Please read the article entitled “The Emerging Role of HR in the Boardroom.”

PEOPLE + STRATEGY36

By Julie J. Chen, Ph.D.

We conducted an online survey in partnership with the National Associa-tion of Corporate Directors (NACD). More than 100 directors who are either members or chairs of the compensation committee responded.
What we found was surprising. Despite all that has been written and studied from
HR’s perspective in recent years, directors—at least those who participated in our
survey—still view HR pretty much as they always have: a very transactional support
function that often does a terrific job on compensation and benefits, but one which
is not perceived as playing a more strategic role in the boardroom. The results
depict HR as still pigeon-holed in a very tight, tactical box, but viewed as generally
irrelevant or lacking in major influence when it comes to strategic issues that top
the board’s agenda.

To be sure, the results might well be skewed, to a certain extent, by the respon-
dent group provided to us by NACD—chairs and members of board compensation
committees. Nevertheless, the members of this committee almost always sit on other
board committees, as well as on the full board and, in the case of the chairs, on the
board executive committee. So it is highly unlikely that their sole interaction with
HR is through the compensation committee; ideally, they should be interacting with
HR in multiple settings on a wide variety of issues. If not—if their dealings with HR
are limited exclusively to compensation and benefit matters—that in itself is reason
for significant concern.

Numerous studies have surveyed
HR leaders about their views on the
board’s interest and engagement in
HR-related issues, and many articles
have suggested ways that HR can
aspire to increase its involvement and
influence in the boardroom. However, few
have asked similar questions from the
board’s perspective, a line of inquiry we
suspected might produce some thought-
provoking responses for directors, CEOs,
and CHROs as they seek answers to
some important questions:
• In what areas do directors think HR

should productively engage with the
board to provide the greatest value?

• How well is HR serving that role?
• Going forward, what would help

CHROs play that role more effectively?

The Emerging Role of
HR in the Boardroom

VOLUME 38 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2015 37

Results
Overall, our findings indicate that the majority of board
members gave their CHROs high ratings as functional
managers. Specifically:
• Seventy-one percent of directors rated the CHRO as

being a good or excellent leader of the HR function.
• More than two-thirds of directors (68 percent) rated the

CHRO as demonstrating consistently superb execution
by the HR function, and slightly fewer (64 percent) rated
the CHRO as demonstrating his or her standing as an
integral member of the senior management team.

• As might be expected— especially given the respon-
dent pool—directors rate HR as providing the greatest
value in employee compensation and benefits, as well as
executive compensation, with 65 percent of respondents
rating HR as providing good or very great value in both
areas.
Neverthless, the results indicate that directors view

the CHRO’s impact as fairly narrow, suggesting that most
CHROs have a long way to go before being viewed by their
board as a strategic partner:
• Fewer than one-third of respondents (31 percent) re-

ported that the CHRO has a good deal or great deal of
inf luence on the board’s decisions.

• Just over one-quarter of respondents (27 percent)
described HR’s role in relation to the board as being
fairly or primarily strategic in nature, while one-third
of respondents (33 percent) described it as being fairly
or primarily transactional. The remainder (40 percent)
described it as equally transactional and strategic.
In a 2008 SHRM study of HR professionals, only 6

percent of HR professionals described themselves as being
primarily strategic in nature, 61 percent as equally trans-
actional and strategic, and 33 percent as transactional; out
of the same group of HR professionals, 15 percent believed
the board of directors view HR as being primarily strate-
gic in nature (SHRM 2008). While our findings are more
favorable than those, and indicate that some directors con-

Methodology
In partnership with the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), we invited approximately 1,000 directors who are either members or
chairs of the compensation committee to participate in an online survey consisting of 62 closed-ended items on five-point scales and one open-ended
question; we received responses from over 100 directors. Approximately two-thirds of the 103 respondents (64 percent) serve on boards of public
companies, while the rest (36 percent) serve on boards of private companies. More than half of participants (59 percent) are on boards of mid-size
companies ($300 million to $5 billion), just under one-quarter (23 percent) serve on boards of smaller companies (less than $300 million), and just
under one-fifth (18 percent) serve on boards of larger companies (over $5 billion). More than half of participants (61 percent) are members of the
compensation committee, while the remaining participants (39 percent) are chairs of the compensation committee.

