A Primer on the Principles of Responsible Management Education

Abstract

“Responsible management education” sounds self-evident; who among us think of ourselves as engaged in irresponsible management education? Yet the practical aspects of how we educate responsibly (or responsibly educate) the next generation of management professionals are complicated. Who defines what is responsible among competing societal, organizational, and ecological values? How is social responsibility, however defined, nurtured in management education? How do educational institutions make decisions about curriculum and programs in a manner that forces recognition of and engagement with the values that those decisions represent? These questions and others related to ethics, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainability provide the basis for the articles in this special issue.

The Principles of Responsible Management Education

Established in 2007 and coordinated by the United Nations, the Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME, 2011) are a voluntary global initiative intended to enhance and extend corporate responsibility and sustainability in mainstream business-related education. As explained in July 2007 documentation, “any meaningful and lasting change in the conduct of corporations towards societal responsibility and sustainability must involve the institutions that most directly act as drivers of business behavior, especially academia” (UN Global Compact, 2007, p. 3). The PRME call “for business schools and universities worldwide to gradually adapt their curricula, research, teaching methodologies and institutional strategies” to align with internationally accepted values that support an inclusive and sustainable global economy (www.prme.org).

The PRME were developed by an international task force consisting of 60 deans, university presidents, and official representatives of leading business schools in collaboration with the United Nations Global Compact, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program, the European Foundation for Management Development, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative, and NetImpact, a student organization with more than 13,000 members, all of which remain partners. In addition, the Graduate Management Admission Council and the European Academy of Business in Society are part of the steering committee that guides PRME (Waddock, Rasche, Werhane, & Unruh, 2010). The Principles focus on six elements of management education: purpose, values, method, research, partnership, and dialogue (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Principles of Responsible Management Education

Principle 1—Purpose: We will develop the capabilities of students to be future generators of sustainable value for business and society at large and to work for an inclusive and sustainable global economy.

Principle 2—Values: We will incorporate into our academic activities and curricula the values of global social responsibility as portrayed in international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact.

Principle 3—Method: We will create educational frameworks, materials, processes, and environments that enable effective learning experiences for responsible leadership.

Principle 4—Research: We will engage in conceptual and empirical research that advances our understanding about the role, dynamics, and impact of corporations in the creation of sustainable social, environmental, and economic value.

Principle 5—Partnership: We will interact with managers of business corporations to extend our knowledge of their challenges in meeting social and environmental responsibilities and to explore jointly effective approaches to meeting these challenges.

Principle 6—Dialogue: We will facilitate and support dialog and debate among educators, students, business, government, consumers, media, civil society organizations, and other interested groups and stakeholders on critical issues related to global social responsibility and sustainability.

This special issue is designed specifically to address Principle 3 (method) and Principle 4 (research), and comes as the result of a commitment by the OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators to support the PRME initiative through its peer-reviewed publication, the Journal of Management Education (JME). Ordinarily, an editors’ introduction to a special issue is expected to address two elements: (a) to comment on (editorialize) the nature of the issue’s focus and (b) to briefly describe the individual articles included in the issue. Although we intend to do both, we consider responsible management education an extraordinary domain, and we wish to blend these elements somewhat by drawing on two metaphors—“roots” and “waves”—that contribute to understanding the PRME’s relevance for JME readers and serve as a framework for introducing the articles in this issue.

First, we note that the PRME have “intellectual roots” in the business and management literatures. This means that the PRME and each of the articles in this issue are embedded in a scholarly “ground” or “context” that provided the “soil and nutrients” necessary for their development. For example, the PRME would not be possible were it not for the conceptual roots provided by prior scholarship in business ethics, CSR, and sustainability. And, although every article in this special issue presents the particular literature and/or theoretical framework appropriate to its specific focus, an awareness of the various scholarship roots that contributed to the development of the PRME initiative will help readers connect to this heritage. We discuss some of these roots below.

