Session 3

BUSINESS AND SOCIETY TRACK

Track Chair: Mary Anne Watson, The University of Tampa

Session Chair: Marie Rock, Bentley College

CASES:

Minnesota HEALS: Next Steps in Corporate/ Community Partnerships for Crime Reduction

Barbara Altman, University of North Texas

MacMillan Bloedal vs. Greenpeace: Parts A & B

Robert Letovsky, Saint Michael’s College

Jan Johnson, Saint Michael’s College

Conoco’s Decision: The First Annual Presiden’ts Award for Business Ethics

Brooke Hamilton, University of Louisiana at Layfayette

Mark Smith, University of Louisiana at Layfayette

A Key Decision

Steven Meltzer, University of Winnipeg

John Melnyk (faculty supervisor), University of Winnipeg

Is This Really Sexual Harassment?

Robert Crowner, Eastern Michigan University

Three Short Cases for Faculty Development

Tim Edlund, Morgan State University

Session 4

BUSINESS AND SOCIETY TRACK

Track Chair: Mary Anne Watson, The University of Tampa

Session Chair: H. Richard Eisenbeis, University of Southern Colorado

CASES:

Upgrade to Graduate Credit

Disposal of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile Stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot

Richard Eisenbeis, University of Southern Colorado

Sue Hanks, University of Southern Colorado

John Linck, University of Southern Colorado

Nike’s Dispute with the University of Oregon

Rebecca Morris, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Anne Lawrence, San Jose State University

DataList Incorporated: The Sales Rep’s Decision

James Fisher, Saint Louis University

Kathy Lund Dean, Saint Louis University

Shelly Tapp, Wayland Baptist University

A Friend in Human Resources

Jeff Knott, Saint Louis University

James Fisher (faculty supervisor), Saint Louis University

My Best Employee

Igor Kovalenko, Saint Louis University

James Fisher (faculty supervisor), Saint Louis University

Minnesota HEALS: Next Steps in Corporate Community

Partnerships for Crime Reduction

Case Objectives and Use

This case documents the advantages that can be achieved for the corporation, public agencies, and the community from working together through multi-sector partnerships. The case is best used in an undergraduate or graduate Business and Society, or Business Ethics class. Students are challenged in the teaching plan to recognize the products partnerships can achieve, along with the process features that must be present for successful partnership formation and maintenance. Tables and references are offered in the Instructor's Manual to supplement Business and Society texts, as most offer limited background on partnerships.

The case can also be used in an undergraduate or graduate Public Administration class. While framed from a corporate perspective, the role of law enforcement and public officials is crucial to the case. The case demonstrates the renewed energy and positive benefits that corporate involvement can bring to an issue that public officials are struggling with.

Case Synopsis

The setting is Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota in 1996, when the inner city area had one of the highest homicide rates in the nation. The corporate community was increasingly concerned about the effect of high crime. Employee satisfaction surveys rated safety as a major concern. Recruits from other cities were reluctant to accept jobs or to transfer. In fall, 1996 the New York Times published an article labeling Minneapolis, "Murderapolis." The business community was very concerned about the impact of such negative publicity.

The CEO's of Honeywell, General Mills and Allina Health Care Systems, whose headquarters were all located in the high crime area, decided to be proactive. They approached the Governor to begin multi-sector work on crime reduction. The Governor pledged his cooperation and the case describes the HEALS partnership formation, the barriers encountered on the way, factors that helped overcome these barriers, and the results. The case ends with the partnership leaders struggling with next steps after achieving their initial goal of significant homicide reduction in the summer of 1997.

The HEALS partnership has been very successful in bringing down crime activity in its targeted areas. Likewise, it has generated spin-off neighborhood partnerships and work on related social issues, like job training and housing rehabilitation. There is a new spirit of cooperation and coordination between law enforcement agencies. Employees note a higher satisfaction level with the safety in and around their work site.

Contract: Barbara W. Altman, University of North Texas, Department of Management

Mail: 6326 Contour Drive, Dallas, TX 75248

Voice (972) 733-0397; Fax (972) 733-7215; email: altman@unt.edu

MacMillan Bloedel vs. Greenpeace : Parts A & B

Robert Letovsky, Ph.D., Saint Michael’s College

Jan Johnson, MSA student, Saint Michael’s College

Case Objectives and Use.

