Banks play an increasingly important role in the economy because they are in a position to, inter alia, promote development of the environment by utilising their financial resources. In some instances lenders who took up finance from banks are responsible for damage to the environment. Why should banks that financed projects, in the normal course of events, be held liable for damage to the environment caused by borrowers? The question may be answered by a comparative legal study of the 2002 European Union Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Environmental Liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage; the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) of the United States; Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 (EPA) of the United Kingdom and section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (NEM A). NEMA, has its foundation in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. It incorporates sustainable development as a tool to harmonise the necessity to develop with the need to protect the environment. At the same time NEMA emphasises the role of the principle of intergenerational equity, which presupposes the duty of the current generation to hand over the earth in a better condition than in which it was received from the previous generation. In the future banks, when finance is considered for projects that may harm the environment, must take environmental as well as economical factors into account. Purely economical reasons cannot be the only relevant factor. Development that is financially sound will have to be weighed up against social factors as well as the impact that it will have on the environment. Section 28 of NEMA places a general duty of care on every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment to prevent such pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or recurring. The persons saddled with the duty of care are the owner, the person in control, or the person who has the right to use land or premises. Banks may, under certain circumstances, be considered to be the owner, person in control, or even the person who has the right use land or premises. The polluter pays principle is introduced by section 28 as a basis for liability but the principle is expanded to include, not only the polluter, but also entities, such as banks, who in no way whatsoever, contributed to pollution or degradation. NEMA affords no protection to banks in cases where banks became owner of land by virtue of their security interest in the property. By following established commercial practices, banks may be held liable for environmental damage caused by their clients or erstwhile clients. The traditional role of banks as financial institutions has to change because of the duty placed on banks by the Constitution and NEMA to act as instruments in the protection of the environment. By exerting their influence and by implementing new procedures banks will be able to draw the attention of prospective clients to the need to comply with environmental legislation. In terms of the 2002 Directive of the European Union, the operator who directs an operation by which damage is caused can be held liable for environmental damage. It is necessary to prove that the bank exercised operational control over the business of the borrower. The 2002 Directive is more restrictive than section 28 of NEMA. CERCLA is the primary federal legislation dealing with pollution of hazardous substances. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to recover the costs for the reparation of damage to the environment. After the US v Fleet Factors Corporation decision the position was that banks might be held liable if their involvement with the management decisions of the borrower are such that they are in a position to influence the decisions of the borrower. The Asset Conservation Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996 (ACA) changed the magnitude of the Fleet Factors decision. Provision is made by ACA to exempt lenders who held security in terms of a secured creditor exemption, on the condition that the property is alienated at the earliest practicable commercially reasonable time after acquiring it. The requirement for liability is that banks must exercise control over the day-to-day activities of a borrower. The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 in the United Kingdom states that the owner (other than the mortgagee in possession) is the person who has the right to receive the rent of the property if the property was let out. It includes the occupier of the property. The test is whether such a person is in control of the property. If the inference can be drawn that the lender is in control then it can be held liable for environmental damage. EPA, CERCLA as well as the Directive makes it clear that if sufficient control is exercised by a lender over the business of a borrower it may be held liable for damage to the environment. The emphasis should rather be placed on the ability of banks, generally, to influence borrowers than to hold them liable for damage caused to the environment by borrowers. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2005.

Banks play an increasingly important role in the economy because they are in a position to, inter alia, promote development of the environment by utilising their financial resources. In some instances lenders who took up finance from banks are responsible for damage to the environment. Why should banks that financed projects, in the normal course of events, be held liable for damage to the environment caused by borrowers? The question may be answered by a comparative legal study of the 2002 European Union Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Environmental Liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage; the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) of the United States; Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 (EPA) of the United Kingdom and section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (NEM A). NEMA, has its foundation in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. It incorporates sustainable development as a tool to harmonise the necessity to develop with the need to protect the environment. At the same time NEMA emphasises the role of the principle of intergenerational equity, which presupposes the duty of the current generation to hand over the earth in a better condition than in which it was received from the previous generation. In the future banks, when finance is considered for projects that may harm the environment, must take environmental as well as economical factors into account. Purely economical reasons cannot be the