programa de pÓs-graduaÇÃo em administraÇÃo de …
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULOFACULDADE DE ECONOMIA, ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DE
RIBEIRÃO PRETODEPARTAMENTO DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÕES
FLAVIO PINHEIRO MARTINS
Interdisciplinarity in Education for Sustainable Development: Business Schools Perspectives
RIBEIRÃO PRETO2021
Prof. Dr. Vahan Agopian
Reitor da Universidade de São Paulo
Prof. Dr. André Lucirton Costa
Diretor da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto
Prof. Dr. Jorge Henrique Caldeira de Oliveira
Chefe do Departamento de Administração
Prof. Dr. João Luiz Passador
Coordenador do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração de Organizações
FLAVIO PINHEIRO MARTINS
Interdisciplinarity in Education for Sustainable Development: Business Schools Perspectives
Exam for the obtention of Master’s Degree inInnovation and Sustainability at the PostgraduateProgram in Business Management at the Schoolof Economics, Business Administration andAccounting of Ribeirao Preto at the University ofSão Paulo
Supervisor: Profa. Dra. Luciana OrangesCezarino
RIBEIRÃO PRETO
2021
I hereby authorize the reproduction and total or partial dissemination of this work, by anyconventional or electronic means, for the purposes of study and research, as long as the source ismentioned.
Martins, Flavio PinheiroInterdisciplinarity in Education for Sustainable Development: Business
Schools Perspectives, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto – SP, 2021
118 p. : il. ; 30 cm
Masters dissertation School of Economics, Administration andAccounting of Ribeirão Preto, Field of knowledge: Business administration
Supervisor: Luciana Oranges Cezarino
1.Interdisciplinarity 2.Management Education 3.Education for SustainableDevelopment (ESD) 4.Principles for Responsible Management Education (UN-PRME).
Versão Corrigida. A original encontra-se disponível na FEA-RP/USP
FOLHA DE APROVAÇÃO
Name: Flavio Pinheiro Martins
Title: Interdisciplinarity in Education for Sustainable Development: Business SchoolsPerspectives
Exam for obtention of Master’s Degree inInnovation and Sustainability at the PostgraduateProgram in Business Management at the Schoolof Economics, Business Administration andAccounting of Ribeirao Preto at the University ofSão Paulo
Approved:
Evaluation Board
Prof.Dr. _____________________________________________________
Institution: __________________________________________________
Evaluation: __________________________________________________
Prof.Dr. _____________________________________________________
Institution:___________________________________________________
Evaluation: __________________________________________________
Prof.Dr. _____________________________________________________
Institution:___________________________________________________
Evaluation: __________________________________________________
DEDICATORY
To my father.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following mentions are people who contributed to this work and, in a broaderperspective, to my academic career in the past two years. I therefore thank:
My twin daughters, Bárbara and Helena, for the time spent developing this workseveral times deprived me of the sweetness of their coexistence: I hope that one day you willforgive your father and understand my reasons. You are my intergenerational motivation: myreason for leaving something better for the world and, at the same time, my "outstandingsomething better" for the world. If there is any way to categorize love in this world, it would bethe way I feel when you hug my neck so tightly and laugh so loosely nestled in my chest.
My mother, Izilda, and to the mother of my daughters, Cristiana: none can work fulltime, be a father and develop so many research activities without support; at least I am sure Icouldn't. My deeds are yours as well; thanks for the love, friendship, and all the "logistics."Some things change; others never do, and I am therefore lucky to have you as my family.
Luciana, for being an educator in the lato sensu: offering me a flawless academicsupervision and a guidance that consistently increased my level of excellence, clarity, tranquility,and motivation. Thank you also for the life relationship, which goes way beyond academicoutputs: you were my supervisor, boss, friend, and sister throughout these years. Thanks fortrusting me when I could not. Thanks for embracing such a daunting task of rescuing me fromthe darkness and the numb when none else could, on so many occasions.
Lara: 10 years ago, the first time you entered as a teacher in my bachelor's classes, Icould never imagine that our paths would cross again in my career, and I am glad they did.Thanks for allowing me to partner with such academic brilliance, to learn from you, and aboveall, thanks for your life guidance and friendship. I wish to have the strength to repay you andLuciana for all the good you do to me.
To my evaluation board, Professors Christian Hauser and Ekaterina Ivanova, forwhich I have the most profound admiration, and that put their time and years of expertise inRME at evaluating my work. And also to Professors Janaina Giraldi and Mario Monzoni, whosecontributions made this work possible by rewiring it in a beautiful, feasible, andcontribution-relevant way.
To Rita Tostes, simply for being who you are: such an empathetic soul with the mostethical standards I ever met. Thanks for being my friend, trusting and empowering me as I'venever been by a "boss".
To Anna Flavia, William, Lucas Amaral, Laura, Bianca, and Eduardo, the mostbrilliant undergrads of the University of Sao Paulo (strong evidence) and, for my fortune, forbeing "my" interns, friends, and partners.
To Júlio Borges and Adriana Caldana, for being my entrance door to RME and to2030 Agenda. Also, to André Batalhão and Júlio (again), for averting me to quit research on somany occasions and also for keeping me well supplied with high-grade academic jokes and"stoic" sarcasm =).
To Minna, Verena, and Eleanor, for showing me that some minute-made conferencebonds can grow to life-enhancing linkages. People who matter stay in your life, even when theyare one ocean away.
To Amilton, André Donegá, Lucas Stocco, João Rafael, Mateus Flória, and Bruno,for all the academic motivation, guidance, partnerships, support, and above the life-enhancingbond.
To Loan and Priti, the "gift of SDGs gods" in my life. Thanks for being responsiblefor my best publication so far and being such skilled researchers inhabited by trustworthy andgentle souls. I learn so much from you and wish to keep it up.
To Fabiana, Rafael, Mayra, Juliana, Carlos, Priscila, Livea, Roberta, and all thefriends that Conectalab brought into my life. You always praised and helped me in so manyways, trusted my skills, and were the best gift that happened in my earlier research times.
To Milenko, Melita, Sanja, Marko, Bojana, and Darko and especially to NatashaPetrovic, my Serbian friendly soul, who were the enablers of my RME academic experiencesBalkans.
To Ana, Sandra, Fernanda from FEA-RP/USP postgraduate office, and especiallyMatheus and Erika, for the life-long friendship and being my "deadlines guardian angels":always safeguarding my academic integrity towards USP, averting me from falling intomischief.
To Professor Joao Passador and the whole Post-graduation CoordinatingCommission (CCP) always empathetic and solution-oriented with my requests.
To Professor Perla for the motivation and kindhearted attention and for the frequentmonitoring of my academic progress.
To Professors Luiz Osório and Fernando Cunha, from CRID, and to Dr. ChristianDiniz, who supported me on so many occasions, in such an empathetic way, during these pastfew months.
To the friendship that the ISCN brought into my life, especially Hector, Melissa,Denise, Leendert, Angie, and Heather, people I admire, and dearest friends who aid me when Ineed and trust me in participating in their projects.
To Carla, Marcela, and Daniel, the skilled idealists from the Ribeirão Preto NGOscenario, the ones that always draw me back to public policy and sustainability.
To Gustavo Loyola, from ISAE, and all the PRME Champion schools educators whoparticipated in this research, the Professors: Luis Veiga (Nova SBE), Eleanor and Christian(University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons), Consuelo De La Torre, and Christiane Molina(EGADE), Sanchi Maheshwari (Hanken's School of Economics), Evgenia Pashkevich(RANEPA), Gustavo Yepes (Externado de Colombia) and Swati Nagpal (La Trobe BusinessSchool).
It might seem like many people. Indeed there are a lot of people. Exactly how Iwanted it to be. Thank you.
“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together"(Popular Knowledge)
EPIGRAPH
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,And sorry I could not travel bothAnd be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I couldTo where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally layIn leaves no step had trodden black.Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sighSomewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.(Frost, R. (1916). The road not taken)
“Daqui a pouco terei 80 anos, mas não tenho a intenção de "amarrar minha canoa". Como o heróide um conto de João Guimarães Rosa, eu continuarei a navegar à procura da terceira margem
cujas paisagens sociais sejam harmoniosas, de onde tenham desaparecido as polaridades e
exclusões, o ódio e a violência observados nas duas margens (...) do longo e não tão tranquiloassim rio da minha vida” (Sachs, I. (2009), A terceira margem: em busca do
ecodesenvolvimento. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, p.)
ABSTRACT
MARTINS, F.P. Interdisciplinarity in Education for Sustainable Development: Business SchoolsPerspectives (Masters dissertation). School of Economics, Administration and Accounting ofRibeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto – SP.
Business Schools play an essential role in sustainable development agenda integration since theirpractices are vectors for a needed paradigm change. Nevertheless, they are often criticized fornot forming the actors of change towards a sustainable future. Interdisciplinarity can aid thedevelopment of systemic patterns able to grasp the Education for Sustainable Development(ESD) complexity. This work addresses ESD in the school's signatories of the Principles forResponsible Management Education (UN-PRME): an educational platform developed to aid thebusiness schools. Research is framed through the lens of critical and instrumentalinterdisciplinarity perspectives and is summarized in the question: How interdisciplinarylinkages to Education for Sustainable Development in Business Schools? Methods rely on theevaluation of 37 PRME Schools Reports and interviews with educators. Results are analyzedthrough content analysis, supported by text-mining and network theory tools. The primaryoutcomes are I) a review with a future research agenda, II) a taxonomy of critical andinstrumental Interdisciplinarity, and III) a framework of the PRME schools. The resultscontribute theoretically with advancing research on the intermesh of ESD, ResponsibleManagement Education, and Interdisciplinarity. The developed framework is a tool for diagnosisand prognosis on how interdisciplinary can improve ESD in business schools.
Keywords: Interdisciplinarity; Management Education; Education for Sustainable Development(ESD), Principles for Responsible Management Education (UN-PRME).
RESUMO
MARTINS, F.P. Interdisciplinaridade em Educação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável:Perspectivas das Escolas de Negócios (Dissertação de Mestrado) Faculdade de Economia,Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto –SP.
O Desenvolvimento Sustentável ganha centralidade e relevância a cada dia: as questões inerentesà sustentabilidade são complexas, urgentes e precisam de abordagens sistêmicas e capazes deenvolver organizações, governos e indivíduos. As Instituições de Ensino Superior (IES)desempenham um papel importante, uma vez que ensino, pesquisa e extensão são vetores para aintegração da sustentabilidade. Dentro do ensino superior, as Escolas de Negócios, são muitasvezes criticadas por falharem na educação de lideranças aptas para mudança de paradigma emdireção a um futuro sustentável. Nesse cenário, plataformas educacionais como os Princípiospara a Educação em Gestão Responsável (UN-PRME), são desenvolvidas para fomentar novospadrões de educação empresarial em nível planetário. A interdisciplinaridade oferece uma boalente para explorar a dimensão sistêmica necessária para a nova educação em gestão. Estetrabalho aborda a Educação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável (EDS) nas escolas de negóciossob a ótica da educação, especificamente no gradiente existente entre as perspectivas dainterdisciplinaridade crítica e instrumental. A resposta buscada aqui refere-se à seguinte questão:Como a interdisciplinaridade manifesta-se na Educação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável nocontexto das Escolas de Negócios? A abordagem metodológica conta com o levantamentodocumental dos Relatórios das Escolas signatárias do UN-PRME e entrevistas com educadoresrelacionados à educação em gestão responsável. Os resultados são analisados por meio da análisede conteúdo, apoiada em ferramentas de mineração de texto e da teoria de redes. O trabalhoapresenta três resultados principais: I) um framework de revisão sistemática com gráficosbibliométricos e uma agenda de pesquisa futura, II) uma taxonomia de categorias dainterdisciplinaridade nas dimensões crítica e instrumental e III) um framework no formato demapa de calor conectando a taxonomia proposta com as escolas signatárias do PRME. Ataxonomia e a revisão aqui propostas contribuem teoricamente para o avanço da pesquisa emEducação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Educação para Gestão Responsável eInterdisciplinaridade. As contribuições práticas concentram-se nos frameworks gerados, quepodem auxiliar no diagnóstico e prognóstico sobre como a interdisciplinaridade pode auxiliar namelhoria da educação gerencial.
