Advancing STEM-Based Business Sustainability: Mending the Curricular Gap

Abstract

Businesses are increasingly facing economic, social, and environmental sustainability challenges. Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are needed to address business sustainability needs, yet such competencies are noticeably absent from academic literature and business curricula. To mend the curricular gap, we make the case for developing cross-disciplinary STEM-based business sustainability curricula that enhance students’ sustainability literacy and cognitive abilities related to STEM and sustainability. A literature review is provided that documents curricular gaps specific to STEM and sustainability in the academic literature and in business sustainability program offerings. We then present a framework that can be used to integrate STEM and sustainability across the curricula and to evaluate curricular implementation. This review provides timely and relevant information that can help business management educators, instructors, and administrators justify, design, develop, implement, and evaluate STEM-based business sustainability curricula.

Keywords

research to practice insights sustainability program assessment management of business schools curriculum sustainability matrix

Businesses are increasingly faced with economic sustainability challenges related to changes in the natural environment. In particular, natural disasters and shifting weather trends are noted as factors impacting short- and long-term strategic planning for businesses (Bergmann, Stechemesser, & Guenther, 2016; Craig & Feng, 2018; McKnight & Linnenluecke, 2019). Businesses are also forced to consider their roles to address social and environmental sustainability issues such as humanitarian crises, environmental degradation, and climate change (Aggarwal, 2011; Allen, 2016; Allen & Craig, 2016; Craig, Petrun Sayers, Feng, & Kinghorn, 2019; Delmas, Lim, & Nairn-Birch, 2015).

The challenges that businesses will face suggest that greater emphasis on sustainability should be guided by science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) competencies, which are noticeably absent from business literature and curricula. Sustainability programs are increasingly available to students across university curricula, but few specifically target business majors (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education [AASHE], 2018; Hopkinson & James, 2010; Zwickle, Koontz, Slagle, & Bruskotter, 2014). Another challenge is the quality of integrated sustainability content into business programs. While some business schools may make modest strides by introducing students to sustainability content, “mainstreaming” sustainability-related issues requires integration across courses (Painter-Morland, Sabet, Molthan-Hill, Goworek, & de Leeuw, 2016, p. 738).

We make the case for developing cross-disciplinary STEM-based business sustainability curricula that enhance students’ sustainability literacy (Zwickle et al., 2014) and cognitive abilities (Henderson, Mestre, & Slakey, 2015) related to STEM and sustainability. Specifically, we target student knowledge acquisition in STEM and sustainability (i.e., literacy) and student understanding and application of knowledge (i.e., cognition) specific to business. In the following sections, we review relevant literature related to STEM, sustainability, and business, outline our approach toward mending the curricular gap, and provide concluding comments.

Literature Review

We conducted a literature review to explore skills expected of undergraduate and graduate students entering the workforce, focusing on STEM education and sustainability skills. The criteria for the literature search process are outlined in Table 1. The final search resulted in 572 articles. After removing duplicate articles, we applied several exclusion criteria, including (1) international studies or work, (2) articles in K-12 settings, (3) articles published before 2003, (4) studies that did not include an educational component, and (5) studies that did not include an evaluation focused on students. The final result included 123 articles for further review. We divided the 123 articles among three team members and evaluated each article to extract descriptive information. Using a codebook, we extracted information from each article about: (1) journal discipline, (2) STEM topics covered, (3) STEM skills covered, (4) evaluation methods, (5) student group (i.e., undergraduate/graduate), and (6) student background (i.e., STEM majors vs. non-STEM majors).

Table 1.

Literature Review Search Criteria.

Iteration	Database(s)	Search terms
1 February 2018	ERIC	Sustainable development and STEM/sustainability and STEM ESD AND STEM Engineering AND sustainability (Competencies or literacy or employer* or employment) and sustainability
2 April 2018	ERIC—education SCOPUS—science/social sciences Web of Science—science/social sciences	(“sustainability science” OR “environmental education” OR “clean energy” OR “global warming” OR “green engineering” OR “sustainable engineering” OR “climate change” OR “energy efficiency” OR “renewable energy” OR “environmental sustainability”) AND (undergraduate* OR baccalaureate* OR certification) AND (competencies OR literacy OR skills OR curricul* OR courses OR coursework) AND (stem OR engineering OR mathematic* OR chemistry OR botany OR biology OR calculus* OR climatology OR programming OR computational OR statistical OR “data science” OR coding)

Note. ESD = education for sustainable development; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math.

