THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING

INTRODUCTION

Environmental reporting, as previously defined, is the “process of communicating … environmental effects of organisations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to the society at large” (Gray et al., 1987:9). Whereas, accounting is the “process of…communicating economic information to permit informed judgements and decisions by users of the information” (AAA, 1966:01). Therefore, environmental reporting falls within the ambit of accounting (De Villiers, 1996:08). Accordingly, it is appropriate to examine accounting theory in order to understand and evaluate the suitability of the current environmental reporting practices in informing judgements and decisions of users, and to prescribe how such reporting practices should be done (Deegan, 2006:04). The theory is also examined because no discipline can develop without a strong theoretical base (Porwal, 2001:07). Therefore as a relatively newly emerging practice, environmental reporting should be founded on sound accounting theory.
Although several definitions of accounting theory have been provided (Deegan, 2006:04), the most commonly cited definition is that provided by Hendriksen (1970:01) when he defines an accounting theory as “a coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual and pragmatic principles forming the general framework of reference for a field of inquiry”. He later reiterates that an accounting theory is “a set of broad principles that, firstly provide a general frame of reference by which accounting practice can be evaluated and secondly guide the development of new practices and procedures” (Hendriksen, 1982:01).
Admittedly, there is no single accounting theory that has met Hendriksen’s definitions with a universal approval (AAA, 1977:02; Porwal, 2001:26). Instead, like in any other social science, there are a multitude of different theories employed in accounting that sometimes corroborate each other but at other times compete with each other (De Villiers,1996:11). It is therefore not surprising that several theoretical perspectives have been employed in the prior literature on environmental reporting, given that it is a sub-discipline of accounting (Cowan, 2007:60).
The purpose of this chapter is to examine various theoretical perspectives employed in the existing literature in an attempt to describe, explain, and evaluate the current environmental reporting practices and to prescribe how the reporting should be practiced. This chapter proceeds with a brief overview of the various theoretical perspectives employed in social and environmental reporting research in section 3.2. The justification for the theoretical perspective adopted in this study will be provided in section 3.3. This will be followed by a detailed examination of the decision-usefulness theory in section 3.4. The paradigms of the decision-usefulness theory will be discussed in section 3.5. This will be followed by a detailed discussion of the approach adopted in this study in section 3.6. Thereafter, the general criticisms of the decision-usefulness theory are discussed in section 3.7, followed by the summary and conclusion of the chapter in section 3.8.

OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT THEORIES

Inductive theories and Deductive theories

Attempts to formulate generally accepted accounting theories have not succeeded so far because of different assumptions, intended functions and methodologies employed in formulating the theories (Porwal, 2001:26). With regard to the methodologies, some accounting theories have been formulated using an inductive approach, on the basis of past observations, whereby theories are not viewed in isolation but are rather tested to determine the extent to which actual practices conform to the theories. Simply put, on the basis of observations and measurements, generalised conclusions are drawn. According to Belkaoui (1992:61), this involves four stages:
i. recording observations
ii. analysing and classifying observations to detect recurring relationships
iii. deriving generalisations and principles of accounting from recurring relationships
iv. testing generalisations
The theories developed this way are deemed to be empirical or scientific, of which some are further developed to make predictions about likely occurrences, and sometimes offer explanations about why certain events occur (Deegan, 2006:04). Such theories have however been criticised for justifying the existing practice and for being unable to suggest improvements or new techniques (De Villiers, 1996:17).
By contrast, other accounting theories are developed unscientifically, not based on observation or empirical evidence, but rather developed through a deductive process (Porwal, 2001:28). The deductive process follows the following sequence (Belkaoui, 1992:60):
i. Value-based objectives are specified
ii. from the objectives, accounting premises are selected
iii. from the premises, accounting principles are derived
iv. based on accounting principles, techniques of accounting are formulated
These theories which are usually based on the norms or value judgements held by those proposing them, are regarded as normative, as they are not concerned with how accounting is practiced, but rather how it ought to be practiced (Deegan, 2006:11). Such theories therefore are prescriptive as they set out goal assumptions of what accounting principles should be based on (Deegan, 2006:04). Notwithstanding the variety of theories employed in accounting, selecting an appropriate accounting theory should not be a daunting task as different theories are formulated to perform different functions (Deegan, 2006:02). Therefore, the theories should be selected in accordance with their suitability for the intended function.

