Monarch Management Review, Vol1, Num1, Oct-2010-Henderson

Monarch Management ReviewManagement Research UGSM-Monarch Business School - Volume 1, Number 1, October 1, 2010www.ugsm-monarch.com

The Monarch Management Review is the scholarly journal of management research and practice from UGSM-Monarch Business School.

UGSM-MONARCHO

cto

ber

1, 2

010

CSR As Mythology - Dr. Jeffrey Henderson 7

EVA: Pros And Cons - Dr. Igor Pustylnick 16

Empirical Testing of Technology Spillovers 37Among Trading Partners - Dr. Fadi Fawaz

The Subjective Field of Ethics: 55A Philosophical Panorama - Dr. Norman Madarasz

The Value Added of the Human Resource Function 80of the Enterprise- Dr. Ali Mabrouk

Comparing The Five Factors of Production In Southeast 25Wisconsin - Dr. Gary Keller

Research& Review

FeaturedArticle

The Monarch Management Review 1

From The Editor ............................................................................................................................................ 2New Researcher Contribution Program ............................................................................................ 3Abstracts ............................................................................................................................................ 4

ArticlesCSR As Mythologyby Dr. Jeffrey Henderson ................................................................................................................................. 7

EVA: Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Empirical Testing of Technology Spillovers Among Trading Partnersby Dr. Fadi Fawaz ........................................................................................................................................... 37

The Subjective Field of Ethics: A Philosophical Panoramaby Dr. Norman Madarasz ................................................................................................................................. 55

The Value Added of the Human Resource Function of the Enterpriseby Dr. Aki Mabrouk ......................................................................................................................................... 80

Featured Article - Exemplary Contribution Comparing The Five factors of Production of For-Profit Firms And Not-For-Profit Organizations in Southeast Wisconsin

by Dr. Gary Keller ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Editorial Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 103

The Monarch Management ReviewVolume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010

Contents

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

“Senior Executives often include a slide of Maslow’s hierarchy in their presentations. They know that employees will find fulfillment only if

they’ve been given the chance to exercise their higher order capabilities --- initiative, imagination, and passion.”

! ! ! ! ! ! Management Guru - Gary Hamel


The Monarch Management ReviewVolume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010

Abstracts

UG

SM

-MO

NAR

CH

Oct

ob

er 1

, 201

0

CSR As Mythology - Dr. Jeffrey Henderson

In “CSR As Mythology” author, Dr. Jeffrey Henderson, brings to the foreground several issues existing within the state of affairs of CSR study that force a re-evaluation of the efforts produced by academics and scholars within the domain.

Principally, the issue that academics since the early 1950s have felt the need to take a secular view of an inherently moral discourse is shown to have yielded sparse advances in the field of business in society literature up to present day. Coupled with the application of adherence to anachronistic social myths the domain of CSR study has been stripped of its soul by those very people charged with its livelihood. This fact is illustrated by Dr. Henderson to be the limiting factor behind the study of CSR and the primary reason why many investigators claim that the domain of CSR study is presently bankrupt.

Within the article, Dr. Henderson reviews the contributions of Dr. Joseph Campbell and his theories of mythos as applied to the domain of CSR studies. The premise is addressed that true social change will not take place until society replaces the anachronistic archetypical myths that reinforce the orientation of conflict based economic systems for those of a more cooperative form. Inspiration for change can be found in the timeless writings of major figures such as management Guru Peter Drucker who is shown to have taken a homo-centric view of the practice of management, as compared to the often cited writings of Milton Freidman who champions the profit-centered view that tends to deny corporate social responsibility.

EVA: Pros And Cons - Dr. Igor Pustylnick

EVA is a proprietary analysis tool trademarked by Stern Stewart. In the recent years many consulting companies attempt to use EVA for the evaluation of the company performance. This short paper discusses pros and cons of using EVA and gives the reader an idea of when and where the use of EVA makes the most sense.

Comparing The Five Factors Of Production Of For Profit Firms And Not For Profit Organizations In Southeast Wisconsin - Dr. Gary Keller

Assessing and explaining how corporate leaders utilize the factors of production at their disposal has been researched and debated traditionally by scholars but more recently the popular media. Over the centuries numerous economic and management theories have been proposed to resolve why some companies with equal access to labor, capital, land and ideas have succeeded while others collapsed. Traditionally, examinations of how managers classify and utilize the factors of production have centered on the private (i.e. for-profit) sector. However, on a global basis not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are Vo

lum

e 1,

Num

ber

1


making an increasingly important contribution to their national economies. For example, in the United States in 2007 there were 1,569,572 tax-exempt organizations accounting for 8.11% of all wages and salaries paid with $2.6 trillion in total assets (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2010).

