Who Should Be A Director?

Featured

dreamstime_s_51900283Directors are critical to organisations’ long-term success. Regulators and other stakeholders are also increasingly looking to directors to provide ethical corporate leadership as well as strategic oversight. But how do organisations – or potential directors – decide who should fill this role?

A recent report by Mr Patrick Gallagher (FCPA) and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie – Who Should Be A Director? – addresses this question. The report is the first in a new series of thought-leadership papers by IGAP and CPA Australia on contemporary national and international governance issues.

The report is a primarily a guide to, and discussion of, the 3rd edition of the Australian Security Exchange’s (ASX) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (ASXPR) (2014). The report covers three main areas:

  1. The main principles of ASXPR2014, with a comparison to international governance standards;
  2. The skills and characteristics directors and boards need, including character, knowledge and formal ‘independence’ requirements; and,
  3. The benefits of board diversity.

Understanding ASXPR (2014).

ASXPR 2014 applies to all listed entities in Australia. It has eight principles and 29 more specific recommendations, with additional explanation and recommendations in accompanying commentaries.

According to Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie, the most important ‘foundational rules’ about should be a director are contained in ASXPR Principle 2, which emphasises that:

a listed Entity should have a board of an appropriate size, composition, skills and commitment to enable it to discharge its duties effectively.

This principle requires that all directors bring skills, character and insight that enable the board to meet its responsibilities.

Director skills and characteristics

While any person can legally be a Director, Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie emphasise that good corporate governance requires close attention to the skills of both individual directors and the board as a whole.

ASXPR Principle 1 provides further insight into these skills. Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie highlight the value of the commentary to Principle 1, which ‘effectively states a range of expected functions that directors must fulfil’.

This commentary indicates attributes a Director must bring, which include leadership, strategic understanding and financial knowledge, and also the personal skills and character to challenge powerful individuals or interests when required.

Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie also outline important formal requirements for directors to be ‘independent’. However, they stress that – in itself – being independent is not enough to be a good director: Directors must also bring the right mix of skills, knowledge and capabilities.

Benefits of board diversity

ASXPR2014 (1.5) recommends that boards should have a diversity policy, disclose this policy and report on their performance in encouraging diversity.

Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie state that the wording of this recommendation implies that ‘gender diversity is at the heart of ambitions for new corporate governance thinking within Australia’.

While some may view diversity as an imposition, Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie highlight key benefits of greater gender diversity that have emerged from extensive research. These benefits can include:

  • Improved board performance;
  • A better mix of leadership skills; and
  • Access to a wider talent pool.

Final thoughts: Setting the tone

So ‘Who should be a Director?

ASXPR2014 sets out key principles that ASX-listed boards must understand and apply. But Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie also observe that ‘every corporation is different and faces different circumstances from time to time’.

Hence, they argue, the good director not only understands the fundamental principles of good corporate governance, but is also attentive to the ‘needs of the corporation, its shareholders and other stakeholders’.

For Gallagher and Martinov-Bennie, two key principles encapsulate the approach that directors and boards should be able to enact:

  1. The board must set the tone for the whole corporation; and
  2. The tone needs to ensure an ethical and responsible organisation.

Prospective directors need to ensure they have the skills and knowledge to meet these challenges.

Will Integrated Reporting improve sustainability? Part III – Integrated Thinking

Featured

dreamstime_s_33567037Dr Dale Tweedie and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie.

This is the third of five blogs on whether and how Integrated Reporting might contribute to sustainability.

In this blog, we consider the International Integrated Reporting’s Council’s (IIRC) objective of promoting ‘integrated thinking’.

In a sense, integrated thinking is more fundamental to Integrated Reporting than the final report itself, because the IIRC has defined Integrated Reporting as ‘a process founded on integrated thinking’.

In other word, the primary function of the Integrated Report is to communicate the changes in outlook and organisational practice that Integrated Reporting processes should have generated.

