Implementation of sustainable development goals: The role for business academics

Abstract

Achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 is a Grand Challenge, especially for business academics who have a responsibility to work with businesses regarding their management and contributions. Two main challenges are examined in the article: the need for academics to work together towards holistic solutions to SDG problems, and the need for stronger engagement to reduce the distance between academics and practitioners/ practice. It then develops a framework that considers the knowledge-generation and application roles business academics face in addressing groups of insiders and outsiders. Finally, the use of the framework is demonstrated via a case study of modern slavery in corporate supply chains.

JEL Classification: M14, Q01

Keywords

Business academics knowledge-application knowledge-generation management multinational enterprises transdisciplinary United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

1. Introduction

A major Grand Challenge facing the world is achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 and better understanding the contribution of business to help meet this challenge (Muff et al., 2017). The article builds on this challenge by exploring the role for business academics in pursuit of the commitment of countries to attain the SDGs. The SDGs, recently accepted by all 193 countries in the United Nations, jointly and severally represent Grand Challenges for understanding and achieving environmental, social, and economic development ambitions by the year 2030 (Griggs et al., 2014). The lofty aim of the SDGs in this relatively short time is to end all forms of poverty while protecting the planet and building economic growth. Table 1 outlines the 17 United Nations SDGs via number, including a brief description.

Table 1.

The SDGs and a brief description.

Goal number	Description
1 No poverty	End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
2 Zero hunger	End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
3 Good health and well-being	Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
4 Quality education	Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
5 Gender equality	Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
6 Clean water and sanitation	Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
7 Affordable and clean energy	Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
8 Decent work and economic growth	Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.
9 Industry, innovation and infrastructure	Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation.
10 Reduced inequalities	Reduce income inequality within and among countries.
11 Sustainable cities and communities	Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
12 Responsible consumption and production	Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
13 Climate action	Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy.
14 Life below water	Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
15 Life on land	Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
16 Peace, justice and strong institutions	Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, inclusive institutions at all levels.
17 Partnerships for the goals	Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.

Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs

The SDGs represent a set of 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators resulting from a multi-stakeholder agreement between countries, designed to reduce unsustainability and promote sustainable development at the global level (United Nations, 2018).

Although the primary challenge is to move countries and regions towards achieving the SDGs, sustainability reports, corporate websites and reports from professional services organisations indicate that businesses are taking an interest in how they can make a specific contribution in this space (e.g. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, 2017; KPMG, 2018; PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 2015). Businesses are necessary and important participants in moving society towards sustainability through the SDGs because of their significant economic, social and environmental impacts (PwC, 2015). Given the global nature of the SDGs, the focus here is on big business and multinational enterprises (MNEs), which possess the resources and power to have the greatest international impact through their actions.

The role for business in contributing to the timely attainment of the SDGs is being addressed by different functional specialists such as management (George et al., 2016), business services (PwC, 2015), marketing and advertising (Jones et al., 2016), production and consumption (Akenji and Bengtsson, 2014). However, what motivates businesses to contribute to the SDGs is often suspect and generally not trusted (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, 2017). For example, an Association of Chartered Certified Accountants’ (2017) report outlines that the intention of many businesses is to either greenwash or ‘cherry pick the SDGs they want to focus on and ignore others that don’t meet their corporate priorities or comfort zones’ (PwC, 2015: 12), rather than consider the SDGs as a whole. Similar responses from business have been observed in relation to earlier programmes including environmental reporting (Deegan and Rankin, 1996); sustainability reporting (Tschopp and Nastanski, 2014); and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Guthrie and Farneti, 2008; Moneva et al., 2006). The cherry picking notion supports the argument that business involvement in these initiatives is a mere legitimising strategy that takes advantage of the difficulties associated with measurement, disclosure, auditing and assurance.

In contrast, according to PwC (2015), the problem is that a pragmatic solution to addressing the complexity of sustainable development suggests that an incremental approach be adopted by individual businesses based on perceptions of which SDGs are material. The problem for society will be that if businesses pick ‘the easiest, most obvious or positive ones’ which suit their own strengths, this might not address the most important SDGs from a societal perspective (PwC, 2015: 13). Business has long been accused by academics of greenwashing or, at best, selective attention when reporting their environmental and social activities and performance (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015). Thus, the SDGs might be yet another example of selective behaviour unless compelling reasons to support the SDGs that concern society are demonstrated. It is in this space and against a backdrop of scepticism that business academics have a role to play. Two types of business academics can be identified. First, those with a critical approach who seek to unveil the undesired bad effects of unsustainability through identifying greenwash, improving transparency and accountability (Schaltegger and Csutora, 2012). Such academics challenge current practices and the businesses using them. They largely look to past bad sustainability practices and, based on these, make forecasts of future states. They sometimes admonish and aggravate practitioners. A second type of academic is pragmatic and looks for ways for business to identify problems, find best ways to solve them and lend support to implementation of the solutions. These academics engage with practice and rely on building trust, connection and interaction (Schaltegger and Csutora, 2012).

In this vein, Bebbington and Unerman (2018) state that academics have much to offer in the pursuit of the SDGs, especially in the realm of responsible management education. Business academics can urge businesses to incorporate SDG thinking into their practices, and reveal the various forms of greenwash practices to avoid. One function of business academics is to educate future managers and conduct research with large companies that are working towards addressing the SDGs. Business academics can assist with developing organisational culture, gathering data and analysis, and identifying actions whereby businesses contribute towards addressing the SDGs. Involving academics is important in order to move from the normative to the pragmatic and, ultimately, substantive change, as is needed to achieve the SDGs.

To address the main Grand Challenge, two main challenges are identified and explored in the article: first, the need for academics to work together towards holistic solutions to SDG problems, and second, the need for stronger engagement to reduce the distance between academics and practitioners/practice. To date, the role for business academics in assisting big business and MNEs to work towards achieving the SDGs has not been widely discussed which is interesting given the capacity for the sector to research, theorise and provide education in this regard. Based on this argument, the article examines the following research question:

RQ. How can business academics best help big business and MNEs to address the SDGs?

To address the research question, the article proceeds as follows: section 2 provides further detail about (1) the challenge of interdisciplinary specialisations and (2) the challenge of overcoming the research-practice gap. Section 3 develops a conceptual, transdisciplinary framework for addressing these two challenges. Section 4 presents a short case study on modern slavery to demonstrate the relevance of the framework in practice. This is followed by a brief concluding section.

2. The engagement challenges

To provide background for assessing how business academics can be of help, consideration needs to be given to the nature of business, the role of business academics and the challenge of how such academics engage with business practice.