This study compares and contrasts how managers in the private and public sectors located in two counties in southeast Wisconsin ranked the factors of production, defined as: financial resources, employees, management practices, materials, and technology. The data for this research project was derived from two studies designed to correlate firm/organizational management practices and economic outcomes of for-profit (Keller 2009) and not-for-profit firms (Keller, 2010) located in two counties located in the state of Wisconsin (USA) Racine and Kenosha.

Empirical Testing of Technology Spillovers Among Trading Partners - Dr. Fadi Fawaz

Previous literature suggests that trade contributes to knowledge and technology spillovers among trading partners. Using panel data and country-specific fixed effects, we show that the technology of a country is explained by existing technology of its major trading partners. We build an endogenous growth model for OECD countries for the 1960-2000 period; we draw the residuals to measure the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) of each country. Then using spatial econometrics, we regress the TFP of each country on previous TFP of its major trading partners. In addition, we run a Random Coefficient Model, to let this relationship vary randomly by country. Finally, we run the endogenous growth model again, but now it includes the Spatial lag term as an explanatory variable.

The Subjective Field of Ethics: A philosophical Panorama - Dr. Norman Madarasz

Most approaches of ethics in disciplines other than philosophy do not tend to emphasize the singular dimension in which it acquires its binding force and consequential implications. This dimension is the field of the subject. Subjectivity today is a vast concern in the social sciences. Most models of subjectivity stipulate the existence of at least a minimal concept of mind, i.e. of an interior field in which language, perception, intentionality and higher order inferences merge into synthesized experience. Often this mental synthesis projects a purpose that then translates into action. Inevitably, when one contemplates the field of the subjective conditions behind ethical conduct, one considers the philosophical models at the origin of the paradigms prevailing in the contemporary epistemological field. Our aim will be to distinguish some of the main paradigms of subjectivity generally encountered in ethics.

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010 The Monarch Management Review

Volume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010Abstracts

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


The Value Added of the Human Resource Function of the Enterprise: Dr. Ali Mabrouk

HRM forms one of the most significant areas in determinig the success of the enterprise. A number of studies have noted the importance of HRM activities in the success or failure of a company, where business survival is directly correlated with the HRM function. People are increasingly being seen as the most critical asset of a company.

The strategic role attributed to the HRM department demands that it should be well managed in order to get the best out of the organization. Managing the human resource department demands measuring the performance of that department. HRM measurements transform human resources capabilities into measurable strategic value-add items that are then made transparent to the organization in order to improve connection with leadership across the company. In order to demonstrate the added value of HRM to the entire company, several possibilities have to be taken into consideration. In this article Dr. Mabrouk takes the reader through a review of these methodologies which include: measurement, linking, aligning of employees and the use of the HR balanced scorecard.

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010 The Monarch Management Review

Volume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010Abstracts

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


In his famous book “Unto This Last”, the English social thinker John Ruskin (b. 1819- d. 1900) discusses the existence of an ossifiant theory of p r o g r e s s b a s e d o n a r i g i d l y conventional pattern of science that effectively negates the soul. (Ruskin, 2005) He compares the nascent theory of political economy of the time to a science of gymnastics that assumes that men have no skeletons. Though not doubting the conclusions of the science, if its general assumption is accepted that men have no skeletons, he simply denies its applicability to reality and by extension to the present phase of the world in which he finds himself. He deems such a theory, due to the gross over-simplification of its assumptions, as uninteresting.

In like fashion, we see that academics up to present day have done precisely this within the field of

political economics by introducing and holding on to grossly over-simplified assumpt ions , such as : pe r fec t knowledge, equi l ibr ium and the efficiency of the invisible hand, that for many observers are seemingly in direct opposition to what actually occurs in the marketplace. In fact, the recent market meltdown of 2008 and 2009 has brought to the forefront the folly and the cost of attending to academic theories that over simplify the functioning of the markets and thereby place the functioning of those same economic markets in peril. (Krugman, 2009)

CSR As Mythologyby Dr. Jeffrey Henderson

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Dr. Jeffrey Henderson is the Director of Studies at UGSM-Monarch Business School and Professor of Business Ethics. He holds a Doctoral Degree in International Relations (Diplomacy) from SMC University, a M.Sc. in Administration and International MBA from Nyenrode Unversiteit as well as a Bachelor of Commerce from McGill University.

Dr. Henderson is an active professor of business ethics at both UGSM-Monarch Business School and SMC University, He has also held the position of Adjunct Professor at The Grenoble Graduate School of Business as well as lecturer in Management at McGill University. His research focuses on Business Ethics, Catholic Social Theory and Austrian Economics.

