Alternative Performance Measures and ESMA Guidelines : Improving Stakeholders ’ Communication

In a world more interconnected and globalized, the Entities periodically communicate to stakeholders, and in general to market, their performances and results. The Entities use, in their financial communication, Alternative Performance Indicators (APM) that are not required by accounting principles. APM are increasingly used by Entities to help provide insights on performance. These indicators are a financial measure of historical or future financial performance, financial position, or cash flows, other than a financial measure defined or specified in the applicable financial reporting framework. This study aims to analyse the spread of APM, investigating the financial communications of Listed Italian Industrial Entities on FTSE-MIB index 40. As APM have become more widespread, their reporting has turned out to be an hot topic around the world for prepares, stakeholders, auditors and regulators. The European Securities and Markets Authority issued new guidelines that aim to improve the usefulness and transparency of Alternative Performance Measures. In the second part, the study aims to analyse how the Entities expects to apply these new guidelines and the impacts on financial communication.


Introduction
The intensive development of capital and socio-cultural market factors affecting most countries led to the necessity for regulatory bodies to consider such factors with respect to the regulations of financial reporting.
Deficiencies in traditional financial reporting can be remedied by the accounting profession, because it is forced to issue very detailed standards to reduce these problems.
In 2005, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) decided to reach agreement on a project of revising their conceptual frameworks, and redefine user groups, objectives of accounting reporting, and elements of financial statements.Further agreement was made as to rearrange qualitative characteristics and issue a new common conceptual framework (Rostami and Salehi, 2011).
Over the same period, the first recommendations on alternative performance measures (APM or non-GAAP measures) were made.
Since 2005, several updates on accounting principles and professional standards have been provided and, today, the regulatory bodies have realized the importance of updating APM regulations.
On June 30, 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued new guidelines (NGL) regarding APM, substituting the advisory note issued in 2005 by the Committee of European Security Regulators (CESR).Entities thus had to adopt these guidelines from June 3, 2016 onwards, the national stock exchange regulators having to enforce them.In Italy, CONSOB (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa-National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange) performed this duty, having already adopted the ESMA guidelines in December 2015.
Entities disclose their performance through various forms of financial communication, and stakeholders evaluate The first is related to adverse selection, in which one party of the transaction does not have sufficient information.The party with less information is at disadvantage compared to the party with more information.The asymmetry causes lack of efficiency in financial information reporting.
The second type of analysis regards moral hazard, that is, the condition where one side performs activities the other groups are unaware of.Moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks, because someone else bears the cost of those risks.
The first part of information asymmetry is known as hide information and the second as hide activities.
As such, due to market incompleteness and the presence of information asymmetry, the perceived value by users is different from the value for preparers.

•
Information gaps, in which a gap exists between the adequate and desirable levels of disclosure and the current level; in this case, the perception of main performance data by the contributors does not transfer sufficiently;

•
Quality gaps, which are differences between management performance, its objectives, and results, and what the society expects;

•
Reporting gaps, which are the differences between business objectives and their respective achievements; • Understanding gaps, which are differences between the different methods by which management and investors (users) evaluate data.To remedy gaps in understanding and approach, and solidify the value of information conveyed by financial reporting, one must use the most appropriate performance indicators to represent company value.

