Four ideas for improving Integrated Reporting

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) recently completed the consultation period for its draft version of the International Integrated Reporting (<IR>) framework, with <IR> ‘Version 1’ to be released in December. IGAP researchers Dr Dale Tweedie and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie raised four ideas for the IIRC to consider in its revisions.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1. Clarifying the relationship between <IR> and other reporting systems

The IIRC’s ‘value-creation’ approach to non-financial reporting is very different from the ‘impact-assessment’ approach used by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Users of <IR> would benefit from greater guidance on how <IR> and GRI4 can be complementary in a practical reporting context; for example, by clarifying differences in the materiality determination processes of <IR> and GRI4 and which – if any – takes precedence.

2. Acknowledge and address stakeholder conflicts

The IIRC’s view that the interests of providers of financial capital – the primary audience of <IR> – and other stakeholders will align over the long term overlooks potential conflicts between these groups, and so how conflicts should be reported. An example in Australia is coal seam gas (CSG) exploration, which promises significant financial benefits to mining and energy organisations, but which other stakeholders have claimed is a long-term risk (e.g. to primary production and water supply). Given this perceived conflict, what should be reported by organisations engaged in CSG exploration? Further clarity on the ‘legitimate needs, interest and expectations’ of other stakeholders that an <IR> should acknowledge would help address these kinds of issues.

3. Increase comparability through a stronger ‘core’

As our earlier blog discussed, while a principles-based framework is a useful method of avoiding boiler-plate disclosures, <IR>s need sufficient commonalities to be comparable over time and between organisations. Providing a stronger ‘core’ of reporting requirements and methods, best practice guidance (e.g. on carbon reporting) and definitions of key terms could encourage comparability without sacrificing the principles-based approach.

4. Governance as accountability

The draft <IR> framework asks each organisation to explain how its ‘governance structure support[s] its ability to create value in the short, medium and long term’. While good governance is part of value creation, the key features of governance are accountability, transparency and ethics, which are fundamental to ensuring that the value that organisations create is managed and distributed in appropriate ways. Following the King Reports in South Africa, <IR> could play a greater role in emphasising and communicating the importance of these aspects of governance. 

Telework to ‘Anywhere Working’: The Next Steps

As reported in the Australian Financial Review, a key theme emerging from the recent Digital Productivity in the Workplace of the Future Conference, sponsored by Macquarie University and CSIRO, was that the conversation is moving on from ‘telework’ from a home office to ‘anywhere working’. Increasingly we will see employees working from locations such as a café, a partner’s, supplier’s or customer’s premises, a smart work centre, a co-working centre, from home, a car, an airport lounge or anywhere that is conducive to achieving the outcomes and levels of productivity required to achieve organisational strategic objectives.

On the latest statistics, around six percent of Australian workers have formal anywhere working arrangements. The statistics on informal arrangements for working from anywhere are more difficult to ascertain. This is an important area for research because workers with informal anywhere working arrangements typically have more autonomy to complete ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????their tasks and projects, and so this is where we are more likely to see productivity gains.

Clearly not all organisations see anywhere working as an effective strategy, and prefer their employees to work from an office.  Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, famously (or infamously) banned all work from home arrangements early this year. Ms Mayer argued that innovation and creativity only occurred when people were together. Yahoo are not alone. Google publically stated that their organisation did not condone working from home.

However, several developments may mitigate the limitations of working from home that Yahoo and others have cited. Co-working or collaborative working spaces are providing opportunities for freelancers and entrepreneurs to collaborate and connect. Hub Australia has hubs in Melbourne and Sydney with another to open in Adelaide later in the ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????year.  Fishburners is a co-working space for technology start-ups and has two locations in central Sydney.

Smart work centres (SWCs) provide an alternative for those employees who are unable to work from home for a variety of reasons including social isolation and lack of space. Employers may be more open to employees working from SWCs because these centres can address issues that arise when working from home such as work, health and safety and difficulties in managing remote employees. A sustainable business model will be critical for the success of SWCs, which is another key area for future research.