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

Combining the Greek roots for ‘end’ or ‘purpose’ (telos), and for ‘disease’ or ‘sickness’ (pathos), teleopathy is the ordering of limited objectives as supreme to the exclusion of other objectives, which distort one’s larger purpose - Michael Naughton


Yet, the major exclusion of the anthropological fact within the social t h e o r i e s o f C o r p o r a t e S o c i a l Responsibility, CSR, that men have souls goes without much criticism within the halls of academe or the business world. Otherwise said, authors and scholars have tried, as best they can, to remove and ignore basic anthropological realities in order to provide a neat and tidy science behind the study of business-in-society issues. One of the few secular business writers to discuss the issue of going beyond the existing limited boundaries or frameworks within CSR thought is William Frederick in his article on CSR4 theory when he states, “The study of Social Issues in Management (SIM) has exhausted its primary analytical framework based on corporate social performance (social science), business ethics (philosophy), and stakeholder theory (organizational science) and needs to move to a new paradigmatic l e v e l b a s e d o n t h e n a t u r a l science.” (Frederick, 1998) Though Frederick tries to step out of the well-worn avenues of thought of his contemporary scholars he falls short of recognizing the theological imperatives of man and again opts for the security blanket of the scientific method of the natural sciences. With this timidity in mind, the question that now faces the scholastic and business communities is whether the participants of CSR study have a lso a r r i ved , a f te r much discussion and debate, like John Ruskin, to a point where the leading t h e o r i e s a n d t h e i r g r o s s

o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s a r e s i m p l y uninteresting and provide no practical applicability to the present phase of the world in which we find ourselves.

According to the State of the Future Report for 2008 the present state of the world that Ruskin points to as applied to present day is marred w i th i nnumerab le examp les o f corporate greed, ethical lapses within boardrooms and a host of world-wide crises caused by man’s ignorance and need for conspicuous consumption that has propagated continued exploitation and widening social injustice. (Glenn, Gordon, & Florescu, 2009) Major examples include: global warming and climbing carbon emissions, water and food availability, civil conflict, ethical disasters in corporate environment, and the instability of world-wide financial markets. It would seem from the intractability and apparent inequity of these issues that man may indeed lack a soul or at least the compassion toward his fellow man to collectively address these issues in an effective manner.


UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

However, we must ask ourselves if it is really because man lacks both a soul and the consideration of his fellow man that there exists such issues of greed triumphing over compassion, or is it because we have been looking for operating theories of the social and economic marketplace in mechanisms that essentially reduce man down to a soulless caricature of his true self.


As an artist exaggerates and reduces specific characteristics of a subject by rendering it in caricature form theorist have done the same w i th our understanding of man and markets. In doing so, the observer can only stumble and fail to see the real object and in its place ends up at best dealing w i t h s o m e g r o s s l y d i s f i g u r e d representation. This fact leads social and economic theorist and participants away from a true understanding of the functioning of social and economic marketplaces and thereby produces a w e a l t h o f s c h o l a r s h i p t h a t i s inconsequential, uninteresting or simply lacking any true application to the real world.

Economists have long argued that man acts selfishly and primarily in his own best interest. The familiar term “homo-economicus” comes to mind. When layered on to the domain of CSR economists like Milton Freidman of the Chicago School of Economics state unequivocally that the “business of business is business” in an attempt to remind the masses that the inclusion of eleemosynary pursuits into the mission of a business goes against the very grain of capitalism and a democratic society. (Freidman, 1970)

However, recent economic crises have made it abundantly clear how truly fragile and naive existing economic models have been based on gross or ignorant assumptions about how people are supposed to react or how markets are supposed to work and not

on how they actually do. This has lead to a reaction in the form of increased popularity of behavioral economics/finance that essentially takes a more humanistic view of the functioning of economic markets. (Shiller, 2003) One would think that with this new found react ionary search for a better explanation to the functioning of the market coming as a result of the various world-wide financial crises that have brought into question the many bas ic and prev ious ly we l l -he ld assumptions in economics as to the nature of man and markets, that it is clearly a warning to social scientists to call into question once and for all the soulless assumptions that dominate within the domain of both economics and CSR studies.

