BUSINESS STRUCTURE AND ARRANGEMENTS


Foreign ownership

Businesses were asked to report their percentage of foreign ownership by selecting one of the four available options. A definition of foreign ownership was not specified and responses were not checked against any other data sources.

Percentage of foreign ownership, by employment size(a)(b), as at 30 June 2010
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Wholly Australian owned	98.5	98.2	94.1	73.0	98.0
Greater than 0% and less than 10%	0.1	0.2	0.5	2.6	0.1
10% to 50%	0.3	0.5	1.0	2.8	0.4
Greater than 50%	1.2	1.2	4.5	21.7	1.5
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size range.
(b) The sum of component items within employment size ranges may not equal 100% due to rounding and/or provision of multiple responses, please refer to Explanatory Notes 26 and 27 and the Quality Declaration.

Overall, the majority of businesses were wholly Australian owned (98%); ranging from 98% for businesses with 0-4 persons employed, to 73% for businesses with 200 or more persons employed.

Businesses in Mining were most likely to have any foreign ownership (27%). This was more than triple that of businesses in Wholesale trade (8%), the second highest level of foreign ownership.


Franchising agreements

Businesses were asked whether they were involved in any franchising agreement during the year ended 30 June 2010. Businesses could be identified as a franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise), franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system) or both.

Franchising agreements, by employment size(a)(b), 2009 - 10
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise)	2.9	7.0	9.5	5.0	4.7
Franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system)	0.3	0.6	0.7	3.5	0.4
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size range.
(b) Businesses could identify as both a franchisee and a franchisor.

Almost 5% of businesses were involved in a franchisee agreement. Businesses with 20-199 persons employed had the highest proportion of franchisee agreements (10%).

Businesses in Rental, hiring and real estate services had the highest proportion of franchisee agreements (17%), followed by businesses in Accommodation and food services and Retail trade (both 11%).


Collaborative arrangements

Businesses were asked to indicate if they were involved in collaborative arrangements with other businesses or organisations during the year ended 30 June 2010. Collaborative arrangements were defined as participation in joint projects with other businesses or organisations (including wider parts of the business's enterprise group), irrespective of potential commercial benefit. This included informal collaborative arrangements but excluded straight fee-for-service and franchise arrangements.

Collaborative arrangements, by employment size(a), 2009 - 10
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Joint research and development	3.0	3.3	7.5	12.6	3.5
Joint buying	1.9	5.6	9.1	10.1	3.7
Joint production of goods or services	4.6	4.1	7.9	14.4	4.7
Integrated supply chain(b)	1.9	3.2	5.4	12.9	2.6
Joint marketing or distribution	5.6	9.0	12.1	16.7	7.3
Other collaborative arrangements	0.4	0.9	1.0	3.0	0.6
Any collaborative arrangements	11.1	15.6	21.6	37.9	13.5
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size range.
(b) Integrated supply chain refers to ongoing coordinated activities between two or more businesses to maximise the storage and production efficiency of a mutual client.

Almost 14% of businesses undertook some type of collaboration during the year ended 30 June 2010. The most common type of collaboration was joint marketing or distribution (7%). Businesses with 200 or more persons employed were more than three times as likely to have a collaborative arrangement than businesses with 0-4 persons employed.

Mining had the highest proportion of businesses engaged in some type of collaboration (26%), and Construction the lowest (5%). Businesses in Retail had the highest proportion of joint buying (14%), while businesses in Information media and telecommunications had the highest proportion of joint production (12%).

Innovation-active businesses (22%), were more than three times as likely to be involved in some form of collaborative arrangement than non innovation-active businesses (7%).


Working arrangements

Businesses were asked to identify if they offered a range of working arrangements to their employees, during the year ended 30 June 2010. Businesses were asked to select from a list of working arrangements shown in the table.

Employee working arrangements, by employment size(a)(b), 2009 - 10
		0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
		%	%	%	%	%
Businesses offering:
	flexible work hours (e.g. to enable employees to deal with non work issues)	47.4	64.0	71.1	81.8	54.6
	ability to buy extra annual leave, cash out annual leave or take leave without pay	12.2	25.9	46.3	68.8	19.5
	selection of own roster or shifts	19.4	25.1	29.4	32.8	22.0
	job sharing	7.8	15.5	18.7	37.6	11.2
	ability for employees to work from home	21.4	16.7	31.5	60.0	20.9
	paid parental leave	2.0	4.0	11.2	42.0	3.5
	flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassion leave (e.g. to care for other people)	17.7	36.1	55.8	82.0	26.8
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size range.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of working arrangement and were not required to report working arrangements other than those listed.

The most common type of working arrangement offered by businesses was flexible working hours (55%). This was twice the proportion of the next most common working arrangement, flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (27%). The proportion of businesses offering paid parental leave to employees ranged from 2% of businesses with 0-4 persons employed, to 42% of businesses with 200 or more persons employed.

The proportion of businesses offering the ability for employees to work from home was highest in Professional, scientific and technical services and Information media and telecommunications (both 49%), with the lowest in Accommodation and food services (6%). Health care and social assistance had the largest proportion of businesses offering selection of own roster or shifts (38%) and job sharing (24%).


Intellectual property

Businesses were asked what methods were used to protect their business' intellectual property during the year ended 30 June 2010.

Intellectual property protection methods, by employment size(a)(b), 2009 - 10
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Patents	1.8	3.1	6.6	17.1	2.7
Registration of design	2.3	3.9	6.3	14.4	3.2
Copyright or trademark	6.9	9.3	19.7	42.1	8.8
Secrecy(c)	9.3	15.3	23.5	40.4	12.4
Complexity of product design	3.1	4.2	5.9	8.1	3.7
Any of the above methods(d)	16.2	24.4	37.6	62.7	20.7
No intellectual property protection methods	83.8	75.6	62.4	37.3	79.4
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size range.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of intellectual property protection method.
(c) Secrecy includes electronic protection methods.
(d) Includes other property protection methods.

Overall, 79% of businesses did not use any type of intellectual property protection method. The most common types of intellectual property protection were secrecy (12%) and copyright or trademark (9%), whereas all remaining methods were 4% or less.

Businesses with 200 or more persons employed were almost four times more likely (63%) to use some form of intellectual property than businesses with 0-4 persons employed (16%).

Copyright or trademark as a method used to protect intellectual property was highest for businesses in Information media and telecommunications (31%). Secrecy was most common in Professional, scientific and technical services (30%). Complexity of product design (10%) and registration of design (7%) were most likely to be used by businesses in Manufacturing.

Innovation-active businesses were more than three times as likely to use any intellectual property protection methods than non innovation-active businesses.