Literature Review Results

Table 2 examines the journal discipline of articles and suggests STEM education research is focused in areas such as engineering (n = 72; 58.5%) and chemistry (n = 12; 9.8%), while social and computing sciences have garnered minimal attention (n = 3; 2.4% and n = 2; 1.6%, respectively). Business or management journals did not contribute to any search results. Table 3 further classifies the discipline areas discussed in each article, revealing that STEM education research is applied primarily in engineering (n = 70; 39.1%), energy (n = 28; 15.6%), and environmental sciences (n = 37; 20.7%) courses. STEM concepts in social sciences, business, or management are absent. This finding supports previous research, which found that sustainability and STEM are not widely studied in an interdisciplinary manner or integrated into business curriculum (e.g., Painter-Morland et al., 2016; Rusinko, 2010), highlighting the importance of such efforts.

Table 2.

Journal Disciplines Present in the Literature Review.

Discipline	Total	Percentage	Finding
Biology	2	1.6	The discipline of journals publishing STEM education research suggests saturation in some areas (e.g., engineering), and minimal impact or interest in others.
Chemistry	12	9.8
Computing	2	1.6
Education	9	7.3
Engineering	72	58.5
Environmental	9	7.3
General sciences	11	9
Geoscience	3	2.4
Social sciences	3	2.4
Total	123	100

Table 3.

Focus of Sustainability STEM Topics in Education Research.

Discipline	Total	Percentage	Finding
Architecture	4	2.2	Another metric to examine the content of STEM education research is to examine the topic areas of each article. Currently, STEM education research emphasizes engineering, energy, and environmental sciences topics. STEM concepts in social sciences are absent, in addition to STEM integration in business settings. Other general education areas including general sciences and health topics are minimally represented.
Biology	10	5.6
Chemistry	15	8.4
Computer science	5	2.8
Economics	2	1.1
Energy	28	15.6
Engineering	70	39.1
Environmental sciences	37	20.7
General sciences	1	0.56
Geoscience	2	1.1
Health	2	1.1
Mathematics	2	1.1
Physics	1	0.56
Total	179	100

Note: STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math. Articles could have more than one “topic” area. All core topic areas are recorded.

Knowledge and application of sustainability and STEM can be assessed based on demonstrated skills. Demonstrated skills are especially helpful for understanding how curricula can prepare students for the workforce. Accordingly, Table 4 overviews how the literature addressed skills categories including collaboration, communication, critical thinking, environmental beliefs/attitudes/values, global perspectives, interdisciplinary work, research methods, knowledge of STEM tools, knowledge of STEM topics, lab experience, participation in research, professional development, and understanding STEM in context. Articles typically touched on more than one skill, thus all skills mentioned are recorded. In total, we observed 332 instances of skills in the literature. Increasing knowledge of STEM topics (n = 95; 28.6% of total skills observed) was mentioned by the most articles, followed by developing critical thinking (n = 41; 12.3%), and understanding STEM in context (n = 40; 12%). Skills like global perspectives (n = 3; 0.9%), research methods (n = 7; 2.4%), communication (n = 10; 3%), and professional development were less common (n = 10; 3%).

Table 4.

Sustainability STEM Skills in Education Research.

Discipline	Total	Percentage	Finding
Collaboration	18	5.4	Our data extraction process also examined the skills outlined by research articles that the education research measured or aimed to impact. Not surprisingly, many studies centered on increasing student knowledge of specific STEM topics (e.g., chemistry, energy, engineering). However, additional skills such as communication, global perspectives, research methods, and professional development topics were rarely included as an identified skill in the literature.
Communication	10	3
Critical thinking	41	12.3
Environmental attitudes/beliefs/values	33	10
Global perspectives	3	0.9
Interdisciplinary work	17	5.1
Introduction to research methods	7	2.4
Knowledge of STEM tools	26	7.8
Knowledge of STEM topics	95	28.6
Lab experience	21	6.3
Participation in research	11	3.3
Professional development	10	3
Understanding STEM in context	40	12
Total	332	100

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math. Articles could have more than one type of skill identified. All core skills are recorded.

Robust instruments to assess the integration of STEM and sustainability are lacking (e.g., Rusinko, 2010). Therefore, we considered how studies evaluated curricula and found 317 instances (see Table 5). More than half of documented methods use student course evaluations to examine the impact of STEM education (n = 189; 59.6%). Other popular methods include using a pre/posttest (n = 37; 11.7%) and student assignments (n = 35; 11%). Overall, the lack of rigorous evaluation methods is clear. Many studies could benefit from more robust evaluation data, including following students for longer periods of time, supporting quantitative methods with qualitative methods, using secondary data, and using control groups.

