BUSINESS STRUCTURE AND ARRANGEMENTS



Foreign ownership

Businesses were asked to report their percentage of foreign ownership (as at 30 June 2008) 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(a)(b), by employment size, 2007 - 08
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Wholly Australian owned	98.3	97.4	95.1	68.1	97.6
Greater than 0% and less than 10%	0.2	0.4	0.8	6.7	0.4
10% to 50%	0.5	0.7	0.9	3.1	0.6
Greater than 50%	1.0	1.8	3.1	22.3	1.5
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size category.
(b) The sum of component items within employment size categories may not equal 100% due to rounding and/or provision of multiple responses, refer to Explanatory Note 17.

Regardless of employment size, the majority of businesses reported being wholly Australian owned. Proportions ranged from 68% for businesses with 200 or more persons employed to 98% for businesses with 0-4 persons employed.

Over one in four businesses in Mining (26%) reported having some degree of foreign ownership the highest of any industry, followed by Wholesale trade at 11%. The majority of these businesses had greater than 50% foreign ownership.

Innovation-active businesses were almost three times as likely as non innovation-active businesses to have some degree of foreign ownership.


Franchising agreements

Businesses were asked whether they were involved in any franchising agreement during the year ended 30 June 2008. Businesses could be identified as a franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise), franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system) or both.

Franchising agreements(a)(b), by employment size, 2007 - 08
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Franchisee (i.e. operated a franchise)	1.8	8.2	8.4	4.5	4.2
Franchisor (i.e. controlled a franchise system)	0.7	0.7	1.1	5.1	0.8
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size category.
(b) Businesses could identify as both a franchisee and franchisor.

Involvement in a franchising agreement as a franchisee was reported by 4% of all businesses. The employment size groups with the highest proportion of franchisees were 5-19 persons and 20-199 persons, both at 8%. The proportion of businesses operating as a franchisor was highest for businesses with 200 or more persons employed (5%), compared to rates of 1% for the other employment size ranges.

The industries with the highest proportion of franchisees were Rental, hiring and real estate services along with Accommodation and food services, the only industries to record proportions equal to, or above, 10%.


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 2008. Collaborative arrangements were defined as participation in joint projects with other businesses or organisations (including wider parts of this 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(a), by employment size, 2007 - 08
	0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
	%	%	%	%	%
Joint research and development	3.6	3.9	6.7	14.0	4.0
Joint buying	2.4	6.3	9.4	10.1	4.1
Joint manufacturing	1.2	1.1	1.4	4.0	1.2
Integrated supply chain(b)	1.2	2.2	3.9	12.3	1.7
Joint marketing or distribution	5.4	8.1	12.5	16.4	6.8
Other collaborative arrangements	0.9	1.4	2.1	6.0	1.2
Any collaborative arrangements	9.7	16.8	22.7	38.8	12.9
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size 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.

Joint marketing or distribution was the most prevalent type of collaborative arrangement, with 7% of all businesses indicating this type of arrangement. At the industry level, almost one in four businesses within Mining (24%) reported having some type of collaborative arrangement. By contrast, only two industries reported rates of less than 10% for involvement in collaborative arrangements i.e. Other services (9%) and Construction (6%).

Innovation-active businesses, at 21%, were more than three times as likely to be involved in some type of collaborative arrangements than non-innovation active businesses (6%).


Collaboration for innovation

All businesses were asked whether they collaborated with others to develop or introduce any new or significantly improved goods, services, operational or organisational/managerial processes or marketing methods.

Collaboration for innovation, by employment size(a)(b), 2007 - 08
		0-4 persons	5-19 persons	20-199 persons	200 or more persons	Total
		%	%	%	%	%
Businesses with:
	any collaborative arrangements	9.6	13.0	14.6	21.2	11.0
	no collaborative arrangements	90.4	87.0	85.7	78.8	89.0
(a) Collaboration with others to develop or introduce any new or significantly improved goods, services, operational or organisational/managerial processes or marketing methods.
(b) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size category.

Overall 11% of businesses collaborated with others to develop or introduce any new or significantly improved goods, services, operational or organisational/managerial processes or marketing methods. Businesses with 200 or more persons employed are more than twice as likely to be collaborating for purposes of innovation, compared to businesses with 0-4 persons employed.

Across industries, Financial and insurance services and Mining had the highest proportion of businesses collaborating for purposes of innovation (19% and 16% respectively).


Working arrangements

Businesses were asked to identify if they offered to employees any of the working arrangements specified, during the year ended 30 June 2008. The list was fixed to only the arrangements included in the table and there was no attempt to collect other types of working arrangements.

Employee working arrangements(a)(b), by employment size, 2007 - 08
		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)	47.8	64.5	70.2	79.4	54.5
	ability to buy extra annual leave, cash out annual leave or take leave without pay	11.4	25.6	42.0	64.7	18.3
	selection of own roster or shifts	19.0	28.2	27.9	27.0	22.4
	job sharing	7.2	19.0	19.1	37.6	11.7
	ability for staff to work from home	18.9	15.0	27.5	56.6	18.7
	paid parental leave	2.1	5.3	11.1	45.3	4.0
	flexible use of personal sick, unpaid or compassionate leave (e.g. to care for other people)	15.8	34.7	48.3	75.3	24.2
(a) Proportions are of all businesses in each employment size category.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of working arrangement and were not required to report working arrangements other than those listed.

Flexible working hours was the most reported type of working arrangement at 54%. By contrast, only 4% of businesses reported offering paid parental leave to employees.

At the industry level, 43% of businesses in Professional, scientific and technical services reported an ability for staff to work from home. Health care and social assistance had the highest proportion of businesses reporting job sharing (21%).