held in company) (%) | Senior Grades – 31.1 |
Senior Grades – 34.3 |
Senior Grades – 38.9 |
Senior Grades – 38.4 |
Senior Grades – 38.5 | |
| Junior Grades – 55.9 | Junior Grades – 53.6 | Junior Grades – 51.3 | Junior Grades – 51.1 | Junior Grades – 51.0 | ||
| Demographic breakdown by gender and level held in company (%) | Female Junior Grades – 55.9 | Female Junior Grades – 53.6 | Female Junior Grades – 51.3 | Female Junior Grades – 51.1 | Female Junior Grades – 51.0 | |
| Male Junior Grades – 44.1 | Male Junior Grades – 46.4 | Male Junior Grades – 48.5 | Male Junior Grades – 48.9 | Male Junior Grades – 49.0 | ||
| Female Senior Grades – 31.1 | Female Senior Grades – 34.3 | Female Senior Grades – 38.9 | Female Senior Grades – 38.4 | Female Senior Grades – 38.5 | ||
| Male Senior Grades – 68.9 | Male Senior Grades – 65.7 | Male Senior Grades – 61.1 | Male Senior Grades – 61.6 | Male Senior Grades – 61.5 | ||
| Ethnic minority employees (and at different levels held in company) (%) | Census figures as benchmark Camelot employees from ethnic minorities to equal or exceed the UK National average of 7.9% | 9.8 | 9.9 | 11.2 | 9.9 | |
| 2.8 | 2.9 | Increase of 0.3 to 3.7 | Increase of 1.6 to 4.8 | Increase of 2.1 to 6.9 | ||
| Demographic breakdown by ethnic origin and level held in company (%) | Non–white Junior Grades – 9.2 | Non–white Junior Grades – 10.7 | Non–white Junior Grades – 10.9 | Non–white Junior Grades – 12.1 | Non–white Junior Grades – 10.1 | |
| White Junior Grades – 90.8 |
White Junior Grades – 89.3 | White Junior Grades – 89.1 | White Junior Grades – 87.9 | White Junior Grades – 87.2 | ||
| Non–white Senior Grades – 2.8 | Non–white Senior Grades – 2.9 | Non–white Senior Grades – 3.2 | Non–white Senior Grades – 4.8 | Non–white Senior Grades – 6.9 | ||
| White Senior Grades – 97.2 | White Senior Grades – 97.1 | White Senior Grades – 96.8 | White Senior Grades – 95.2 | White Senior Grades – 93.1 | ||
| Increase in Junior Grades – 1.5 | Increase in Junior Grades – 0.2 | Increase in Junior Grades – 1.1 | Increase in Junior Grades – | Increase in Junior Grades | ||
| Increase in Senior Grades – 0 | Increase in Senior Grades – 0.3 | Increase in Senior Grades – 1.6 | Increase in Senior Grades – | Increase in Senior Grades – | ||
| Employees age range (%) | 16–24 = 11.0 25–34 = 40.4 35–44 = 28.0 45–54 = 13.0 55–64 = 7.3 65+ = 0.4 |
16–24 = 6.9 25–34 = 39.8 35–44 = 30.4 45–54 = 14.0 55–64 = 8.2 65+ = 0.6 |
16–24 = 6.4 25–34 = 39.7 35–44 = 30.8 45–54 = 14.5 55–64 = 8.1 65+ = 0.4 |
16–24 = 6.9 25–34 = 40.4 35–44 = 31.7 45–54 = 13.4 55–64 = 7.3 65+ = 0.3 |
||
| Disabled staff (%) | (2) | (2) | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 (7 people) |
|
| Attrition rate (%) | Less than 15 per annum | 19.4 | 23.220 | 13.5 | 16.8 | 22.921 |
| Average number of full–time equivalent employees | 934 | 902 | 913 | 905 | ||
| Net employment creation | –32 | +11 | –8 | |||
| Number of training days per employee per year (days) | 3 days per employee per year | 8 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 11 |
| Staff agreeing with the statement – ‘I’m proud to work for Camelot’ (%) | Not previously measured | 74 | 78 | |||
| Breakdown of working days lost due to accidents and ill health | 7621 (3842 days for Permanent Health Insurance) | 8158 (plus 4110.75 days for Permanent Health Insurance | ||||
|
5848.5 | 6720 | ||||
|
51 | 27 | ||||
|
Reduce by 3% in 2006/07 | 656 | 784 | |||
|
372 | 233 | ||||
|
Reduce by 3% in 2006/07 | 693.5 | 404 | |||
| Number and location of random inspections and as a result, report on any fines / prosecutions / | No fines received | none | ||||