2.1. Business

Kaler (2003a, 2003b) identifies that business is a human activity conducted through a commercial organisation supplying goods and services which are exchanged for money from customers. One purpose of the business is to gain profit from the exchange (Shaw, 1991), but whether this is the main purpose or one of multiple purposes is the subject of a long and unsettled debate (Carroll, 1979; Friedman, 1970; Hilliard, 2013). Businesses can operate at any size, in any country, in any industry, sector, or culture; adopt a range of organisational forms with the most common being sole traders and the corporation; and be funded in a variety of ways from private and/or public sources. Nevertheless, the focus here is on MNEs and big business because these entities are becoming more economically powerful than nations (Global Justice Now, 2018). To measure economic power, the non-government organisation, Global Justice Now, compares government revenues as found in the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook with corporate turnover from the Fortune Global 500 and finds that these businesses account for 157 of the 200 largest entities on the planet (Myers, 2016). For example, the comparison shows that Walmart is 10th, with revenue of US$480 billion, which is more than the Australian government’s US$426 billion revenue. Hence, as Chapman (2018) argues, the majority of the world’s richest entities are corporations, not governments. Because of this economic power and associated pervasive influence, scrutiny of the positive and negative impacts of big business and MNE activities on sustainable development is forever in the public eye providing a suitable point-source target for business academics to encourage responsible management towards SDGs (Storey et al., 2017).

2.2. The challenge of overcoming business academics’ interdisciplinary specialisations

Academics are viewed here as being scholars working in universities or other higher education institutions. Their work generally combines research, teaching and administrative duties. Academics are the life-blood of a university, without whom the institution would not exist. Business academics could be seen as academics working in business schools (Walker et al., 2018) in different disciplinary areas such as accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management (Arbaugh et al., 2009). However, while this might be the norm for many business academics, the placement of academics with an interest in business is not this simple a proposition as the nature of business means that business academics may also be engaged in, for example, law schools, environment schools, and so on, depending on their interests. Nevertheless, as a working proposition, focus on the activities of academics in business schools can be taken as the sine qua non of business academics and their working milieu.

If business schools are taken as the main location of business academics, then heed must be taken of the criticisms levelled at business schools (Mitroff et al., 2015). One such criticism is the over-aggrandisement of separate functions of management, such as accounting, finance, operations, marketing, and so on at the expense of management of the grand challenges being faced. Important, therefore, is the linkage of different disciplines in the overall development of solutions to grand challenges. Such interdisciplinary academic explanations provide a first step towards overcoming solutions proffered by ‘narrow disciplinary minds’ (Mitroff et al., 2015: 86), however well meaning. Pointing to the challenges academics have to face in dealing with and achieving the SDGs, an increasing number of scholars call for action for holistic, interdisciplinary business research that reflects on what these turbulent times mean for society (Guthrie and Parker, 2016). This said, to develop specialised knowledge about business, it remains necessary for some disciplinary minded, independent functional business academics to pursue their own research and teaching agendas as an input to interdisciplinary processes and solutions, and for other business academics to synthesise these contributions into a systemic whole (Christ and Burritt, 2018). Collaboration between academics in different business disciplines is a first step needed to address any given global challenge.

2.3. The challenge of overcoming the research-practice gap

Whether to be seen to be relevant to and engaged with practice presents a significant challenge for business academics. This is a vital issue in the current discussions as the SDGs are a normative expression about what the United Nations wishes to achieve in practice regarding social, environmental and economic developments. Practitioners can be viewed as those who are directly involved in management, policy development and government implementation, but the focus here is on practices in big business and MNEs.

Concerns about a widening research-practice gap have been raised in recent literature (e.g. Reed, 2009). The distance between academics and their research and practitioners and their practice is particularly evident in business research, where researchers are often seen to be cut off from what is happening in the so-called real world, outside the ivory towers of university leading to the social relevance of their research being questioned (Guthrie and Parker, 2017).

One important mechanism for reducing the academic-practitioner gap is to build direct collaborations and engagement with business practitioners in research to help overcome the unsuccessful monodisciplinary and limited interdisciplinary work which has not generated widely accepted solutions or brought about a discernible change in corporate-level management behaviour (Christ and Burritt, 2018).

Although it can be argued the call to involve business academics with research into SDG development and implementation is largely normative, there is evidence which suggests academics have a desire to engage in this way. For example, a recent confidential survey of South Australian academics by the South Australian Science Council, found from their sample of 852 academics that 90% were motivated to engage with business to help translate their research into practice (Evans and Plewa, 2016). Moreover, 86% were motivated to have an impact on society. To reduce the gap, there is a need to recognise and reduce barriers to engagement and to find effective ways to incorporate the SDGs into research and education of management.

Resolution of these two challenges, of the need for interdisciplinarity and reduction of the academic-practitioner gap, are the focus of a transdisciplinary approach to research (Marques, 2019). A transdisciplinary approach to addressing grand challenges would not only bring the different relevant problem-solving disciplines together (interdisciplinarity) to manage complexity and uncertainty, it also would directly bring practitioners into research teams as equal partners (Schaltegger et al., 2013).

It is this transdisciplinary turn that the article next addresses with development of a framework for engagement between academic disciplines and academics and practitioners based on knowledge-generation and knowledge-application.

3. Framework development

To address the research question and the two main challenges, a framework is developed to help inform business academics in relation to processes and practices that would encourage businesses to engage with academics in moves towards attainment of the SDGs. Fundamental to such a framework are two key considerations. The first is identification of the basic roles of business academics, as presented Section 3.1. Second, acknowledgement of the transdisciplinary approach and its links with knowledge-generation and knowledge-application is presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.1. What business academics do

While one crucial academic role is ‘to critique, debate and challenge the status quo’ (Parker et al., 2011: 7) in the advancement of knowledge, another is to build links with practice and the application of knowledge (Chapman and Kern, 2012). It follows that different business academics are engaged in knowledge-generation and education about business, its operational assumptions and management capabilities in an increasingly complex, dynamic and interdependent environment (Daly and Walsh, 2010; Drucker, 1994). Business academics are usually employed in business schools where, conventionally, knowledge is ‘created, stored and shared’ (Ernst & Young, 2012: 7).

In contemporary times, although knowledge is arguably open to anyone via the Internet and other knowledge-based platforms, business academics have managed to maintain their specialised conventional role (Burritt et al., 2017), and build upon the responsible and ethical practices businesses should follow, such as sustainable development (Laasch and Conaway, 2015; Rasche and Gilbert, 2015). The literature suggests that through their research and teaching business academics are well placed to build awareness of the best way to understand and address complex, uncertain and ambiguous problems and opportunities such as the global grand challenges represented by the SDGs (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Van Tulder, 2018).

In this process, they can explore how to make these ‘messy’ (Mitroff et al., 2015) problems manageable by developing knowledgeable, responsible leaders. Such leaders will have an understanding of the links between social, environmental and economic performances which lie at the heart of attaining the SDGs (Maak and Pless, 2006; Pless et al., 2012; Van Tulder, 2018). Through educational processes, business academics are ideally placed to build awareness of big business and MNEs about the SDGs.

At the broadest level, knowledge-generation about business by academics and knowledge-application through research and teaching are two acknowledged core roles of business academics (Briggs, 2005) critical to transdisciplinary solutions. While some academics largely focus on specialised generation of research ideas and leave the application of findings to policy makers and business to implement, as with what is termed mode 1 research, business, also being an applied discipline, invites academic engagement with the dissemination of ideas, as reflected in contemporary concern with assessing the impact of academics on practice, termed mode 2 research (Gibbons et al., 1994; Watermeyer, 2014; Zapp and Powell, 2017). In the context of the SDGs, big business and MNEs key aspects of the two roles are now briefly examined.