Palavras-chave: Interdisciplinaridade; Educação em Gestão; Educação para o DesenvolvimentoSustentável; Princípios para Educação em Gestão Responsável (UN-PRME).
List of Tables
Table 1. Theoretical Origins of the Concept of Interdisciplinarity 17
Table 2. Interdisciplinarity taxonomies 18
Table 3. Interdisciplinarity dimension in management education 29
Table 4. Tools used in the research 31
Table 5. PRME sharing information in progress(sip) minimal structure 36
Table 6. Methodological matrix 37
Table 7. Research Walkthrough 38
Table 8. Keyword search strings 38
Table 9. Themes with the highest link strength in the String 01 - Interdisciplinarity 40
Table 10. Themes with the highest link strength in the String 02 - Education For Sustainable
Development. 43
Table 11. Original categories from (Cezarino & Corrêa; 2015) and proposed adjustments 52
Table 12. New Proposed categories 50
Table 13. Categories groupings. 54
Table 14. Specialist profile. 55
Table 15. PRME Champions 58
Table 16. Categories Intensity level reasoning 61
Table 17. Principles and Categories 63
Table 18. Students Organizations 76
Table 19. Research Agenda and Questions 79
List of Figures
Figure 1. Concept Map and Topic Guides 31
Figure 2. Methodological roadmap 32
Figure 3. Keywords network with data from the 2000 most cited papers in the String 01-
Interdisciplinarity 40
Figure 4. Quadrant of study keywords 42
Figure 5. Keywords network with data from the 1844 papers in with Education for Sustainable
Development 44
Figure 6. PRME Framed in the keyword network 46
Figure 7. Research Agenda Framework 47
Figure 8. References conversion into dimensions 53
Figure 9. Specialist view on the categories 56
Figure 10. Intensity Interdisciplinarity Heatmap 62
Figure 11. Principles and categories 65
Figure 12. Examples of SDGs and Six Principles presence in the reports 67
Figure 13. The seventh PRME principle: organization 70
Figure 14. Bridging Structures for interdisciplinarity 73
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION 102.1. Research objectives and work structure 14
2. THEORETICAL APPROACH 152.1. Interdisciplinarity genesis 15
2.1.2 FOCUS ON THE SOCIETY ISSUES: THE CRITICAL DIMENSION OFINTERDISCIPLINARITY 192.1.2 THE INSTRUMENTAL AND CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OFINTERDISCIPLINARITY AND THE RELATION WITH MANAGEMENT STUDIES
212.2. Sustainability and Management Education: “Future-proofing” the Curriculum 26
3. METHODOLOGY 283.1. Research walkthrough 283.2. Sample profile: PRME champions 333.3. Data collection and analysis 353.4. Methodological matrix 37
4. RESULTS 374.1. Keyword clustering 37
4.1.2. Interdisciplinarity - Thematic Mapping 394.1.2. Education for Sustainable Development - Thematic Mapping 424.1.2. Insights, SDGs binded framework and research agenda 45
4.2. Proposed typology 464.3. Validated typology 534.4. PRME Reports Categorization 564.5. PRME Principles and Categories 62
5. DISCUSSION 645.1. A HARD TO DRAW LINE 645.2. REPORTING AND SDGS 655.3. BROADER MANAGEMENT CURRICULUM, ORGANIZATION TYPE ANDCONTEXT 675.4. PRME ROLE, PARTNERSHIPS AND BRIDGING STRUCTURES FORCIVILIZATIONAL MATTERS 705.5. STUDENT LED PROJECTS, DIVERSE LEARNING METHODOLOGIES ANDLOCAL COMMUNITIES INTERACTIONS 745.6. FINAL REMARKS 76
6. CONCLUSION 77
6. REFERENCES 80
APPENDIX I - LIST OF PRME CHAMPIONS SIGNATORIES 99
APPENDIX II - PRME SIX PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK 101
APPENDIX III - SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 102
APPENDIX IV - REVIEW ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY 112APPENDIX V - SEMI-STRUCTURED SCRIPT 115APPENDIX VI - CATEGORIES FORMULARY 117
16
1. INTRODUCTION
Sustainable Development agenda relevance grows every day on the verge of the
Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2006). Human actions are stretching the boundaries of our planet in a
way that threatens the very survival of us, as species, and the progress of humankind as
civilization. We are running towards a life-incompatible increase of 3–5°C in our biosphere
(Huang, Yu, Dai, Wei & Kang, 2017; Hughes et al., 2017; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2018). The
multiplicity and urgency of the caused harm to the life-supporting systems, or planetary
boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009; Folke et al., 2016) demand actions from governments,
organizations, and individuals in a way that binds the economic, social, and environmental
questions in a very interwoven way. Sustainability matters are complex and non-linear;
studies have addressed the question through systemic perspectives like mapping synergies and
trade-offs between the Sustainable Development Goals and energy and sanitation dimensions
(Nilsson, Griggs, & Visbeck, 2016; Nerini et al., 2018; Scherer et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018;
Diep et al., 2020) or evaluating systemic effects of climate tipping points (Cai, Lenton &
Lontzek, 2016; Lenton, 2011; Lenton et al., 2019; Lovejoy & Nobre, 2018).
Sustainable Development is understood here, in short, as a way of creating a
world where people share well-being on a healthy planet, with a paradigm change towards "an
economy in service of life" (Laszlo, Waddock & Sroufe, 2017)—A more analytical lens,
building up in the Our Common Future document (Brundtland Commission, 1987).
Sustainable Development is "the goal of integrating economic activity with environmental
integrity, social concerns and effective governance systems while maximizing the well-being
of the current generation, fairly sharing the cost and benefits, without compromising the
potential for the next generations to meet their own needs" (Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017,
p.74).
The Brazilian economist, José Luiz da Veiga, calls sustainability a "generous
vision of the future" (da Veiga, 2015). The intergenerational perspective and sustainability are
indissociable constructs and have been sewed together since the last century when humanity
became aware of its annihilation power. The technological advances of an anthropocentric
society give humanity the possibility to unleash havoc on the life-supporting systems of the
planet. and, therefore, demand from this very humanity new ethics for the technological
society (Jonas, 1973), ethics that now will address the future life forms, either human or
non-human.
17
To sustainability integration be effective, it must cross the boundaries of
juxtaposed models of the so-called "weak sustainability approach." The economic dimension
is usually prioritized at the expense of the social and environmental dimensions (Mulia,
Behura & Kar, 2016). One of the main components to make this happen involves the
emergence of new leaders and a more profound perspective: a new way of nesting
leaderships. They might only act as agents of change if they are nested in contexts that
provide innovative and flexible education outside the narrowed views of thematics and
knowledge areas (Robertson, 2017).
Therefore, teaching is nuclear for bringing the Sustainable Development agenda
to the center of decision-making in government and corporations and our everyday life
choices. The United Nations (UN) has played an essential role in leveraging education to the
status of an accelerator for sustainability: 2005-2014 was declared the UN Decade for
Education for Sustainable Development (Wals, 2012); after one year, the SDGs framework
was implemented (UN, 2015), and the SDG 4 - Quality Education is considered one of the
main enablers of Sustainable Development (Vladimirova & Le Blanc, 2016).
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) should promote knowledge in sustainability
thematic (Cezarino, Abdala, Soares & Fernandes, 2018; Miller, Muñoz-Erickson & Redman,
2011). Universities are central players for a sustainability transition through teaching,
research, and service-learning in communities (Radinger-Peer & Pflitsch, 2017), fostering
awareness and permeability of the thematic among stakeholders (Aleixo, Leal Filho &
Azeiteiro, 2018).
Researchers question how business education can be a vector of the paradigm
shift towards a business (not) as-usual model (Molthan-Hill, Robinson, Hope, Dharmasasmita
& McManus, 2020; Borglund, Prenkert, Frostenson, Helin & Du Rietz, 2019; Nwagwu, 2020;
Wersun, 2017; Ndubuka & Rey-Marmonier, 2019; de Paula Arruda Filho, 2017; Fougère,
Solitander, & Young, 2014), and many initiatives at an international and global level have
risen like the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) (Forray & Leigh,
2012).
International networks like the PRME can equalize this struggle by fostering a
new business education (UN PRME, 2016) and consequently promote genuinely sustainable
business, reducing the disconnection between what is practiced as sustainability in business
and the global challenges of Sustainable Development (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Nevertheless,
an integrated educational approach of Sustainable Development cannot stay under the narrow
18
scope of isolated fields of knowledge by compartmentalized curriculum, disciplines, and
practices (Bacon et al., 2011; Ortiz & Huber-Heim, 2017).
The complexity and interconnectedness of Sustainable Development are
multi-dimensional (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002), multi-level (Molthan-Hill et al., 2020),
systemic (Bansal, 2002), and multi-stakeholder dependant (Hörisch, Freeman & Schaltegger,
2014), paradoxical (Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse & Figge, 2014). For that, it can not be addressed by
isolated and specific theories (Sibbel, 2009), neither from the top of ivory towers, academic
silos detached from the outside world (Ralph & Stubbs, 2014).
In this sense, we question the effectiveness of traditional teaching and learning
approaches to education for sustainability. Interdisciplinarity appears as a possible answer
(Tavares, 2008) based on its intellectual and educational value. The quest for using
Interdisciplinarity in sustainability integration at academic curriculum, didactics, and
university context is not new (Moroni, 1978). However, as the academic structures of the 20th
century are based on models of disciplines and departments, Interdisciplinarity ends up
assuming a complementary, additive, or disconnected position from the educational core
(Klein & Newell, 1997). Sustainability is intrinsically interdisciplinary; therefore, teaching
sustainable development in a siloed disciplinary vision seems counter-productive. To attend to
the broader civilizational demands like peace, justice, and a preserved environment for future
generations, in a perspective of shared value with society (Porter & Kramer, 2019), a systemic
approach is needed in the foundations of management education.
Every time global "ethical scandals" emerge like the Enron case, the 2008/09
subprime financial crisis, or when poor management decisions lead to avoidable
environmental catastrophes like the collapse of the Brumadinho and Mariana tailing dams in
Brazil (Almeida et al., 2019), the skepticism over the capacity for responsible business
education to champion the civilizational advance is put at check. Business schools find
themselves in a two-fold position since they are usually blamed for current
socio-environmental issues, but they can also excel at business paradigm change (Kell &
Haertle, 2013).
Management studies and sustainability could find common ground on the
Interdisciplinarity line, both in an instrumental approach of Interdisciplinarity, focused on
problem-solving and responding to market demands (Weingart, 2000), and as well as in a
critical perspective by restructuring academic dimensions and questioning its purpose (Klein,
2010).