Second, we note that the PRME represent a “wave of change” in management education. The PRME initiative arose from a desire for a substantial transformation in business education on the part of leaders of the UN Global Compact initiative, fueled by decades of debates about the purpose of management education in the field of business and in society at large. The articles in this issue (and the special issue itself) are the result of processes that have aligned to “push” business and management education in this particular direction of reform. Each of the articles either describes particular change efforts with respect to elements of the PRME or highlights the unforeseen consequences of such efforts. We also discuss below some of the changes in the environment of management education that set in motion the PRME initiative.

Although space limitations preclude a truly substantive discussion of the intellectual roots and waves of change that inform the PRME initiative, we offer a sketch of each to highlight the complex nature of the PRME and the contributions to the PRME agenda of the articles in this JME special issue.

Intellectual Roots of the PRME

The PRME focus on issues of corporate responsibility and sustainability grew from intellectual roots in the literatures of business ethics, CSR, and environmental sustainability. We agree with others who recognize significant blurring in their development and the lines of distinction between them (see Schwartz & Carroll, 2007, for a more robust discussion of this issue). Therefore, while we discuss briefly each of these roots below, we acknowledge that these are “twisted roots” and not mutually exclusive constructs, and our discussion is not comprehensive of all contributing intellectual fields.

Business Ethics

Isolated examples of a literature on business ethics exist as far back as the early 1960s (see Leys, 1961; Simon, 1967). However, De George (2005) traces the more common adoption of the term to the early 1970s, followed by growing academic interest in the construct.

In 1979 three anthologies in business ethics appeared: Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business; Thomas Donaldson and Patricia Werhane, Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach; and Vincent Barry, Moral Issues in Business. In 1982 the first single-authored books in the field appeared: Richard De George, Business Ethics; and Manuel G. Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. (De George, 2005, n.p.)

Consistent with this growing interest, the early 1980s saw the inauguration of the Journal of Business Ethics (1982), followed a decade later by Business Ethics Quarterly (1991). An AACSB study in 1991 noted the significant increase in the number of professional and academic articles with the term ethics in their abstract, finding that “a check of the ABI/INFORM database between 1984 and 1988 revealed that while the rate of increase of article publications in the popular business press in general doubled, the absolute citation of ethics increased nearly fourfold” (Lyle, Schoenfeldt, McDonald, & Youngblood, 1991, p. 237).

The business ethics domain includes both normative/prescriptive scholarship, which draws from philosophical traditions and an emphasis on “doing right,” and empirical scholarship, which draws from social science methods of research and focuses on explaining human behavior (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994). Among the numerous debates in this domain, some critical scholars challenge the conceptualization of the term business ethics and “the limits of calculative and legalistic business ethics” (Jones, 2003, p. 234) as a basis for illuminating the power dynamics and hidden assumptions of all social arrangements.

It is from these roots in the business ethics literature that the PRME derives normative, empirical, and critical orientations in its scholarship. Consistent with these elements, each of the articles in this special issue focuses on practical avenues for “doing right” or the construction of our ideas about what is meant by such endeavors—within classroom, institutional, or disciplinary spheres—and connects to the PRME as the basis for such activity.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Although the genesis of CSR can be traced to early arguments about the role of managers (see Clark, 1916; Dodd, 1932), the beginning of the modern CSR period is linked to the early 1950s (Carroll, 1999). The journal Business & Society began publication in 1960, and other CSR journals followed. Literally hundreds of articles and numerous books have been written on the topic (for recent reviews, see Egri & Ralston, 2008; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006; Taneja, Taneja, & Gupta, 2011). The fundamental interest of the CSR literature is on the relationship between for-profit business activities and the public sphere. And, similar to critiques in the business ethics domain, some question the fundamental consistency of the construct itself (see Banerjee, 2008).