Agency Theory and Alternative Performance Measures: Related Literature
In terms of literature, we focus on agency theory, particularly on the relationship between performance and studies related to traditional and alternative performance indicators.
Disclosure policy emerges as a mechanism that can mitigate information asymmetry (the most important issue in agency theory) and lower firms' cost of external financing (Choi, 1973;Verrecchia, 1983).The optimal level of disclosure (Verrecchia, 1983(Verrecchia, , 2001) ) involves a trade-off between the benefit of a lower cost of external financing and the cost of revealing proprietary information (Francis et al., 2005(Francis et al., :1127)).Further, US empirical evidence shows that voluntary public disclosure reduces information asymmetry (Welker, 1995;Healy et al., 1999).
Another important analysis in relation to the disclosure level is the cost of equity capital (Botosan, 1997(Botosan, , 2006)).According to Amihud and Mendelson (1986), by disclosing private information, firms can reduce the adverse selection component of their bid-ask spreads and cost of equity capital.According to Diamond and Verrecchia (1991), greater disclosure reduces the adverse price impact associated with large trades.This process leads to an increase in demand and, consequently, to an increase of the current price of firms' stock, which in turn reduces the cost of equity capital (Diamond & Verrecchia, 1991, Amihud & Mendelson, 1986).
According to Armitage and Martson (2008), exists a relationship between the cost of equity and level of disclosure, but beyond a certain level of quality, it has limited effects on the cost of equity.
As previously mentioned, the problems that arise from agency theory refer to the separation of ownership and control being due to varying interests and the opposing incentive structures of shareholders and the manager.Therefore, this problem gives rise to an economic incentive alignment gap that must be filled to enable the manager to maximize shareholder wealth (Akindayomi, 2012, p. 42, Iyengar et al., 2005).
One of the most used tools to solve these problems is the executive stock option.The use of this or other incentive methods is predicated on the method by which performance is calculated, as performance measurement is a central problem in agency theory (Baker, 1992;Franco-Santos, 2009;Sloof & Van Praag, 2007).
The past four decades of accounting research have produced a substantial volume of work, showing that the market reacts positively to positive earnings news: indeed, earnings are value relevant (Kothari, 2001;Shon & Zhou, 2011, p. 58).
Because of these and other critiques, management accounting also supports the use of non-financial performance measures (Solomon, 1965, Parker, 1979, Kaplan, 1983, Ittner et al., 1997;Hoque & James, 2000;Laitinen, 2002;Cerbioni et al., 2010;Zuriekat et al., 2011).(Note 1) According to Ittner et al., the use of non-financial indicators is greater for firms following an innovation-oriented prospector strategy than those following a cost leader or defender strategy (1997).
In other studies, rather than analyzing financial versus nonfinancial indicators, indicators are analyzed following other characteristics, such as subjective versus objective, common versus unique, absolute versus relative, individual versus group, and local versus global (Ahn et al., 2010).Ahn et al. (2010) also hypothesize that subjective measures are less discriminable than objective ones.In their hypothesis development, they assert that subjective performance measures often complement objective measures to mitigate the dysfunctional incentives caused by the latter, and are instrumental in reducing noise in performance measurement.Subject performance measures also mitigate the manipulation of objective measures (Bushman et al., 1996;Murphy & Oyer, 2004).However, other scholars criticize that subjective performance measures arguing that are often inaccurate and unreliable (Feldman, 1981;Heneman, 1986;Golden, 1992;Boyne, 2006, p. 18).
Several studies exist on ambiguity, uncertainty, and appropriateness of accounting performance measures (Chapman, 1997;Hartmann 2000;Luft & Shields, 2003).These works cite that management accounting literature has primarily adopted the contingency perspective, identifying uncertainty as the dominant determinant of the appropriateness of accounting performance measures (Hartmann, 2005, p. 242).The findings of Hartmann (2005) are that tolerance for ambiguity affects managers' opinions indirectly.In fact, the effect is moderated by the contingency variable, task uncertainty, and environmental uncertainty.Therefore, the relationship between the uncertainty and appropriateness of accounting performance measures is highly complex (Hartmann, 2005, p. 258).An organization's inability to use total value as a basis for incentive contracts often leads to using a wide array of APMs, for example, the use of divisional accounting profits for the bonuses of division managers (Baker, 1992, p. 599).
The possible inappropriateness of financial indicators and the difficulty of using total enterprise value (e.g., for the calculation of executive pay) contribute to the need to identify other measures of performance.As such, companies use APMs to better represent their financial results and calculate executive pay.
Studies on APM increased after introducing their minimum regulation.Initially there were only Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) publications (2012,2015), representing a survey on the use of APMs with key recommendations for practitioners, but other studies were subsequently published as ESMA, IFRS, and PricewaterhouseCoopers documents.
General studies that specifically analyze the value relevance of a comprehensive set of performance measures are the analysis by Habib (2010) on the relevance of APMs in Australian firms and Barton et al.'s (2009) study, which reports a similar analysis of companies around the world, with the largest number of observations from Japan and the United States.
The Barton et al.'s (2009) study compares the value relevance of a comprehensive set of performance measures (disclosed in financial statements) across 46 countries worldwide between 1996 and 2005.In their analysis, the value relevance of the performance measures varies substantially across line items in the income statement, as well as across countries.
Instead, Habib's (2010) analysis focuses on the Australian context and explores twice the sample size of Barton (2009), considering country-specific idiosyncrasies and small and medium-sized enterprises.The results reveal that earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) have the highest explanatory power, followed by total revenues.Total revenues have the highest explanatory power for small and medium companies, and operating income has the highest explanatory power for large firms.To strengthen the findings of such studies and in response to ESMA's recommendation, we used APM in a sample of Italian industrial entities listed on the FTSE-MIB index 40.