The theoretical perspectives employed in environmental reporting research

As a result of a considerable disagreement amongst accounting researchers regarding the theoretical underpinning of environmental reporting, a variety of theoretical perspectives have been employed in the early literature on environmental reporting (Cowan, 2007:60; De Villiers, 1998b:01). In order to facilitate a meaningful discussion of the theoretical perspectives, some researchers have proposed a variety of categorisation criteria that could be employed (Gray, Kouhy & Lavers, 1995:50; Parker, 2005:01). One useful categorisation criteria that is commonly cited is provided by Gray et al. (1995:50) who classify the theoretical perspectives into three categories namely; decision-usefulness theories, economics-based theories such as the agency theory and political economy theories such as the legitimacy theory and the stakeholder theory.
Another commonly cited categorisation criteria of the theories employed in environmental reporting research is provided by Parker (2005:842), who places the theoretical perspectives into two main categories namely; augmentation theories and heartland theories. The heartland theories are considered to be deeply philosophical and less practical, and thus have not been extensively employed in the prior research on environmental reporting (Alin, Victor, & Dumitru, 2011:124). By contrast, the augmentation theories which consist of decision-usefulness theory, agency theory, accountability theory, stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory are considered to be practical and have been extensively used in environmental reporting research (Alin et al., 2011:124). These theories overlap with those classified by Gray et al (1995:50), and are expounded below.
Accounting conceptual frameworks assert that the primary objective of accounting is to provide information that is useful for decision-making (FASB, 2010:01; GRI, 2000:16; IASB, 2008:12). Based on the primary objective, accounting researchers have proposed a theory, namely; the decision-usefulness theory (Inanga & Schneider, 2005:246). The decision-usefulness theory therefore is premised on the view that the primary purpose of accounting and environmental reporting is to provide information to permit informed judgements and decisions by users of the information (AAA, 1966:01). The theory assumes that users do evaluate and choose to use environmental information according to its perceived usefulness (Rikhardson & Holm, 2005:05). It further assumes that for accounting information to be useful, it must be relevant and faithfully represent the phenomena it purports to represent (FASB, 2010:16). In addition, the theory makes the assumption that certain characteristics of information such as understandability, timeliness, comparability and verifiability can enhance its decision-usefulness (FASB,2010:19). As a normative theory, the decision-usefulness theory prescribes the type of accounting information and manner of disclosure that is useful to the users when making decisions (Deegan, 2006:05).
By contrast, the agency theory is based on the agency relationship which exists where a principal (shareholder) delegates some decision making authority to an agent (manager) (Denis, Denis, & Sarin, 1999:1072; ICAEW, 2005:06). The principal (shareholder) and the agent (manager) enter into a formal contract that creates a fiduciary relationship that legally entitles the shareholders (principals) to information held by managers (agents) (Wilson, 2003:05). In this relationship, the agent will have more or better information than the principal (information asymmetry) and will act in his or her own interest which could be to the detriment of the principal’s interest (Denis et al., 1999:1072).
The agency theory thus posits that as a result of information asymmetries and self-interest, principals lack reasons to trust their agents (ICAEW, 2005:04). Therefore, the principals will seek to resolve the trust concerns by putting in place mechanisms such as requiring that environmental reports be audited to reinforce trust and reduce opportunistic behaviour by managers. For this reason, the theory has been extensively employed in accounting literature to explain and predict the shareholders demand’ for the appointment of external and internal auditors, and in determining their respective roles in protecting the shareholders’ interests (Adams, 1994:08). The theory has also been used to explain why managers, acting in their self-interest, will select particular accounting methods and prescribe the accounting information to be disclosed to the shareholders (Porwal, 2001:52).
Based on the view that an alternative purpose of accounting is for managers to account to all stakeholders for the management of resources under their control, accountability theory posits that managers have an ethical responsibility to provide an account, or a reckoning of their actions to all stakeholders and not just the shareholders (De Villiers, 1996:12; Gray, 1994:28; Gray et al., 1996:38; Ijiri, 1975:32; Islam, 2009:45). According to the theory, managers have two responsibilities, namely; responsibility to take actions, and responsibility to account for those actions (Kisenyi, 1999:06). The theory extends the right to information held by managers to all stakeholders based on the assumption that a social contract exists between a company and the society in which it operates, which entitles the stakeholders to a moral right to information (Gray, 1994:28; Kisenyi, 1999:07).
