Resultados Obtenidos del análisis de agua y la matriz de Leopold

A population is defined by Struwig and Stead (2013:114) as the aggregate of all elements focused on. For purposes of this study, the population was the 290 South African public entities listed in Schedules 2 and 3 of the PFMA. There are 21 major public entities included in Schedule 2 of the PFMA and 269 other public entities included in Schedule 3 of the PFMA.

The main factor which distinguishes Schedule 2 major public entities from Schedule 3 other public entities is firm size. Those entities in Schedule 2 are larger in size than those entities listed in Schedule 3 as Schedule 2 entities have a broader access to financing. (National Empowerment Fund 2014:29). This is an important distinction to consider as the size of a firm has been found to be an important factor in differentiating between entities that are considered to be at the forefront in the field of sustainable development and sustainability reporting and

those who are lagging behind (Lee, Faff & Langfield-Smith 2009:35; Lo & Sheu 2010:2859; Peloza 2009:1518).

A sampling frame is a list of all elements in the population which will be used to identify the sample to be used for the study (Saunders et al. 2007:208; Struwig & Stead 2013:115). The names of the entities listed in Schedules 2 and 3 of the PFMA served as the sampling frame for this study.

3.4.3.2 Sampling

Due to budget and time constraints, sampling techniques have been used in this study, as it was not possible to evaluate the quality of the 2008 and 2014 reports for all 290 entities listed in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the PFMA.

a) Sampling techniques

There are two types of sampling techniques which could be employed, these being probability sampling techniques and non-probability sampling techniques. (Struwig & Stead 2013:116). In probability sampling each unit which forms part of the population has a known non-zero chance of being included in the sample (Struwig & Stead 2013:118). Probability sampling methods include, random probability sampling, stratified random sampling, cluster sampling, systematic sampling and multi-stage area sampling (Krippendorff 2014:114-116; Struwig & Stead 2013:118-120). In non-probability sampling, the chance of a unit of the population being selected is not known as the selection of a sample is based largely on the judgement of the researcher (Struwig & Stead 2013:116). Non-probability sampling methods comprise of convenience sampling, judgmental sampling, quota sampling and snowball sampling (Krippendorff 2014:117-120; Struwig & Stead 2013:116-118).

method intended for this study comprised of a combination of the stratified random sampling technique and the systematic sampling technique. A stratified random sampling technique required that the population be divided into appropriate strata or groups, and a predetermined number of units be selected from each group (Struwig & Stead 2013:119). The two strata considered in this study were public entities included in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the PFMA. A sample of 10 units was selected from the 21 major public entities listed in Schedule 2 of the PFMA and a sample of 20 units was selected from the 269 other public entities listed in Schedule 3 of the PFMA. The entities are listed in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the PFMA in alphabetical order. A systematic sampling technique required that the sample be selected at constant intervals from the sampling frame (Saunders et al. 2007:218). In this study, every second public entity on Schedule 2 was selected and every 13th public entity from Schedule 3 was selected. This resulted in a total sample of 30 public entities.

The official websites of the public entities included in the sample were used to source the 2008 and 2014 reports. This process of sourcing the required reports from the websites occurred in December 2015. For seven of the 10 Schedule 2 entities sampled both the 2008 and 2014 reports were obtained from the official websites of the public entities. One of the Schedule 2 entities had neither the 2008 nor the 2014 report available on the entity’s official website. The remaining two Schedule 2 entities only had the 2014 report on the official website. For six of the 20 Schedule 3 entities sampled, both the 2008 and the 2014 reports were obtained from the entities’ official websites for testing. One of the 20 sampled entities only had the 2008 report available on the official website and five of the 20 sampled entities only had the 2014 report available on the official website. The remaining eight entities did not have the 2008 or the 2014 reports available on the entities’ official websites. Table 3.2 below provides a summary of this information.

Table 3.2: Summary of the availability of reports for initial sample selected

Schedule 2 entities Schedule 3 entities

N2008 and 2014 7 6

N2008 0 1

N2014 2 5

N0 1 8

Total 10 20

N2008 and 2014 – Both 2008 and 2014 reports available on the official websites. N2008– Only the 2008 report available on the official websites.

N2014 – Only the 2014 report available on the official websites.

N0 – Neither the 2008 nor the 2014 report available on the official websites.

Email correspondence and letters (Refer to Annexure A for the format of this letter and email attachment) were used to make contact with the Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 entities with outstanding reports in order to obtain these. The email addresses and physical addresses were obtained from the public entities’ official websites. Based on the reports obtained (refer Table 3.2), 17 entities (N2008, N2014, N0), including Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 entities,needed to be

contacted in order to obtain either one or both of the reports required for analysis. Of the 17 entities contacted, four entities did not have an email address available on the official websites and therefore only a letter was used to request the outstanding reports. Two entities had neither the email nor the postal address available on the official websites and therefore could not be contacted to request the reports. The process used to request annual published reports is summarised in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Summary of the process to request outstanding reports and outcomes of requests for initial sample selected

Schedule 2 entities Schedule 3 entities

STAGE ONE OF REQUESTING REPORTS Requesting emails sent on

21 February 2016 3 10

1

Requesting letter sent on 27

February 2016 3 12

2

Responses received 2 1

Usable reports received

following requests 0 0

STAGE TWO OF REQUESTING REPORTS Requesting emails sent on

15 June 2016 3 10

Requesting letter sent on 18

June 2016 3 12

Responses received 1 0

Usable reports received

following requests 0

3 ₀

INCOMPLETE REPORTS Reports found to be

incomplete when the content analysis was to be

performed

2 0

The process for Stage 1 and 2 highlighted in Table 3.3 were almost identical, with both being sent to the email and postal addresses obtained from the official websites of the reporting entity. The only difference was that the letters and emails sent in Stage 1 were not addressed to any specific person, while the letters and emails sent in Stage 2 were addressed to the chief financial officer of the entity by name. The letters and email correspondence in Stage 2 were sent four

1 _{Emails were only sent to 10 of the 14 remaining Schedule 3 entities as four entities did not provide an email} address on the official websites.