New ESMA Guidelines
On June 30, 2015, the ESMA issued new guidelines on APMs, substituting the advisory note issued in 2005 by CESR.The CESR issued its first document on APMs to define a high-level APM framework, but the document is not detailed and its application was not consistent.
These guidelines, pertaining to entities issuing listed stocks and bonds, require the disclosure of financial information, according to the Transparency Directive, and the submittal of an informative prospectus, according to the Prospectus Directive.Entities would have had to adopt the guidelines starting from June 3, 2016 onwards, and the national stock exchange regulators were to enforce them.In Italy, CONSOB performs this duty and, as previously mentioned, has already adopted ESMA guidelines in December 2015.The guidelines refer to all the APMs regularly used in financial communications and prospectuses, including management reports and press releases issued according to the Transparency Directive and communications about financial results according to the Market Abuse Regulation.However, these guidelines are not compulsory for financial statements (composed of balance sheet, income statement and notes).
The guidelines' aim is to improve the usefulness and transparency of APMs to stakeholders.To meet this requirement, guidelines require: i) a clear indication of the APMs used and their components, together with the related assumptions (i.e., analysts should not use overoptimistic terms-e.g., certain profit-and should not define as non-recurring items revenues or costs that occurred in past periods and will occur again in the future-e.g., restructuring costs and impairment losses); ii) a reconciliation between APMs and financial statement figures, including APM computation methods if they do not refer to financial statement data (e.g., in reference to future forecasts, entities should explain the application of accounting policies while calculating the APMs); iii) not to display APMs with more prominence, emphasis, or authority over GAAP measures; iv) APMs are also disclosed for comparative fiscal years; v) coherent APMs are disclosed from one fiscal year to another.If the computation formula changes, entities should explain the reasons for the change and how this change will lead to more relevant and reliable information; moreover, entities should perform the restatement for the comparative year as well.

Methodology
Our study describes APMs' spread level.This research qualifies as applied research, because it aims at finding a solution for an immediate problem faced by the society or an industrial/business organization (Kothari, 2004:3).
Moreover, we use qualitative research because:

•
We explore a new phenomenon; • We need to generate conscience of this complex phenomenon, rooted in the perspective of the parties involved;

•
We note the impossibility of separating the phenomenon investigated from the context in which it occurs.
Our research is descriptive one (Kothari, 2004:2) because it includes the results of benchmarking and surveys analysis.
To represent the quality of our study variables, we started with a benchmarking analysis.First, we determined the analysis population, that is, all main Italian listed companies, and then used appropriate means for data collection, that is, the analyses of financial reports performed during November and December 2015.During this period, we analyzed the financial reports of the Italian industrial entities listed on the FTSE-MIB index 40 as of December 2014.
We excluded financial institutions from the analysis because they are subject to specific rules, and the APMs of financial institutions are not comparable with the APMs of the industrial or service sectors.
Therefore, we analyzed the financial reporting available on the websites of 25 companies that are non-financial institutions.In Table 1, we report the list of companies analyzed for the purposes of our study.
To perform the analyses, we prepared a checklist with specific questions.Then, we used the checklist for the analysis of each financial reporting from the companies on the list.
Specifically, we investigated the following topics: • If entities adjust their financial statement figures in the calculation of APMs; • If APMs have better economic and financial performance than the performance in financial statements; • What are the most common adjustments that entities use to calculate APMs; • How entities reconcile between the performances in financial statements and APMs; • What are the most common APMs entities use in their financial communication.
After the analyses, we summarized the results and drawn our conclusions on the spread and use of APMs.
Table 1.Analysed industrial list companies-benchmarking After the benchmarking analysis of APMs in the financial communication of listed companies, we also arranged a survey that was administered from January to March 2016.
To evaluate the effects of applying the new ESMA guidelines, we prepared the survey, in which we included questions about the main topics related to the NGL.Particular, the survey had the following sections: • General information-questions on the entity, activities, and financial and economic performances; • Use of APMs-questions on types of APMs, adjustments, and definitions; • Expected impacts of NGL-areas affected by the changes, changes, and expected impacts; • Efforts and planning of implementation of NGL-working group, type of resources, timing, and implementation costs.
Subsequently, we sent this survey on APMs and NGL to all Italian industrial listed companies (we sent out 300 questionnaires) and received 30 answers (that is, a 10% response rate).Specifically, the questionnaires were sent to the investor relations departments of the target companies.We considered all received answers.
The survey included a section on the current APMs utilized (whose results confirm the conclusions of the benchmarking on the 2014 financial statements mentioned above), a section about the changes that the issuers expect to face to comply with the new guidelines, and a final part about the efforts that the issuers expect to make to comply with the ESMA requirements.Particularly, we performed benchmarking analyses, followed by the survey.As reported above, the benchmarking identified the APMs in the 2014 financial communications of Italian companies, while the survey the possible impacts of NGL.
We highlight that some survey participants are not the same as those in our benchmarking analysis.