| warnings from OSH violations | ||||||
| Number of entries in accident book. | 3% reduction in overall accident figures | 94 | 47 | 33 (–70%) | ||
Of those:–
|
>5 cases reported | 5 | 3 | 1 | ||
|
No fatalities | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Staff agreeing with the statement – 'I can cope with the demands of my job.' (%) | 74 | 76 | 78 |
17. By including those on Permanent Health Insurance this figure would be 13.34
18. The decline over the last few years is a result of our decision in 2003/04 to focus on giving through the Foundation and by encouraging our employees to participate more in their local communities, rather than through corporate-led programmes.
19. We now include Give As You Earn and match-funding in this figure in order to capture all types of community support. The figure in () shows the percentage excluding GAYE and match-funding
20. This reflects redudancies during this year
21. Increase in staff turnover is impacted by redundancies arising from the implementation of a new computer system and local restructuring
| London Benchmarking model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charity | 2,050,742 | 2,072,006 | 2,067,679 | 2,223,954 | 2,020,933 | |
| Community investment | 1,072,798 | 697,127 | 139,767 | 73,743 | 121,596 | |
| Commercial Initiative | 486,572 | 279,329 | 464,530 | 257,880 | 470,280 | |
| Management costs | 183,686 | 94,525 | 31,834 | 6,002 | 6,701 | |
| Cash | 3,371,329 | 2,990,577 | 2,654,462 | 2,521,478 | 2,560,196 | |
| Time | 211,126 | 46,500 | 49,348 | 39,836 | 59,314 | |
| In–kind | 32,308 | 11,385 | 0 | 266 | 0 | |
Business partnerships
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retailers satisfied with Camelot's approach to the relationship (%) | For 2006/07 90% |
94 | 93 | |||
| Ratio of independent to multiple outlets (%) | Any variation below 60:40 (Independent : Multiple) to be in line with national retail trend (58:42) | 66.4 : 33.6 | 66.0 : 34.0 | 63.9 : 36.1 | 61.1 : 38.9 | 59.1 : 40.9 |
| Indicator | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Retailers satisfied with Camelot’s approach to the relationship compared to a year ago (%) | 38 – better 6 – worse |
33 – better 5 – worse |
||||
| Overall network availability to sell tickets (%) | 99.5 (NLC set target) | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Retailers satisfied with Camelot’s approach to the relationship compared to a year ago (%) | 38 – better 6 – worst |
33 – better 5 – worst |
||||
| Overall network availability to sell tickets (%) | 99.5 (NLC set target) | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Population living or working within two miles of a lottery terminal (%) | 96.5 | 96.6 | 96.5 | |||
| Hotline calls answered within 20 seconds (%) | 80 | 76.1 | 85.7 | 76.9 | 74.8 | 79.2 |
Suppliers
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invoices paid to term (%) | 92 | |||||
| Suppliers satisfied with overall relationship with Camelot (%) | 80 | 78 | 94 | 94 | 97 | 95 |
Shareholders
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profit after tax (£m) | 41.3 | 29.2 | 31.4 | 33.3 (32.4)22 |
34.4 | |
| Indicator | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Dividend amount (m) | Dividends to be published in full, subject to Companies’ Act Requirements | 98.823 | 29.2 | 31.4 | 32.4 (27.5)15 |
36.0 |
15. High increase in figures due to hoax calls relating to a misuse of The National Lottery brand by companies claiming they are the UK National Lottery.