TYPE OF COMPANY

Public

Private

64%

36%

ROLE

Member of the Compensation Committee

Chair of the Compensation Committee

61%

39%

SIZE OF THE COMPANY
(in annual revenue)

Smaller (Less than $300 Million)

Mid-size ($300 Million – $5 Billion)

Larger (Over $5 Billion)

23%59%

18%

SURVEY ITEM
Overall, how effective is the CHRO as the leader of the HR function?

Rating Distribution

8%

Very Poor/Poor

8%

21%

Average

21%

71%

Good/Excellent

71%

Most CHROs have a long way
to go before being viewed by their

board as a strategic partner.

PEOPLE + STRATEGY38

sider their CHRO to play an inf luential and strategic role
in relation to the board, most still do not, and this stands
in contrast to the literature published in the years since, in-
dicating that CHROs are interacting more with the board,
need to play a more pivotal role in impacting the business,
and must step up to the responsibility of being a strategic
partner (Creelman & Lambert, 2012; Dunn 2008; Gross-
man 2007; The Korn/Ferry Institute 2013; Kristie 2009;
KPMG 2009; Stockton, van Berkel, Bowman & Lissak, 2013;
Vosburgh 2010; Wright, Nyberg, Schepker, & Ulrich 2013).

Particularly when it comes to the topic of risk, which
tops nearly every list of board concerns, HR leaders are
missing what might well be one of their biggest opportuni-
ties to have a serious impact on the board’s work:
• Only 12 percent of respondents rated HR as providing

good or great value to the board when it comes to risk
management.

• Only 35 percent of respondents reported that their
CHRO ensures that talent considerations are integral to
the board’s consideration of enterprise risk.
Given how much boards are focused on risk these days,

these findings are especially concerning.
(Our survey found that 82 percent of di-
rectors rated the chief risk officer’s role as
being more or significantly more important
than it was five years ago.) Furthermore, the
board really isn’t even thinking about risk
in HR terms. Even though only 12 percent
of respondents feel HR is providing good or
very great value to the board when it comes
to risk management, it also draws only tepid
interest in increased interaction; less than
half (46 percent) feel HR should be interact-
ing more with the board with regard to risk
management.

In other words, HR has failed to make
the case that talent is an essential issue in
risk considerations. And this is a problem
because anything that impacts an organiza-
tion’s ability to retain, attract, develop, or re-
ward talent to support its strategic business
goals will have serious effects on its bottom
line—whether from a strategic, operation-
al, financial, reputational, regulatory, or
legal standpoint. NACD has formed a Blue
Ribbon Commission on risk governance
recommending that directors understand
the specific risks facing the organizations
they serve, making sure that boards and
management have processes in place to
address these risks. Likewise, CHROs and
their CEOs must do their part in educating
boards that HR is a critical component in
the risk equation.

Further underscoring the point that
CHROs are missing important opportu-
nities to make an impact on boards is the
finding that more directors believe that the

CIO, CRO, CFO, and General Counsel have become more
important to the board’s work in the last five years than
the CHRO. The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) is the only
C-suite executive whose importance rating was lower than
the CHRO.

What else might account for some of this lessened
impact? CHROs are not seizing key opportunities to build
their own credibility with boards:
• Less than one-third of respondents (32 percent) report-

ed that their CHROs are keeping their boards informed
about innovations in the HR world that merit consider-
ation internally.

• Less than half of respondents (48 percent) said that
their CHRO articulates a comprehensive talent strategy
linked directly to the overall business strategy.
Bringing the board’s attention to best practices and

innovations in the HR world can be a relatively easy win in
helping HR leaders build their credibility with boards—
there are a number of professional associations available
that share research, information, and educational pro-
grams to keep members up-to-date on the full spectrum of

SURVEY ITEM
Overall, how would you describe the current nature of HR’s role in relation to your board?