Benchmarking on Use of Alternative Performance Measures in the financial communications of Listed Companies: Analysis
In the benchmarking analysis, we observe the number of entities using APMs, and the quality and transparency of those APMs.As shown in numerous research studies, high quality and transparent financial communication are essential for the proper functioning of the market.A framework for understanding the operations of accounting information in the economy isolates three channels through which financial communication can affect firms' investment, productivity, and value-creation.These channels involve the use of financial communications: 1) to identify promising investment opportunities; 2) to discipline managers to direct resources toward adequate projects and away from projects that primarily benefit managers rather than the owners of capital, and prevent embezzlement; and 3) to reduce information asymmetries among investors (Bushman and Smith, 2003).
It is a positive finding that the entities using APMs show their calculation methodologies and reconciliation between APMs and financial statements.However, these reconciliations are neither simple to identify nor to understand (e.g., positions of reconciliations are not clearly indicated and there is no guidance to understanding them).We noted that each company uses different reconciliation schemes, and the reconciliations are posted in different positions within the reports on operation or the explanatory notes to financial statements.Therefore, we think that APMs are useful tools, but entities should increase the quality and transparency of the data they disclose.
The main topics of our analysis can be summarized as follows: • APMs and financial statements; • the directions of adjustments; • main adjustments to financial figures; • most used APMs.

APMs and Financial Statements
Of the entities in the sample, 76% "adjust" their GAAP profits.These results prove that entities widely use APMs and prefer using APMs in their financial communications over financial statement figures.This is an important point to understand, and we will see in the next few analysis points why and how the entities adjust their figures.

Direction of Adjustments
The percentage of companies that make positive adjustments to their financial statement figures is 100%.
In all analyzed cases, the adjustments each entity made to calculate APMs improved the entity's performance.As we did not identify negative adjustments to financial statement figures, we find it interesting that companies recorded only positive adjustments.Companies should identify the rules applied for the computation of APMs and apply those rules consistently over time.In this way, the adjustments should be positive or negative.In reality, although the companies define the rules for computation, they have the possibility to change the rules.On the other hand, auditors do not control the disclosed APMs.The results suggest that the analyzed companies use APMs to improve their performance results.