The case is intended to give students an opportunity to engage in an analysis of both external environmental factors and stakeholder interests. It also provides students with an appreciation for the power of publicity (positive and negative).

The case was written for undergraduate courses in Strategic Management, to be used when focusing on analysis of external environmental factors and stakeholder identification; graduate or undergraduate courses in Business & Society, to be used when dealing with the reconciliation of business’ economic mandates with social responsibility; and courses in Sustainable Development, as it illustrates the role that non-governmental organizations and scientific theory play in environmental issues.

Case Synopsis

The case focuses on a dispute between an international coalition of environmental organizations, led by Greenpeace, and the firms in the British Columbia forestry industry, led by MacMillan Bloedel Inc (MB), over clear-cut logging operations in the old-growth rainforests of the province’s northern coastal region. Greenpeace targeted this region for an international campaign in 1997, which began with acts of civil disobedience aimed at disrupting logging and was later expanded to include protests throughout Europe. The second element of the campaign was a worldwide boycott of all B.C. forest products produced by clear cutting. This boycott, aimed at both corporate buyers and consumers, began in Europe in mid 1998 and was expanded to the United States later that year. At the same time, MacMillan Bloedel faced other challenges, including the Asian economic crisis, a longstanding trade war between Canada and the United States over exports of Canadian lumber products, and a dispute with the province of British Columbia over new rules on logging operations.

Part A focuses on what decisions MacMillan Bloedel's CEO, Tom Stephens, must consider to deal with the ongoing Greenpeace campaign while navigating the company through the various other challenges. Part B begins by describing efforts by various B.C. forest products firms to arrive at some sort of accommodation with environmental groups. It then focuses on the major changes to MB’s logging operations unveiled by company CEO Tom Stephens, in June 1998, to reshape the way MB managed its forest leaseholds. However, as 1998 drew to a close, MB found itself in an almost impossible situation: Environmentalists continued to call for a boycott of old-growth forest products by corporate buyers worldwide. However, MB was unable to obtain certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), one of the key demands which environmentalists held out as a condition for ending the boycott, since the global principles of FSC had yet to be drafted into regional standards covering BC forestry.

Contact Person: Robert Letovsky, Ph.D., Saint Michael’s College, One Winooski Park, Colchester, VT. 05439. Tel: (802) 654-2477; Fax: (802) 654-2664; Email: rletovsky@smcvt.edu.

Conoco's Decision:

The First Annual President's Award for Business Ethics

Brooke Hamilton and Mark Smith

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Case Objectives and Use

The case has application in undergraduate courses in Professional Ethics, Business Policy and Human Resource Systems. It presents an opportunity to discuss an actual example of a company trying to implement a policy statement through an employee incentive program.

Conoco is an example of a newly independent firm, trying to use an innovative, ethical and responsive culture as a strategic asset to improve performance and set itself apart in the financial markets.

For a Professional Ethics course the case presents a range of ethical issues facing employees of a large multinational company. It provides examples of ways of dealing with these issues at the corporate and individual level. Students are able to discuss organizational factors which may inhibit ethical behavior by employees. The case shows how a company can design a program to provide incentives and recognition for ethical behavior. In a Business Policy course the case can be used to show mission implementation in the ethics area. In a Human Resources course the case can show how a company can design a program to provide incentives and recognition for ethical behavior.

Case Synopsis

Given the directive by Archie Dunning, President of Conoco Inc., to establish an annual "President's Award for Business Ethics" to implement the company’s core values statement, Steve Scheck the company's chief auditor assembles a team of managers to oversee the award in its first year. The group writes the award criteria and designs a process for soliciting nominees and deciding on the award recipients. Nominations are received and a committee formed. Given the newly independent company’s mission statement, corporate ethics code, and the criteria for the award, who should receive the award from among five of the nominees described in the case?

Case materials include a brief history of Conoco, the company mission statement, code of conduct, a brief description of their corporate ethics program, criteria for the award and guidelines for the process of soliciting and judging nominees, descriptions of the five nominees, and the company announcements of the ethics award. A two minute video highlighting the award recipients, for use following a class discussion, is available.