19
The interdisciplinary approach at Education for Sustainable Development have
been the subject of several different study fields in the Higher Education Institutions like
data-science (Pennington et al., 2019), system thinking (Golinelli, 2015; Barile et al., 2018),
engineering and materials science (Vaughter, Wright, McKenzie & Lidstone, 2013; Yashiro,
2009) among many others.
When it comes to business education, there is a growing convergence of the
subject among researchers (Nwagwu, 2020; Winfield & Ndlovu, 2019; Borges et al., 2017;
Painter-Morland, Sabet, Molthan-Hill, Goworek & de Leeuw,2016), linking the concept to the
teaching of Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Sustainability (ECS)
(Mousa, Massoud, Ayoubi & Abdelgaffar, 2020) or Responsible Management Education
(RME) (UN PRME, 2016; Hayes, Parkes & Murray, 2017).
This mainly fosters the perception of corporate stakeholders that we need new
management education (Ramboarisata & Gendron, 2019). Business schools can operate a
paradigm shift (Hughes, 2018) through their influence on future leaderships (Anderson,
Hibbert, Mason & Rivers, 2018; Muff, Kapalka, & Dyllick, 2017). Therefore, academic
business education "can play a strategic role as a change agent, educating the managers of
today and tomorrow, incorporating the values of responsible corporate citizenship into their
education activities" (Haertle, Parkes, Murray & Hayes, 2017).
Since the business sector significantly impacts society (Weybrecht, 2017),
corporate sustainability should be approached as interdependent and interconnected (Gao &
Bansal; 2013; Hahn, Pinkse, Preuss & Figge, 2015). The call for interdisciplinary
sustainability education in Higher Education Institutions is also the subject in the business
schools milieu (Ortiz & Huber-Heim, 2017; Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017).
Business sustainability education needs to respond to a changing environment,
including Sustainable Development issues; therefore, the goals changed but not the process.
One of the answers for this gap includes the didactic dimension, which lies in the
interdisciplinary of classroom teaching or business education (Cezarino, Liboni, Oliveira, &
Caldana, 2016). Even so, business education has shown expressive progress and, in a broader
scope, the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) itself (Huckle & Wals, 2015) face
criticism and have been blamed for failing at educating leaderships that foster sustainable
development and create a fair world (Nwagwu, 2020).
One of the main criticism regards a narrow and disciplinary approach (Khurana,
2010; Dyllick, 2015) and the subsequent fragmentation of the intellectual "production"
(Cornuel & Hommel, 2015); other issues stressed in literature are the utilitarian view
20
distanced from a critical position (Ramboarisata & Gendron, 2019), and the decoupling effect
of business schools who do not walk-their-talk in their SD education and research activities
into everyday practice (Cant & Kulik, 2009).
We argue here that Interdisciplinarity is one way to foster Education for
Sustainable Development in business schools. Interdisciplinarity is often cited but seldom
framed: very few studies bring it as a main topic connecting the business and educational
dimension. Therefore, by proposing a taxonomy that harnesses Interdisciplinarity from
educational grounded sources and endeavors in bridging it to ESD, we are filling a gap yet to
be fully explored between these two field areas.
By considering Business Schools as institutions that adapt in an open environment
(Oliver, 1991) and by understanding that this process stimulates the view based on strategic
resources (Barney, 2001), we investigate Education for Sustainable Development Business
Schools through the combined lens of Interdisciplinarity to develop a taxonomy of
interdisciplinarity approach among business schools focused on sustainability education. Data
will be gathered using several PRME Signatory Schools reports as sources, notably those who
achieved the status of "Champion" and categorizing the interdisciplinary types using the
critical and instrumental dimensions as the main criteria. In this sense, we intend to explore
the PRME Business Schools context through an interdisciplinary lens, exploring new
perspectives for ESD.
The champion schools are presumed to be a benchmark for education for
sustainable development; we aim there to explore if their practices are aligned with
Interdisciplinarity, either in an explicit way or in an underlying manner.
2.1. Research objectives and work structure
For that, we propose the following research question and the subsequent objectives
unveiled.
RQ. How do champion schools frame their interdisciplinary efforts between a critical andinstrumental approach to ESD?
Objective. To explore the manifestations of Interdisciplinarity on Sustainable DevelopmentEducation by the PRME Signatories Schools.Objective Specific 1. Frame the state of the art of published research on Interdisciplinarityand Sustainable Development Education.Objective Specific 2. Propose a typology for instrumental and critical Interdisciplinarity inbusiness education.
21
Our work contributes theoretically to Interdisciplinary theory, especially in the
instrumental-critical approach, when we identify its level in exploring the potential of this
construct in a complex subject, likewise business sustainability education. Moreover, to
Education for Sustainable Development theory, considering its systemic demands.
In practical terms, the study provides implications on business sustainability
education to Business schools: the taxonomy can help institutions build the first steps towards
more active, collaborative, and systemic education programs.
We further our analysis in presenting the subsequent topics:
An interdisciplinarity theory chapter addresses historical and epistemological
aspects of knowledge development and Interdisciplinarity, focusing on the dyad
instrumental-critic interdisciplinarity.
An intermeshing chapter, with our approach to Education for Sustainable
Development. A methodological approach chapter addressing the research walkthrough,
methods, techniques, and tools used. Results and discussion chapter, portraiting: I) the
bibliometric review and the subsequent research agenda framework and II) the proposed
typology on instrumental-critical Interdisciplinarity, and III) PRME reports analysis. A
conclusion remarks chapter highlighting the main aspects of the research, limitations, and
contributions. The academic references used and the appendixes mentioned in the text.
2. THEORETICAL APPROACH
2.1. Interdisciplinarity genesis
The classification and visualization of knowledge have been structured in an
interconnected way since it was registered. In the Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman world, this
has been done through a structure that resembles trees with branches in a hierarchical format:
these branches grow in content until they collapse under their weight (Weingart, 2013). This
single-rooted tree resembles a unity of knowledge and is gradually replaced by a format with
juxtaposed and loosely connected disciplines (Yeo,1991). As we know it today, the
structuration of knowledge in disciplines is recent, dating from 200 years, and it is already
into another transformation (Weingart, 2010).
Disciplines are knowledge areas that are historically delineated by
departmentalization, which can be “characterized by their special filtering and interpreting
devices” (Miller, 1982, p.4). The concept of “worldview” is especially relevant for discipline
22
understanding. Since our world is splintered in different and specialized ways, disciplines are
among the measures that can be used to categorize it.
The fall of the “knowledge world tree” branches left gaps among previously connected
(Weingart, 2013). Since disciplines are multifaceted, they need to reconnect the components
in specific points and create new linkages among topics, setting up a call for interwovenness.
What we address here is the boundary-crossing of the disciplines, likewise with an
interdisciplinary approach. For this work purposes, we address the construct through one of its
first definitions:
Interdisciplinary is an adjective describing the interaction among two or moredifferent disciplines. This interaction may range from simple communication ofideas to the mutual integration of organising concepts, methodology, procedures,epistemology, terminology, data, and organisation of research and education in arelatively large field. An interdisciplinary group consists of persons trained indifferent areas of knowledge (disciplines) with other concepts, methods, and dataand terms organised into a joint effort on a common problem with continuousintercommunication among the participants from the various disciplines (OECD,1972, pp. 25-26).
Addressing different areas of previously organized knowledge in an integrated way is
more a gradient than a static typology definition: it stays somewhere between the juxtaposed
organized knowledge in loosely connected disciplines and a fully integrated approach. This
last stage of Interdisciplinarity, usually referred as transdisciplinarity, can be seen as the
full-merge of the curricular grid: a place where there are no visible boundaries between the
disciplines (Heckhausen, 1972), or even in a deeper perspective: boundaries are irrelevant for
the proposed knowledge structure.
In a metaphorical approach, we could say that the amount of knowledge accumulated
causes a “reverse osmosis of knowledge”, where the fields are each day more specialized:
more concentrated. The same way the water is pressured through an artificially developed
membrane to be separated from the main solution, the thematics are therefore pressured by the
specialization needed to address in detail each day a growing amount of knowledge that is
purified in small parts: the discipline content.
The same way as happens in the natural world, there is an almost natural movement
trying to restore the integration of the knowledge all together again in one batch: the process
of natural osmosis. The motivation fostering this “knowledge osmosis” dates back to one of
the founders of social sciences: Auguste Comte stressed that “felicitous development of the
spirit of detail otherwise impossible (...) spontaneously tends (...) to snuff out the spirit of
togetherness, or at least to undermine it profoundly” (Kapp, 1961, p.60 apud Miller, 1981).
23
Interdisciplinarity has drawn a lot of attention from academia and scholars after the
1960s this interest foster the advance in the field, nevertheless, it is somehow hindered by the
lack of common standards for defining, operationalizing (Klein, 2006; Aboelela et al, 2007)
and measuring Interdisciplinarity (Huutoniemi et al, 2010).
One of the first attempts to represent the interdisciplinarity relation among thematics
are the works of the physicist and historian John D. Bernal: his conceptual model represents a
tree with branches that end up in one hundred disciplines, therefore, they are structure in a
way that resembles the old tree of knowledge hierarchical structure, it shows sideways
connections, representing both the specialization and the interconnections among thematics
(Bernal; 1944). A few years later, in 1968, another work, from Francis Narin and George
Benn, represented the knowledge distant areas connected themselves under a common scope,
that could be visualized in a web format, without much of a defined hierarchy (Börner, 2010;
Weingart, 2013).
Klein & Newell (1997) points that at the first half of the XX century the
Interdisciplinarity were focused on general studies, gradually expanding to other subjects; in
the 90s were possible to observe a broader scope of Interdisciplinarity ranging from thematics
like urban and environmental studies, cognitive science, technology, and social studies.
Cezarino & Corrêa (2019) summarized the main interdisciplinarity schools of thinking
by their research goals and structure, theoretical grounding and dimension.
SCHOOLS FRENCH NORDIC ANGLO-SAXON BRAZILIAN
Decades 70-90 Philosophical and epistemologicalperspectives (Internal interactions)
90 and beyond Instrumental perspective (Externalinteractions)
Phenomenologicalperspective
Objective Contextual summary: hierarchicallystructure of disciplines andmetadisciplines
Addressing societyneeds
New teachingmethods
Characteristics Unification of scientific knowledge:reflection on disciplinary knowledge ininteraction
Utilitarianperspective ofknowledge
Linkages betweenresearch and teaching
Dimension Academic Project-based DidacticsTable 1 - Theoretical Origins of the Concept of InterdisciplinaritySource: Cezarino & Corrêa (2019)
The first primary interdisciplinary typology was developed in 1970 in France; it
defines Interdisciplinarity as “the integration of concepts and methods of teaching and
research” (Apostel, Berger, Briggs & Michaud, 1972. p.1). Aboelela et al. (2007) address
efforts to synthesis the main boundaries in this gradient approach in main categories
24
according to the degree of synthesis informed by main the field of interdisciplinary research
(Lattuca, 2002; Klein, 2010; Rosenfield, 1992) in similar, yet not the same, typologies that
range from least to more integration:
● Informed disciplinarity, Synthetic disciplinarity, and Transdisciplinary
(Lattuca, 2002);
● Instrumental Interdisciplinarity, Epistemological Interdisciplinarity, and
Transdisciplinary (Klein, 2010);
● Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary (Rosenfield, 1992);
● Separated Disciplines, Discipline-Based, Interdisciplinary and
Total-Integration (Kysilka, 1998);
Among many terminologies, the “core vocabulary” for interdisciplinary typologies is
composed of the triad: ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘interdisciplinary’, and ‘transdisciplinary’; Klein
(2010) expands and refines these definitions in many hues species and genus of
Interdisciplinarity.
Multidisciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinarity
● juxtaposing● sequencing● coordinating
● integrating● interacting● linking● focusing● blending
● transcending● transgressing● transforming
Complementing Hybridizing
● Encyclopedic ID● Indiscriminate ID● Pseudo ID
● Systematic Integration● Transsector Interaction
Partial Integration <---------------------------------> Full Integration
Contextualizing IDAuxiliary IDComposite ID
Supplementary IDGeneralizing ID
Conceptual IDStructural ID/Unifying IDIntegrative ID
Degrees of CollaborationShared ID <--------------> Cooperative ID
● Narrow versus Broad or Wide ID● Methodological versus Theoretical ID● Bridge Building versus Restructuring
● Instrumental versus Critical ID● Endogenous versus Exogenous ID
Table 2. Interdisciplinarity taxonomiesSource: Klein (2010)
25
The gradient of Interdisciplinarity among the categorizations goes from pseudo
and juxtaposing forms of Interdisciplinarity, pass along the advanced degree of contextualized
and blended approach, and end in transformative typologies, which either eliminate the
boundaries and/or fully transform the subject matter. This integration hue is pressured by
international demand for Interdisciplinarity (Holley, 2009). A paradigm change in course
considers the conventional theoretical and analytical boundaries of disciplines less suited to
address today’s global issues (Darian-Smith & McCarty, 2016).
Among the many dimensions of Interdisciplinarity , we draw the debate over the
perspectives of a Critical Interdisciplinarity and the Instrumental Interdisciplinarity , which
Klein (2010) addresses as a major faultline in the interdisciplinary debate. This gap resonates
with the discussion over the natural ambiguity of the interdisciplinary concept: from one point
of view, there is much effort rebuilding the educational projects to address the multi and
transdisciplinary of society demands, at the same time, educators still have to exercise an
education that fits in the conventional molds (Fazenda, 1998).
2.1.2 FOCUS ON THE SOCIETY ISSUES: THE CRITICAL DIMENSION OF
INTERDISCIPLINARITY
Addressing Interdisciplinarity as the interaction of two or many disciplines is a
loose concept that allows us to set a range of interpretations that range from a communication
of ideas and concepts and goes further to key constructs of epistemology, terminology,
procedure, data, and the organization of research and teaching relating them (Fazenda, 2008,
p.2). Lenoir, Rey & Fazenda (2001) address an initial categorization of Interdisciplinarity in a
two-faceted approach: the scientific ordering and social ordering.
The first focuses on the core of scientific knowledge: multifaceted. It expands
beyond the limitations of the curriculum in a movement that incorporates the epistemological
development of specific knowledge with an interdisciplinary vector. The second has its
epicenter outside the curriculum written structure, in the real world social, political, and
economic demands (Fazenda, 2008) to which we could add the environmental debate. These
two dimensions relate to a separate mind-body duality perspective in a static frame, where the
thinking is seized from the action (Lattuca, 2008).
Fazenda (2008) sees it as a pendular movement that goes from scientific
knowledge abstraction to the point where a practical application is nuclear. This movement
26
has been the object of interdisciplinary research of many specialists like Klein (1984), Lynton
(1985), and Huutoniemi et al. (2010).
Amidst all of this, Lenoir, Rey & Fazenda (2001) conceive a third way,
characterized as "Interdisciplinarity in a Brazilian way," and is focused on the meaning,
intentionality, and functionality of the teaching role. Without abdicating the two poles, it goes
further and applies an interactional motion focused on the role of the human being, teacher,
and student in the educational milieu.
This movement blends the scientific specificity of disciplines with the utmost
demands of the contemporary world in a transboundary fashion but does not intend to achieve
homogeneity. The rewiring of knowledge is a constant movement in contemporary times; it is
heterogeneous and diverse due to its ever-changing background represented by the inherent
evolution of scientific fields and changes in the configuration of the globalized world.
The loose patchwork of themes is not static, sterile. Therefore, it is composed of
living pieces of fabric that are intertwined by many hands and, once knitted, needs constant
fine-tuning, evaluation, appreciation, revision, and detailing (Guimarães, 2008). Thus, the
interdisciplinary bridging is diverse and grounded in a critical, reflexive, and enthusiastic
dialogue (Tavares, 2008) among students and educators and, therefore, at the institutional
level.
Universities have been built upon departmental structures: this sectioning of
knowledge reflects all representations of the academic milieu like research, education, career
progressions, and project funding. Also, universities are detached from their communities in
their untouchable ivory towers. This configuration does not seem to foster cross-border
bridging and relates to the ambiguous perception of pursuing Interdisciplinarity at a
theoretical level while teaching inside rigid models (Fazenda, 1997).
Lattuca (2002) approaches the concept of Interdisciplinarity through the
perspective of "space": the same gaps identified among disciplines are also reflected in the
organizational structure of colleges and universities: research and teaching must be learned by
both the cognitive or abstract dimension and by the material structures of an educational
institution. Interdisciplinarity is a requirement of the contemporary world: it favors both
understanding knowledge per se and addressing global issues. It seeks to make sense,
especially in the educational institution's mission and educator's role (Tavares, 2008). Today's
problems are challenging and complex. Nevertheless, "moments of great complexity favor
interdisciplinary thinking" (Tavares, 2008, p.1). To this reasoning, it is nuclear that learning
27
does not be detached from the context: cognition and learning only occur through social
interaction (Lattuca, 2002).
2.1.2 THE INSTRUMENTAL AND CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OF
INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND THE RELATION WITH MANAGEMENT STUDIES
Difficulties are faced by education on a planetary level (Elfert, 2019; Unterhalter,
2019): a society whose cycles of change are accelerated, and where the ubiquity of technology
unifies and divides at the same time. Among the many issues are the ones regarding access,
equity, and gender bias (Castillo, Lee, Zahra & Wagner, 2015; UN, 2019). The recent
COVID-19 pandemic just exposed cracks in the civilizational tissue (Nicola et al. 2020), and
as well the many shades of the global educational fragilities and inequalities (Crawford,
Butler-Henderson, Rudolph & Glowatz, 2020; Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020).
The impact has been felt from elementary to higher education as well (Kapasia et
al., 2020). This is the motive of concern, and leads to a broader call for reform (Lindsay,
2013), since higher education has a nuclear role in modeling new professionals' mindset, thus
acting as leverage for civilizational questions like sustainable development (Dyer & Dyer,
2017).
Higher Education Institutions have been characterized by research, education, and
extension activities as a primary mission. Business schools are a subspecies of HEIs, which
has its focus on vocational studies and professional preparation of students with
poli-competency setup able dimensions of the real-world organizations problem-solving using
the toolbox of the management studies, the theoretical approach of organizational theories and
cross-disciplinary support of other knowledge domains.
Business Schools have been on a crossroads of legitimacy: from them are
expected to be the rite of passage of soon to be managers that will be relevant in the business
world, at the same time they are constantly criticized by their failures; on the other dimension,
they are seen as academic departments while are also disqualified by lack of rigor and
substance (Grey, 2007). This criticism has been built in the last few years and points out that
Business Schools are for not being able to prepare leaders with purposeful skills and embed
ethical norms (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005).
28
There is an urgent call for innovation and reform of the business education,
Schlegelmilch (2020) argues that “business as usual education era” is over for business
education: schools need radical innovations to stay relevant and their main concerns are:
I) digital paradigm shift, that is happening mostly outside business schools, and is
represented by highly customized contents and channels for communication;
II) deglobalization: the epicenter of the economic world gradually shifting to Asia
in a new Higher Education Silk Road (Kirby & Van der Wende, 2019) influences scientific
and academic exchanges, alongside with movements of the Brexit and multilateral trade
impasses;
III) cash cows: legitimacy concerns always haunt business schools, especially
when they are embedded in a university context, there is a constant need to prove their worth
as a serious academic area;
IV) “Who we are?”: many Business Schools are still searching for their identities,
mostly struggling in the tension between scientific rigor and practical relevance
(Schlegelmilch, 2020, p.2).
V) Diversity of sector: Business Schools do not compete and/or cooperate only
with their pairs, but also with different actors, like online learning platforms, social network
learning initiatives, and corporate universities.
To this matter, we could add the blaming for “extreme ethical events”. Quoting
renowned business schools provosts, Bennis & O’Toole (2005) points how business students
spend the majority of their time in learning “how to maximize wealth” and just a small
amount on how developing moral capabilities, and relates business education as one of the
factors in business scandals like Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, and Tyco.
To this ones, we could add the 2008/09 subprime financial crisis (Friedman &
Friedman, 2009; Rasche & Escudero, 2009; Prandini, Vervoort Isler & Barthelmess, 2012)
and many of the following social and environmental incidents in the forthcoming years,
related to poor management decisions, like the collapses of the Brazilian tailing dams of
Brumadinho and Mariana (Almeida et al., 2019) as well as the resistance in committing to
agendas to fight the climate crisis, like Paris climate agreement.
Business Schools cannot be accountable for all issues regarding organizational
decisions that led to negative externalities, nevertheless, these institutions cannot neglect their
role in training leaders in a responsible management education fashion (Rasche & Escudero,
2009). Higher Education Institutions and Business Schools are organizations: goal-directed
systems of human activity delineated by boundaries that facilitate its activities. In HEis, the
29
goals and boundaries manifest themselves in disciplines as departmental structures (Holley,
2009). In short, they can be analyzed by its organizational and pedagogical dimensions.
Cezarino & Corrêa (2019) address the fragilities of management education through a two-fold
lens of business school material structure and academic variables; the dimensions are
intertwined by theories of Interdisciplinarity as read by Klein (2010) and Fazenda (1994).
One of the hues of management education fragilities is the way leadership
formation is reduced to the mere grouping of contents (Cezarino, 2013); although juxtaposed
in a logical sequence, they are often disconnected from each other, as well as from the
external world.
Regardless of greater expansion of business schools in the 1960s and 1990s
(Schlegelmilch, 2020), concomitantly with the development of interdisciplinarity studies
(Apostel et al., 1972), there is much of misunderstanding on how Interdisciplinarity could
attach to management studies and education. This gap reflects the mismatch observed
between real-world organizations and the education received by students (Cezarino & Corrêa,
2019).
Management education is one of the educational pillars of many business schools,
usually paired with economics and accountability. Among the many categorizations of
Interdisciplinarity, one could situate management studies in somewhere between
bridge-building among disciplines, that gradually develops itself in a new “interdisciplinary
domain”. This integrative view has its own analytical power and theoretical convergence on
its place and role in the space of knowledge (Landau et al. 1962, apud Klein, 2010).
The patchwork of disciplines like accounting, finances, operations, human
resources management, marketing, economics, and law, loosens in the response to concurring
forces that affect mostly Higher Education degrees. On one hand, you have what Comte
called the “unstoppable spirit of togetherness” advocating transboundary movements among
disciplines walls, in a fully integrated and contextual knowledge. On the other hand, is the
organizational functioning of Higher Education Institutions trying to hold down large amounts
of knowledge consolidated under specific conventional disciplinary lanes (Weingart, 2010).