A second key theme emerging from the conference was the perceived lack of management and leadership for anywhere working employees. Job design should include autonomy so that employees are able to be productive without the constraints of ‘presenteeism’ (being seen in the office). As Dr Blount from Macquarie University discussed on Sky News, management are unclear about how to develop a business case for anywhere working, and are unsure about the skills required to manage workers who are not office-based. While many employers have the HR policies in place for anywhere working, management resistance is an ongoing barrier to an increased uptake of working more flexibly. Alan Dormer – research leader at the CSIRO’s Government and Commercial Services division – has used research from the The Economist to argue that the reluctance of management to devolve responsibility might be preventing significant gains in both worker productivity and well-being.

The Australian Anywhere Working Research Network – which aims to provide a framework for collaborative research on anywhere working – invites any researchers, employers or government representatives interested in this field to join. To become involved, please contact Dr Yvette Blount in the Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance at Macquarie University.

Work, Health and Safety: What ‘Lost Time’ Doesn’t Tell You.

IGAP researcher Dr Sharron O’Neill argues that ‘Lost Time Injury Frequency Rates’ (LTIFRs) – traditionally the ‘gold standard’ in workplace safety reporting – can mask worrying trends in the severity and incidence of occupational injuries. Her analysis of injury data was recently reported in the cover article of the March 2013 issue of Inside Safety – ‘Losing Faith in Lost Time Injuries’ – by journalist Richard Collins .

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????The article draws attention to three important limitations of LTIFR measures:

1. LTIFR only captures a subset of work-related injuries. By definition, lost time injuries are work-related injuries that prevent a worker from performing their usual work duties for at least one day. Hence, even serious injuries such as permanent loss of hearing are excluded where they involve no loss of work time.

2. Counting injuries does not measure safety risk – dangers at work and the possible consequences – or the effectiveness of hazard identification and management.

3. Research demonstrates that LTIFR performance can fall even when the incidence of severe injuries is rising. This explains how companies can experience a blowout in workers compensation costs despite workplace injury rates appearing to decline.

Given these limitations, Dr O’Neill raised concerns about the way the LTIFRs are being used as a proxy for anything from workplace safety to workplace culture and performance, and then used to inform a vast array of organisational decisions from workplace health and safety (WHS) strategy and policy to resource allocation and executive remuneration. She suggests that the divergent uses of LTIFRs is: “…part of the reason behind claims that [LTIFR] is so manipulated and produces dysfunctional outcomes – it’s like a square peg being forced into too many round holes.”

Instead, Dr O’Neill identifies a number of alternate measures that may be preferable in particular circumstances and urges decision-makers to look to those measures that best suit the context. For instance, lost time measures may be suitable for capturing the financial and productivity costs of workplace injuries. However, the effectiveness of an organisation’s safety policy and systems is better captured with metrics that reflect the control of latent risks and / or quantify both the severity and incidence of workplace injuries.

The importance of evaluating work health and safety in a valid and reliable way is underscored by both the human and economic consequences of poor safety management. Recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) statistics show 640,700 Australians sustained workplace injuries and illnesses in the 12 months preceding the (2009-10) survey, which equates to about 53 in every 1,000 people in work. Furthermore, Safe Work Australia estimates suggest workplace injury and illness is costing the Australian economy $60.6 billion per year, or approximately 4.8% of GDP.

The need to improve both the measurement and governance of WHS in Australia is a key driver for the WHS performance and governance research being conducted by the IGAP research centre. IGAP is currently working with the Safety Institute of Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Australia to develop a WHS reporting guide that can help organisations measure, report, interpret and improve their safety performance. In a separate study, IGAP is bringing together CPA Australia, Safe Work Australia and the Safety Institute of Australia to undertake a detailed examination of the role of accounting in WHS governance. Please refer to the IGAP Projects website or contact Dr O’Neill for further details.

