139 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 Submitted 03/2018 Accepted for publication 07/2018 European Integration Studies No. 12 / 2018 pp. 139-147 DOI 10.5755/j01.eis.0.12.20849 Main Motivators of Social Audit: Case of Estonia EIS 12/2018 Abstract Main Motivators of Social Audit: Case of Estonia http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.12.20849 Chrislin Nestra Estonian Tax and Customs Board Natalja Gurvitsh Tallinn University of Technology In recent years the growing importance of sustainable development has been widely recognized world- wide. Organizations actively implement social and environmentally sustainable work practices in their business strategy. The growing concern from the stakeholders for the transparency and social respon- sibility has put more focus on social audit as an important tool of measurement of social and environ- mental performance of organizations. Various studies revealed importance and numerous benefits of social audit in different countries (Berthin, 2011; Ahmed 2012; Brown-Liburd & Zamora, 2014; Casey & Grenier, 2014). However less is known about the social audit in Estonia and this study fills a gap in determining its current stage and perspectives of future development. The aim of this paper is to identify the reasons why Estonian are not very active in conducting social audit and what would be the main motivators for this procedure. Authors conducted a survey among the largest tax paying companies in Estonia. The questionnaire was sent to 800 companies and 122 responses were collected. Results of the study revealed an interest towards social audit among the surveyed companies however only 15 of them (12%) conduct social audit. In authors opinion the reason of the low number of performing companies is the certain difficulties experienced by companies while obtaining social audit related information. The main reasons of conducting social audit outlined by respondents were their desire to demon- strate their responsibility towards society (67%) and the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the business activity of the company on different groups of stakeholders (60%); while the main reasons on non-conducting appeared to be lack of information about such opportunity (42%), lack of interest (20%) and lack of popularity in Estonia (28%). The main motivators which would push companies to perform social audit were identified as financial performance-related benefits (41%) and the growing public pressure (44%). The findings of the survey have various implications. First, they emphasize that there is an interest towards social audit among Estonian companies, which will continue growing in the coming years as stated by respondents. Seconds, that more attention and support should be pro- vided from the state and the audit companies to ensure the sustainable development of the Estonian business community. KEYWORDS: CSR, sustainable development, social audit, measurement, social and environmental practices. E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 140 In recent years the growing importance of sustainable development has been widely recognized worldwide. Organizations actively implement social and environmentally sustainable work prac- tices in their business strategy. The growing interest of the society towards social and environ- mental activities of companies in general and their impact on different groups of stakeholders in particular has created the world of Corporate Social Responsibility accounting and reporting. According to Nikolaeva & Bicho (2011) this growth is partially contributed to the CSR media visibility of the company and its CSR publicity policy. More and more attention is paid nowadays to the reputation of company and its non-financial performance which in turn results in sustain- able performance and creates a beneficial business environment. The growing concern from the stakeholders for the transparency and social responsibility has put more focus on social audit as an important tool of measurement of social and environmental performance of organizations. And while CSR reporting is highly implemented by most companies, widely used its benefits are non-deniable, the verification of such reports and CSR related activities – social audit is still gaining its popularity and public recognition. A corporate social audit can be defined as assessment of company’s performance on corpo- rate social responsibility objectives. It also evaluates measurable goals intended to help busi- ness meet the expectations of various stakeholder groups regarding social and environmental responsibilities (What is a Corporate Audit..., 2018). Various studies revealed importance and numerous benefits of social audit in different countries (Berthin, 2011; Ahmed 2012; Casey & Grenier, 2014). However social audit is still not very popular in Estonia (Navross et al., 2016) and less is known about its current situation and perspectives of future development in this country and this study fills a gap in determining its current stage and perspectives of future development. Therefore, authors considered it worth attention to investigate the main reasons of this phenom- enon. Authors believe that main reasons of non-performance of social audit is the complexity, lack of interest from the companies’ side and lack of relevant information about the procedure in general. Authors also suggest that such factors as lack of qualified specialists, unclear benefits of performance of social audit also have an impact on the low popularity of social audit among Estonian companies. The main purpose of this study is to identify the reasons why Estonian are not very active in con- ducting social audit and what would be the main motivators for this procedure. To achieve the goal author have set up research tasks to provide and overview of the current situation on social audit and to reveal the opinion of Estonian companies. Therefore, authors have chosen a quanti- tative research method – survey, which was conducted among the largest tax paying companies in Estonia. The questionnaire was sent to 800 companies and 122 responses were collected. Results of the study revealed an interest towards social audit among the surveyed companies however only 15 of them (12%) conduct social audit. The main reasons of conducting social audit outlined by respondents were their desire to demonstrate their responsibility towards society and the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the business activity of the company on different groups of stakeholders; while the main reasons on non-conducting appeared to be lack of in- formation about such opportunity, lack of interest, and lack of popularity in Estonia. The main motivators which would push companies to perform social audit were identified as financial performance-related benefits and the growing public pressure. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: after the linkage of the research topic to cur- rent literature, authors provide a practical insight into the performance of social audit by Estonian companies identifying the main reasons and associated benefits. Furthermore, authors present the results of the survey conducted among the largest Estonian taxpaying companies, which are taken as a basis for concluding remarks. Introduction 141 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 The growing popularity of CSR has gained international recognition and resulted in a various so- cially responsible initiatives which has led the substantial contribution to the nation in general (The Fundamentals..,2015). Companies have started voluntary adopt CSR reporting practices; making the level of such disclosures may have a significant impact of the perception of stakeholders and the reputation of the company (Odriozola & Baraibar‐Diez, 2017). The findings of Dhaliwal et al. (2012) suggest that the „issuance of standalone CSR reports is associated with lower analyst fore- cast error“ and contributes to the increasing level of trust of stakeholders. Thus, verification of such reports has become extremely important inspiring an increasing number of companies to assess their performance on a systematic basis (Henriques, 2002) and determine the current way of actions (Wirsig, 1978). According to According to the KPMG survey (2017) during the last 12 years assurance among the G250 companies has more than doubled, meaning that 67% of the reports are now verified, which is driven by both management and benefits gained by different groups of stakeholders (Owusu & Frimpong, 2012). The data of KPMG (2017) survey also suggests that as- surance rates increase more rapidly in the countries with the high level of CSR reporting. Previous studies identify the positive impact of the assurance of CSR reports on the quality of the disclosures (Moroney et al., 2012), investors decisions in general (Cheng et al., 2015) and their desire to invest into such companies (Shen, Wu & Chand, 2017). Numerous studies also sug- gest that companies willing to enhance the credibility and reputation would have performed the social audit procedure (Simnett et al., 2009), as the credibility of CSR reports is higher after the assurance (Pflugrath, Roebuck & Simnett, 2011) also contributing to the increasing the trust of stakeholders (Viehöver, Türk & Vaseghi, 2015). This is also confirmed by Bagnoli & Watts (2017), whose results indicate that companies more sensitive and caring about their social activities would seek for external high-level assurance. It is also important to note that while no strict criteria in regard to the verification body exists, and as- surance can be either external or internal, being performed by either professional accounting special- ist or representative from other company or provided by the BIG 4, the studies indicate that the choice of assurance specialist really matters as the quality of assurance highly depends on the provider (Perego & Kolk, 2012). Studies of Hodge et al. (2009) reveal that users “would place more confidence in the reports provided by top tier accountancy firm than by a specialist consultant”, these findings are also confirmed by studies of Mock et al. (2007) and Perego (2009). Studies of Sierra, et al., 2013 also reveal that while the choice of assurance company largely depends on the size and profitability of the company this market is still dominated by the Big-4 companies. It should also be noted that while companies recognize the benefits of assurance the non-assured companies are often quite reluctant to implement this procedure referring to the high cost of the procedure (Park & Brorson, 2005), time consuming and the complexity of the process (Jones & Solomon, 2010). All the above mentioned created a challenging path for the further research and inspired authors to investigate what is currently happening in Estonia, whether companies are ready to adopt the social audit concept or still costs outweigh the benefits. Literature review The authors have conducted a survey among 800 largest taxpaying companies in Estonia report- ed by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board as of the year 2016 via Google Forms during 14.11 – 23.12.2016 (email addresses were found by authors via internet and the websites of the se- lected companies). The questionnaires were also distributed via accounting professional group on Facebook. To identify flaws and possible misunderstandings in the questionnaire the pilot survey was also arranged: the questionnaire was sent to persons involved in accounting and au- diting activities, whose comments were incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire. Target companies were reached via email and 122 replies were collected in total. Table 1 illus- trates the selected sample of the surveyed companies regarding their main business activity. Research design E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 142 Status Sample Field of Activity Manufacturing 27 Wholesale and retail