__________________________________________

Contact Person: Mark Smith, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Department of Management, P.O. Box 43570, Lafayette, La. 70504-43570

Ph. 337-482-6262, Fax 337-482-5898, Email mxs2356@louisiana.edu

A KEY DECISION

Steven M. Meltzer, BA candidate, University of Winnipeg

Case Objectives and Use

This case is suitable for use early in a first course in Ethics at the undergraduate level. The situation and issues are readily comprehensible, but the underlying ethical dilemma is nonetheless compelling. It is as an excellent illustration of conflicting responsibilities to various stakeholder positions, and the consequential, principled, purposive as well as charismatic forms of moral reasoning. It involves a university fraternity which makes it accessible and interesting to students, and is written entirely in the first person, which gives it great immediacy.

Synopsis

Ted was a close friend of mine, and fellow fraternity member. We had grown up in the same neighbourhood, and shared many of the same interests and friends. Eventually, through some of Ted’s closest friends, I learned of Ted’s bipolar condition, which meant he had the potential to be manic-depressive. However as long as Ted took his medication, his behavior was normal, except to those who knew him very well.

In my senior year I was elected fraternity president. A couple of months after my term as president started, I noticed Ted’s behavior was a little different. Then in mid-April, I was surprised by a call from his parents, asking me to meet with them to talk about Ted. They told me that Ted had stopped taking his medication and as a result needed to be hospitalised to treat his manic-depression. Furthermore, they told me that his doctor felt that treatment would only be effective if Ted admitted himself voluntarily, and that Ted might have to have a complete mental breakdown in order to realize his need for treatment!

Then his mother turned to me and point blank asked me to take Ted’s fraternity house key away so he couldn’t use the fraternity house to escape the paranoia he perceived in the real world, which would potentially slow the process of his eventual recovery.

I knew Ted’s parents cared deeply about Ted, and wanted to do what was best for him, as did I. But I also knew the value of a fraternity environment for someone in trouble, and I wasn’t sure that they understood this. I was also unsure of my right to be involved, and what role I could or should play. I left the meeting with Ted’s parents agreeing to do what they had asked of me, but upon reflection I wasn’t sure what would be best for Ted, and whether to take his key away.

Contact Person: Steven M. Meltzer; Mail:70 Lancaster Boulevard, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA R3P 0E4; Voice: (204) 896-4865; e-mail:smmeltzer@home.com

IS THIS REALLY SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Robert P. Crowner, Eastern Michigan University

Case Objectives and Use

This disguised case can be used in undergraduate or graduate classes in Business Ethics, Business and Society, and Human Resources. This case illustrates the hidden agendas that can exist in allegations of sexual harassment. A common element in all harassment cases is "control", whether it be by the "offender" who is trying to exercise his power, or by the "offended" who may be trying to jeopardize the reputation of the offender. The case also raises the question of whistle-blowing.

The case can be best positioned in the course when human resources or employees as stakeholders are discussed. It provides a useful application tool for the issue of sexual harassment. It raises the important issue of how alleged sexual harassment, if not proven, can damage the alleged perpetrator and the significance of third party, whistle-blower allegations.

Case Synopsis

Christopher Cook, the director of Marketing Department at Marketing Expansions, has been accused by Joyce, one of his managers, of sexually harassing Samantha who is one of Joyce’s employees. When Samantha becomes aware of the allegation through the Human Resources Department Manager, she is surprised and refuses to comment since she did not see Christopher’s comments as being suggestive. Joyce subsequently told Samantha about rude comments Christopher had allegedly made to her and another employee. Joyce told Samantha she should go to back to Human Resources and tell them about the incident with Christopher. Samantha was unsure what she should do.

_____________________________________________________

Contact: Robert P. Crowner, 3709 Meadow Lane, Saline, MI 48176

Phone & Fax (734) 429-5032 Email: rpc3719@worldnet.att.net

THREE SHORT CASES FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Timothy W. Edlund, Morgan State University

Case Objectives and Use

This set of three short cases is designed for use with faculty development, particularly for training in discussion method teaching. They describe actual events, were developed from personal experience, and are lightly disguised. They were designed (1) to give faculty and doctoral students experience in determining alternatives and making decisions in ambiguous teaching situations; and (2) to give practice in discussion method teaching, through participation in case discussions and through observing how the discussion leader handles the case discussion.

