This research examines how experience and missing information affect judgments of tax return preparers. Tax return preparers may often be faced with the problem of incomplete information, and their responses to this problem may be conditioned by whether or not they recognize information is missing. Based on the Holland et al.'s cognitive theory of induction as applied to tax judgment by Marchant et al., it was hypothesized that experienced tax preparers would correctly classify more items as to their relevance to a specific tax issue than novice tax preparers. Additionally, it was hypothesized that the strength of recommendations of tax preparers who had no relevant information missing would be greater than the strength of recommendations of tax preparers who had relevant information missing and were prompted that information was missing. Lastly, it was hypothesized that prompting that relevant information was missing would have a greater effect on the strength of recommendations of tax return preparers with lesser specific experience than it would on the strength of recommendations of tax return preparers with greater specific experience. The results suggest that experienced tax preparers do recognize the relevance of information to a greater degree than novice tax preparers. There was no significant difference, however, in the strengths of recommendation of tax preparers who had no missing information and those who were prompted that information was missing. There was a significant difference in the strengths of recommendations of tax preparers with lesser specific experience who had been prompted that relevant information was missing and those who had not been prompted that relevant information was missing. Among tax preparers with greater specific experience, however, there was no significant difference between the two groups. These results suggest that tax preparers with greater specific experience recognized that relevant information was missing without being prompted, while tax return preparers with lesser specific experience did not.

Sustainability and sustainability reporting have become increasingly important in today's business landscape. With the emergence of new regulations such as the Corporate Social Responsibility Directive (CSRD), sustainability reporting is transitioning from a voluntary practice to a legislative requirement. This shift emphasizes the need for organizations to understand and overcome internal barriers associated with preparing sustainability reports to meet stakeholder and legislative expectations. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to explore the internal barriers that hinder preparers in their efforts to create sustainability reports of high quality. By undertaking this research, we seek to enhance the comprehension of the challenges that need to be addressed for improving the quality of sustainability reporting. The thesis also succeeds in contributing new information in sustainability reporting where a previously undefined professional category in sustainability reporting is now defined. A definition of who and what a sustainability report preparer is was developed based on the responses of the participants in the study. To accomplish this, a qualitative study was carried out, centering on major corporations in Sweden. Ten preparers from diverse companies were interviewed using a semi-structured approach, with selection criteria based on their responsibility, experience, and knowledge and that they have the overall responsibility for their company’s sustainability report. The collected material underwent thematic analysis, leading to the identification of key findings. These findings contribute to new insights into the preparation of sustainability reports and showed several barriers affecting the quality of the sustainability report. Internal barriers were identified at four different levels, organizational, team, individual and general. Having identified the internal barriers, this thesis provides valuable knowledge that can assist organizations in enhancing their sustainability reporting practices. As sustainability reporting continues to evolve, understanding and addressing these internal barriers becomes crucial for organizations aiming to meet regulatory requirements and stakeholder expectations. Finally, this study contributes to both practical and theoretical knowledge by creating a foundation for better and stronger sustainability reporting. By gaining a deeper comprehension of the internal barriers, organizations can overcome these challenges, resulting in enhanced quality and comprehensiveness of sustainability reports. The increased transparency and accountability not only foster stakeholder trust but also facilitates positive progress towards a more sustainable future.