Various models of social responsibility have been developed, including those of Sethi (1975), Carroll (1979, 1999), Wartick and Cochran (1985), and Wood (1991). By the 1990s, “the CSR concept transitioned significantly to alternative themes such as stakeholder theory, business ethics theory, corporate social performance (CSP), and corporate citizenship” (Carroll, 1999, p. 292). More recently, Garriga and Melé (2004) classified the main CSR theories and related approaches into four groups:

(1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as only an instrument for wealth creation, and its social activities are only a means to achieve economic results; (2) Political theories, which concern themselves with the power of corporations in society and a responsible use of this power in the political arena; (3) Integrative theories, in which the corporation is focused on the satisfaction of social demands; and (4) Ethical theories, based on ethical responsibilities of corporations to society. (p. 51)

The literature of CSR, a fundamental driver of the PRME, provides a basis for exploring social responsibility themes in several of the articles in this special issue.

Environmental Sustainability

Scholarly work on environmental sustainability also blends constructs from outside the realm of business with those of business practice and provides a significant foundation for the PRME. Many authors, including some in this special issue, trace current management interest in environmental sustainability to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) report, which defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 19). However, as early as the 1960s, Simon (1967) characterized “despoiling the natural beauty of the countryside” as one type of “tough-but-legal” ethical dilemma for managers (p. 20).

The early literature on sustainability focused almost exclusively on the natural environment (Schwartz & Carroll, 2007) and the ways in which business and development practices contribute to the “crisis” of economy and ecology (Shrivastava, 1993). Publication of the book Management for a Small Planet (Stead & Stead, 1992) represented one watershed in the scholarly link between management and environmental sustainability, as did inauguration of the journal Organization & Environment in 1997. And, as Bilimoria et al. (1995) note, although global environmental change has been a significant focus of interest within the scientific community since the 1950s, it was not until the 1990s that the “human dimensions of global environmental change” (p. 73) came into scientific focus, and its importance for the social sciences became apparent.

Since that time, the literature on business and the natural environment has expanded dramatically. In addition to hundreds of articles published in the specialized journals noted above, the topic has been addressed in special issues of Academy of Management Journal (Starik & Marcus, 2000), People & Strategy (Wirtenberg, 2010), Journal of Management Education (Egri & Rogers, 2003; Rusinko & Sama, 2009), and Academy of Management Learning & Education (Starik, Rands, Marcus, & Clark, 2010), among others. As a result of this rapidly growing scholarship area, the conceptualization of sustainability has broadened (see Bansal & Hoffman, 2011; Starik, 2006; Walck, 2009). The roots of environmental sustainability in the PRME focus on sustainability are evident in several articles in this special issue.

The PRME as a Wave of Change

The PRME is the first large-scale global initiative for change in business education, and its unique voluntary governance structure was developed in response to several specific social and institutional waves of change. Acknowledging and understanding these efforts is also helpful in understanding the relevance of the PRME for management educators. In particular, we note two shifts in social arrangements that created surges in the momentum for change: (a) a geometric growth in international trade and the globalization of business and (b) the emergence of a corporate responsibility infrastructure. Each of these elements highlights the basis for changes in societal values that pushed the PRME initiative forward.

Growth in International Trade and the Globalization of Business

The International Monetary Fund reports that although world trade has grown steadily since World War II, expansion has accelerated over the past decade and is associated with growing trade interconnectedness (International Monetary Fund, 2011). This growth and interconnectedness has been accompanied by a dramatic expansion of multinational corporations (MNCs). From 1982 to 2007, in the United States alone, the number of MNCs increased more than threefold, from just over 1 million to 3.7 million businesses (Barefoot & Mataloni, 2009). These institutions have facilitated the globalization of both markets and production, with ongoing questions about the implications of such activities.