trade; Repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 21 Public administration and defence; Compulsory social security 14 Human health and social work activities 11 Transportation and storage 10 Construction 9 Information and communication 6 Other service activities 5 Administrative and support service activities 4 Financial and insurance services 4 Professional, scientific and technical activities 2 Arts, entertainment and recreation 2 Electricity, gas, steam and air condition supply 1 Education 1 Accommodation and food service activities 1 Real estate activities 1 Mining and quarrying 1 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 1 Total 122 Employees in a company ≤ 50 56 51 to 250 20 >250 46 Total 122 Years of operation 1-3 7 4-6 2 7-10 5 >10 108 Total 122 Socially responsibility of companies (on their opinion) Yes 115 No 7 Total 122 Performance of social audit in the company Yes 15 No 107 Total 122 Table 1 Data of the surveyed organizations Source: Authors’ 143 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 The questionnaire was amended by the cover letter explaining that the survey would take approx- imately 10-15 minutes, all replies would be made anonymous and the results will be analysed and presented as a summary. The questionnaire consisted of either both multiple choice and Lik- ert-scale ranked questions, either 14 or 12 questions depending on the performance of social audit by the company. First three questions were related to general information about the company, while next four aimed to identify what does the “social responsibility” mean for companies, who are the main stakeholders interested in the performance of social audit, whether company considers itself socially responsible and performs social audit. The following five questions were answered by companies performing social audit and aimed to find out the main flaws and benefits related to this process. While the non-performing companies were asked about the main reasons that would engage them into the social audit procedure and what would be the main benefits of this process. At last companies were asked to express their opinion on the future growth of the social audit in Estonia. This information was compiled and analysed based on the survey questions. Statement S tr o ng ly di sa g re e D is ag re e A g re e S tr o ng ly ag re e N o t ab le to a ns w er I understand what „social responsibility„ means. 2 9 46 39 4 I understand what „social audit„ means. 11 28 38 17 6 Society awareness on social audit in Estonia is high. 42 42 4 1 11 I consider it necessary to perform social audit in Estonian companies. 9 20 43 10 18 Social auditing in Estonia should be supported by the state. 12 16 39 16 17 Social audit merits more attention in the mass media. 5 14 43 25 13 I would like to get more information about the process of social audi- ting, main strengths and weaknesses in order to make a decision on the necessity of social audit. 2 12 41 37 8 It is easy to obtain information about social audit in Estonia. 18 52 8 2 20 The interest towards social audit among Estonian companies will grow in the coming years 3 19 37 17 24 The regulation of social audit by the law would make the process social reporting easier, more transparent and clearer to everybody 11 19 40 18 12 In order to give a better overview of the activity of the company social audit could be a part of financial audit; main stakeholders are also the same in both cases. 31 23 28 8 10 Source: Authors’ Table 2 Respondents opinion on social audit in Estonia (% of respondents) Results The present section summarizes main findings, which in authors opinion are most important and worth attention. According to the results of the survey it was revealed that main words associated with the defi- nition of social audit appeared to be “ethics and values” - 90% (110 respondents); “transparency and disclosure” - 59% (72); “environmental responsibility” -53% (65); “human rights” - 52%, (64); and “reporting” - 22% (27). Other 3 respondents have chosen the words “social mobility”, “social justice” and “availability of main services”. Main stakeholders identified by companies as the ones interested in performance of social audit appeared to be: society - 84%, employees -66%, business partners – 55%, clients – 54%, shareholders – 44% and suppliers – 39%. In the table 2 there are listed the respondents’ rankings of the benefits associated with social audit. It should be noted that most respondents consider themselves well aware of what is social audit and social responsibility, while consider the general awareness on social audit in Estonia quite low. E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 144 The following tables 3 and 4 present an analysis of replies from companies performing social audit, it is also important that out of 15 companies performing social audit seven claimed to have a special person dealing with this matter. As becomes evident from the table 3 the main reasons of performing social audit turned out to be desiring to demonstrate the responsibility and values of the company as well as to have a clear idea of how its activities influence various groups of stakeholders, while the satisfaction of clients seems to be least motivating factor. This in turn resulted in the increasing interest from the stakeholders’ side and high public respect and recognition as seen from table 4. Reason No. of respondents % of respondents Desire to demonstrate the values and responsibility of the company 10 67 Desire to evaluate the impact of the activity of the company on different groups of stakeholders 9 60 Desire to improve the decision-making processes of the company 7 47 Desire to increase the transparency of the company’s activity 6 40 The decision was made by the parent company 5 33 In order to achieve the satisfaction of clients 7 Table 3 The main reasons of performing social audit by the respondents (the respondents were allowed to choose several options) Source: Authors’ Impact