Sustainability, Ethics and Stakeholder Value

Introduction and context

Capital budgeting has traditionally evaluated projects through cash flows, risk and the cost of capital. That approach remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient. Investment decisions can alter greenhouse-gas emissions, biodiversity, worker welfare, community health, supply-chain resilience and the legitimacy of the firm. These effects may eventually become cash flows through regulation, litigation, reputation, technological substitution, resource scarcity or changing customer preferences. Other effects may remain external to the firm’s accounts while imposing real costs on society.

Sustainable capital budgeting therefore asks two related questions:

1. Does the project create sufficient risk-adjusted financial value?
2. Does it create value responsibly, considering affected stakeholders and the firm’s obligations to present and future generations?

The second question does not mean that finance should abandon disciplined valuation. It means that valuation must recognize material environmental and social risks, identify externalities explicitly, test projects against alternative futures and apply ethical governance to the allocation of capital. Sustainability is consequently both a risk-management issue and a strategic opportunity.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

• distinguish shareholder value, stakeholder value and social value;
• incorporate carbon prices, environmental costs and social impacts into project appraisal;
• use climate scenarios and sensitivity analysis without treating forecasts as certainties;
• evaluate ESG information, materiality and greenwashing risk;
• identify conflicts of interest and design appropriate governance controls;
• recommend responsible capital-allocation decisions while recognizing trade-offs and measurement limits.

1. From shareholder value to stakeholder value

1.1 Three conceptions of value

Shareholder value focuses on the present value of benefits accruing to equity investors. In a conventional model, a project is accepted when its risk-adjusted net present value is positive:

Here, I₀ is the initial investment at time zero, CFₜ is the incremental after-tax cash flow in period t, r is the discount rate consistent with the risk and currency of those cash flows, and n is the project life. Cash flows and the discount rate must be measured on a consistent nominal or real basis. The formula assumes that the project’s incremental cash flows can be estimated and that risk is adequately represented by r.

Stakeholder value recognizes that employees, customers, suppliers, communities, governments, creditors and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Some effects are contractual and priced; others are not. Stakeholder value does not imply that every interest can be maximized simultaneously. It requires transparent identification of affected parties, the distribution of benefits and burdens, and a defensible basis for resolving conflicts.

Social value evaluates net benefits to society, including costs and benefits that do not enter the firm’s cash flows. A social appraisal may use shadow prices for carbon, health effects or scarce water. It is distinct from private NPV because it considers externalities and may use a social discount rate rather than the firm’s opportunity cost of capital.

1.2 Materiality and the inside-out/outside-in distinction

Financial materiality asks whether an issue could influence enterprise value, cash flows, financing conditions or the cost of capital. Impact materiality asks whether the firm materially affects people or the environment, whether or not those effects immediately affect enterprise value. A project can therefore be financially immaterial today but socially significant, or financially material because a previously external issue is becoming regulated or priced.

A rigorous investment memorandum should distinguish:

• Inside-out effects: the project’s effects on emissions, ecosystems, workers and communities.
• Outside-in effects: how climate change, social instability, regulation and resource constraints affect the project.
• Double materiality: the simultaneous assessment of both perspectives.

2. Environmental externalities and carbon pricing

An externality occurs when an activity imposes a cost or benefit on parties not fully represented in the transaction price. Carbon emissions are a classic negative externality. A project may be profitable at the market carbon price while reducing social welfare if its emissions impose unpriced climate damages.

2.1 Types of carbon prices

A finance team should identify which price is being used:

These prices are not interchangeable. A regulatory price is a contractual or statutory cash flow. An internal price is a decision tool. A social cost estimate is a model of damage and uncertainty. An offset price may not represent a permanent, additional or verifiable reduction.

Let Eₜ represent tonnes of incremental CO₂-equivalent emissions in year t, and Pᶜₜ the applicable carbon price per tonne. The carbon cost in period t is:

The expression is applicable when emissions and the price refer to the same period, scope, gas-equivalent basis and geographic or regulatory regime. Its units are currency because tonnes × currency per tonne = currency. If the price is uncertain, the analyst should model a distribution or scenarios rather than use an apparently precise single value.