2 _{Letters were only sent to 12 of the 14 remaining Schedule 3 entities as two of entities did not provide a postal} address on the official websites.

months after the correspondence sent in Stage 2. Neither Stage 1 nor Stage 2 of correspondence yielded usable results. Regarding the responses received through Stage 1, one entity responded with a number of annual reports, which did not include the report for the 2008 financial year. The second email requesting the 2008 annual published report specifically, was not responded to. Another entity responded indicating that the 2008/2009 report was available in hard copy at a specified address for physical inspection. Again, the second email requesting the 2008 annual published report specifically, was not responded to. The third email received relating to Stage 1 of requests indicated that the entity was not a public entity (although being listed on Schedule 3 of the PFMA) and therefore this report would not be sent to the researcher. Regarding the one response received in Stage 2 of the requests, a report was received and intended for inclusion in the sample. However, at the stage of content analysis it was discovered that the report obtained was incomplete. For the reasons noted above, the responses received in Stage 1 and 2 were not considered to be useable as they did not result in the obtaining of the intended report for analysis.

Due to time constraints and the poor responses from the request for reports, the decision was taken to change the sampling method from the probability sampling method highlighted above, to a non-probability convenience sampling method. Those public entities in the original sample where both the 2008 and 2014 reports were obtained from the official websites were included as part of the final sample. Therefore, only entities where both or one of the reports could not be obtained from the official website (N2008, N2014, N0), were replaced.

The convenience sampling method entailed the random selection of entities from Schedules 2 and 3 of the PFMA to replace those reporting entities for which a report had not been obtained. Once the reporting entity had been selected through convenience sampling, the entity’s official website was inspected to source the 2008 and 2014 reports. If both reports were available on an entity’s website, the reporting entity selected was included in the final sample and its reports were analysed. If one or both of the reports were not available on the official website, a record was made of this (refer to Annexure B for a listing of entities considered for analysis and the results of the online search for reports), and a replacement reporting entity was selected randomly. As indicated in Table 3.3, two of the seven Schedule 2 reports from the initial sample, which were to form part of the final sample were found to be incomplete. Therefore, these two reports also needed to be replaced using the convenience sampling method approach.

This process was performed in November 2016. Table 3.4 provides a summary of the outcome of the convenience sampling process.

Table 3.4: Summary of the outcome of the convenience sampling process

Schedule 2 entities Schedule 3 entities

NR 54 14

NS 9 33

N2008 0 1

N2014 2 14

N0 25 4

NR – Number of replacement reports needed. This included the entities for the two incomplete reports.

NS – Total number of randomly selected entities for which reports were searched for on the official websites.

N2008– Only the 2008 report available on the official websites. N2014 – Only the 2014 report available on the official websites.

N0 – Neither the 2008 nor the 2014 report available on the official websites.

As indicated in Table 3.4, nine Schedule 2 entities had to be randomly selected as part of the convenience sampling method in order to obtain the five required entities that could be included in the sample. Two of the four entities which did not form part of the final sample only had the 2014 report available on the website, while two entities had neither the 2008 nor the 2014 report available on the website. Therefore, only 55.56% of the entities considered as part of the convenience sampling process formed part of the final sample.

For Schedule 3 entities, 33 entities needed to be randomly selected in order to replace 14 entities to form part of the final sample. One of the 19 entities which did not form part of the final sample only had the 2008 report on the official website and not the 2014 report. Fourteen entities only had the 2014 reports available and not the 2008 reports, while four entities had

4 _{Taking into account the two incomplete reports.}

5 _{The official website for one of the entities selected to replace an incomplete report in the original sample} contained links to both the 2008 and 2014 reports. However, the links were broken and as such the reports could not be accessed.

neither the 2008 nor the 2014 reports available. Therefore, only 42.42% of the entities considered as part of the convenience sampling process formed part of the final sample. As indicated above, the convenience sampling process was performed in November 2016. According to SAICA (2016:22), the accounting officers of public entities are required by The Treasury Regulations, Regulation 17(2), to retain the information relating to a financial year for one year after the audit report for that financial year has been tabled in Parliament or the provincial legislature. In terms of Section 24(3)(c)(ii) of the Companies Act annual financial statements required by the Act should be kept for a period of seven years from the date on which the report was published. SAICA (2016:6) also acknowledges the requirements by the Companies Act to maintain financial records for a period of at least seven years. Therefore, SAICA (2016:6) suggests that in all cases the more stringent legislation should be adhered to, which in this case is the seven-year requirement by the Companies Act. Depending on the specific year end and publishing date, the 2008 reports may fall out of the seven-year requirement set out by the Companies Act. However, one entity only had the 2008 report available while six entities had neither the 2008 nor the 2014 reports available. One would expect that at least the 2014 report would be readily available for users.

Refer to the Annexure C for the final sample that was analysed for purposes of this study. The final sample was therefore ultimately selected using a convenience sampling method.