The unavo idab le i ssue in economics that came to the fore most recently was that the well-healed assumptions and models that were s u p p o s e t o r e f l e c t t h e a c t u a l mechanisms of the market were in fact seriously flawed particularly when considering actual human behavior. And by extension those gurus put in place to run those very economic mechanisms based on those faulty theories were more of the ilk of wizards than scientists. (Andrews, 2008) Trust by the many in a system run by a few was put into question. Otherwise said, it has also become quite clear in the last years that the flawed views and misguided assumptions that have affected academics and businessmen alike within modern considerations of

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010


Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


morals and ethics is the primary root cause of the financial crisis and ethical lapses that have both preceded and accompanied these crises. This has become so clear that many people in business, government and the media have begun to question the very appropriateness of the capitalistic system for the future of society if it does not in fact undergo serious and deep redesign. (Lee M. , 2009) (Bernard & Lemer, 2009)

L i k e t h o s e m i s a p p l i e d assumptions in the economic sciences the counterparts in the social sciences are proving to be unrealistic to the point o f be ing gross ly neg l igent . As men t i oned , t he assump t i on o f soullessness or the need to only consider the secular view of man, an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, is the issue facing CSR studies that prevents the domain from making further substantial gains. As onlookers are known to cringe at the sight of a caricature being created by the artist many cringe at the sight of present day CSR theories that lack any semblance to actual market participants. The true subject or nature of CSR being a representation of man as a creature imbued with a soul and not its opposite soulless number presently considered w i t h i n u n i n t e r e s t i n g a c a d e m i c frameworks.

Fortunately, the view of man as being a soulless creature has not always been the default and the potential to return to a more soulful

orientation of the nature of man and business-in-society study and by consequence finally do away with unsubstant iated assumpt ions is possible. At the time that Freidman made his pronouncement as to the responsibilities of business, circa 1970, he was in fact fighting an opposing current of thought that clearly stated that the role of business within society was much greater than simply the teleopathic search for profit. (Bowen, 1953) (Note 1) In fact, Peter Drucker, o n e o f t h e g r e a t e s t g u r u s o f management theory and the person c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e f o u n d i n g o f management studies is identified as being firmly entrenched in the school of thought that places the individual at the center of management theory, homo-centric view, and not simply that of profit, profit-centric view. (Fletcher, 2006) The main point is that a homo-centric view favors the anthropological reality of a soulful existence of man and that this view is and has been present in many of the ignored management theory writings up to present day.

In order to shift the focus of research and provide renewed vigor in the dominant scho la rsh ip i t i s necessary to re-oriented oneself and question prevailing western cultural paradigms. As illustrated through the insightful work of the American mythologist Dr. Joseph Campbell, culture operates through the sharing of archetypical myths that provide meaning to the opaque nature of man and his surroundings. (Campbell, 2008)

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010 CSR As Mythology

by Dr. Jeffrey Henderson

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


One of these main archetypes for the western world is the myth of Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden of unity and being subjected to the knowledge of opposites. Now separate from God and nature, along with an acute understanding of their own differences, they were placed into conflict against the harshness of their new surroundings. With the knowledge of opposites man became separate of nature and nature became a thing to be conquered and no longer a thing with which to live harmoniously. This assumed fact, or myth, has set the backdrop for western cu l tu re ’s understanding of economic man’s relationship to both his fellow man and to nature: i.e.: one of conflict. Campbell further posits that western culture has now gone into a political and economic phase where spiritual principles have been completely disregarded. Western culture has lost its bearings with respect to i ts p lace in nature. (Campbell, Sukhavati, 2007). Campbell also states that myths that are out of sync with the prevailing science of the time will not provide appropriate meaning to man and that new myths will need to be created by the poets and a r t i s ts to ass is t in man ’s understanding of his changing world. (Campbell, 1991). Interestingly, we see that the prevailing science of our own time is overwhelmingly clear on the destructive effect that man is having on his surroundings and therefore is i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g anachronistic conflict-based myths.

I t is put forward that the a s s u m p t i o n o f a f u n c t i o n i n g marketplace based on the conflict-oriented myths of “homo-economicus” of John Stuart Mill and the invisible hand of Adam Smith can no longer be held to be helpful in finding solutions to the many critical issues facing the planet, nor are they particularly beneficial to the social functioning of the business enterprise. Economists tell us that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will ultimately create the most efficient allocation of resources in society if intervention in the system is kept to a minimum and participants are allowed to follow their self-interest. This is the predominant view of the Chicago School of Economics. Individuals left alone and acting in a self-interested manner will ultimately create an efficient market simply by virtue of the interactional power of their selfish actions. Again, through some kind of economic wizardry the marketplace is suppose to create positive benefits for society as a whole through the collective acts of individual selfishness or self-interest. In contrast, and with the benefit of hindsight of the financial c r i s i s o f 2008, i t has become abundantly clear to society and to those previously mentioned economic gurus that the unfettered marketplace based on the laws of self-interest, antagonism, and the concept that man must conquer nature as opposed to living in harmony with it, more often than not lead away from equilibrium, social justice and efficiency than they do towards it.