Table 5.

Sustainability STEM Evaluation Methods in Education Research.

Discipline	Total	Percentage	Finding
Focus group	7	2.2	More than half of the included research studies used student course evaluations to examine the impact of STEM education on students. Other popular methods include graded student assignments and a pre/posttest. Most studies included multiple evaluation methods, but overall the lack of rigorous evaluation methods is noticeable. Another stark contrast is the lack of qualitative data to supplement quantitative evaluations. Furthermore, most pre-/posttest designs followed only one class during one semester.
Interview	8	2.5
Literature review	1	0.32
Other	11	3.5
Posttest	24	7.6
Pre-/Posttest	37	11.7
Secondary data	5	1.6
Student assignments	35	11
Student course evaluation	189	59.6
Total	317	100

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math. Articles typically used more than one evaluation method. All methods listed in articles are counted in this descriptive table.

Finally, we examined the literature to determine what types of students are most represented in STEM education and sustainability research. A majority of articles include undergraduate students (n = 117; 95%). Table 6 includes frequency counts and percentages of STEM versus non-STEM majors. Most of the articles focus on education for STEM majors (n = 102; 83%), while few education research studies involve non-STEM majors (n = 9; 7.3%). Several studies include both STEM and non-STEM majors (n = 12; 9.8%).

Table 6.

Sustainability STEM and General Student Involvement.

Discipline	Total	Percentage	Finding
Both	12	9.8	Most of the identified articles focused on education for STEM majors, while very few education research studies involved non-STEM majors.
Non-STEM major	9	7.3
STEM major	102	83
Total	123	100

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math.

Available Sustainability Programs

After reviewing the academic literature related to sustainability and STEM, we performed a separate search of AASHE’s program offerings of sustainability programs in business education. The purpose of searching the online program description repository is to provide a snapshot of available sustainability programs offered to business students. AASHE (2018) provides the most comprehensive list of sustainability programs and is the leading worldwide organization for advancement of sustainability in higher education. In 2018, the list of reported academic sustainability programs (e.g., majors, certificates, graduate degrees) grew to 2,258 from 289 in 2016 (AASHE, 2016, 2018). In total, 617 organizations offered programs in 23 countries, 52 U.S. states and territories, and 9 Canadian provinces (AASHE, 2018). Only 146 of these offerings were categorized within the business, management, and finance disciplines, and only one program description explicitly emphasized STEM.

Curricular Gaps

The literature search suggests that little to no academic STEM research examines business and management curricula. Additionally, only a small percentage of sustainability program offerings (n = 146; 6.5%) are found within business disciplines, and very few business sustainability program descriptions emphasized STEM. When considering targeted skills, many studies focused on increasing students’ knowledge of topics. Little, if any, attention is given to global issues, research methods, communication, or professional development. Evaluation on the impact of content on students is often not robust enough to fully understand student development. Rarely are non-STEM students given the chance to be included in STEM education and sustainability programs, which limits the exposure of content to students not in traditional STEM majors. Seemingly, business students fall into a gap when it comes to STEM education. Next, we present a framework to integrate sustainability and STEM across the business and management curricula.

Mending the Curricular Gap

The Rusinko (2010) matrix provides a mechanism, or framework, to integrate sustainability into management and business education. This framework initially addressed challenges for MBA programs to graduate workforce-ready students to deal with multidisciplinary challenges, including corporate social responsibility or sustainability (Benn & Dunphy, 2009), two areas typically marginalized for “the real interests of business” (p. 277). Most business schools use variations of Rusinko’s (2010) matrix to adopt sustainability concepts but often face barriers connecting or integrating business, the natural environmental, and society (Painter-Morland et al., 2016). We used the matrix as a guide for our approach because it addresses curricular gaps within and between disciplines, promotes a holistic view of sustainability where STEM can be integrated, and endorses an applied approach that can target student knowledge and skills gaps related to sustainability and STEM.

Course implementation can take four delivery routes based on structures and discipline (Rusinko, 2010). The columns in the two-by-two matrix denote whether a course is new or existing, and the rows identify if the course is narrow and discipline specific or broad and cross-disciplinary. The integration of sustainability content into existing classes within a discipline is easy to implement; however, it is difficult to sustain long-term because of the offerings’ stand-alone nature. Creating a new structure (e.g., certificate, cross-disciplinary program) is difficult to implement due to resource demands and administrative support, but these more complex changes can help establish a sustainability identity for the business school.

