(APA Tutorial) (Library)HE521 Unit 3 Assignme.docx

(
APA Tutorial
) (
Library
)
HE521 Unit 3 Assignment: Final Project: Literature Review,
Contemporary Practices, and Adult Learning Theories and
Models
Assignment Introduction
In Unit 2, you created the Final Project APA paper and
completed the Title Page and Introduction. In this unit, you will
reopen your Final Project APA paper and complete the
following sections:
· Literature Review
· Contemporary Practices for Teaching Adult Learners
· Adult Learning Theories and Models
You may revisit the Unit 2 Discussion where you and your peers
created a comparison chart of contemporary and traditional
theories and models affected by emerging contemporary issues.
You may also research some of the cited resources within that
Discussion.
Assignment Directions
1. Open your Final Project APA paper you saved and revised

from Unit 2.
2. Create the Literature Review section and answer the
following question: What is known about the contemporary
emerging issue you selected in Unit 2? To answer this question,
complete the following:
● Use at least three current articles to gather information
about your emerging contemporary issue you selected in Unit 2
and its relationship to adult education.
● Explain the emerging contemporary issue you selected in
Unit 2.
● Describe the relationship of the emerging contemporary
issue to adult education.
● Synthesize the research into essay form using standard
APA citation.
· This section should be 1 to 2 pages long.
3. Create the Contemporary Practices for Teaching Adult
Learners section and answer the following question: What are
adult educators currently doing in the adult classroom to
address your emerging contemporary issue selected in Unit 2?
To answer this question, complete the following:
· Discuss the practices traditionally used in adult education and
compare them to your chosen emerging issue from Unit 2.
· Discuss the pros and cons of the traditional practices you
discovered in relation to your contemporary emerging issue you
selected in Unit 2. You may find practices that could be
successful or need to be improved.
· Support your discussion with proper APA citations from
current articles and/or course materials.
· This section should be approximately 1 to 2 pages long.
4. Create the Adult Learning and Theories and Models section
and answer the following question: How does your
contemporary, emerging issue align with either traditional
learning theories and/or adult learning theories? To answer this

question, complete the following:
● Discuss how your chosen contemporary, emerging issue
from Unit 2 affects traditional or contemporary theories.
● Explore how traditional and contemporary theories have a
positive or negative impact on your chosen contemporary,
emerging issue you selected in Unit 2.
● Support your discussion with proper APA citations from
current articles and/or course materials.
· This section should be approximately 1 to 2 pages long.
Refer to information in the Major Assignment and Rubrics links
under Course Home for more information.
This Assignment addresses the unit learning outcome:
· Compare traditional and adult learning-based theories and
models.
· Examine how economic, historical, and sociocultural contexts
impact upon adult education.
It also addresses the following course outcomes:
HE521-2: Compare traditional and adult learning-based theories
and models.
HE521-5: Analyze emerging issues regarding the teaching of
adults.
Points and Rubric
This Assignment is worth 80 points. The rubric for this
Assignment is available from the Grading Rubrics link under
Course Home.
Submitting Your Assignment
When you are ready to submit your Assignment, select the
Dropbox tab at the top of the screen and choose the Unit 3:

Assignment.
- 9 -
Limited Drives Sustainability Improvement
Jon Bartley
North Carolina State University
Frank Buckless
Y.S. Al Chen
Stephen Harvey
Bacardi Limited
Scott Showalter

Gilroy Zuckerman
ABSTRACT
This study describes an application of the principles of activity
based flexible budgeting
advanced by Bacardi Limited to produce indices of
improvement for sustainability
performance measurement. Examples are used to demonstrate
this is an effective tool for
top management to promote their strategic initiatives, manage
sustainability efforts,
evaluate sustainability performance, and communicate
sustainability results to
stakeholders.
Key Words: Strategy, sustainability, sustainability reporting,
flexible budgeting,
performance evaluation
Introduction

The 21
st
century business leaders have learned the importance of
leveraging a genuine
commitment to sustainability to help their companies grow their
leadership in key
markets. They see the need to build an integrated global
sustainability effort based on
rigorous measurement standards that both produce
accountability and profitability. This
movement is very visible through the efforts of the International
Integrated Reporting
Council (IIRC). The aim of the IIRC is to create a globally
accepted framework to bring
“together material information about an organization’s business
model, strategy,
- 10 -
governance, performance and prospects in a way that reflects
the commercial, social and
environmental context within it operates.”1
A parallel initiative, the Sustainability Accounting Standards