Rating Distribution

11%

22%

Primarily
strategic

11%

22%

Primarily
transactional

Fairly
transactional

Equally
transactional
and strategic

Fairly
strategic

40%

21%

6%

SURVEY ITEM
What level of influence does the CHRO have on your board’s decisions?

Rating Distribution

Very little or
no influence

LIttle
influence

Some
Influence

A good deal of
influence

A great deal
of influence

7%

16%

46%

23%

7%

Very little or

7%

LIttle

16%

Some

46%

A good deal of

23%

A great deal

7%

VOLUME 38 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2015 39

HR practices. That external expertise, coupled with HR’s
intimate knowledge of the organization and being able to
clearly align talent with business and risk considerations,
creates a powerful combination to allow CHROs to provide
more strategic value to their boards.

There are also significant opportunities for CHROs to
contribute further to key areas of CEO succession plan-
ning, where the CHRO’s inf luence and involvement ought
to be substantial. Directors rate
the value currently provided by
HR in CEO succession planning to
be fairly low—only 37 percent of
respondents say that HR provides
good or great value in this area.
Furthermore, across all aspects of

CEO succession planning, the CHRO’s value to the board is
rated favorably by less than half of respondents, and rated
unfavorably by about one-third of respondents.

That is, when it comes to conducting objective candidate
assessments, helping with an external search, facilitating
a talent review discussion with the board, advising on the
overall succession process, creating candidate develop-
ment plans, ensuring board exposure to all candidates,
providing personal counseling to the CEO on emotional
aspects of succession and transition, advising on the timing
and logistics of the transition, and creating the profile of
the future CEO, fewer than half of respondents feel HR
is providing good or very great value in these areas. HR is
rated least favorably with regard to the latter two activities:
creating the profile of the future CEO (30 percent favor-
able; 41 percent unfavorable), and advising on timing and
logistics of the transition (39 percent favorable; 31 percent
unfavorable). As more boards take on leading roles in CEO
succession planning, they often start by seeking out expert
advice on how to design and implement an effective pro-
cess; the question is whether they will be looking to their
own CHROs for that kind of guidance, the first step toward
playing a major role throughout the process.

Employee compensation and benefits

Executive compensation

Leadership development and talent pipeline

Overall talent strategy

Organizational culture and climate

CEO succession

CED evaluation

Ethics/compliance/governance

Corporate social responsibility

Board succession planning, recruitment,
development, and coaching

Risk management

8%

44%

53%

38%

28%

42%

40%

19%

16%

15%

17%

27%

44%

22%

36%

39%

23%

23

32%

35%

31%

19%

65%

12%

25%

27%

34%

36%

37%

49%

49%

54%

Very little or
no value

Very great
value

Overall, how much value do you believe HR currently provides to your board in each of the following areas?

Survey Item Average Rating Distribution

3.82

3.77

3.66

3.48

3.48

2.98

2.94

3.13

2.88

2.51

2.58

Risk Management 14% 41% 46%

To what extent do you believe HR should be interacting with the board in each area?

To a very little/
no extent

To Some Extent To a good or
very great extent

HR has failed to make the case that
talent is an essential issue in risk

considerations. And this is a problem
because anything that impacts an

organization’s ability to retain, attract,
develop, or reward talent to support
its strategic business goals will have

serious effects on its bottom line.

54%

PEOPLE + STRATEGY40

CIO

CRO (Chief Risk Officer)

CFO

General Counsel

CMO

CHRO

18% 82%

1% 16% 82%

1% 31% 68%

1% 31% 68%

3% 30% 67%

4% 52% 45%4% 52% 45%

Please rate the importance of each function to your work as a board member, compared to what it was 5 years ago.