If carbon costs are incremental project cash flows, the carbon-adjusted NPV is:

This is a private investment appraisal with an explicit carbon charge. It should not be described as a social NPV unless the price represents a defensible social shadow price and the analysis also captures other relevant externalities.

2.2 Worked example: internal carbon price

An industrial project requires an initial investment of $10 million. It produces annual after-tax operating cash flow of $3.2 million for four years and has no terminal value. Incremental emissions are 20,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per year. Management uses an internal carbon price of $50 per tonne, and the risk-adjusted discount rate is 10%.

Annual carbon cost is:

20,000 × $50 = $1,000,000.

The carbon-adjusted annual cash flow is therefore $2.2 million. The four-year annuity factor at 10% is approximately 3.1699. Thus:

NPVᶜ = −10.0 + 2.2 × 3.1699 = −$3.03 million (approximately).

Without the internal carbon price, NPV would be −10.0 + 3.2 × 3.1699 = $0.14 million. The project changes from marginally acceptable to unattractive under the stated policy. This does not prove that the project must be rejected: it indicates that emissions exposure is economically material and that alternatives, abatement, redesign or a higher project return should be investigated.

2.3 Scope, boundaries and double counting

Emissions should be classified consistently, commonly as direct operational emissions, purchased-energy emissions and value-chain emissions. Analysts must define the project boundary, avoid counting the same reduction in multiple projects, and document whether emissions are gross or net of removals. A carbon price should not be applied to emissions already included as an actual regulatory cash payment unless the purpose is explicitly to test an additional shadow price; otherwise the model double counts the cost.

3. Climate scenarios and uncertainty

Climate scenario analysis is not a prediction exercise. It explores how a project performs under internally coherent assumptions about policy, technology, physical climate conditions, energy prices, demand and financing. A scenario is not the same as a probability forecast.

3.1 Transition and physical risks

Transition risks arise from movement toward a lower-emission economy. They include carbon regulation, vehicle electrification, renewable-energy substitution, changing consumer preferences, litigation and obsolete assets.

Physical risks arise from climate impacts. Acute risks include floods, storms, heatwaves and wildfires. Chronic risks include sea-level rise, water stress, changing precipitation and persistent heat. Physical risks affect operating uptime, insurance, maintenance, labor productivity, logistics and asset life.

Opportunities may include energy efficiency, resilient infrastructure, low-carbon products, adaptation services and access to new markets. A balanced analysis evaluates both downside and upside pathways.

3.2 Scenario construction

A useful scenario set normally includes at least:

• an orderly-transition scenario with early, predictable policy and technological change;
• a disorderly-transition scenario with delayed action followed by abrupt regulation or repricing;
• a high-physical-risk scenario with severe climate impacts and limited transition policy;
• a management or base case used for budgeting, clearly distinguished from climate scenarios.

Each scenario should specify assumptions for demand, prices, carbon policy, capex, operating costs, asset impairment, supply disruption, financing and terminal value. Scenario narratives should be translated into cash-flow drivers rather than inserted as vague qualitative statements.

If scenario s has probability pₛ and project NPV NPVₛ, the probability-weighted expected NPV is:

This calculation is meaningful only when probabilities are decision-useful and scenarios are sufficiently distinct. If probabilities are arbitrary, report the scenario NPVs without presenting the weighted result as an objective expectation.

3.3 Real-options reasoning

Uncertainty can make flexibility valuable. A firm may defer construction, stage investment, expand if demand grows, abandon an exposed asset or switch fuels. Conventional NPV may undervalue such flexibility because it assumes a fixed plan. Real-options analysis is appropriate when managerial choices are clearly specified, uncertainty is material and the option can be exercised in response to observable conditions. It should not be used to justify every optimistic forecast; the cost of flexibility and the conditions for exercising it must be documented.

4. Environmental and social impact assessment

A project may have positive financial returns and still create unacceptable harm. Environmental and social impact assessment should occur before final approval, not after capital is committed.

4.1 Impact pathways

The assessment should map the causal chain:

Activity → pressure → exposure → effect → stakeholder consequence → financial or ethical response.

For example, mine expansion may increase water extraction, reduce community water availability, affect health and livelihoods, provoke conflict and ultimately cause delays, litigation or withdrawal of the operating license.

