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

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

UGSM-MONARCHO

cto

ber

1, 2

010

CSR As Mythology - Dr. Jeffrey Henderson 7

EVA: Pros And Cons - Dr. Igor Pustylnick 16

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

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

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

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

Research& Review

FeaturedArticle

The Monarch Management Review 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

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

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

! ! ! ! ! ! Management Guru - Gary Hamel

The Monarch Management Review 4

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

Abstracts

UG

SM

-MO

NAR

CH

Oct

ob

er 1

, 201

0

CSR As Mythology - Dr. Jeffrey Henderson

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

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

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

EVA: Pros And Cons - Dr. Igor Pustylnick

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

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

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

lum

e 1,

Num

ber

1

The Monarch Management Review 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010 The Monarch Management Review

Volume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010Abstracts

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

The Monarch Management Review 6

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

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

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

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010 The Monarch Management Review

Volume 1, Number 1 - October 1, 2010Abstracts

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

The Monarch Management Review 16

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

Dr. Igor Pustylnick holds the position of Professor of Finance at UGSM-Monarch Business School. He presently teaches postgraduate courses in Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning in Toronto, Ontario and at the RCC Institute of Canada. He is a recent graduate of SMC University with the degree of Doctor of Finance. Dr. Pustylnick also holds an MBA degree from Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada. His research interests are in the area of fraud and manipulations with financial statements. Dr. Pustylnick’s scientific interests have always rotated around the use of computers in many aspects of business. His doctoral dissertation entitled “The set of financial data used in computerized fraud detection” researched the methods of potential automation of manipulation detection in financial statements. He continues working in this direction.

Introduction

Economic Value Added (EVA) is a term introduced and trademarked by Stern Stewart1, a consulting company specializing in performance consulting. EVA is a relatively new performance metric and was designed to replace the older ROI which was in use up until recently by most companies.

Definition of EVA

The definition of EVA would not make much sense if it were defined in iso la t ion f rom economic prof i t . Economic profit is calculated as a difference between:

1. A firm’s revenue, 2. The sum of accounting costs, 3. Economic costs.

Economic costs include the costs, which are not accounted for by GAAP, such as implicit costs (costs of the alternatives) and replacement costs (costs of replacing machinery). As a result, economic profit is always smaller than the normal accounting profit. In the other words, the firm showing a profit in accounting terms may at the same time be operating at an economic loss.

The advantage of the economic profit over the standard accounting cash flow calculation is in the present consideration of future costs, which cannot be determined via regular accounting methodology. When we consider the value of a firm in the traditional sense we typically consider the present value of all future cash flows. This value would reflect the financial position of the firm if nothing

The Monarch Management Review 17

Figure 2

Figure 1

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

changes in the firm’s operations. On the graph shown below the sum of all

discounted present values of the cash flows is equal to $40 (Harper, 2005).

If we look at the same firm from an economic perspective, we would see that the value of the firm is the present value of its economic profits plus all invested capital, as taken from the

general methodology of EVA. From the economic perspective this figure would give a better indication of the firm value.

The Monarch Management Review 18

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

On the graph above (Harper, 2005) there is a differentiation between the numbers for invested capital and future discounted economic profits. The “upper” $20 of the present firm value represents the sum of all discounted economic profits or Market Value Added (MVA)2.

When we calculate Economic Profit we use certain assumptions which cannot b e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e f i n a n c i a l statements based on GAAP. The majority of companies in today’s market calculate the statement of revenues based on the principles of accrual. Although these calculations are correct from the accounting perspective, they do not reflect economic profits. In order to turn them into economic profit figures the following must be done:

• Accounting cash flows are not accurately calculated in terms of economic profit. The closest element to the true calculations is (Earnings before income tax), which should be corrected and used as NOPAT (Net Operating Profit after Tax).

• The person calculating economic p r o f i t s m u s t t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t s o m e expenses must be capitalized because they are in fac t investments into the future profit and must be a part of the equity of the balance sheet.

