Tag Archives: Australia

02.21.15
by

The sleight of hand that separates the owners of money and those who manage it

An article I wrote with Christine Daymon has been published in the Journal of Public Relations Research.

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/MRx7cwJEyA4WU8a7WwRz/full

Our study investigates how the definition of ‘shareholders’ are constructed and engaged with through public relations in the Australian financial sector. We found that there is a hierarchy within the stakeholder group known as shareholders which is perpetuated by and through a public relations approach which constructs a discourse of ‘ownership’ that excludes citizens as legitimate stakeholders and prevents their influence in ensuring a more responsible sector.

In responding to the challenges of greater public scrutiny many companies have focused on developing communication strategies that espouse a commitment, through policy and practice, to involving stakeholders in a positive manner in organisation activities. At the core of such strategies is the notion of stakeholder engagement which, ideally, involves processes of consultation, dialogue and exchange with the intention of enabling cooperation and increasing understanding and allows stakeholders such as shareholders, consumers, and employees to exert an influence on corporate governance. In practice, and from economic and legal perspectives, the foremost accountability relationship of managers is deemed to be with shareholders. This relationship is supported by conventional stakeholder thinking whereby shareholders are considered to be a core stakeholder group with a formal claim on a company because their support is necessary for that company to exist. The nature of the relationship between an organization’s management and its shareholders has been explained through agency theory. Shareholders, as the principals or owners of companies, are the primary constituents who delegate their decision-making rights to an agent. Whether or not one agrees with the view that the economic obligation of business supersedes its social obligation, there is a problem with agency theory in that it relies on a definition of the shareholder as one who makes a direct investment in a company (such as an institutional fund, or someone who buys shares through a stockbroker). That notion has become less applicable, and even out-dated, in the modern economy. In capitalist economies today, a substantial portion of the capital that fuels the daily activities and growth of major national and international listed companies is provided by indirect investors (i.e. citizen investors) through pooled or institutional funds, such as superannuation and pension funds, which invest and manage monies on behalf of others. For example, in Australia in 2010, the nation’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia estimated that around 40 per cent of the country’s equity market and 30 per cent of the bond market were owned by Australian-based institutional shareholders, predominantly superannuation funds.

The insertion of an intermediary (i.e. an institutional fund) between the real owners of capital (citizen investors) and the management of the listed companies in which they invest presents a complication for the traditional investment relationship which previously was based on a delegation of responsibility from direct shareholders to management.

The consequences of the discrimination that is perpetuated through public relations’ engagement strategies are that citizen investors are not educated about their role and rights as legitimate shareholders. Nor are they informed of the possibility to influence ethical, corporate decision-making and hold companies accountable for unacceptable actions. This is paradoxical when the same citizens who are passive as shareholders simultaneously may be engaging in public protest against the activities of the very same companies in which they hold investments. We have argued that if the engagement strategies of the Australian financial sector were equitable and responsible, then citizen investors might be motivated to actively contribute to corporate decision-making. The need then for public protest against corporate recklessness might be mitigated somewhat.

Engagement has a moral dimension and suggest that our application of the concept of engagement has been enriched by including consideration of responsibility and irresponsibility and public relations practitioners can contribute to a shift in how citizen investors and the broader community understand the meanings of ‘shareholder’ and ‘ownership’ with their subsequent rights and responsibilities, and potential for influence.

09.11.13
by

Who owns what is as clear as mud

One of the great transparency furphies in the corporate world is that you can find out who are the top shareholders by looking in their annual reports. The problem is a flick through the annual reports of most of Australia’s largest companies you may think you are reading the same list over and over again.

Most of the names on the list are nominee companies. The biggest ones in Australia are HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Ltd, JP Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd and National Nominees Ltd.

Nominee companies are custodian services that allow investments from a number of investors to be aggregated into one entity. According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) they typically hold securities, arrange the banking of dividends and some form of consolidated reporting. They don’t engage with senior management or boards about how companies are run on behalf of their clients.

In fact, large listed companies raised the use of nominee companies as a key barrier to engaging  institutional investors in submissions to the 2008 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into barriers to the effective engagement of shareholders on corporate governance. The companies said the use of nominee entities also made finding the ultimate owners of shares difficult. This makes it very hard to align the long-term investment goals of superannuation funds and the short-term remuneration and performance goals of senior management and professional investors.

The parliamentary committee also found that institutional investors, such as superannuation funds, made decisions about whether to engage with companies’ management and boards based primarily on the economic cost to them. Some found engagement to be a distraction from their stated primary role of generating investment returns. The use of nominee companies would provide a useful way of distancing themselves from the companies and, therefore, actual engagement.

So it appears institutional investors not only don’t canvas the opinions of the people that provide them the money to invest, they are not that interested in engaging with the companies they invest in either. If they do, they certainly don’t share it with their clients.

08.28.13
by

Who pays for Woolworths’ bigger piece of pie?

Woolworths reported another increase in its net profit after tax today and shareholders will receive an increased dividend. This is great news for short-term investors, but with Woolworths casting a bigger and bigger shadow over our retail sector, it is also important to look at how the pursuit of these numbers impacts our society.

For instance, despite consumer price deflation, Woolworths has managed to increase its profit margin on its continuing operations to 26.94%, its fifth straight rise and an increase of more than one per cent on five years ago. So the question is, if prices are dropping but profit margins are rising, who is being squeezed?

The Federal Government’s FOODMap report, released in July 2012, analysed the Australian food supply chain. According to the report, Woolworths and Coles account for 68% of all food and liquor sales in Australia in 2010/2011. The report found that increased pressure from these food retailers for cost savings and larger scale has led to further rationalisation in food production. That means more people going out of business and fewer people producing more at lower margins. Further pressure is placed on these producers from cheaper imports being substituted for local product.

Both Woolworths and the Wesfarmers-owned Coles are pushing hard into the ‘own label’ space in their supermarkets and this has given them enormous, and uneven levels of power in the supply chain. Smaller, local producers have no bargaining power and those that want to stay in business must agree to the retail giant’s terms. This doesn’t just affect food producers, but all of the suppliers to the business.

So while the stock markets may revel in the results of this retail giant today, surely as ultimate investors in the company, we have to ask what other costs are we prepared to pay for Woolworths to generate these profits.

We, as members of superannuation funds and other investment vehicles, provide the capital to the likes of Woolworths, and we can use our collective power to get them to be more transparent about their activities. We just have to get the institutional investors who manage our money on our behalf to be more active.

Related articles