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010


Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


A n d s o w e s e e a l a c k o f synchronization between the myths we hold in the study of economics and social studies and the prevailing science of the day. This means that man needs to discard the assumptions or myths of the separation of man and nature, inevitable conflict, the “invisible hand” and “homo-economicus” given to us by our eighteenth and nineteenth century theorists whose focus was clearly on an economic actor who seeks to maximize his profit in an antagonistic fashion against all others players in the system. (Mill, 1844) (Smith, 1776) These strongly held secular myths have proven to be responsible for leading modern economies down an unsustainable road of development that now threatens the very foundation of the system. In order to reverse this trend the competition based model of economics that has taken root since the time of Smith needs to be replaced with an economic system or understanding that is increasingly referenced to a clearer understanding of social justice based on economic and social cooperation and communion with nature.

This anxiety is evidenced by the numerous protests of various interest groups whenever major political powers assemble to discuss economic planning as was shown with the WTO, G7, G20 conferences since Seattle in 1999.

What this means from a social studies standpoint is that man must

learn to view economic and social r e la t i onsh ips and t ransac t i ons

differently. Otherwise said, man needs to create and utilize a new archetypical myth that provides greater explanatory power to assist in effecting positive change in society and that myth must have at its core cooperation and a harmonious relationship with nature. A change in perspective is needed in order to transform the economic world into an economically cooperative mindset based on the understanding that man is a soulful creature that must live in harmony with its surroundings and its community. What is required is that people must come to realize that simply because their economic interest may appear to be antagonistic it does follow that their actions towards one another or nature must be. (Note 2) Otherwise said, it is possible to obtain a greater profit or greater efficiency from a series of transactions if the players realize that it is in their long-term benefit to take a cooperative and not

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010


Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

However, Campbell states that the c r e a t i o n o f n e w m y t h s o r understanding takes time and that modern society is presently in a type of free-fall into the future. Society does not know where it is going due to an ever-increasing rate of change and this effect creates huge levels of anxiety for all until a new more relevant myth replaces the old.

Campbell, Sukhavati, 2007


conflicting mindset. This fact has been proven by social scientist with respect to multi-staged game playing and the iterated prisoner’s dilemma exercise. (Darwen & Yao, 1993) That is, over the l o n g - t e r m o r a c r o s s m u l t i p l e generations players learn that it is in their mutual benefit to cooperate with one another even though the short-term advantage may be obtained by acting selfishly. By extension we can say that this is also true for the larger society.

The important thing to understand is that in order to foster this cooperative behavior market participants must reject their long held and well worn behav io rs o f economic nar row mindedness and short-termism. That is, they must reject the prevailing cultural myth, under which they have been operating, that reinforces the belief that acting selfishly is in society’s collective long-term benefit and will result in a more efficient system for all. As mentioned earlier, teleopathy is a s i c k n e s s t h a t a f f e c t s m a r k e t participants individually and society as a whole whenever wider, long-term goals are replaced by very narrow short-term targets. Profit thereby becomes a goal unto itself. And when profit becomes a goal unto itself society and the people within it are subjugated to a secondary, if not inconsequential role. The soul of society is lost. This is the apparent outcome of the prevailing compet i t ion and interest based mythology of the marketplace currently being followed throughout the modern world which must be replaced if

mankind is to make significant steps in addressing and solving collective social problems and crises and return itself as primary actor to the ultimate position of importance.

What is required by society is the foresight and bravery to look upon the system and recognize that it is no longer in the collective benefit of the community at large and that new parad igms, o r myths , must be developed by the poets, artists and philosophers. These thinkers must give t o t h e m o d e r n w o r l d a n e w understanding of economics and social justice that enables society to break away from its well-worn patterns of economic exploitation based on the competitive marketplace. Only once all the benefits and inherent costs to society are recognized, i.e.: social, spiritual, economic and ecological can a new paradigmatic myth take the place of existing competitive free-market myths and steer society to greater social justice for all. Until that time man will continue to act based on a limited, soul-less, competitive view that by its nature negates or ignores larger social costs (Note 3) and over-emphasizes and over-estimates the importance of limited personal gain.

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010


Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1


Endnotes:

1. Bowen’s book which is often cited as the watershed point in the commencement of modern CSR study by various authors was commissioned by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and was part of a larger six volume study on Christian ethics. This point is an important one and illustrates that the major work identified by CSR scholars as the start of the “modern” CSR era was in fact theologically oriented. Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A Review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Review, 10 (1), 53-73.

2. John Ruskin provides an example of a starving mother and child that only has one piece of bread amongst them. Though their interests seem to be antagonistic, i.e.: each wishes to eat the piece of bread, it does not follow that their actions will be. Ruskin, J. (2005). Unto This Last. Stiltwell, KS, USA: Digireads.com Publishing.