Survey Item Average Rating Distribution

4.18

4.18

4.05

3.96

Significantly
less important

Significantly
more important

3.48

3.83

To what extent does your CHRO strengthen his/her standing as a trusted advisor to the board by successfully:

Survey Item Average Rating Distribution

Avoiding presentations that overwhelm the board
with an excess of overly technical data

Demonstrating consistently superb execution
by the HR function

Demonstrating his/her standing as an integral
member of the senior management team

Exhibiting a board room presence that is
comfortable, confident and responsive

Deftly balancing the sometimes difficult tension
between providing independent judgment
without being disloyal to the CEO
Acting as an informed advocate with a distinct
and thoughtful point of view

Maintaining strong relationships with key
directors without overstepping any boundaries

Articulating a comprehensive talent strategy
linked directly to the overall business strategy

Ensuring that talent considerations are integral to
the board’s consideration of enterprise risk

Keeping the board informed about innovations in
the HR world that merit consideration internally

6%

8%

15%

14%

16%

15%

18%

16%

27%

28%

21%

23%

22%

25%

25%

28%

25%

36%

38%

40%

72%

68%

64%

61%

59%

57%

57%

48%

35%

32%

3.83

3.71

3.64

3.61

3.53

3.50

3.45

3.12

To a very
little extent

To a very
great extent

3.02

3.84

To repeat the cautionary note mentioned earlier: These
findings on CEO succession might possibly be a ref lection
of our respondent sample, which consisted of compensa-
tion committee members and chairs, rather than nominat-
ing and governance members and chairs. However, there
is usually enough of an overlap in membership between
the two committees that we are confident in these results
still being a directionally valid representation of directors’
attitudes toward HR’s role in the CEO succession planning
process.

We also collected information from directors on how
much interaction HR currently has with the board versus
how much interaction directors think HR should have with
the board; we then compared that gap against the areas

where directors feel there is greatest value in the interac-
tion. While board members would like to see more interac-
tion with HR across all areas, results show that: a) organiza-
tional culture and climate, b) leadership development and
talent pipeline, and c) overall talent strategy are the three
areas that directors value most highly where significantly
more interaction is desired.

When examining just the value ratings, only about half
of participants rate HR as providing good or very great
value when it comes to each of these areas: leadership
development and talent pipeline (54 percent), the overall
talent strategy (49 percent), and organizational culture and
climate (49 percent). These findings are fairly surprising,
as each of these areas is usually considered within HR’s

VOLUME 38 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2015 41

“sweet spot” where boards traditionally look to HR for
insight and where there is ample opportunity to take on a
more strategic role.

In contrast, employee compensation and benefits and
executive compensation are the areas that are valued most
highly where the current level of interaction is closest to
the level of desired interaction. Again, we find that risk
management is low on the board’s radar when it comes to
interacting with HR—it is rated as relatively low in val-
ue and board members are not looking for much more
interaction with HR. Similarly, board succession planning,
recruitment, development, and coaching, along with corpo-
rate social responsibility, are also valued relatively low and
where not much more interaction with HR is desired.

CHROs Need to Be More
Engaged, Less Transactional
Overall, these findings suggest that CHROs generally
are doing a good job of taking care of the transactional,
operational basics, and are viewed as performing well as
head of the function. At the same time, relatively few have
successfully reshaped their board’s traditional perceptions
of where and how the CHRO adds value; the role is seen
as largely transactional, seemingly operating in a vacuum
and unable to help the board make the essential connec-
tion between talent strategy and enterprise risk. Overall,
the CHRO’s inf luence with their boards is minimal, from
the perspective of: a) traditional areas where HR would
normally be expected to make a significant impact, and b)
where boards are focusing their energy these days.

CHROs need to be more engaged in the CEO succession
process, especially as boards become increasingly involved

in leading succession planning efforts. From the initial
stages of the process all the way to the end—initiating the
conversation about succession, identifying and developing
candidates, assessing candidates and selecting a successor,
planning the transition, and supporting the new CEO—the
CHRO should be playing a key role every step of the way.