Numerous concerns surrounding globalization, global economic and social inequities, and global crises such as the current global recession have created unique pressures on corporations, countries, and communities. These pressures have resulted in varying responses: business orientations range from a singular interest on bottom line profits to those with triple bottom line policies of “people, planet, and profit” and sophisticated corporate citizenship policies; countries have adopted widely different policy responses from implementing national legislation to brokering voluntary compliance groups; some communities have sought local change through regulation whereas others are using activism and advocacy to address a wide range of issues (such as sweatshops or environmental degradation), engaging in association with nongovernmental organizations, or participating in broad protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street. Waddock (2006, 2008) proposes that avenues necessary for negotiating this new social and economic order belong to three broad categories: market/business institutions, civil society/societal institutions, and state/government institutions. Each avenue, she suggests, represents an emerging infrastructure for corporate responsibility.

The growth of international trade and the globalization of business provided a springboard for the development of the PRME. As a global initiative, the PRME depend on the interconnectedness of management educators worldwide and the influence those educated within signatory institutions are likely to have on the global community. This interconnectedness is reflected in the international voices of the articles in this special issue.

Emergence of Corporate Responsibility Infrastructure

Waves of change can only be sustained with the emergence of an infrastructure that nurtures and supports them. Our discussion below focuses on elements of market/business institutions and civil society/societal institutions that are particularly relevant to the emergence of the PRME.

Waddock (2008) suggests that market/business institutions are made up of responsibility assurance infrastructures, business associations, and the responsible investment movement. Responsibility assurance infrastructures include codes of conduct, standards, and principles that require a values-based commitment by businesses to certain practices and procedures (e.g., UN Global Compact, CERES Principles), credible verification, monitoring, and certification services that support transparency for stakeholders about what companies are actually doing (e.g., ISO 26000, Transparency International), and generally accepted reporting systems for environmental and social responsibility (e.g., the Global Reporting Initiative). Business associations include prominent business membership organizations such as Business for Social Responsibility and the Conference Board Center for Corporate Citizenship & Sustainability. Finally, the responsible investment movement (or Socially Responsible Investment) is a niche but growing part of the finance industry that is characterized primarily by investment funds and firms that focus on directing investment dollars into values-based institutions using religious, social, or ecological screens. Although discussed as a global phenomenon, research indicates that practices and principles of the SRI movement differ in different countries (Arjaliés, 2010).

The growth of civil society institutions, sometimes known as the “third sector” (Levitt, 1975), also represents the emergence of social responsibility infrastructure. Civil society institutions include voluntary organizations, not-for-profits, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In particular, NGOs such as those geared to business students, foundation think tanks, and accrediting agencies are particularly relevant to the PRME. The development of MBA student advocacy organizations such as NetImpact, whose mission is “to mobilize a new generation to use their careers to drive transformational change in their workplaces and the world” (NetImpact, 2011; http://netimpact.org/about), is consistent with a shift in social values among those born between 1981 and 2000, the generation known as “Nexters” or “Millenials” (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). Additional evidence of this shift in social values can be found in the second type of NGOs—foundation-based think tanks. One of the best known of such U.S. organizations in the PRME domain is the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program. Partnered initially with the World Resources Institute, this influential NGO now publishes an alternative ranking report of MBA programs, “Beyond Grey Pinstripes,” that focuses on social and ecological criteria (see Aspen Institute, 2011). In addition, prominent business school accreditation NGOs such as AACSB International and EQUIS are beginning to use Aspen Institute standards to encourage greater coverage of ethics, CSR, and sustainability in the management curriculum.

The PRME, arguably now an element in the corporate responsibility infrastructure, would likely not have been possible without the activities noted above. And, if reading the articles in this special issue causes management educators to engage with the PRME as the basis for change, then the civil society/societal institutional aspects of the corporate responsibility infrastructure are strengthened.

In This Issue

After months of discussing this special issue with interested potential authors, we were simultaneously overwhelmed and delighted to receive a vast array of interesting articles as a result of our efforts. Each of the 27 submitted manuscripts received extensive and rigorous feedback thanks to our global crew of reviewers. And, like most special issue editors, we wish we had space for more articles. We believe the five articles included in the special issue provide JME readers with a broad range of conceptual, empirical (qualitative, quantitative, and case), and practice-focused material that address course, institutional, and disciplinary levels of the PRME.