3. An example of a social cost that is not explicitly considered in the modern economic system is that of pollution. These types of costs are referred to as externalities by economists as they are not included in the cost of a product and are shifted to society at large through the introduction of higher taxes. Otherwise said, society is forced to pay part of the direct production costs through indirect taxes. A further example is the proposed introduction of a world-wide tax on financial institutions to safe-guard against future economic insolvency of banking institutions. As opposed to forcing banks to regulate their behavior or having them create self-insuring industry mechanisms consumers are targeted for new taxes to safe-guard against the irresponsible and greed induced behavior of these market makers.


UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

References!" #$%&'()*+,"+-"+./0123456'&1/7789"+:&''$);<$+=5$3'%')+,&&5&+5$+>'?@A<4B5$"+CD'+E'(+F5&G+CBH')+

I<?<JB$'+"/" K'&$<&%*+L"*+M+-'H'&*+N"+.!71I<&3D1/77O9"+CD'+P@4@&'+5Q+=<;B4<AB)HR+S7+T'5;A'+UD5+UBAA+P&<H'+CD'+

V'6<4'"+P&5H+CD'+PB$<$3B<A+CBH')R+D44;RWW((("Q4"35HWB$%';4DW3<;B4<AB)H1Q@4@&'0" K5('$*+X"+>"+.!OS09"+CD'+L53B<A+>');5$)B6BAB4B')+5Q+4D'+K@)B$'))H<$"+X<&;'&+T@6AB)DB$?"Y" =<AZ'J*+N"1F"*+M+E<@?D45$*+I"+N"+./77/9"+=<4D5AB3+L53B<A+C'<3DB$?+<$%+4D'+T@&;5)'+5Q+4D'+K@)B$'))+

2&?<$BJ<4B5$"+[$+L"+=5&4&B?D4*+M+I"+N"+E<@?D45$*+>'4DB$GB$?+4D'+T@&;5)'+5Q+K@)B$'))"+E54&'+V<H'*+[$%B<$<*+\L#R+\$BZ'&)B4]+5Q+E54&'+V<H'"

S" =<H;6'AA*+N"+.^1P'6&@<&]1/77_9"+L@GD<Z<4B"+L@GD<Z<4B+"+N5)';D+=<H;6'AA+P5@$%<4B5$"^" =<H;6'AA*+N"+./7789"+CD'+X'&5+UB4D+#+CD5@)<$%+P<3')+.0&%+,%B4B5$+'%"9"+E5Z<45*+=<ABQ5&$B<*+\L#R+

E'(+U5&A%+-B6&<&]"_" =<H;6'AA*+N"+.!OO!9"+CD'+T5('&+5Q+I]4D"+#$3D5&"8" =<&&5AA*+#"+K"+.!O_O9"+#+CD&''+VBH'$)B5$<A+I5%'A+5Q+=5&;5&<4'+T'&Q5&H<$3'"+#3<%'H]+5Q+

I<$<?'H'$4+>'ZB'(+*+Y+.Y9*+YO_1S7S"O" V<&('$*+T"+N"*+M+F<5*+`"+.!^1E5Z'H6'&1!OO09"+2$+,Z5AZB$?+>56@)4+L4&<4'?B')+Q5&+[4'&<4'%+T&B)5$'&a)+

VBA'HH<"+-'34@&'+E54')+B$+=5H;@4'&+L3B'$3'"!7" V<ZB)*+b"+.!O_09"+CD'+=)'+P5&+#$%+#?<B$)4+K@)B$'))+#))@H;4B5$)+5Q+L53B<A+>');5$)B6BAB4B')"+CD'+

#3<%'H]+5Q+I<$<?'H'$4+N5@&$<A+*+!^+./9*+0!/10//"


!!" PA'43D'&*+="+./77^9"+=LC*+=L>+<$%+4D'+T@&;5)'+V&BZ'$+=5H;<$]"+[$+\"+5"+CD5H<)+.,%"9*+LBc4D+[$4'&$<4B5$<A+L]H;5)B@H+5$+=<4D5AB3+L53B<A+CD5@?D4+#$%+I<$<?'H'$4+,%@3<4B5$"+!S"+>5H'*+[4<A]R+T5$4BdB3B<+\$BZ'&)B4<+L<$+C5HH<)5+.#$?'AB3@H9+"

!/" P&'%'&B3G*+U"+.!OO89"+I5ZB$?+45+=L>YR+UD<4+45+T<3G+Q5&+4D'+C&B;"+K@)B$'))+M+L53B'4]+*+0_+.!9*+Y71SS"!0" P&'%'&B3G*+U"+.!O8^9"+C5(<&%+=L>0R+UD]+,4DB3<A+#$<A])B)+B)+[$%B);'$)B6A'+<$%+\$<Z5B%<6A'+B$+=5&;5&<4'+