3.1.1 Knowledge-generation

An assumption behind the SDGs is that the pursuit of sustainability is imperative, but big business and MNEs need to be convinced of this. They have various potential strategies available for managing operations, subsidiaries and suppliers in relation to actions which could be adopted to achieve sustainability goals and business academics can argue for and encourage appropriate strategies.

Three main strategies highlighted in the literature are global, local and glocal (also termed transnational) (Altuntas and Turker, 2015; Jain and De Moya, 2013; Jamali, 2010). A global strategy imposes the views of head office on other operational and supply chain entities while a local strategy supports independence of the local perspective, respecting cultural, political, economic, and so on, differences from those allied with central, head office thinking (Jamali, 2010). A glocal strategy combines the global and local in a cooperative approach to decision-making and problem-solving and requires processes to be introduced which balance standardisation from the centre with local customisation through negotiation (Jain and De Moya, 2013).

The main focus of business academics in relation to knowledge-generation about sustainability strategies of big business and MNEs has been on grappling with the generation of knowledge in the face of confusing terminology, different opinions, the complexity of integrating different subsystems of the business, and patchy evidence about the effectiveness of these strategies in different countries, industries and time periods (Burritt et al., 2018).

In their research and teaching activities, business academics can build awareness of principles behind strategies which big business and MNEs use to provide ethical justification for engagement with the normatively derived SDGs. A principles-based approach for big business and MNEs to implement strategies, policies and operations designed to contribute to achievement of the SDGs accepts the need for an agreed normative standard for ethical behaviour. Furthermore, sustainable development is based on the acceptance of a normative assumption that sustainability development is imperative and that three main principles are to be followed: environmental integrity, economic prosperity and social equity (Bansal, 2005).

Nonetheless, as the principles of sustainable development are normatively derived, they are open to logical debates, challenges and changes – a key purpose of academic discussions related to knowledge-generation. Indeed, the relative importance of specific principles established by the World Council for Economic Development (1987), such as the polluter pays principle and the principles of intra and inter-generational equity, has long been debated (e.g. Robinson, 2004; Steurer et al., 2005).

Business academics are not without choice in relation to principles they might use to advocate what responsible management entails in relation to individual SDGs and performance measurement. The original principles of sustainable development are still embedded within key business guidelines (Barkemeyer et al., 2014). Among the most known of these are the following: first, the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC, 2018) which has a set of 10 principles for responsible business to adopt directly associated with the SDGs; second, the United Nations Principles on Business and Human Rights (United Nations, 2011) which through its 31 ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ principles canvases respect for human rights in all business activities and their value chains. Third, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; 2018) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and fourth, the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. These and other available normative principles are designed to guide managers of big business and MNEs to ensure they do not harm society and the environment when trying to secure financial gains. This is a foundational requirement for business academics to work towards achieving individual and groups of SDGs in different countries, sectors and industries such as, for example, minerals exploration (Caron et al., 2016). The focus is on disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge-generation as principles are identified and discussed by business academics who leave it to practitioners to apply these and for further academics to examine the extent to which the principles are applied. Knowledge-application has taken second place as understanding is developed.

3.1.2 Knowledge-application

In the face of complexity, wickedness¹ and ambiguity involved in achieving the global SDGs, the need for academics and practitioners to work together to move beyond settling on a single set of principles towards informed implementation and action is apparent (Van Tulder, 2018). Gathering knowledge and information is critical for building understanding of the SDGs and how business should contribute to their achievement. Given that business is carried on with a view to profit and economic growth, relevant SDG-related goals, targets and indicators need to be expressed both in physical operational terms in line with the specific SDG, and in monetary terms as necessary for assessment and appraisal in decision-making. For example, for business to engage with SDG 6, ‘Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’, physical and monetary information relevant to business decisions about water and wastewater is required (Christ and Burritt, 2017). Nevertheless, with the exception of the recently popularised notion of water stewardship, water initiatives have only recently started to consider monetary aspects of water management, previously having only addressed physical measures (Burritt and Christ, 2017; GRI, 2018a, 2018b). Monetary aspects of SDG 6 are now recognised and cross-referenced into techniques such as the SDG Compass (GRI et al., 2015). The gap between academic knowledge-development and its relevance to business-application is stark.

3.1.3 Meeting the two main challenges – development of a transdisciplinary perspective

Jahn et al. (2012: 4) define transdisciplinarity as

. . . a reflexive research approach that addresses societal problems by means of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as the collaboration between researchers and extra-scientific actors; its aim is to enable mutual learning processes between science and society; integration is the main cognitive challenge of the research process.

The type of complexity and wickedness involved in the SDGs is exactly what a transdisciplinary perspective is designed to address (Schaltegger et al., 2013; Shrivastava et al., 2013; Van Tulder, 2018). As wicked problems like sustainability involve different parties each with ‘divergent interests’ and their own unique perspective (Franks, 2016: 61), successful collaboration is essential. Hence, attaining the SDGs involves working with a complex set of wicked real-world problems research into which needs the skills, knowledge and expertise of multiple academic specialists combined in partnership with practitioners (Christ and Burritt, 2018; Jahn et al., 2012). For example, businesses should contribute to SDG 8, to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all (Van Tulder, 2018). Disciplines such as ethics and philosophy provide a basis for understanding values associated with caring for employees, and the conditions in which they work. Planning, politics and regulation are necessary to reach agreement about what should be done about employment conditions. In addition, disciplines such as engineering are necessary for safety, medicine for health, and accounting as a basis for decision-making and accountability provide a pragmatic foundation for building understanding of what can be done to move big business and MNEs towards attaining sustainable development (see Max-Neef, 2005).

A transdisciplinary approach brings together knowledge-generation and knowledge-application in a way to address problems such as attaining the SDGs with their high levels of uncertainty, differing opinions about the definition of the SDG problems, ‘systems that change in highly unpredictable ways and in ways induced by the managerial intervention employed’ (Franks, 2010: 284) and which are highly context dependent. Through collaboration, business academics can work towards spanning the boundaries between different disciplines and between these disciplines and practice (Christ et al., 2018), for example, in the case of professional accounting bodies acting as boundary spanners in the context of sustainability accounting, Christ et al. (2018) identify several problems blocking their success and relevance to the SDGs: first, the need for finer granularity in relation to boundary objects and problem-solving; second, uncertainty about the range of parties to be involved as boundary-spanning organisations; third, the importance of reconciling views about different incentives for academics and practitioners in the sustainability accounting space; fourth, the necessity for collaboration with other boundary-spanning organisations to address the transdisciplinary nature of sustainability accounting.

According to Christ and Burritt (2018: 310–311), transdisciplinary research has several requirements which helps frame the interaction between knowledge-generation and application: first, engagement of transdisciplinary team members for lengthy time periods as understanding of the issues on hand is developed by all parties; second, the development of humility between parties who may have narcissistic tendencies based on their own previously acknowledged expertise and reputations; third, a well-respected facilitator to bridge any gaps between academics from different disciplines and practitioners who have a dominant business perspective; and finally, a willingness to change in the light of the views and arguments of others.

