Discussion: View Thread

Linda,
I've used Charles Handy's "What's a Business For" with good success.
Dawn
________________________________
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weber [weber719@COMCAST.NET]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:41 PM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Linda – Good question, that many of us struggle with.

I have had good success over the years using the Frank Abrams’ HBR piece = Abrams, F. W. (1951). Management’s responsibilities in a complex world. Harvard Business Review, 29(3), 29-34. This is particularly enjoyable when, after blocking out the date and author’s bio, I ask them who Frank Abrams is (senior executive at Standard Oil of New Jersey, not ExxonMobil) and when he wrote the article (1951!). The MBAs often guess – some business ethics professor and he wrote it in the 1990s!

I, too, have used Porter and Kramer’s (can’t forget the lesser-known co-author) HBR piece, although Abrams seem to address Friedman more directly given the similar time of his writing.

Good luck!

Jim Weber, Ph.D.
Professor of Business Ethics and Management
Senior Fellow, Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics
Rockwell Hall 813, Duquesne University
600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282
office: 412-396-5475
fax: 412-396-4764
www.business.duq.edu/Beard

From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Linda Trevino
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:05 PM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Hi all,
Two questions:


1. Can anyone recommend a concise, well-written article (appropriate for MBAs) that is a response to Milton Friedman’s classic piece on social responsibility?

2. I’m thinking of assigning Porter’s HBR article on CSR and Strategy. Does anyone have a favorite case that would be a good accompaniment to that reading?
Thanks!
_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

Dear all,

Just noted that in my old age I left out two key words below. Tom
________________________________
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bausch, Thomas [thomas.bausch@marquette.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:25 PM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

I also suggest the classic debate between Friedman AND SAMUELSON in the AER in the late fifties or early sixties. As Lori notes, assumptions do count. As for something recent, little is better than the first chapter of Sandra Waddock’s book.

tom

Dr. Thomas A. Bausch, Professor
Department of Management
College of Business Administration
Marquette University 1881
Milwaukee WI 53201 1881
Tel: 414 288 1657
Home: 414 771 2533
Fax: 414 288 5765
Cell: 414 690 9498
E-mail: thomas.bausch@marquette.edu<mailto:thomas.bausch@marquette.edu>
Home: bernieb@milwpc.com

"If one has private ends to serve,
one will never be able to win the world." (Tao Te Ching, No. 48)

From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lori Ryan
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:49 AM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Regarding Jeff's second point on economic reasoning, I strongly suggest Jensen & Meckling's lesser known piece on human nature. In addition to offering an alternate model, it points out economists' need for simplifying assumptions that enable human behavior to be modeled mathematically. It's a great read.

Lori

Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1994). "The nature of man." Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 7(2): 4-19.

At 09:23 AM 2/6/2009, Jeff Thompson wrote:

Linda,
Regarding your first question, I used portions of Chapter 2 of Hosmer’s The Ethics of Management, 5th Ed. in my MBA class for this purpose. It seemed to provide the impetus for good discussion.

And, somewhat to my surprise, my MBA’s responded really well when I had them read selected portions of Ferraro, Pfeffer & Sutton’s outstanding 2005 AMR piece on economics language and assumptions. The article doesn’t reference Friedman per se, but portions of it tackle the moral problems of economic assumptions so accessibly that my MBAs really enjoyed it. It was the most balanced discussion of the limits of economic reasoning that I have ever seen from MBAs.

Jeff

Lori Verstegen Ryan, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Director, Corporate Governance Institute
College of Business Administration
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive
San Diego, CA 92182
_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

Hi, Linda;

Re: Friedman, ditto Lori's comment on the Reason Magazine discussion between Friedman and MacKey. And, ditto Simone's comment on HB Fuller. Good cases!

To build out Porter & Kramer (2006) the Oxfam/Unilever Indonesia (2005) report (principal author Jason Clay) helps illustrate how generic business issues (labour/workplace conditions; supply networks; taxes) can be transformed to gain advantage when managed systemically and systematically. Former CSR director of Unilever Indonesia as a class speaker helped make these ideas come alive, too.

Also use Mahon (1989) and other issues management articles (e.g., Mahon & Wartick) alongside Porter & Kramer to build out the idea of an issue not being solely a 'social' issue but every business issues having socio-political-economic-legal management challenges/opportunities.