These conventional disciplinary beacons are enforced by the organizational perspectives of
educational institutions: Higher Education Institutions are schools for life-enhancing
individuals but are as well companies with objectives, metrics, and stakeholders demanding
results.
This ashen zone makes it harder to draw lines and is even harder to walk through
disciplines, in this context, act like virtual vessels for the policy decisions in which academic
30
content is forced to fit. When the Higher Education Institutions are also business schools, the
matter of connecting, unifying, or integrating disciplines becomes even harder, because the
organization is the subject of its own reason to exist. And the roles of academic and
management are occupied by the same individuals.
In most colleges and faculties, research and teaching are bind together, therefore
another issue related to ID takes a form of a contradiction: despite a widespread stimulus for
interdisciplinary research, many researchers are compelled to stay inside mono disciplinary
models: career promotions, funding decisions, scientific publishing, and academic recognition
are grounded in the process that usually favors mono disciplinary research (Mäkinen, 2019;
Woiwode & Froese, 2020).
ID research is central for addressing the world’s most novel and complex issues
(Rhoten & Pfirman, 2007), and its outputs should be communicated to undergrad students in
order to educate professionals for the future. In business schools, higher levels of
Interdisciplinarity are related to research involvement of the teachers and coordinators
(Cezarino & Corrêa, 2019).
Another way to address the ID gap in management studies is through the
critical-instrumental ID dyad, one of the major fault lines in ID (Klein, 2010). The
Instrumental ID is conceived when the motivation for connecting different disciplines lays on
strategic positioning into economic competition, like what happened with biotechnology and
biomedicine, and high-tech industries: the ID, in this case, is serving market needs (Weingart,
2000). The instrumental ID acts bridge-building between fields, and it is aimed at a
problem‐solving activity, and does not seek synthesis or fusion of different perspectives
(Klein, 1996).
Grey (2007) approach of management studies overlaps the instrumental-critical
ID dyad in a similar fashion: arguing that there is a divide between mainstream management
education, understood here as education for educating “business as usual” managers, and
critical management education. From general systems theory, we get a metaphor for the
transition that is happening in higher education: the shift from simple to complex. While
simple structures obey a single rule or set of logics, the complex structures operate in a much
more non-linear way, with conflicting logic, feedback, trade-offs, and synergies (Klein &
Newell; 1997).
Business education is mostly somewhere between this crossroads of two vectors.
Between the simple-complex and instrumental-critical a dialectical struggle is built up to
attend individual, firm, and civilizational needs and pressures. This evolution is happening
31
without necessarily subsuming their old versions: one of the myths of ID is that the
inter-disciplines of today are the disciplines of tomorrow (Apostel et al., 1972 apud Klein,
2010). The integration does not have a time schedule to be complete, or a fully merged status
to be considered as Interdisciplinarity, and can remain partially connected.
Efforts to bridge the divides in management studies epistemology seems to find
support in the perspective of knowledge production located beyond the positivism of the
“knowledge unity tree” and connected to the social constructionism: knowledge can be a
social process, but not detached from external reality, what it needs to refer to (Krishnan,
2009).
If it were possible to boil all the underlying factors and variables that compose the
struggles of business education present and future, in an interdisciplinary studies destilator
and obtain one only synthesized component, it would be all summarized in the statement of
educational researcher Catanante, 2000 apud Guimarães, 2008, p.125) “reality is holographic
[…] In each part, in essence, there is the whole, and the whole contains a complete fraction of
each of the parts.”
Any didactic abstraction planned to approach real-world organizational problems
are incomplete attempts of reality.
Therefore, disciplines are not one-dimensional mirrors for reality: they are
complex economic and psychological devices reflecting as many dimensions as possible
(Frodeman, Klein & Pacheco, 2017). That is one of the reasons why some of the top business
schools like Harvard, Ivey, Darden, IESE, Haas, Tuck, Stanford, and Wharton use extensive
case studies methodology as a primary teaching method (Anderson, Schiano & Schiano,
2014) assuming that by the repetition of a higher level of reality gradient method their
students will be more prepared to real-world situations.
It is well known that Interdisciplinarity is the only way to emulated real world
situations and that approaches like active methodologies can foster employability of business
students alumni (Hart, 2019), if this sounds like a instrumental perspective of the education, is
also through the access of a wide array of workplaces and contexts that leaderships can carry
on the sustainability agenda, into an effective integration into the current business case
(Hughes, Upadhyaya & Houston, 2018).
32
2.2. Sustainability and Management Education: “Future-proofing” the Curriculum
Interdisciplinarity happens when an answer to a question, the solution of a
problem, or the approach of a topic is broad or complex enough to be addressed by an isolated
discipline or profession (Klein & Newell, 1997). Therefore an instrumental approach where
the output has a central role: the Interdisciplinarity is a means to an end. The way disciplines
or competencies are intertwined according to the desired result.
Sustainability debate grows stronger and gradually occupies the space of an
anthropocentric vision of the world as the technological advance and omnipresence place
humankind in a paradoxical crossroads: the tools that allow us to advance and complete a
civilizational cycle, are the same time the ones deemed responsible for threatening the very
survival of our species (Jonas, 1973). Despite the utmost importance of urgency, sustainability
literacy levels are still low for adults (Johns & Pontes, 2019).
When it comes to business education, the approach of sustainability can be
considered a way to future-proof the business degree (Winfield & Ndlovu, 2019), nevertheless
a truly integrative sustainability education in HEI is challenging and find a plethora of barriers
(Krizek, Newport, White & Townsend, 2012). Management and sustainability studies can be
seen as Interdisciplinarity field areas since both represent efforts to bring together different
knowledge to approach complex subjects.
IDS domains or field areas are categorized by Miller (1982) in four dimensions:
topics, life experience, hybrids, and professional preparation. The last one is most suited for
placing management studies since it also reflects application to problem solve areas like
public policy and commercial applications (Smelser, 2004). The sustainability topic is itself a
domain area grown in centrality since the second half of the twentieth century. It can be
considered an interdisciplinary topic domain, the same way as crime, age, labor, and so on
(Miller, 1982). Therefore, the Education for Sustainable Development is considered eminently
interdisciplinary because the focal points are not under any specific conventional discipline.
The educational demands are bound into Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary aspects, aiming at new forms of cooperation towards poly-competence
models (Fazenda, 2008). Interdisciplinarity can arise by occupying gaps between disciplinary
fields, sometimes assuming a centrality and independence typical of specialization. In other
fields, it ends up remaining in an informal situation. When the fields of business education
and sustainability are brought together, it is observed to combine areas of knowledge at
different stages of formalization.
33
Interdisciplinary demands challenge Higher Education Institutions to collaborate
with a traditional discipline model (Holley, 2009). This causes a misalignment between ID
rhetoric and their reflection in the curriculum, didactic, and pedagogical practices. Similar
misalignment is found in the decoupling between sustainability theoretical and real
sustainability integration in Higher Education Institutions (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). There are
also reports for space to improve studies about sustainability in humanities and social sciences
curriculum (Vaughter et al., 2013).
We argue that it is possible to explore the misalignment and the gaps grounded
into both dimensions (management and sustainability) of this issue by looking at the relations
and opposing forces of Interdisciplinarity critical and instrumental perspectives. This
integration pressure can be understood through what Abbott (2010) addresses as a reinvention
of knowledge: where disciplines obey the same theoretical and methodological patterns of
familiar oppositions. He posits that they work as fractals, being reflections of their
differences. This concept, sustainability, and management disciplinary fields are loose
patchworks of disciplines that are more or less tightly knitted according to our perception of
these opposition relations. This could explain why some discipline-duos or trios combine
themselves better than others.
According to Lattuca (2002), the learning process is shaped by historical and
social contexts, with the interaction of individuals embedded in it. One could say that
connecting Interdisciplinarity to business education, and sustainability is an effort to go
beyond the unity of knowledge integration pressure that resembles the positivism view and
takes shape in the eminently interdisciplinary nature of sustainability: how can you adequately
address climate change or deforestation with a single conventional discipline like ecology,
without considering economics or supply chain management, chemistry or biology,
anthropology or history?.
This Interdisciplinarity movement can connect itself to the social constructionism
theory, where the knowledge dialogue with reality is represented by movements like 2030
Agenda, the SDGs framework, and PRME: global civilizational calls that are part of the
historical process of sustainable development construct, also resembled by the Anthropocene
epoch (Crutzen, 2006), that the organizations, and therefore the education of their leaderships,
are compelled to relate to.
34
The sustainable development agenda is the new normal, acceptable behavior.
Therefore it is expected that Higher Education Institutions take this into their milieu.
Nevertheless, as Higher Education Institutions struggle to survive, they need to differentiate
themselves and offer value or quality education.
The PRME framework, and therefore the signatories Business Schools, seems to
be fruitful for approaching this since it acts as a response to the institutional pressures, and at
the same time does not constrain the institutions since there are no rigid boundaries that could
be seen as a regulatory barrier. PRME is an educational platform constitutionally recognized
by the United Nations and Global Compact but does not necessarily act as a business school
or a Higher Education ranking.
3. METHODOLOGY
This research can be characterized by its exploratory objectives (Stebbins, 2001) since
it aims to highlight the "why" and "how" phenomena occur (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill,
2009). The study object is the "business school," seen here as a specific context in which
leaders improve their skills and repertoire to occupy the role of reality-changing actors. The
particular scope is the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education
(UN-PRME) initiative, signatories.
3.1. Research walkthrough
Research can be summarized in the five research steps as follows.
Step 1. The first step of the research was inspired by Cezarino & Corrêa (2019)
categories on Interdisciplinarity for management education. The model is a departure point for
a new proposal of categorization, obtained in the following steps.
“Interdisciplinary” course Pedagogicaldimension
Presence of an extra-class project
Problem-based Learning is present
Simulation-based Learning are used
Case studies are used
Single evaluation
35
Sharing discipline between teachers with content integration
Works contemplating diverse disciplines
Relationship between society's problems and classroom teaching Organizationaldimension
Interdisciplinarity in pedagogical planning
Periodic curricular grid changes
Planning the curricular grid for Interdisciplinarity
Relationship between research line and classroom teaching
Results monitoring
Research knowledge relationship
Studies show thematic overlap
Interdisciplinarity is a topic of discussion
Table 3. Interdisciplinarity dimension in management educationSource: Cezarino & Corrêa (2015)
Step 2. A bibliometric review grounded on keyword and thematic mapping of
scientific publications. We used subsequent keyword strings to narrow down the scoping. Two
of the strings were analyzed with the aid of the VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2011), and
a keyword map and framework were developed. The VOSviewer tool is a well-known
software for bibliometric mapping and has been used in studies related to management
education (Hallinger & Wang, 2020; Dubois & Walsh, 2017) and sustainable development
education (Avelar, da Silva-Oliveira & da Silva Pereira, 2019). We ended up with 19 papers
after the filters were applied.
Step 2.1. To the 19 papers output, we added the 22 papers from the special issue of
The International Journal of Management Education, namely “PRME: Looking forward:
Leadership Development & Responsible Management Education for advancing the
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Parkes et al., 2020). The pool
then comprised 41 papers to discover new possible categories for complementing Cezarino &
Corrêa (2019) towards Interdisciplinarity for sustainable development education. The papers
were inquired through the following guideline questions:
1. “Does it present evidence on a successful sustainable development education action,
practice, project or local policy?”