22. Restated figures due to the adoption of IFRS – see Annual Report (web address).
23. On 30 March 2001, the National Lottery Commission consented to relaxation of the Section 5 Licence condition enabling the distribution of £51.5m of profits accumulated over the first Section 5 Licence period, payable by way of dividends, and including the second interim dividend payment for that year.
Environmental impact
| Core Indicators | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of waste recycled (%) | 52 | |||||
| (main sites) Proportion of waste sent to landfill (main sites) (%) | 48 | |||||
| Total CO2 produced (excl. distribution) per employee (kgCO2) | 5,852 | 5,435 | 6,14624 | 6,128 | ||
| Indicator | Target | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 |
| Energy used at Camelot main sites per employee (kWh) | No increase | 14,892 | 12,503 | 10,762 | 10,845 | 13,763 |
| Carbon dioxide produced from energy use – per employee (kgCO2) * | 20 decrease | 5,017 | 4,276 | 3,932 | 4,025 | 5,034 |
| Water used per employee (m3) | Benchmark: 11m3 per capita for companies seeking to make initial improvements source DEFRA Environmental Reporting Guidelines | 7.4 | 14.8 | 10.9 | 8.7 | 21.125 |
| Waste sent to landfill per employee (kg) | 157.6 | 84.8 | 186.4 | 192.7 (211.1)26 |
||
| Total waste produced and sent to landfill (kg) | Reduce total waste to landfill by 5% | 149,670 | 140,580 (–6%) (177,300)27 |
|||
| Paper consumption at main offices (kg) per employee | Reduce paper consumption by 5% at Watford Target for 06/07 – 3% decrease in office paper consumption |
67.79 | 56.89 | 42.6 | ||
| Total paper consumption (kg) | Report on the amount of paper used in Scratchcards in 2005/06 | 2,508,70328 | 7,747,55629 | |||
| Total paper consumed from FSC paper (%) / and recycled paper (%)30 | 8 / 11 | |||||
| Carbon Dioxide produced from business and subsidised travel per employee (kgCO2) | Reduce fuel consumption by 2% | 2,414 | 2,534 | 2,619 | 2,479 (–6%) | |
| Total CO2 produced (excl. distribution) (kgCO2) | Reduce total CO2 emissions by 2% In 2006/07 Reduce CO2 emissions by 15% |
5,647,843 | 6,005,241 | 6,145,666 | 6,268,884 (+2%) | |
| Total CO2 produced (incl. distribution) (kgCO2) | 6,117,741 | 6,248,002 | 6,369,008 | |||
| Breakdown of CO2 emissions (%) | Reduce paper consumption by 5% at Watford Target for 06/07 – 3% decrease in office paper consumption |
Electricity 50.6 Gas 7.3 Fuel 35.8 Air travel 4.5 Rail travel 0.2 Distribution 1.6 |
Electricity 52.7 Gas 8.1 Fuel 32.9 Air travel 4.3 Rail travel 0.4 Distribution 1.6 |
24. We have changed the methodology. This figure was calculated using different employee baseline data.
* Energy includes electricity and gas use
25. The water usage had to be evened out because we experienced a billing error from our water supplier.
26. This figure includes for the first time also the waste sent to landfill from Aintree – The number in () is the waste sent to landfill (kg) from our main sites in Watford and Northampton which is comparable with previous figures.
27. The figure in () includes for the first time also waste sent to landfill from out site in Aintree – in future we will report on waste sent to landfill from all main sites.
28. In 2004/05, the recorded usage increased but we believe this was due to improved data collection through collecting data on play slips, tickets and promotional material.
29. This figure includes for the first time also the amount of paper used in ScratchcardScratchcardsScratchcards.
30. This figure is incomplete, because printing of recycled tickets started from September 2006.