Paper 1: There is an increasing acknowledgement of the limitations of cost- benefit analysis approaches as a measure of the (un)sustainability of organizational activities. This article introduces readers to developments within the accounting discipline designed to support sustainable development decision- making and evaluation. In particular, it proposes sustainability assessment models as a viable alternative to cost-benefit analysis. Sustainability assessment models are based on an inter-disciplinary approach that recognizes the need for "accountings that facilitate more participatory forms of decision-making and accountability. As such, they address many of the weaknesses in current approaches to cost-benefit analysis. Paper 2: Using institutional logics as a theoretical framework and interviews with 20 preparers from 14 large organisations listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (ISE), this paper focuses on examining differences in integrated reporting practices. The results test the hypothesis that market dominated firms have an internally focused approach to setting materiality which emphasises value-relevance for financial capital providers. Where logics are contested, materiality becomes an amalgamation of the factors which are important for shareholders and other stakeholders and essential for demonstrating compliance with codes of best practice. Organisations with market, professional and stakeholder logics aligned have the most sophisticated materiality determination processes. The emphasis shifts from lengthy reporting and compliance to providing a comprehensive account of the value creation process and how the business ensures long-term sustainability. In this way, how logics are instantiated may explain the considerable variation being observed in integrated reports. Required to answer: (1)For the above two papers, which one is normative accounting theory, which one is positive accounting theory? Why? (12 marks) (2) Is Paper 1 a critical theory? Why