These cases are intended for use in Faculty Development programs or for courses in effective teaching that may be offered to doctoral students, adjunct faculty, etc. Useful texts for such programs include:

Teaching with Cases, J. A. Erskine, M. R. Leenders, & L. A. Mauffette-Leenders; London, Ontario: Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, 1998; also

Teaching and Writing Case studies: A practical guide, John Heath. Bedford, England: European Case Clearing House, Cranfield University, 1997.

Teaching & the Case Method, 3rd. Edition, L. B. Barnes, C. R. Christensen, & A. J. Hansen; Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994. This book also contains many cases useful for this purpose.

Case Synopsis

In "The Case of the Duplicate Papers" a professor finds two substantially identical final examination papers from two excellent students. It was impossible to contact either student. Nor could a decision be delayed; grades were due immediately and one of the students was scheduled to graduate.

"Gender Trouble" involves an Executive MBA class, in which a woman student publicly challenges the professor on the lack of women decision-makers in the cases used in the course. All cases are in the course text; the only suitable one available. The case discussion is over, and fifteen minutes remain in the class period. The professor must respond to retain the confidence of the class.

"Tom Hanna" is a doctoral student teaching freshmen the course, "Introduction to Management." One of his students has just made what may be an offer of a bribe to get a good grade in the course. Hanna must decide whether to respond, and, if so, in what fashion.

Contact Person: Timothy W. Edlund, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD 21251.

Mail: 16 Coldwater Court, Baltimore, MD 21204-2043 USA

Voice (410)-337-9143; FAX (410)-337-5253; e-mail: tedlund@morgan.edu

*UPGRADE TO GRADUATE CREDIT?

Case Objective and Use

This field-based case is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate level ethics, principles of management, and organizational behavior courses. It can be used to enhance the understanding of how moral philosophies guide behavior. It can also be used to illustrate the impact of ethics on perceptions of equity, as well as the role of ethics and power in the decision making and planning processes.

Case Synopsis

The semester would be ending in a few weeks, and Dr. Cash was in the midst of grading her MBA students’ essay final exams. Much of her limited time during the past two weeks had been spent responding to numerous e-mails, memos and telephone conversations from a prior student, the student’s advisor, the director of the graduate business program, and the associate dean of the business school. These parties were requesting special consideration, more specifically an “upgrade” from undergraduate level credit to graduate level credit, to retroactively meet graduation requirements for this student. In anticipation of a drop-in meeting later that day with her department chair, Dr. Cash once again set aside her grading to review the series of events leading up to today’s meeting.

______________________________

*All events and individuals are real. The Author’s name and affiliation were withheld from publication in order to assure anonymity to the university and people described here.

DISPOSAL OF THE WEAPONS STOCKPILE AT THE PUEBLO, COLORADO CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEPOT

H. Richard Eisenbeis, University of Southern Colorado

Sue Hanks, University of Southern Colorado

John S. Linck, B.F. Goodrich, Pueblo, Colorado

Case Objectives and Use

This case calls attention to the complexity of issues that occur when international treaties entered into by the United States are perceived by its citizens to conflict with the welfare of its communities, its special interest groups, and its businesses. It raises the issue of the extent to which individuals, communities, businesses, and special interest groups should be permitted by government to become involved in determining enactment of provisions stipulated in international treaties.

The case shows the difficulty of diverse stakeholders reaching agreement on complex issues and underscores the difficulty of reconciling ethical principles set forth by government requirements, utilitarianism, individual rights, economic efficiency, distributive justice, and deontology. In addition, the case raises the issue of the role of emotions versus scientific evidence in determining acceptable risk and questions how much influence special interest groups and an unschooled, inexpert public should have in determining acceptable risk. As such, the case is most appropriate for use in business ethics/social responsibility courses at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

Case Synopsis

In 1997, the world's military powers agreed through international treaty to destroy all chemical weapons stockpiles by the year 2007. The United States government's attempt to involve its publics in the decision making process has resulted in stakeholder groups being unable to agree on how to most efficiently and effectively reach compliance with treaty stipulations. As a consequence, enactments of the treaty provisions have been delayed by several years and the United States is in danger of not meeting its treaty obligations.