• Equity capital has costs, which have to be deducted from the cash flows.

If we put it all together we then arrive at formula (1):

Calculation of NOPAT

The calculation of NOPAT starts from determining the EBIT value while a d d i n g i n s e v e r a l n o n c a s h adjustments.

The first adjustment to be made is the addition of an allowance for LIFO use of inventory. LIFO allowance reflects the potential sale of the newest inventory first thus increasing COGS and decreasing operating profit. This is an assumption and often does not happen therefore it is not accounted for in the NOPAT calculation.

Secondly, GAAP prescribes having allowances for bad debt connected with unpaid accounts receivable, AR. This debt is a non-cash item and should not be a deduction within the definition of economic profits.

Thirdly, when accounting for economic profit the analyst with the economics background must treat operating leases as capital leases or as asse ts funded us ing deb t l i ke

(1) EP = NOPAT - Capital Charge

The Monarch Management Review 19

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

Calculating Capital Charge

Invested book capital is the equity value of the firm. It is very important to add the value of operating leases to this figure because they now become capital leases. The consistency between the NOPAT calculations and the calculations of the invested capital is very important for obtaining a proper value of the economic profit. In order to calculate the capital charge we need to know the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It is a historical value, which is calculated as Formula (3):

Interpretations of EVA

Many economists calculate EVA as shown in Formula (4):

The first part of this equation is equal to NOPAT and the second – to capital charge. Therefore, economic profit and EVA are the same value and must represent the same meaning in the evaluation process. Frequently, EVA is also denoted as the real value of cash in the company’s possession wi thout account ing adjustments prescribed through GAAP.

The diagram above, Figure 3, adopted from D. Harper’s Investopedia article (Harper, 2005), shows the stages of analysis of the firm’s position. The last residual position corresponds to EVA. It shows that the EVA metric corresponds to the real residual cash, remaining in the company after all economic costs are accounted. Some economists consider EVA as the only true value of the firm.

(2) NOPAT = EBIT + LIFO Allowance + Bad Debt Allowance + Interest on Operating Leases

(3) WACC =! Rate *

(Part Borrowed)

obligations. Hence, the interest on operating leases should be added back to the cash flows.

Formula (2) would summarize NOPAT calculations:

(4) EVA = (Return on Capital - Cost of Capital) * Total Capital

The Monarch Management Review 20

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

Advantages of EVA

EVA has generally replaced ROI as a performance metric. In the case of ROI the investment into a certain business was gauged solely against the cost of borrowing. Created in the early 20th century ROI worked well when the cost of borrowing was steady and the sources of capital were quite limited. On the other hand, ROI as the only performance metric of a certain company division may superimpose the goals of a division upon the goals of the company as a whole, and vise versa. This can happen for instance if the anticipated ROI from the particular division was less than originally planned. Despite the fact that the

investment would fit in the ROI strategy of the whole company the division may refuse to make this investment because it would unfavorably change the ROI of the division.

On the other hand, EVA or economic profit analysis would be very similar to the financial NPV analysis of the viability of the project. The viability of an investment into a certain initiative would correspond to the positive EVA figure resulting in rejected investments, which would correspondingly have a negative EVA value. In this case the goals of the company and its divisions would a lways co inc ide and a l l investments made would benefit both the company and an investing division. It streamlines the investment process

Figure 4

Source: Harper, 2005

The Monarch Management Review 21

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

and creates a very easy set of investment guidelines.

EVA can be a very useful metric when employed in the scope of the balance scorecard, BSC. In fact, EVA can be both a unifying and a discerning metric because it would be able to show the overall position of the company as the sum of all its divisions. EVA would be able also to help discern between the leading and trailing revenue producing divisions and point out where improvements may be needed. Although BSC is a very good application for EVA, it can only be used as a high level analysis tool. The rest of the operational and financial analysis must follow and can be based on the obtained EVA metrics.