Our Call for Papers highlighted the special issue’s unique opportunity for affirmative dialog about the role of management education in developing a new generation of leaders capable of managing the complex challenges faced by business and society in the 21st century. We believe this focus is especially salient given the ongoing critiques of management education and the numerous debates about the influence of business education more broadly on corporate scandals and the current economic recession. Our goal was threefold for this special issue: (a) to help readers understand the PRME initiative including its evolution and relationship to corporate citizenship, CSR, ethics, and sustainability; (b) to share knowledge about interdisciplinary course content, pedagogical strategies, and curricular innovations that reflect the PRME elements; and (c) to critically interrogate the opportunities and challenges associated with the PRME. Our earlier discussion of roots and waves reflects these goals.

This special issue includes something for everyone interested in responsible management education. For our quantitative colleagues, the issue includes an evidence-based, how-to guide for assessing faculty PRME readiness. For our qualitative colleagues, there is a comparative case study of two European business schools. For those interested in action-based learning and ethical praxis, an integrated semester-long ethics exercise is included. There is an innovative course and program model for those seeking cutting-edge models focused on the bottom billion. And, for those interested in critical perspectives, there is a conceptual article on the importance of recognizing the hidden curriculum when attempting to implement PRME objectives.

The first three articles focus on different institutional aspects of the PRME. We open the special issue with a piece by Mike Maloni, Shane Smith, and Stuart Napshin titled “A Methodology for Building Faculty Support for the UN PRME,” which systematically considers the institutional concerns of introducing and garnering support for the PRME across a business program. Their piece provides a quantitative, evidence-based process that addresses a fundamental question about PRME implementation: What political and/or intellectual challenges might individuals face in advocating for PRME adoption at their institutions and how, at one institution, were these overcome?

The second article is a cross-national comparative case study of two European universities that are implementing the PRME. In “We Are the Champions: Organizational Learning and Change for Responsible Management Education,” Nikodemus Solitander, Martin Fougère, André Sobczak, and Heidi Herlin walk us through their experiences and institutional responses to the questions: What curriculum configurations support PRME principles? How do differences in cultural or nation state environments influence PRME integration?

In the third article, “Aligning the Hidden Curriculum of Management Education with PRME: An Inquiry-Based Framework,” Maribel Blasco alerts us to the importance of considering not only the formal curriculum but also how the informal curriculum intentionally and unintentionally affects student learning. This conceptual piece asks us to consider how theoretical perspectives such as critical theory and liberation pedagogy influence the teaching and learning of PRME content and the importance for us as educators to question and challenge current educational assumptions or practices in order to fully leverage the PRME as a learning framework.

The last two articles in this issue focus on course and disciplinary levels. Madhubalan Viswanathan’s article, “Curricular Innovations on Sustainability and Subsistence Marketplaces: Philosophical, Substantive, and Methodological Orientations,” provides a detailed and comprehensive overview of grassroots efforts to build a set of innovative interdisciplinary courses that help students and instructors learn with and from entrepreneurs in the bottom-billion marketplace. This work aptly takes up questions such as “What are course designs that successfully integrate PRME values?” and “How might a bottom-up approach reconfigure our understanding of sustainability and social responsibility?”

Finally, in “From Idea to Action: Promoting Responsible Management Education Through a Semester-Long Academic Integrity Learning Project,” Marc H. Lavine and Christopher J. Roussin provide us with a comprehensive experiential exercise that leverages students’ learning within an ethics course deeply tied to PRME ideals.

Future Directions

As noted earlier, this particular special issue developed as a result of the commitment to the PRME by the OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators when it became a signatory in 2007. As part of the Society’s support for this initiative, the first head of PRME Secretariat, Dr. Manuel Escudero, was invited to speak at the annual OBTC teaching conference in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2009. Although Dr. Escudero’s flight was unable to depart New York due to thunderstorms, an eager group of OBTCers still attended the session to learn more about the PRME, which is testimony to the long-standing interest of OBTS members in responsible management education.

