Discussion Builder

Section Structure (Target: 700–1000 words)

Sub-section 1 — Findings Interpretation (~400 words)

One paragraph per hypothesis group:

Paragraph structure per finding:

1. Restate the finding in plain language (no statistics — those are in Results)
2. Compare to prior literature: "This aligns with [Author, Year] who found..." OR "This contradicts [Author, Year]'s finding that..."
3. Offer a context-specific explanation: why does this finding hold for Indian MSMEs specifically?
4. If the hypothesis was NOT supported: explain plausible reasons (measurement limitation, context specificity, moderating variable not captured)

India-MSME anchoring required for each finding:

• Reference BRSR regulatory pressure, MSMED Act 2020 definition, SIDBI financing, or sector context
• Do not generalise findings to "all firms" — scope to Indian MSMEs explicitly

Sub-section 2 — Theoretical Implications (~150 words)

• Name the theory used and state how findings extend, support, or challenge it
• "This study extends Stakeholder Theory by demonstrating that... in the MSME context where stakeholder pressure operates through [mechanism] rather than [prior mechanism]"
• If multiple theories: one sentence per theory
• Avoid vague statements like "This study contributes to theory" — be specific about which aspect of which theory

Sub-section 3 — Policy Implications (~150 words)

• Address three levels: firm-level, industry-level, regulatory/government-level
• Firm level: What should MSME owner-managers do based on these findings?
• Industry level: What do sector associations (e.g., CII, FICCI, SIDBI) need to know?
• Regulatory level: What does this mean for SEBI's BRSR extension roadmap, MCA's CSR policy, SIDBI green finance?
• Keep recommendations specific and actionable — not generic sustainability platitudes

Sub-section 4 — Limitations (~150 words)

List 5 standard limitations with one sentence each:

1. Cross-sectional design — cannot establish causality; longitudinal follow-up recommended
2. Self-reported data — social desirability bias possible; archival validation suggested
3. Common Method Bias — mitigated by [test used] but cannot be fully ruled out
4. Geographic scope — sampled from [region/states]; may not generalise to all Indian MSMEs
5. MSME tier representation — if sample skews to micro or small, findings may not apply equally across tiers

Bridge Sentence (~30 words)

End Discussion with a forward-looking sentence that flows naturally into the Conclusion: "Notwithstanding these limitations, this study provides foundational evidence for... which is elaborated in the concluding section."

Post-Build Check

Run section-compliance-checker automatically:

• Word count vs. 700–1000 target
• Check all 4 sub-sections present
• Citation density: min 6 citations per 300 words