What is integrated thinking?

The IIRC defines integrated thinking as ‘the active consideration by an organisation of the relationships between its various operating units’.

As we explore in a recent article, integrated thinking has two main parts:

  1. Understanding and dialogue that stretches across an organisation’s operating units. For example, reporting and assurance on carbon emissions in mining operations might facilitate integrated thinking by requiring the accounting team to collaborate with scientific experts to measure and document carbon output.
  2. A more holistic understanding of how the organisation interacts with internal and external stakeholders. In particular, the IIRC claims that integrated thinking involves a ‘fuller consideration of stakeholders’ legitimate needs and interests’.

This suggests that integrated thinking should change both how managers see their organisation and how their organisation functions. Indeed, these two types of changes are inextricably linked: Integrated reporting should help managers better understand their organisations precisely because it stimulates more open dialogue across its constituent parts (or ‘silos’) and external stakeholders.

What are the implications for sustainability?

Early research has questioned whether integrated reporting is so far creating the type of changes the IIRC envisages. For instance, Stubbs and Higgin’s (2014) study of early adopters found incremental changes to sustainability reporting practices, rather than the more extensive and transformative organisational changes that integrated thinking seems to imply. A recent IIRC report also finds incremental changes in many organisations, but emphasizes the potential for integrated thinking to emerge over time. One of the IIRC’s participants suggests that – in practical terms – integrated thinking typically develops through producing multiple integrated reports.  

Nonetheless, it is possible to identify both positive and negative aspects of the IIRC’s approach to integrated thinking for sustainability.

POSTIVE: The IIRC’s emphasis on Integrated thinking is entirely consistent with its focus on improving how organisations communicate. Since a key part of integrated thinking is understanding other stakeholders’ views and interests, integrated thinking might improve organisations’ awareness – and the awareness of managers in particular – of sustainability issues.

NEGATIVE: Integrated thinking is a relatively weak accountability mechanism, because whether integrated thinking is occurring, and how well, cannot be directly disclosed, measured or audited (despite the IIRC’s growing focus on assurance). For example, integrated thinking may prompt management to better understand the ‘legitimate needs and interests’ of their organisations’ workers. However, it is difficult to measure or enforce this understanding, especially compared to the Global Reporting Initiatives requirement for organisations to report against International Labour Organisation benchmarks.

Moreover, and as previously discussed, the IIRC is yet to clarify what concrete processes organisations should use to engage their stakeholders. Hence, more could be done to explain what management can do to gain the broader understanding of stakeholders’ views and interests that integrated thinking entails.

In our next blog, we will consider in more detail to what extent Integrated Reporting might improve sustainability by capturing stakeholders’ ‘legitimate interests and needs’ better than alternative reporting frameworks.

As always, any comments or thoughts most welcome. If you wish to be e-mailed future blogs, please subscribe to this blog.

Economic Inequality: Where are the accountants?

Featured

dreamstime_s_53174060Dr Dale Tweedie and Dr James Hazelton

Rising inequality in income and wealth is one of the biggest contemporary social and economic concerns, but accountants have been surprisingly quiet on this issue.

Concerns over economic inequality

The growth of economic inequality is increasingly a topic of public debate in countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.

Numerous influential – and typically conservative – economic institutions have now identified growing income inequality as a critical economic and social issue. The World Economic Forum listed deepening income inequality as number one on its top ten trends of 2015, and describes growing inequality as a threat to global economic growth, social cohesion and sustainability. The International Monetary Fund has reported that inequality in developed nations is at its highest level in decades, with ‘significant implications for growth and macroeconomic stability.’ There is also growing evidence of serious and widespread social harms from economic inequality, with economic inequality being linked to social ills ranging from poor physical and mental health to drug addiction to rates of violent crime.