The broad aim of this research was to assess the decision-usefulness of environmental reports produced by South African companies that are listed on the Johanessburg Securities Exchange (JSE) to users of the reports. The study was motivated by a lack of research on the decision-usefulness of environmental reports in South Africa. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase in form of a content analysis evaluated the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports of top 100 JSE-listed South African companies using a control list and a judgement scale. The second phase in form of a questionnaire survey was aimed at determining, the information needs of users of environmental reports produced by South African companies (that are listed on the JSE), the extent to which they read and employ the reports for making decisions. In addition, this phase was meant to ascertain the degree of users' satisfaction with the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports as well as elicit their suggestions on ways of improving the reports. Furthermore, the second phase was aimed at determining the users’ perception of the relative importance of environmental reports as well as ascertaining whether there was an expectation gap between the users and the preparers of the reports with regard to their decision-usefulness. The results of the content analysis phase of the study indicate that the environmental reports of the sampled companies were decision-useful, however their decision-usefulness varied widely. Although decision-useful, the environmental reports of the sampled companies were not comparable. In addition, the environmental reports of companies from sectors with a significant impact on the environment, and those of large companies were more decision-useful than the reports of companies from sectors with an insignificant impact on the environment and those of smaller companies. The results of the questionnaire survey phase of the study indicate that users prefer balanced environmental reports that disclose both negative and positive aspects that identify and describe key relevant issues, that are specific and contain accurate information, and that provide future oriented information. In addition, users prefer environmental reports that identify and address key stakeholders and their concerns, demonstrate the integration of environmental issues into core business processes, and that compare quantitative impacts against best practice. Furthermore, the results also indicate that users do read environmental reports, mostly from companies’ websites Portable Document Format (PDF) annual reports and that they mostly use the environmental reports for research, their own knowledge, and to hold companies accountable. However, users are not fully satisfied with the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports as they feel that there is a need to improve the reports in order to make them more decision-useful. The results also indicate that users perceive environmental reports to be more important than any other type of reports, most notably the financial reports. Comparing the responses of the users to those of preparers on various issues pertaining to the decision-usefulness of environmental reports, significant differences were found between the views of the two groups. These differences provide ample evidence that is consistent with the existence of an environmental reporting expectation gap in South Africa. This study makes several original contributions to environmental reporting literature, most notable of which is that, it is the first study in the South African context to empirically evaluate the quality (decision-usefulness) of environmental reports in line with the accounting conceptual frameworks and the GRI guidelines combined. By so doing, the study introduces to the academic literature an extensive five dimensional qualitative characteristic framework for evaluating the quality (decision-usefulness) of environmental reports. In addition, the study uniquely employs the decision-usefulness theory to provide insights into the environmental reporting practices of South African companies that are listed on the JSE. In so doing, it re-contextualises the theory that is typically employed in explaining financial reporting, and demonstrates its applicability in explaining the decision-usefulness of the environmental reporting practices of South African companies that are listed on the JSE. / Accounting / D. Com. (Accounting)