Best,
Jenn

Jennifer J. Griffin
Associate Professor, Strategic Management and Public Policy
Director, Institute for Corporate Responsibility -- Global Stakeholder Strategies Program
The George Washington University
School of Business
2201 G Street, NW Funger 615
Washington, DC 20052
202.994.2536 phone
202.994.8113 fax


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elm, Dawn R." <DRELM@stthomas.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU


> Linda,
> I've used Charles Handy's "What's a Business For" with good success.
> Dawn
> ________________________________
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
> Behalf Of James Weber [weber719@COMCAST.NET]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Linda – Good question, that many of us struggle with.
>
> I have had good success over the years using the Frank Abrams’ HBR
> piece = Abrams, F. W. (1951). Management’s responsibilities in a
> complex world. Harvard Business Review, 29(3), 29-34. This is
> particularly enjoyable when, after blocking out the date and author’s
> bio, I ask them who Frank Abrams is (senior executive at Standard Oil
> of New Jersey, not ExxonMobil) and when he wrote the article (1951!).
> The MBAs often guess – some business ethics professor and he wrote it
> in the 1990s!
>
> I, too, have used Porter and Kramer’s (can’t forget the lesser-known
> co-author) HBR piece, although Abrams seem to address Friedman more
> directly given the similar time of his writing.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jim Weber, Ph.D.
> Professor of Business Ethics and Management
> Senior Fellow, Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics
> Rockwell Hall 813, Duquesne University
> 600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282
> office: 412-396-5475
> fax: 412-396-4764
> www.business.duq.edu/Beard
>
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [ On Behalf Of Linda Trevino
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Hi all,
> Two questions:
>
>
> 1. Can anyone recommend a concise, well-written article
> (appropriate for MBAs) that is a response to Milton Friedman’s classic
> piece on social responsibility?
>
> 2. I’m thinking of assigning Porter’s HBR article on CSR and
> Strategy. Does anyone have a favorite case that would be a good
> accompaniment to that reading?
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at:
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at:
> _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

Dear friends and colleagues,

Linda’s request and the ensuing discussion have sparked reflection. It’s on the long side for e-mail, and my apologies for that, but here goes.

As a young SIM scholar in the early 1980s, I could not understand why my new field paid so much frenzied attention to some economist’s op-ed piece in the New York Times Magazine. I could not understand why the week-long ‘business & society’ training sessions for new scholars included so many talks by business lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I could not understand why the emphasis shifted from social responsibility to social responsiveness and “how businesses can win in Washington,” or why I should have to take seriously the blatantly political work of Murray Weidenbaum, Sam Peltzman, and others on “the costs and benefits of regulation” – which really meant the COSTS of regulation.

In one of my earliest and most obscure publications, I tracked down the source of the 1980s common wisdom that it takes 12 years and $200 million to get a new drug to market. The source was a University of Rochester working paper by an economics doctoral student from U. Chicago. He surveyed a few big drug companies, explained his ‘costs and benefits’ project to them, and asked them to provide R&D info on ANY TEN of their hundreds of new drug prospects. There was no accounting for missing data or outright fabrication; there was no attempt to assess the representativeness of the information each company submitted; and there were glaring logical errors in his reasoning. Nevertheless, his conclusion (12 years, $200 million) was fed into the press and soon came to be quoted by everyone concerned about deregulation AND consumer health and well-being!

Many years later, I now understand the concentrated effort that the Chicago economists made over decades to transform the U.S. society and economy into one that would generate massive wealth for some, with benefits perhaps ‘trickling down’ to others, but if not, no matter! I also now understand that Friedman’s little op-ed piece derived from his libertarian political philosophy as cleanly expounded in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom. And finally, I see that this is simply one story among the many that are told about what corporations are and why they exist, and that this is indeed a story that benefits a few at the expense of most.

So, I have simply stopped arguing against Friedman’s op-ed pronouncements in the usual “stockholder vs. stakeholder” manner. I don’t discount this as a viable teaching method; I just find it personally very tiresome. Instead, I present Friedman’s libertarian/egoistic position embedded in the context of modern finance theory and its limitations as an ethical worldview. Egoism is perhaps a baseline for human ethics, but it seems to me to be far too thin and shallow to serve as the endpoint, and I find that most students agree, although some do have that youthful fascination with the weird posturings of Ayn Rand and others of extreme libertarian bent.