The transdisciplinary perspective brings an approach that transcends disciplinary boundaries and engages practitioners as equal partners in collaborative research, both essential ingredients for building evidence-based understanding and implementation of practices which best contribute towards attainment of the SDGs.

A key role for business academics with a focus on developing relevant and robust information sets for big business and MNEs to use to implement the SDGs is to engage practitioners in the research process. Business academic attempts to improve decision-making and reporting in practice, such as the development of sustainability accounting (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010), environmental management accounting (Burritt et al., 2002) and integrated reporting (De Villiers et al., 2014), all lean towards the need to collaborate and engage with practitioners, but mostly focus on what they say practitioners do – verbally and in written reports. In this way, observation of practice and its representations within and outside business draws the links between knowledge-generation and application closer.

Transdisciplinary research makes explicit the links between, first, different disciplines and the need for integration of knowledge generated and, second, the full integration of practitioners and practice in the research process. It combines knowledge-generation and application in the fullest sense, as further unpicking of the notion shows. An issue with specialist academic research and teaching in the context of SDGs is that individuals tend to promote their own functional specialist lens, whereas the quest for sustainability embodies complex, interconnected problems and needs multiple perspectives (Jacobs and Cuganesan, 2014; Rittel and Webber, 1973; Van Tulder, 2018). A wicked problem does not ‘yield readily to single efforts and is beyond the capacity of any one agency or jurisdiction’ (Luke, 1998: 19). In consequence, using a transdisciplinary perspective provides an avenue for developing the contribution of business academics towards responsible business learning and management aimed towards achieving SDGs.

3.2. Relational focus of business academics

The normative and political aspect of sustainability development and, hence, SDG attainment, requires business academics to engage with the social processes for combining technical information with the value laden views of the practitioners affected by big business and MNE activities. A wicked problem such as the grand SDG challenges ‘requires a language that reflects relationships, interconnections and interdependencies’ (Williams, 2002: 105). These involve a set of relationships between business academics, management and outside stakeholders (see Figure 1) and can be summarised in four categories. Although each category is analysed differently in terms of the ways business academics can move big business and MNEs towards implementing SDGs, there are close links between them.

Figure 1.

Business academics and framework for addressing the SDGs.

3.2.1 Insider to insider

Insider-to-insider relationships are also known as manager-to-manager relationships and consider activities within the business. Management activities are dependent on a range of considerations, including functional responsibility, such as input to board activities, top management, production, marketing, environmental issues, human resources, and so on. Also, insider-to-insider relationships involve control of internal accountability mechanisms for the allocation of resources such as through operational and capital budgeting, which are based on projections of physical and monetary activities. The potential importance of insider-to-insider relationships to sustainability is high because responsibility for sustainability issues is spread across different management functions and hierarchical levels (Haugh and Talwar, 2010).

Knowledge-generation by business academics about insider-to-insider relationships focuses on management structures (e.g. central or divisional), conduct (e.g. behaviour which is or is not congruent with organisational goals) and performance (e.g. economic, environmental and social) and highlights responsibilities of different personnel ranging from the economically (finance), through the environmentally (environmental management), to the morally (sustainability) inclined (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2018). Recommended techniques such as the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard have been designed to integrate the strategic focus on sustainability at different levels and functions of management, with knowledge-development and learning being critically important to the process (Figge et al., 2002). Business academics have highlighted the need to provide information for decision-making which can demonstrably be shown to lead to better decision outcomes (e.g. Feltham and Demski, 1970) and influence the priority decision being considered while having no deleterious impact on other decisions (Petrosjan and Zaccour, 2003). At the conceptual level, this research could contribute to the pragmatic need for businesses to prioritise the SDGs seen to be important, while not adversely affecting other Goals.

Knowledge-application involves helping to understand how different levels and functions can work together, and how the different disciplines and cultures can engage in transdisciplinary approaches towards achieving the SDGs (Klitmøller and Lauring, 2013). Business academics are well positioned to contribute towards experimenting with development of internal accounting and reporting systems relevant to different manager roles for planning, control, communication and motivation focused on SDGs within organisations (Schaltegger, 2011). While roadblocks to such achievement are evident, such as cultural differences between home and host countries (Jamali, 2010), and competition between different types of managers which might act against achievement of the SDGs (Schaltegger et al., 2015), these can be overcome through transdisciplinary research such as that involving sustainable supply chains (Stindt et al., 2016) and service systems (Kijima, 2015).

Although research is often the principal consideration in terms of understanding different relationships within business organisations, the role for teaching and, in particular, instilling transdisciplinary mindsets from an early stage in manager development cannot be underestimated if the SDGs are to be realised. For example, there is hypothetically no reason students from different disciplines, such as engineering and business, cannot be brought together to undertake group assignments related to real-world business problems which concern sustainability and the SDGs. Individuals could have their respective contribution assessed via their own School or Department, but performance assessment could also be associated with the transdisciplinary process. Education at this level could alleviate some of the problems noted in the literature on transdisciplinarity ensuring both interdisciplinary and academic–practitioner collaborations become more of a norm and less of an exception. This would also facilitate an improved environment for research activities related to sustainability and the SDGs in the future.

3.2.2 Insider to outsider

The emphasis in insider-to-outsider relationships is on external reporting by management to achieve accountability to stakeholders through communication about business’ social, environmental and economic performances as included in the SDGs. In terms of knowledge-generation, business academics have applied considerable effort in developing notions of what should be reported. The normative approach to theoretical development of what should be reported by managers, at its peak in the 1960s, was initially applied to measurement and disclosure issues in financial reporting and paid little attention to externalities through which companies have an impact on environmental and social outcomes (Mathews, 1997). Although the end of the twentieth century saw a focus on quantitative analysis and modelling, of late, greater emphasis has been placed once again on normative issues through the recent reporting of non-financial (physical and narrative) information related to sustainability (Stolowy and Paugam, 2018). Most recently, this has been through integrated reporting which introduced the notion that multiple capitals (not just financial capital), that affect company activities, should be disclosed (De Villiers et al., 2014) even though practice is lagging expectations (Investor Research Responsibility Center Institute (IRRCi), 2018).

From a knowledge-application perspective, the appropriate information to report balances competitive sensitivity with perceived stakeholder needs. It uses internally based transdisciplinary teams as a way for developing external reports on wicked problems such as those represented by the SDGs and highlights assurance processes that reveal the information provided is credible, builds reputation and maintains the social contract. There is growing evidence of this insider–outsider focus represented by the increasing number of companies actually including information about the SDGs in their sustainability reports (KPMG, 2018; PwC, 2015). Today, more business schools are beginning to teach sustainability accounting and reporting which works to inform students with regard to how insider-to-outsider relationships work in practice. That said, compulsory courses are still the exception and normalising this type of educational experience will be important as stakeholder engagement is likely to be crucial if the SDGs are to be achieved.