Important categories include:

• greenhouse-gas emissions and local air pollution;
• water consumption, contamination and watershed effects;
• land use, biodiversity and ecosystem services;
• worker health, safety, wages and freedom of association;
• human rights and forced- or child-labor risks in supply chains;
• community displacement, cultural heritage and indigenous rights;
• affordability, access and distributional effects on customers.

4.2 Monetization and its limits

Monetization can improve comparability but can also create false precision. Analysts may use market prices, avoided-cost methods, replacement costs, stated preferences, revealed preferences or shadow prices. Results are sensitive to assumptions about duration, causality, discounting, uncertainty and who bears the cost.

A practical decision document should therefore present both:

1. monetized estimates where evidence is sufficiently robust; and
2. qualitative or threshold constraints where monetization would conceal rights, irreversibility or unacceptable harm.

Some impacts are not ethically tradeable at any price. A project that violates basic safety standards or legally protected rights should not be approved merely because its NPV is high.

5. ESG information and responsible capital allocation

ESG is an information and governance framework, not a single score. Environmental factors include emissions, energy, water, pollution and biodiversity. Social factors include labor, human rights, customers and communities. Governance factors include board oversight, controls, remuneration, ethics, audit quality and investor rights.

5.1 ESG integration versus exclusion

ESG integration incorporates financially relevant ESG risks and opportunities into forecasts, valuation, risk assessment and monitoring. Exclusion prohibits investment in specified activities or issuers. Thematic investment targets a defined outcome, such as clean energy or affordable housing. Impact investment seeks measurable positive social or environmental outcomes alongside financial returns.

These approaches have different objectives. An exclusion policy may reduce exposure to a harmful activity but does not necessarily improve the activity. Engagement may influence an incumbent company, but engagement claims require evidence of objectives, escalation and results.

5.2 The limits of ESG ratings

Ratings may disagree because providers use different definitions, materiality assumptions, weights, time horizons and data sources. A low-emissions company may have poor labor practices; a high-emissions company may have strong disclosure and governance. A rating is therefore an input, not a substitute for project-level analysis.

Investment committees should ask:

• What is measured, and what is omitted?
• Are data reported, estimated or modeled?
• Are absolute impacts distinguished from intensity measures?
• Is the metric comparable across sectors?
• Does the investment thesis explain how the ESG factor affects cash flows, risk or impact?
• Are targets time-bound, additional, verified and linked to accountability?

6. Greenwashing, integrity and accountability

Greenwashing occurs when environmental or social claims create a misleading impression about actual performance, products, impacts or the use of proceeds. It can arise through selective disclosure, vague language, favorable denominators, unverified offsets, unrealistic targets or failure to report negative results.

A credible sustainability claim should be:

• specific about the activity, boundary, baseline and time period;
• supported by evidence and a recognized measurement methodology;
• comparable and balanced, including material adverse information;
• subject to appropriate assurance;
• linked to governance, capital expenditure and executive accountability.

The distinction between intensity and absolute emissions is particularly important. Emissions per unit of output may fall while total emissions rise if production expands. Similarly, a project may be labeled “green” because it uses some renewable energy while its full life-cycle effects remain harmful.

Offsetting requires additional scrutiny. A claimed credit should represent additional action, credible measurement, permanence, low leakage and no double counting. In many cases, direct emissions reduction is more reliable than purchasing offsets. Marketing should not imply that residual emissions have been eliminated when they have merely been compensated under uncertain assumptions.

7. Ethics, conflicts of interest and governance

Ethical capital budgeting concerns both outcomes and process. A technically sophisticated model can still support an unethical decision if assumptions are manipulated, affected stakeholders are excluded or inconvenient evidence is suppressed.

7.1 Common conflicts of interest

Conflicts may arise when:

• project sponsors receive bonuses for approval or rapid completion;
• consultants are paid by the party whose claims they assess;
• a fund manager seeks an ESG label to attract capital;
• directors have commercial relationships with suppliers;
• analysts face pressure to use favorable carbon prices or discount rates;
• management reports targets without disclosing changes in boundaries.

Conflicts should be disclosed, managed and, where necessary, removed through independent review.