Telework – Trends and New Opportunities for Collaboration

The adoption of telework is a strategic government objective in the National Digital Economy Strategy.  The stated goal is that by 2020 Australia will have doubled its level of teleworking so that at least 12 per cent of Australian employees will report having a telework arrangement with their employer. Trends indicate that employees are working more flexibly and employers are more accepting of this way of working. Yet, recently the debate has taken a backward step with the announcement by the CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer that all telework arrangements would be rescinded. Google have also been reported in the media as saying that they don’t encourage telework. What is the future of telework?

What is telework??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Telework is generally referred to as white-collar or professional work conducted outside the main office, usually from home and requires the use of information and communications technology (ICT). Reliable statistics about who teleworks, how and when are difficult to ascertain, largely because the definition of telework is not universally agreed.

Telework is not a new concept.  The IT and software development domain has adopted this work practice since the early 1970s allowing software developers to work from areas remote from central offices.  More recently, the ability to work from anywhere has become more viable due to new developments in the ICT domain.  For example, the internet has increased our networking and collaboration activities allowing us to connect with colleagues nationally and internationally.

The Future of Telework

The capability of workers in Australia to telework will increase as the National Broadband Network (NBN) becomes available for more businesses and their employees. Additionally, the evolution of hand held and mobile devices allows for greater flexibility to access content from anywhere.

A number of studies from industry have predicted that telework will increase significantly. According to a recent report from IBIS World ‘A snapshot of Australia’s Digital Future to 2050’, one in four employees are likely to have some form of teleworking arrangement by the middle of the century. Employee flexibility and increased productivity are frequently cited in the literature as key benefits of telework.  Other benefits include cost savings, increased workforce participation and infrastructure savings.

The potential limitations include not all employees having access to telework, resistance by managers, work, health and safety issues, communication and supervisory issues.

Another trend is the adoption of smart work centres, co-working spaces and hubs that are either being trialled or utilised by governments and organisations to resolve some of the limitations of working from the home while achieving the benefits.

Telework: An Emerging Research Agenda

The trends and issues around telework are yet to be fully explored and are a fertile area for research. The Australian Anywhere Working Research Network’s (AAWRN) aim is to provide a framework for collaborative national (and international) research around flexible ‘anywhere’ working practices that include telework using mobile devices.

There are a number of research projects that are either underway or planned. The Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society (IBES) in an Australian study in 2012 found that telework increased productivity and wellbeing. The New Zealand Work Research Institute, AUT University and Cisco New Zealand with IBES have extended this research to enhance our understanding of current issues around telework and productivity and employee wellbeing.

Macquarie University and IBES are working on a project to investigate the impact of Telework and Telehealth delivery on worker productivity, wellbeing and service quality in rural, regional and peri-urban areas of Australia. The focus of the study will be on Teleworkers engaged in various forms of Telehealth delivery, in order to explore the types of ICTs used in providing services, and how this impacts worker productivity, wellbeing and quality of service delivery to clients.

Opportunities for Collaboration

Macquarie University and the AAWRN are working on a research project proposal around smart work centres.  The overarching question for this research is “How to develop smart work centres so that they are viable and sustainable to achieve the anywhere working objectives in Australia”.

To continue the conversation, a Digital Productivity in the Workplace Conference will be held on Monday 17th June 2013. We welcome papers on existing and proposed research projects.  This conference will provide an opportunity for all interested parties to engage on this topic.

– by Dr Yvette Blount

Carbon Accounting: New Reporting and Assurance Challenges

The growing international impetus to address climate change means that it is increasingly important for organisations to understand and manage their environmental impacts. In a 2012 article, Nonna Martinov-Bennie reviewed the introduction of carbon management legislation in Australia, and explains the key reporting and assurance issues.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-co2-emissions-image17305254Carbon Legislation in Australia

The main climate change legislation in Australia is the Clean Energy Act 2011. The Clean Energy Act has four major initiatives: a carbon pricing mechanism, support for innovation in renewable energy, energy efficiency and enhancement in land management. Arguably, the policy with the most significant reporting implications – and also the most controversial – is the carbon pricing mechanism or ‘carbon tax’. The carbon pricing policy establishes an initial fixed price of $23 per tonne of CO2. This price will increase at 2.5% plus inflation until 2015, and then transition to a price determined by a carbon market. While the carbon price is new, it builds on an on-going legislative and reporting framework in Australia that began with the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in 2007.