2. “The evidence can be aligned in the definitions of instrumental or critical
interdisciplinarity?”
36
Step 2.2. Then we clustered dimensions by thematic linkages into the dual dimensions
of Instrumental and Critical Interdisciplinarity (Klein, 2010) and designed a first version of
the taxonomy framework.
Step 2.3. We selected the most vital keywords within the search string on
interdisciplinarity keywords and thematic aligned then with the SDGs constructs, in an SDGs
Research Agenda Framework that is used as a basis for the Research Agenda Questions
portrait Conclusion remarks work.
Step 3. We conducted interviews with PRME Champion Schools, exploring their
perceptions of Interdisciplinarity, sustainability education, PRME, and improving the dyad
categorization (Critical-Instrumental) similar fashion, a specialist consensus panel, or a
simplified version of Delphi-like techniques.
We conducted a total of nine in-depth interviews with educators from the following
PRME signatory champion schools: ISAE Brazilian Business School, Nova School of
Business and Economics, University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons, EGADE Business
School, Hanken School of Economics, Finland, Institute of Business Studies - RANEPA and
La Trobe Business School.
Step 3.1. The interviewed data was used to validate the framework
Step 4. Reports from 37 UN-PRME Champion Schools were collected and analyzed
through content analysis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009) to identify the presence of the
aforementioned categories. The analysis was aided by text-mining techniques and
network-building tools, referred to in Table 4.
Software Main application Estimated number ofpapers in which it wasused*
VOSviewer Bibliometric through network analysis 1175
Gephi Network analysis; Graph generation 411
Voyant Tools Text mining; Keyword in context (KWIC) 21
Leximancer Text mining; Keyword in context (KWIC) 324
*based on count in Scopus search (TITLE-ABS-KEY)
Table 4. Tools used in the research
37
Source: Elaborated by author
The Leximancer (Sotiriadou, Brouwers & Le, 2014) and the Voyant Tools
(Wanasinghe et al., 2020) are dashboards, online-based interfaced, that perform Keyword in
context (KWIC) analysis. Voyant is freeware, while Leximancer is paid software. The Gephi
(Madan et al., 2016; Hernández García et al., 2016) is a freeware, social network analysis, and
graph generating tool that works based on the principles of network and graph theory (Barnes
& Harary, 1983). All these tools are widely used in a broad range of thematics (Pucihar, 2020;
Peterlin et al., 2020; Roblek et al., 2020)
Specifically, from the Leximancer dashboard, we used the features “Concept Maps”
and “Topic Guides” (Leximancer, 2019). Leximancer concept map portrays three visual
relevant information: concepts, themes, and the spanning tree. Respectively, concepts are
words that “travel together through the text,” they are clustered in a higher level of
association, that is called “themes,” and underlying it, a spanning tree shows the “road”
connecting the concepts through the themes (Leximancer, 2019).
Also, it shows the ranked concepts count in the text and its location in the map, also
differing by the name-like keywords (i.e., Entrepreneurship Center) and work-like keywords
(i.e., sustainable, research, areas). This can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Concept Maps and Topic Guides
Source: Elaborated by an author with Leximancer.
Topic guides are the second feature used. It creates newly composed constructs based
on an association of recurrently together words, shows its intensity, and hyperlinks you to the
whole paragraph where they are associated. Both features allow us to access the text through a
network perspective, going first where there is a repetition of the same constructs that we are
looking for.
Step 4.1. The heatmap framework was generated with the data from PRME school
reports and the typology generated.
38
Step 5. Discussion took place by analyzing the main topics present in the report's
evaluation. Thematics were addressed by connecting content analyses of the reports, the
information sourced from the graphs and frameworks, and data from the interviews.
Step 5.1. The final step comprises a research plan with research questions.
3.2. Sample profile: PRME champions
A purposeful and theoretical sampling (Coyne, 1997) of the PRME Champions
Business Schools has been chosen since the signatories are among the main 2030 Agenda
educational stakeholders. Many studies focus on the links between business schools and the
2030 Agenda (Muff, Kapalka & Dyllick, 2017; Miotto, Polo López & Rom Rodríguez 2019).
The PRME Business schools have been studied under many lenses, like organizational change
theories (Greenberg et al., 2017), ethics, and values in management education (Fougère,
Solitander & Young, 2014), management hidden-curriculum (Borges et al., 2017).
PRME Champions have been the object of studies aiming to develop frameworks for
RME (de Assumpção & Neto, 2020), integration of education for Sustainable Development in
management education (Cicmil, Gough & Hills, 2017) and to the specific question of
organizational learning, change and political dialectics involved in management education
milieu (Solitander, Fougère, Sobczak & Herlin, 2012).
39
A broad perspective claims that all qualitative sampling can be characterized as
purposeful (Sandelowski, 1995). The purpose implies selecting a subject capable of
qualitative generalizability of the specific issue or phenomena (Morse,1999). The study
focuses on a gray zone between business school initiatives to enhance leadership towards SD
and pedagogical practices and techniques. It addresses the phenomena “Education for
sustainable development in Business Schools” by selecting the PRME champion schools.
We signal a purposefully sampling, grounded on the assumption, expressed by Manuel
Escudero, former PRME’s Head, that the initiative is an effort to embed international values
of the Global Compact framework like human rights, environment protection, and
anti-corruption in the business education context (Alcaraz & Thiruvattal, 2010). PRME is the
paradigm-change business education dimension of Global Compact, one of the most essential
international Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives (Orzes et al., 2020); this
long-term thinking business formation goes upstream into the higher education sources of the
21-century leadership.
The group results from cooperative efforts carried by a group of 60 deans, academics,
and representatives of top-tier business schools worldwide. This task force was coordinated
by the GC and was presented in 2007 at the Global Compact Leaders Summit held in Geneva.
The PRME mission stressed by the UN General-Secretary Ban-Ki-Moon was to bring
together universal values and business into classrooms (Escudero, 2011). Ten years after its
foundation, the initiative has become the most significant organized relation between UN and
management-related academia, business schools, and universities (Haertle et al., 2017).
Both PRME and GC being under the UN structure, follow policy guidelines of the
2030 Agenda and the SDGs framework. The UN agenda for sustainable development has
been signed by 193 countries and is known for its broad spectrum of civilizational objectives,
multi-stakeholder applicability, and participatory processes. The 2030 Agenda, in essence, is
universal (Loewe & Rippin, 2015). Looking through the lens of business education to the 17
goals and 169 targets of the SDGs framework, we identify themes that are closer to the
spectrum of business education and are commonplace in sustainability studies.
Simultaneously, goals like the SDG 16, a political goal, are somehow novel in the
sustainable development debate (Sanahuja & Tezanos Vázquez, 2017), but not in business
education, since it approaches many topics in ethics, transparency, and governance.
40
Interdisciplinary unfoldings can be the opportunity to link or connect pedagogical practices in
business schools and their willingness to develop leadership towards SDGs.
The group of PRME Champion business schools is considered an enforcer for the
PRME principles. The set of schools already considered a benchmark by its pairs and
stakeholders might have more structured sustainability reports (PRME SIPs) with rich
databases and information. Therefore, the sampling method is purposeful and theoretically
sampled (Coyne, 1997) to create a feasible data scenario for the qualitative analysis of the
phenomenon (Sandelowski, 1995) of Education for Sustainable Development in business
schools.
The Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) is an educational
branch of the Global Compact. It was created under the assumption that companies play a
crucial role in sustainable development (Lozano, 2012; Lo & Kwan, 2017). In this context,
leadership is responsible for decisions towards change to a new paradigm. Therefore,
educating leadership for sustainability is of utmost relevance for the UN community (Haertle
et al., 2017). Changing schools is the critical path for truly integrating SD in society (de
Assumpção & Neto, 2020).
UNPRME-schools represent a growing group of business schools worldwide that
endorse this challenge and actively seek to contribute to progress with innovative solutions in
research and education. Helping businesses understand and embrace the SDGs opportunity
will be crucial for business schools in the next decade (Muff, Kapalka & Dyllick,
2017,p.364). We selected the UN-PRME signatories schools aligned with a broad
international approach for sustainable development: the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs
framework. The roadmap process of the method until the final scope is related to Figure 2—a
purposeful sampling of the PRME Schools. There are 836 PRME signatory institutions, of
which 37 are in the Champions Group. Through the lens of PRME Schools, the Champions
group is a purposeful sample (Sandelowski, 1995).
This sub-group of signatory schools are institutions who excel themselves in
Responsible Management Education (de Paula Arruda Filho, 2017); building upon the
sponsor concept, Solitander et al. (2012, p.343-344) defines the PRME Champions as “[...]
Through engagement in teaching, research, and educational politics, faculty members
navigate the tensions between individual and organizational priorities in implementing
41
PRME.” The role of these schools goes far beyond the implementation of PRME’s principles:
they are expected to foster a critical and reflexive view of RME (Solitander et al., 2012) to
educate new leaders in a “future proof curriculum” (Winfield & Ndlovu, 2019).
There are a total of 21 countries on all continents where there is at least one champion
school. This diversification enriches the analysis since the local context plays an essential role
in how business schools commit themselves to PRME (Wersun, 2017). By selecting the
benchmark schools among PRME signatories, we aim to look at pedagogical and
organizational dimensions with the moral complexity for the forthcoming analysis.
3.3. Data collection and analysis
In this study, documental research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009) will be
conducted using text mining tools, like Leximancer (Sotiriadou, Brouwers & Le, 2014). The
data sources are the institutional sustainability reports of the UN-PRME signatory institutions.
To complement the analysis, interviews with specialists will also be conducted. The Sharing
Information in Progress (SIP) has the objective of communicating the efforts pledged by the
business schools to renew the commitment with the PRME Principles. The report has a basic
structure informed by PRME (Table 5).
The documentary data for this study are the 37 institutional reports from PRME
Champions signatory schools. The last submitted reports will be considered. Previous studies
have used SIPs as secondary data for documental research (de Assumpção & Neto, 2020;
Hervieux, McKee & Driscoll, 2017).
These reports are the only formally accountable obligation of the signatory schools. It
has to be submitted in a 24-month timespan by the institutions, following a suggested and
flexible minimum structure:
1. A letter signed by the highest executive of the organization expressing continued
commitment to PRME.
2.A description of practical actions (i.e., disclosure of any relevant policies, procedures,
activities) that the institution has taken to implement one or more Principles during the past
24 months (since signing up to PRME or since the last submission of SIP).
3.An assessment of outcomes (i.e., the degree to which previously outlined goals were
achieved or other qualitative or quantitative evaluation results).
42
4.Key specific objectives for the next 24-month period concerning implementing the
Principle(s). Concrete strategies and timelines are encouraged.
Table 5. PRME sharing information in progress(sip) minimal structure
Source: UN PRME (2020)
The UN PRME website also expresses that the outcomes assessment also understood
as the impact of RME implementation, can take several different formats and methodologies
(UN PRME, 2020). It is an effort to foster sharing and communication rather than seeking
comparison among schools. Previous studies and preliminary observations indicate that
reports are heterogeneous in form and content, based on non-standard qualitative data.
The report analysis seeks to prospect evidence that connects the PRME Schools
practices, projects, and programs to the categories risen from bibliographic review and
validated by the specialist consensus. The reports will be framed with the support of text
mining software like Leximancer and Voyant-Tools.