7.2 Governance controls

Effective controls include:

1. separation of project sponsorship from independent financial and impact review;
2. documented assumptions, version control and audit trails;
3. sensitivity analysis for carbon prices, terminal values and social-impact parameters;
4. stakeholder consultation proportionate to impact and risk;
5. board oversight of material sustainability risks and capital allocation;
6. remuneration linked to verified outcomes rather than only announced targets;
7. whistleblowing channels and protection from retaliation;
8. post-investment review comparing actual impacts with approval assumptions.

A “three lines” structure can be useful: management owns risks, specialist risk and sustainability functions challenge them, and internal audit independently tests controls. External assurance strengthens credibility but does not transfer management responsibility.

8. An integrated sustainable capital-budgeting process

A disciplined process can combine financial and non-financial analysis without hiding trade-offs:

Step 1: Define purpose and boundaries. Specify the project, decision horizon, affected stakeholders, emissions boundary and relevant laws.

Step 2: Establish the financial baseline. Forecast incremental revenue, operating costs, tax, working capital, capex, salvage value and financing effects. Avoid including sunk costs or financing flows in project cash flows when using a weighted-average cost of capital framework.

Step 3: Map impacts and dependencies. Identify emissions, resources, health, labor, rights, biodiversity and community effects, including supply-chain dependencies.

Step 4: Price material exposures. Apply actual regulatory prices, carefully selected internal prices and transparent shadow values. Keep monetized externalities separate from contractual cash flows.

Step 5: Build scenarios. Test transition, physical and demand assumptions. Include disruption, delay, impairment and adaptation costs.

Step 6: Evaluate alternatives. Compare redesign, abatement, electrification, location, timing, supplier choice and staged investment—not merely accept/reject the original proposal.

Step 7: Apply ethical and legal screens. Reject options that breach law, rights, safety thresholds or fiduciary and governance duties, even if their private NPV is positive.

Step 8: Make the decision transparent. Present financial NPV, scenario results, material impacts, distributional effects, uncertainties, mitigations and residual risks.

Step 9: Monitor and learn. Establish indicators, milestones, trigger points and post-completion review. An investment case is a set of accountable hypotheses, not a one-time document.

9. Illustrative case: NorthRiver Packaging

The following case is fictional and designed for educational use.

Background

NorthRiver Packaging is considering a $60 million facility to produce recyclable food containers. The project is expected to generate annual after-tax cash flow of $14 million for six years and a terminal cash flow of $10 million in year six. Its discount rate is 9%. The project would emit 35,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent annually. It would also consume significant water in a region already experiencing seasonal water stress.

Problem

The sponsor presents the project as “net-zero compatible” because it plans to purchase offsets. The investment committee is concerned that the offsets may not be additional, that water impacts are omitted and that a competing design using recycled feedstock has higher initial cost but lower emissions and water consumption.

Analysis

The conventional NPV is calculated as:

NPV = −60 + 14 × 4.4859 + 10 ÷ (1.09)⁶.

The six-year annuity factor at 9% is approximately 4.4859, and 10 ÷ (1.09)⁶ is approximately $5.96 million. Therefore, NPV is approximately:

−60 + 62.80 + 5.96 = $8.76 million.

Management tests a $75 per tonne internal carbon price increasing at 3% annually. Year-one carbon cost is $2.625 million. The project’s carbon-adjusted NPV falls materially; the exact amount depends on the timing convention and whether the price is treated as a real or nominal escalation. The committee requires the model to state that convention rather than mix a nominal escalation rate with real cash flows.

The alternative recycled-feedstock design requires $66 million initially, produces annual after-tax cash flow of $14.5 million, has the same terminal cash flow, emits 12,000 tonnes annually and uses 40% less water. It also has greater supply-chain quality risk. The committee therefore requests a staged procurement plan, supplier audits, water safeguards and a pilot before full construction.

Approach and solution

NorthRiver adopts four safeguards:

• it excludes uncertain offsets from the base-case “net-zero” claim and reports gross emissions;
• it applies a transparent internal carbon-price range and includes regulatory scenarios;
• it establishes a water-use threshold and a contingency plan for seasonal restrictions;
• it makes final investment conditional on supplier verification, worker-safety controls, community consultation and an independent review of the life-cycle assessment.

The company chooses the recycled-feedstock design subject to a pilot and stage-gate approval. The decision is not based solely on the highest point estimate of NPV. It reflects lower transition exposure, reduced water dependency, the option to learn before committing the full amount and stronger credibility of the environmental claim.