Public debates over inequality have created an all too-rare cross-over between academic research and public concerns. French economist Thomas Piketty’s 685 page treatise on economic inequality was a surprise hit of 2014, reaching the top of the New York Times’ best-seller list. While Piketty’s analysis of the causes of economic inequality is hotly disputed, there is little challenge to his finding that income inequality has sharply risen in most developed nations since the 1970s. For example, in the United States, Piketty reports that the top decile’s share of national income grew from just under 35% in 1970 to almost half by 2010.

A role for accountants?

Despite growing evidence of the economic and social costs of inequality, accountants have had little involvement in either public or academic debates. However, as we observe in a recent article (50 free e-copies here), there are key contributions that accountants could make to public discussions

First, as Piketty and others have argued, both public deliberation and informed public policy about economic inequality requires greater global transparency about who owns economic wealth and receives economic income. Whatever else it may be, accounting is a vehicle – albeit imperfect – for understanding and promoting transparency. Accountants might therefore add their voice to calls to improve public access to economic information, such as in the recent debate over whether taxes paid by resource companies to governments should be disclosed.

Second, key debates about the equity of income distribution, such as ongoing critiques of the pay of executives (especially CEOs), are closely connected to corporate governance. While economists have proposed macro level policies like a progressive tax on capital (Piketty) and a minimum basic income, seriously addressing inequality will invariably need to address how resources are managed and distributed within corporations. Accountants have the expertise to evaluate existing corporate accountability mechanisms and propose workable alternatives. These proposals could complement the broader macroeconomic agenda that economists like Piketty put forward.

What do you think?

Is there is a role for accountants on economic inequality? And if so, what do accountants – or accounting – have to say?

Accounting for inequality will be the subject of a special session of the Australasian Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) Conference, which will be held at Macquarie University, Sydney in 2015, and also a special section of the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal.

Will Integrated Reporting improve sustainability? Part II – Communicating Value

Featured

dreamstime_s_42615032Dr Dale Tweedie and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie.

This is the second in a series of blogs that asks whether Integrated Reporting can contribute to sustainability, where sustainability means a replicable and just use of natural and social resources.

Our last blog highlighted one key difference between an Integrated Report and a sustainability report: That an Integrated Report describes natural and social resources from the company’s point of view.

This blog explores a second difference, which is that an Integrated Report is more about helping companies communicate than holding companies accountable. As a result, whether Integrated Reporting makes companies more sustainable depends on what and to whom companies choose to communicate.

Reporting and corporate change.

There are at least two ways that any report might change a company’s behaviour:

  1. A report may enable someone – a shareholder, an employee or a regulator – to hold a company accountable for its actions. Sustainability reporting is often viewed this way. For instance, having multi-national companies report against global labour rights may enable civil society to better enforce these standards.
  2. A report may change behaviour by changing relationships, or by starting new conversations. For example, GRI 4 requires companies to engage with stakeholders to determine their concerns. If this discussion changes how companies act, then the process of GRI reporting could change companies’ behaviour by initiating structured conversations between the company and the people it affects.

In our view, the potential of Integrated Reporting to change behaviour is more through the second mechanism than the first. That is, the potential for Integrated Reports to improve sustainability is less about making organisations more accountable, and more about creating different discussions between organisations and their stakeholders.

Communication into action

Viewed in this light, whether Integrated Reporting improves sustainability depends on what kinds of conversations an Integrated Report enables, and whether companies choose to use Integrated Reporting to initiate these conversations.

Internal conversations

Integrated Reporting might provide space and vocabulary within firms to have conversations that might not otherwise occur, especially at board and management level.

There are many people within most companies who are genuinely committed to sustainability, but whose companies may not have a culture of discussing sustainability issues. The language of six capitals might enable more serious discussions about long-term connections between companies and social and environmental issues, especially at senior levels.

External conversations

Although targeted at investors, the six capitals framework might allow organisations to more rigorously engage with stakeholders’ concerns.