I also note that Friedman is more than a bit disingenuous when he says that obeying the law is all a socially responsible corporation needs to do, because he fails to acknowledge – although he certainly knew – the extent to which the law is shaped by corporate interests. Our field and that of political science have generated quite a lot of knowledge about how this happens.

I know – he also argues for obeying ethical custom; but this, of course, sounds like ethical relativism. This too is disingenuous, for I’ve never found a libertarian who is also a true ethical relativist; there’s always something up with which they will not put, as it were.

Finally, Friedman’s famous CSR quotes are not even about stakeholder interests, as the SIM field defines social responsibility. He’s talking specifically about charitable giving, and he makes a good point. I haven’t yet found any foolproof justification for demanding philanthropy from corporations.

In the mid-80s, after my first book on the 1906 Pure Food Law was out, I was invited to a small gathering of public choice economists at George Mason University – another Chicago School outpost. I think they liked my uncovering of business self-interests in what has been seen historically as a consumer protection law. Be that as it may, James Buchanan was a keynote speaker, and he was arguing then for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of free exchange. Naïve young thing that I was, I asked, “What about water, nuclear weapons, nerve gas, human organs, babies?” Gordon Tulloch patted me on the head; the great man himself stammered, “Well, uh, there might, uh...” and immediately turned away to take another question. Needless to say, I wasn't invited back.

I just don’t have a lot of patience for this ethically flimsy, data-twisting, rich man’s view any more. I’m tired of spinning wheels arguing with a dead economist. I’m tired of always being cast in the ‘against’ position. So, if a student says, “We learned that corporations exist to maximize stockholder wealth,” I’ll just say, “Sure, that is one view, and it has been popular for a while. Understanding what a corporation is and should do from the standpoint of particular business courses is like the blind men trying to grasp 'elephant' by touching various parts. Let me offer you a few more views, and then we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits. It’s a whole new world, you know.”

Best wishes to all,
Donna

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

The OxFam/Unilever report that Jennifer referenced can be accessed off of this page: http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam/display.asp?isbn=0855985666. The online access is free (while the hard copy can be purchased). The direct link is here: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/livelihoods/downloads/unilever.pdf but you might have an info page beforehand.

Kind regards,
Laura


Prof. Laura P. Hartman
Professor of Business Ethics, Dept. of Management
DePaul University
1 E. Jackson Blvd., ste. 7000
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: 312/362-6569, Fax: 312/362-6973
Mobile: 312/493-9929 
 Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this email message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jennifer Griffin
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:38 AM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Hi, Linda;

Re: Friedman, ditto Lori's comment on the Reason Magazine discussion between Friedman and MacKey. And, ditto Simone's comment on HB Fuller. Good cases!

To build out Porter & Kramer (2006) the Oxfam/Unilever Indonesia (2005) report (principal author Jason Clay) helps illustrate how generic business issues (labour/workplace conditions; supply networks; taxes) can be transformed to gain advantage when managed systemically and systematically. Former CSR director of Unilever Indonesia as a class speaker helped make these ideas come alive, too.

Also use Mahon (1989) and other issues management articles (e.g., Mahon & Wartick) alongside Porter & Kramer to build out the idea of an issue not being solely a 'social' issue but every business issues having socio-political-economic-legal management challenges/opportunities.

Best,
Jenn

Jennifer J. Griffin
Associate Professor, Strategic Management and Public Policy
Director, Institute for Corporate Responsibility -- Global Stakeholder Strategies Program
The George Washington University
School of Business
2201 G Street, NW Funger 615
Washington, DC 20052
202.994.2536 phone
202.994.8113 fax


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elm, Dawn R." <DRELM@stthomas.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU


> Linda,
> I've used Charles Handy's "What's a Business For" with good success.
> Dawn
> ________________________________
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
> Behalf Of James Weber [weber719@COMCAST.NET]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Linda – Good question, that many of us struggle with.
>
> I have had good success over the years using the Frank Abrams’ HBR
> piece = Abrams, F. W. (1951). Management’s responsibilities in a
> complex world. Harvard Business Review, 29(3), 29-34. This is
> particularly enjoyable when, after blocking out the date and author’s
> bio, I ask them who Frank Abrams is (senior executive at Standard Oil
> of New Jersey, not ExxonMobil) and when he wrote the article (1951!).
> The MBAs often guess – some business ethics professor and he wrote it
> in the 1990s!
>
> I, too, have used Porter and Kramer’s (can’t forget the lesser-known
> co-author) HBR piece, although Abrams seem to address Friedman more
> directly given the similar time of his writing.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jim Weber, Ph.D.
> Professor of Business Ethics and Management
> Senior Fellow, Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics
> Rockwell Hall 813, Duquesne University
> 600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282
> office: 412-396-5475
> fax: 412-396-4764
> www.business.duq.edu/Beard
>
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [ On Behalf Of Linda Trevino
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Hi all,
> Two questions:
>
>
> 1. Can anyone recommend a concise, well-written article
> (appropriate for MBAs) that is a response to Milton Friedman’s classic
> piece on social responsibility?
>
> 2. I’m thinking of assigning Porter’s HBR article on CSR and
> Strategy. Does anyone have a favorite case that would be a good
> accompaniment to that reading?
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at:
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at:
> _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