only relevant factor. Development that is financially sound will have to be weighed up against social factors as well as the impact that it will have on the environment. Section 28 of NEMA places a general duty of care on every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment to prevent such pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or recurring. The persons saddled with the duty of care are the owner, the person in control, or the person who has the right to use land or premises. Banks may, under certain circumstances, be considered to be the owner, person in control, or even the person who has the right use land or premises. The polluter pays principle is introduced by section 28 as a basis for liability but the principle is expanded to include, not only the polluter, but also entities, such as banks, who in no way whatsoever, contributed to pollution or degradation. NEMA affords no protection to banks in cases where banks became owner of land by virtue of their security interest in the property. By following established commercial practices, banks may be held liable for environmental damage caused by their clients or erstwhile clients. The traditional role of banks as financial institutions has to change because of the duty placed on banks by the Constitution and NEMA to act as instruments in the protection of the environment. By exerting their influence and by implementing new procedures banks will be able to draw the attention of prospective clients to the need to comply with environmental legislation. In terms of the 2002 Directive of the European Union, the operator who directs an operation by which damage is caused can be held liable for environmental damage. It is necessary to prove that the bank exercised operational control over the business of the borrower. The 2002 Directive is more restrictive than section 28 of NEMA. CERCLA is the primary federal legislation dealing with pollution of hazardous substances. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to recover the costs for the reparation of damage to the environment. After the US v Fleet Factors Corporation decision the position was that banks might be held liable if their involvement with the management decisions of the borrower are such that they are in a position to influence the decisions of the borrower. The Asset Conservation Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996 (ACA) changed the magnitude of the Fleet Factors decision. Provision is made by ACA to exempt lenders who held security in terms of a secured creditor exemption, on the condition that the property is alienated at the earliest practicable commercially reasonable time after acquiring it. The requirement for liability is that banks must exercise control over the day-to-day activities of a borrower. The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 in the United Kingdom states that the owner (other than the mortgagee in possession) is the person who has the right to receive the rent of the property if the property was let out. It includes the occupier of the property. The test is whether such a person is in control of the property. If the inference can be drawn that the lender is in control then it can be held liable for environmental damage. EPA, CERCLA as well as the Directive makes it clear that if sufficient control is exercised by a lender over the business of a borrower it may be held liable for damage to the environment. The emphasis should rather be placed on the ability of banks, generally, to influence borrowers than to hold them liable for damage caused to the environment by borrowers. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2005.

The primary objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between work engagement and hope and to determine the possible impact on productivity within an agri-business. For the purpose of the study, we used two measures, namely: • The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale was used to measure work engagement • The Dispositional Hope Scale was used to measure hope. The questionnaires were completed by 341 respondents of the relevant agribusiness. The respondents represented all the divisions in the business. The research results showed that there was a significant correlation between work engagement and hope. Moreover, the literature review showed that work engagement and hope are playing a definite role in the productivity of any business. / MBA, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The primary objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between work engagement and hope and to determine the possible impact on productivity within an agri-business. For the purpose of the study, we used two measures, namely: • The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale was used to measure work engagement • The Dispositional Hope Scale was used to measure hope. The questionnaires were completed by 341 respondents of the relevant agribusiness. The respondents represented all the divisions in the business. The research results showed that there was a significant correlation between work engagement and hope. Moreover, the literature review showed that work engagement and hope are playing a definite role in the productivity of any business. / MBA, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Internationally, the debate on business and human rights has evolved within the last decade, with more efforts being made to address the issue of what role corporations play in the human rights domain. The latest international effort to address the issue was the adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework” by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011. In brief, the Guiding Principles observe that the state must protect human rights, that businesses must respect human rights, and that there should be effective remedies for human rights violations. Locally, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that mineworkers who are eligible to get compensation under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act had a common law right to sue the employer for injuries sustained at work. This was despite the fact that legislation was put in place to replace the common law liability of an employer for injuries or death sustained at work. On a broader scale, the Guiding Principles then formed the yardstick for the determination of whether there are adequate and effective remedies for human rights violations in the South African mining industry. The investigation essentially leads to the conclusion that the South African state has not fallen short of its duty to protect and to provide sufficient remedies for businessrelated human rights