Main Adjustments to Financial Figures
The main adjustments entities perform on financial statement data are: ii) Impairment test write-downs; iii) Depreciation of tangibles and intangibles; iv) Acquisition costs; v) Adjustments to fair value of financial instruments; vi) Exchange differences; vii) Tax impacts.
In most cases, we noted that the "adjustments" were defined as "non-recurring items."In the CESR advisory note, there was no clear definition of such "non-recurring items," so it is up to the entities to define and disclose this definition.However, this definition was not identified in any of the analyzed cases.
As such, it is difficult to understand the real meaning of "non-recurring items."When we think about a "non-recurring item," we typically imagine something extraordinary in the entity's existence, probably a "one-shot item."However, when we come to the items the analyzed entities considered "non-recurring," we noted that the interpretations varied widely.Few items considered by the entities as "non-recurring" are actually non-recurring.
We assume that items that affected past periods and will affect future periods would be rarely considered as "non-recurring," infrequent, or unusual.In other words, a non-recurring item is a gain or loss found on a company's income statement that is not expected to occur regularly.Analysts seeking to measure the sustainable profitability of a company typically disregard non-recurring items, as these items are not expected to affect the company's future net income.Moreover, non-recurring items are not always easily identifiable, as they can appear under different sections on an income statement.Sometimes, non-recurring items are added to operating expenses, especially if closely connected to company operations.However, if the non-recurring item has a significant effect on the company's finances, it is listed net of tax on a separate line below the net income from continuing operations.Items related to new or discontinued operations, gains or losses due to accounting changes, and "extraordinary items" (items that are both unusual in nature and infrequent in occurrence) are listed this way.
According to Cameron and Stephens (1991), the separation of extraordinary items from other income statement items does not result in a separation of recurring from non-recurring items (Cameron and Stephens, 1991).
In our analyses, we identified that the outcome of usual accounting processes was also included in this category.
We propose some examples to better clarify the concept: i) Every year, the entities have to perform the impairment test, so it is not extraordinary to record some write-downs; ii) During the entity's life, it is normal to have restructurings and acquisitions, so we think that costs associated with these transactions are "recurring items;" iii) During stock option plans, the entities have to record the associated costs, which are unclear because the entities considered these costs "non-recurring." We believe that the adjustments performed and the definition of "non-recurring items" may mislead the users of financial communications.Our analysis shows that the items considered as "non-recurring" are those that affected past periods and will affect future periods (i.e., write downs, restructuring costs, stock option plan, etc.).Therefore, the most important part of adjustments that the companies use are not real "non-recurring items."
The EBITDA and EBIT are profit achieved, and not considering extraordinary items.For the analyzed companies, we find different definitions of the "results" adjusted with the inclusion of extraordinary or non-recurring items.(Note 2) The analysis further indicates that the regulators are too optimistic.We noted some confusion about EBITDA, EBIT, and other APMs.The preparers define some APMs, but there is the possibility of manipulation because of the lack of clear definitions.
The question is whether financial statements and APMs are comparable.
It is important for stakeholders to evaluate the performance of entities, and an easy method to do this is to compare it with the competitors'.On the other hand, the managers of the entities want to show the best possible performance, so that they can achieve targets and obtain bonuses, increases, and new engagements.
We noted that many entities present in the primary financial statements some APMs, such as EBITDA and EBIT, then they adjust them in financial communications.We also noted that, when the entities present APMs in financial statements, it is a clear indication that data are not subject to audit.During our research, we noted that auditors do not verify APMs.We also understood that it is optional for auditors to check APMs because there is no set of accounting rules that apply in this case.Moreover, IFRSs do not require APMs, and that there are no definitions for them.Nonetheless, the auditor has the ability to check them.
Therefore, the question is "Who controls APMs?" Our analyses show that entities apply different definitions of APMs (Note 3), which definitions either vary or do not exist.As such, auditors do not have the ability to check the application of APMs.
We believe that qualitative guidelines guarantee neither the comparability nor the transparency of APMs.

Reconciliation between APMs and Financial Statements
In most cases, it was not easy to identify the reconciliation between financial statement figures and APMs.
Reconciliations are often too general and do not allow for the precise identification of the adjusted items.

Reasons to Choose APMs
In many cases, the entities did not report the reasons for their choice of APMs.Moreover, they did not explain why the management believed that APMs were important for explaining the entity's performance nor the reasons for their change from a fiscal year to the following.
We believe companies do not explain the reasons for use APMs, because they prefer the option to change them when the results of APMs do not reflect a better performance with respect to the figures in financial statements.

Survey of New ESMA Guidelines
In this survey, we obtained important information on the impacts entities expect from the application of NGL.

Expected Changes
The main expected changes by the entities are relative to: • A clear indication of the used APMs and their components; • A reconciliation between APMs and financial statement figures; • Not displaying APMs with more prominence, emphasis, or authority than GAAP measures; • Coherent APMs from one fiscal year to another.