For example, a common view amongst academics is that companies need social legitimacy to operate over the long term, sometimes called a social licence to operate. Integrated Reporting might allow organisations to have better conversations about preserving their social licence to operate by creating a common vocabulary in which these conversations can occur.

Implications for Integrated Reporting

Thinking about Integrated Reporting as more a vocabulary than an accountability mechanism has three implications for how companies should use an Integrated Report.

  1. There is no value in simply delegating an Integrated Report to the sustainability reporting team. Since the potential value of an Integrated Report is the conversations it could enable, the only substantive reason to produce an Integrated report is to start discussions between the sustainability team and finance, marketing, management and the board, especially about where the company, environment and society will be in five, ten or twenty years’ time.
  2. Issuing an Integrated Report is unlikely to satisfy public critics of a company’s sustainability record. On present evidence, Integrated Reports are not comparable enough to hold companies accountable on their social and environmental performance. Instead, the value of an Integrated Report is if companies are able to use the reporting framework – and the idea of six capitals it contains – to engage rather than placate concerned stakeholders.
  3. Stakeholder engagement is a key area for future development of the Integrated Reporting Framework. The current Framework requires companies to consider the ‘legitimate interests’ of stakeholders, and provides a language and format for this consideration. But – unlike GRI 4 for instance – there is little guidance on how this engagement should occur in practice.

Next time…

Based on our recent article, our next blog will consider the claim that Integrated Reporting encourages ‘integrated thinking’. What does this mean, and how – if at all – is it relevant to sustainability?

In the meantime, any thoughts or questions most welcome.

Will Integrated Reporting improve sustainability?

Featured

– Dr Dale Tweedie and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If the Integrated Reporting Framework is successful in engaging business and investors, how – if at all – will this success affect sustainability?

This is the first of a series of short blogs that address this question, based on a new article published in the Social and Environmental Accountability Journal in February, 2015.

What is sustainability?

The word ‘sustainability’ has many different meaningsWe use the term to refer to a replicable and just use of social and natural resources. This is the ideal of sustainability made famous by the World Commission on Environment and Development’s definition of sustainability as ‘meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

One difficulty with assessing how the Integrated Reporting framework will affect sustainability is that the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) itself uses the word ‘sustainable’ to mean two quite different things:

  • Sustained value creation; which refers to a company’s ability to continually create value over time; and
  • Natural and social sustainability; which refers to companies that consider how their actions are connected to, or impact, society and the environment.

These two ideas are linked, but they are not synonymous. For example, an energy company might profitably sustain itself extracting and selling fossil fuels for many years, without necessarily considering its impacts on global warming or accounting for the costs that future generations will bear.

How Integrated Reporting will not affect sustainability

Integrated Reports require companies to consider natural and social capital, but an Integrated Report is not a sustainability report.

Sustainability reports typically require businesses to explain more fully how their activities impact societies (e.g. work, health and safety reporting) and natural environments (e.g. recycling and energy use).

In a sense, Integrated Reporting does the reverse: An Integrated Report aims to better explain how society impacts business.

One partial but useful way of thinking about Integrated Reporting is as expanding companies’ balance sheets to better represent how companies depend on non-financial resources, including resources or ‘capitals’ the company does not or cannot own. For example, in an Integrated Report, social capital might reflect how companies’ supply chains and sales depend on a hidden web of trust and goodwill, as well as on its monetary wealth and physical assets.

But an Integrated Reporting ‘balance sheet’ is still organised from the companies’ point of view, rather than from external stakeholders’ view of how the company impacts them. More precisely, an Integrated Report is organised from the point of view of how social, natural and other capitals enable companies to create financial value, especially over the longer term.

So if Integrated Reporting is to improve sustainability, it can’t be in the same way as sustainability reports.

How Integrated Reporting might affect sustainability.

Integrated Reporting might affect sustainability if bringing new types of capital into mainstream business reporting and business models helps to improve how companies interact with their communities and natural environment; such as by being more responsive to harmful effects that are not priced into conventional markets.