Board (SASB), was
founded in July 2011. The purpose of the SASB is to establish
“industry-based
sustainability standards for the recognition and disclosure of
material environmental,
social and governance impacts by companies traded on U.S.
exchanges.”2 Although still
in the launch phase, the SASB’s standards are intended to be
industry specific and clearly
communicate the priority of material sustainability issues
enabling corporations to show
how material sustainability issues impact operations.3
Further, the idea of “natural capital” has been gaining traction
among global businesses.
“Natural capital is the stock of capital derived from natural
resources such as biological
diversity and ecosystems, in addition to geological resources
such as fossil fuels and
mineral deposits. It provides the ecosystem products and
services that underpin our
economy and provide inputs or indirect benefits to business.”4
For example, in a 2012
survey report issued by KPMG, Fauna Flora International, and

the Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants found that more than half of
CFOs and CEOs have
included natural capital concerns in their company’s business-
risk evaluations. Further,
49% identified natural capital as a “material issue” for their
business and linked it directly
to “operational, regulatory, reputational and financial risks.”
However, few companies
have modified their accounting systems to include the
measurement of natural capital.5
It is widely recognized that “sustainability reporting is not
likely to go away —
companies have invested too much reputational capital in telling
stories and providing
detailed information, and stakeholders have come to view them
as a minimum
requirement of a company’s sustainability commitment. But as
integrated reporting
ramps up, sustainability reports will need to provide more
detailed performance data
relevant to broader stakeholders, insight into what is driving
changes in metrics, and

deeper explanations of management responses to social,
resource, and pollution
challenges.”6 A best practice of sustainability development and
reporting is to integrate
sustainability into the organization’s strategy, not as a
standalone program. Where this
all comes together is through an organization’s strategy.
According to Deloitte, “in this
environment, boards need to ensure that their organization
views corporate sustainability
as more than just good corporate citizenship; it must be integral
component of its overall
strategy. Sustainability initiatives can strengthen an
organization’s reputation,
competitiveness, the moral of employees, and its ability to
attract capital.”7
1 Integrated Reporting, The Pilot Programme 2012 Yearbook,
“Capturing the experiences of global
businesses and investors”, September 2012
.http://www.sasb.org/sasb/Sustainability Accounting Standards
Board, 2
3 Ibid.
4 KPMG, Fauna & Flora International, ACCA, “Is natural

capital a material issue”, 2012.
5 Ibid.
6 GreenBiz.Com, “State of Green Business 2013”, 2013.
7 Deloitte, “The Sustainable Board”, 2011.
http://www.sasb.org/sasb/
- 11 -
In this article, we describe an activity-based flexible budget
methodology for measuring
the improvement in sustainability performance developed by
Bacardi Limited. With this
innovative application of activity-based metrics to sustainability
performance
measurement, companies can more accurately measure and
report the progress they make
in (1) meeting key sustainability objectives for management
internally and (2) corporate
responsibility reporting. The methodology can be readily
understood by management,
and it provides an important tool for C-suite executives to
promote sustainability best
practices to their employees and to communicate the results of

their organization’s
sustainability results to their stakeholders.
Bacardi Limited
Family-owned Bacardi Limited is one of the world’s largest
spirits companies. Bacardi
Limited is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda (U.S.
headquarters in Coral Gables, FL),
and operates in 16 countries on four continents. Some of their
leading brands include
Bacardi Rum, Grey Goose Vodka, Dewar’s Scotch and Bombay
Sapphire Gin.
During the past decade, Bacardi Limited began setting
aggressive operating goals for
quality, environmental impact, and health and safety. Bacardi
Limited is an active
member of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, a
consortium of global,
leading beverage companies and suppliers focused on resource
protection, energy
efficiency and climate change mitigation. In 2009, Bacardi
Limited achieved ISO 9001,

ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certifications with all of its
production facilities. The
company has published Corporate Responsibility Reports since
fiscal year 2008, and in
2011 its report followed the Global Reporting Initiative G3
framework at a self-declared
application level B. Bacardi Limited makes environmental,
health and safety objectives
integral to the operations of every site through the use of Key
Performance Indicators
(KPIs).
In 2008, Bacardi Limited began applying an innovative
measurement methodology to
three environmental aspects: water consumption, energy
consumption, and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The methodology advances the company-
wide strategy through an
application of the principles of activity based flexible budgeting
to produce indices of
improvement (efficiency metrics) for sustainability performance
KPIs based on physical
quantities. The new methodology was a response to concerns
that aggregate measures

such as total annual tons of greenhouse gases emitted do not
capture the actual rates of
improvement. For example, a shift in production mix from high
volume rum (a relatively
low GHG emitter) to single malt Scotch whisky (a relatively
high GHG emitter) could
cause total greenhouse gas emissions to increase even if
emissions per unit of both Scotch
and rum were reduced. The new methodology allows
calculation of efficiency metrics
that can be aggregated across product lines to provide company-
wide measures of
efficiency improvement (Aggregate Performance Indices or
APIs) that are not distorted
by shifts in either product mix or volume. Bacardi Limited uses
the efficiency metrics
internally for decision support, and as key performance
indicators (KPIs) in its strategic
plan. The resulting APIs for the sustainability aspects
(greenhouse gas emissions, energy
- 12 -
consumption and water consumption) are highlighted along with

absolute measures of
sustainability performance in the company’s Corporate
Responsibility Reports.
Bacardi Limited’s application of activity-based metrics to
sustainability performance has
transformed the way Bacardi measures progress in meeting its
key sustainability
objectives, and it represents an innovative best practice for
management and for external
reporting. In the reminder of this article, we describe the
activity-based flexible budget
methodology developed by Bacardi Limited for measuring the
improvement in
sustainability aspects.
Flexible Budgeting for Performance Evaluation
Financial and non-financial budgeting impact all areas of a
company’s value chain, from
research and development to customer services. Budgets have
been used effectively as
an incentive for employees and management to focus on
maximizing value-added

activities and minimizing non-value-added activities.
Budgeting, thus, can be used as an
effective tool to convey management’s sustainability initiatives
and goals, manage its
sustainability-related efforts, evaluate sustainability
performance, and achieve its
sustainability goals over time.
Traditionally, a financial flexible budget is developed in detail
for dollar amounts of
budgeted revenues, costs, and profits at all feasible levels of
activities. Flexible budgets
adjust the expected amounts for total revenues, costs, and
profits based on different
activity levels. A master budget, by contrast, is developed for
one level of anticipated
activity. For control and performance evaluation purposes, the
actual activity level is
used to derive the flexible budget. A review of the
environmental management
accounting literature (e.g., Blackburn 2007; IFAC, 2011; IFAC,
2005; EPA, 1995)
indicates that there has been a focus on applying sophisticated
managerial accounting

methodologies to obtain enhanced cost information to support
sustainability management,
but there is little, if any, evidence that methodologies such as
activity based analyses and
flexible budgeting have been applied to measures of key
physical environmental and
social variables.
Table 1 gives a simple example of how flexible budgeting
would be used for non-
financial measures; consider the following manufacturing firm
that experiences an
increase in production volume. The company requires four
units of input A for each unit
of output B. In planning for the next reporting period the
company schedules 1,000 of B
for production. The master budget would indicate 4,000 units
of A to be used in
production. Assume at the end of the period, 5,000 units of A
were actually used to
produce B. If we simply compare the 5,000 units of A actually
used with the 4,000 units
of A budgeted, we might jump to the conclusion that A was
wasted. If we investigate

and learn that the actual production of B was 1,250 (not 1,000),
we would calculate a
flexible budget amount for A equal to be 5,000 units, the
amount that we actually used in
production. Thus, the efficiency of the use of input A was
unchanged from the budgeted
(planned) amount.
- 13 -
Table 1: Flexible Budgeting Example
Master Budget Flexible Budget Actual Results
Planned Level of Activity Actual Level of Activity
1,000 units of output B 1,250 units of output B
Units of A 4,000 5,000 5,000
The flexible budget is based on ex post (after-the-fact)
knowledge of the actual activity
level. In practice, managers prefer analyzing the differences
between plans and actual
results on the actual activity levels. The flexible budget is the

