 We are back towards corporate governance and reaching nearly the end of the module. In the previous sessions, we were talking about the different options of the future of corporate governance and some very viable options, those options which would create a more globalised texture of corporate governance, more adaptability, more flexibility, more inclusion, more diversity and more options for organisations around the world through a implementable corporate governance model, more universally accepted. However, with all the fervour and energy to converge all the different systems together for a more universally accepted model, however, there are many complexities of reform. And that is what we are going to be looking at today, that due to these complexities, it is easier said than done. And even though a global or universal model can be created in paper, the implementation is going to be a very big challenge. So let us look at some of these complexity of reform. There will be a strenuous effort to secure commitment to the essential basis of trust. This will occur in countries with different cultures, legal systems and economic priorities. So again, what we are seeing right now is that after the Cold War and then the breakup of the Soviet Union, again we are seeing new economic polls emerging on a global level, the American, the European, the Russian and then the Chinese. These four new polls are emerging. Businesses are done in different cultures, they have different legal systems and definitely they have their own economic priorities. Resources are different, human resources are different, culture, tradition, values are different. And in all of that texture, we are trying to bring about a homogeneous model. It looks very nice but definitely it will be very complex and very difficult. And maybe the energy or the effort or the resources spent in unifying all of this would not be value for money and would not give that impact that it should. So therefore, these considerations are also very, very important to assume that all countries will adapt to the same corporate governance structures is unrealistic. It is likely that fundamental features of the European and Asian approaches to corporate governance will be maintained. So, yes, their contextualization can be maintained and yet within that, there can be lesser ambiguity and more homogeneity within the different systems. In these different complexities, we see differences will be perceived as part of the cultural integrity and economic dynasm of the national economy. Countries will adopt the important universal principles such as international accounting standards. So, there are many aspects which can be adopted, just like the international accounting standards. We can create more environmental, environmental protection standards, social accountability standards. These can be created and these can be adapted by the countries according to the international standards, according to international auditing and according to international certification. They can be achieved and they can be maintained and that would create that homogeneity within the global contextualization of the different corporations. So, that is also very important. This part of evolving and this dynamic complexity of corporate life in which both convergence and divergence are basically occurring simultaneously is over there. So, it is a matter of convergence but due to the complexities, there is also divergence. So, the future of corporate governance has to accommodate and assimilate the convergence and divergence and create a model which can be acceptable across the world. So, yet having their own national context but carrying a intrinsically implementable global flavor within the whole corporate governance model would actually minimize the complexities of reform taking place right now. So, if we look at this particular diagram, then what we can see is that these four different boxes basically are created and we see that on one side there is convergence, on the other side there is accountability and institutionalization and on the other side we see that there are different aspects. Now, what we see is that we talked about earlier the Chicago school and that is a market-based basically system and that is considered to be of higher priority because it would be driven by the markets but again there would be many differences. On the other side we see convergence, on another one we see divergence and then we see how these different models can be put together but based upon this matrix which has been created again the Chicago school is something which carries much more weight and within these complexities and within these different factors we come out with a universally acceptable corporate governance model and framework which is implemented across the board without any discrimination and that would be the way forward. Thank you so much.