Table 7 summarizes how we used Rusinko’s (2010) framework to structure the integration of a sustainability module into each course, including (1) Applied Climatology, (2) Business and the Environment, (3) Human Geography, (4) International Business, and (5) Applied Organizational Sustainability at two public U.S. universities. Table 7 shows how the classes cross Rusinko’s (2010) framework categories, using existing and new structures and penetrating discipline specific and cross-disciplinary courses. Modules delivered in the courses include two to four course sessions, readings, and either a course activity or assignment. We selected the five courses based on existing course offerings and for the instructors’ abilities to integrate business, sustainability, and STEM concepts. Table 8 contains brief course descriptions. The next section discusses evaluation strategies for the curricular additions.

Table 7.

Applying Rusinko’s Matrix to Integrate STEM-Based Sustainability Into Business Curriculum.

	Existing structure	New structure
Discipline specific	International Business Business and the Environment^a	Human Geography^a Applied Climatology (G)
Cross-discipline	Human Geography^a Business and the Environment^a	Applied Organizational Sustainability

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math. (G) denotes the course is open to graduate students.

Human geography is currently located outside the college of business and meets a general education requirement, so it resides in two cells. Business and the Environment is an existing catalog course within the management discipline and is also cross-discipline in nature as it is an upper-level elective for other STEM majors and business disciplines.

Table 8.

Brief Descriptions of Existing and Proposed Courses.

Course	Description
Applied Climatology	Applied Climatology has learning objectives related to climatology skills, research question development, impacts of climate changes/variability, and quantitative application. The course is taught as a physical science course for geoscience majors and is also an elective for students in agronomy, civil engineering, and environmental dynamics.
Human Geography	Human Geography has learning objectives related to the cultural values and practices of people from a variety of places as shared by regional landscapes. The course meets general education requirements for cultural diversity and is requirement for environmental studies and geography students.
International Business	International Business has learning objectives related to globalization, international financial interdependence, and international trade. The course is a major requirement for management and marketing majors, an elective for other business majors, and is an elective for other majors that have an international focus.
Business and the environment	Business and Environment is STEM based and has learning objectives related to the interaction between businesses, the natural environment, climate change, and society. The course is part of the major requirement for management students and is an elective for other business majors and for environmental studies students.
Applied Organizational Sustainability	The proposed Applied Organizational Sustainability is a STEM-based course and will integrate each of the learning objectives developed for the four additional courses taught as part of the curriculum. Also, an additional learning objective related to developing and deploying a sustainability initiative either with or for a local business through a service and/or experiential learning project would be introduced. The course will initially be offered as an unrestricted elective.

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math.

Evaluation

We are using use Kirkpatrick’s (1959a) framework to evaluate three levels of impact typically absent from existing literature in this space. Kirkpatrick’s (1959a, 1959b, 1996) framework is commonly used because it facilitates comprehensive evaluation of learning objectives and outcomes across time. Table 9 contains research questions associated with each level. We add an additional timepoint into our analysis of the third level by following students 6 months after the project concludes to gauge persistence and application of student outcomes in school and in the workforce. While we would like to examine the fourth level of impact, it is outside the scope of current project resources.

Table 9.

Kirkpatrick (1959a, 1959b, 1996) Levels of Evaluation.

Kirkpatrick level	Sample questions for each level
Level 1: Reaction	• How satisfied are the students/instructors with the class? • To what extent do students feel the class will benefit them on the job? • What did the students/ instructors like about the curriculum, instructional techniques, assignments, etc.?
Level 2: Learning	• What skills/knowledge/attitudes/self-efficacy do students possess before the course? • What skills/knowledge/ attitudes/self-efficacy do students possess after the course?
Level 3: Behavior	• To what extent have students’ intended behaviors changed for on-the-job tasks? • What intended behaviors have changed post-instruction?

We are using qualitative and quantitative methods in each course to track student outcomes. Similarly, each course that receives new STEM education and sustainability concepts is being matched to a similar control class to provide a comparison for each cohort. In the first level (i.e., reaction), interviews and focus groups can be used to probe about students’ and instructors’ initial satisfaction with course content. For the remaining levels (i.e., learning and behavior) a pre- and posttest accompanied by a control group can measure outcomes of interest over time. For instance, assessment tools are available that can measure student STEM and sustainability knowledge (Zwickle et al., 2014); cognition specific to sustainability (Lourdel, Gondran, Laforest, Debray, & Brodhag, 2007); attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy (Dunlop, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000); and pro-environmental behaviors (Markle, 2013). This counter-factual approach does not imply causality, but it can demonstrate differences in outcomes based on whether or not students received the sustainability and STEM or standard (i.e., control) curriculum.