3.4. Methodological matrix
Considering the Research Objective: “To explore the manifestations ofinterdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Education in the PRME SignatoriesSchools.” we structured a matrix to summarize the research methodological approach.
THEORETICAL SUPPORT RESEARCHOBJECTIVES
ASSUMPTIONS DATASOURCE
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGICALSTEPS
Sustainable Development inHigher Education Institutions(Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017)
Responsible ManagementEducation(Dyllick; 2015; Haertle, Parkes,Murray & Hayes, 2017;Ramboarisata & Gendron, 2019)
Principles for ResponsibleManagement Education(UN-PRME) (Escudero, 2010;Haertle, 2017)
Frame the stateof the art ofpublishedresearch onInterdisciplinarity andSustainableDevelopmentEducation.
Publishedevidenceshows linkagesand gaps in theoverlappingareas ofInterdisciplinarity andsustainabledevelopmenteducation
AcademicliteraturefetchedfromScopusdatabase
Thesystematicreview,bibliometrics, andkeyword incontextanalysis
Step1.Step 2.
Interdisciplinarity critical andinstrumental (Klein, 2010;Fazenda, 2008)
Propose atypology forinstrumentaland criticalInterdisciplinar
Reports fromPRMEbusinessschools are asource for
Institutionalsustainability reports(Sharinginformation
Contentanalysisandtext-mining
Step 3Step 4Step 5
43
ity in businesseducation.
benchmarkingInterdisciplinarity
in Progressfrom PRMESchools)
Table 6. Methodological matrixSource: Elaborated by the author
4. RESULTS
We present our empirical data in this section. The described Result steps are paired
with the research walkthrough steps. The sequence is:
RESEARCH WALKTHROUGH STEP RESULTS SECTION
Step 1. Initial model inspiring keyword search 4.1. Keyword mapping
Step 2. Bibliometrics 4.1.1. Interdisciplinarity - Thematic Mapping
4.1.2. Education for Sustainable Development -Thematic Mapping
4.1.3. Insights, SDGs bonded framework, and researchagenda
Step 2.1.Selected papersStep 2.2.Clustered dimensions
4.2. Proposed typology
Step 3. Interviews / Step 3.1. Use of intervieweddata
4.3. Validated typology
Step 4. Reports / Step 4.1. Heatmap framework 4.4. PRME Reports Categorization
4.5. PRME Principles and Categories
Table 7. Research WalkthroughSource: Elaborated by the author
We intentionally show the documentary data before the interviews because they were used to
structure the base interview script and build the first version of the framework, later improved
with interviewee contributions.
4.1. Keyword mapping
The eight keyword strings used are referred to in Table 8, with the parameters
used and the number of outputs obtained. We analyzed strings 01 and with the aid of the
44
Vosviewer software. Out of the 4802 papers of the string 01, we selected 2000 most cited for
the analysis, considering the exporting limits of the Scopus dashboard.
ID KEYWORDS AND BOOLEAN OPERATORS PLACING TIMESCOPE
PAPERSCOUNT
1 interdisciplinarity Title-Abstract -Keywords
2011 > 4802
2 ("Education for Sustainable Development") OR ("Education forSustainability")
- 3092
2015 > 18443 ("Education for Sustainable Development") OR ("Education for
Sustainability")
4 ( interdisciplinarity ) AND (“sustainable development”) OR(sustainability)
- 492
5 (Interdisciplinarity) AND (“Management Education” OR“Business Education”)
- 221
6 (interdisciplinarity) AND (“ education for sustainabledevelopment”) OR (“education for sustainability”)
- 185
7 (“interdisciplinarity higher education”) AND (“education forsustainable development”) OR (“education for sustainability”)
- 85
8 (Interdisciplinarity) AND (“Management Education” OR“Business Education”) AND (“Education for SustainableDevelopment”) OR (“Education for Sustainability”)
2015> 19
Other parameters: Document type: Articles published in peer-reviewed journalsAcademic database: Scopus
Table 8. Keyword search stringsSource: Elaborated by author
For a more precise explanation, we mention the strength of the link, referring to
its weight. In this case, represented by the number of times that a term appears connected to
another in a publication. We used two link strength measures (Tables 9 and 10) as follows:
I) “Weight <Links>,” indicating the number of connections that an item
holds with the rest of the network, and:
II) “Weight <Total Link Strength> indicates the power of the linkages or the
relevance of the nodes they are connecting. Weight attributes do have a
ratio scale.
Thus if an item has twice the weight, it can be considered twice as relevant. In
contrast, the Score does not have a ratio scale and is reasoned by the attribute you choose to
45
compare, i.e., “Average Score on citations per year” or “Average Score on publications per
year” (Van Eck & Waltman, 2013).
4.1.1. Interdisciplinarity - Thematic Mapping
The 2000 papers of the String 01 resulted in a Vosviewer map with 8741
keywords, considered the threshold of a minimum occurrence of 03 keywords for it to be
considered to the map. In the 1844 papers of the String 02, we obtained 352 keywords,
narrowing it down by expanding the threshold to a minimum occurrence of 05 keywords. By
doing this, we reduce the total diameter of the network while strengthening the linkages.
The modularity clustering of Vosviewer that can be seen in Figures 03 and 05
reflects the association between keywords among the publications. The terms' size indicates
the number of citations, and different colors represent the communities (cluster) of terms
related to each other. As provided by the used tool, the clustering technique is precious for
identify primary relationships between terms at an aggregated level (Van Eck & Waltman,
2017).
Figure 03 - Keywords network with data from the 2000 most cited papers in the String 01- Interdisciplinarity
Source: Elaborated by the author with Vosviewer
46
The clusters shown in Figure 04, the interdisciplinarity mapping, represent the
communities formed by the themes' linkages. We extracted the 30 keywords with the highest
rate of weight in the link strength dimension of Vosviewer.
LABEL CLUSTERWEIGHT<LINKS>
WEIGHT<TOTALLINK STRENGTH>
SCORE<AVG.CITATIONS>
climate change 1 290 571 307.213
sustainable development 1 256 579 259.091
decision making 1 338 592 139.184
learning 1 275 609 153.725
knowledge 1 324 652 176.957
transdisciplinarity 1 294 700 253.964
sustainability 1 310 761 220.874
interdisciplinary approach 1 572 2030 221.905
patient care 2 231 550 2.019.579
adult 2 247 568 -123.238
psychology 2 288 569 131.556
organization and management 2 252 572 133.529
female 2 338 807 1.688.365
male 2 333 823 1.948.418
interdisciplinary communication 2 429 1082 14.358
article 2 653 2569 165.167
humans 2 644 2906 1.947.414
human 2 719 3678 334.533
teaching 3 237 518 -555.928
education 3 412 1029 78.833
interdisciplinarity 3 1120 6181 144.617
social sciences 4 254 490 44.299
cooperation 4 266 561 250.294
methodology 4 336 663 251.351
interdisciplinary studies 4 291 721 216.939
interdisciplinary education 4 324 797 214.074
sociology 4 338 812 180.847
priority journal 4 392 878 229.245
research 4 438 1032 22.381
interdisciplinary research 4 466 1124 214.414Table 9. Themes with the highest link strength in the String 01 - InterdisciplinaritySource: Elaborated by author
The combined analysis of the link’s strength and score and the visuals of network
representations allow us to realize observations regarding the actual research stage in the field
47
area. The first aspect that draws attention is the spread occurrence of “interdisciplinary”
bound to other terms. The keyword appears 18 times linked to the terms: “approach,”
“transdisciplinarity,” “science,” “collaboration,” “communication,” “activities,” “fields,”
“learning,” “project,” “teams,” “work,” “education,” “research” and “studies.” We name the
clusters as Sustainability (1), Well-being and communication (2), Education (3), and Social
Sciences and Research (4).
Cluster 1. Sustainability - represents thematics of sustainability-related to natural
sciences and education, showing: I) a wide array of keywords from biology and ecology field
areas (biodiversity, environmental management, conservation), II) thematics bound to climate
change (anthropogenic effect, mitigation, global change), III) education-related keywords
(transdisciplinarity, knowledge, student, learning, higher education). The cluster themes
appear mainly mixed with the Cluster 3 themes of education. The keyword
“transdisciplinarity,” which is often considered the “final stage” of interdisciplinarity, also
appears in this cluster, close to “sustainability” and “sustainable development.”
Cluster 2. Well-being and communication - Shows several health-related themes
like patient care, psychology, primary health care. As the cluster gets proximal with the
Cluster 3 (Education) and Cluster 4 (Social Sciences and Research), towards the center of the
network, themes related to education like “medical education,” “curriculum,” “content
analysis,” “bioethics” appears, in a very interwoven manner with communication-related
keywords. The more peripheral it gets, the more specific and disease-related keywords appear
“cancer,” “geriatrics,” and “risk factors.” In a central position, we found “public health” close
to “organization and management.”
Cluster 3. Education - The central cluster that portrays the core of the network
(interdisciplinarity) and connects with keywords that have a broad scope like “education,”
“teaching,” “students,” and “epistemology.” It also spreads towards the sustainability cluster
with keywords related to I) related pedagogical themes like “case studies,” “problem-based
learning,” and “active learning”; II) management related themes like “problem-solving,”
“entrepreneurship,” “product design,” “innovation” and “information management.”
Cluster 4. Social Sciences and Research - This cluster gravity towards the health
cluster, with the most vital themes related to the interdisciplinary nature of health research and
practice, the keyword “one health” exemplifies it since it comprises a model for
socio-ecological integration of health policies. When the cluster moves towards the network,
it forms a strip that goes “up” and binds to other clusters through a series of
research-methodology-related keywords.
48
The “gray” zone between clusters 1 and 3 is especially relevant for this work: this
transition quadrant (Figure 04) is precisely where our research gap is aimed to. It shows the
keywords addressed for the thematic approach of this work: interdisciplinarity, sustainable
development, education, management, and business schools. It suggests both the proximity
and overlapping of the thematics and their peripheral position and underrepresentation in the
whole network of interdisciplinary studies.
Figure 04 - Quadrant of study keywords
Source: Elaborated by the author with Vosviewer
4.1.2. Education for Sustainable Development - Thematic Mapping
The second network mapping that was created is related to the search String 02 -
Education for Sustainable Development, which returned 1844 papers. 354 keywords were
considered for the mapping, all of them with a minimum count of 5. The mappings show the
keyword distribution among 04 clusters. The 30 keywords with the most robust links are
referred to in Table 10.
LABEL CLUSTERWEIGHT<LINKS>
WEIGHT<TOTALLINK STRENGTH>
SCORE<AVG.CITATIONS>
sustainability 1 312 374 1.4749
education 1 303 307 1.6903
teaching 1 254 165 1.8452
49
learning 1 224 135 1.6827
student 1 218 122 1.4401
curriculum 1 165 83 1.4697
knowledge 1 135 59 1.4475
university sector 1 156 56 2.1457
perception 1 137 47 1.5084
questionnaire survey 1 115 45 1.6766
teacher training 1 107 41 1.2589
educational development 1 115 34 1.4667
education for sustainabledevelopment 2 336 618 1.2202
sustainable development 2 338 586 1.4728
higher education 2 275 279 1.9238
planning 2 190 149 1.655
students 2 162 95 1.3283
curricula 2 137 71 1.5228
engineering education 2 111 56 1.2958
sustainable development goals 2 92 47 2.1149
sustainability education 2 95 46 1.5726
electrostatic devices 2 94 43 7.313
esd 2 100 41 8.508
higher education institutions 2 84 32 2.7517
education for sustainability 3 235 177 1.0601
environmental education 3 204 159 8.791
teacher education 3 91 53 1.4875
climate change 3 102 45 1.1589
education for sustainabledevelopment (esd) 4 156 93 1.1137
transformative learning 4 77 32 1.4177Table 10. Themes with the highest link strength in the String 02 - Education For Sustainable Development.Source: Elaborated by author
The combined analysis of visuals and network indicators of the clusters allows
us to draw some insights about the scope of Education for Sustainable Development
publications. The clusters were named as follows: Education (1), Higher Education (2),
Environmental (3), and Interdisciplinarity (4). In a different manner of the String 01, the
“Education for Sustainable Development” search returned much more mixed and complex to
categorize works. Keywords “education” and “sustainability” manifest strongly in all the
clusters.