Dear friends and Colleagues

Thank you Donna. I apologize for my earlier memo talking about the exchange between Friedman and Paul Samuelson in the AER in the late fifties or early sixties. I left out Samuelson's name. My point is that Friedman argued that assumptions do not count and Samuelson argues that they do. Friedman probably had some sort of definition or set of assumptions about the nature of the human person, but they did not count. I will never forget the first time I heard him speak in 1961 as an guest lecturer at Indiana U. I was overwhelmed by his logic, but them as I trudged back to my room I started to think through his assumptions and I got mad at myself for being taken in by impeccable logic from the assumptions forward, despite the total nonsense assumptions being used. As to the op-ed piece causing such a frenzy, this is part of our blindness as academics. I am always amazed by the number of articles from the HBR referenced in the various strategy textbooks I review and use, because the day before I will have seen a ranking of journals in strategy that has HBR well down the list. I do not deny the importance of the most respected of our academic journals, or of their role. But are we blinded by our focus on them from realizing the importance of other work and its impact?

Tom

Dr. Thomas A. Bausch, Professor
Department of Management
College of Business Administration
Marquette University 1881
Milwaukee WI 53201 1881
Tel:     414 288 1657
Home: 414 771 2533
Fax:    414 288 5765
Cell: 414 690 9498
E-mail: thomas.bausch@marquette.edu
Home:  bernieb@milwpc.com

"If one has private ends to serve,
one will never be able to win the world." (Tao Te Ching, No. 48)


-----Original Message-----
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donna Wood
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:18 AM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Dear friends and colleagues,

Linda's request and the ensuing discussion have sparked reflection. It's on the long side for e-mail, and my apologies for that, but here goes.

As a young SIM scholar in the early 1980s, I could not understand why my new field paid so much frenzied attention to some economist's op-ed piece in the New York Times Magazine. I could not understand why the week-long 'business & society' training sessions for new scholars included so many talks by business lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I could not understand why the emphasis shifted from social responsibility to social responsiveness and "how businesses can win in Washington," or why I should have to take seriously the blatantly political work of Murray Weidenbaum, Sam Peltzman, and others on "the costs and benefits of regulation" - which really meant the COSTS of regulation.

In one of my earliest and most obscure publications, I tracked down the source of the 1980s common wisdom that it takes 12 years and $200 million to get a new drug to market. The source was a University of Rochester working paper by an economics doctoral student from U. Chicago. He surveyed a few big drug companies, explained his 'costs and benefits' project to them, and asked them to provide R&D info on ANY TEN of their hundreds of new drug prospects. There was no accounting for missing data or outright fabrication; there was no attempt to assess the representativeness of the information each company submitted; and there were glaring logical errors in his reasoning. Nevertheless, his conclusion (12 years, $200 million) was fed into the press and soon came to be quoted by everyone concerned about deregulation AND consumer health and well-being!

Many years later, I now understand the concentrated effort that the Chicago economists made over decades to transform the U.S. society and economy into one that would generate massive wealth for some, with benefits perhaps 'trickling down' to others, but if not, no matter! I also now understand that Friedman's little op-ed piece derived from his libertarian political philosophy as cleanly expounded in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom. And finally, I see that this is simply one story among the many that are told about what corporations are and why they exist, and that this is indeed a story that benefits a few at the expense of most.

So, I have simply stopped arguing against Friedman's op-ed pronouncements in the usual "stockholder vs. stakeholder" manner. I don't discount this as a viable teaching method; I just find it personally very tiresome. Instead, I present Friedman's libertarian/egoistic position embedded in the context of modern finance theory and its limitations as an ethical worldview. Egoism is perhaps a baseline for human ethics, but it seems to me to be far too thin and shallow to serve as the endpoint, and I find that most students agree, although some do have that youthful fascination with the weird posturings of Ayn Rand and others of extreme libertarian bent.