violations in the mining industry. The forums are in place and there is legislation that also provides for compensation as remedies for either injuries or death at work. Some issues of concern are the accessibility of the structures in place to address human rights violations, the disparity between compensation provided for in different legislation, and the lack of a more proactive approach by the Human Rights Commission. / LLM (Import and export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Internationally, the debate on business and human rights has evolved within the last decade, with more efforts being made to address the issue of what role corporations play in the human rights domain. The latest international effort to address the issue was the adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework” by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011. In brief, the Guiding Principles observe that the state must protect human rights, that businesses must respect human rights, and that there should be effective remedies for human rights violations. Locally, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that mineworkers who are eligible to get compensation under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act had a common law right to sue the employer for injuries sustained at work. This was despite the fact that legislation was put in place to replace the common law liability of an employer for injuries or death sustained at work. On a broader scale, the Guiding Principles then formed the yardstick for the determination of whether there are adequate and effective remedies for human rights violations in the South African mining industry. The investigation essentially leads to the conclusion that the South African state has not fallen short of its duty to protect and to provide sufficient remedies for businessrelated human rights violations in the mining industry. The forums are in place and there is legislation that also provides for compensation as remedies for either injuries or death at work. Some issues of concern are the accessibility of the structures in place to address human rights violations, the disparity between compensation provided for in different legislation, and the lack of a more proactive approach by the Human Rights Commission. / LLM (Import and export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Land under conservation is critical for biodiversity. South Africa has not achieved the Aichi 11 biodiversity target, which is set to allocate 17% of terrestrial land as protected areas by 2020. South Africa has, however, been an example, globally, how private conservation can fill the gap. It is essential to optimise how conservation businesses strategically plan for long-term financial and environmental sustainability taking into account complex environmental, societal, and industry variables to keep conservation areas viable under financial pressure. An inductive qualitatively driven concurrent mixed-method research design is followed and results synthesised using a systems thinking approach. The study investigates contemporary generic strategic planning frameworks such as the Porter’s five forces model but found them to have limited use in the conservation tourism industry. The critical variables conservation area managers need to include in their strategic planning are classed in five significant categories, namely environmental, societal, economic, industrial, and business variables. The research proposes a strategic planning framework which includes a strategic planning and iterative phase, taking into account the interrelatedness of the significant variables. / Grond onder bewaring is van kritieke belang vir biodiversiteit. Suid-Afrika het nie die Aichi 11-biodiversiteitsdoelwit bereik wat daarop gemik is om teen 2020 17% van die terrestriële grond as beskermde gebiede te verklaar nie. Suid-Afrika was egter wêreldwyd ’n voorbeeld van hoe privaat bewaring die leemte kan vul. Dit is noodsaaklik om die wyse waarop bewaringsondernemings strategies beplan vir langtermyn finansiële en omgewingsvolhoubaarheid te optimaliseer, met inagname van ingewikkelde omgewings-, samelewings- en nywerheidsfaktore om bewaringsareas onder finansiële druk lewensvatbaar te hou. ’n Induktiewe kwalitatief-gedrewe gelyktydige gemengde-metode navorsingsontwerp word gevolg en resultate met behulp van 'n sisteem denkebenadering gesintetiseer. Die studie ondersoek eietydse generiese strategiese beplanningsraamwerke soos Porter se vyf-kragte-model, maar het bevind dat hulle beperkte toepassing in die bewaringstoerismebedryf het. Die kritieke veranderlikes wat bewaringsgebiedbestuurders in hulle strategiese beplanning moet insluit, word in vyf belangrike kategorieë, naamlik omgewings-, samelewings-, ekonomiese-, nywerheids- en sakefaktore, ingedeel. Die navorsing stel ’n strategiese beplanningsraamwerk voor wat ’n strategiese beplannings- en iteratiewe fase insluit en van die onderlinge verband tussen die belangrike veranderlikes in ag neem. / Umhlaba ophantsi kwenkqubo yolondolozo-ndalo ufuneka kakhulu ekwandiseni ubukho beendidi-ndidi zendalo. UMzantsi Afrika awukafikeleli kwiThagethi LaseAichi Le-11 leendidi-ndidi zendalo, lokusikwa kweendawo ezifika kwi-17% yomhlaba ongengomanzi zibe ziindawo ezikhuselweyo engadlulanga u-2020. Nakuba kunjalo, uMzantsi Afrika uye wangumzekelo, kumazwe-onke, wendlela esingavalwa ngayo esi sikhewu lulondolozo lwabucala. Kuyafuneka kakhulu ukuba ziqiniswe iindlela zamashishini olondolozo-ndalo zokucwangcisa ngobulumko esenzela ukuba imali kwaneendawo-zendalo zihlale ixesha elide. Oku kuqiniswa makwenziwe ngokuthathela ingqalelo iimeko-meko ezingelula zemo-yendalo, nezentlalo-bantu, nezalo msebenzi wolondolozo, ukuze iindawo zolondolozo-ndalo zigcineke zisebenza nakumaxesha okushokoxeka kwemali. Olu phando lwenziwe ngokohlobo-phando oluyi-inductive qualitative research kunye nomxube weemethodi, zaza iziphumo zaxelwa ngokwendlela eyisystems thinking approach. Olu phando luphicothe izikhokelo zocwangciso olunobulumko eziludidi-lunye zexesha elinye, ezinjenge Porter’s five forces. Kodwa lufumanise ukuba ziyasilela kulo msebenzi wolondolozo nokhenketho. Iimeko-meko ezingundoqo ekufanele ukuba zisetyenziswe ngoomanejala beendawo zolondolozo-ndalo kwizicwangciso ezinobulumko zabo zihlelwe zaba kwizintlu ezibalulekileyo ezintlanu, ezizezi: ezeendawo-zendalo, ezentlalo-bantu, ezoqoqosho, ezalo msebenzi, nezamashishini. Olu phando ke luphakamisa isikhokelo socwangciso olunobulumko esiquka ucwangciso ngobulumko olunesigaba sophinda-phindo, nesikuthathela ingqalelo ukuphinyelana kodlelwano lwezi meko-meko zibalulekileyo. / Environmental Sciences / Ph. D. (Environmental Management)