#QQ<B&)"+=<ABQ5&$B<+I<$<?'H'$4+>'ZB'(+*+!/^1!Y7"!Y" P&''H<$*+,"+.!O8Y9"+L4&<4'?B3+I<$<?'H'$4R+#+L4<G'D5A%'&+#;;&5<3D"+TB4H<$+T@6AB)DB$?+[$3"!S" P&'B%H<$*+I"+.!01L';41!O_79"+CD'+L53B<A+>');5$)B6BAB4]+5Q+K@)B$'))+[)+C5+[$3&'<)'+[4)+T&5dB4)"+CD'+E'(+

F5&G+CBH')+I<?<JB$'+"!^" :A'$$*+N"*+:5&%5$*+C"+N"*+M+PA5&')3@*+,"+.P'6&@<&]1/77O9"+/778+L4<4'+5Q+4D'+P@4@&'"+>'4&B'Z'%+/77O+efg+/71

V'3'H6'&+Q&5H+IBAA'$B@H+T&5h'34R+D44;RWW((("HBAA'$$B@H1;&5h'34"5&?WHBAA'$$B@HW)5Q/778"D4HA!_" X'$%'&)5$*+N"+L"+./77O9"+:A56<A+=B4BJ'$)DB;+,c<HB$'%R+CD'+I'4D5%5A5?]+5Q+4D'+E'(+C&B<%+I5%'A"+iB'$$<R+

LI=+\$BZ'&)B4]"!8" b&@?H<$*+T"+./1L';41/77O9"+X5(+VB%+,35$5HB)4+:'4+[4+L5+U&5$?j+CD'+E'(+F5&G+CBH')+I<?<JB$'+"!O" -''*+I"+.!S1I<&3D1/77O9"+CD'+P@4@&'+5Q+=<;B4<AB)H"+>'4&B'Z'%+/71V'3'H6'&1/77O+Q&5H+CD'+T&5?&'))BZ'+

,35$55HB3)+P5&@HR+D44;RWW(((";&5?&'))BZ'1'35$5HB3)"3<W/77OW70W!SW4D'1Q@4@&'15Q13<;B4<AB)HW/7" -''*+I"1V"+T"+./7789"+#+>'ZB'(+5Q+4D'+4D'5&B')+5Q+35&;5&<4'+)53B<A+&');5$)B6BAB4]R+[4)+'Z5A@4B5$<&]+;<4D+<$%+

4D'+&5<%+<D'<%"+[$4'&$<4B5$<A+N5@&$<A+5Q+I<$<?'H'$4+>'ZB'(+*+!7+.!9*+S01_0"/!" IBAA*+N"+L"+.!8YY9"+,))<]+i+2$+4D'+V'dB$B4B5$+5Q+T5AB4B3<A+,35$5H]k+<$%+5$+4D'+I'4D5%+5Q+[$Z')4B?<4B5$+

T&5;'&+C5+[4"+>'4&B'Z'%+/77O+efg+/71V'3'H6'&+Q&5H+-B6&<&]+5Q+,35$5HB3)+#$%+-B6'&4]R+D44;RWW((("'35$AB6"5&?WAB6&<&]WIBAAWHA\lT"D4HA

//" IB)')*+-"+Z"+.!OO89"+X@H<$+#34B5$+.L3D5A<&a)+,%B4B5$+'%"9"+#@6@&$*+#A<6<H<*+\L#R+-@%(B?+Z5$+IB)')+[$)4B4@4'"

/0" E<@?D45$*+I"+./77^9"+CD'+=5&;5&<4B5$+<)+<+=5HH@$B4]+5Q+U5&GR+\$%'&)4<$%B$?+4D'+PB&H+UB4DB$+4D'+=<4D5AB3+L53B<A+C&<%B4B5$"+#Z'+I<&B<+-<(+>'ZB'(+*+Y+.!9*+001_Y"

/Y" >54D6<&%*+I"+E"+./77Y9"+I<$*+,35$5H]*+<$%+4D'+L4<4'+(B4D+T5('&+<$%+I<&G'4+.0&%+,%B4B5$*+L3D5A<&a)+,%B4B5$+'%"9"+#@6@&$*+#A<6<H<*+\L#R+-@%(B?+Z5$+IB)')+[$)4B4@4'"

/S" >@)GB$*+N"+./77S9"+\$45+CDB)+-<)4"+L4BA4('AA*+bL*+\L#R+VB?B&'<%)"35H+T@6AB)DB$?"/^" LDBAA'&*+>"+N"+./7709"+P&5H+,QdB3B'$4+I<&G'4+CD'5&]+C5+K'D<ZB5&<A+PB$<$3'"+N5@&$<A+5Q+,35$5HB3+

