Australian Bureau of Statistics

Rate the ABS website
ABS Home > Statistics > By Catalogue Number
ABS @ Facebook ABS @ Twitter ABS RSS ABS Email notification service
8167.0 - Selected Characteristics of Australian Business, 2011-12 Quality Declaration 
Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 19/09/2013   
   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 2012 by selecting one of the four available options. A definition of foreign ownership was not specified.

Percentage of foreign ownership, by employment size(a)(b), as at 30 June 2012

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

Wholly Australian owned
97.5
96.7
92.4
73.2
96.7
Greater than 0% and less than 10%
0.1
0.3
0.4
2.9
0.2
10% to 50%
0.4
1.3
0.6
2.5
0.7
Greater than 50%
2.1
2.2
6.6
21.5
2.6

(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 Note 29 and the Quality Declaration.


Consistent with previous results, the majority of businesses reported being wholly Australian owned (97%). The proportion of businesses that reported being wholly Australian owned decreased with each successive employment size range, from 98% of businesses with 0-4 persons employed to 73% of businesses with 200 or more persons employed. More than one in five businesses with 200 or more persons employed reported greater than 50% foreign ownership (22%).

All businesses in Health care and social assistance reported being wholly Australian owned. The percentage of wholly Australian owned businesses in Mining has decreased from 73% in 2009-10 to 69% in 2011-12. Businesses in the Mining industry were most likely to report some percentage of foreign ownership. Businesses in this industry were almost twice as likely to report greater than 50% foreign ownership as businesses in Wholesale trade (15% and 8% respectively), who were the next most likely to report this percentage of foreign ownership.

Further data relating to foreign ownership can be accessed via the Downloads tab. Data from previous releases can be accessed through the Past & Future Releases tab.


FRANCHISING AGREEMENTS

Businesses were asked whether they were involved in any franchising agreements during the year ended 30 June 2012. 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), 2011-12

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

Franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise)
3.2
7.5
8.8
3.6
4.9
Franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system)
0.4
1.1
1.4
3.1
0.7

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


Overall, 5% of businesses reported that they operated as a franchisee. This is consistent with previous results.

Businesses with 20-199 persons employed were the most likely to report being a franchisee (9%). Businesses with 200 or more persons or employed were the most likely to report being a franchisor (3%).

Less than 5% of businesses in any industry reported being a franchisor. Rental, hiring and real estate services recorded the greatest proportion of businesses that operated as a franchisee (18%).

Further data relating to franchising agreements can be accessed via the Downloads tab.


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 2012. 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. Businesses were asked to report all of the arrangements that applied.

Collaborative arrangements, by employment size(a)(b), 2011-12

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

Joint research and development
2.9
3.5
7.8
15.0
3.5
Joint buying
1.9
3.9
5.8
11.2
2.9
Joint production of goods or services
5.7
4.9
8.0
13.1
5.6
Integrated supply chain(c)
2.3
3.1
4.6
9.9
2.7
Joint marketing or distribution
5.6
7.8
9.5
15.3
6.6
Other collaborative arrangements
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.4
0.4
Any collaborative arrangements
11.7
15.0
21.9
38.4
13.6

(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of collaborative arrangement.
(c) 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, 14% of businesses reported that they had any collaborative arrangements during the year ended 30 June 2012.

Joint marketing or distribution was the most commonly reported collaborative arrangement (7%), followed by joint production of goods or services (6%). Businesses with 200 or more persons employed were three times as likely as businesses with 0-4 persons employed to report having any collaborative arrangement (38% compared to 12%).

The Information media and telecommunications industry recorded the highest proportion of businesses involved in any collaborative arrangements (26%), while Retail trade recorded the highest proportion of businesses involved in joint buying (10%), integrated supply chain (6%), and joint marketing or distribution (14%). Businesses in Mining were the most likely to be involved in joint research and development (11%). This was nearly double the proportion of businesses in Information media and telecommunications, Rental, hiring and real estate services and Professional, scientific and technical services (all 6%), the industries next most likely to record this arrangement.

Innovation-active businesses (21%) were three times more likely to be involved in any collaborative arrangements than non innovation-active businesses (7%).