Limitations of EVA

There are several limitations to the EVA methodology. First, because EVA is based on the total size of the invested capital, the EVA for the larger division with more capitalization would always be greater than the EVA for a smaller division with the smaller capitalization, all other things equal. Because of this the larger division would always have more leverage in pooling investment funds.

Secondly, EVA is very financially oriented. Managers of various divisions of a company have a lot of power to control the financial inputs and outputs.

For instance, the larger orders would be given an automatic preference because they would generate larger amounts of cash. Managers of the divisions would delay or cancel certain expenditures in favor of better financial results. For instance maintenance work in the plant can be delayed if it decreases EVA for the period below the regulated point.

Further, one of the biggest problems connected with EVA is the use of fully depreciated assets. Depreciation time is set based on the average lifespan of the asset. However, one can argue that a fully depreciated asset should not be replaced when it’s still operational because it automatically increases EVA3.

EVA is oriented to short-term gains and uses discounted values. Long-term projects usually generate profit at the tail end when discounted value of cash is the smallest. Therefore, these projects usually have lower NPV than those projects that start generating positive cash flows in the shortly after their commencement. The managers in charge of the companies and divisions, which are evaluated based on the EVA values generated by their operations, tend to consider short-term cash generating projects to the exclusion of long-term projects that might have a significant strategic significance for their companies. Hence, managers are under pressure to forgo R&D oriented projects which may not produce returns in the short run. This may cause

The Monarch Management Review 22

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

companies to abandon a significant number of strategic investments which could improve the company’s future competitive position.

Moreover, from an operations perspective the usefulness of the EVA methodology is questionable. In the case when a company exhibits sluggish performance EVA can only point towards the division(s) which does not generate enough cash. It cannot point to any operational problem, inefficiency or bott leneck, which cannot be expressed in the financial terms. Moreover, if the performance of managers i s j udged based on perceived EVA value, the “endpoint” production divisions would bear the biggest brunt because they produce the actual products, which are supposed to generate revenue on which the EVA calculation is based.

However, one of the overall largest drawbacks of EVA is its inability to properly gauge the value of companies that have large off-balance sheet value. Among these companies are R&D shops, which do not have any revenue producing i tems. I t is common knowledge tha t many so f tware companies stay in the red for several years because they are engaged in the early-staged development of products which in turn requires large amounts of invested capital. These products may only become profitable sometime in the far future. Although these companies have a large amount of intellectual

value stored in the developed software algorithms or technology patents, they cannot easily account for this value on the balance sheet. However there is some evidence that EVA can play a pos i t i ve ro le when used as a measurement of performance of some IT organizations that operate as Cost Centers (Yao et al, 2009).

It is important to note that EVA can only be calculated for the companies that have historically confirmed expectations of future profitability. The new ventures may consider this tool only if they intend to operate in the markets, which have a very low speculative component and the analysts researching such markets, can predict the future state of the market, costs of capital, price of finished goods and/or services, etc. EVA of real-estate projects, for instance, cannot serve as a viable indicator of the project performance because the value of real-estate objects (buildings, lots, etc.) can undergo large fluctuations based on the factors, which are not a part of the underlying market conditions4.

Conclusion

Economic value added is a relatively new tool, which was created by a proprietary firm for its own proprietary needs. As such, EVA plays an important role in the analysis of firm value and firm profitability. Since EVA is

The Monarch Management Review 23

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

calculated quite easily based on the financial statements, it can be used to estimate the real worth of the public companies. The cost of capital used in the calculations is practically always known or can be derived from the values known for the companies of the same size. EVA has become a replacement for the older ROI/ROE metrics that were used previously and had a number of drawbacks.

On the other hand, EVA also has a number of shortcomings, which make its use very limited to companies with established operations who perform in a set mode for the number of years. Although EVA was originally used as an alternative performance tool with time it became a singular performance metric that favored quick results obtained on the short run. Designed as a measure against excessive spending with time it started producing a stifling effect by denying R&D spending or long-term spending in favor of the short-term performance gains.

EVA is one of the tools that any manager or business consultant may use. The results obtained by applying it to the financial figures of a company must be taken in perspective and used with caution. Also it must be pointed out that excessively good EVA can be a result of fraud or creative accounting used by the company in order to enhance its position as a source of investment opportunities5. The use of EVA must be followed with the use of a l t e r n a t i v e m e t r i c s s o t h a t a

comprehensive and full picture of the health and competitive positioning of the firm may be obtained.

Endnotes:

1. http://www.sternstewart.com

2. MVA is “the difference between the market value of a firm and the capital contributed by investors. A higher MVA indicates that a company has added more value than what has been contributed to it by shareholders, while a negative MVA indicates that the company has destroyed value”. From http://www.investorwords.com/6577/market_value_added_MVA.html

3. This seems to explain why some large companies have so many obsolete computers, which are well past their depreciation period of 3 years.

4. The recent crisis of 2007-2009, created

by non-market related conditions, resulted in the large drop in the prices of real estate (Pustylnick, 2009).

5. The metrics used in detection of manipulation inside the financial statements of a company use similar data to the one used in the EVA calculations (Pustylnick, 2009b).

The Monarch Management Review 24

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

Volu

me

1, N

umb

er 1

EVA Pros And Consby Dr. Igor Pustylnick

References !" =D5$?*+N<H')+./77O9"+n,i#R+CD'+6@66A'+]'<&)*+H'A4%5($+<$%+6']5$%n"+N5@&$<A+5Q+<))'4+

H<$<?'H'$4+.!Y_718/_/9*+!7+.09*+;"+!8!/" =2-i[E*+:,2PP+.7!W!8W/7!79"+nnI<$]+;'&Q5&H<$3'+&<4B5)+AB'+<65@4+<+35H;<$]a)+D'<A4D"+#+$'(+

H'4&B3+D<)+'H'&?'%+4D<4+3<$a4+'<)BA]+6'+?<H'%11<$%+)<ZZ]+B$Z')45&)+<$%+H<$<?'&)+(BAA+3D'3G+B4+5@4"nn"+P5&4@$'+.77!S18/SO9*+!^!+.!9*+;"+//"

0" V'5*+T"*+M+I@GD'&h''*+C""+./77O9"+X2U+P2>C\E,+!777+P[>IL+i[,U+,i#"+=5&;5&<4'+PB$<$3'+>'ZB'(*+!Y./9*+O1!S"++>'4&B'Z'%+#;&BA+!7*+/7!7*+Q&5H+#K[W[EP2>I+:A56<A"+.V53@H'$4+[VR+!8OS!/!_^!9"

Y" X<$)'$*+V"*+M+I5('$*+I"+.!OO_9"+=5)4+H<$<?'H'$4R+#335@$4B$?+<$%+35$4&5A"+=B$3B$$<4B*+2XR+L5@4D(')4'&$+T@6AB)DB$?"+

S" X<&;'&*+V"++./77S9+,i#R+[$4&5%@34B5$*+&'4&B'Z'%+5$+7YW!7W/7!7+Q&5H+D44;RWW((("B$Z')45;'%B<"35HW@$BZ'&)B4]W,i#W

^" X<]')*+>"*+M+#6'&$<4D]*+U"+.!O87*+N@A]1#@?@)49"+I<$<?B$?+5@&+(<]+45+'35$5HB3+%'3AB$'"+X<&Z<&%+K@)B$'))+>'ZB'(*+^_1__"+

_" X53G+=#*+.!OOO9+,35$5HB3+Z<A@'+<%%'%+.,i#9R+B4)+@)')+<$%+ABHB4<4B5$)"+L#I+#%Z<$3'%+I<$<?'H'$4+N5@&$<A*+I5$%<]*+I<&3D+//+!OOO

8" X@)4'%*+K&]<$+U+.!/W7!W/77O9"+nL4&<4'?B3+=5&;5&<4'+L53B<A+>');5$)B6BAB4]+<$%+i<A@'+=&'<4B5$R+#+L4@%]+5Q+I@A4B$<4B5$<A+,$4'&;&B)')+B$+I'cB35n"+I<$<?'H'$4+B$4'&$<4B5$<A+&'ZB'(+.7O0818/YO9*+YO+.^9*+;"+_8!"

O" b<;A<$*+>"*+M+E5&45$*+V"+.!OO/*+N<$@<&]1P'6&@<&]9"+CD'+6<A<$3'%+)35&'3<&%+1+I'<)@&')+4D<4+%&BZ'+;'&Q5&H<$3'"+X<&Z<&%+K@)B$'))+>'ZB'(*+_!1_O"+

!7" I3bB$$5$*+L"*+M+K&@$)*+U"+.!OO0*+N<$@<&]9"+UD<4+;&5%@34B5$+H<$<?'&)+&'<AA]+(<$4+45+G$5("+I<$<?'H'$4+#335@$4B$?*+/O10S"+

!!" IB3D<@%*+V'$$B)+U&B?D4+<$%+:<B*+F@$('B*+=,2+=5H;'$)<4B5$+<$%+PB&H+T'&Q5&H<$3'+.V'3'H6'&+/7*+/77O9"+#Z<BA<6A'+<4+LL>ER+D44;RWW))&$"35HW<6)4&<34o!S0!^_0

!/" I5&)'*+U"*+V<ZB)*+N"*+M+X<&4?&<Z')*+#"+.!OO^9"+I<$<?'H'$4+<335@$4B$?R+#+)4&<4'?B3+<;;&5<3D"+=B$3B$$<4B*+2XR+L5@4D(')4'&$+T@6AB)DB$?"+

!0" T@)4]A$B3G*+[?5&*+./77O<9+[H;'&Q'34+I<&G'4)+<$%+PB$<$3B<A+=5AA<;)'+5Q+/77_1/77O"+#Z<BA<6A'+<4+LL>ER+D44;RWW))&$"35HW<6)4&<34o!0Y__YY

!Y" T@)4]A$B3G*+[?5&*+./77O69+=5H6B$'%+#A?5&B4DH+Q5&+V'4'34B5$+5Q+I<$B;@A<4B5$+B$+PB$<$3B<A+L4<4'H'$4)"+#Z<BA<6A'+<4+LL>ER+D44;RWW))&$"35HW<6)4&<34o!Y//^O0

!S" F<5*+-"*+L@445$*+L"*+M+=D<$*+L""+./77O9"+U,#-CX+=>,#C[2E+P>2I+[EP2>I#C[2E+C,=XE2-2:F+[Ei,LCI,ECL+\L[E:+CX,+,i#p"+CD'+N5@&$<A+5Q+=5H;@4'&+[$Q5&H<4B5$+L])4'H)*+S7./9*+Y/1Y8"++>'4&B'Z'%+#;&BA+!7*+/7!7*+Q&5H+#K[W[EP2>I+:A56<A"+.V53@H'$4+[VR+!O_S0__^Y!9"

Citation: This article may be cited as:

Pustylnick, I. “EVA Pros And Cons”, The Monarch Management Review, UGSM-Monarch Business School, Vol. 1, Num. 1, Oct. 2010, pp. 16-24

The Monarch Management Review

103

Goal of The Monarch Management Review

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

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

General Submissions

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

Editorial Board

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

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

Photocopying

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

Monarch Management ReviewEditorial Policies

UG

SM

-MO

NA

RC

H O

cto

ber

1, 2

010

The Monarch Management Review

104

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

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

Permission of the publisher is required for resale or distribution outside of the institution. Permission of the publisher is required for all derivative works, including compilations and translations. For information on how to seek permission contact mmr@ugsm-monarch.com.

Fair Use Policy

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

Copyright

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

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

Contact

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

The Editorial BoardThe Monarch Management Review 2348 Lucerne Road, Suite 145Town of Mount-Royal, QuebecCanada, H3R 2J8mmr@ugsm-monarch.com

++

UG

SM

-MO

NAR

CH

Oct

ob

er 1

, 201

0