T'&);'34BZ')+*+!_+.!9*+801!7Y"/_" LHB4D*+#"+.!__^9"+#$+[$m@B&]+B$45+4D'+E<4@&'+<$%+=<@)')+5Q+CD'+U'<A4D+5Q+E<4B5$)"+>'4&B'Z'%+/77O+efg+

/71V'3'H6'&+Q&5H+-B6&<&]+5Q+,35$5HB3)+#$%+-B6'&4R+D44;RWW((("'35$AB6"5&?WAB6&<&]WLHB4DW)HUE"D4HA

/8" U55%*+V"+.+!OO!9"+=5&;5&<4'+L53B<A+>');5$)B6BAB4]+>'ZB)'%"+#3<%'H]+5Q+I<$<?'H'$4+>'ZB'(+*+!^+.Y9*+^O!1_!8"

/O"


UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

Citation: This article may be cited as:

Henderson, J. S. “CSR As Mythology”, The Monarch Management Review, UGSM-Monarch Business School, Vol. 1, Num. 1, Oct. 2010, pp. 7-15

The Monarch Management Review

103

Goal of The Monarch Management Review

The goal of The Monarch Management Review is to provide a vehicle for both the faculty and guest authors of UGSM-Monarch Business School to publish scholarly work in journal form to help advance the field of management research. I t provides an opportunity for its authors to act as “thought-leaders” within the field of management scholarship.

The Monarch Management Review is considered an open publication where authors are encouraged to submit articles covering traditional and non-traditional subjects on a wide-range of interests within the domain of management study and economics.

General Submissions

Authors interested in publishing in the Monarch Management Review should submit an article abstract detailing their project, approach and manuscript. However, authors are encouraged to send in a short proposal in advance of sending in a complete manuscript. A short proposal of approximately 3 pages in length outlining the article and general submission structure is expected. Proposals may be submitted directly to: [email protected]. Additional questions may also be directed to the same email address.

Manuscripts should be formatted as MS Word files, double spaced with no more than 30 pages in length, including figures and tables. Cover sheets including the author or authors names and complete contact information should

be included. Their names should not appear elsewhere in the manuscript.

The Monarch Management Review adheres to APA Style Guide. The manual can be purchased from the American Psychological Association’s Website.

Limitations

The Monarch Management Review is a scholarly journal that expresses the views, thoughts, ideas and opinions of its contributing authors. These thoughts and views are not necessarily those held by the Monarch Management Review and should be seen as independent of the journal. Further, The Monarch Management Review makes no endorsement concerning the accuracy of the information contained herein. Moreover, The Monarch Management Review disclaims any and all responsibility or liability resulting from the information contained herein.

Editorial Board

Editor-In-Chief: Dr. Jeffrey Henderson, Ph.D.

Associate Editors: Dr. Christos Antoniou, Ph.D. Dr. Gary Keller, Ph.D. Dr. Ali Mabrouk, Ph.D. Dr. Norman Madarasz, Ph.D.

Photocopying

Single photocopies of individual articles may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Permission of the

Monarch Management ReviewEditorial Policies

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

The Monarch Management Review

104

Publisher and payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying, copying for advertising or promotional purposes or resale.Derivative Works

Individuals may reproduce tables of content or prepare lists of articles including abstracts for internal circulation within their institutions.

Permission of the publisher is required for resale or distribution outside of the institution. Permission of the publisher is required for all derivative works, including compilations and translations. For information on how to seek permission contact [email protected].

Fair Use Policy

Permission is given to academic or scholarly institutions and to individual teachers and/or professors to use materials from The Monarch Management Review for educational purposes in electronic or photocopied form within the context or regular teaching within proscribed course content. Any charge or fee in order to make said material available to students extending beyond the direct expense of photocopying is considered a breech of the copyright laws and is strictly forbidden.

Copyright

All contents and materials included within The Monarch Management Review are considered to be covered under a general copyright. In specific, the journal and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by Monarch Business School, Ltd. Moreover, individual articles and/or submissions may also carry a copyright of the o r ig ina t ing au thor (s ) . No copy ing o r

d isseminat ion may take p lace unless specifically falling under the Fair Use Policy expressed above.

Contact

The Editorial Board of The Monarch Management Review may be contact at the following address:

The Editorial BoardThe Monarch Management Review 2348 Lucerne Road, Suite 145Town of Mount-Royal, QuebecCanada, H3R [email protected]

++

UG

SM

-MO

NAR

CH

Oct

ob

er 1

, 201

0

Monarch Management Review, Vol1, Num1, Oct-2010-Henderson

Documents

Transcript of Monarch Management Review, Vol1, Num1, Oct-2010-Henderson