Conclusion

Given that businesses are increasingly facing complex problems and being held responsible for acting sustainably and responsibly, improving STEM and sustainability literacy of undergraduate and graduate students is essential when preparing them for business careers. The proposed modules speak to the gaps outlined by the STEM education and sustainability skills literature review and to the concerns from the AASHE (2018) sustainability program review. We believe this work will enhance STEM-based sustainability knowledge of students and enhance other skills, such as those underrepresented in the literature review. Moreover, we will employ quantitative and qualitative methods to test our results.

We encourage others to refer to this review as a means to (1) understand the STEM gaps in business research and educational programs, (2) better understand the hurdles involved in teaching and implementing business sustainability curriculum, and (3) provide a framework that can be used to design, development, implement and evaluate STEM-based sustainability curriculum.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Christopher A. Craig is currently affiliated with Murray State University, Murray, KY, USA.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded in part through the National Science Foundation (Grant Numbers 1726834, 1726278, 1726843).

ORCID iD

Christopher A. Craig

References

Aggarwal

(2011). Developing a global mindset: Integrating demographics, sustainability, technology, and globalization. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22, 51-69. doi:10.1080/08975930.2011.585920

Allen

M. W.

(2016). Strategic communication for sustainable organizations— Theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

Allen

M. W.

Craig

C. A.

(2016). Climate change, communication, CSR and sustainability. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1, 1-11. doi:10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2016). Campus sustainability hub—Academic programs. Retrieved from https://hub.aashe.org/browse/types/academicprogram/

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2018). Campus Sustainability hub—Academic programs. Retrieved from https://hub.aashe.org/browse/types/academicprogram/

Benn

Dunphy

(2009). Action research as an approach to integrating sustainability into MBA programs: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Education, 33, 276-295. doi:10.1177/1052562908323189

Bergmann

Stechemesser

Guenther

(2016). Natural resource dependence theory: Impacts of extreme weather on organizations. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1361-1366. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.108

Craig

C. A.

Feng

(2018). A temporal and spatial analysis of climate change, weather events, and tourism businesses. Tourism Management, 67, 351-361. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.013

Craig

C. A.

Petrun Sayers

Feng

Kinghorn

(2019). The impact of climate and weather on a small tourism businesses: A wSWOT case study. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2515127419829399

10.

Delmas

Lim

Nairn-Birch

(2015). Corporate environmental performance and lobbying. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 175-197. doi:10.5465/amd.2014.0065

11.

Dunlop

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

Mertig

A. G.

Jones

R. E.

(2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176

12.

Henderson

Mestre

J. P.

Slakey

L. L.

(2015). Cognitive science research can improve undergraduate STEM instruction: What are the barriers? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 51-60. doi:10.1177/2372732215601115

13.

Hopkinson

James

(2010). Practical pedagogy for embedding ESD in science, technology engineering, and mathematics curricula. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11, 365-279. doi:10.1108/14676371011077586

14.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1959a). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training & Development, 13, 3-9.

15.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1959b). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training & Development, 13, 21-26.

16.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1996). Great ideas revisited: Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training & Development, 50, 54-59.

17.

Lourdel

Gondran

Laforest

Debray

Brodhag

(2007). Sustainability development cognitive map: A new method of evaluating student understanding. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8, 170-183. doi:10.1108/14676370710726634

18.

Markle

G. L.

(2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development of the pro-environmental behavioral scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41, 905-914. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24015748

19.

McKnight

Linnenluecke

M. K.

(2019). Patterns of firm responses to different types of natural disasters. Business & Society, 58, 813-840. doi:10.1177/00076317698946

20.

Painter-Morland

Sabet

Molthan-Hill

Goworek

de Leeuw

(2016). Beyond the curriculum: Integrating sustainability into business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 737-754. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2896-6

21.

Rusinko

C. A.

(2010). Integrating sustainability into management and business education: A matrix approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 507-519. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25782034

22.

Zwickle

Koontz

T. M.

Slagle

K. M.

Bruskotter

J. T.

(2014). Assessing sustainability knowledge of a student population. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15, 375-389. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-01-2013-0008