Carbon pricing: key issues

As Martinov-Bennie explains, carbon reporting and pricing challenges business to improve their reporting and management in several key areas:

  • Reporting rigour: Because organisations’ survival has not historically depended on its control of environmental impacts, non-financial reporting has not attained the same rigour as financial reporting. By putting a cost on environmental performance, carbon pricing provides incentives for firms to bring environmental reporting standards and controls up to the same high standards.
  • Timely data: Emissions data is typically reported annually. However, the creation of a carbon price questions whether annual reporting is adequate. More frequent   reporting better reflects organisations’ costs and liabilities and can support more effective management of outputs. At least one large mining company is already moving to monthly reporting for operations of over 50-kt CO2.
  • Robust reporting systems: The current legislative framework requires secure data storage and audit trails of changes for five years. Most firms are reporting based on spreadsheets, but it is unlikely that this will be adequate over the long term.
  • Effective reporting teams: Producing effective carbon data requires organisations to create interdisciplinary teams that have the range of skills that effective carbon reporting requires.

Measuring carbon: organisational strategies

Martinov-Bennie also highlights new governance and measurement challenges involved in measuring carbon output:

  • Periodic or Continuous Carbon Reporting: Periodic reporting is the cheapest and most popular method of measuring carbon liability; however, it is also the least accurate. Organisations need to consider whether a more expensive continuous measurement system might better manage the risk of highly variable emissions.
  • Measuring the Right Activity: Accurately measuring carbon emissions requires a thorough and holistic understanding of production, especially when using contractors. For example, a landfill company that outsources emissions to a third party through gas flaring needs to report those emissions.

The future of carbon pricing in Australia?

Despite calls for certainty by the business community, the federal opposition in Australia has promised to repeal carbon pricing legislation if elected in September. However, while many commentators are predicting a change of government and policy, the long-term future of carbon pricing is uncertain. As a small, trade dependent nation, there are limits on Australia’s capacity to remain isolated if other nations move towards carbon reporting and assurance, as recent suggestions that China is considering a carbon pricing mechanism have highlighted.

Also, the long-term value for organisations in rigorous reporting and management of climate change data is not solely a consequence of the Clean Energy Act. Independent international initiatives to report environmental impacts, such as by the Global Reporting Initiative and the International Integrated Reporting Council, suggest growing pressure from stakeholders to report environmental outcomes. The growth in investment funds with sustainability criteria will also benefit firms who can report on their environmental management practices, and suggests a growing need for assurance of these reports.

Finally, as Martinov-Bennie’s article highlights, developing effective reporting of carbon outputs is one part of understanding and evaluating an organisation’s production process. From this perspective, carbon reporting and assurance is not solely an exercise in compliance, but also an opportunity to develop a more rigorous assessment of an organisation’s non-financial impacts and management strategies.

Welcome

Welcome to the governance and performance blog, hosted by the International Governance and Performance Research Centre (IGAP).

IGAP brings together academic experts in governance and performance with professionals and leaders from industry and government. We will provide updates and commentary on the latest events, research and ideas in governance, including financial, non-financial and integrated reporting, auditing and assurance, sustainability and business performance measures.

You can also join our experts in our online forum to discuss how the latest developments and analysis in governance affects you and your organisation. To join the discussion, simply make a comment below.

You can stay up to date with the latest developments by opting to follow our blog, this way you’ll know when we’ve posted a new, relevant item.

I look forward to you joining the conversation,

Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie, IGAP Director