I also note that Friedman is more than a bit disingenuous when he says that obeying the law is all a socially responsible corporation needs to do, because he fails to acknowledge - although he certainly knew - the extent to which the law is shaped by corporate interests. Our field and that of political science have generated quite a lot of knowledge about how this happens.

I know - he also argues for obeying ethical custom; but this, of course, sounds like ethical relativism. This too is disingenuous, for I've never found a libertarian who is also a true ethical relativist; there's always something up with which they will not put, as it were.

Finally, Friedman's famous CSR quotes are not even about stakeholder interests, as the SIM field defines social responsibility. He's talking specifically about charitable giving, and he makes a good point. I haven't yet found any foolproof justification for demanding philanthropy from corporations.

In the mid-80s, after my first book on the 1906 Pure Food Law was out, I was invited to a small gathering of public choice economists at George Mason University - another Chicago School outpost. I think they liked my uncovering of business self-interests in what has been seen historically as a consumer protection law. Be that as it may, James Buchanan was a keynote speaker, and he was arguing then for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of free exchange. Naïve young thing that I was, I asked, "What about water, nuclear weapons, nerve gas, human organs, babies?" Gordon Tulloch patted me on the head; the great man himself stammered, "Well, uh, there might, uh..." and immediately turned away to take another question. Needless to say, I wasn't invited back.

I just don't have a lot of patience for this ethically flimsy, data-twisting, rich man's view any more. I'm tired of spinning wheels arguing with a dead economist. I'm tired of always being cast in the 'against' position. So, if a student says, "We learned that corporations exist to maximize stockholder wealth," I'll just say, "Sure, that is one view, and it has been popular for a while. Understanding what a corporation is and should do from the standpoint of particular business courses is like the blind men trying to grasp 'elephant' by touching various parts. Let me offer you a few more views, and then we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits. It's a whole new world, you know."

Best wishes to all,
Donna

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

Dear Donna and all,

Thanks so much for the insightful reflection. I'm going to forward it around my college.

It's nice to be reminded so elegantly that SIM is not inherently an advocacy group and that honest reflection is not an alternative viewpoint, a position taken against another side. Social scientists need to take an agnostic approach and see what shakes out. If findings happen to run counter to established interests, that doesn't mean they are politically motivated. It need not be an either-or world where each pre-designated side determines to use the trappings of "research", the media, etc. to obtain dominance. Rather, as you well put it: "we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits."

We had a debate along these lines in the Sept. 2003 issue of Organization & Environment. Jon Entine wrote a piece accusing SIM researchers of pursuing an agenda, and Sondra Waddock and Rob Salomon & I countered. You can find the piece Rob Salomon and I wrote here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=624070

Your e-mail also brings to mind a larger problem with social science research in general. I just took a trip that involved lengthy plane rides, and so I used the time to reread a recent book by Bill Starbuck. It's titled, "The production of knowledge: The challenge of social science research." I encourage everyone to read it. Bill specifies how the nature of social science research, to include personal agendas but also problems in statistics and data gathering, can limit the accumulation of knowledge. He recommends ways to limit these problems. You can read more about the book here:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Business/Management/?view=usa&ci=9780199288533


Best,
Mike

***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donna Wood
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 12:18 PM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Dear friends and colleagues,

Linda's request and the ensuing discussion have sparked reflection. It's on the long side for e-mail, and my apologies for that, but here goes.

As a young SIM scholar in the early 1980s, I could not understand why my new field paid so much frenzied attention to some economist's op-ed piece in the New York Times Magazine. I could not understand why the week-long 'business & society' training sessions for new scholars included so many talks by business lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I could not understand why the emphasis shifted from social responsibility to social responsiveness and "how businesses can win in Washington," or why I should have to take seriously the blatantly political work of Murray Weidenbaum, Sam Peltzman, and others on "the costs and benefits of regulation" - which really meant the COSTS of regulation.

