€6.5m invested in mentorship programme to help SMEs
Businesses apply for the 12-week programme online before they are matched with an expert in their area.
David Broderick, director of the SFA, said additional supports like the programme have been invaluable to businesses that have grown 'tired and weary'.
'It was initially set up to be an active upscaling scheme to boost the productivity of SMEs. We looked at key areas like finance and people skills,' he said.
'Uncertainty is not a word that businesses like, but it's unfortunately where a lot of businesses are now – there's a lot of tiredness, there's a lot of weariness.
'They haven't had the chance to recover from the pandemic before being hit with one crisis after the other.
'We've since had the energy crisis, now there's the risk of trade war – a lot of the life supports that were put in place throughout Covid were turned off last year and that's perfectly normal, but it's hard to navigate that on your own.'
According to Mr Broderick, programmes like MentorsWork are crucial to allow some businesses to catch up with their larger counterparts when it comes to areas like financing and automation.
'In trying to survive, businesses would cut back their hours, their expenditure and renegotiate with suppliers. But no matter what they do, some sectors are definitely more exposed than others – like retail, hospitality, hairdressers – they need all the help they can get.
'In addition to what a business might be seeking support for, the mentors identify areas that they could improve on – maybe it's around automation or having the right people in the right roles.'
A survey carried out by the SFA last year found Irish businesses struggle most with employment costs, followed by attracting and retaining talent.
'I don't think too much has changed. The minimum wage only went up again – for businesses, their margin is completely eroding.
'On top of that, a lot of our members would actually fit into the supply chain of the bigger companies – so with questions around global trade, there's even more uncertainty,' said Mr Broderick.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Agriland
40 minutes ago
- Agriland
China extends investigation into EU dairy sector 'subsidies'
Authorities in China have said that the period of its investigation into so-called 'subsidies' paid to the EU dairy sector will be extended. This time last year, China's Ministry of Commerce announced that an investigation had been launched into subsidies paid to European dairy farmers, with one Irish farm scheme specifically cited by the country's authorities. Now today (Monday, August 18), the country's commerce ministry has confirmed the "investigation period" of the case will be extended until next year. A statement from the ministry (translated to English) said: "In view of the complexity of this Ministry of Commerce has decided to extend the investigation period of this case to February 21." No other details were provided by the ministry in its short statement. When first announcing the investigation last year, the ministry had said that the period of subsidy payments under investigation would be from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024, and the "industry injury" investigation period is a four-year timeframe from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2024. The basis for the investigation is that certain subsidised EU dairy products allegedly impact on China's domestic dairy industry. Representatives of the Chinese dairy industry claimed that certain EU dairy products received subsidies from the EU and its member governments, and that the EU dairy industry "may benefit from a total of 20 subsidy projects". The products under investigation include fresh cheese, processed cheese, blue cheese, milk, and cream, that are used for food consumption directly or after processing. Among the 20 EU subsidy schemes cited in the investigation is an Irish scheme which is referred to on translated versions of the ministry's statements as the "Dairy Equipment Subsidy Scheme". This likely refers to the Dairy Equipment Scheme under the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme (TAMS). This investigation is seen as part of long-standing trade tensions between the EU and China. The announcement of China's investigation into the EU's dairy industry followed on from an earlier announcement from the European Commission to impose countervailing duties on imports of electric vehicle batteries from China. In September last year, the European Commission formally challenged the Chinese investigation by taking the issue to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The commission said its decision to go to the WTO was prompted by "an emerging pattern of China initiating trade defence measures, based on questionable allegations and insufficient evidence, within a short period of time".
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Is your boss paid too much?
Analysis: The issue of outlandish CEO pay and compensation continues to be a vexed and contentious topic in workplaces and boardrooms The CEOs of major corporations earn seemingly absurd sums. The Wall Street Journal 's list of the top 10 highest-paid CEOs listed annual pay packages of $60 to $164 million, but these figures sometimes grossly underestimate the value of their total compensation. For example, Elon Musk, who is not even on the Wall Street Journal list, is in line to receive compensation (including stock options and an array of financial awards other than salary) of $29 billion. Jeff Bezos receives a seemingly paltry salary of $80,000, but he also earns $8 million per hour from his holdings in Amazon stock. In the US, compensation packages for CEOs are worth nearly 400 times as much as the compensation package for an average Ireland's CEOs do not typically pull down such staggering sums, the top 10 Irish CEOs all receive compensation worth between €2.9 and €18 million a year. Ryanair's Michael O'Leary is in line to receive a €100 million bonus if he stays with the airline for another three years, and the value of his Ryanair stock holding is said to be more than €1 billion. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, after 40 years, what has Ryanair done for us? The stratospheric pay awarded to CEOs is not limited to a few outliers. The total expected CEO compensation in the top 100 US corporations is over $17 million, and perhaps as high as $25 million; a figure that includes a bewildering mix of salary, stock options, bonuses and deferred payments. It was not always this way. CEO compensation grew by over 1000% between 1978 and 2023 (a typical worker's compensation grew 24% during the same period). In the 1970s and 1980s, CEOs made 20 to 30 times the pay of an average worker, but they now receive several hundred times as much as their average employee. Are bosses worth the compensation they receive? Classical economists would say that their pay is determined by the market, and that whatever they receive is what they are worth in an efficient market. However CEO pay is not determined by a fair and efficient market, but by consultants, compensation committees and boards of directors that very often include CEOs from other companies. As long as your competitors overpay their CEOs, you will almost certainly fall in line. You can argue that CEO pay is simply a function of the growing value of the company, since a large portion of the compensation comes in the form of stock (including outright grants of shares, options to purchase shares at favorable prices, or preferred shares) so it is a reward for success. If this were true, you would expect that the CEOs of failing companies would not get paid much. From RTÉ Brainstorm, how much are you paid? But examples abound of CEOs reaping big rewards while their companies go down the drain. The obvious example is Musk, who is set to receive the largest compensation package in history mainly from Tesla, at the same time his political adventures were seemingly driving Tesla into the ground. Musk is hardly alone. Before filing for bankruptcy, Pennys and Hertz both paid bonuses in the millions to top executives, and Boeing paid their outgoing CEO (who led the company at the time of 737 MAX crashes) a large severance. Even in companies that are doing well, CEO pay routinely grows more quickly than company value. In the long run, the question of whether CEOs are worth what they receive is a difficult one to answer. If we analyze this using a historical lens, the answer is almost certainly no. The difference between what an average worker makes and what a CEO makes has grown to be almost absurd, and there is little evidence that CEOs who are now making 400 times what their avarage employee receives are that much better than CEOs of the 1970s and 1980s, who managed quite well on 20 to 30 times the average worker's pay. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2019, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg sacked as 737 MAX crisis deepens If we think about this from the perspective of attracting and retaining top talent, the answer is murkier. You could make the case that if you pay your CEO 30 times what the average employee makes and your competitors pay 10 to 15 times that amount, it might be hard to attract and retain the best CEOs. The more interesting question is what difference CEO pay really makes. Would your employees be much better off if CEOs went back to the old days and received 20-30 times the average worker's pay? The answer is probably no. Pay for top executives typically represents about 4% of total company revenue. This figure is relatively small because so much of executive compensation often comes in the form of stock options, deferred compensation or the value of the growth over time in stock prices, making it hard to tie executive compensation directly to the funds an organization has available for other purposes. The bottom line is that if top executives in large organisations made a lot less money, this would not translate into meaningful increases in the pay of average workers or even in the funds that might be available for more productive purposes, such as improving the physical plant or providing better benefits or services for employees. From RTÉ Brainstorm, why money doesn't always motivate employees In the end, CEO pay is probably more of a moral or psychological question than a practical one. That is, it strikes most observers that the rewards given to CEOs are unfairly large. This is made harder to swallow by the fact that the people making decisions to grant such huge amounts to top executives are often themselves top executives, who arguably benefit from this pay inflation. The perception that CEO pay is out of control undermines people's faith in the sorts of institutions that are supposed to look out for everyone's interests. If you believe that a corporation is unfair in the decisions it makes about rewarding top executives, this might undermine your belief about whether other decisions they make (e.g., the rates they charge, the prices they demand) are fair. You can certainly argue that corporations are not doing themselves a favor by overpaying their top executives. If nothing else, it provides the sort of bad press that organizations usually work hard to avoid. Coming back to Tesla, it is bad enough in many people's eyes that Musk continues to have any role in the company, but paying him the largest compensation package in history is like rubbing salt in the wound. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Tesla sales fall as boss Elon Musk attracts negative attention over his involvement in US politics and the Trump administration Is any CEO ever worth 400 of his or her employees? You might make a case that this was true for Steve Jobs, whose vision drove some of the most profitable products in Apple's history. You might say the same for Henry Ford, who both built an industry and pioneered the then-scandalous idea that paying his employees well was good for business. You might even say the same for Michael O'Leary, who has led Ryanair to become one of the world's largest airlines. There probably are several other examples, but there are also plenty of examples where CEOs presided over the ruin of their companies while making money hand over fist. The proposition that the average boss is worth 400 of his or her employees in terms of contribution is not easily swallowed, and corporations would probably benefit it they could find a way to rein in out-of-control CEO compensation.
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
David McNamara: Are economic statistics still trustworthy?
The firing of a little-known labour statistician by US President Donald Trump has brought to the fore an ongoing debate amongst economists — that is, whether macro statistics are becoming unreliable as the response rates to key surveys decline. In the US, major revisions to the benchmark payroll jobs survey are quite common and are typically shrugged off by investors and grumpy forecasters, whose models then require tweaking. In some cases, the revisions can completely shift the narrative of an economy, as was the case when US payrolls were recently revised sharply lower for May and June, precipitating a fall in interest rate expectations and a decline in the dollar. Response rates to this key survey have fallen sharply to 30-40% at present from as high as 70% in the period before the pandemic. However, despite President Trump's assertions of political bias, the revisions in the past few years to the payroll survey have been in both directions, with few signs of bias in the data. Nonetheless, covid appears to have left a lasting impact on the ability of statisticians to collect data across the world, with another example being the UK's labour force survey, which the Office for National Statistics has placed a large health warning on. The response rate to this survey has fallen from a pre-covid rate of 50% to just 10% at present. While the revisions in the US payrolls survey still appear to be random, the UK survey is demonstrating what economists might call 'systematic error'. In the absence of robust national statistics, a new cottage industry of private labour market data has emerged, which policymakers in the Bank of England, who have been struggling to get a gauge on wages and inflation, now rely on. In Ireland, the concentration of a small number of very large multinationals often renders initial estimates of GDP useless, but we have also seen large revisions to our labour force survey, including the sharp upward revision in unemployment recently. Emerging 'frontier' series, which use administrative data rather than relying on surveys, might become more reliable and prevalent in the future. For example, a new payroll employment series pulls data directly from the Revenue's PAYE system in Ireland, which gives a timelier estimate of the number of employee numbers. This series has been signalling a cooling of Irish jobs growth in 2025, which the official labour force survey might now belatedly show when the latest revisions are published later this week. The key takeaway is that economies are becoming more complex and harder to measure in real-time, with emerging trends such as AI having the potential to upend how we live and work in the years to come. Spare a thought for the beleaguered statistician in an ever-changing world. David McNamara is Chief Economist with AIB