3.2.3 Outsider to insider

The outsider-to-insider relationship is captured by the notion that business is coming under increasing pressure from outsiders concerned about adverse aspects of business activities. These occur especially in a global context through issues such as strong tax avoidance through the use of tax havens which reduce responsibility ‘contrary to the policy or spirit of government legislation’ (Bird and Davis-Nozemack, 2018: 2). Governmental and extra-governmental pressures are brought to bear on the issue (OECD, 2015). Another issue bringing pressure from outsiders is the transfer by big business and MNEs of activities to pollution havens where legislation is weak or ineffective as in many developing countries (Li and Zhou, 2017; Pinkse et al., 2010), while a third important issue is the circumvention of labour rights, such as through the institutionalisation of modern slavery in business – considered in detail in section 4 (Christopherson and Lillie, 2005; Crane, 2013).

In each of these and other similar situations, outsiders are bringing pressures to bear on big business and MNEs to act in a more sustainable manner. Some business academics look to generate knowledge about the drivers of such poor behaviour (e.g. Crane, 2013 in relation to modern slavery). Although progress is slow as conceptual understanding is still emerging, others engage with practitioners to seek implementation of transdisciplinary methods with full engagement of non-academics and a focus on both knowledge-generation and application. For example, Damert et al. (2017) examine the role of stakeholders and regulatory pressure as external drivers for action on climate change in 45 leading companies from the global steel, cement and automotive sectors. Businesses might respond in a number of strategic ways to deflect such pressures where they exist. These strategies are ably summarised by Oliver (1991) in terms of acceptance, compromise, avoidance, defiance and manipulation. While these strategies show that greenwashing is one way to apply cosmetic to actual unsustainable behaviour (Seele and Gatti, 2017), the challenge is how best to apply practices which encourage acceptance and effectively striving towards achievement of the SDGs.

3.2.4 Outsider to outsider

The outsider-to-outsider relationship exists where external stakeholders interact with each other independent from the business, but influencing events that affect the business. In the context of the SDGs, little thought has been given to the outsider-to-outsider relationship by business academics either at the knowledge-generation or at the knowledge-application levels. Nevertheless, different spheres of influence over sustainability can play a part in outsider-to-outsider relationships – political, socio-cultural, legal, technological, environmental, economic.

Taking the political sphere as an illustration, these relationships might be bipartite, such as through macro political agreements between government and trade unions addressing minimum wages needed for fair work (Furåker and Seldén, 2013). Big business and MNEs looking for a common perspective to guide sustainability policies on decent work in line with the SDGs can be affected by the different views of unions and governments on minimum wages leading in some cases to union-inspired government regulation (Vulkan and Larsson, 2018). Transdisciplinary solutions to the political resolution of minimum wage standards would need to bring in business to understand and resolve the issues involved, thereby shifting debate and practice towards an outsider–insider perspective. In a similar vein, the influence of a further outsider-to-outsider relationship can be seen through investment in the digital economy and artificial intelligence, whereby transformation may be encouraged by government and discouraged by unions concerned for the jobs of their members (Peters, 2017). Big business and MNEs looking to promote innovations towards achieving the SDGs will be influenced by this cross-over between the technical and political spheres of influence, with no direct control of the outcome at the macro level, and would need to be engaged through generation of knowledge about transdisciplinary collaborations to build understanding of possible futures and the pragmatic means needed to work towards these even though these ‘research contributions are sometimes difficult to be implemented in practice because of a series of factors’ (Liao et al., 2017: 17). These include the lack of knowledge-generation leading to common standards, software and hardware, and the lack of knowledge-application because industries still have doubts about possible benefits, implementation processes, and the large investments required.

These and other outsider-to-outsider activities can be viewed as external events which influence the organisation and its sustainability performance but remain beyond its control. Although such outsider-to-outsider relationships are beyond the control of the business, they can make or break future performance and even survival.

Business academics need to consider each of these relationships and interactions between them as they undertake research and teaching to generate and apply knowledge in pursuit of the SDGs. For example, there is a close interaction between insider-to-outsider and outsider-to-insider relationships as many of insider-to-outsider initiatives are as a result of the pressure from outsider to insider. For example, the GRI emphasises that engagement with stakeholders, particularly with outside stakeholders, is a crucial part of sustainability reporting.

In the next section, by way of an illustration, the framework is applied to SDG 8.7 which pursues the elimination of modern slavery in business operations and supply chains by 2030.

4. Example of the way the framework can be used – the elimination of modern slavery

By way of example, the manner in which business academics can use the framework in the context of SDG 8.7, which targets the elimination of modern slavery, is demonstrated. This target is of particular importance as, unlike other SDGs, the notion that the pernicious practice of slavery has long been illegal and abolished has been revealed to be far from the truth. Also, in 2018, Australia was one of the most recent countries to introduce a Modern Slavery Act based on improvements to previous Acts, especially the United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act 2015. In Section 4.1, the problem of modern slavery is outlined. This is followed in Section 4.2 by illustration of how the framework might be used.

4.1. SDG 8.7 modern slavery elimination

So heinous is the practice of modern slavery that its global elimination is targeted by the SDGs. All 193 countries signed up to meet the SDGs by 2030 have agreed to introduce ‘immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour’ (United Nations, 2015). There is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery, but it is characterised as control, by powerful people or organisations, over vulnerable individuals to obtain a personal gain or profit (New, 2015). Elements of modern slavery presenting risks to business include forced labour, debt-bondage, child labour, human trafficking and wage exploitation where victims are coerced to engage in unreasonable work through physical or mental threat (New, 2015; Quirk, 2006).

There are estimated to be over 40 million people currently enslaved (Global Slavery Index, 2018) the vast majority being located in a set of developing countries where the practice is often hidden or honeycombed via the use of subcontractors and other business constructs like ‘shadow factories’ (LeBaron, 2014: 243). Although theoretical foundations explaining modern slavery practices are few and far between, Crane (2013) suggests it is through global supply chains in such countries, where cultural traits accept inequality, regulatory oversight and governance is weak and unethical operators exist, that modern slavery festers and builds as a practice (Crane, 2013). While modern slavery is seen as a criminal act, in developed countries, the vogue is to introduce legislation making large companies disclose their actions in relation to assessing whether modern slavery risks in supply chains exist and any actions taken. Nevertheless, as people organising modern slavery wish to deceive others about the practice and as the enslaved are often in fear of their own and their families lives if they expose the situation, the use of disclosure as a main tool for elimination is suspect (New, 2015). It is in this setting that business academics should develop strategies to help big business and MNEs to eliminate modern slavery in their supply chains.

4.2. Use of the framework in modern slavery

Knowledge-generation is the product of research. However, research into modern slavery is relatively recent, with no strong theoretical foundation at this stage of development. That said, there are several seminal publications. For example, Crane (2013) is the first to develop a normative theoretical framework to explain the embedding of modern slavery practices in companies which operate in certain industries and cultures. Empirical research is also beginning to emerge to reveal whether legislative attempts to improve information flows and transparency in relation to modern slavery in domestic and international supply chains of companies operating in developed countries are succeeding. For example, Birkey et al. (2018) find an absence of substantive disclosures in response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010. Research into these types of information is of use to inform managers and stakeholders such as government about the effectiveness of policy interventions.