The broad aim of this research was to assess the decision-usefulness of environmental reports produced by South African companies that are listed on the Johanessburg Securities Exchange (JSE) to users of the reports. The study was motivated by a lack of research on the decision-usefulness of environmental reports in South Africa. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase in form of a content analysis evaluated the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports of top 100 JSE-listed South African companies using a control list and a judgement scale. The second phase in form of a questionnaire survey was aimed at determining, the information needs of users of environmental reports produced by South African companies (that are listed on the JSE), the extent to which they read and employ the reports for making decisions. In addition, this phase was meant to ascertain the degree of users' satisfaction with the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports as well as elicit their suggestions on ways of improving the reports. Furthermore, the second phase was aimed at determining the users’ perception of the relative importance of environmental reports as well as ascertaining whether there was an expectation gap between the users and the preparers of the reports with regard to their decision-usefulness. The results of the content analysis phase of the study indicate that the environmental reports of the sampled companies were decision-useful, however their decision-usefulness varied widely. Although decision-useful, the environmental reports of the sampled companies were not comparable. In addition, the environmental reports of companies from sectors with a significant impact on the environment, and those of large companies were more decision-useful than the reports of companies from sectors with an insignificant impact on the environment and those of smaller companies. The results of the questionnaire survey phase of the study indicate that users prefer balanced environmental reports that disclose both negative and positive aspects that identify and describe key relevant issues, that are specific and contain accurate information, and that provide future oriented information. In addition, users prefer environmental reports that identify and address key stakeholders and their concerns, demonstrate the integration of environmental issues into core business processes, and that compare quantitative impacts against best practice. Furthermore, the results also indicate that users do read environmental reports, mostly from companies’ websites Portable Document Format (PDF) annual reports and that they mostly use the environmental reports for research, their own knowledge, and to hold companies accountable. However, users are not fully satisfied with the decision-usefulness of the environmental reports as they feel that there is a need to improve the reports in order to make them more decision-useful. The results also indicate that users perceive environmental reports to be more important than any other type of reports, most notably the financial reports. Comparing the responses of the users to those of preparers on various issues pertaining to the decision-usefulness of environmental reports, significant differences were found between the views of the two groups. These differences provide ample evidence that is consistent with the existence of an environmental reporting expectation gap in South Africa. This study makes several original contributions to environmental reporting literature, most notable of which is that, it is the first study in the South African context to empirically evaluate the quality (decision-usefulness) of environmental reports in line with the accounting conceptual frameworks and the GRI guidelines combined. By so doing, the study introduces to the academic literature an extensive five dimensional qualitative characteristic framework for evaluating the quality (decision-usefulness) of environmental reports. In addition, the study uniquely employs the decision-usefulness theory to provide insights into the environmental reporting practices of South African companies that are listed on the JSE. In so doing, it re-contextualises the theory that is typically employed in explaining financial reporting, and demonstrates its applicability in explaining the decision-usefulness of the environmental reporting practices of South African companies that are listed on the JSE. / Accounting / D. Com. (Accounting)

