View Thread

Colleagues,

I guess you all have heard that the most recent pinstripes results have been released. What is your general sense of the school rankings? Are they accurate, biased, random?

Please let me know. I'd prefer if we all email the list, but I can also be reached personally at andrew.a.king@dartmouth.edu

AK

Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Cell: 603-359-0369

The report that Andy suggests we discuss can be accessed at:
http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/
I find the diversity of constituent measures to be strength of the ranking,
though the judges might have been selected a tad more globally though.
However, I can't find fault with their selection of Sandra Waddock for a
faculty pioneer award:
http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/faculty_pioneers/sandra_waddock.cfm
CONGRATULATIONS SANDRA!

Cybercollegially,
Charles
http://management-education.net/

-----Original Message-----

Colleagues,

I guess you all have heard that the most recent pinstripes results have been
released. What is your general sense of the school rankings? Are they
accurate, biased, random?

Please let me know. I'd prefer if we all email the list, but I can also be
reached personally at andrew.a.king@dartmouth.edu

AK

Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
Andrew.A.King@DARTMOUTH.EDU

Hi Andrew and all:

This is first year Aspen ranked schools as opposed to identify
the "leading schools," so it does have the potential to have more
impact (for better or worse). I have just a few quick observations.

First, the apparent equal weighting of the four criteria (25% each for
student opportunity, student exposure, course content, and faculty
research) emphasizes the student/educational aspects more than
research, and this may be appropriate. In addition, the first
criterion (student opportunity) - which reflects the number of courses
available to students - would appear to favor larger schools with more
overall course offerings because this factor seems not to be adjusted
for the size of schools or total number of courses available (although
Stanford is certainly not among the largest of B-schools and
nonetheless came out #1). By comparison, the student exposure
criterion is adjusted for school size and length of program. Further,
non-course related activities (for example service - as represented by
some of the activities of the Allwin Initiative at Tuck - would
apparently not be factored in the equation). Also, the greater
interest in issues of CSR and sustainability in non-U.S. schools -
especially Canadian and European ones - might explain the relatively
high representation of these schools in top 30. Finally, schools that
do not have a traditional full-time day MBA program (such as
Villanova) are not included in the survey, even though they may have
strong undergraduate, part-time graduate, EMBA and executive programs.

Nonetheless, the survey provides important recognition for these
issues and schools, and with an actual rating is more comparable to
other traditional ratings (again, for better or worse).

FYI, an explanation of the methodology for the ratings can be found at:
http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/rankings/methodology.cfm

Jonathan Doh, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Responsible Leadership and Governance
College of Commerce and Finance
Villanova University
Villanova, PA 19085
Tel: 610-519-7798
Fax: 610-519-6566
jonathan.doh@villanova.edu
http://www.leadershipcenter.villanova.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew A. King" <Andrew.A.King@DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Date: Monday, November 7, 2005 6:55 pm
Subject: Pinstripes

> Colleagues,
>
> I guess you all have heard that the most recent pinstripes results
> have been released. What is your general sense of the school
> rankings? Are they accurate, biased, random?
>
> Please let me know. I'd prefer if we all email the list, but I
> can also be reached personally at andrew.a.king@dartmouth.edu
>
> AK
>
> Andrew King
> Associate Professor of Business Administration
> Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> 202 Chase Hall
> Hanover, NH 03755
>
> Cell: 603-359-0369
>

ONE Friends;

I think the Grey Pinstripes reports makes a critical contribution to the
field by not only providing information to potential students, but also by
promoting and legitimizing programs to a wider audience. This
legitimization is important both externally and internally. Internally, it
can be extremely important in ensuring acceptance by faculty and
administrators.

I have two suggested changes to the current methodology. First, it would be
nice to see it extend to the undergraduate level. Second, the ranking does
not consider various activities, programs, and opportunities that happen
outside of the classroom. It would be great to see some of these activities
integrated into the next report.

Overall, kudos to WRI and the Aspen Institute for their work in promoting
sustainable and socially responsible business education. Best, Tom



Thomas J. Dean
Anderson Professor of Entrepreneurial Development
Faculty Director, Deming Center for Entrepreneurship
Leeds School of Business
University of Colorado at Boulder
419 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0419

303-492-3282
303-492-5962 (fax)
tom.dean@colorado.edu
http://leeds.colorado.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrew A. King
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:56 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Pinstripes

Colleagues,

I guess you all have heard that the most recent pinstripes results have been
released. What is your general sense of the school rankings? Are they
accurate, biased, random?

Please let me know. I'd prefer if we all email the list, but I can also be
reached personally at andrew.a.king@dartmouth.edu

AK

Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Cell: 603-359-0369

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

David,

This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty we
are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of the
AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to struggle
with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this issue
and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued for
the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me at
the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally from a
society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something that
hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would support
environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times on a
short example of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1


Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by WRI/ASPEN
is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social issue
too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.

-Joe S.







==============================================
Joseph Sarkis
Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477

Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
jsarkis@clarku.edu
==============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

I cannot disagree more.

Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large) suffers
from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases, and
thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other impacts.
Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
(bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in tuna.
Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
nature.

Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure environmental
performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human species
is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are (biologically,
emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if we
suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.

I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems thinking
and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental problems
- many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many years
focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be multi-media.
There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
disciplines.

Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



Joseph Sarkis
<jsarkis@CLARKU.
EDU> To
Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Organizations cc
and the Natural
Environment Subject
Discussion Re: Pinstripes
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>


11/09/2005 07:00
AM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>






David,

This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
we
are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
the
AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
struggle
with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
issue
and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
for
the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
at
the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
from a
society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
that
hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
support
environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times
on a
short example of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1


Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
WRI/ASPEN
is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
issue
too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.

-Joe S.







==============================================
Joseph Sarkis
Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477

Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
jsarkis@clarku.edu
==============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I

find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to

the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report

tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

I want to be provocative because I think most of the responses have been
soft and on the nice side. So here it is. Maybe I woke up on the wrong side
of the bed this morning.I don't believe in stars*** interpreted for me
that are then aggregated into lists where the uncomparable is compared. Nor
do I believe that Pinstripes is close to being accurate even if I should
believe in such a system. Why are not charts with real data published so
readers can decide for themselves what they mean? For example, though
research "counts" for 25%, there is no data I could find on the website on
research. Is the difference between 3 ***s and 2**s a gap as big as a
valley between 2 mountains or a razor thin space? I have no clue. How
dependent are the differences on the spin of the reporting schools? What
kind of check is made on data accuracy? To me, the ratings do not have face
validity. To give an example -- where is Wharton? Think of the people and
programs (Donaldson/Orts, et. al. an undegraduate major, a department
devoted to the area, environmental risk & safety research by people like
Kunreuther). If the ratings are based on "counts," which appears to be the
case, something is awry. So let me express my frustration. Are the ratings
bogus, a sham, misleading, indeed -- should is say it -- a fraud? What if
they were "audited" What would the audit show? I say this tongue and cheek,
but I have some fear in saying it because I care where my school is ranked
-- I think it should be ranked higher -- and am concerned that the raters
may take retribution if I criticize them. I bet that there are a lot of you
who think your schools should be rated higher. So why is everyone being so
nice? Does this fear put a negative spin on the ratings? If anything as
individuals devoted to corporate social responsibility and sustainability,
we have to be willing to ask such questions. We have the right to expect
honesty, truthfulness, and transparency. My hope would be that ratings can
be improved and used to upgrade research and teaching in areas that we care
about. And maybe we are at early stage. And maybe, a real dialogue on how
"good" ratings can be done should be started. So what do you "really"
think? How good are the ratings, and how could they be improved? Or maybe I
just got up on the wrong side of the bed.