At the end of that session, we proposed a special PRME issue of JME to Jane Schmidt-Wilk, editor of the journal. Jane enthusiastically supported our desire to shepherd an issue focused on the PRME, both to deepen the OBTS commitment to the initiative and to provide cutting-edge scholarship on an emerging topic in an area of long-standing interest to JME readers. Almost 3 years later, we now offer the community a journal edition complete with examples that will expand our knowledge base and provide tactical strategies for moving the PRME initiative and its content areas deeper into our institutions. We are able to do so only as a result of the support from the leadership of OBTS, colleagues from around the globe who participated at various special issue–related professional development workshops, caucuses, and networking events, the 60 individuals who authored or coauthored a submission, and the thoughtful and developmental contributions of more than 50 reviewers.

We benefit as a community of management education scholars from the Journal of Management Education’s long-standing commitment to publishing individual articles and special issues on the PRME-related topics such as ethics, sustainability, indigenous voices, and poverty, among others. Poignantly, in the introduction to the special issue on poverty, guest editors Peredo and Moore (2008) noted the new PRME initiative with a bit of caution, stating, “[A] worry is that the PRME may be a flag that educators choose to fly but without engaging in the critical reflection that might have an effect on their actual performance” (p. 692). We share this concern about surface adoption of the values and agenda encompassed in the PRME. At the same time, we believe the submissions we received and the articles published in this special issue demonstrate that we have cause for optimism; many of us have engaged in the messy and politically challenging process of critical reflection about the PRME in classrooms, curricula, and institutions.

With the pleasure of presenting the first special issue on the PRME, we anticipate many more to come as this voluntary collaboration between higher education and the United Nations continues. We believe that the collaborative relationship between management education journals enhances our field. As such, we note upcoming special issues on PRME-related topics in two management education journals: “Educating Social Entrepreneurs and Social Innovators” (Academy of Management Learning & Education) and “Expanding Minority Representation in Management Education” (Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education).

We hope this special issue and those that follow spawn expanded discussion and debate among authors focused on the PRME, PRME-related topics, and management education reform in general. Based on our “roots” and “waves” reflections, we see the PRME as having significant potential for deepening connections across domains and fostering change in management education. We encourage the development of additional studies related to implementation in a variety of contexts as the body of PRME signatories grows. We emphasize the importance for future scholarship to further interrogate and debate the broad nature of the PRME and the PRME “construct” itself. Since the PRME are fundamentally a platform for educational reform, we see the need for more connection to the organizational development and change literatures, and the need to identify the key issues and new models for change management within the higher education context that address fundamental barriers to PRME adoption and implementation. Last, and perhaps most urgent, we strongly encourage the support and development of PRME scholarship from the Global South and other underrepresented voices. Since the majority of the world’s population resides outside of North America and Europe, we are especially eager to see research that addresses the PRME from multiple cultural and political perspectives.

References

Arjaliés

(2010). A social movement perspective on finance: How socially responsible investment mattered. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 57-78.

Aspen Institute. (2011). Beyond grey pinstripes 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/reports/BGP%202011-2012%20Global%20Report-small.pdf

Banerjee

S. B.

(2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51-79.

Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Barefoot

K. B.

Mataloni

R. J.

Jr. (2009). Operations of U.S. multinational companies in the United States and abroad: Preliminary results from the 2009 benchmark survey. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/11%20November/1111_mnc.pdf

Bilimoria

Cooperrider

D. L.

Kazcmarski

Khalsa

Srivastva

Upadhyaya

(1995). A call to organizational scholarship: The organization dimensions of global change—No limits to cooperation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(1), 71-90.

Carroll

A. B.

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

Carroll

A. B.

(1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38, 268-293.

Clark

J. M.

(1916). The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy, 24, 209-229.

10.

