Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):327 - 341 (2003)
|Abstract||This article questions the continued use and application of EVA® (economic value added) because it is epistemologically a non-sequitur, fails to satisfy the requirements of sound research methodology in terms of being a reliable and valid metric, and is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the light of these insufficiencies, the continued use of EVA® is ethically questionable, and moreover in time is likely to result in class actions.|
|Keywords||CAPM cost of capital empirical failure EVA® reliability rules of evidence validity valuations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wajeeh Elali (2006). Contemporaneous Relationship Between Eva and Shareholder Value. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 2 (s 3-4):237-253.
Robert F. Hadley (1993). Connectionism, Explicit Rules, and Symbolic Manipulation. Minds and Machines 3 (2):183-200.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
Michael Bishop & Benett Bootz (2007). Goodbye, Justification. Hello World. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):269-285.
Frederick Schauer (2008). In Defense of Rule-Based Evidence Law – and Epistemology Too. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 295-305.
Amy E. Sloan, A Government of Laws and Not Men: Prohibiting Non-Precedential Opinions by Statute or Procedural Rule.
Clifton Perry (2007). Exhuming the Body of the Corpus Delicti Rule. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):253-264.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking in Human Subjects Research. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):3-13.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,394 of 731,524 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 731,524 )
How can I increase my downloads?