Dear ONE-L:

I presume many would agree that environmental and social issues are linked
-- with some more so than others. But I think that potentially interesting
debate moves us away from what I view as the key issue with Pinstripes: its
ability to inform potential MBA students (and potential and existing
faculty) about which schools are leading the way "to study issues of social
and environmental stewardship into business school curricula and research."

I think many recent ONE-L'er suggestions to bolster Pinstripes are
excellent. I offer two more suggestions:

1. I see no reason why they can't create and publish two sub-scores -- one
for "social", one for "environmental". Not only would this be helpful to
increase the transparency of their assessment method, but it would help
their intended audience of prospective students and faculty -- many of whom
would probably like to know about the school's emphasis on only one of these
issues. The current method mixes apples and oranges, and unnecessarily so.
They could still create an overall score if they wanted (though it wouldn't
be of much use to me).

2. I think there needs to be a much tighter review of which courses and
research "count" toward the scores. Again, more transparency about their
methodology would help here. When I look at the research listed at many
schools (including my own), I am left to wonder whether any review standards
are being applied, or whether it's entirely left up to the chutzpah/modesty
of the survey respondent -- which would be a shame.


Mike Toffel
Postdoctoral Scholar
Haas School of Business
University of California
545 Student Services Bldg #1900
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
Tel: (510) 642-9949
Email: toffel@haas.berkeley.edu
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/

I am going to sidestep Dina's questions for now, and just to add that I hope
the Pinstripes' next iteration includes an assessment of Doctoral Programs
in business schools on environment/csr. It seems to me there is a
disconnect - business schools are mainly hiring PhDs from business schools
but very few business schools have PhD programs that are geared towards
studying these topics. Who will be the next generation of teachers in
b-schools on environmental and/or CSR?. While I agree it's ultimately better
to integrate environmental and social issues into the different disciplines
as they stand, I am not convinced that those teaching these disciplines are
able to adequately do so. For one thing, in their own doctoral training,
were they ever taught anything on the topics?
Regards
Anastasia

Anastasia R. O'Rourke | Ph.D. Candidate | Yale University |Ph. +1 203 432
5216 (office) | + 1 203 215 1575 (cell) | anastasia.orourke@yale.edu |



-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes


I cannot disagree more.

Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large) suffers
from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases, and
thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other impacts.
Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
(bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in tuna.
Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
nature.

Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure environmental
performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human species
is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are (biologically,
emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if we
suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.

I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems thinking
and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental problems
- many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many years
focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be multi-media.
There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
disciplines.

Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



Joseph Sarkis
<jsarkis@CLARKU.
EDU> To
Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Organizations cc
and the Natural
Environment Subject
Discussion Re: Pinstripes
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>


11/09/2005 07:00
AM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>






David,

This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
we
are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
the
AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
struggle
with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
issue
and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
for
the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
at
the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
from a
society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
that
hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
support
environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times
on a
short example of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1


Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
WRI/ASPEN
is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
issue
too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.

-Joe S.







==============================================
Joseph Sarkis
Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477

Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
jsarkis@clarku.edu
==============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I

find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to

the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report

tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

I would propose that part of the disconnect Anastasia is referring to
(content of PhD programs and current ONE professors' training) arises
from the publications outlets available to ONE researchers. When in a
business school you are assigned to a particular dept and gain
recognition and promotion capability from publishing in that dept's
respected journals. Those journals do not often have reviewers who are
able to provide intelligent comment on whether the researcher is
applying realistic or meaningful environmental/public health scenarios,
but rather whether management or organizational models/strategies/
outcomes can be demonstrated. (I am sure other members of ONE are in a
better position to comment on this thought than I - as an outside
observer).

Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



"Anastasia
O'Rourke"
<anastasia.orour To
ke@YALE.EDU> ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Sent by: cc
Organizations
and the Natural Subject
Environment Re: Pinstripes
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>


11/09/2005 12:33
PM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>






I am going to sidestep Dina's questions for now, and just to add that I
hope
the Pinstripes' next iteration includes an assessment of Doctoral
Programs
in business schools on environment/csr. It seems to me there is a
disconnect - business schools are mainly hiring PhDs from business
schools
but very few business schools have PhD programs that are geared towards
studying these topics. Who will be the next generation of teachers in
b-schools on environmental and/or CSR?. While I agree it's ultimately
better
to integrate environmental and social issues into the different
disciplines
as they stand, I am not convinced that those teaching these disciplines
are
able to adequately do so. For one thing, in their own doctoral training,
were they ever taught anything on the topics?
Regards
Anastasia

Anastasia R. O'Rourke | Ph.D. Candidate | Yale University |Ph. +1 203
432
5216 (office) | + 1 203 215 1575 (cell) | anastasia.orourke@yale.edu |



-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes


I cannot disagree more.

Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large) suffers
from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases, and
thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other impacts.
Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
(bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in tuna.
Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
nature.

Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure environmental
performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human species
is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are (biologically,
emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if we
suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.

I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems thinking
and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental problems
- many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many years
focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be multi-media.
There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
disciplines.

Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



Joseph Sarkis
<jsarkis@CLARKU.
EDU> To
Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Organizations cc
and the Natural
Environment Subject
Discussion Re: Pinstripes
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>


11/09/2005 07:00
AM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
PACE.EDU>






David,

This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
we
are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
the
AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
struggle
with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
issue
and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
for
the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
at
the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
from a
society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
that
hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
support
environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times
on a
short example of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1


Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
WRI/ASPEN
is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
issue
too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.

-Joe S.







==============================================
Joseph Sarkis
Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477

Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
jsarkis@clarku.edu
==============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I

find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to

the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report

tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

Just want to make sure this was received and that it will make the listserv
some time. best, Alfie



Alfred
Marcus/FS/Carlson
School To

11/09/2005 09:44 cc
AM
Subject
Re: Pinstripes(Document link:
Alfred Marcus)









I want to be provocative because I think most of the responses have been
soft and on the nice side. So here it is. Maybe I woke up on the wrong side
of the bed this morning.I don't believe in stars*** interpreted for me
that are then aggregated into lists where the uncomparable is compared. Nor
do I believe that Pinstripes is close to being accurate even if I should
believe in such a system. Why are not charts with real data published so
readers can decide for themselves what they mean? For example, though
research "counts" for 25%, there is no data I could find on the website on
research. Is the difference between 3 ***s and 2**s a gap as big as a
valley between 2 mountains or a razor thin space? I have no clue. How
dependent are the differences on the spin of the reporting schools? What
kind of check is made on data accuracy? To me, the ratings do not have face
validity. To give an example -- where is Wharton? Think of the people and
programs (Donaldson/Orts, et. al. an undegraduate major, a department
devoted to the area, environmental risk & safety research by people like
Kunreuther). If the ratings are based on "counts," which appears to be the
case, something is awry. So let me express my frustration. Are the ratings
bogus, a sham, misleading, indeed -- should is say it -- a fraud? What if
they were "audited" What would the audit show? I say this tongue and cheek,
but I have some fear in saying it because I care where my school is ranked
-- I think it should be ranked higher -- and am concerned that the raters
may take retribution if I criticize them. I bet that there are a lot of you
who think your schools should be rated higher. So why is everyone being so
nice? Does this fear put a negative spin on the ratings? If anything as
individuals devoted to corporate social responsibility and sustainability,
we have to be willing to ask such questions. We have the right to expect
honesty, truthfulness, and transparency. My hope would be that ratings can
be improved and used to upgrade research and teaching in areas that we care
about. And maybe we are at early stage. And maybe, a real dialogue on how
"good" ratings can be done should be started. So what do you "really"
think? How good are the ratings, and how could they be improved? Or maybe I
just got up on the wrong side of the bed.

Here is an issue with many layers. Is pinestripes an appropriate measure
of social and environmental issues in busines schools? What is the
relationship between CSR and sustainability and corporate environmental
management? What is the field of SIMS and ONE within the academy? And so
on.

Here are some simple thoughts. First CSR, sustainability and corporate
environmental management are issues of our time linked by a concern to
better understand the relationships business organizations, business
activities and managers have with a range of human and natural interests
and systems. The importance of these relationships has risen during the
past decades, principally because of the nature of economic development,
technological change and social expectations. They have also arisen
because many of these issues have not been well factored into the choices
of business practitioners, the curricula of business education nor the
dominant models of the firm we have drawn on for the past 80 years or so.

In that sense there is no real distinction between these concerns as they
all connect to the notion of what these relaionships are like and how they
impact the activities and economic purpose of the firm.

This would lead me to suggest that the best measure of a business school's
attention to these and similar contemporary issues is the extent to which
'questions' of organizational relationships are addressed across the
curricula as much as through dedicated business and environment and CSR
courses. That is, the leading school are, in my view, educating managers
critically to question the appropriateness of long held models of business
that no-longer seem to fit the complex reality of our interconnected
world.

My suggestion is that few BSchools have yet addressed that task and that
means in my view most B Schools do a dis-service in their education of
managers fit for 30 or more years work in a world that will be
fundamentally different from the assumptions of the traditional models
they are taught.

Trouble is that while we need critical managers of this kind it might be
quite damaging to most BSchools to teach the form of reform capitalism of
the kind I advocate. While totally appropriate to the coming world such
an approach would be totally at odds with the dominant paradigm inhabited
by so many curreent managers, firms, public policy makers and academics.

Nigel Roome

Daniel Janssen Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility, Solvay Business
School, Free University of Brussels
and University Chair of Sustainable Enterprise and Trnsformation, Erasmus
University Rotterdam



> David,
>
> This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
> environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
> we
> are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of the
> AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
> environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
> struggle
> with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this issue
> and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued for
> the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
> at
> the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally from
> a
> society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
> that
> hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would support
> environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
> being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times on
> a
> short example of this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
> marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
> society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
> issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
> Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
> WRI/ASPEN
> is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
> issue
> too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
> conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.
>
> -Joe S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> Joseph Sarkis
> Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
> Graduate School of Management
> Clark University
> 950 Main Street
> Worcester, MA 01610-1477
>
> Phone: 508-793-7659
> Fax: 508-793-8822
> URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
> jsarkis@clarku.edu
> ==============================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
> Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
> find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
> environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
> about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
> the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
> tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
> identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
> would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
> think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
> content for particular reporting purposes.
> For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
> and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
> clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
> how many dedicated courses in each area.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Levy
> Professor, Department of Management
> University of Massachusetts, Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
> Tel: 617-287-7860
> http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
>

I've been here at SIT (www.sit.edu) for 3 years following a PhD in
corporate environmental management, and it's my charge to teach among
other things a CSR course (Organizational Accountability and Civil
Governance) in our graduate management program. These are master's
students who in some cases considered MBA's but decided on the "dark
side" of non-MBA professional management/leadership programs to which
SIT belongs. For most, I believe, the motivator was the strong links
we have to the NGO world - where most are headed - plus the overtness
of our commitment to social justice and sustainability in our
mission. Yet even with a self-selected group of future managers who
want to learn most of the MBA curriculum but would never set foot
anywhere near a corporation if they could help it, awareness of and
interest in the environmental side of things is enigmatic. For most,
ostensibly social issues like diversity, human rights, child labor,
landmines, street children etc etc are a major focus. They single-
mindedly devote themselves to such causes, going to work for the
NGOs, government agencies, and consultancies that focus on them. On
a personal level, they are generally very positive to environmental
protection, vote that way, buy organic, oppose GMOs, etc etc. As a
whole, politically and ideologically, they are quite different from
MBA students as a whole, and SIT is unlike typical B-schools.

But here's my main point: Despite all this, with sustainability and
social justice rhetoric and intentions omnipresent throughout our
school, and sympathetic sets of students and other stakeholders, it
seems exceedingly difficult for us to evolve our curriculum away from
a siloed, fragmentary treatment of social/ethical and environmental
issues, and towards something more sophisticated and integrated. I
think that we as faculty and they as students still lack a systemic
sense that can deal with whole crises with multiple environmental,
social, energy-related, political etc manifestations and drivers.
Certain rich teaching cases get us part of the way there, but then
"megatrend fatigue" appears to set in, and people return to their
single-issue devotion, where resources and career opportunities are
concentrated.

I am concerned that we are stuck in the natural end-phase of an
educational and professional-development paradigm that conspires to
stifle integrated, whole-systems thinking, even as dramatic events
and trends like the the latest hurricanes, global peak-oil economics,
fast population growth, pandemic fears, and water shortages manifest
at a whole-systems level. Books like Kunstler's The Long Emergency
hint at the possibility of new cyles of radical change that will make
current career choices, investments, corporate strategies, etc. as
irrelevant as last summer's real estate deals in New Orleans.
Perhaps there are a few too many doomsaying books out there these
days, and things will not change quite so much. But are we educating
20/30-something managers for effective leadership through possible
periods of radical social/environmental/energy-related/... systemic
change? Do the Pinstripes winning criteria test for this? I'd like
to know.

Ralph Meima

Dinah,

I will keep this short.

I cannot AGREE with you more.

1. EPA is anthropocentrically focused.
2. Organizations are anthropocentrically focused.
3. More systemic analysis and research is needed.

My concern is that with so much anthropocentric focused ideals and
philosophy (SIM and Pinstripes, and sustainability) the environment is bound
to lose when push comes to shove and a choice has to be made between
economics, social issues (other than environment), and the natural
environment.

Anthropocentric perspectives do take into consideration environmental
issues, but as one of many many variables, thus, the marginalization. EPA
may not marginalize as much as other institutions and organizations, but
sustainability allows organizations to aid in the marginalization.

I do not say we should not consider other dimensions, I am just saying let
us put the environment at the focus, dare I say, on the ONE-list a
biocentric/ecocentric view?

Otherwise, what makes us different than SIM as a research group?

In terms of research, unfortunately we live in a tradition of reductionist
scientific research controlling for many variables, but unable to consider
the influences of every factor. That is how we do research, that is the
best model we have. Even various elements of systems modeling makes
simplifying assumptions. I think for our group, the simplifying assumptions
should not assume away the centrality of the environmental issues.

In terms of the Pinstripes survey (and why Andy King originally asked the
questions), I agree with a lot of Alfie Marcus's comments about the process.
Also, do we even need rankings?

-Joe S.




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
> Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
>
> I cannot disagree more.
>
> Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large) suffers
> from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
> emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
> source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air
> Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases, and
> thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other impacts.
> Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
> cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
> (bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in tuna.
> Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
> interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
> nature.
>
> Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure environmental
> performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
> pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
> human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
> databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
> for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
> that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human species
> is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are (biologically,
> emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
> well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if we
> suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.
>
> I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems thinking
> and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental problems
> - many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many years
> focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be multi-media.
> There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
> policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
> disciplines.
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research
> National Center for Environmental Research
> 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>
>
> Joseph Sarkis
> <jsarkis@CLARKU.
> EDU> To
> Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Organizations cc
> and the Natural
> Environment Subject
> Discussion Re: Pinstripes
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
> 11/09/2005 07:00
> AM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> Organizations
> and the Natural
> Environment
> Discussion
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
> environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
> we
> are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
> the
> AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
> environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
> struggle
> with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
> issue
> and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
> for
> the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
> at
> the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
> from a
> society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
> that
> hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
> support
> environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
> being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times
> on a
> short example of this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
> marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
> society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
> issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
> Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
> WRI/ASPEN
> is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
> issue
> too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
> conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.
>
> -Joe S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================Joseph Sarkis
> Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
> Graduate School of Management
> Clark University
> 950 Main Street
> Worcester, MA 01610-1477
>
> Phone: 508-793-7659
> Fax: 508-793-8822
> URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
> jsarkis@clarku.edu
> ===========================================-----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
> Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
>
> find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
> environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
> about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
>
> the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
>
> tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
> identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
> would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
> think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
> content for particular reporting purposes.
> For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
> and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
> clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
> how many dedicated courses in each area.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Levy
> Professor, Department of Management
> University of Massachusetts, Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
> Tel: 617-287-7860
> http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
>

--- Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion wrote:
To me, the ratings do not have face validity.
--- end of quote ---

Just a note: I believe both Penn and Harvard opted not to participate this year.

What of Alfie's challenge? Should the ranking be used? Would you advise a student to use the list in making a decision about where to apply or attend?

AK


Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Cell: 603-359-0369

One of the useful things about rankings (and indicators for that matter) is
the spirit of competition it engenders, and the desire to outperform. I can
imagine this might resonate with at least some business school types!

Anastasia

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Joseph Sarkis
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:00 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes


Dinah,

I will keep this short.

I cannot AGREE with you more.

1. EPA is anthropocentrically focused.
2. Organizations are anthropocentrically focused.
3. More systemic analysis and research is needed.

My concern is that with so much anthropocentric focused ideals and
philosophy (SIM and Pinstripes, and sustainability) the environment is bound
to lose when push comes to shove and a choice has to be made between
economics, social issues (other than environment), and the natural
environment.

Anthropocentric perspectives do take into consideration environmental
issues, but as one of many many variables, thus, the marginalization. EPA
may not marginalize as much as other institutions and organizations, but
sustainability allows organizations to aid in the marginalization.

I do not say we should not consider other dimensions, I am just saying let
us put the environment at the focus, dare I say, on the ONE-list a
biocentric/ecocentric view?

Otherwise, what makes us different than SIM as a research group?

In terms of research, unfortunately we live in a tradition of reductionist
scientific research controlling for many variables, but unable to consider
the influences of every factor. That is how we do research, that is the
best model we have. Even various elements of systems modeling makes
simplifying assumptions. I think for our group, the simplifying assumptions
should not assume away the centrality of the environmental issues.

In terms of the Pinstripes survey (and why Andy King originally asked the
questions), I agree with a lot of Alfie Marcus's comments about the process.
Also, do we even need rankings?

-Joe S.




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
> Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
>
> I cannot disagree more.
>
> Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large) suffers
> from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
> emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
> source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean Air
> Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases, and
> thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other impacts.
> Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
> cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
> (bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in tuna.
> Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
> interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
> nature.
>
> Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure environmental
> performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
> pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
> human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
> databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
> for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
> that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human species
> is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are (biologically,
> emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
> well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if we
> suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.
>
> I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems thinking
> and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental problems
> - many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many years
> focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be multi-media.
> There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
> policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
> disciplines.
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research
> National Center for Environmental Research
> 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>
>
> Joseph Sarkis
> <jsarkis@CLARKU.
> EDU> To
> Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Organizations cc
> and the Natural
> Environment Subject
> Discussion Re: Pinstripes
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
> 11/09/2005 07:00
> AM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> Organizations
> and the Natural
> Environment
> Discussion
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
> environmental issues should play within sustainability. The difficulty
> we
> are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
> the
> AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
> environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
> struggle
> with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
> issue
> and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
> for
> the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to me
> at
> the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
> from a
> society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
> that
> hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
> support
> environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of
> being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times
> on a
> short example of this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
> marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
> society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
> issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
> Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
> WRI/ASPEN
> is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
> issue
> too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
> conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.
>
> -Joe S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================Joseph Sarkis
> Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
> Graduate School of Management
> Clark University
> 950 Main Street
> Worcester, MA 01610-1477
>
> Phone: 508-793-7659
> Fax: 508-793-8822
> URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
> jsarkis@clarku.edu
> ===========================================-----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
> Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
>
> find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
> environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
> about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
>
> the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
>
> tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
> identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
> would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
> think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
> content for particular reporting purposes.
> For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
> and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
> clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
> how many dedicated courses in each area.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Levy
> Professor, Department of Management
> University of Massachusetts, Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
> Tel: 617-287-7860
> http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
>

There are always some good reasons for ranking business schools which I do
not want to dispute here.

These aside, I wonder whether a focus on ranking directs our attention away
from the key issue at hand?

In light of the environmental/social pressures on our planet and humanity,
it seems to me that it may be even more useful for us to spend our time and
effort toward accelerating integration of environmental and social issues
into business education. Depending on what type of MBA/business programme
you have been running in the past and what colleagues you have on your
faculty, the path towards this aim may be different.

Making environmental and social concerns an "issue" that helps us to locate
our schools or departments on some ranking scheme risks distracting our
attention away (?) Perhaps it helps build credibility of these issues in
academia, but does it always address the real issues?

How about simply awarding each year a price(s) to innovative MBA or other
post-graduate programmes and sharing these case studies with a larger
audience? Examples in the sphere of organizations/businesses are the annual
awards by the Schumacher Society, The Right Livelihood Award, or (not
related to sustainability) the Baldwin/ EFQM awards honouring companies for
their total quality management.

This approach would give recognition and facilitate the sharing of
experiences. Students could also find out what type of programme would suit
them best.

Svenja

Svenja Tams PhD
School of Management
University of Bath
BA2 7AY, UK
++44 (0) 1225 386 683


-----Original Message-----
From: David Levy [mailto:david.levy@UMB.EDU]
Sent: 09 November 2005 03:16
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to
the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report
tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to
identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I
think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
content for particular reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and
how many dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

Quick thoughts...

Building on some of the points below, I was teaching at RPI (when they still
had an Environmental Management & Policy program) when we were ranked by
WRI--no Aspen at that time. Although it was a good marketing tool for the
program, we had the same sets of questions internally. If the very schools
teaching business leaders can't make environment (and social) issues a part
of the 'organizational culture' themselves, how can businesses expect to
learn how or move in that direction. In other words, a historical
representation of "Environment" as a bag on the side of the firm, to select
leadership positions in some firms seems to mimics what's happening in
B-School (or vice versa). We develop separate "environment program" (i.e.,
EH&S departments of firms) instead of indoctrinating every sub-major, class,
etc., with some elements of environmental training (at least in the US). If
we are to move to creating "environmental cultures" in organizations (where
the environment is just one of the set of considerations for every employee
and every department and every decision), then we should start by ending the
environmental silo-ing going on in the educational institutions themselves.
Ok, so let's change that tomorrow--sound good?

(However, when schools develop "sustainability Coordinators" and Presidents
include "sustainability or environment" in the overall institutional agenda,
then that's a good start to moving in an integrated direction across
campus.)

Yours,
Kevin Fletcher

--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Fletcher
Director of Programs & Administration
Audubon International
46 Rarick Road, Selkirk, NY 12158
Phone: (518)767-9051 ext 26; Fax: (518)767-9076
Email: kfletcher@auduboninternational.org
Website: http://www.auduboninternational.org
"Fostering more sustainable human and natural communities--one person, one
place at a time."
-------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Svenja Tams
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:21 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

There are always some good reasons for ranking business schools which I do
not want to dispute here.

These aside, I wonder whether a focus on ranking directs our attention away
from the key issue at hand?

In light of the environmental/social pressures on our planet and humanity,
it seems to me that it may be even more useful for us to spend our time and
effort toward accelerating integration of environmental and social issues
into business education. Depending on what type of MBA/business programme
you have been running in the past and what colleagues you have on your
faculty, the path towards this aim may be different.

Making environmental and social concerns an "issue" that helps us to locate
our schools or departments on some ranking scheme risks distracting our
attention away (?) Perhaps it helps build credibility of these issues in
academia, but does it always address the real issues?

How about simply awarding each year a price(s) to innovative MBA or other
post-graduate programmes and sharing these case studies with a larger
audience? Examples in the sphere of organizations/businesses are the annual
awards by the Schumacher Society, The Right Livelihood Award, or (not
related to sustainability) the Baldwin/ EFQM awards honouring companies for
their total quality management.

This approach would give recognition and facilitate the sharing of
experiences. Students could also find out what type of programme would suit
them best.

Svenja

Svenja Tams PhD
School of Management
University of Bath
BA2 7AY, UK
++44 (0) 1225 386 683


-----Original Message-----
From: David Levy [mailto:david.levy@UMB.EDU]
Sent: 09 November 2005 03:16
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to the
Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report tends
to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to identify
them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also would be a bit
concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I think about our
courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social content for particular
reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs and
courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make clear
which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and how many
dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

This pinstripes discussion has earmarks of a new problem domain. There
is no consensus on terminology or language
(SIM/ONE/CSR/Sustainability?). Stakeholders and roles are confused.
Relationships among actors are not normalized. Boundaries, and sub
boundaries, are not well established (separate environment and social
content areas, or teach complexity?).

Perhaps rankings and metrics are premature. Simply counting does not
seem to do justice, for example, to the impact of one professor at U
Penn who touches 200-300 students each year in a single, wildly popular
course on basic environmental literacy. Perhaps a more valuable service
would be mapping the current state of the domain, using a
pinstripes-like survey. Such a survey could be more inclusive, taking
stock of those left out parties who have spoken up in this discussion.

Trudy


Trudy Heller, Ph.D.
Executive Education for the Environment
610 543 0499
heller@execed-environent.com
www.execed-environment.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joseph Sarkis
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:00 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Dinah,

I will keep this short.

I cannot AGREE with you more.

1. EPA is anthropocentrically focused.
2. Organizations are anthropocentrically focused.
3. More systemic analysis and research is needed.

My concern is that with so much anthropocentric focused ideals and
philosophy (SIM and Pinstripes, and sustainability) the environment is
bound
to lose when push comes to shove and a choice has to be made between
economics, social issues (other than environment), and the natural
environment.

Anthropocentric perspectives do take into consideration environmental
issues, but as one of many many variables, thus, the marginalization.
EPA
may not marginalize as much as other institutions and organizations, but
sustainability allows organizations to aid in the marginalization.

I do not say we should not consider other dimensions, I am just saying
let
us put the environment at the focus, dare I say, on the ONE-list a
biocentric/ecocentric view?

Otherwise, what makes us different than SIM as a research group?

In terms of research, unfortunately we live in a tradition of
reductionist
scientific research controlling for many variables, but unable to
consider
the influences of every factor. That is how we do research, that is the
best model we have. Even various elements of systems modeling makes
simplifying assumptions. I think for our group, the simplifying
assumptions
should not assume away the centrality of the environmental issues.

In terms of the Pinstripes survey (and why Andy King originally asked
the
questions), I agree with a lot of Alfie Marcus's comments about the
process.
Also, do we even need rankings?

-Joe S.




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
> Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
>
> I cannot disagree more.
>
> Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large)
suffers
> from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate matter
> emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the main
> source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990 Clean
Air
> Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality decreases,
and
> thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected, among other
impacts.
> Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
> cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
> (bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in
tuna.
> Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly
> interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
> nature.
>
> Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure
environmental
> performance in terms of pollution/emissions? Concentrations of
> pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem disfunction? And/or adverse
> human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research limited by available
> databases or availabe knowledge?) These are questions for society, and
> for social/human quality of life. It has seemed to me for a long time,
> that the outcome of concern with the most traction for our human
species
> is to determine adverse human health outcomes, as we are
(biologically,
> emotionally and politically) most concerned with the survival and
> well-being of our species. As a species on top of the food chain, if
we
> suffer, no doubt other species suffer too.
>
> I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems
thinking
> and focusing on integrated systems which underlie environmental
problems
> - many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many
years
> focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be
multi-media.
> There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
> policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
> disciplines.
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research
> National Center for Environmental Research
> 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>
>
> Joseph Sarkis
> <jsarkis@CLARKU.
> EDU>
To
> Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Organizations
cc
> and the Natural
> Environment
Subject
> Discussion Re: Pinstripes
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
> 11/09/2005 07:00
> AM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> Organizations
> and the Natural
> Environment
> Discussion
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
> environmental issues should play within sustainability. The
difficulty
> we
> are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of
> the
> AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes the
> environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to
> struggle
> with that and the term sustainability has not been much help on this
> issue
> and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know others have argued
> for
> the fact that you can have both and should have both, but it seems to
me
> at
> the expense of environmental issues. Politically (and more generally
> from a
> society perspective) these issues are linked. This could be something
> that
> hinders environmental progress. Because there are those who would
> support
> environmental issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations
of
> being a 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York
Times
> on a
> short example of this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
> marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and
> society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
> issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
> Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
> WRI/ASPEN
> is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money making a social
> issue
> too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance courses are socially
> conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I feel better.
>
> -Joe S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================Joseph Sarkis
> Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
> Graduate School of Management
> Clark University
> 950 Main Street
> Worcester, MA 01610-1477
>
> Phone: 508-793-7659
> Fax: 508-793-8822
> URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
> jsarkis@clarku.edu
> ===========================================-----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
> Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but
I
>
> find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
> environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students
ask
> about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them
to
>
> the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new
report
>
> tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard
to
> identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also
> would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers -
I
> think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
> content for particular reporting purposes.
> For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs
> and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make
> clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations,
and
> how many dedicated courses in each area.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Levy
> Professor, Department of Management
> University of Massachusetts, Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
> Tel: 617-287-7860
> http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
>

Kevin,

My quick thoughts.

You bring up a good point. Do we intersperse environmental topics
throughout the curriculum and throughout various research programs
(decentralize), or do you incorporate it as a discipline within business
with links throughout, but weak links?

Centralization does not necessarily have to be siloization (are all the
functions in the various schools siloized? They may or may not be depending
on the school's strategy). The pluses of centralizing a field and topic is
that you start achieving critical mass and resources and political power
will tend to follow. So are a lot of small voices in various disciplines
more effective than a concentrated large voice? An environmental
centralization will allow the traditional disciplines to be integrated under
one umbrella (have an environmental strategist, environmental
economist/finance management, environmental marketer, environmental
operations management, etc. in one department?).

Decentralization would guarantee that the voice is at least heard in each of
the traditional disciplines and could potentially encourage more
interdisciplinary work. But, whose voice will usually be heard, promoted,
encouraged in that discipline? Typically it will be one that focuses on core
issues in that discipline, rather than on the side issue of the environment
(or social issues).

I am not an expert on organizational structure and governance, but we still
seem to live in the traditional functional world and organizational
structures. I think the best way to get visibility for organizations and
the natural environment is to have a strong functional voice that all can
hear and know. It does not mean that it cannot be integrative. I think that
was one of the goals of breaking out ONE.

Now does it mean that others want to hear this big voice? Now that's another
story.

Of course there are matrix structures too, with pluses and minuses.

-Joe

==============================================
Joseph Sarkis
Professor of Operations and Environmental Management
Graduate School of Management
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477

Phone: 508-793-7659
Fax: 508-793-8822
URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
jsarkis@clarku.edu
==============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin Fletcher
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:53 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Quick thoughts...

Building on some of the points below, I was teaching at RPI (when they still
had an Environmental Management & Policy program) when we were ranked by
WRI--no Aspen at that time. Although it was a good marketing tool for the
program, we had the same sets of questions internally. If the very schools
teaching business leaders can't make environment (and social) issues a part
of the 'organizational culture' themselves, how can businesses expect to
learn how or move in that direction. In other words, a historical
representation of "Environment" as a bag on the side of the firm, to select
leadership positions in some firms seems to mimics what's happening in
B-School (or vice versa). We develop separate "environment program" (i.e.,
EH&S departments of firms) instead of indoctrinating every sub-major, class,
etc., with some elements of environmental training (at least in the US). If
we are to move to creating "environmental cultures" in organizations (where
the environment is just one of the set of considerations for every employee
and every department and every decision), then we should start by ending the
environmental silo-ing going on in the educational institutions themselves.
Ok, so let's change that tomorrow--sound good?

(However, when schools develop "sustainability Coordinators" and Presidents
include "sustainability or environment" in the overall institutional agenda,
then that's a good start to moving in an integrated direction across
campus.)

Yours,
Kevin Fletcher

--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Fletcher
Director of Programs & Administration
Audubon International
46 Rarick Road, Selkirk, NY 12158
Phone: (518)767-9051 ext 26; Fax: (518)767-9076
Email: kfletcher@auduboninternational.org
Website: http://www.auduboninternational.org
"Fostering more sustainable human and natural communities--one person, one
place at a time."
-------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Svenja Tams
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:21 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

There are always some good reasons for ranking business schools which I do
not want to dispute here.

These aside, I wonder whether a focus on ranking directs our attention away
from the key issue at hand?

In light of the environmental/social pressures on our planet and humanity,
it seems to me that it may be even more useful for us to spend our time and
effort toward accelerating integration of environmental and social issues
into business education. Depending on what type of MBA/business programme
you have been running in the past and what colleagues you have on your
faculty, the path towards this aim may be different.

Making environmental and social concerns an "issue" that helps us to locate
our schools or departments on some ranking scheme risks distracting our
attention away (?) Perhaps it helps build credibility of these issues in
academia, but does it always address the real issues?

How about simply awarding each year a price(s) to innovative MBA or other
post-graduate programmes and sharing these case studies with a larger
audience? Examples in the sphere of organizations/businesses are the annual
awards by the Schumacher Society, The Right Livelihood Award, or (not
related to sustainability) the Baldwin/ EFQM awards honouring companies for
their total quality management.

This approach would give recognition and facilitate the sharing of
experiences. Students could also find out what type of programme would suit
them best.

Svenja

Svenja Tams PhD
School of Management
University of Bath
BA2 7AY, UK
++44 (0) 1225 386 683


-----Original Message-----
From: David Levy [mailto:david.levy@UMB.EDU]
Sent: 09 November 2005 03:16
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but I
find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students ask
about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point them to the
Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new report tends
to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard to identify
them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also would be a bit
concerned about the potential to massage the numbers - I think about our
courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social content for particular
reporting purposes.
For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs and
courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make clear
which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations, and how many
dedicated courses in each area.

David

--
David Levy
Professor, Department of Management
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
Tel: 617-287-7860
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/

Interesting. Does anyone find a contradiction between the inclusive,
cooperative nature of sustainable development and the notion of
competing on the topic to see who is better?


*************************************************
Andrew J. Hoffman
Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise
The University of Michigan
Phone: 734-763-9455
Fax: 734-615-4323
Email: ajhoff@umich.edu
Web: http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/ajhoff/
*************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Anastasia O'Rourke
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:51 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

One of the useful things about rankings (and indicators for that matter)
is the spirit of competition it engenders, and the desire to outperform.
I can imagine this might resonate with at least some business school
types!

Anastasia

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Joseph Sarkis
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:00 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes


Dinah,

I will keep this short.

I cannot AGREE with you more.

1. EPA is anthropocentrically focused.
2. Organizations are anthropocentrically focused.
3. More systemic analysis and research is needed.

My concern is that with so much anthropocentric focused ideals and
philosophy (SIM and Pinstripes, and sustainability) the environment is
bound to lose when push comes to shove and a choice has to be made
between economics, social issues (other than environment), and the
natural environment.

Anthropocentric perspectives do take into consideration environmental
issues, but as one of many many variables, thus, the marginalization.
EPA may not marginalize as much as other institutions and organizations,
but sustainability allows organizations to aid in the marginalization.

I do not say we should not consider other dimensions, I am just saying
let us put the environment at the focus, dare I say, on the ONE-list a
biocentric/ecocentric view?

Otherwise, what makes us different than SIM as a research group?

In terms of research, unfortunately we live in a tradition of
reductionist scientific research controlling for many variables, but
unable to consider the influences of every factor. That is how we do
research, that is the best model we have. Even various elements of
systems modeling makes simplifying assumptions. I think for our group,
the simplifying assumptions should not assume away the centrality of the
environmental issues.

In terms of the Pinstripes survey (and why Andy King originally asked
the questions), I agree with a lot of Alfie Marcus's comments about the
process.
Also, do we even need rankings?

-Joe S.




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of
> Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
>
> I cannot disagree more.
>
> Environmental issues are social issues, as society (writ large)
> suffers from pollution. Consider the huge impacts of particulate
> matter emissions on lung function and premature death. These were the
> main source of social benefits in cost benefit analysis of the 1990
> Clean Air Act Amendments. When ecosystems break down, water quality
> decreases, and thus drinking water and/or fisheries are affected,
among other impacts.
> Mercury emissions from power plants end up in water, and because they
> cannot be broken down readily are passed up the foodchain
> (bioaccumulate) to high human health threatening concentrations in
tuna.
> Thus, the human system (say "society") and the environment are tightly

> interlinked. ONE, by its name, addresses questions of anthropocentric
> nature.
>
> Now, the question to the ONE community is, do you measure
> environmental performance in terms of pollution/emissions?
> Concentrations of pollutants in the environment? Ecosystem
> disfunction? And/or adverse human health outcomes? (Or is ONE research

> limited by available databases or availabe knowledge?) These are
> questions for society, and for social/human quality of life. It has
> seemed to me for a long time, that the outcome of concern with the
> most traction for our human species is to determine adverse human
> health outcomes, as we are (biologically, emotionally and politically)

> most concerned with the survival and well-being of our species. As a
> species on top of the food chain, if we suffer, no doubt other species
suffer too.
>
> I think the ONE community is better served by applying systems
> thinking and focusing on integrated systems which underlie
> environmental problems
> - many if not most of which have social causes. EPA has for many
> years focused on single media problems, but solutions need to be
multi-media.
> There is a gradual shift in the agency to apply more multi-media
> policies. ONE should also think along disciplines, not within
> disciplines.
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research National Center for
> Environmental Research 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>
>
> Joseph Sarkis
> <jsarkis@CLARKU.
> EDU>
To
> Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Organizations
cc
> and the Natural
> Environment
Subject
> Discussion Re: Pinstripes
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
> 11/09/2005 07:00
> AM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> Organizations
> and the Natural
> Environment
> Discussion
> <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
> PACE.EDU>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> This is one of the concerns I have about the whole issue of the role
> environmental issues should play within sustainability. The
difficulty
> we
> are having is something that was mentioned over a decade ago at one of

> the AOM meetings early in ONE's life where the debate was what makes
> the environment different than other SIM issues. We are continuing to

> struggle with that and the term sustainability has not been much help
> on this issue and has caused a lot of this murkiness. And I know
> others have argued for the fact that you can have both and should have

> both, but it seems to me at the expense of environmental issues.
> Politically (and more generally from a society perspective) these
> issues are linked. This could be something that hinders environmental

> progress. Because there are those who would support environmental
> issues, but may be deterred because of the connotations of being a
> 'blue state' topic. See a recent article in the New York Times on a
> short example of this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> Overall, it seems this is a SIM award and not a ONE award. This is a
> marginalization of the environmental issues faced by organizations and

> society. SIM seems, to me, to be focused primarily on anthropocentric
> issues, environmental issues play a role, but a more peripheral one.
> Unfortunately, what I thought was primarily an ecological focus by
> WRI/ASPEN is now much more focused on social issues. Isn't money
> making a social issue too? It addresses poverty. Thus, all our finance

> courses are socially conscious...let me mark down 8 courses...there I
> feel better.
>
> -Joe S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================Joseph Sarkis Professor
> of Operations and Environmental Management Graduate School of
> Management Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester, MA 01610-1477
>
> Phone: 508-793-7659
> Fax: 508-793-8822
> URL: www.clarku.edu/~jsarkis
> jsarkis@clarku.edu
> ===========================================-----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of David Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:16 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Pinstripes
>
> Rankings can always be useful to push schools in a good direction, but

> I
>
> find the new system is weaker and less useful in the way that it puts
> environmental and social content together. I have a lot of students
> ask about environmental content in MBA programs, and I used to point
> them to
>
> the Pinstripes reports, but it's lost its value for this. The new
> report
>
> tends to neglect the niche players in enviro mgt - or at least, hard
> to identify them. With a broader view of social responsibility, I also

> would be a bit concerned about the potential to massage the numbers -
> I think about our courses, and the temptation to emphasize the social
> content for particular reporting purposes.
> For next time, they should go back to reporting environmental programs

> and courses separately from the social issues courses! - at least make

> clear which schools have specialized grad programs, concentrations,
> and how many dedicated courses in each area.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Levy
> Professor, Department of Management
> University of Massachusetts, Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA
> Tel: 617-287-7860
> http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/
>

If we think about this as a matter of supply and demand, let's focus on
demand for business minds with knowledge about environmental problems,
how to analyze them and how to manage them. About 10 years ago I was
trying to continue in my career as environmental manager in the USA
(after having been an environmental manager for a large Swedish
multinational in Hungary). I found that the field was dominated by
environmental engineers and lawyers ensuring that a firm remained
compliant. Where I ask is there a role for an individual with business
training who also studied environmental issues in Bschool?
In later work at a large US pharma firm, I found that the EHS people
were isolated from mainstream business decision-making and developed
their own parallel world of measurement systems and reporting structures
which were not integral to core business management questions.

What is the situation today? Has it improved? What is the market value
of a Bschool student with environmental/SIM training? What's jobs are
they being trained for? Is there a list of environmental jobs chosen by
recent MBAs? Why are we wracking our brains to come up with
reasons/solid performance measures for programs in
Environment/SIM/Sustainability at BSchools when it may not matter
anyway?

Why is it that in environmental classes offered at Wharton (where I was
a post-doc) the majority of students are undergrads with a sprinkling of
MBA students? Reason, as we were told: undergrads are still more
idealistic and open-minded in their interests. MBAs are more driven,
single-minded, and conscious of having to pay off significant school
debt.

(Mind you, I care about these things!) Maybe like Alfie, I got out the
wrong side of bed this morning, but I doubt it.

Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409

Andy Hoffman just pointed out the potential contradiction between the
inclusiveness/cooperativeness of sustainable development and the notion of
educational programs competing to be the best at infusing these values.

I agree. I see an even more egregious contradiction between (a) the
importance of transparency many incorporate in the notion of sustainability,
and (b) the quite limited transparency about the Pinstripe methodology used
to assess educational institutions and faculty pioneers.


Mike Toffel
Haas School of Business
University of California
545 Student Services Bldg #1900
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
Office: (510) 642-9949
Cell: (510) 847-8160
Email: toffel@haas.berkeley.edu
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/

I'll bite, even though I know this discussion is getting off target. I didn't get out on the right, or left, side of the bed today.

There's no problem with striving, even competing to improve. Competition can be a good thing. It only becomes unhealthy when those striving to do better try to do so through deception or destruction.

The argument should be about whether or not these Pinstripe measures can discern betterment from deception or destruction. I would hope my school or any other would act on any competitive urge to do better at infusing the values of sustainable development. My fear, of course, is that they'll always go with the low hanging fruit or symbolic efforts. Thus, we should seek measures that embrace competition, but the right kind of competition -- a race to the top, not the bottom.

Best,
Mike

*********************************************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
Department of Management, BSN 3527
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
Phone: (813) 974-1727
Fax: (813) 974-1734
Website: http://coba.usf.edu/barnett
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Toffel
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:56 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Pinstripes


Andy Hoffman just pointed out the potential contradiction between the
inclusiveness/cooperativeness of sustainable development and the notion of
educational programs competing to be the best at infusing these values.

I agree. I see an even more egregious contradiction between (a) the
importance of transparency many incorporate in the notion of sustainability,
and (b) the quite limited transparency about the Pinstripe methodology used
to assess educational institutions and faculty pioneers.


Mike Toffel
Haas School of Business
University of California
545 Student Services Bldg #1900
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
Office: (510) 642-9949
Cell: (510) 847-8160
Email: toffel@haas.berkeley.edu
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/

In reference to Dinah's statement,

"the EHS people
were isolated from mainstream business decision-making and developed
their own parallel world of measurement systems and reporting structures
which were not integral to core business management questions.",

this closely matches what I found in an ethnography of corporate
environmental management at LM Ericsson over 10 years, published in
my doctoral dissertation in May 2002. I called the resulting model
of how CEM practices evolve "the green squeeze" model.

Ralph Meima

On Nov 10, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV wrote:

> If we think about this as a matter of supply and demand, let's
> focus on
> demand for business minds with knowledge about environmental problems,
> how to analyze them and how to manage them. About 10 years ago I was
> trying to continue in my career as environmental manager in the USA
> (after having been an environmental manager for a large Swedish
> multinational in Hungary). I found that the field was dominated by
> environmental engineers and lawyers ensuring that a firm remained
> compliant. Where I ask is there a role for an individual with business
> training who also studied environmental issues in Bschool?
> In later work at a large US pharma firm, I found that the EHS people
> were isolated from mainstream business decision-making and developed
> their own parallel world of measurement systems and reporting
> structures
> which were not integral to core business management questions.
>
> What is the situation today? Has it improved? What is the market value
> of a Bschool student with environmental/SIM training? What's jobs are
> they being trained for? Is there a list of environmental jobs
> chosen by
> recent MBAs? Why are we wracking our brains to come up with
> reasons/solid performance measures for programs in
> Environment/SIM/Sustainability at BSchools when it may not matter
> anyway?
>
> Why is it that in environmental classes offered at Wharton (where I
> was
> a post-doc) the majority of students are undergrads with a
> sprinkling of
> MBA students? Reason, as we were told: undergrads are still more
> idealistic and open-minded in their interests. MBAs are more driven,
> single-minded, and conscious of having to pay off significant school
> debt.
>
> (Mind you, I care about these things!) Maybe like Alfie, I got out the
> wrong side of bed this morning, but I doubt it.
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research
> National Center for Environmental Research
> 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>

Mike,

I noticed that your school was top small school in Pinstripes. When I go to
its website, I see it has 42,000 students overall.

-Joe S.

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:10 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

I'll bite, even though I know this discussion is getting off target. I
didn't get out on the right, or left, side of the bed today.

There's no problem with striving, even competing to improve. Competition
can be a good thing. It only becomes unhealthy when those striving to do
better try to do so through deception or destruction.

The argument should be about whether or not these Pinstripe measures can
discern betterment from deception or destruction. I would hope my school or
any other would act on any competitive urge to do better at infusing the
values of sustainable development. My fear, of course, is that they'll
always go with the low hanging fruit or symbolic efforts. Thus, we should
seek measures that embrace competition, but the right kind of competition --
a race to the top, not the bottom.

Best,
Mike

*********************************************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
Department of Management, BSN 3527
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
Phone: (813) 974-1727
Fax: (813) 974-1734
Website: http://coba.usf.edu/barnett
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Toffel
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:56 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Pinstripes


Andy Hoffman just pointed out the potential contradiction between the
inclusiveness/cooperativeness of sustainable development and the notion of
educational programs competing to be the best at infusing these values.

I agree. I see an even more egregious contradiction between (a) the
importance of transparency many incorporate in the notion of sustainability,
and (b) the quite limited transparency about the Pinstripe methodology used
to assess educational institutions and faculty pioneers.


Mike Toffel
Haas School of Business
University of California
545 Student Services Bldg #1900
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
Office: (510) 642-9949
Cell: (510) 847-8160
Email: toffel@haas.berkeley.edu
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/

Hi Joe. Yet another example of the problems with measurement! That's the St. Pete campus that was top small school. USF has 4 campuses (campi?), or more correct, had 4 campuses. The St. Pete campus recently became (or is becoming) fully independent. Tampa, where I'm at, is the main campus, and has about 33,000 of those 42,000 students I think. Bottom line: St. Pete is a small school. I certainly don't fault you for falling into that trap, since we try to trick you every step of the way -- USF (University of South Florida) isn't really even in the south of Florida!

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Joseph Sarkis
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:33 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes


Mike,

I noticed that your school was top small school in Pinstripes. When I go to
its website, I see it has 42,000 students overall.

-Joe S.

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:10 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Pinstripes

I'll bite, even though I know this discussion is getting off target. I
didn't get out on the right, or left, side of the bed today.

There's no problem with striving, even competing to improve. Competition
can be a good thing. It only becomes unhealthy when those striving to do
better try to do so through deception or destruction.

The argument should be about whether or not these Pinstripe measures can
discern betterment from deception or destruction. I would hope my school or
any other would act on any competitive urge to do better at infusing the
values of sustainable development. My fear, of course, is that they'll
always go with the low hanging fruit or symbolic efforts. Thus, we should
seek measures that embrace competition, but the right kind of competition --
a race to the top, not the bottom.

Best,
Mike

*********************************************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
Department of Management, BSN 3527
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
Phone: (813) 974-1727
Fax: (813) 974-1734
Website: http://coba.usf.edu/barnett
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>


-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Toffel
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:56 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Pinstripes


Andy Hoffman just pointed out the potential contradiction between the
inclusiveness/cooperativeness of sustainable development and the notion of
educational programs competing to be the best at infusing these values.

I agree. I see an even more egregious contradiction between (a) the
importance of transparency many incorporate in the notion of sustainability,
and (b) the quite limited transparency about the Pinstripe methodology used
to assess educational institutions and faculty pioneers.


Mike Toffel
Haas School of Business
University of California
545 Student Services Bldg #1900
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
Office: (510) 642-9949
Cell: (510) 847-8160
Email: toffel@haas.berkeley.edu
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/

To all:

I have enjoyed watching this discussion unfold inthe last few days. I don't recall having a subject so fire up our mutual cyberspace.

By coincidence, I called Rich Leimsider of the Aspen Institute last week to discuss the methodology for the study, so my timing is good here. Like many of you, I had a difficult time understanding how the rankings were created by using the web site. I figured I'd go to the source. And yes, three of the four scores are solely based on class content. They rate all categories numerically, and actually develop Z-scores to rank schools.

Rather shocking to me was the fact that three of the four categories are likely to be correlated with school size and yet no size adjustments were made.

But there is a big picture issue here. Essentially, the Aspen Institute tries to refine its methodology annually. But I am not sure a number of changes they have made over the years really do enhance the ratings. For example, they used to separate social and environmental content and have parallel rankings, but now Apsen/WRI combine them. And they used to assess student experience outside of the classroom, but now do not. Particularly with respect to that last change, I worry greatly about what these rankings show. How can you not include student experiences like the creation of green business plans? I can state from experience at Oregon that nothing would better prepare a student for a green career than to apply their learning in this way. Furthermore, the rankings do not account for dedicated programs and concentrations, which really seems perverse.

Rich and I also talked about research, and in a word, they count hits in a very large number of journals--more than a hundred. No effort is made to adjust for the impact of the research nor of multiple authors. We can't expect them to exhibit the care of a well-run tenure and promotion committee, but I do not think this is a careful measure of research.

Naturally, the Aspen Institute cannot be expected to make perfect assessments, but I really think their questionable methodology is not consistent with the significant faith and credit that prospective students place on these ratings. That's the major problem I have with them.

Perhaps a subset of us could act as a sounding board for the approach they take next time. Of course there will be the inevitable lobbying, but I believe that we can work together to improve their measures.

Mike Russo