In one of my earliest and most obscure publications, I tracked down the source of the 1980s common wisdom that it takes 12 years and $200 million to get a new drug to market. The source was a University of Rochester working paper by an economics doctoral student from U. Chicago. He surveyed a few big drug companies, explained his 'costs and benefits' project to them, and asked them to provide R&D info on ANY TEN of their hundreds of new drug prospects. There was no accounting for missing data or outright fabrication; there was no attempt to assess the representativeness of the information each company submitted; and there were glaring logical errors in his reasoning. Nevertheless, his conclusion (12 years, $200 million) was fed into the press and soon came to be quoted by everyone concerned about deregulation AND consumer health and well-being!

Many years later, I now understand the concentrated effort that the Chicago economists made over decades to transform the U.S. society and economy into one that would generate massive wealth for some, with benefits perhaps 'trickling down' to others, but if not, no matter! I also now understand that Friedman's little op-ed piece derived from his libertarian political philosophy as cleanly expounded in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom. And finally, I see that this is simply one story among the many that are told about what corporations are and why they exist, and that this is indeed a story that benefits a few at the expense of most.

So, I have simply stopped arguing against Friedman's op-ed pronouncements in the usual "stockholder vs. stakeholder" manner. I don't discount this as a viable teaching method; I just find it personally very tiresome. Instead, I present Friedman's libertarian/egoistic position embedded in the context of modern finance theory and its limitations as an ethical worldview. Egoism is perhaps a baseline for human ethics, but it seems to me to be far too thin and shallow to serve as the endpoint, and I find that most students agree, although some do have that youthful fascination with the weird posturings of Ayn Rand and others of extreme libertarian bent.

I also note that Friedman is more than a bit disingenuous when he says that obeying the law is all a socially responsible corporation needs to do, because he fails to acknowledge - although he certainly knew - the extent to which the law is shaped by corporate interests. Our field and that of political science have generated quite a lot of knowledge about how this happens.

I know - he also argues for obeying ethical custom; but this, of course, sounds like ethical relativism. This too is disingenuous, for I've never found a libertarian who is also a true ethical relativist; there's always something up with which they will not put, as it were.

Finally, Friedman's famous CSR quotes are not even about stakeholder interests, as the SIM field defines social responsibility. He's talking specifically about charitable giving, and he makes a good point. I haven't yet found any foolproof justification for demanding philanthropy from corporations.

In the mid-80s, after my first book on the 1906 Pure Food Law was out, I was invited to a small gathering of public choice economists at George Mason University - another Chicago School outpost. I think they liked my uncovering of business self-interests in what has been seen historically as a consumer protection law. Be that as it may, James Buchanan was a keynote speaker, and he was arguing then for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of free exchange. Naïve young thing that I was, I asked, "What about water, nuclear weapons, nerve gas, human organs, babies?" Gordon Tulloch patted me on the head; the great man himself stammered, "Well, uh, there might, uh..." and immediately turned away to take another question. Needless to say, I wasn't invited back.

I just don't have a lot of patience for this ethically flimsy, data-twisting, rich man's view any more. I'm tired of spinning wheels arguing with a dead economist. I'm tired of always being cast in the 'against' position. So, if a student says, "We learned that corporations exist to maximize stockholder wealth," I'll just say, "Sure, that is one view, and it has been popular for a while. Understanding what a corporation is and should do from the standpoint of particular business courses is like the blind men trying to grasp 'elephant' by touching various parts. Let me offer you a few more views, and then we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits. It's a whole new world, you know."

Best wishes to all,
Donna

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

I want to thank everyone who replied. I have quite the list and will need to spend time reading and deciding!
Lots of helpful and thoughtful responses. Thanks again!

Linda K. Trevino
Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior and Ethics
Smeal College of Business
402 Business Building
Smeal College of Business
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814-865-2194 Fax: 814-863-7261
Email: ltrevino@psu.edu
________________________________________
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael [mbarnett@coba.usf.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:51 AM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Dear Donna and all,

Thanks so much for the insightful reflection. I'm going to forward it around my college.

It's nice to be reminded so elegantly that SIM is not inherently an advocacy group and that honest reflection is not an alternative viewpoint, a position taken against another side. Social scientists need to take an agnostic approach and see what shakes out. If findings happen to run counter to established interests, that doesn't mean they are politically motivated. It need not be an either-or world where each pre-designated side determines to use the trappings of "research", the media, etc. to obtain dominance. Rather, as you well put it: "we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits."

We had a debate along these lines in the Sept. 2003 issue of Organization & Environment. Jon Entine wrote a piece accusing SIM researchers of pursuing an agenda, and Sondra Waddock and Rob Salomon & I countered. You can find the piece Rob Salomon and I wrote here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=624070

Your e-mail also brings to mind a larger problem with social science research in general. I just took a trip that involved lengthy plane rides, and so I used the time to reread a recent book by Bill Starbuck. It's titled, "The production of knowledge: The challenge of social science research." I encourage everyone to read it. Bill specifies how the nature of social science research, to include personal agendas but also problems in statistics and data gathering, can limit the accumulation of knowledge. He recommends ways to limit these problems. You can read more about the book here:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Business/Management/?view=usa&ci=9780199288533


Best,
Mike

***********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
E-mail: mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
**************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donna Wood
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 12:18 PM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Dear friends and colleagues,

Linda's request and the ensuing discussion have sparked reflection. It's on the long side for e-mail, and my apologies for that, but here goes.

As a young SIM scholar in the early 1980s, I could not understand why my new field paid so much frenzied attention to some economist's op-ed piece in the New York Times Magazine. I could not understand why the week-long 'business & society' training sessions for new scholars included so many talks by business lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I could not understand why the emphasis shifted from social responsibility to social responsiveness and "how businesses can win in Washington," or why I should have to take seriously the blatantly political work of Murray Weidenbaum, Sam Peltzman, and others on "the costs and benefits of regulation" - which really meant the COSTS of regulation.

In one of my earliest and most obscure publications, I tracked down the source of the 1980s common wisdom that it takes 12 years and $200 million to get a new drug to market. The source was a University of Rochester working paper by an economics doctoral student from U. Chicago. He surveyed a few big drug companies, explained his 'costs and benefits' project to them, and asked them to provide R&D info on ANY TEN of their hundreds of new drug prospects. There was no accounting for missing data or outright fabrication; there was no attempt to assess the representativeness of the information each company submitted; and there were glaring logical errors in his reasoning. Nevertheless, his conclusion (12 years, $200 million) was fed into the press and soon came to be quoted by everyone concerned about deregulation AND consumer health and well-being!

Many years later, I now understand the concentrated effort that the Chicago economists made over decades to transform the U.S. society and economy into one that would generate massive wealth for some, with benefits perhaps 'trickling down' to others, but if not, no matter! I also now understand that Friedman's little op-ed piece derived from his libertarian political philosophy as cleanly expounded in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom. And finally, I see that this is simply one story among the many that are told about what corporations are and why they exist, and that this is indeed a story that benefits a few at the expense of most.

So, I have simply stopped arguing against Friedman's op-ed pronouncements in the usual "stockholder vs. stakeholder" manner. I don't discount this as a viable teaching method; I just find it personally very tiresome. Instead, I present Friedman's libertarian/egoistic position embedded in the context of modern finance theory and its limitations as an ethical worldview. Egoism is perhaps a baseline for human ethics, but it seems to me to be far too thin and shallow to serve as the endpoint, and I find that most students agree, although some do have that youthful fascination with the weird posturings of Ayn Rand and others of extreme libertarian bent.

I also note that Friedman is more than a bit disingenuous when he says that obeying the law is all a socially responsible corporation needs to do, because he fails to acknowledge - although he certainly knew - the extent to which the law is shaped by corporate interests. Our field and that of political science have generated quite a lot of knowledge about how this happens.

I know - he also argues for obeying ethical custom; but this, of course, sounds like ethical relativism. This too is disingenuous, for I've never found a libertarian who is also a true ethical relativist; there's always something up with which they will not put, as it were.

Finally, Friedman's famous CSR quotes are not even about stakeholder interests, as the SIM field defines social responsibility. He's talking specifically about charitable giving, and he makes a good point. I haven't yet found any foolproof justification for demanding philanthropy from corporations.

In the mid-80s, after my first book on the 1906 Pure Food Law was out, I was invited to a small gathering of public choice economists at George Mason University - another Chicago School outpost. I think they liked my uncovering of business self-interests in what has been seen historically as a consumer protection law. Be that as it may, James Buchanan was a keynote speaker, and he was arguing then for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of free exchange. Naïve young thing that I was, I asked, "What about water, nuclear weapons, nerve gas, human organs, babies?" Gordon Tulloch patted me on the head; the great man himself stammered, "Well, uh, there might, uh..." and immediately turned away to take another question. Needless to say, I wasn't invited back.

I just don't have a lot of patience for this ethically flimsy, data-twisting, rich man's view any more. I'm tired of spinning wheels arguing with a dead economist. I'm tired of always being cast in the 'against' position. So, if a student says, "We learned that corporations exist to maximize stockholder wealth," I'll just say, "Sure, that is one view, and it has been popular for a while. Understanding what a corporation is and should do from the standpoint of particular business courses is like the blind men trying to grasp 'elephant' by touching various parts. Let me offer you a few more views, and then we can try to figure out the circumstances under which each view might be relevant, and who benefits. It's a whole new world, you know."

Best wishes to all,
Donna

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1

This has been an interesting exchange. I have adopted a more entertainment-oriented approach. I assign a youtube interview of Friedman from around the time his oft-cited article came out(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE), then clips from Krugman and Stiglitz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laura Hartman" <LHARTMAN@depaul.edu>
To: "karen paul" <karen.paul@business.fiu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2009 11:07:46 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

The OxFam/Unilever report that Jennifer referenced can be accessed off of this page: http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam/display.asp?isbn=0855985666. The online access is free (while the hard copy can be purchased). The direct link is here: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/livelihoods/downloads/unilever.pdf but you might have an info page beforehand.

Kind regards,
Laura


Prof. Laura P. Hartman
Professor of Business Ethics, Dept. of Management
DePaul University
1 E. Jackson Blvd., ste. 7000
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: 312/362-6569, Fax: 312/362-6973
Mobile: 312/493-9929
 Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this email message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [mailto:SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jennifer Griffin
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:38 AM
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman

Hi, Linda;

Re: Friedman, ditto Lori's comment on the Reason Magazine discussion between Friedman and MacKey. And, ditto Simone's comment on HB Fuller. Good cases!

To build out Porter & Kramer (2006) the Oxfam/Unilever Indonesia (2005) report (principal author Jason Clay) helps illustrate how generic business issues (labour/workplace conditions; supply networks; taxes) can be transformed to gain advantage when managed systemically and systematically. Former CSR director of Unilever Indonesia as a class speaker helped make these ideas come alive, too.

Also use Mahon (1989) and other issues management articles (e.g., Mahon & Wartick) alongside Porter & Kramer to build out the idea of an issue not being solely a 'social' issue but every business issues having socio-political-economic-legal management challenges/opportunities.

Best,
Jenn

Jennifer J. Griffin
Associate Professor, Strategic Management and Public Policy
Director, Institute for Corporate Responsibility -- Global Stakeholder Strategies Program
The George Washington University
School of Business
2201 G Street, NW Funger 615
Washington, DC 20052
202.994.2536 phone
202.994.8113 fax


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elm, Dawn R." <DRELM@stthomas.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU


> Linda,
> I've used Charles Handy's "What's a Business For" with good success.
> Dawn
> ________________________________
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
> Behalf Of James Weber [weber719@COMCAST.NET]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Linda – Good question, that many of us struggle with.
>
> I have had good success over the years using the Frank Abrams’ HBR
> piece = Abrams, F. W. (1951). Management’s responsibilities in a
> complex world. Harvard Business Review, 29(3), 29-34. This is
> particularly enjoyable when, after blocking out the date and author’s
> bio, I ask them who Frank Abrams is (senior executive at Standard Oil
> of New Jersey, not ExxonMobil) and when he wrote the article (1951!).
> The MBAs often guess – some business ethics professor and he wrote it
> in the 1990s!
>
> I, too, have used Porter and Kramer’s (can’t forget the lesser-known
> co-author) HBR piece, although Abrams seem to address Friedman more
> directly given the similar time of his writing.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jim Weber, Ph.D.
> Professor of Business Ethics and Management
> Senior Fellow, Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics
> Rockwell Hall 813, Duquesne University
> 600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282
> office: 412-396-5475
> fax: 412-396-4764
> www.business.duq.edu/Beard
>
> From: Social Issues in Management Listserv [ On Behalf Of Linda Trevino
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: SIM@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: [SIM] Alternative to Friedman
>
> Hi all,
> Two questions:
>
>
> 1. Can anyone recommend a concise, well-written article
> (appropriate for MBAs) that is a response to Milton Friedman’s classic
> piece on social responsibility?
>
> 2. I’m thinking of assigning Porter’s HBR article on CSR and
> Strategy. Does anyone have a favorite case that would be a good
> accompaniment to that reading?
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at: _______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Visit the SIM Division website at:
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
> options, you can do so online at:
> _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1