Abstracts in English, Southern Sotho and Swahili / The broad aim of this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study was to extend the extant literature by developing a weighted polychotomous accountability index (PAI) that, in turn, was used to measure and evaluate the extent and quality of integrated annual reports (IARs) prepared by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed companies for the period 2013 to 2016. The study was motivated by a paucity of research on whether corporate accountability, through corporate reporting, has improved (extent and quality) under integrated reporting (<IR>) through improved integrated reporting quality (IRQ) scores. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was for developing the PAI through the Delphi Inquiry method. In the same phase, through qualitative and quantitative content analysis, the PAI was used to measure and evaluate the extent and quality of IARs for the JSE Top 100 companies over the four-year period (2013–2016). The second phase, in the form of semi-structured interviews, aimed at investigating the factors that contributed to the change in IRQ scores over that period. Eight respondents (preparers of IARs), representing five companies, were interviewed. Through the Delphi Inquiry method, the PAI was developed (major contribution of the study), which has eight categories, 44 constructs, a total possible score of 152 and a total weight of 100%. Furthermore, the PAI has a six-point ordinal scoring system from 0 to 5. For the IRQ scores, mean annual IRQ scores were computed as 52.45% for 2013, 58.48% for 2014, 64.72% for 2015 and 68.29% for 2016. As for the JSE sectors, the highest IRQ scores were 66.45%, 71.05%, 75% and 81.25% for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. From an industry perspective, the results showed highest IRQ scores of 66.45%, 72.37%, 70.72% and 62.42% for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. The steady increase in the mean IRQ scores for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 shows that there is significant improvement in the extent and quality of IARs produced by the JSE listed companies. This improvement in the IRQs is due to different reasons, which include: preparers taking <IR> seriously, teamwork, benchmarking, training, experience, addressing stakeholder needs and understanding the principles before implementing <IR>. Moreover, some companies fail to produce quality IARs due to a number of factors that include: an inadequate understanding of <IR> by some preparers of IARs; some entities not seeing value in preparing quality IARs hence they present poor quality IARs; partial buy-in, especially by the executive management; a paucity of skills and resources; outsourcing that was identified as bringing with it poor quality work and some entities preferring to chase prestigious awards at the expense of the company’s actual <IR> philosophy, hampering the quality of IARs in the process. Different conclusions were reached. It was noted that some <IR> concepts and principles should be more synchronised so that they are not in conflict with each other. Rules should be introduced so that <IR> may be a blend of principles and rules as this could minimise preparer judgement. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) must align its terminology with that of other guideline bodies, such as rating agencies, to give more meaning to <IR>. The IIRC needs to improve <IR> in order to suit companies in the service industry. Integrated reporting has to be more compatible with the digital world and not necessarily paper based. More research must be done about what users need to see in IARs to enhance the relevance of the IAR to different stakeholders. Furthermore, the IIRC must proactively educate decision-makers for an improved buy-in of <IR>. Pertaining to transformation, de facto and de jure transformation remain merely theoretical without substantial changes on the ground. Government and the JSE should consider the nature of current disincentives since these seem not to sufficiently challenge the current status quo. Finally, more training on capitals and business models should be conducted in order to improve the quality of reporting since these two constructs are perceived to be complex and hence difficult to implement, especially through quantification. / Maikaelelo a a anameng a thutopatlisiso eno e e tlhalosang ya mekgwa e e tswakantsweng ya tatelano e ne e le go atolosa dikwalo tse di gona ka go dira tshupane ya maikarabelo ya polychotomous (PAI) e morago e neng ya dirisediwa go lekanyetsa le go sekaseka bogolo le boleng jwa dipegelo tsa ngwaga le ngwaga tse di golaganeng (diIAR) tse di rulaganngwang ke ditlamo tse di kwadisitsweng kwa Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) mo pakeng ya 2013 go fitlha 2016. Thutopatlisiso