De George

R. T.

(2005, February). A history of business ethics. Paper presented at the Third Biennial Global Business Ethics Conference, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara, CA.

11.

Dodd

E. M.

Jr. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145-1163.

12.

Donaldson

Dunfee

T. W.

(1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252-284.

13.

Egri

C. P.

Ralston

D. A.

(2008). Corporate responsibility: A review of international management research from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management, 14, 319-339.

14.

Egri

C. P.

Rogers

K. S.

(2003). Teaching about the natural environment in management education: New directions and approaches. Journal of Management Education, 27, 139-143.

15.

Garriga

Melé

(2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51-71.

16.

International Monetary Fund. (2011). Changing patterns of global trade. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/061511.pdf

17.

Jones

(2003). As if business ethics were possible, “within such limits.” Organization, 10, 223-248.

18.

Levitt

(1975). The third sector: New tactics for a responsive society. New York, NY: AMACOM.

19.

Leys

W. A. R.

(1961). Attempting to reduce confused nonsense of business ethics. Business & Society, 1(2), 5-10.

20.

Lockett

Moon

Visser

(2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115-136.

21.

Lyle

Schoenfeldt

L. F.

McDonald

D. M.

Youngblood

S. A.

(1991). The teaching of business ethics: A survey of AACSB member schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 237-241.

22.

NetImpact. (2011, November). General format. Retrieved from http://netimpact.org/about

23.

Peredo

Moore

(2008). Management education in the context of poverty: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Management Education, 30, 683-696.

24.

Rusinko

C. A.

Sama

L. M.

(2009). Special issue: Greening and sustainability across the management curriculum. Journal of Management Education, 33, 271-275.

25.

Schwartz

M. S.

Carroll

A. B.

(2007). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society, 47, 148-186.

26.

Sethi

S. P.

(1975, Spring). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.

27.

Simon

J. L.

(1967). Business ideology, business ethics, and business behavior: A review of the issues and a prod to research. Business & Society, 7(2), 18-32.

28.

Shrivastava

(1993). Crisis theory/practice: Towards a sustainable future. Organization & Environment, 7, 23-42.

29.

Starik

(2006). In search of relevance and impact: Introduction to a special feature on the state of organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 19, 431-438.

30.

Starik

Marcus

(2000). Introduction to the Special Research Forum on the Management of Organizations in the Natural Environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 539-546.

31.

Starik

Rands

Marcus

A. A.

Clark

T. S.

(2010). Special issue: In search of sustainability in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 377-383.

32.

Stead

J. G.

Stead

W. E.

(1992). Management for a small planet. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

33.

Taneja

S. S.

Taneja

P. K.

Gupta

R. K.

(2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 343-364.

34.

United Nations Global Compact. (2007). The principles for responsible management education. Retrieved from http://www.unprme.org/resource-docs/PRME.pdf

35.

United Nations Principles of Responsible Management Education. (November, 2011). General format. Retrieved from www.unprme.org

36.

Waddock

(2006). What will it take to create a tipping point for corporate responsibility? In Epstein

Hanson

K. O.

(Eds.), The accountable corporation (pp. 75-96). Greenfield, CT: Praeger.

37.

Waddock

(2008, August). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 87-108.

38.

Waddock

Rasche

Werhane

P. H.

Unruh

(2010). The principles for responsible management education: Implications for implementation and assessment. In Swanson

D. L.

Fisher

D. G.

(Eds.), Toward assessing business ethics education (pp. 13-28). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

39.

Walck

C. L.

(2009). Integrating sustainability into management education: A dean’s perspective. Journal of Management Education, 33, 384-390.

40.

Wartick

S. L.

Cochran

P. L.

(1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.

41.

Wirtenberg

(Ed.). (2010). Special issue: Transitioning to the green economy. People & Strategy, 33(1).

42.

Wood

D. J.

(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.

43.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

44.

Zemke

Raines

Filipczak

(2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomer, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

17.03 MB