Australian Bureau of Statistics

Rate the ABS website
ABS Home > Statistics > By Release Date
ABS @ Facebook ABS @ Twitter ABS RSS ABS Email notification service
8167.0 - Selected Characteristics of Australian Business, 2010-11 Quality Declaration 
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 13/09/2012   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product

BUSINESS STRUCTURE AND ARRANGEMENTS


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Businesses were asked to report their percentage of foreign ownership, as at 30 June 2011, 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 2011

0-4 persons
5-19 persons
20-199 persons
200 or more persons
Total
%
%
%
%
%

Wholly Australian owned
97.4
96.9
92.9
74.7
96.8
Greater than 0% and less than 10%
0.2
0.3
0.7
2.4
0.3
10% to 50%
0.7
0.8
0.7
2.6
0.7
Greater than 50%
2.0
2.0
5.8
20.2
2.3

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(b) The sum of component items may not equal 100% due to rounding and/or provision of multiple responses. Refer to Explanatory Notes 29 and 30 and the Quality Declaration.


Overall, the majority of businesses reported being wholly Australian owned (97%). The proportion of businesses that were wholly Australian owned decreased with each successive employment size range. One in five businesses with more than 200 or more persons employed reported greater than 50% foreign ownership.

Businesses in Mining were most likely to have any foreign ownership (30%). This was twice that of businesses in Wholesale trade (15%), the second highest level of foreign ownership.

Innovation-active businesses (5%) were more than twice as likely to have any foreign ownership than non innovation-active businesses (2%).


FRANCHISING AGREEMENTS

Businesses were asked whether they were involved in any franchising agreements during the year ended 30 June 2011. 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), 2010 - 11

0-4 persons
5-19 persons
20-199 persons
200 or more persons
Total
%
%
%
%
%

Franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise)
3.1
7.8
9.2
4.3
5.1
Franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system)
0.6
0.1
0.9
4.1
0.5

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(b) Businesses could identify as both a franchisee and a franchisor.


Just over 5% of businesses (or approximately 38,000 businesses) operated as a franchisee. Businesses with 20-199 persons employed reported the highest proportion of franchisee agreements (9%).

Businesses in Retail trade recorded the highest proportion of businesses with franchisee agreements (14%), followed by businesses in Accommodation and food services and Rental, hiring and real estate services (both 13%).


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 2011. Collaborative arrangements were defined as participation in joint projects with other businesses or organisations (including wider parts of the business enterprise group), irrespective of potential commercial benefit. These included informal collaborative arrangements but excluded straight fee-for-service and franchise arrangements.

Collaborative arrangements, by employment size(a), 2010 - 11

0-4 persons
5-19 persons
20-199 persons
200 or more persons
Total
%
%
%
%
%

Joint research and development
2.6
3.6
5.6
12.8
3.2
Joint buying
2.0
4.8
9.1
12.5
3.5
Joint production of goods or services
4.7
4.9
7.8
14.7
5.0
Integrated supply chain(b)
1.7
3.9
4.2
11.4
2.6
Joint marketing or distribution
5.1
8.0
11.0
13.5
6.5
Other collaborative arrangements
0.2
0.2
1.3
1.0
0.3
Any collaborative arrangements
11.2
14.7
21.6
34.8
13.3

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(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.


Overall, 13% of businesses undertook some type of collaborative arrangement during the year ended 30 June 2011. The most commonly reported type of collaborative arrangement was joint marketing or distribution (6%). The proportion of businesses that reported collaborative arrangements increased with each successive employment size category. Businesses with 200 or more persons employed were more than three times as likely to report a collaborative arrangement than businesses with 0-4 persons employed.

The Information, media and telecommunications industry recorded the highest proportion of businesses engaged in some type of collaborative arrangement (25%), followed by Mining (24%). The Information, media and telecommunications industry recorded the highest level of businesses with joint production of goods and services (16%) followed by those in Mining (12%). Businesses in Mining had the highest proportion of joint research and development (14%), while businesses in Retail trade had the highest proportion of joint buying (12%), nearly double the next highest industry, Wholesale trade (7%).

Innovation-active businesses (22%) were more than three times as likely to be involved in a 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 2011. Businesses were asked to select all that applied from the list of working arrangements shown in the table below..

Employee working arrangements, by employment size(a)(b), 2010 - 11

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)
47.5
64.7
69.6
88.1
54.8
ability to buy extra annual leave, cash out annual leave or take leave without pay
11.6
28.2
48.1
71.5
19.9
selection of own roster or shifts
19.1
27.5
28.3
33.2
22.5
job sharing
7.1
16.5
20.0
40.2
11.2
ability for staff to work from home
21.8
17.7
32.6
57.9
21.5
paid parental leave
2.3
6.0
18.4
48.5
4.9
flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (e.g. to care for other people who are sick)
17.0
34.2
60.0
84.7
26.0

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(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 work hours (55%). This was over twice the proportion of the next most common working arrangement, flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (26%) and selection of own roster or shifts (22%). Only 5% of businesses offered paid parental leave. The proportion of businesses offering job sharing to employees ranged from 7% of businesses with 0-4 persons employed, to 40% of businesses with 200 or more persons employed.

Businesses in Health care and social assistance were the most likely to offer flexible work hours (73%), selection of own roster or shifts (46%) and job sharing (28%). Construction had the lowest proportion of businesses offering paid parental leave (2%), selection of own roster or shifts (10%) and job sharing (3%).

Over two thirds of innovation-active businesses (68%) offered flexible work hours, compared with less than half of non innovation-active businesses (46%).


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Businesses were asked what methods were used to protect their intellectual property during the year ended 30 June 2011.

Intellectual property protection methods, by employment size(a)(b), 2010 - 11

0-4 persons
5-19 persons
20-199 persons
200 or more persons
Total
%
%
%
%
%

Patents
2.4
3.6
7.9
18.2
3.3
Registration of design
3.1
3.8
7.2
16.0
3.7
Copyright or trademark
6.9
10.3
21.1
44.4
9.2
Secrecy/confidentiality(c)
8.6
17.3
22.6
44.3
12.5
Complexity of product design
1.9
4.2
5.7
8.5
2.9
Any of the above methods(d)
15.7
25.4
39.1
66.8
20.8
No intellectual property protection methods
84.3
74.6
60.9
33.2
79.2

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of intellectual property protection method.
(c) Secrecy includes electronic protection methods.
(d) Includes other intellectual property protection methods.


Overall, four in five businesses did not use any type of intellectual property protection method.

The most common methods of intellectual property protection were secrecy (12%) and copyright (9%), whereas all remaining methods were reported by less than 4% of all businesses.

Across each of the specified intellectual property protection methods, the proportion of businesses that reported their use increased with each successive employment size range. Secrecy was the most commonly reported intellectual property protection method for each of the employment size ranges.

Patents (9%) and registration of design (8%) were most frequently used in the Wholesale trade industry to protect intellectual property. Copyright was most commonly used in Information media and telecommunications (26%), secrecy (28%) was highest in the Financial and insurance services industry and complexity of product design was most frequently reported by businesses in Manufacturing (8%).

Innovation-active businesses (34%) were almost three times as likely to use any intellectual property protection methods than non innovation-active businesses (12%).


Bookmark and Share. Opens in a new window

Commonwealth of Australia 2014

Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia Licence together with any terms, conditions and exclusions as set out in the website Copyright notice. For permission to do anything beyond the scope of this licence and copyright terms contact us.