Business
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Business by Author "Clarke, Frank"
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Disclosure and Reporting of Governance Practices by Australian Residential Aged Care Providers: Accountability to Stakeholders(2018-02-01) Clarke, Frank; Barnes, Lisa; Poulton, ErinThe Residential Aged Care (RAC) Sector in Australia is significant in terms of the ageing population (consistent with most developed countries), and the fact that it will affect the majority of the population in terms of the need for RAC at some stage in their lives. Having access to information for stakeholders to make informed and timely decisions regarding the comparison of RAC providers is often difficult due to there being higher demand than supply, small timeframe to make decisions with a high emotional content and the difficulty in changing providers. Information was gathered from the RAC provider’s website, reports and other publicly available information, to determine their level of governance disclosure, over a three year period. It was found that the RAC providers should not just be limited to their legal reporting requirements (mandatory), but instead should also endeavour to disclose additional voluntary information, in order for their stakeholders to make informed decisions. In addressing the Australian RAC Sector’s stakeholder governance information needs, a governance framework (RAC Sector Governance Framework) and the G-CARD (Governance Checklist Aged Residential Disclosure) Model were developed for this sector to improve governance disclosure. This research provides new insights and a basis for further research to determine whether the Australian RAC Sector have improved their consistency and adequacy of their governance disclosure through the use of the proposed G-CARD Model and associated framework.
Item Disclosure and Reporting of Governance Practices by Australian Residential Aged Care Providers: Accountability to Stakeholders(2017-07-01) Clarke, Frank; Barnes, Lisa; Poulton, ErinThe Residential Aged Care (RAC) Sector in Australia is significant in terms of the ageing population (consistent with most developed countries), and the fact that it will affect the majority of the population in terms of the need for RAC at some stage in their lives. Having access to information for stakeholders to make informed and timely decisions regarding the comparison of RAC providers is often difficult due to there being higher demand than supply, small timeframe to make decisions with a high emotional content and the difficulty in changing providers. Information was gathered from the RAC provider's website, reports and other publicly available information, to determine their level of governance disclosure, over a three year period. It was found that the RAC providers should not just be limited to their legal reporting requirements (mandatory), but instead should also endeavour to disclose additional voluntary information, in order for their stakeholders to make informed decisions. In addressing the Australian RAC Sector's stakeholder governance information needs, a governance framework (RAC Sector Governance Framework) and the G-CARD (Governance Checklist Aged Residential Disclosure) Model were developed for this sector to improve governance disclosure. This research provides new insights and a basis for further research to determine whether the Australian RAC Sector have improved their consistency and adequacy of their governance disclosure through the use of the proposed G-CARD Model and associated framework.
Item Financial Disclosure by Australian Residential Aged Care Providers: Are They Suffering Dementia?(2018-10-01) Clarke, Frank; Barnes, Lisa; Poulton, ErinAustralia’s Residential Aged Care (RAC) Sector is significant in terms of its ageing population, which is consistent with most developed countries. It is therefore vital for stakeholders to have access to RAC providers’ financial information to make informed and timely decisions. It is often difficult for stakeholders to accurately compare the financial information of RAC providers due to there being a small timeframe to make decisions with a high emotional content. This research will enable RAC providers and their stakeholders to consider the current level of disclosure required and the level of voluntary disclosures providers in the sector choose to disclose, and whether this level of disclosure is adequate for stakeholders to make informed decisions. Information was gathered from the RAC provider's annual and/or financial reports, to determine their level of financial disclosure, over a three year period. It was found that the RAC providers’ level of financial disclosure could be more consistent and adequate by complying with the Australian Financial Reporting Framework, including an independent Audit Report. Hence, this research provides new insights and a basis for further research to determine whether the Australian RAC Sector have improved their consistency and adequacy of their financial disclosures through the use of the proposed RAC GPFR Framework.
Item The Alzheimer's Approach to Financial Disclosure: The Case of Australian Residential Aged Care Providers(2018-11-01) Clarke, Frank; Barnes, Lisa; Poulton, ErinThere can little doubt that would be residents, their relatives and those acting on their behalf, would like to be able to choose which aged care facility best meets the financial and care positions of their relatives and loved ones. There is equally no doubt that those who run such aged care facilities are in the best position to provide such information. But, the analysis which has preceded above indicates that they generally have failed to do so. The Models and Frameworks presented in this paper were developed to address this lack of adequate and consistent disclosure in the Australian RAC Sector. The results show that the sector itself is suffering Alzheimer’s disease, with a lack of transparency, accountability and general disclosure.
Item The Labyrinth of International Governance Codes: The Quest for Harmonisation(2016-01-01) Clarke, Frank; Poulton, Erin; Barnes, LisaThere is considerable debate as to whether there will ever be one international currency, one “business” language spoken or one set of accounting standards applicable to all businesses listed in various countries stock exchanges. Governance principles are no different! Is it possible to create one set of rules or principles to guide all businesses across borders? This research compares the governance standards across the globe, from China, to the Nordic region, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the United States of America. The findings show that across borders
governance codes are very similar, with the opportunity to create a Global Governance Standard (GGS), applicable to any business in any country. The Global Governance Standard (GGS) is a one-size-fits-all regime applicable to businesses listing on stock exchanges.
The “one-size-fits-all” GGS could potentially apply to any large business, listed on any stock exchange, creating efficiencies and ease of comparison for potential stakeholders interested in businesses. The “BOARDSS” model can be used by listed companies, in order to satisfy corporate governance codes from across the globe.
Reducing the labyrinth of governance codes to just one GGS would create a uniform approach to governance, supported by government and stock exchanges around the world. A GGS would be the final evolution in the notion of governance since the codes of conduct of Hammurabi of 1800 BC. Let the borders be gone, and the GGS left standing as the final chapter in governance evolution.
Item The Labyrinth of International Governance Codes: The Quest for Harmonization(2017-07-01) Clarke, Frank; Barnes, Lisa; Poulton, ErinThe background to this research is based on the considerable debate as to whether there will ever be one international currency, one “business” language spoken or one set of accounting standards applicable to all businesses listed in various countries stock exchanges. Governance principles are no different! Is it possible to create one set of rules or principles to guide all businesses across borders? This research compares the governance standards and regimes across the globe, from China, to the Nordic region (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland & Finland), Europe, Asia-Pacific (New Zealand, Australia) and the United States of America. Using archival data, governance codes from around the world are compared and contrasted. The findings show that across borders governance codes are very similar, with the opportunity to create a Global Governance Standard (GGS), applicable to any business in any country. The Global Governance Standard (GGS) is a one-size-fits-all regime applicable to businesses listing on stock exchanges. The GGS is not unlike the harmonisation of accounting standards. The “one-size-fits-all” GGS could potentially apply to any large business, listed on any stock exchange, creating efficiencies and ease of comparison for potential stakeholders interested in businesses. The “BOARDSS” model can be used by listed companies, in order to satisfy corporate governance codes from across the globe. Board: to ensure the board are selected carefully. Open: The make sure that the board is transparent and accountable. Auditor Independence: ensure accounts are audited by an independent auditor. Remuneration: the CEO and executive staff are reviewed, and supported by a smaller remuneration committee. Directors are selected for their ability to “add-value” to the strategic direction of the company, and the support of the CEO. Directors’ performance should be reviewed annually. Reducing the labyrinth of governance codes to just one GGS would create a uniform approach to governance, supported by government and stock exchanges around the world. A GGS would be the final evolution in the notion of governance since the codes of conduct of Hammurabi of 1800 BC. Let the borders be gone, and the Global Governance Standard (GGS) left standing as the final chapter in governance evolution.