Learning points

First, a positive conventional NPV can conceal material externalities and transition risk. Second, offsets do not automatically convert gross emissions into credible net-zero performance. Third, responsible capital allocation compares redesigned alternatives and uses staged investment to manage uncertainty. Finally, ethical governance improves—not weakens—the quality of financial decisions by making assumptions contestable and consequences visible.

10. Challenges and limitations

Sustainable appraisal faces significant limitations:

• climate and social data may be incomplete, estimated or inconsistent;
• long-term forecasts are highly sensitive to discount rates and terminal assumptions;
• attribution is difficult when impacts occur across complex supply chains;
• monetization can obscure rights and distributional consequences;
• scenario probabilities are often judgmental;
• ESG ratings are not standardized and may reward disclosure rather than performance;
• sustainability objectives can conflict with short-term affordability, employment or investor returns;
• regulation and reporting standards continue to evolve.

These limitations do not justify ignoring sustainability. They require ranges, sensitivity analysis, transparent uncertainty, independent challenge and clear distinctions between facts, assumptions and judgments.

11. Technology, data and contemporary developments

Digital systems can improve emissions accounting, supplier traceability, physical-risk mapping and project monitoring. Artificial intelligence may identify anomalies in energy use, estimate missing data or test large scenario sets. However, AI-generated outputs inherit data and model bias, may create false precision and can obscure accountability. Material investment assumptions should remain explainable, reproducible and subject to human review.

Contemporary practice is moving toward more detailed climate-risk disclosure, assurance of sustainability information, transition-plan scrutiny, taxonomy-based classification and stronger anti-greenwashing enforcement. Firms should monitor applicable jurisdictional requirements rather than assume that one global reporting template satisfies every legal obligation.

Chapter Summary

Sustainable capital budgeting extends conventional NPV analysis by considering climate risk, externalities, stakeholder effects and ethical constraints. Carbon pricing can make emissions visible in project cash flows, but regulatory prices, internal prices, social shadow prices and offset prices have different meanings. Climate scenarios test resilience under alternative transition and physical-risk pathways; they are not automatically forecasts and should not be assigned arbitrary probabilities.

Environmental and social impact assessment maps project activities to stakeholder consequences. Monetization can support comparison but cannot replace rights-based safeguards or qualitative thresholds. ESG information is useful only when its scope, materiality, data quality and causal link to value are understood. Greenwashing is controlled through specific claims, credible boundaries, verified data, balanced disclosure and accountability for outcomes.

Responsible capital allocation requires transparent assumptions, conflict management, independent challenge, stakeholder engagement, scenario analysis, alternative design and post-investment monitoring. The central managerial principle is integration: financial returns, resilience, impact and ethical legitimacy should be evaluated together, while uncertainty and unavoidable trade-offs remain explicit.

Key Terms

Carbon-adjusted NPV: NPV incorporating specified carbon costs or shadow prices.

Carbon price: Monetary value assigned to one tonne of CO₂-equivalent emissions.

Climate scenario: Internally coherent assumptions about future climate, policy, technology and economic conditions.

Double materiality: Assessment of both how sustainability issues affect the firm and how the firm affects society and the environment.

ESG: Environmental, social and governance information used in analysis and oversight.

Externality: Cost or benefit imposed on a party not fully reflected in a transaction price.

Greenwashing: Misleading presentation of environmental or social performance.

Impact materiality: Significance of an organization’s effects on people and the environment.

Internal carbon price: Management price used to test or guide investment decisions.

Physical risk: Risk arising from climate hazards such as floods, heat or water stress.

Real option: Value of managerial flexibility to defer, expand, abandon or alter an investment.

Scope boundary: Defined organizational, operational and value-chain limits of measurement.

Shadow price: Estimated value used when a market price is absent, distorted or inadequate.

Social NPV: Present value of social benefits and costs, including relevant externalities.

Stakeholder value: Value considered across parties affected by a firm’s decisions.

Transition risk: Risk from policy, technology, market and preference changes during economic transition.

Additionality: Requirement that a claimed environmental benefit would not have occurred without the intervention.