CHROs can provide guidance in understanding and imple-
menting best practices, objectively assessing and developing
talent, and identifying the critical skills needed in a future
CEO to successfully lead the organization based on the
strategy and direction of the business. And when it comes
to grooming the next generation of senior leaders, boards
want to hear more from CHROs about leadership develop-
ment and the talent pipeline. To effectively do that, there
must be a focus on the overall talent strategy and ensuring
it is tied to the overall business strategy.

Results also indicate that organizational culture and cli-
mate is the area of greatest value where boards want more
interaction with HR. Typically, HR’s explicit involvement in
culture and climate comes in many different forms—em-

Rate the value HR provides to your board in each of the following aspects of CEO succession planning:

Survey Item Average Rating Distribution

Candidate development plans

Ensuring board exposure to all candidates

Personal counseling to CEO on emotional aspects of
succession and transition

Personal, candid assessment of candidates

Advising on timing and logistics of transition

Creating the profile of the future CEO

Very little or
no value

Very great
value

32% 25% 44%

37% 21% 42%

39% 19% 42%

32% 28% 40%

31% 31% 39%

41% 30% 30%

3.03

3.08

2.85

3.00

2.98

3.15

Advising on the overall process 34% 21% 45%3.16

Facilitation of talent review discussion with the board 31% 24% 45%3.22

Help with external search 35% 19% 46%3.11

Objective candidate assessments (including use of
outside resources)

33% 20% 47%3.21

Not only do directors need to
make sure they are considering
talent issues in managing risk, but
CHROs also need to do their
part in educating the board on
HR’s vital part of the risk equation.

PEOPLE + STRATEGY42

Current Interaction vs. Target Interaction

Survey Item Average

Overall talent strategy

Risk management

Corporate social
responsibility

Executive compensation

CEO evaluation

Board succession planning,
recruitment, development,
and coaching

Employee compensation
and benefits

CEO succession

Ethics/compliance/governance

Leadership development
and talent pipeline

Organizational culture
and climate

To a very
little extent

To a very
great extent

3.64

3.91

4.30

3.83

2.86

3.51

3.30

3.49

2.79

3.34

2.73

4.29

4.22

4.45

4.37

3.45

3.90

3.76

4.17

3.53

3.86

3.24

Rating Distribution

17%

14%

12%

10%

35%

21%

30%

18%

42%

29%

46%

2%

5%

2%

14%

15%

18%

2%

16%

17%

33%

24%

17%

4%

28%

35%

20%

21%

25%

28%

21%

18%

15%

20%

8%

9%

41%

16%

20%

17%

31%

13%

19%

59%

69%

84%

62%

29%

59%

49%

56%

31%

50%

36%

85%

78%

67%

89%

46%

70%

63%

82%

53%

71%

49%
-0.51

-0.52

-0.74

-0.68

-0.46

-0.59

-0.39

-0.54

-0.15

-0.31

-0.65

Gap

ployee engagement surveys, culture change initiatives, and
vision, mission, and values definition, to name a few—and
are more critical than ever, as corporations turn their
attention to building cultures that are more focused on
managing risk, and as businesses update their strategies
to accommodate shifts in the marketplace. CHROs are in
a unique position to be able to provide the pulse of the
organization to the board and CEO as they make critical
decisions about the direction and priorities of the business;
this is important to ensuring that culture is taken into
account when implementing business initiatives.

But perhaps the biggest and most concerning finding
from this study is that, despite the heavy board focus on
risk management these days, HR’s role in risk management
is simply not on the board’s radar—HR is not providing
good value in this area, nor is it ensuring that talent consid-
erations are integral to the board’s consideration of enter-
prise risk. Not only do directors need to make sure they are
considering talent issues in managing risk, but CHROs also
need to do their part in educating the board on HR’s vital
part of the risk equation.