Our recent article considers four possible ways that IR could impact natural and social sustainability in this way:

  • By changing how organisations communicate
  • By encouraging integrated thinking
  • By better representing stakeholders’ ‘legitimate interests and needs’
  • By better capturing the long-term impacts of how organisations use resources.

In our upcoming blogs, we will review each of these possibilities in more detail.

If you are interested in being alerted to new posts, please sign up to IGAP’s blog below.

Any comments or thoughts are most welcome.

Safety at Work: Policy meets performance

Featured

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????discussion of Dr Sharron O’Neill’s research with Safe Work Australia in late 2014 – by WHS consultant Kevin Jones – highlighted how better WHS accounting might improve both work, health and safety (WHS) policy and performance.

Jones reported on the 2014 annual Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) conference on occupational health and safety, which was held in Melbourne last October. The conference was addressed by the ALP Shadow Minister for Employment Relations: Brendan O’Connor MP.

According to Mr O’Conner, the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Scheme risks distracting attention from broader deficiencies in the WHS laws that should ‘protect the interests of working people, particularly young workers’.

Whether legal reform can improve WHS outcomes is a matter of debate. Jones’s view is that the needed changes are:

unlikely to come through laws, particularly as OHS/WHS laws remain a State responsibility. Change will need to be attempted through modifying the public services’ processes of consultation and collaboration of safety-related matters.

However, the Shadow Minister also discussed the economic argument for improving WHS policy and performance, which suggests that WHS accounting has a critical role to play:

If you look at the costs that are borne by a community because of bad health and safety laws, on economic grounds you win the argument, leave aside the fact that you’ve torn a family or community apart because of injury or death.

If the economic grounds of WHS are indeed central to the public policy argument, then accounting needs to be able to bring the costs of WHS into both public policy discussions and organisations’ reports in a clear and comparable way.

As Dr O’Neill’s presentations on WHS reporting have shown, both financial and non-financial accounting has some way to go to adequately recognise either the community or organisational costs of WHS practices, or to effectively communicate good WHS practices to stakeholders.

But if the current standard of WHS reporting is part of the problem, then new WHS reporting mechanisms, which Dr O’Neill’s research is helping to develop, have the capacity to be an important part of the solution.

For more information on this research, or on improving WHS performance in your organisation, contact Dr O’Neill at: sharron.oneill@mq.edu.au.

Learning the Lessons: Alan Cameron on Audit Committees at the joint IGAP & CPA Australia Annual Forum.

Featured

Camerron photoAlan Cameron AO used his address to the IGAP and CPA Australia Annual Forum in 2014 on ‘The evolving role of audit committees’ to draw lessons from the HIH and Centro cases for contemporary audit committees.

Cameron is current Chair of the ASX Corporate Governance Council and several large public companies, and also a former Deputy Chancellor of the University of Sydney.

He addressed the IGAP and CPA Australia Annual Forum in his personal capacity, drawing on his extensive experience to provide insights into what the Centro and HIH judgements reveal about good audit committee practice.

Cameron’s keynote address emphasised directors’ role in addressing governance issues early, rather than becoming ‘gatekeepers’ after the fact:

‘To me gatekeepers are auditors and regulators and other people who look at the results afterwards. I think directors are rather earlier in the line than gatekeepers’.

Looking back over the Centro and HIH cases, Cameron highlighted three key lessons for how boards and audit committees can best execute their functions.

  1. Keeping the board and audit committee separate

The HIH judgement underscored how audit committees need to meet separately from the board if the accounts are to be examined rigorously. In Cameron’s words:

‘If the whole board is involved in the work of the audit committee, the audit committee is not doing its job. Its job is to have a first detailed look and if the whole board is there all the time as a matter of routine that isn’t going to happen’.

‘To me a troubling aspect of the processes of the HIH audit committee was its practice of meeting before and effectively in the presence of the board. As a result of that practice it operated as little more than an extension of the board… I see that now all over the place’.