Further data relating to collaborative agreements can be accessed via the Downloads tab.


WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Businesses were asked to identify the working arrangements they offered to their employees during the year ended 30 June 2012. Businesses were asked to report all of the arrangements that applied from the list shown in the table below.

Employee working arrangements, by employment size(a)(b), 2011-12

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)
48.9
63.5
72.9
88.4
55.4
ability to buy extra annual leave, cash out annual leave or take leave without pay
13.2
26.1
47.3
71.3
20.1
selection of own roster or shifts
17.2
27.1
29.7
42.3
21.3
job sharing
7.3
15.8
22.5
41.9
11.2
ability for staff to work from home
23.8
19.7
31.7
61.4
23.4
paid parental leave
4.4
8.1
22.4
57.4
7.2
flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (e.g. to care for other people who are sick)
17.7
36.6
61.5
85.8
27.3

(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.


Over half of all businesses reported offering flexible work hours, making this the most commonly reported working arrangement offered by all businesses (55%). Half as many businesses reported offering flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (27%), which was the next most commonly reported working arrangement.

With the exception of offering the ability for staff to work from home, the propensity for businesses to report that they offered any of the other working arrangements increased with each successive employment size range.

Businesses in Health care and social assistance were the most likely to offer selection of own roster or shifts (38%), job sharing (28%) and paid parental leave (13%). Businesses in Construction were the least likely to report offering these working arrangements (9%, 5% and 4% respectively).

Graph Image for Employee working arrangements, by innovation status(a), by employment size(b)(c), 2011-12

Footnote(s): (a) See Glossary for definition of innovation status. (b) Proportions are of all businesses in each output category. (c) Businesses could identify more than one type of working arrangement and were not required to report working arrangements other than those listed.

Source(s): Flexible work hours; Buy extra annual leave; Selection of own roster or shifts; Job sharing; Ability for staff to work from home; Paid parental leave; Flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave



Innovation-active businesses were more likely to report offering all selected working arrangements than non innovation-active businesses. For example, innovation-active businesses were twice as likely as non innovation-active businesses to report offering paid parental leave (10% and 5% respectively).

Further data relating to working agreements can be accessed via the Downloads tab.


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Businesses were asked what methods were used to protect their intellectual property during the year ended 30 June 2012. Multiple responses could be provided.

Intellectual property protection methods used, by employment size(a)(b), 2011-12

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

Patents
1.9
4.0
7.1
23.7
3.0
Registration of design
3.2
3.0
7.6
23.0
3.6
Copyright or trademark
7.6
12.0
17.8
48.9
10.0
Secrecy or confidentiality agreements(c)
8.1
17.3
29.0
44.8
12.7
Complexity of product design
2.9
4.6
6.5
11.9
3.7
Any of the above methods(d)
16.4
27.1
39.8
66.7
21.8
No intellectual property protection methods
83.6
72.9
60.2
33.3
78.2

(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, more than one in five businesses reported using at least one method of intellectual property protection. The most commonly reported methods were secrecy or confidentiality agreements (13%) and copyright or trademark (10%). Each remaining method was reported by less than 4% of all businesses.

Generally the propensity for businesses to report any intellectual property protection methods increased with each successive employment size range. Secrecy or confidentiality agreements was the most commonly reported method of intellectual property protection for all employment size ranges except for businesses with 200 or more persons employed. Businesses in this employment size range were most likely to report the use of copyright or trademark (49%).

Patents and registration of design were most commonly used in the Wholesale trade industry (both 11%), while copyright or trademark and secrecy or confidentiality agreements were most likely to be used by businesses within Information media and telecommunications (30% and 27% respectively). The Manufacturing and Professional, scientific and technical services industries were the most likely to use complexity of product design methods (9% and 10% respectively).

Innovation-active businesses were more likely to use each of the methods of protecting their intellectual property than non innovation-active businesses. Specifically, innovation-active businesses were more than five times as likely as non innovation-active businesses to use patents as a method of intellectual property protection (5% and 1% respectively) and three times as likely to use copyright or trademark (15% and 5% respectively).

Further data relating to intellectual property protection methods can be accessed via the Downloads tab.


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.