No. of respondents % of respondents Increase of the interest towards the company from the stakeholders’ side 11 73 Gained public respect and recognition 8 53 Gained new knowledge and experience 7 47 Positive impact on the financial indicators of the company’s activity 3 20 No positive impact observed 2 13 Other: new clients, client’s satisfaction etc. 2 13 Table 4 TThe main positive influence experienced by the company as a result of the social audit (the respondents were allowed to choose several options) Source: Authors’ Companies were also asked to name negative impacts of the performance of social audit (if any) and could choose several options. As a result, companies claimed that the process was too costly (2 replies) and time consuming (6 replies). The other part of the questionnaire was dedicated to 107 companies currently not performing social audit, the results are presented in tables 5 and 6. As becomes evident from the table 5 the main reasons of non-performing social audit turned out to non-awareness of such option, non-popularity of social audit in Estonia in general and lack of interest among companies. As clearly illustrated by table 6 among the positive benefits associated with possible future per- formance of social audit companies selected their desire to demonstrate the responsibility and values of the company as well as possibility to evaluate the impact of its activities on various groups of stakeholders 145 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 Impact No. of respondents % of respondents Not aware of this option 44 41 Not popular in Estonia 30 28 Lack of interest from the company’s side 21 20 Other reasons: not ready for this process; not necessary for the company; plans to perform it in future, not in our priority list now etc. 18 19 Costly and time-consuming process 19 18 It is difficult to find qualified specialists to perform social audit in Estonia 12 11 Lack of positive impact associated with this process 2 2 Table 5 The main reasons of non-performing social audit (the respondents were allowed to choose several options) Source: Authors’ Impact No. of respondents % of respondents Demonstrates values and responsibility of the company 72 67 Better evaluation of the impact of company’s activities on different stakeholders 49 46 Positive impact on society 47 44 Increase in transparency of the company 34 32 Improves decision making processes in the company 24 22 Positive impact on environment 18 17 No positive impact associated with social audit 12 11 Source: Authors’ Table 5 Possible positive impact associated with social audit by non-performing companies (the respondents could choose several options) The companies were also asked what would force them to perform social audit and among the most frequently chosen reasons (respondents could choose several options) appeared the pres- sure from the stakeholders’ side (44%) and the improvement of the financial performance of the company (41%). Conclusions and discussion The results of the research revealed that the general awareness of the social audit in Esto- nia is not on a very high level. However, companies are interested in social audit but found it difficult to obtain related information. As seen by companies this gap maybe filled by linking social audit with financial audit procedure. The authors are also of the opinion that in case audit companies provide and promote this service as a package it would inspire higher interest and concern among different organizations. From the research it is also evident that social audit is an important tool in evaluating the performance of companies and increases transparency of business. All respondents also unanimously agreed that this procedure adds value to the image of the company and delivers a clear message of its responsibility to the stakeholders. The main obstacles of performing social audit appeared to be its non-popularity in Estonia and as already stated above low awareness among companies. _ The findings of the survey have various implications: E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 146 _ First, they emphasize that there is an interest towards social audit among Estonian companies, which will continue growing in the coming years as stated by respondents. _ Second, more attention and support should be provided from the state and the audit compa- nies to ensure the sustainable development of the Estonian business community. In authors opinion, it would make sense to promote education on social audit in different High Educational Institutions of Estonia as well as to organize various trainings and workshops. Authors are aware of the limitations of the present survey: the sample of the selected companies is quite narrow; however, in future authors consider it useful and interesting to conduct the survey among companies performing financial audit to reveal their opinion. References Ahmed, ACA, Asif, Social and Environmental Audit- ing; Some Basic Concept (October 25, 2012). http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2164550 Bagnoli, M. and Watts, S. G. (2017). Voluntary As- surance of Voluntary CSR Disclosure. J Econ Man- age Strat, 26: 205-230. doi:10.1111/jems.12171 https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12171 Berthin, G. (2011). A Practical Guide to Social Audit as a Participatory Tool to Strengthen Democrat- ic Governance, Transparency and Accountability. Retrieved May 06, 2018, from http://www.latina- merica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/ democratic_governance/guiaauditoriasocial.html Brown‐Liburd, H., & Zamora, V. L. (2015). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to CSR performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 75–96. https:// doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50813 Casey, R., Grenier, J.H. (2014). Understanding and Contributing to the Enigma of Corporate Social Re- sponsibility (CSR) Assurance in the United States. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Forth- coming. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2172519 Cheng, M., Green, W. J., & Ko, J. C. W. (2015). The impact of strategic relevance and assurance of sustainability indicators on investors’ decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 131–162. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50738 Dhaliwal, D.S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., Yang, Y.G . (2012). Nonfinancial Disclosure and Analyst Forecast Accuracy: International Evidence on Cor- porate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Accounting Review, 87, 723-759.DOI: 10.2308/accr-10218 Henriques, A. (2002). Civil society and social au- diting. Business Ethics,10, 40-44. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8608.00210 Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N. & Stewart, J. (2009). Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Impact on Re- port Users’ Confidence and Perceptions of Informa- tion Credibility. Australian Accounting Review, 19: 178-194. doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2009.00056.x Jones M, Solomon J. (2010). Social and environ- mental report assurance: some interview evi- dence. Accounting Forum 34: 20–31. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.accfor.2009.11.002 KPMG (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Re- sponsibility Reporting 2017. Retrieved May 06, 2018, from: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/ kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corpo- rate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf Mock, T. J., Strohm, C. & Swartz, K. M. (2007), An Examination of Worldwide Assured Sustainability Reporting. Australian Accounting Review, 17: 67- 77. doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2007.tb00455.x Moroney, R., Windsor, C. & Aw, Y. T. (2012). Evidence of assurance enhancing the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: an empirical analysis. Accounting & Finance, 52: 903-939. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-629X.2011.00413.x Navross, K., Gurvits, N., Nikitina-Kalamae, M. (2016). Social Audit in Estonia: Present Situation and Trends of Future Development. In: Anglo-American University/ Anglo-americká vysoka škola, o.p.s. (Ed.). IFRS: Global Rules&Local Use. Proceed- ings of the 4th International Scientific Conference (129−135). Retrieved May 06, 2018, from: http:// car.aauni.edu/wp-content/uploads/Proceedings- from-the-AAU-Conference-IFRS-Prague-2016.pdf Nikolaeva R, Bicho M. (2011). The role of institution- al and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting stan- dards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39: 136–157. doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0214-5 Odriozola, M. D., and Baraibar-Diez, E. (2017) Is Corporate Reputation Associated with Quality of CSR Reporting? Evidence from Spain. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt., 24: 121–132. doi: 10.1002/csr.1399. 147 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 Owusu, C., Frimpong, S. (2012). Corporate Social and Environmental Audit: Perceived Responsibility or Regulatory Requirement? Research Journal of Finance and Accounting. 3. 47-56. Park J, Brorson T. (2005). Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of corporate en- vironmental and sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 1095–1106. doi: 10.1016/j. jclepro.2004.12.006 Perego P. (2009). Causes and consequences of choosing different assurance providers: an interna- tional study of sustainability reporting. Internation- al Journal of Management 26(3): 412–425. Perego P, Kolk A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: the evolution of third‐party assur- ance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics 110: 173–190. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5 Pflugrath, G., Roebuck, P., Simnett, R. (2011). Impact of Assurance and Assurer’s Professional Affiliation on Financial Analysts’ Assessment of Credibility of Corporate Social Responsibility Information. Audit- ing- a Journal of Practice & Theory, 30, 239-254. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10047 Shen H, Wu H, Chand P. (2017). The impact of corpo- rate social responsibility assurance on investor de- cisions: Chinese evidence. Int J Audit.;21:271–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12094 Sierra, L., Zorio, A. & García‐Benau, M. A. (2013). Sustainable Development and Assurance of Cor- porate Social Responsibility Reports Published by Ibex‐35 Companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt., 20: 359-370. doi:10.1002/csr.1303 Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F..(2009). As- surance on Sustainability Reports: An International Comparison. Accounting Review, 84, 937-967. DOI: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 The Fundamentals and Evolution of CSR. (2015). In CSR Strategies, S. Urip (Ed.). doi:10.1002/9781119199595.ch3 Viehöver, M. G., Türk, V. & Vaseghi, S. (2015). CSR Assurance in Practice: Measuring and a Uditing Sustainability. In Responsible Business (eds M. Pohl and N. Tolhurst). doi:10.1002/9781119206156.ch6 What Is a Corporate Social Audit? by Neil Kokemuller. Retrieved May 06, 2018, from: http:// smallbusiness.chron.com/corporate-social-au- dit-20345.html Wirsig, W. (1978), A social‐audit bridge to future business success. New Directions for Program Zorio, A., García‐Benau, M. A. & Sierra, L. (2013). Sustainability Development and the Quality of As- surance Reports: Empirical Evidence. Bus. Strat. Env., 22: 484-500. doi:10.1002/bse.1764 NESTRA CHRISLIN MA Estonian Tax and Customs Board Fields of research interests CSR, Social Audit Address Lõõtsa 8a, 15176 Tallinn, Estonia E-mail: chrislin.nestra@gmail.com About the authors GURVITSH NATALJA PhD Tallinn University of Technology Fields of research interests CSR, Social Audit, Accounting and Business Ethics Address Ehitajate tee 5, 19086, Tallinn, Estonia E-mail: natalja.gurvits@ttu.ee