Based on an expressed or implied social contract, a company, like any other social institution, operates in society where its survival and growth depend on the delivery of some desirable ends to society in general, as well as the distribution of economic, social and political benefits to the society from which it derives its powers (Shocker & Sethi, 1973:67). It follows therefore that the social contract stipulates the responsibilities and the right to information and hence defines the nature of the relationship between company managers and the rest of society (Mathew, 1993:26) – a relationship in which the managers owe a duty of accountability to the society at large. It is based on this relationship that the accountability theory sets out arguments for disclosure of accounting information by companies to all stakeholders and not just the shareholders (Gray 1994:28).
Also based on the assumption that a social contract exists between a company and the society, the stakeholder theory posits that a company’s continued existence requires the support of the stakeholders and that their approval must be sought, and the activities of the cmpany adjusted to gain that approval (Hibbitt, 2004:206; Ullman, 1985:540). The theory is divided into two branches namely the ethical (normative) branch and the managerial (positive) branch (Deegan, 2002:294).
The ethical branch, being a normative branch, prescribes how the company management should address stakeholder concerns and interest, and therefore is not based on what actually takes place in practice (Hibbitt, 2004:206). Simply put, this branch argues that a company should be managed for the benefit of all stakeholders regardless of their powers and also prescribes that all stakeholders should be treated fairly and equally (Deegan, 2002:294). A company therefore has a moral obligation to uphold the rights of all stakeholders simply because they exist (Hibbitt, 2004:207). This includes the right to be informed about a company’s environmental performance. As a prescriptive branch, the ethical branch does not predict managerial behaviour (Deegan, 2002:294).
By contrast, the managerial branch reiterates the need to manage and supply environmental information to powerful stakeholder groups because of their ability to control resources that are necessary for a company’s survival (Ullman, 1985:540). The more important the resource controlled by the stakeholders for the future survival of a company, the more effort will be exerted in managing the relationship with the stakeholders and the greater the expectation that these stakeholders’ demands will be addressed (Deegan, 2002:294). Thus this branch is used to directly predict management behaviour. According to this branch, the relative power of a stakeholder group will determine the level and quality of environmental information that it receives from a company, and therefore influence the disclosure policies of the company (Wallen & Wasserfaller, 2008:21). Therefore, environmental reporting is seen as one of the means to manage or manipulate powerful stakeholders in order to gain their support and approval or to distract their opposition and disapproval (Gray et al., 1996:45).
Likewise, the legitimacy theory also assumes that a social contract exists between a company and the society within which it operates (Patten, 1991:297). The theory posits that a company must appear to consider the rights of the public at large, and not merely those of its investors (Deegan & Ranking, 1996:567). If the company does not appear to operate within the bounds of behaviour which is considered appropriate by society, then the society may act to remove the company’s rights to continued operations (De Villiers & Antonites, 2003:01).Therefore, a company cannot continue to thrive if its aims and operations are perceived to be in conflict with those of the society within which it operates. This implies that companies with a poor environmental performance record may find it difficult to obtain the necessary resources and support to continue their operations within a society that values a clean environment (Deegan & Ranking, 1996:567).
To ensure its survival, a company will adopt particular strategies, including reporting strategies, in a bid to assure the society that the company is complying with the society’s values and norms (Deegan, 2006:294). Lindblom (1994:01) identifies four reporting strategies that a company could employ in environmental reporting to legitimise itself. These are as follows:
i. Reporting to educate and inform its relevant audience about actual changes in the 97
company’s performance and activities
ii. reporting to change perceptions of its audience but not change its actual behaviour
iii. reporting to manipulate perceptions of its audience by deflecting attention from issues of concern to other issues
iv. reporting to change external expectations where they are deemed unrealistic or unfair