Clear Indication of Used APMs and Their Components
Of the participants, 64% expect a "low" impact of NGL and 36% a "medium" impact, while none expect a "high" impact.
We consider the answers unusual because, as discussed above, our analysis showed that the use of APMs has certain relevant deficiencies.The NGL introduces many new requirements.Therefore, we would have expected different answers, where the impact would have been high because the company should significantly change financial communications to apply the NGL.Most likely, to date, the entity had not analyzed the NGL or significantly change the use of APMs.
The expected changes by entities in "non-recurring" items are specifically identified in financial statements, and in the adjustments for APMs computation these changes are depreciations and amortizations, devaluations, restructuring costs, acquisitions costs, exchange differences, and taxes.

Reconciliation between APMs and Financial Statement Figures
The entities do not expect significant changes because, in most cases (98%), the entities that use APMs already reconcile these with financial statements figures.However, we noted no consistency where this reconciliation was reported; in some circumstances, they even reported it in more than one place (front half, face of the primary statement, notes, and other sections).This is not a problem unless, as in the case of some entities, there exists a lack of signposting to where reconciliation could be found.

Not Displaying APMs with More Prominence, Emphasis, Or Authority Than GAAP Measures; APMs Indication also for Comparative Fiscal Years; And Coherent APMs from A Fiscal Year To Another
The entities do not expect significant impacts from this new requirement.Particularly, they declared they would analyze the prominence of using APMs, and already show comparative APMs.
During our analyses, we noted that entities do not show coherent APMs and do not explain why the APMs were relevant or, when they changed the APMs during the year, why they changed them.
We believe that the entities should significantly improve the quality of their APMs to make up for a lack of transparency and coherency of these APMs.

Expected Efforts for Compliance
Only two entities in the survey already arranged an internal work team to comply with the new ESMA guidelines.
We noted that the two companies are prominent players in the energy and automotive sectors, and both have relevant activities in the United States.

Conclusions
We expect higher attention on APMs by regulators, and not only in Europe.Indeed, the new ESMA guidelines could change the way entities show their performance, in terms of better quality and transparency of their financial communications.
The survey shows an overall delay in the compliance with these guidelines.Since compliance is mandatory from July 3, 2016 onwards, entities will have to adopt the guidelines from the third quarter of 2016 at the latest.We would have actually suggested compliance from the first quarter of 2016 to avoid generating a change in financial communications during the fiscal year.We are unable to assess the effect of this change now.However, investors and financial analysts do use APMs to make their own choices and evaluate the company performance.Therefore, this change will undoubtedly have certain effects.
Along with financial statement approval deadlines, entities need to evaluate the potential impacts of the guidelines and be ready to submit more transparent, objective, and comparable APMs.
Our research shows many deficiencies in the use of APMs.Particularly, the benchmarking shows companies apply different definitions, there are no explanations in use of APMs, and in certain cases, the reconciliation between APMs and financial statements is unclear or difficult to understand.
We have some concerns regarding NGL.Particularly, we believe that the first problem is that NGL does not define APMs.Without an APM definition, entities have the option to manage APMs, and the individuals in-charge of governance or/and auditors have no real ability to control the correct application of APMs.As previously discussed, the entities do not have the opportunity to define some items as restructuring costs or impairment of assets as "non-recurring."However, considering that NGL does not define APMs, any entity can change them to "non-recurring" and include duplicate items in the APMs (i.e., restructuring costs or impairment of assets).
Moreover, entities do not expect relevant changes from the NGL.We believe that there are two possible scenarios: entities i) will delay the application of NGL or ii) will not want to make the change.We will thus analyze the application of NGL and we will study the impacts on financial communication.
During our research, we analyzed the use of APMs and how the NGL could change future financial communications.We also identified relevant deficiencies in the use of APMs and asymmetric information between preparers and users, but not only because the preparers use the APMs to pay bonuses, pay dividends, and in business combinations.Additionally, we learned that external auditors do not perform procedures on APMs.
As we have already summarized the main conclusions of our research, we ended with three specific suggestions (or themes) for future research on financial communications and APMs.
First, in terms of how the entities apply NGL and how the regulators perform enforcement, we call for more research on the transparency of the financial communications of entities and on the need to define clear rules.
The new studies could exploit the effectiveness of the principal-based approached used by ESMA in the NGL.

Table 2 .
List of participants-survey