In contrast, knowledge-application in relation to modern slavery involves research, teaching and other means of building understanding of modern slavery issues and how they might be overcome. Action-based business academic research, or work-applied learning (Helyer, 2015), directly involves practitioners as researchers when discovering how knowledge can best be applied in the different relationships mooted in the framework. Furthermore, developing management and employee education about responsible practices in relation to modern slavery will help reduce the distances between business units in big business and MNEs, management and stakeholders, and between stakeholders themselves. Establishment of courses addressing elimination of modern slavery and its subparts, such as forced labour, child labour and bonded labour, can be part of the discussion about how best to teach. Table 2 illustrates how academics might use the framework developed in the context of contributing to the elimination of modern slavery.

Table 2.

Role and focus of business academics: the grand challenge of eliminating modern slavery (SDG 8.7).

Focus of business academics	Role of business academics
Focus of business academics	Knowledge-generation	Knowledge-application
Insider to insider	With the aim of generating knowledge about how to eliminate modern slavery business academics considering insider-to-insider relationships can investigate strategies to anchor internal responsibility and accountability of management in different settings, and the reasons big business does or does not resource these activities. Knowledge-generation by business academics can focus on ways to build understanding of modern slavery practices, risks and penalties by different types of managers. Through case studies, direct interviews of managers in different contexts and with different functional responsibilities contributing to modern slavery elimination could provide a starting point.	The contribution of business academics to insider-to-insider knowledge-application about modern slavery and its elimination has two strands. First, business academics can undertake transdisciplinary research to help understand the internal cultures that support ongoing presence of modern slavery practices, and those that reject such acceptance. Such research will involve different types of managers, such as communications, lawyers, human resources, etc. and organisational structures. For example, business academics can explore and examine companies and their development of effective formal and informal internal budgeting and management control systems across different management areas of responsibility and organisational structures. Second, business academics can build understanding of modern slavery practices and tools for its elimination into courses for management on tools available for working towards achieving SDGs.
Insider to outsider	Business academics conducting research into the link between management and outsider groups concerned about modern slavery elimination first need to identify the groups involved to whom they might report or develop communication. These groups might be identified through study of widespread evidence given to inquiries into modern slavery conducted by governments or by non-governmental organisations, or via specific case studies. Transdisciplinary research can be conducted into whether and how managers engage groups with specific cases of modern slavery in specific contexts. The transdisciplinary approach could be used to conduct research those responsible for external (supply chain) reporting and the processes developed to produce modern slavery statements and their audit.	Subject to strict ethical clearance, as part of a transdisciplinary approach, business academics can develop action-based learning about contemporary modern slavery within and across organisations. In addition, business academics can support education and training of managers about responsible management practices in relation to bonded, child, forced labour practices and human trafficking. They can also educate managers about the perspectives within transdisciplinary groups of insiders and outsiders about and methods available and used to address modern slavery. As students might become managers or outsiders, courses can be developed starting with zero-based knowledge to get all students of business to understand modern slavery and the drive for and roadblocks to its elimination.
Outsider to insider	Business academic research can build knowledge of the dynamics associated with changes in the interests of different groups in the organisations in which they have an interest. Over time, different modern slavery practices have and will come to light and might be under- or mis-communicated. In this context, research will need to examine ways in which outside groups such as non-government organisations, unions, not for profits, and so on can best influence manager responses to modern slavery dynamics, and how the relative importance of these groups changes as different elements of modern slavery issues are brought into the public light. Through transdisciplinary research, which involves practitioners, business academics can discover and publicise greenwash strategies and practices facilitating a lack of transparency about modern slavery, as well as investigate its causes and successful/ unsuccessful communication strategies of companies from a stakeholder view.	Transdisciplinary research into modern slavery pressures from outsiders to insiders is time-consuming, resource-intensive and slowly works towards building greater understanding and wider application through growing acceptance of strategies and tools available to different groups. Education of outsiders about their powers to pressure management to discover and eliminate modern slavery can be multiplied through MOOCs, the use of social media, workshops, links with professional business associations, governments, employee groups, and so on.
Outsider to outsider	Business academics have the ability to conduct transdisciplinary modern slavery research into the impacts of cross-relationships between external parties, such as employee representatives and governments to change regulations, culture, communication and the educational milieu in which big business has to operate. They can investigate development of macro incentive systems which can frame modern slavery elimination required by big business, including extrinsic (such as penalties) and intrinsic (such as removal of social licence) rewards.	Adding to research into successful collaborations between outsider groups desiring change in big business practices in relation to modern slavery, broadly based disciplines can be brought together in education of responsible inter-stakeholder processes and practices. Business academics can, through the development of case studies and workshops, begin to help outside groups understand the opportunities and constraints they face and the powers they command to bring macro factors to bear on modern slavery practices in big business.

SDG, Sustainable Development Goal; MOOCs, Massive Open Online Courses.

The major focus in a growing number of countries is on legislated reporting on supply chains by big business, particularly MNEs, in industries where modern slavery cases have been revealed. Associated with this reporting is the need for research and the introduction of mechanisms designed to help victims come forward to reveal their sorry working conditions and abuse, and to penalise organisations and managers complicit in modern slavery practices. In addition, Table 2 reveals a starting point for research and learning needed to build the foundation for impact on eliminating modern slavery through the contribution of business academics. The framework also considers the different relationships that need to be considered in the context of improving management of modern slavery. It can be argued the example provided here and the specific suggestions in relation to modern slavery are rather broad; however, once a general understanding of the concept is obtained, it will be possible for academics to use the pro forma to develop research and dissemination agendas with a higher level of granularity.

Developing a greater understanding of knowledge-generation and application in relation to specific SDGs and the relationships that occur within business organisations is needed, and the framework must be filled in quickly if specific SDGs are to be internalised by academics and managers, and mainstreamed in research, teaching and practice. The following section will now conclude the article.

5. Conclusion

The SDGs represent a Grand Challenge, not only for governments and society in general, but also for the businesses that supply the goods and services we use every day. Business organisations form the basis for contemporary society providing a source of income and employment while relying on and affecting natural resources, often in a negative way, in the search for profit. With some business organisations generating revenues which exceed the Gross Domestic Product of developed countries, one thing is clear: the SDGs will not be achieved without business engagement. Although often overlooked, academics within business schools have much to offer and have an important role if the grand challenges associated with the SDGs are to move from the normative to the pragmatic and practical. With this in mind, the article considered the following research question: how can business academics best help big business and MNEs to address the SDGs?

Drawing on available academic literature a framework is developed which demonstrates the different roles of business academics, namely, knowledge-generation and knowledge-application, and the relationships within business organisations which need to be considered. Academics have a dual role which involves research as well as teaching the next generation of business leaders. By engaging in research to develop knowledge of manager strategies and information needs and how acceptance of the normative principles of sustainability can be best mainstreamed, academics can establish a baseline of business requirements associated with the SDGs. However, this is only the first step. This knowledge must then be applied via dissemination and teaching activities. As the commitment towards sustainability grows, application will lead to new opportunities for knowledge-generation and, it is hoped, a feedback loop of continual improvement.