product of the estimated
input per unit and the actual output activity level achieved. The
flexible budget, thus,
provides the correct basis for comparison between actual and
expected units, given the
actual activity. And, as we demonstrate in the next example,
flexible budgeting can adjust
for changes in product mix as well as volume.
Flexible Budget Application: Aggregated Performance Index
(API)
The example that follows is a hypothetical application of
Bacardi Limited’s innovative
application of flexible budgeting to sustainability performance
measures for a global
manufacturer of high-end carpets, Zapet, Inc. This company
also provides interior design
consulting services. This example demonstrates that the
Bacardi methodology can be
applied to both manufacturing and non-manufacturing
businesses. Bartley, Buckless,
Chen, Harvey, Showalter and Zuckerman (2013) also provides a
detailed example

applied to the beverage industry.
Zapet begins by measuring the relationship between the amount
of an aspect (a
sustainability KPI) relative to the activity level in a base year.
For example, they may
measure CO2 emissions at a manufacturing plant in 2012 and
find that it emitted 57,600
units of CO2 while producing 30,000 thousand square yards of
carpet (K-Sq.yd). Thus,
for 2012, the rate of emissions would be 1.92 units of CO2 for
each one thousand square
yards of carpet. At the end of 2013, they combine the actual
level of activity; let’s say
39,900 K-Sq.yd, with the rate from the base year. The resulting
flexible budget for 2013
is 76,608 units of CO2 (1.92 units x 39,900 K-Sq.yd). This
means that if there is no
change in the efficiency, 76,608 units of CO2 are expected to be
emitted at the higher
level of activity.
Zapet then compares the actual amount of CO2 emitted during
2013; let’s say 59,700

units, to the flexible budget amount of 76,608 units. In
accounting, we would look at this
difference of 16,908 CO2 units (76,608 – 59,700) and identify
the amount as a favorable
flexible budget variance. Zapet, instead, extends the analysis by
converting the ratio to an
index number. The resulting index is 78 (59,700 units/76,608
units x 100). The
interpretation is that there has been a 22% (100 – 78)
improvement in the efficiency of
CO2 emissions at its carpet manufacturing plant.
Zapet repeats this process for each activity area of the company,
e.g., interior design
consulting and offices. Table 2 provides a hypothetical example
for five activity areas.
The next challenge that Zapet faces is how to provide a
meaningful aggregation of
- 14 -
sustainability aspects across segments with different activity
measures, e.g., thousands of
Sq.yd carpet versus number of people. Zapet resolves this by

continuing with the flexible
budgeting approach. For example, the amounts of CO2
emissions projected by the
flexible budget for 2013 are summed to a total of 135,657 units.
This is the total
emissions expected for all segments combined assuming no
efficiency improvement
relative to the base year. Similarly, the actual amount of total
emissions across all
segments for 2013 is calculated as 119,700 units. An overall
index weighted by activity
level is calculated by taking the ratio of 119,700 units to
135,657 units and multiplying
by 100 yielding an index of 88.2 (see Table 2). The
interpretation is that, aggregating
over all segments, there has been 11.8% improvement in the
efficiency of CO2 emissions.
The Aggregate Performance Index illustrated here provides a
more sophisticated
description of aggregate sustainability performance than simple
totals of the sustainability
aspects (i.e., KPI totals). However, the API is a corollary rather
than a substitute for KPI

totals. Management should seek to optimize API efficiency
measures as a means to the
ultimate reduction of total sustainability impacts.
Table 2: Bacardi Limited’s Aggregated Performance Index
(API): Using Flexible
Budgeting to Aggregate Performance for the CO2 Aspect across
Segments
Flexible
Budget
Category
Activity Unit
Activity
Level
CO2e
Efficiency
Rate
Activity
Level
CO2e CO2e Index
Carpet Manufacturing K-Sq.yd 30,000 57,600 1.92 39,900
59,700 76,608 78

Interior Design Consulting # of Jobs 8,000 4,080 0.51
6,860 3,600 3,499 103
Transportation Mtons 4,000 34,800 8.70 4,500
38,000 39,150 97
Offices No. of People 8,000 9,000 1.13 8,200
10,100 9,225 109
Corporate Travel - Non
Consulting
No. of People 8,000 7,000 0.88 8,200 8,300
7,175 116
API =
112,480 119,700 135,657 88.2
Base Year Current Year
Product Mix and Variation
The five business activities have widely differing GHG
efficiencies, but Table 2 shows
that an overall efficiency index may be calculated without
arbitrary distortions by
changes in product mix. Not only can the company evaluate its
overall GHG
performance but also by activity area.