As the role of boards changes and becomes increasingly

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

VOLUME 38 | ISSUE 2 | SPRING 2015 43

Value HR curently provides to the Board

II
LESS VALUE
LARGE GAP

I
LESS VALUE
SMALL GAP

IV
MORE VALUE
LARGE GAP

III
MORE VALUE
SMALL GAP

9

5

8

1

11
10

7

6

2

3

4

Sm
al

le
st

G
ap

La
rg

es
t G

ap

Very Little or No Value Very Great Value

Legend
1. Overall talent strategy

2. Employee compensaton and benefits

3. Executive compensation

4. Leadership development and talent pipeline

5. Risk management

6. CEO succession

7. CEO evaluation

8. Organizational culture and climate

9. Corporate social responsibility

10. Ethics/compliance/governance

11. Board succession planning, recruitment,
development, and coaching

G
ap


Ta

rg
et

In
te

ra
ct

io
n

m
in

us
C

ur
re

nt
In

te
ra

ct
io

n

complex, it is even more important that CHROs establish
themselves as strategic, trusted advisors to their boards. Our
findings suggest that by focusing on these key areas, CHROs
can make great strides in further demonstrating their value
and building their credibility as advisors to the board.

Julie J. Chen, Ph.D., is the director of Consulting Services and
Analytics for Nadler Advisory Services, a firm that consults with
boards of directors, CEOs, and executive teams on issues of leader-
ship, governance, and team effectiveness. She advises senior lead-
ers across various industries in the areas of organizational change,
executive talent management, leadership assessment and develop-
ment, C-suite succession planning, and board effectiveness. Julie
can be reached at [email protected]

References
Creelman, D. and Lambert, A. (2012). The board and HR. People

& Strategy, 35(3), 52–57.
Dunn, K. (2008, September 19). What your personal board of di-

rectors wants from HR. Workforce.com. Retrieved from http://
www.workforce.com/articles/what-your-personal-board-of-di-
rectors-wants-from-hr.

Grossman, R. J. (2007). HR and the board. HR Magazine, 52(1).
Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://www.shrm.org/publica-
tions/hrmagazine/editorialcontent/pages/0107cover.aspx.

The Korn/Ferry Institute. (2013). 2013 CHRO Pulse Survey. Retrieved
January 28, 2015, from http://www.kornferryinstitute.com.

Kristie, J. (2009, December). A strengthening nexus: Boards and
the CHRO. Directors and Boards, 34(1), 24 –29.

KPMG. (2009, June). HR–How well do we measure up in the
boardroom? United Kingdom. (Publication No. RRD-144380).
Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://www.kpmg.com.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2008, May). HR’s
evolving role in organizations and its impact on business strate-
gy: Linking critical HR functions to organizational success. Re-
trieved January 28, 2015, from http://www.shrm.org/research/
surveyfindings/documents/hr percent27s percent20evolving
percent20role percent20in percent20organizations.pdf.

Stockton, H., van Berkel, A., Bowman, K., and Lissak, R. (2013).
How boards are changing the HR game. Resetting Horizons—
Human Capital Trends 2013. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/human-capital/
articles/how-boards-changing-hr-game.html.

Vosburgh, R.M. (2010). The evolution of HR: Developing HR as
an internal consulting organization. Human Resource Planning,
30(3), 11–23. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://c.ymcdn.
com/sites/www.hrps.org/resource/resmgr/p_s_article_pre-
view/hrps_issue30.3_evolutionof hr.pdf.

Wright, P.M., Nyberg, A.J., Schepker, D.K., Ulrich, M.D. (2013).
The critical role of CHROs in CEO Succession: 2013 [email protected]
Moore Survey of Chief Human Resource Officers. University
of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business. Retrieved
January 28, 2015, from http://www.hrpolicy.org/documents/
blog/CHRO.Survey.2013.pdf.

Copyright of People & Strategy is the property of HR People & Strategy and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.

Read more

Free-revision policy

The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.

Read more

Privacy policy

The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your paper today and save 15% with the discount code HAPPY

X
error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
1
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via + 1 323 412 5597

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.