Although the Army has shown incineration to be the most efficient proven technology available for total chemical weapons destruction, incineration has met strong resistance from various environmental and local citizen groups. These groups continue to express concern over risks associated with as yet unidentified chemical stack emissions and insist that alternative disposal technologies be identified and explored before a final disposal process decision is made.

Caught in the middle are the citizens of southern Colorado. It is of major importance to the city of Pueblo and the region, both for health and economic reasons, that disposal of the chemical agents stored at the Pueblo Depot begin as soon as possible. Community leaders, who strongly favor moving forward without delay, are faced with the decision of what else they can do to influence interest groups, concerned citizens, their representatives to Congress, and, perhaps, Congress itself to make a final decision.

Contact Person: H. Richard Eisenbeis, Hasan School of Business, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, CO 81001. Voice: 719-549-2105; eisenbei@uscolo.edu

NIKE’S DISPUTE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

Rebecca J. Morris, University of Nebraska at Omaha

Anne T. Lawrence, San Jose State University

Case Objectives and Use

The purpose of this descriptive case is to help students think broadly and critically about the ethical obligations of multinational corporations to employees who manufacture their products overseas. What responsibilities do companies like Nike have—if any—for the wages and working conditions of subcontracted employees? How should standards governing these workers be established, and by whom? How should these standards best be enforced? What obligations do consumers have for the conditions under which products they purchase are made, if any? How should they most effectively act on these obligations?

This case is suitable for graduate or upper-division undergraduate courses in business and society, business ethics, international business, or strategy. It is especially useful in modules dealing with ethical standards and codes of conduct in international business, and with business monitoring. The learning objectives for this case have been formulated to be consistent with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. Questions in the Instructor’s Manual are intended to lead students through a sequence of cognitive learning, ranging from lower levels (knowledge, comprehension, and application) to higher levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).

Case Synopsis

This case focuses on a dispute between Philip H. Knight, founder and CEO of the athletic shoe and apparel company Nike Inc., and his alma mater, the University of Oregon (UO). In April 2000, Knight announced that he would no longer give money to UO because of the university’s decision to join the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). The WRC had been founded by student activists, with the support of several labor unions. Its objective was to eliminate “sweatshop” conditions in the overseas shoe and apparel industry. Knight was upset because Nike had helped found and was an active supporter of a rival organization, the Fair Labor Association (FLA). The WRC and FLA differed in their approach to how best to set and enforce standards for manufacturing facilities of multinational corporations. The case uses this topical dispute, recently in the news, to raise the broad issues surrounding the ethical obligations of multinational corporations to their overseas employees, as well as the ethical obligations of consumers of these products. It also challenges students to consider the most effective way to set, and enforce, global labor standards.

Contact person: Rebecca J. Morris, College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, CBA 508K, Omaha, NB 68182

Voice: (402) 554-3542; Fax: (402) 554-3747; E-mail: rmorris@unomaha.edu

DATALIST INCORPORATED: RESPONSIBLE INFORMATION PRACTICES

James E. Fisher and Kathy Lund Dean, Saint Louis University

Shelley Tapp, Wayland Baptist Univeristy

Case Objectives and Use

The DataList case offers a window into the important subject of proprietary consumer information. Ours is an information age, and questions about personal information rights such as privacy, security, accuracy, and accessibility have taken center stage. This case focuses on one firm’s efforts to handle consumer information responsibly and ethically. Students are challenged to understand the criteria guiding such considerations and to make a decision in which the opportunity to sell information is weighed against a third-party’s rights. The case is appropriate for use in several courses: marketing management, business policy, or business ethics. The case is targeted for both undergraduate and MBA students.

Case Synopsis

The case focuses on Susan Jones, a sales representative for DataList, as she and her manager Frank Thompson evaluate marketing materials submitted for DataList’s approval by three potential small business clients. She is concerned because each of the three pieces is targeted toward new mothers and their children, and she feels a special responsibility when marketing efforts are targeted toward children. DataList maintains strong standards and supporting practices with regard to ethical use of consumer information. Because DataList owns a proprietary database with information on over 143 million individuals and over 90% of households in the United States, its potential reach into American consumers’ economic lives is vast.