Although the conceptual discussion and framework presented here provides a starting point for business academics who wish to engage with business practitioners in moving towards the SDGs, it is acknowledged this is just the beginning. Detailed questions about big business and MNE engagement with the SDGs as well as business academics’ engagement with big business and MNEs to achieve the SDGs are currently unresolved and merit further research. It is now necessary for academics, based on the framework and additional research, to show how the links between knowledge-generation and application in relation to specific SDGs are forged and, ultimately, strengthened. The SDGs will not be achieved without business involvement. Business academics now need to rise to this grand challenge.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor James Guthrie and Associate Professor John Dumay, both from Macquarie University, Sydney, for their comments on an early draft of the article. The sage advice of the Editorial Team is also much appreciated.

Final transcript accepted 28 July 2019 by Tom Smith (AE Finance).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Katherine Leanne Christ

Roger Leonard Burritt

Notes

References

Akenji

Bengtsson

(2014) Making sustainable consumption and production the core of sustainable development goals. Sustainability 6: 513–529.

Altuntas

Turker

(2015) Local or global: Analyzing the internationalization of social responsibility of corporate foundations. International Marketing Review 32: 540–575.

Arbaugh

Godfrey

Johnson

, et al. (2009) Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. The Internet and Higher Education 12: 71–87.

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals: Redefining Context, Risk and Opportunity. London: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

Bansal

(2005) Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal 26: 197–218.

Barkemeyer

Holt

Preuss

, et al. (2014) What happened to the ‘development’ in sustainable development? Business guidelines two decades after Brundtland. Sustainable Development 22: 15–32.

Bebbington

Unerman

(2018) Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31: 2–24.

Bird

Davis-Nozemack

(2018) Tax avoidance as a sustainability problem. Journal of Business Ethics 151: 1009–1025.

Birkey

Guidry

Islam

, et al. (2018) Mandated social disclosure: An analysis of the response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010. Journal of Business Ethics 152: 827–841.

10.

Briggs

(2005) Changing roles and competencies of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education 6: 256–268.

11.

Burritt

Christ

(2017) The need for monetary information within corporate water accounting. Journal of Environmental Management 201: 72–81.

12.

Burritt

Schaltegger

(2010) Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23: 829–846.

13.

Burritt

Christ

Rammal

, et al. (2018) Multinational enterprise strategies for addressing sustainability: The need for consolidation. Journal of Business Ethics. Epub ahead of print 20 November. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-4066-0.

14.

Burritt

Guthrie

Evans

, et al. (2017) Expanding collaboration between industry and business faculties in Australia. CAANZ Academic Leadership Series 8: 9–26.

15.

Burritt

Hahn

Schaltegger

(2002) Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management accounting – Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tools. Australian Accounting Review 12: 39–50.

16.

Caron

Durand

Asselin

(2016) Principles and criteria of sustainable development for the mineral exploration industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 119: 215–222.

17.

Carroll

(1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4: 497–505.

18.

Chapman

(2018) Majority of the world's richest entities are corporations, not governments, figures show. Independent, 17 October. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/companies-bigger-than-governments-un-human-rights-council-meeting-a8588676.html (accessed 11 July 2019).

19.

Chapman

Kern

(2012) What do academics do? Understanding the practical relevance of research. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management 9: 279–281.

20.

Christ

Burritt

(2017) Water management accounting: A framework for corporate practice. Journal of Cleaner Production 152: 379–386.

21.

Christ

Burritt

(2018) The role for transdisciplinarity in water accounting by business: Reflections and opportunities. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 25: 302–320.

22.

Christ

Burritt

Guthrie

, et al. (2018) The potential for ‘boundary-spanning organisations’ in addressing the research-practice gap in sustainability accounting. Special issue on ‘the academic-practice gap: Driver for progress or indicator of ivory tower? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9: 552–568.

23.

Christopherson

Lillie

(2005) Neither global nor standard: Corporate strategies in the new era of labor standards. Environment and Planning A 37: 1919–1938.

24.

Crane

(2013) Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review 38: 49–69.

25.

Daly

Walsh

(2010) Drucker’s theory of the business and organisations: Challenging business assumptions. Management Decision 48: 500–511.

26.

Damert

Paul

Baumgartner

(2017) Exploring the determinants and long-term performance outcomes of corporate carbon strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production 160: 123–138.

27.

Deegan

Rankin

(1996) Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9: 50–67.

28.

De Villiers

Rinaldi

Unerman

(2014) Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27: 1042–1067.

29.

Drucker

(1994) Theory of the business. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 95–106.

30.

Ernst & Young (2012) Can the universities of today lead learning for tomorrow? The University of the Future. Available at: https://www.ey.com/au/en/industries/government—public-sector/ey-university-of-the-future-2030 (accessed 11 July 2019).

31.

Evans

Plewa

(2016) Academics do want to engage with business, but need more support. The Conversation, 26 July. Available at: https://theconversation.com/academics-do-want-to-engage-with-business-but-need-more-support-62902 (accessed 21 January 2019).

32.

Feltham

Demski

(1970) The use of models in information evaluation. The Accounting Review 45: 623–640.

33.

Figge

Hahn

Schaltegger

, et al. (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 269–284.

34.

Franks

(2010) Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: The example of Dutch environmental co-operatives. Ecological Economics 70: 283–295.

35.

Franks

(2016) An application of boundary organisation theory to develop landscape-scale conservation in formal agri-environment schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 56: 48–73.

36.

Friedman

(1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September, 33, 122–124.

37.

Furåker

Seldén

(2013) Trade union cooperation on statutory minimum wages? A study of European trade union positions. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 19: 507–520.

38.

George

Howard-Grenville

Joshi

, et al. (2016) Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal 59: 1880.

39.

Gibbons

Limoges

Nowotny

, et al. (1994) Evolution of knowledge production. In: Gibbons

Limoges

Nowotny

, et al (eds) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE, pp. 17–45.

40.

Global Justice Now (2018) 69 of the richest 100 entities on the planet are corporations, not governments, figures show. Available at: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2018/oct/17/69-richest-100-entities-planet-are-corporations-not-governments-figures-show (accessed 18 August 2019).

41.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2018a) GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018. Amsterdam: GRI.

42.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2018b) Linking GRI and CDP. How are GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018 and the CDP Water Security Questionnaire 2018 Aligned? Amsterdam: GRI.

43.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2015) SDG compass: The guide for business action on the SDGs. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/development/SDGCompass.pdf (accessed 11 July 2019).

44.

Global Slavery Index (2018) Available at: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/global-findings/ (accessed 11 July 2019).

45.

Griggs

Stafford Smith

Rockström

, et al. (2014) An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecology and Society 19: 49.

46.

Guthrie

Farneti

(2008) GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations. Public Money and Management 28: 361–366.

47.

Guthrie

Parker

(2016) Whither the accounting profession, accountants and accounting researchers? Commentary and projections. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 29: 2–10.

48.

Guthrie

Parker

(2017) Reflections and projections: 30 years of the interdisciplinary accounting, auditing and accountability search for a fairer society. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30: 2–17.

49.

Haugh

Talwar

(2010) How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management Learning & Education 9: 384–396.

50.

Helyer

(2015) Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management 7: 15–27.

51.

Hilliard

(2013) Responsible management, incentive systems, and productivity. Journal of Business Ethics 118: 365–377.

52.