Double counting: Crediting the same environmental reduction or benefit more than once.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Distinguish shareholder value, stakeholder value and social value.
2. Why are regulatory carbon prices and social shadow prices not interchangeable?
3. Explain the difference between transition risk and physical risk.
4. What is greenwashing, and identify two ways it can arise?
5. Why should an investment committee use sensitivity analysis for sustainability assumptions?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a firm can incorporate carbon pricing into capital budgeting while avoiding double counting.
2. Discuss the role and limitations of climate scenario analysis in strategic investment decisions.
3. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of monetizing environmental and social impacts.
4. Design a governance framework for managing ESG-related conflicts of interest.
5. Compare ESG integration, exclusion, thematic investment and impact investment.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A project has positive conventional NPV but becomes negative when an internal carbon price is applied. Explain the possible decision responses beyond immediate rejection.
2. Construct three climate scenarios for a water-intensive manufacturing investment and identify the cash-flow drivers that should change in each scenario.
3. Using the NorthRiver Packaging case, recommend whether the committee should approve the original design, approve the alternative design, or defer the decision. Justify your recommendation using financial, environmental, strategic and ethical criteria.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which expression correctly represents carbon cost when emissions are measured in tonnes and price in currency per tonne?

A. Cᶜₜ = Eₜ ÷ Pᶜₜ

B. Cᶜₜ = Eₜ × Pᶜₜ

C. Cᶜₜ = Pᶜₜ − Eₜ

D. Cᶜₜ = Eₜ + Pᶜₜ

Correct Answer: B. Cᶜₜ = Eₜ × Pᶜₜ

Question 2

What is the principal purpose of climate scenario analysis?

A. To guarantee an accurate prediction of future emissions

B. To replace all financial forecasting

C. To test project performance under coherent alternative futures

D. To eliminate uncertainty from investment decisions

Correct Answer: C. To test project performance under coherent alternative futures

Question 3

Which example is a transition risk?

A. A flood damaging a production facility

B. A heatwave reducing worker productivity

C. A new carbon regulation increasing operating costs

D. A drought reducing water availability

Correct Answer: C. A new carbon regulation increasing operating costs

Question 4

A project emits 10,000 tonnes annually and the internal carbon price is $40 per tonne. What is the annual internal carbon cost?

A. $250

B. $4,000

C. $40,000

D. $400,000

Correct Answer: D. $400,000

Question 5

Why should an ESG rating not be treated as a complete project assessment?

A. Ratings always measure only accounting profit

B. Providers may use different definitions, weights and data

C. Ratings cannot contain any environmental information

D. Ratings are legally prohibited in investment analysis

Correct Answer: B. Providers may use different definitions, weights and data

Question 6

Which practice most directly reduces greenwashing risk?

A. Using broad claims without defining boundaries

B. Reporting only favorable environmental indicators

C. Using specific, evidenced and appropriately assured claims

D. Replacing direct reductions with unlimited offsets

Correct Answer: C. Using specific, evidenced and appropriately assured claims

Question 7

What does double materiality require?

A. Using two discount rates for every project

B. Assessing both effects on the firm and effects of the firm

C. Counting each emission twice for conservatism

D. Valuing only impacts that have market prices

Correct Answer: B. Assessing both effects on the firm and effects of the firm

Question 8

Which governance control best addresses a project sponsor’s incentive to overstate ESG benefits?

A. Allowing the sponsor to approve its own impact assessment

B. Removing all documentation requirements

C. Independent review and disclosure of assumptions and conflicts

D. Basing approval solely on the sponsor’s narrative

Correct Answer: C. Independent review and disclosure of assumptions and conflicts

Question 9

Why might a staged investment have value under climate uncertainty?

A. It guarantees that the project will be profitable

B. It preserves flexibility to learn and alter later commitments

C. It eliminates the need for scenario analysis

D. It makes environmental impacts irrelevant

Correct Answer: B. It preserves flexibility to learn and alter later commitments

Question 10

In the NorthRiver case, why was purchasing offsets insufficient to support a credible net-zero claim?

A. Offsets are always illegal

B. Offsets may lack additionality, permanence or non-duplication

C. Offsets increase direct emissions by definition

D. Offsets cannot have any financial value

Correct Answer: B. Offsets may lack additionality, permanence or non-duplication