Potential small business clients must be qualified by a process DataList utilizes to make sure small businesses (and those individuals and organizations who represent themselves as such) are legitimate. While some potential clients value DataList’s expertise, others resent it as an unnecessary interference. One challenge encountered in the case reflects Susan’s efforts to manage two potentially conflicting organizational goals: increasing sales while maintaining fair information practices.

The case centers on Susan and Frank’s meeting regarding the potential clients’ direct marketing materials—two mail pieces and one telemarketing script. In this meeting, their initial concerns about the materials are express in light of the company’s more general information practices. DataList must address issues of ethical information use, appropriateness of marketing material content, and internal responses to policies and procedures.

_________________________________________________

Contact Person: James E. Fisher, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108.
Mail: Dept. of Marketing, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108-3397 USA
Voice (314)-977-3836; FAX (314)-977-1647; e-mail: fisherje@slu.edu

A FRIEND IN HUMAN RESOURCES

Jeff Knott, MBA student, Saint Louis University
James E. Fisher (Faculty Supervisor), Associate Professor, Saint Louis University

Case Objectives and Use

This case focuses on how work and personal responsibilities can collide. A human resource professional provides a close friend with some assistance in securing employment with his own firm. Later, when the protagonist in the case learns that his friend’s position is slated for elimination, he must carefully consider how he should handle this information. The case thus portrays in a realistic way how individuals inevitably assume multiple role responsibilities. Conflicts between loyalty to a friend and to some other moral obligation are age-old and this case should further demonstrate to students that it is typically difficult to resolve such conflicts in a satisfying manner. The case is suitable for courses in business ethics, human resources, and management.

Case Synopsis

John Smith, a human resources manager, must decide where to draw the line between his profession and his friendship. Steve Jones, a fraternity brother of John, secures his first position out of college, in part, with John’s help. Steve has been in his new position for only a short time when the company takes a strategic turn that necessitates its replacement of Steve with a more seasoned professional. John is torn between warning his friend and his duty to the company.

_________________________________________________

Contact Person: James E. Fisher, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108.
Mail: Dept. of Marketing, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108-3397 USA
Voice (314)-977-3836; FAX (314)-977-1647; e-mail: fisherje@slu.edu

MY BEST EMPLOYEE

Igor V. Kovalenko, MBA student, Saint Louis University
James E. Fisher (Faculty Supervisor), Associate Professor, Saint Louis University

Case Objectives and Use

This case places students in a management situation that challenges them to find an appropriate ethical response for a top marketing performer caught in a web of dishonest activity. Students must consider whether special latitude is in any way warranted for especially talented employees who bend or break the rules. Tension naturally builds in this case as students seek to find an appropriate level of punishment for a breach of ethics and simultaneously consider if tolerance for the wrongful behavior of the employee(s) might also be in order. The context for the case makes the material especially compelling, namely, the Russian economy in the aftermath of communism, as new business practices and norms are beginning to emerge. The case is suitable for courses in the areas of marketing management, general management, international business, or business ethics.

Case Synopsis

Marshall is a distributor of digital consumer electronics based in St. Petersburg, Russia. The company’s direct sales department works with business clients who represent an especially important market segment. These are customers with significant sales and profit potential. Elena, a sales representative for Marshall, is characterized by her manager as “my best employee.” But suspicious behavior by Elena attracts management attention and eventually she is discovered to have engaged in fraudulent reporting of sales. Moreover, other employees knew about this fact, but did not to report it to management.

The case presents students with a dilemma that management subsequently faces. On the one hand, the direct sales department was very important to the company and stopping its activity even for a short time would mean losing significant sales volume and profit. On the other hand, trust has been broken and students must consider what the fallout will be and how the damage can be repaired.

_________________________________________________

Contact Person: James E. Fisher, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108.
Mail: Dept. of Marketing, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108-3397 USA
Voice (314)-977-3836; FAX (314)-977-1647; e-mail: fisherje@slu.edu