JUSTIFICATION OF THE THEORY ADOPTED FOR THIS RESEARCH

As a result of many approaches to the study of environmental reporting, research in this area is neither structured nor representative of any particular theory (Deegan, 2002:288; Porwal, 2001:26). As such, environmental reporting research has yet to experience a theoretical closure and remains open to different theories (ACCA, 2007:29; Hibbitt, 2004:144). However, where several different accounting theories belonging to different world views are adopted, complications can arise due to the conflicting nature of the assumptions underlying different theories (Deegan, 2002:294; Hibbitt, 2004:111). Hence some form of closure is a practical necessity within individual pieces of research (Hibbitt, 2004:144).
Different theories are suitable for different functions (Deegan, 2006:02). Some theories are suitable for describing accounting practices in general, whereas others are appropriate in prescribing particular accounting practices (Deegan, 2006:04; Islam, 2009:45). Some theories are suitable in predicting likely occurrences, whereas others are appropriate in explaining the occurrences after they have occurred (Hibbitt, 2004:112; Porwal, 2001:07). Accordingly, in selecting a particular theory to inform a study, a researcher has to evaluate its suitability for the intended purpose (Deegan, 2006:18). Simply put, a theory should be critically evaluated or questioned in order to determine its suitability for an intended function before it is accepted (Deegan, 2006:02). This should be done by examining whether the arguments supporting a theory are logical and plausible in terms of the assumptions made. Therefore, a theory and its associated hypothesis should only be accepted if the logic of its supporting arguments, underlying assumptions and supporting evidence provided are accepted (Deegan, 2006:18 ). Furthermore, the researcher has to consider the fact that accounting as a discipline, is not a natural science, but rather an abstract phenomenon, the existence of which is solely dependent on human construction (Hibbitt, 2004:112). As such, accounting theories are developed as a result of value judgement. Therefore the acceptance of one theory, in preference over others, will in part depend on one’s own value judgement (Deegan, 2006:15; Porwal, 2001:10).
Undeniably, the use of agency theory has benefited research on environmental reporting by enabling methodological pluralism, however, the theory’s assumptions are highly contestable in the context of environmental reporting (Gray et al., 1995:51). To begin with, its economic assumptions of free markets which have resulted in information asymmetries and externalities, contradict the principal concerns of environmental reporting (Parker, 2005:846). Most importantly, the theory’s overriding assumption that all actions are motivated by self-interest is considered to be not only empirically implausible but also highly offensive (Gray et al., 1995:51). Also, considering that the theory is concerned only with the fiduciary relationship and information needs of the shareholders, it ignores the other stakeholders (De Villiers, 1996:12; Hibbitt, 2004:191). Besides, the agency theory being a positive theory is not primarily concerned with what environmental reporting should be, thus it fails to suggest improvement to the reporting practice (Deegan, 2006:08). For these reasons, the theory is unsuitable to inform this study.
Although the stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory have been perceived as the more insightful theoretical perspectives that have informed the more penetrating analyses of environmental reporting studies in recent years (Gray et al.,1995:52 ), these theories are focussed on explaining why companies/management make environmental disclosures (De Villiers & Van Staden, 2010a:07). Accordingly, these theories adopt a company’s management perspective and are concerned with the motivating factors behind a company’s environmental disclosure decisions (Cowan, 2007:60). Considering that this research focuses on the users’ perception of the decision-usefulness of environmental information and not why companies or management disclose this information, the stakeholder and legitimacy theories are not useful to this study (De Villiers & Van Staden, 2010a:07). Furthermore, because this study is primarily interested in the perceptions of the powerless users of environmental reports, the management branch of stakeholder theory is inappropriate as it takes the perspective of powerful users (Wallen & Wasserfaller, 2008:21). The legitimacy theory is also rejected as it accepts that the use of environmental reports to manipulate the public is one of the strategies that a company could employ to legitimise itself (Lindblom, 1994:01).
Likewise, the accountability theory is rejected as it adopts a company’s management perspective by setting out arguments for disclosure of environmental information by companies to all stakeholders and not just the shareholders (De Villiers, 1996:12). The theory is also rejected as research evidence has indicated that the non-financial stakeholders’ needs have moved from the accountability paradigm to the decision-usefulness paradigm, in which their needs for decision-making are eminent (Cronje, 2010:231). Besides, it has been argued that the decision-usefulness theory has encapsulated the accountability theory as information that is decision-useful is also able to discharge accountability (Gouws, 1997:66; Schoonraad, 2004:65).