Note that Zapet has increased its carpet production due to the
increase in demand for its
products. One would think intuitively that its GHG footprint
will increase proportionally
with its production level as those in the areas of Offices and
Corporate Travel – Non-
consulting. However, the Carpet Manufacturing team has
embarked on several important
initiatives to improve its GHG performance in the current year.
The results of their effort
will not be captured by the change in the absolute CO2 emission
(from 57,600 units to
59,700 units) because it has been masked by the increase in its
production level. The API
- 15 -
method helps reveal the underlying GHG performance
improvement by showing a 22%
improvement compared to the base year while experiencing the
increase in market
demand for carpet products. Similarly the API index for the
Transportation area shows
that the division has improved its GHG efficiency while

increasing its volume (Mtons of
product shipped) at the same time.
By observing the change in the absolute units CO2 emission,
Interior Design Consulting
would appear to make improvement in its GHG performance by
reducing 480 units in the
current year (that is 4,080 – 3,600). Note that the change is
driven primarily by the
reduction of its business activity level (from 8,000 jobs to 6,860
jobs). The API index
captures the drop in the business level and reveals that GHG
performance actually
deteriorated in the current year.
Finally the API methodology helps the business executives
understand the overall
sustainability performance for the company as a whole and the
contribution made by
individual areas in improving the company’s sustainability
efforts. The Carpet
Manufacturing and Transportation areas, for example, are the
key contributors of GHG
performance improvement in the current year. They together

help the company achieved
11.8% improvement in GHG efficiency. On the other hand, the
Interior Design
Consulting, Offices, and Corporate Travel – Non-consulting
areas experienced a decline
in performance.
Conclusion
Sustainability efforts should be integrated into the strategies of
companies. Companies
need to be able to establish goals and measure and report results
against those goals. The
methodology used to measure and report results needs to
accurately describe the aspects
of sustainability performance that are subject to management
control, and do so in a
manner that is meaningful and easy to understand. That is
where API enters the picture.
Most companies report the results of their sustainability efforts
in gross numbers such as
the reduction in greenhouse gasses, number of gallons of water
saved, or tons of waste
recycled, but other than knowing a reduction in absolute

numbers, it is difficult to
determine whether results are better or worse. This is
especially true for a company in
an expansion or acquisition mode. While the company may be
making progress with its
sustainability goals, the progress is being masked by other
strategic actions. Through an
easily understood index, API provides the opportunity to clearly
and objectively measure
and report the results obtained from the sustainability efforts –
not only individually, but
as an integrated element of the company’s strategy.
References
Bartley, J. Buckless, F., Chen,Y.S., Harvey, S.K., Showalter, S.,
and Zuckerman, G.
2012. Flexible Budgeting meets Sustainability at Bacardi
Limited. Strategic
Finance, pages 28-34, December 2012.
- 16 -

Blackburn, W. 2007. The Sustainability Handbook. Earthscan,
London, UK.
Deloitte, “The Sustainable Board”, 2011.
Dutta, S., R. Lawson, and D. Marcinko. 2010. A System of
Cost Variances to Evaluate
Sustainability Efforts, Journal of Corporate Accounting &
Finance, Volume 21,
Issue 3, pages 47–52, March/April.
Dutta, S., R. Lawson, and D. Marcinko. 2011. Paradigms for
Sustainable Development:
Implications of Management Theory, Corporate Social
Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 18: n/a doi: 1002/csr.259.
Gray, R. 2006. Does sustainability reporting improve
corporate behaviour? Wrong
question? Right time? Accounting and Business Research
(0001-4788), p. 65.
GreenBiz.Com, “State of Green Business 2013”, 2013.

Guidry, R.P. and Pattern, D.M. 2010. Market reactions to the
first-time issuance of
corporate sustainability reports: Evidence that quality matters,
Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Volume: 1 Issue:
1.
Integrated Reporting, The Pilot Programme 2012 Yearbook,
“Capturing The Experiences
Of Global Businesses and Investors”, September 2012.
Institute of Management Accounting. 2008. Implementing
Corporate Environmental
Strategies. Statements on Management Accounting. Institute of
Management
Accountants, Montvale, NJ.
Institute of Management Accounting. 1995. The Evolution of
Accountability –
Sustainability Reporting for Accountants. Statements on
Management
Accounting. Institute of Management Accountants, Montvale,
NJ.