e rotloeditswe ke tlhaelo ya dipatlisiso tse di malebana le gore a maikarabelo a ditlamo, ka dipegelo tsa ditlamo, a tokafetse (bogolo le boleng) ka fa tlase ga dipegelo tse di golaganeng (<IR>) ka maduo a a tokafatseng a boleng jwa dipegelo tse di golaganeng (IRQ). Thutopatlisiso e dirilwe ka magato a le mabedi. Legato la ntlha e ne e le la go dira PAI ka mokgwa wa Delphi Inquiry. Mo legatong leo, ka tshekatsheko ya diteng go dirisiwa mokgwa o o lebelelang dipalopalo le o o lebelelang mabaka, go dirisitswe PAI go lekanyetsa le go sekaseka bogolo le boleng wa diIAR tsa ditlamo tse di kwa Godimo tse 100 tsa JSE mo pakeng ya dingwaga tse nne (2013–2016). Legato la bobedi, le le neng le le mo sebopegong sa dipotsolotso tse di batlileng di rulagana, le ne le ikaeletse go batlisisa dintlha tse di tshwaetseng mo diphetogong tsa maduo a IRQ mo pakeng eo. Go botsoloditswe batsibogi ba le robedi (barulaganyi ba diIAR), ba ba emetseng ditlamo di le tlhano. Ka mokgwa wa Delphi Inquiry, go tlhamilwe PAI (tshwaelo e kgolo ya thutopatlisiso), e e nang le dikarolo tse robedi, ka megopolo e le 44, maduo otlhe a a kgonagalang a 152 le boima jotlhe jwa 100%. Mo godimo ga moo, PAI e na le thulaganyo ya maduo ya dintlha tse thataro go tswa go 0 go ya go 5. Malebana le maduo a IRQ, palogare ya maduo a ngwaga le ngwaga a IRQ, e tlhakanyeditswe go nna 52.45% ka 2013, 58.48% ka 2014, 64.72% ka 2015 le 68.29% ka 2016. Malebana le maphata a JSE gona, maduo a a kwa godimodimo a IRQ e ne e le 66.45%, 71.05%, 75% le 81.25% ka 2013, 2014, 2015 le 2016 ka tatelano eo. Go ya ka indaseteri, dipoelo di bontshitse maduo a a kwa godimodimo a IRQ a 66.45%, 72.37%, 70.72% le 62.42% ka 2013, 2014, 2015 le 2016 ka tatelano eo. Koketsego ka iketlo ya palogare ya maduo a IRQ a 2013, 2014, 2015 le 2016 e bontsha gore go na le tokafalo e e bonalang mo bogolong le boleng jwa diIAR tse di tlhagisiwang ke ditlamo tse di kwadisitsweng mo JSE. Tokafalo eno ya diIRQ ke ka ntlha ya mabaka a a farologaneng, a a akaretsang: barulaganyi ba tsotelela <IR> thata, tirisanommogo ya setlhopha, go itshwantsha le ba bangwe, katiso, maitemogelo, go samagana le ditlhokego tsa baamegi le go tlhaloganya dintlhatheo pele ga go diragatsa <IR>. Mo godimo ga moo, ditlamo dingwe di palelwa ke go tlhagisa diIAR tsa boleng ka ntlha ya dintlha di le mmalwa tse di akaretsang: go tlhaloganya go go sa lekanang ga <IR> ke barulaganyi bangwe ba diIAR; ditheo dingwe di sa bone boleng jwa go baakanya diIAR tsa boleng mme seo se dira gore di tlhagise diIAR tsa boleng jo bo kwa tlase; tshegetso e e sa lekanang, bogolo segolo ya botsamaisikhuduthamaga; tlhaelo ya bokgoni le ditlamelo; theko ya ditirelo kwa ntle, e leng se se supilweng se tla ka boleng jo bo kwa tlase jwa tiro le ditheo dingwe di tlhopha go lelekisa dikgele tsa mabono mme di ikgatholosa filosofi ya nnete ya <IR> ya setlamo, mme ka go rialo di ama boleng jwa diIAR. Go fitlheletswe diphitlhelelo tse di farologaneng. Go lemogilwe gore megopolo mengwe le dintlhatheo tsa <IR> di tshwanetse go rulaganngwa ka tsamaisano gore di se ke tsa ganetsana. Go tshwanetse ga itsisewe melanwana gore <IR> e nne motswako wa dintlhatheo le melawana gonne seno se ka fokotsa go atlhola ga barulaganyi. Lekgotla la Boditšhabatšha la Dipegelo tse di Golaganeng (IIRC) le tshwanetse go lepalepanya mareo a lona le a ditheo tse dingwe tse di kaelang, go tshwana le ditheo tse di lekanyetsang, gore <IR> e nne le bokao jo bo oketsegileng. Lekgotla la IIRC le tshwanetse go tokafatsa <IR> gore e siamele ditlamo tse di mo indasetering ya ditirelo. Dipegelo tse di golaganeng di tshwanetse go tsamaelana le lefatshe la dijitale mme e seng fela gore e nne tse di mo dipampiring. Go tshwanetse ga dirwa dipatlisiso tse dingwe malebana le gore badirisi ba tlhoka go bona eng mo diIAR go tokafatsa bomaleba jwa IAR mo baameging ba ba farologaneng. Go feta foo, lekgotla la IIRC le tshwanetse go ruta batsayaditshwetso gore go nne le tshegetso e e tokafetseng ya <IR>. Malebana le diphetogo, diphetogo tse di gona le tsa tshwanelo e sala go nna tiori fela mme go se na diphetogo tse di bonalang. Puso le JSE ba tshwanetse go lebelela dintlha tsa ga jaana tse di kgobang marapo ka ntlha ya fa go sa bonale fa di gwetlha seemo sa ga jaana mo go lekaneng. Kwa bokhutlong, go tshwanetse ga dirwa katiso e nngwe ya letlotlo le dikao tsa kgwebo go tokafatsa boleng jwa go dira dipegelo ka ntlha ya fa megopolo eno e mebedi e lebega e le marara mme ka jalo go se bonolo go e diragatsa, bogolo segolo ka dipalo. / Ndivho khulwane ya ṱhalutshedzo iyi ya ngona yo ṱanganelanaho ya thevhekano ho vha u engedza maṅwalwa a zwino nga u bveledza indekisi