A dynamic panel analysis of the profitability of Australian tax entities

This paper investigates the determinants of profitability of Australian tax entities using data for 91 different industries over the period 1991/92 to 1996/97. A simple oligopoly model is augmented with lagged profitability to allow for persistence of profitability shocks. The Wansbeek-Bekker estimator is used to control for endogeneity of this lagged dependent variable, whilst simultaneously controlling for observed and unobserved entity heterogeneity. Aggregate results suggest that profitability in the previous year, capital intensity, and barriers to entry have the expected positive association with current profitability. Market share—and to a lesser extent concentration—have a U shaped relationship with profitability.This paper is the result of work being undertaken as part of a collaborative research program entitled The Performance of Australian Enterprises: Innovation, Productivity and Profitability. This project is generously supported by the Australian Research Council and the following collaborative partners: The Australian Tax Office, Commonwealth Office of Small Business, IBIS Business Information Pty Ltd, Productivity Commission, and Victorian Department of State Development. The views expressed in this paper represent those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the collaborative partners. We are grateful to Badi Baltagi, David Prentice, John Creedy and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.First version received: December 2001 / Final version received: December 2003     

The Need for Sector‐Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards

The market continues to show growing interest in how well companies are performing across a broad range of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. Partly as a result, the companies themselves are paying more attention to these performance dimensions, how they contribute to financial performance, and how to evaluate tradeoffs that arise. One of the greatest challenges facing both investors and companies in using ESG performance information is the absence of standards. Another challenge is knowing which of the many ESG dimensions are most material for a company in terms of creating value for shareholders and stakeholders over the long term. The authors argue that materiality and reporting standards must be developed on a sector‐by‐sector basis, and that failure to do so will result in inconsistent and even misleading disclosures. The authors illustrate this with the case of climate change. The SEC has already issued interpretive guidance on climate change disclosures, making it quite clear that existing regulations require companies to report on material effects of climate change, from both an upside and downside perspective. Based on an analysis of 10K filings in six industries, the authors show that, even within a given industry, there is substantial variation in reporting among companies that ranges from no disclosure, to boilerplate disclosure, industry‐specific interpretation, and the use of quantitative metrics. After providing further detail on this by looking at the airline and utilities industries, the authors conclude by offering a methodology for defining material ESG issues on a sector‐by‐sector basis that could provide the basis for developing key performance indicators.