  1. Making time to review financial reports properly

Another impediment to rigorously examining the accounts is not allowing the audit committee and the board time to consider the financials properly. Among other issues, the HIH judgement criticised ‘the practice of the six monthly financial reports being considered by the audit committee, approved by the board and announced all on the same day’.

Not only do directors need time between meetings to adequately review the financial reports, they also need time to access the right people:

‘The audit committee should meet auditors in the absence of management before or in the course of each meeting or at least from time to time. The material should be distributed well in advance of a committee meeting’

  1. A clear audit committee charter

Cameron’s analysis of the HIH judgement also highlighted the absence of a clear role for the audit committee in that company. By contrast, a clear and detailed charter can help define and clarify the audit committee’s role:

‘The [HIH] charter is short and the terms of reference are couched in general language. They do not clearly define and establish the role and responsibilities of the committee and its relationship to the board. There is no evidence that the terms were reviewed annually to see that the committee in its role remained relevant to the needs of HIH. So I think the clear message from that is short might be dangerous. You do need to review it every year’.

Learning the Lessons

Although Cameron’s address focused on audit-committee practice, he also reminded participants of the whole board’s responsibilities under law:

‘Whilst an audit committee has an important role of monitoring oversight that is not to the exclusion of the role of a director to consider the financial accounts for him or herself’.

Cameron concluded by highlighting several practices that directors might adopt, including:

  • Insisting on reviewing paper copies of the reports;
  • Checking organisations’ systems for dealing with whistle-blowers; and
  • Paying attention to internal audit.

Ultimately though, Cameron stressed that there is no substitute for directors using their limited time to investigate the right issues:

‘We can set up all these structures, but if people don’t ask the right questions, and be appropriately sceptical, then you will still have these problems’

What does the market expect of audit committees? Michael Coleman at the joint IGAP & CPA Australia Annual Forum.

Featured

MC picWhat does the market expect of audit committees? Increasingly, ‘everything’, Michael Coleman told the Annual Forum, held in October, 2014.

The joint IGAP and CPA Australia Annual Forum gathers leaders from industry, the accounting profession and academia to address key issues in contemporary governance and performance.

This year’s topic – ‘The  evolving role of audit committees’ – explored how audit committees are responding to rapidly evolving risks, liability, technological advancements and complexity in reporting, among a myriad of other challenges.

Coleman was Chair of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), sits on a number of prestigious boards and has also had 30 years as an audit partner. He used his keynote address to highlight a potential expectations gap between what markets expect of audit committees and what directors can reasonably deliver.

Coleman highlighted several key challenges that audit committees are facing:

  • Changing expectations of regulators and the market; for example, that audit committees should be satisfied that auditors are doing their job or commenting on financial reviews;
  • A greater focus on risk; and
  • The proliferation of reports (e.g. Integrated Reporting).

A particular difficulty Coleman highlighted is the expectations for audit committees to form a judgement on audit quality:

“So whether it’s a good audit or not a good audit is a tough one and this is something that as audit committees we’re probably going to have to take a reasonable amount of time to consider.”

“We need to question amongst other things whether or not the auditor has been sufficiently sceptical. Now, how does an auditor demonstrate to the board that they’ve been sceptical?”

Coleman also highlighted how Australia has to some extent followed the United States trend of increasing the responsibilities of audit committees:

“In particular in my experience it’s become common for audit committees to approve fees over a certain level in relation to non-audit services provided by the auditor and audit committees have taken on a far more extensive role in relation to overseeing the financials.”

However, unlike in the United States, Australia still sees the audit committee as a sub-committee of the board:

“It’s not a separate creature, it’s not a separate animal and so therefore, and especially following Centro, we have the situation where boards, very, very rigorously in my experience, are actually as a whole considering the financials.

“The audit committee might look at the detail, but then the board as a whole still wishes to satisfy itself that it’s actually doing the right thing.”