ya vhuḓifhinduleli yo khethekanywaho (PAI) ine ya dovha ya, shumiswa u kala na u ela vhuphara na ndeme ya mivhigo ya ṅwaha nga ṅwaha yo ṱanganelanaho (dzi IAR) yo lugiswaho nga vha khamphani dzo ṅwaliswaho kha Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) lwa tshifhinga tsha vhukati ha 2013 u swika 2016. Ngudo dzo ṱuṱuwedzwa nga u shaea ha ṱhoḓisiso dza nga ha uri vhuḓifhinduleli, u mona na u vhiga ha tshiofisi ho no khwiṋisea na (vhuphara na ndeme) nga fhasi ha u vhiga ho ṱanganelanaho (<IR>) nga kha zwikoro zwa ndeme ya u vhiga ho ṱanganelanaho (IRQ). Ngudo dzo itwa fhethu huvhili nga maga mavhili. Ḽiga ḽa u thoma ḽo vha ḽi ḽa u bveledza PAI nga kha ngona dza Ṱhoḓisiso dza Delphi. Kha ḽiga ḽeneḽo, nga kha musaukanyo wa vhungomu wo sedzaho ndeme na tshivhalo, PAI yo shumiswa u kala na u ela vhuphara na ndeme ya dzi IAR kha khamphani dza 100 dza nṱha dza JSE kha tshifhinga tsha miṅwaha miṋa (2013–2016). Ḽiga ḽa vhuvhili nga tshivhumbeo tsha inthaviwu dzo dzudzanywaho zwiṱuku dzi sengulusaho zwivhumbi zwi dzhenelelaho kha tshanduko ya zwikoro zwa IRQ lwa tshifhinga. Vhafhinduli vha malo (vhadzudzanyi vha dzi IAR), vho imelaho khamphani ṱhanu vho vhudziswa. Nga kha Ngona ya Ṱhoḓisiso dza Delphi, ho bveledzwa PAI (zwidzheneleli zwihulwane kha ngudo), dzi re na khethekanyo dza malo, miṱalukanyo ya 44, ṱhanganyelo dza zwikoro zwine zwa nga vha hone zwa 152 na ṱhanganyelo ya tshileme ya 100%. Zwiṅwe hafhu, PAI dzi na sisiṱeme ya zwikoro ya odinaḽa zwa phoindi dza rathi u bva kha 0 u swika kha 5. U itela zwikoro zwa IRO, zwikoro zwa vhukati zwa ṅwaha nga ṅwaha zwo rekanywa zwa vha 52.45% nga 2013, 58.48% nga 2014, 64.72% nga 2015 na 68.29% for 2016. Kha sekithara dza JSE, zwikoro zwa nṱhesa zwa IRQ zwo vha zwi 66.45%, 71.05%, 75% na 81.25% nga 2013, 2014, 2015 na 2016 nga u tevhekana. U ya nga kuvhonele kwa nḓowetshumo, mvelelo dzo sumbedza zwikoro zwa nṱhesa zwa IRQ zwa 66.45%, 72.37%, 70.72% na 62.42% nga 2013, 2014, 2015 na 2016 nga u tevhekana. U gonya zwiṱuku kha zwikoro zwa vhukati zwa IRQ zwa 2013, 2014, 2015 na 2016 zwi sumbedza uri hu na u khwiṋisea hu hulwane kha vhuphara na ndeme ya dzi IAR dzo bveledzwaho vha khamphani dzi re kha JSE. U khwiṋisea uhu ha dzi IRQ ndi nga ṅwambo wa zwiitisi, zwine zwa katela vhadzudzanyi vha dzhielaho <IR> nṱha, u shuma sa thimu, u vhambedza, vhugudisi, tshenzhelo, u livhana na ṱhoḓea dza vhadzheneleli na u pfesesa milayo phanḓa ha musi i tshi shumiswa <IR>. Nṱhani ha izwo, dziṅwe khamphani dzi a kundelwa u bveledzwa dzi IAR nga ṅwambo zwa zwiitisi zwo vhalaho , zwi katelaho u sa pfesea lwo lingaho ha <IR> nga vhaṅwe vhadzudzanyi vha dzi IAR, zwiṅwe zwiimiswa zwi sa vhoni ndeme ya u ita dzi IAR dza ndeme zwa sia vha tshi bvledza dzi IAR dza ndeme i sa takadzi, u zwi ṱanganedza hu si nga mbilu dzoṱhe nga maanḓa vha vhalanguli vhahulwane; u shaea ha zwikili na zwiko; u ṱunḓa tshumelo nnḓa zwine zwo topolwa sa zwi ḓisaho mushumo wa ndeme i sa takadzi na zwiṅwe zwiimiswa zwi tshi funa u gidimisana na pfufho dza maimo hu sa dzhielwi nṱha fiḽosofi ya vhukuma ya <IR> dza khamphani, zwine zwa thivhela ndeme ya dzi IAR kha kuitele kwa zwithu. Ho swikelelwa khunyeledzo dzo fhambanaho. Ho vhonala uri miṅwe miṱalukanyo ya <IR> na milayo i tea u dzudzanywa u itela uri i sa vhe na khuḓano. Milayo i tea u ḓivhadzwa u itela uri <IR> dzi vha ṱhanganyelo ya milayo na maitele saizwi zwi tshi nga fhungudza khaṱhulo dza vhadzudzanyi. Khoro ya Dzitshakatshaka yo Ṱanganelanaho ya u Vhiga (IIRC) i tea u dzudzanya mathemo ayo na ayo a zwiimiswa nyendedzi, zwi nga ho sa mazhendedzi a u fhima, u ṋea ṱhalutshedzo ya khwiṋe kha <IR>. Vha IIRC vha tea u khwiṋisa <IR> u itela uri dzi elane na nḓowetshumo dza tshumelo. U vhiga ho ṱanganelanaho hu tea u elana vhukuma na ḽifhasi ḽa didzhithala nahone hu sa ḓisendeke nga bammbiri. Hu tea u itwa ṱhoḓisiso nga ha zwine vhashumisi vha vhona kha dzi IAR u khwaṱhisedza u tea ha IAR dza vhashumisani vho fhambanaho. Dziṅwe hafhu, IIRC i tea u funza vhadzhii vha tsheo lwo khwaṱhaho u itela u khwiṋisa u ḓidzhenisa kha <IR>. Zwi tshi elana na tshanduko, tshanduko ya de facto na ya de jure i sokou dzula i ya thyori hu si na tshanduko dzi vhonalaho ngeno fhasi. Muvhuso na JSE vha tea dzhiela nṱha lushaka lwa sa vha hone ha zwiṱuṱuwedzi saizwi izwi zwi tshi tou nga zwi ṋekedza khaedu lwo linganaho tshiimo tsha zwithu tsha zwino. Tsha u fhedzisela, vhugudisi kha zwiedza zwa pfuma na bindu vhu tea u itwa u itela u khwiṋisa ndeme ya u vhiga saizwi izwo zwifhaṱo zwivhili zwi tshi vhonala sa zwi konḓaho nahone zwi konḓaho u shumisa, nga maanḓa nga kha u vhekanya ndeme / Financial Accounting / D. Phil. (Accounting Sciences)