Investor Research Responsibility Center Institute (IRRCi) (2018) State of Sustainability and Integrated Reporting 2018. New York: IRRCi.

53.

Jacobs

Cuganesan

(2014) Interdisciplinary accounting research in the public sector: Dissolving boundaries to tackle wicked problems. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27: 1250–1256.

54.

Jahn

Bergmann

Keil

(2012) Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79: 1–10.

55.

Jain

De Moya

(2013) Global, local, or glocal: Investigating CSR strategies of best corporate citizens in India. International Journal of Strategic Communication 7: 207–226.

56.

Jamali

(2010) The CSR of MNC subsidiaries in developing countries: Global, local, substantive or diluted? Journal of Business Ethics 93: 181–200.

57.

Jones

Comfort

Hillier

(2016) Common ground: The sustainable development goals and the marketing and advertising industry. Journal of Public Affairs 18: 1619.

58.

Kaler

(2003a) What is a business? Philosophy of Management 3: 57–65.

59.

Kaler

(2003b) Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics 46: 71–83.

60.

Kijima

(2015) Translational and Trans-Disciplinary Approach to Service Systems. In: Kijima

(ed.) Service Systems Science (Translational Systems Sciences, 2). Tokyo, Japan: Springer.

61.

Klitmøller

Lauring

(2013) When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business 48: 398–406.

62.

KPMG (2018) How to report on the sustainable development goals. What good looks like and why it matters? Available at: https://home.kpmg.com/au/en/home/insights/2018/02/how-to-report-on-the-sdgs.html (accessed 11 July 2019).

63.

Laasch

Conaway

(2015) Principles of Responsible Management: Glocal Sustainability, Responsibility, Ethics. Mason, OH: Cengage.

64.

LeBaron

(2014) Subcontracting is not illegal, but is it unethical? Business ethics, forced labor, and economic success. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 20: 237–249.

65.

Zhou

(2017) Offshoring pollution while offshoring production? Strategic Management Journal 38: 2310–2329.

66.

Liao

Deschamps

Loures

EDFR

, et al. (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 – A systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research 55: 3609–3629.

67.

Luke

(1998) Catalytic Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

68.

Lyon

Montgomery

(2015) The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment 28: 223–249.

69.

Maak

Pless

(2006) Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 66: 99–115.

70.

Marques

(2019) Creativity and morality in business education: Toward a trans-disciplinary approach. The International Journal of Management Education 17: 15–25.

71.

Mathews

(1997) Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10: 481–531.

72.

Max-Neef

(2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53: 5–16.

73.

Mitroff II Alpaslan

O'Connor

(2015) Reflections: What’s wrong with business schools and why they need to change. Journal of Change Management 15: 85–91.

74.

Moneva

Archel

Correa

(2006) GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum 30: 121–137.

75.

Muff

Kapalka

Dyllick

(2017) The gap frame-translating the SDGs into relevant national grand challenges for strategic business opportunities. The International Journal of Management Education 15: 363–383.

76.

Myers

(2016) How do the world’s biggest companies compare to the biggest economies? World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/corporations-not-countries-dominate-the-list-of-the-world-s-biggest-economic-entities (accessed 11 July 2019).

77.

New

(2015) Modern slavery and the supply chain: The limits of corporate social responsibility? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20: 697–707.

78.

Oliver

(1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16: 145–179.

79.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: 2011 Edition. Paris: OECD.

80.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015) Explanatory Statement, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. Paris: OECD.

81.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018) OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Paris: OECD.

82.

Parker

Guthrie

Linacre

(2011) The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24: 5–14.

83.

Peters

(2017) Technological unemployment: Educating for the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 5: 25–33.

84.

Petrosjan

Zaccour

(2003) Time-consistent Shapley value allocation of pollution cost reduction. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 27: 381–398.

85.

Pinkse

Kuss

Hoffmann

(2010) On the implementation of a ‘global’ environmental strategy: The role of absorptive capacity. International Business Review 19: 160–177.

86.

Pless

Maak

Waldman

(2012) Different approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives 26: 51–65.

87.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2015) Making It Your Business: Engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals. London: PwC.

88.

Quirk

(2006) The anti-slavery project: Linking the historical and contemporary. Human Rights Quarterly 28: 565–598.

89.

Rasche

Gilbert

(2015) Decoupling responsible management education: Why business schools may not walk their talk. Journal of Management Inquiry 24: 239–252.

90.

Reed

(2009) The theory/practice gap: A problem for research in business schools? Journal of Management Development 28: 685–693.

91.

Rittel

HWJ

Webber

(1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

92.

Robinson

(2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48: 369–384.

93.

Schaltegger

(2011) Sustainability as a driver for corporate economic success: Consequences for the development of sustainability management control. Society and Economy 33: 15–28.

94.

Schaltegger

Burritt

(2018) Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics 147: 241–259.

95.

Schaltegger

Csutora

(2012) Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production 36: 1–16.

96.

Schaltegger

Beckmann

Hansen

(2013) Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment 22: 219–229.

97.

Schaltegger

Burritt

Zvezdov

, et al. (2015) Management roles and sustainability information. Exploring corporate practice. Australian Accounting Review 25: 328–345.

98.

Seele

Gatti

(2017) Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 26: 239–252.

99.

Shaw

(1991) Business Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

100.

Shrivastava

Ivanaj

Persson

(2013) Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Business Strategy and the Environment 22: 230–244.

101.

Steurer

Langer

Konrad

, et al. (2005) Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development: A theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics 61: 263–281.

102.

Stindt

Sahamie

Nuss

, et al. (2016) How transdisciplinarity can help to improve operations research on sustainable supply chains: A transdisciplinary modeling framework. Journal of Business Logistics 37: 113–131.

103.

Stolowy

Paugam

(2018) The expansion of non-financial reporting: An exploratory study. Accounting and Business Research 48: 525–548.

104.

Storey

Killian

O’Regan

(2017) Responsible management education: Mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. The International Journal of Management Education 15: 93–103.

105.

Tschopp

Nastanski

(2014) The harmonization and convergence of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Business Ethics 125: 147–162.

106.

United Nations (2011) The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. New York; Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

107.

United Nations (2015) Sustainable development goals, SDG Target 8.7. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/economic-growth/ (accessed 11 July 2019).

108.

United Nations (2018) Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises. Note A/73/163 by the Secretary General. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

109.

United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (2018) The power of principles. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (accessed 11 July 2019).

110.

Van Tulder

(2018) Business & the Sustainable Development Goals: A Framework for Effective Corporate Involvement. Rotterdam: Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.

111.

Vulkan

Larsson

(2018) Patterns of transnational trade union cooperation in Europe: The effect of regimes, sectors and resources. European Journal of Industrial Relations 25: 147–162.

112.

Walker

Fenton

Salter

, et al. (2018) What influences business academics’ use of the association of business schools (ABS) list? Evidence from a Survey of UK Academics. British Journal of Management 30: 730–747.

113.

Watermeyer

(2014) Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: The responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Studies in Higher Education 39: 359–377.

114.

Williams

(2002) The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration 80: 103–124.

115.

World Council for Economic Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

116.

Zapp

Powell

(2017) Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany. Science and Public Policy 44: 645–655.