Finally, Coleman observed how the expectations on audit committees would continue to evolve in the future with the release of a new auditing reporting standard in June 2016, which “will require the auditor’s report to include commentary on their key audit matters”. The new standards are likely to some interesting discussions, and to some changes to the dynamic of the relationship between the auditor and audit committee.

Communicating Safety: Avoiding common mistakes

Featured

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????A discussion by James Harkness (for Zenergy Recruitment), headed Reporting on WHS: where companies go wrong, illustrates how IGAP’s Dr Sharron O’Neill’s research on work health and safety (WHS) can improve how organisations communicate their safety practices.

Harkness cites Dr O’Neill’s presentation at Safe Work Australia’s Virtual Seminar Series in October, which found a large gap between the WHS information stakeholders want and what annual reports provide.

Some common mistakes organisations make are:

  • Providing a generic statement of commitment to WHS, but without detailed information on WHS governance;
  • Failing to provide key lead and lag indicators, which can deliver important evidence on whether WHS practices are effective;
  • Providing limited evidence on whether audits and training sessions are effective;
  • A lack of consistent indicators and evidence e.g. Using different names for the same indicator, failing to define their indicators or failing to stick to their definitions;
  • Being reluctant to talk about the severity of injuries, effectively hiding the impact of gaps in companies’ health and safety systems; and
  • Building inaccurate narratives around their data.

By contrast, for best-practice WHS reporting in annual reports, organisations should:

  • Recognise who the users of the report are;
  • Clearly articulate their WHS vision;
  • Identify their critical risks;
  • Outline how risks are being managed; and
  • Acknowledge the consequences of failure;
  • Provide analysis where there has been a serious injury or illness: What happened, what was the cause, what is the lesson, what is being done to prevent this occurring again.

Where poor WHS reporting can be confusing or misleading, Dr O’Neill’s address highlighted how best-practice WHS reporting in annual reports can help instil confidence in an organisation’s WHS performance and practices in its stakeholders.

For more information on this research, or on improving WHS performance in your organisation, contact Dr O’Neill at: sharron.oneill@mq.edu.au.

Request for research participants: Ethics of performance appraisal

dreamstime_xs_22737173Researchers from Macquarie University are seeking participants for a study into people’s experiences of performance appraisal or management in their workplaces. The aim is to develop a framework for conducting performance appraisals or management ethically.

Researchers are seeking to conduct interviews of approximately 45 minutes with people who have been employed in a professional role for at least 5 years. The interview will cover your experiences and views of the performance appraisal or management you have experienced.

All individuals and organisations participating in the study will remain anonymous.

Participation is entirely voluntarily. A small gift voucher ($50) to a bookstore will be provided to thank you for your time. Summarised findings of the study will also be made available to all participants on request.

If you are interested in participating, please contact the chief investigator, Dr Dale Tweedie, at: dale.tweedie@mq.edu.au.

The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee.  If you have any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Committee through the Director, Research Ethics (telephone (02) 9850 7854; email ethics@mq.edu.au). Any complaint you make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.

Request for research participants: Management accounting ethics

Researchers from the International Governance and Performance (IGAP) research centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, are seeking participants for a study that investigates how professional management accountants, or people with management accounting training and qualifications, interpret their organisational role, and how they manage different organisational and professional / ethical obligations.

Researchers are seeking to conduct interviews of approximately one hour with people who are:

  1. working in management accounting roles, or in roles that use management accounting skills; and
  2. members of a professional accounting association.

Participation is entirely voluntarily, and no remuneration will provided. However, the summarised findings of the study will be made available to all participants on request. All individuals and organisations participating in the study will remain anonymous.

If you are interested in participating, please contact the chief investigator, Dr Dale Tweedie, at: dale.tweedie@mq.edu.au.

The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Committee through the Director, Research Ethics (telephone (02) 9850 7854; email ethics@mq.edu.au). Any complaint you make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.