International Federation of Accountants. 2005. Environmental
Management Accounting.
International Federation of Accountants, New York, NY.
International Federation of Accountants. 2011. Sustainability
Framework 2.0.
International Federation of Accountants, New York, NY.
KPMG, Fauna & Flora International, Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants, “Is
Natural Capital A Material Issue”, 2012.
Scerri, A. 2010. Accounting for sustainability: combining
qualitative and quantitative
research in developing 'indicators' of sustainability.
International Journal of
Social Research Methodology (1364-5579), 13 (1), p. 41.
- 17 -
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board,

About the Author
Jon Bartley, Ph.D., CPA is a professor of accounting and former
Dean of the Poole
College of Management at North Carolina State University. His
research and teaching
interests include enterprise risk management, sustainability
performance measurement,
and XBRL. He has published in the Journal of Accountancy,
Accounting Horizons,
Management Accounting, and other professional and academic
journals.
Frank Buckless, Ph.D is KPMG Professor and department head
of accounting at the
Poole College of Management at North Carolina State
University. His research and
teaching interests have focused on sustainability, auditing,
managerial and educational
issues. He has published in such journals as The Accounting
Review, Advances in Public
Interest Accounting, The CPA Journal, Strategic Finance, Issues
in Accounting

Education, and the Journal of Accounting Education.
Y.S. Al Chen, Ph.D., CPA, CMA, CFM is a professor of
accounting at North Carolina
State University. His research and teaching interests include
sustainability performance
measurement, environment cost management and XBRL. He has
published in the
Journal of Accountancy, Strategic Finance, Accounting
Horizons, Engineering
Economist and other professional and academic journals.
Stephen Harvey, P.E. has served as the global director of
environment, health and safety
for Bacardi Limited for the past six years. Steve Harvey, M.S.,
M.B.A., P.E., has served
for the past six years as the global director of environment,
health and safety for Bacardi
Ltd. Prior to that he has held the position of senior
environmental executive for several
major multinational corporations engaged in mining, chemicals,
energy, industrial
equipment and military defense systems. His experience
includes management systems

for compliance, measurement and assessment, and performance
improvement in
environmental and sustainability performance.
Scott Showalter, CPA, CGMA, CGFM is a professor of practice
at the Poole College of
Management at North Carolina State University. Scott was a
national partner with
KPMG and the lead partner within KPMG to develop the firm’s
sustainability service
line. Since joining the faculty, Scott Showalter has developed
and integrated
sustainability reporting into his graduate and undergraduate
classes.
Gilroy Zuckerman, Ph.D. is an associate professor of accounting
and former Associate
Dean of Academic Affairs of the Poole College of Management
at North Carolina State
University. His research and teaching interests include
environment cost management
and cost management strategies for public universities. He has
published in the
Accounting Review, International Journal of Accounting,
Journal of Applied Business

Research, Engineering Economist and other professional and
academic journals.
Copyright of Academy of Business Research Journal is the
property of Academy of Business
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Assignment - Article Review
You have learned what a master budget is and how it benefits
the accounting realm. Find a peer-reviewed article on master
budgets. Once you have located your article, you will write a
review. Your review must include the following:
article, including an appraisal of the budget?
wn growth as a business major?
this article?
Your article review should be a minimum of one page in length
(not counting the title and reference page). All paraphrased and
quoted material must be cited and referenced according to APA

style.
Information about accessing the Grading Rubric for this
assignment is provided below.
Provided Article: Limited Drives Sustainability Improvement
APA Citation Reference:
Bartley, J., Buckless, F., Al Chen, Y. S., Harvey, S., Showalter,
S., & Zuckerman, G. (2014). Limited Drives Sustainability
Improvement. Academy Of Business Research Journal, 19-17.

(APA Tutorial) (Library)HE521 Unit 3 Assignme.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to (APA Tutorial) (Library)HE521 Unit 3 Assignme.docx

Similar to (APA Tutorial) (Library)HE521 Unit 3 Assignme.docx (18)

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

(APA Tutorial) (Library)HE521 Unit 3 Assignme.docx