Suitably, the decision-usefulness theory was selected to inform this study as it is congruent with the primary objective of accounting which is to provide information useful for decision-making (FASB, 2010:01; GRI, 2000:16; IASB, 2008:12; Inanga & Schneider, 2005:246:12) (See Table 3.1). The theory also renders itself well to the qualitative research methodologies that are employed in this research, namely content analysis and questionnaire survey (Deegan, 2006:12; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Ernst & Young, 2007; Guthrie & Parker, 1990). Furthermore, the theory is normative and thus focuses on how environmental reporting should be, and not how it is (Deegan, 2006:12; Gray et al., 1987:66). It therefore does not support the status quo but rather is proactive in nature and provides a basis upon which the current practice may be evaluated or from which future improvements of environmental reports and reporting systems may be deduced (Deegan, 2006:08).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DECLARATION
ABOUT THE ACCOMPANYING CD: KAMPHD-CD
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.6 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.9 LIST OF DEFINITIONS USED
1.10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED
1.11 DEMARCATION OF CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 2 THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THE LINK BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
2.3 QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF DECISION-USEFUL REPORTS
2.4 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN 1960 AND 1989
2.5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN 1990 AND 1999
2.6 THE SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN 2000 AND 2013
2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT THEORIES
3.3 JUSTIFICATION OF THE THEORY ADOPTED FOR THIS RESEARCH
3.4 THE DECISION-USEFULNESS THEORY
3.5 PARADIGMS OF DECISION-USEFULNESS THEORY
3.6 A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE BAR APPROACH
3.7 GENERAL CRITICISMS OF THE DECISION-USEFULNESS THEORY
3.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE DECISION-USEFULNESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 CONTENT ANALYSIS STUDIES THAT EVALUATE THE DECISION-USEFULNESS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
4.3 USERS’ PERCEPTION OF DECISION-USEFULNESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
4.4 STUDIES ON THE EXPECTATION GAP BETWEEN PREPARERS AND USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
4.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 CONTENT ANALYSIS
5.3 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF CONTENT ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 OBJECTIVE AND SUB-OBJECTIVES OF THE CONTENT ANALYSIS PHASE OF THE STUDY ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.3 PROFILE OF THE TOP 100 COMPANIES
6.4 ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE OF CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DISCLOSURES ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.5 ANALYSIS OF THE RELIABILITY (VERIFIABILITY) OF CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DISCLOSURES
6.6 COMPARABILITY OF CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DISCLOSURES
6.7 ANALYSIS OF UNDERSTANDABILITY OF CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DISCLOSURES
6.8 ANALYSIS OF OVERALL DECISION-USEFULNESS OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING DISCLOSURES ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.9 EXPLANATION OF CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS USING DECISION-USEFULNESS THEORY
6.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY PHASE OF THE STUDY
7.3 SURVEY RESPONSE
7.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
7.5 WHETHER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS WERE READ
7.6 USERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDS
7.7 EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ARE READ AND HOW THEY ARE USED
7.8 USAGE OF DIFFERENT MEDIA AS A SOURCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
7.9 HOW ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS WERE USED
7.10 HOW USEFUL THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS WERE
7.11 PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
7.12 SATISFACTION WITH THE QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
7.13 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY (DECISION- USEFULNESS) OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
7.14 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS/STATEMENTS
7.15 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVES
8.3 CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING
8.4 CHAPTER 3: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
8.5 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF PRIOR RESEARCH ON DECISION-USEFULNESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
8.6 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
8.7 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE CONTENT ANALYSIS PHASE OF THE STUDY
8.8 CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY PHASE OF THE STUDY
8.9 CONTRIBUTIONS, SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
8.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
8.11 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
8.12 FINAL CONCLUDING REMARKS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT