Dean’s Blog

Global Action Day

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 26, 2011 at 9:10 AM PDT

November 1st has been proclaimed Global Action Day by Seattle mayor Mike McGinn.  It is an opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of our state’s global development sector and work for more collaboration and increased impact worldwide.   The local organizations involved in global development include Global Washington, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Partnerships, and the Initiative for Global Development.

 

Way back in the day, global development (called economic development back then) was my field of research in graduate school and my dissertation was in the field – “The Demand for Labor on Small Farms in Less Developed Countries: Implications for Employment Generation.”  You can tell how old that is – Less Developed Countries is not a term we use anymore!  Emerging Nations is the proper term these days.  When I was on the faculty at Creighton, each year I would teach the International Economic Development course to undergraduate students.

 

Now, of course, I am not doing research and teaching in global development, but we have three economists on our faculty who are -- Meena Rishi, Quan Le, and Claus Pörtner.  This is a significant commitment on the part of the Albers School to this important sector.

 

More importantly, we are offering the International Economic Development (IED) specialization and minor to undergraduate students.  These programs allow students to take specialized coursework in the area, and students also must combine that with a complementary experience – study abroad in an emerging nation or an internship with an NGO doing development work.

 

Fortunately, our IED program can draw upon the global development sector here in Seattle.  Although we would prefer IED students to go abroad, when that is not possible there is a long list of local organizations they can work with.  We are very fortunate in that regard, as there are few metro areas in the nation that offer a global development sector to draw upon.

 

It is easy to see how the IED is at the heart of the SU mission.  If we are truly to be “leaders for a just and humane world,” a key concern must be how to raise the standard of living for so many of the world’s people.  If we are concerned about global education, the issue of global development has to be one of the greatest challenges to address.  Today, we have 15 economics majors specializing in IED and 9 IED minors.  It is great to see so many SU students inspired to engage so deeply with the global development challenge.

 

 

 

Why Graduate School?

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM PDT

 

The College Success Foundation (CSF) helps low income and underserved students to graduate from college and succeed in life.  The foundation does great work, and many SU students and alumni have benefitted from their assistance.

 

On October 22nd CSF hosted its students and alumni on the SU campus to explore attending graduate and professional school.  CSF asked me to talk to students about why they should consider going on for that next degree.  Here are some of the things I told them:

 

The first thing to know is that graduate or professional school is going to be a lot of work and it will be more focused than a traditional undergraduate degree.  Therefore, it is important to have a passion for what you choose to study. 

 

One of the negatives about attending graduate school is the opportunity cost involved.  Namely, while you are going to school, you are not in the workforce earning income.  Of course, there are many programs designed for people to go to school and work full time at the same time, what we call part time programs.  For example, virtually all of the graduate programs at Seattle University are programs that work that way. 

 

Of course, there is a price to pay with these programs in terms of not having as much time for family and recreation for the two or three or four years of your study.  Yet many, many students have successfully navigated that path and feel they made the right decision.

 

 

Most people know how an undergraduate degree boosts employment prospects as well as income.  So for example, in 2010 the unemployment rate for people with a high school diploma averaged 10.3% compared to 5.4% for people with bachelor’s degrees.  Median weekly earnings for people with a bachelor’s degree was over $1000 in 2010, compared to a bit over $600 for high school graduates. 

 

The situation for people with master’s and professional degrees is striking.  People with a master’s degree, any master’s degree, had an unemployment rate of 4% in 2010.  Those with professional degrees had an unemployment rate of 2.4%, and those with doctoral degrees had an unemployment rate of 1.9%. 

 

There is a similar impact on earnings.  Those with doctoral and professional degrees had weekly earnings 50 and 60% higher than those with bachelor’s degrees, respectively.  Master’s degree holders earned about 25% more.

 

Another way to look at this is to look at estimates of life time earnings from the US Census Bureau.  Depending on your race and gender, the increase in life time earnings of a master’s degree over a bachelor’s degree ranges from 16 to 34%.  For a professional degree from 37 to 67% , and for a Doctoral degree between 30% to 55%.

 

Let’s look at the numbers for Hispanic males – high school lifetime earnings are about $1.31 million, undergrad degree $2.1 million, master’s degree $2.8 million, and professional and doctoral degrees $3.1 million.

 

Money is not everything, so why else would you go on to get a higher degree?  Researchers have suggested that it not money that really motivates people to do good work and be successful and enjoy going to work every day.  People need a certain amount of income to live on and don’t want to feel taken advantage of.  They do want to be paid for what they do, but that is not the real source of their satisfaction.

 

Daniel Pink has summarized the research into three things -- autonomy, mastery, and purpose.  Autonomy means that we have control over our lives and our situation.  You don’t want someone telling you want to do all the time.  You want to be able to use your own good judgment.  One would think that the more education you have, the easier it is to find a situation where you have autonomy, and that the organization where you work is going to trust you to do your job well.

 

Mastery means you want to be good at what you do.  Well, doesn’t a graduate degree contribute to that??  Whatever it is you are passionate about, presumably more education makes you better at it and improves your skill set.

 

The final aspect is purpose, which means that you feel like you are doing really important work and the organization that you represent is involved in an important mission.  I don’t think you need a graduate degree to achieve purpose, but it may make it easier to find because your education helps you find out about you.  In other words, your graduate education allows you to find what your passion is, what is important to you, and what your core values are.  This enables you to go out and find a situation where there is alignment with your values and passions.

 

A graduate degree can impact these three important non-monetary factors, not just your earnings power.  These are compelling reasons to be thinking about that next degree!

 

 

 

 

René Ancinas

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 21, 2011 at 5:10 PM PDT

 

The Albers Executive Speaker Series kicked off for the year with René Ancinas, President and CEO of Port Blakely Companies, visiting on October 19th.  Port Blakely Companies is a fourth-generation family-owned business with forestry and real estate interests in the Pacific Northwest and New Zealand. Many of those who attended found René to be one of the best if not the best speaker they have listened to in the series.  That is saying a lot, because just about every major business leader in Seattle has participated in the series!

 

René talked about his background as a musician has influenced his approach to music.  He said some of his best role models for leadership have been musical conductors.  “Everybody leads from the seat they are in,” said René. The person in front cannot tell everyone what they should be doing.  The successful conductor gets them to lead themselves.  This is the model that René uses in his own leadership.

 

René suggested there are five key principles to leadership:

 

  1. Walk the walk.  You will not be successful if you say one thing and do another and do not lead by example.
  2. Take a servant leadership approach.  It is not about you, it is about the success of organization.
  3. Know your weaknesses.  Don’t try to be someone you are not.  Find people who are strong in ways you are not.
  4. Build a good team. Or, maybe he meant to say build a good orchestra! :}
  5. Develop and inspire people.  That is definitely the conductor model!

 

René noted that as a leader, he is more concerned with selecting people for the team based on their values alignment and what they bring as a person in terms of their beliefs and self-awareness.  Skill requirements serve as a filter for finding people, but skills are not the critical factor.

 

Finally, René used Prezi to do his presentation, a cloud based presentation software.  The audience loved it and I think he has inspired some new adopters!

 

The next speaker is Tod Nielsen, co-President at VMWare, on November 3rd.  You need to be there!

 

 

 

WACSB

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 12, 2011 at 8:10 AM PDT

 

The Western Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (WACSB) annual meeting was in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho October 9 to 11th.  Forty-five AACSB accredited schools from the western US were in attendance, with schools from Arizona to Alaska and Montana to Hawaii represented.  These meetings are always very valuable for networking with deans from other business schools in the region.  Some deans find this to be the most valuable meeting that they attend.

I had never been to Coeur D’Alene except to drive through on I-90.  I recommend getting off the highway!  Coeur D’Alene is a pleasant, manageable town with a great, big lake and plenty of scenery. Our meeting was at the Coeur D’Alene Resort, which is right on the lake.

Idaho, Idaho State, and Boise State were the host schools and they did a nice job or organizing the conference.  Unfortunately, they did not get much cooperation from Mother Nature, as it was cloudy and rainy most of the time.

These meetings always feature presentations and panel discussion on emerging issues for business schools.  The problem that frequently happens is that the program is not designed to appeal to the wide variety of schools in the audience.  For example, this meeting ranged between Research I schools such as Arizona and Oregon, to small privates such as California Lutheran and PLU, to medium sized publics such as Cal-Northridge and Eastern Washington.

One panel featured a discussion on commercialization of technology.   Unfortunately, it was addressed from the perspective of very large public schools, so it had almost no relevance for most schools in the audience, including SU.  The discussion would have been much more meaningful if the panelists represented the variety of schools in attendance.

Another panel discussion focused on financial strategies to address current budget problems.  While the panel was more representative, no private schools were in the group.  Granted, public institutions face more stress than privates, normally, but everyone is dealing with budget pressures.

A final panel focused on how schools support faculty research.  It did have a private school in the mix, but the schools were on the large size.  A more representative mix could have been developed for this discussion. 

One of the questions that came up in this final session was how to measure the quality and impact of faculty research.  It is an issue we are currently wrestling with in the Albers School.  There are no easy answers and I didn’t come across any at this session that could be used by Albers, even though I explicitly asked the panel and audience to share what they were doing.  The Research I schools have addressed this issue by coming up with a limited list of journals for their faculty to publish in.  The rest of us are not interested in that approach. 

In our case, we are now looking at classifying journals into four classes, but ideally we would come up with something which factors in other considerations.  The quality of a journal is not always easy to identify, and just because an article gets published does not mean it has impact or influence on practice or the discipline.  The ideal system would be multifaceted, but no one seems to know what that would actually look like.

What I did learn from this panel is that Albers does a reasonably good job of supporting faculty research, at least when compared to the four schools presenting.  Well, one was a Ph.D. granting school, so we don’t provide that level of support, but we don’t tell faculty there are only four journals they should publish in, either.

The final session was devoted to Beta Gamma Sigma, the academic honor society for AACSB accredited schools.  Once again, Seattle University was recognized as a premier school by BGS.  This is a credit to Fred DeKay, who serves as faculty advisor for BGS and managed to pull this off while on a leave of absence!  Way to go Fred!

Next year’s WASCB meeting will be at Lake Tahoe.  I am planning accordingly!

 

 

NCAA

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 5, 2011 at 8:10 AM PDT

 

Earlier this week a peer review team from NCAA visited campus to follow up on the self-study we submitted in April.  Both the self-study and the visit are important steps in our four year process to return to Division I athletics.  2011-12 is our fourth year.  If all goes well, we will be a Division I school in 2012-13.

The self-study was a large and complicated project.  It involved over 60 people from campus working on three sub-committees and a steering committee providing overall direction.  It included students, faculty, staff, and others.  It was a big group, but we intentionally made it a big group because we wanted broad campus participation.  For example, we purposely included student athletes as well as students who are not athletes.

The self-study resulted in a number of improvements being made within the Department of Athletics, but also improvements that impact the entire campus.  In that sense, the process was very helpful and I think the participants feel good about that.

As it now stands, all Division I schools must undergo the self-study process every ten years.  The self-study that we did is the same self-study that long standing Division I schools.  The difference for us was it was our first time through, and something every reclassifying school does in the third year of the four year process.

The NCAA has told us that we are one of the last schools to go through the process as it now exists.  They are studying how to change the certification process to make it more streamlined and less burdensome.

Having been through accreditation processes for AACSB (the business school accrediting body) and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (the accrediting body for the university), I expected a thorough and burdensome accreditation process!  I wasn’t disappointed but I was not troubled by it either.  It was a good exercise for the university.  We were able to identify areas of strength and aspects of what we do that need improvement. 

Nevertheless, NCAA seems to be almost apologizing for the process and vowing to do better.  Well, that will be beneficial to whoever is involved in the next review cycle.  One thing that is clear is that the next review will not be another ten years from now, as the self-study cycle will become more frequent, perhaps requiring something every year!

In developing our self-study, we received great support from our NCAA liaison, Mira Colman.  Most striking about Mira was her responsiveness.  It was like she was sitting by the computer (or holding her Blackberry) waiting for our email so she could respond!  She couldn’t have been more supportive of us!

The sub-committees received exceptional support from Eric Guerra and Lauren Rochholz in Athletics.  They took care of all the details throughout the process, whether it was scheduling meeting rooms or posting our report material to the NCAA website.  They may have a different take than me on the burdens of the self-study process, though! :}

In a week or so we will receive the peer review team report and be able to respond to any issues by mid-December.  In February, the NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification will meet to review our self-study and the peer review report and make a decision on our readiness to move to D1.  If all goes well, we will be a D1 school in July, 2012.

So far, so good!

 

 

Inaugural

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on October 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM PDT

 

This past weekend I attended the inaugural of Fr. Tim Lannon, SJ as the 24th President of Creighton University.  When a President is inaugurated at a Jesuit university, the other Jesuit schools are asked to send a representative.  I was on the Creighton faculty for 19 years before coming to Seattle U., so I, along with Fr. Mike Bayard, SJ, represented SU at the installation.

I first got to know Fr. Lannon when I was on the Creighton faculty and he was President of Creighton Prep High School.  We were both asked to serve on a Supervisory Committee for the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.  It seems the fraternity had engaged in some inappropriate activity and was on the verge of being booted off campus.  The only way they could remain was under the direction of a supervisory committee consisting of Phi Psi alumni and faculty.  Yes, that means Fr. Lannon, the first alum to serve as President of Creighton, was a fraternity brother when he was a student.  (And I had to be inducted into the fraternity so I could serve as a faculty advisor!)

There is no doubt in my mind that Fr. Lannon will be a great President for Creighton.  He has a great way with people and was an inspiring leader at Creighton Prep and St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, where he was before returning to Creighton.

Returning to campus, I was able to see the tremendous improvements that have taken place with the campus infrastructure.  The campus footprint is much larger than when I left, and many buildings have been added during the presidency of Fr. John Schlegel, SJ.  While this is very impressive, it is not the campus facilities that make Creighton an outstanding academic institution.  Returning to campus after being gone for ten years, I was able to visit with a number of my former colleagues. It was a reminder of the many wonderful faculty and staff at Creighton.  They are good at what they do and dedicated to the university and its students (just like the faculty and staff at SU).  I dare not name names because I will leave someone out, but it is really the people that make Creighton a great institution!  And I know they will thrive under Fr. Lannon’s leadership!

The trip back was an opportunity to remind myself about the great network of 28 Jesuit universities in the US and the quality of education they deliver.  Seattle University is not alone in its mission and its success!  It is also a reminder that great leadership (Fr. Lannon at CU or Fr. Sundborg at SU) and great facilities (the new library at SU or the Harper Center at CU) are important for the success of a university, but not as important as the competence and dedication of the faculty and staff.

 

 

 

Summer is Over!

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on September 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM PDT

 

The academic year is starting this week and campus is getting busier and busier with the approach of fall classes.  [It is true that law students and EMBA students have been in class for several weeks, but they don't fill the campus up!]  On September 15th we had the Albers Convocation, a beginning of the year meeting for Albers faculty and staff.

On September 20th we host a welcome event for our new undergraduate business students, both freshmen and transfers.

At the Convocation, we emphasized that there are four important things we need to accomplish this year:

1. Earn reaffirmation of our AACSB accreditation.  AACSB is the top business education accrediting body in the world.  There are 633 schools worldwide with accreditation.  Accredited schools are reviewed every five years to assure they are delivering a quality business education.  A peer review team will visit us in late October.  We sent them our self-study report in late August, which we know they are pouring over now.

2. Revamp our MBA curriculum.  A team of faculty and staff started working on this last year.  They have come up with some interesting changes and are getting closer to making their initial proposal to the faculty.

3. Revise our undergraduate business core curriculum.  Now that the university has revised the university undergraduate core, it is time for us to look at the business core.  A task force of faculty began work in the spring.  Thus far they have looked at what other programs do and the trends in business undergraduate education.  Now they must get busy formulating a proposal.

4. Establish a system to measure the quality and impact of faculty scholarship.  This is a difficult topic for faculty.  In our current system of annual evaluation and rank and tenure, we are not doing enough to assess the quality of faculty research.  We need to establish a system that is fair and provides faculty with the right incentives and support.

A blogging expert told me there should be pictures posted on my blog.  I am not sure what pictures I have that are appropriate for these topics.  But, if we recognize that the start of the school year means summer is over (way too short one more time!), and it is a great time to look back and remember the highlights.  For me, that would be the trip to Peru and Machu Picchu in July and a vacation trip to Lake Tahoe the week before Labor Day.    

Summer is over!  Have a great school year! 

Golf

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on August 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM PDT

 

On August 8th we held the ninth annual Albers Alumni Golf Tournament at the Glendale Country Club in Bellevue.  This event has always been important for bringing Albers supporters together and any money raised is used to support scholarships for Albers students.  This year the tournament was particularly successful because we had 130 golfers, a great location, and great weather!

There is a lot of work by volunteers on this event.  This year the leaders were Dave Anastasi from my advisory board and Tony Goodwillie and Scott Warren from our alumni board.  Rob Bourke, our staff member who handles alumni affairs, also puts in a lot of work on the tournament.  The event was developed and championed by our alumni board and we are very grateful for their support across the nine years of the tournament!  And thanks to all the volunteers who assisted with the event this year!  It really takes a lot of work to do one of these!

It’s not uncommon for the tournament to be my one and only outing on the golf course during a year.  This year it was my first time out, but I do have another tournament on the schedule next month.  I don’t mind playing golf, but it is a very time consuming sport – it takes a long time to play a round of golf – and so does not work for me.

I am definitely a fair weather golfer.  I don’t like to be playing in the rain, and we have had a few years when it was raining.  Given the nature of my golf game, what is the point of being out there if the weather is not nice?

For me, golf is very much a team game.  I only do scrambles, which our tournament is, and that should tell you something about the consistency of my golf game!

This year people were really excited about the Glendale Country Club location, and I agree with them.  What was most appealing to me is that it does not have narrow fairways, frequently you can get to the green via several different fairways, and there are very few houses within reach of my ball.

One year one of my partners wanted to know why I was not using a driver off the tee.  I replied that I was using my driver, but apparently it is so “old school” and small compared to the mega-drivers of today, that it looks like a five wood.  He had the perfect solution, he replied, and sent me an extra driver that he had – a Sasquatch Diamana S-65.  It is exactly as it sounds – big!!  And it does make a difference.  My drives, whenever it is a half decent shot, definitely go a lot further and I do not have near as much difficulty coming up with the requisite two drives that every team member is expected to contribute in a scramble.

Frequently people ask me how my team faired in the tournament.  I must explain to them that it is not good form for the dean to win the tournament, so I take all the necessary precautions to make sure that does not happen.  My golf game is usually sufficient to keep us out of the running, but if I need to, I am not above inviting other weak golfers to join my team.  One year my team finished fourth and we were dangerously close to winning the third place prize.  I’ve been much more careful ever since!

 

The Economy

Posted by Barbara Hauke on August 10, 2011 at 11:08 AM PDT

 

On August 8th I made a presentation here in Seattle to the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) Economics and Investment Conference, attended by credit union board members and CEOs from around the country.  The theme was, “Where Do We Stand Now? An Overview of the Current Economic Climate.”  Here are some of the things I said:

  • First, Seattle is a great place to have a conference this time of year!  No heat, humidity, or mosquitoes!
  • The “Great Recession” that lasted from December, 2007 to June, 2009 was the deepest and longest since the Great Depression. 
  • It has also been the weakest recovery.  Over two years later, we have restored less than 25% of the jobs lost and output has still not recovered to its pre-recession level.
  • Looking at the components of output – consumption, investment, government expenditures, and net exports – it is investment spending that has not recovered.  But it is not business investment in machinery and equipment, it is business and residential construction that continue to lag.
  • The Fed moved aggressively to address the stress in financial markets and the economic slowdown.  The Fed is out of bullets.  It has done everything it can do.
  • The Fed has moved so aggressively that there is a risk of inflation.  I admit to having a hard time figuring out exactly what that risk is.
  • The federal government moved modestly to stimulate the economy.  Much of the deficit has to do with fighting two wars (without raising taxes for them), tax cuts, and the cyclical impact on the budget, not specific steps to enlarge the government sector.
  • The current discussions on the budget deficit are not well informed because they fail to differentiate between cyclical and structural deficits.  We need to focus on the latter, and that is best addressed by medium to longer term cuts in spending (especially entitlement spending), not short term cuts that make it more difficult to put the recession behind us.
  • There are a number of factors weighing down the recovery – the housing market, Federal budget uncertainty, energy prices (although that could be changing), government downsizing, weak income and job growth, consumer deleveraging, and struggles in Europe.
  • There are few sources of strength – exports (especially to Asia), business ready to invest when they are convinced that consumers will be there, low interest rates, and maybe energy prices are starting to drop.
  • That all adds up to continued modest growth of 2-3%, not good for an economic recovery.  I don’t see the double-dip that other people see.  When a recession is caused by a financial crisis that impacts lower and middle income households, history shows a long, slow recovery.
  • If Standard and Poors wants to downgrade Treasury debt, that is fine, but that means they need to do some other downgrading, like for France.  Treasuries are definitely lower risk than OATs!

 

The Purpose of Business

Posted by Joseph Phillips, Jr. on August 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM PDT

 

Fordham University recently hosted a meeting of academics and business people here in Seattle.  As part of the event, they convened a panel of five business school deans to give their perspectives on the Purpose of Business.  Here are some exerts of what I said in the discussion:

 

“The purpose of business is to meet human needs, in two ways.  First, provide goods and services to customers and, two, to provide employment and opportunity to those involved in the enterprise. 

 

The first includes basic needs that take the form of goods and services, but also less urgent goods and services that contribute to an improved standard of living.  The products produced by business contribute to the common good by meeting basic needs as well as less critical needs.

 

Regarding the second purpose, employment is important.  It provides income to meet basic needs, but not just that.  Employment is also a way that people define themselves and find meaning and fulfillment and feel good about themselves.  In brief, it provides human dignity.

 

The business also needs to be sustainable, which influences how it does business.  The focus is on long term customer relationships, not a quick turn.  The environment cannot be excessively exploited in the process of producing goods and services, since that is not sustainable.  To be sustainable, the business also needs to operate profitability, so that it provides incentives for capital, but profitability, particularly when measured in the short term, is not the sole purpose of the business.

 

Think of examples of successful businesses that you know of – Costco, Boeing, Paccar, Amazon, or Facebook.  Is it profitability that gives owners and employees pride and excitement? Or is it meeting customer needs and what they produce and do that turns them on?  Looked at another way, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, and Weyerhaeuser are making money now but do not seem to get any credit for it.  Salesforce.com, LinkedIn, and Shutterfly don’t make much money, but are widely admired.  It has to be some combination of both profits and mission that gets people excited about what they do….

 

One reason that business should be about meeting human needs and contributing to the common good is that society creates an environment that allows a business to operate.  Without that supportive environment, a business could not be successful.  I have in mind such things as property rights, enforcing contracts, educating and training the workforce, overseeing a monetary system and well functioning financial markets, maintaining law and order, and providing infrastructure like highways and ports that support commerce.  Businesses get a “license to operate” so to speak in this supportive environment.

 

I would suggest that much of my thinking on this issue is influenced by Catholic Social Thought, and I am not saying that to please our Catholic university host, Fordham University.

 

A major tenant of CST is the “dignity of the human person,” and how work contributes to human dignity.  Thus, a business that “does not enhance its workers and serve the common good is a moral failure,” no matter how profitable.  It was Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Labor), the first Papal encyclical in CST tradition issued in 1891, that first raised questions about the treatment of employees.  Subsequent encyclicals have gone on to elaborate and press that theme.  For example, Quadragesimo Anno (1931) posed the “just wage” as one that could support a family and allow for some accumulation of property. 

 

But back to the role of profits, Pope Benedict says the following in the most recent encyclical, Truth and Charity (Caritas in Veritate): “Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a signal both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it.  Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”

 

In sum, my view is that the purpose of business is to provide goods and services to customers and, two, to provide employment and opportunity to those involved in the enterprise.  Business enjoys a supportive environment provided by society and, in turn, it boosts the standard of living of society and contributes to the common good.