50
Figure 05 - Keywords network with data from the 1844 papers in with Education for Sustainable Development
Source: Elaborated by the authors with Vosviewer
Cluster 1. Education - This community shows main keywords related to the
education core: “teachers,” “students,” “Learning.” It also portraits keywords related to
education research and teachers' training.
Cluster 2. Higher Education - Despite keywords related to higher education
appearing in other clusters, cluster 2 shows it more pronounced. Also, portraying “sustainable
development” keywords shows some themes related to curricula and specific field areas, like
engineering and mathematics.
Cluster 3. Environmental - This cluster contains the “climate change” keyword
alongside “anthropocentrism,” “Science education,” “environment,” “energy,” and “circular
economy.” It suggests a small cluster with themes related to natural sciences and sustainable
development's environmental dimension. Cluster 03 and 04 appear mixed.
Cluster 4. Interdisciplinarity - This community is the smallest, but it shows the
targets of the research, the words “interdisciplinarity” and “Transdisciplinarity,” alongside
“PRME” and “business schools.” The cluster shows a peripheral position and few
occurrences of the thematic.
51
Figure 06. PRME Framed in the keyword networkSource: Elaborated by the author with Vosviewer
4.1.3. Insights, SDGs bonded framework, and research agenda
The analysis of both networks allows us to highlight some points regarding the
thematics researched:
I) Management education, business schools, and correlated themes are peripheral, with few
occurrences in scoping education research.
II) In both networks, the thematics of management education appear in the same cluster as
“transdisciplinarity.”
III) Health thematics is strongly connected to “organization and management,” but it is almost
nonexistent in scoping education and sustainability. What portraits a gap between a triad:
health, sustainability, and education.
IV) Sustainable Development Goals appear in both networks, usually close to management
studies and related thematics.
V) Many of the keywords that orbit around the management studies thematics refers to
teaching and learning methodologies, approaches, and expected outcomes of higher education
like: transformational learning, experiential learning, systems thinking, case studies,
sustainability competencies, global citizenship, learning outcomes, curriculum design, and so
52
on. In short: they portray both many of the processes and the outcomes of responsible
management education.
As described in step 2.3 of the method section, we selected the most vital
keywords of String 01 (Interdisciplinarity) networks and matched them with the SDGs title
enunciated keywords (primarily nouns) (Appendix 3). The matchmakings resulted in a
research agenda framework with the plotted SDGs into the focal point of the keyword. The
results are shown in Figure 07, and the research agenda in Table 09, in the conclusions session
of this work.
Figure 07. SDGs Research Agenda FrameworkSource: Elaborated by author
The research agenda portrait in Figure 07 comprises the following questions: (1)
How does covid-19 crisis management can aid in educating leaderships for wicked problems?,
(2) How can natural sciences be integrated into business education?, (3) How can water
systems management be improved through interinstitutional service innovations?, (4) Do
service-learning activities act as living labs for urban development?, (5) How does
interdisciplinary education impact better decision making of public managers towards
sustainability?, (6) What's the relevance of reporting sustainability in crisis times?, (7) How
sustainability criteria impact health policy decision making?, (8) How sustainability literacy
in medical education reflects in health policy at vulnerable settings?, (9) Does the professor's
53
profile act as a regulator between the curricular grid and teaching practice?, (10) How can
biomimicry be integrated into management education?, (11) What are the sustainability
interface points between engineering and management education? and (12) How does carbon
handprint and footprint can be integrated into academic research projects?
4.2. Proposed typology
After narrowing down the scope through the bibliometric steps, we analyzed the
19 papers referred to in the String 6 (keywords: Interdisciplinarity, Management Education,
Business Education, Education for Sustainable Development & Education for Sustainability)
and the 22 papers of the PRME Special Issue, referred in Appendix IV - Review on the
Interdisciplinarity, as described in Step 2.1. of the Methods section.
The papers were inquired through the following guideline questions:
I. “Does it describe the evidence on a successful sustainable development education
action, practice, project or local policy?”
II. “Does it fit the definitions of instrumental or critical interdisciplinarity?”
The definitions, as mentioned before, of instrumental and critical
interdisciplinarity can be summarized in:
I. [Instrumental Interdisciplinarity] - Can also be called methodological Interdisciplinarity
(Weingart, 2000). Its primary focus is to attend to “market and national needs” and in
“short-term solution to economic and technological problems, pragmatic questions of
reliability, efficiency, and commercial value” (Klein, p.23-24, 2010).
II. [Critical interdisciplinarity] - The gravity motivation point is located in the society.
It inquiries the knowledge structure about transforming them, raising questions about value,
motivation, and purpose. (Klein, 2010). It responds to the problems and needs of the
minorities, oppressed, and marginalized groups.
III. “The distinction between Instrumental and Critical forms is not absolute (...)
There is a gradient between the two. A practice, or set of practices, can be
manifested similarly in both critical and instrumental interdisciplinarity dimensions. During
the evaluation of the papers, some cited references appeared as relevant sources for improving
the categories and were then considered, even being initially outside of the article pool of 41
papers. Out of the 16 initial categories of the Cezarino & Corrêa (2019), eight were slightly
54
changed with compliments from the review. Also, their proposed dimensions were changed
from Organizational-Pedagogical to Instrumental-Critical. The results are referred to in Table
11. After the adjustments, we proposed refined dimensions with 33 new categories from the
review (Table 12).
55
ID ORIGINAL CATEGORIZATION (CEZARINO& CORRÊA; 2015) ADJUSTMENTS REFERENCES
ORIGINALDIMENSIONS(CEZARINO &
CORRÊA ; 2015)
PROPOSEDCATEGORIES
1 “Interdisciplinary fostering” course or discipline “Interdisciplinary fostering” course ordiscipline (Cezarino & Corrêa;
2015)Pedagogical Instrumental
2 Presence of an extra-class project Presence of an extra-class project Pedagogical Critical
3 Problem based Learning is presentActive learning methodologies presence
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Elshof, 2003;Hart, 2019)
Pedagogical Instrumental3 Simulation-based Learning are used
4 Case studies are used Case studies are used
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015)
Pedagogical Instrumental
5 Single evaluation Single evaluation Pedagogical Instrumental
6 Sharing discipline between teachers with contentintegration
Sharing discipline between teachers withcontent integration Pedagogical Instrumental
7 Works contemplating diverse disciplines Works contemplating diverse disciplines Pedagogical Instrumental
8,9 Relationship between society's problems andclassroom teaching
Presence of wicked problems thematics :energy, water, climate, food, health,inequality
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Nature, 2015) Organizational Critical
Presence of specific educational programs orprojects addressing gender and otherdiversity issues
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Leal Filho etal., 2020)
Organizational Critical
10 Interdisciplinarity in pedagogical planning Interdisciplinarity in pedagogical mediumand long-term planning
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Kysilka, 1998) Organizational Instrumental
11 Periodic curricular grid changesCurricular grid planning and regularchanging towards sustainability
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015) Organizational Instrumental
11 Planning the curricular grid for interdisciplinarity
56
12 Relationship between research line and classroomteaching
Relationship between research line andclassroom teaching
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; de Assumpção &Neto, 2020)
Organizational Instrumental
13 Results monitoring Results monitoring/ assessment towardssustainability and interdisciplinarity
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Kysilka, 1998;Leal Filho et al., 2020)
Organizational Instrumental
14 Research-education relationshipEvidence of doctoral programs onSustainable Development Thematic linked toteaching and education
(Cezarino & Corrêa;2015; Laasch, 2020) Organizational Instrumental
15 Studies show thematic overlap Studies show thematic overlap (Cezarino & Corrêa;2015)
Organizational Instrumental
16 Interdisciplinarity is a topic of discussion Interdisciplinarity is a topic of discussion Organizational InstrumentalTable 11. Original categories from (Cezarino & Corrêa; 2015) and proposed adjustmentsSource: Elaborated by author
ID PROPOSED CATEGORY REFERENCE DIMENSION
17 Presence of awareness and literacy efforts towards the SDGs framework
(Ndubuka & Rey-Marmonier, 2019)
Critical
18 Presence of focal point on SDG 3 - health
19 Presence of focal point on SDG 5 - gender and diversity issues
20 Presence of focal point on SDG 2 - hunger and food security issues (Herrmann & Rundshagen, 2020)
21Presence of focal point on how universities can manage crisis, like pandemics, social classesand climate issues (Godall et al., 2020)
22 Presence of focal point on SDG 16 - transparency and governance (Thiel, 2020)
23 Presence of interface with local community projects (Leal Filho et al., 2020)
24Presence of educational programs linked to cooperatives or similar local businessarrangements (Alberto, & Zabala, 2018)
25 Presence of informal learning settings (Hays et al., 2020; Borges et al, 2017)
26 Presence of experiential learning (Corriveau, 2020; Killian et al., 2019)
27 Presence of service learning (Killian et al., 2019)
57
28 Use of social media as learning tool(Killian et al., 2019; Schulz, van der Woud & Westhof,2020)
29 Promotion of a deeper understanding of history, politics, sociology and economics. (Adler, 2016)
30Presence of "spaces", programs or initiatives that fosters students' reflexivity and criticalthinking on the role of business schools.
(Solitander et al, 2012; Wersun et al., 2019;Ramboarisata & Gendron, 2019; de Paula Arruda Filho& Beuter, 2020)
31 Presence of intellectual activism and/or political actions involvement from the academic staff (Ramboarisata & Gendron, 2019)
32Partnerships with broad scope of stakeholders, including: industry, government, media,NGOs and regulators (Nwagwu, 2020)
33 Presence of incentives for self-regulated learning process(Fortuin & Bush, 2010; Hughes, Upadhyaya, & Houston,2018)
34Presence of creative and art approaches (such as experimenting with poetry, music, movies,drawing, meditation, role play and storytelling)
(Hughes, Upadhyaya, & Houston, 2018; Annan-Diab &Molinari, 2017; Harbin & Humphrey, 2010; Pirson,2017; Abler et al., 2020)
35 Presence of incentives for development of sustainability mindset in the students(Wersun et al., 2019; Kassel, Rimanoczy, & Mitchell,2018)
36 Presence of assessments involving the SDGs framework (Leal Filho et al., 2020) Instrumental
37 Integration of students in university sustainability reporting (Herzner & Stucken, 2020)
38 Presence of student-led projects (Dallaire et al.,.2018; Killian et al., 2019)
39 Presence of hidden/alternative curriculum initiatives(Høgdal, Rasche, Schoeneborn & Scotti, 2019);(Borges et al, 2017; Killian et al., 2019)
40 Presence of connection between natural and social sciences disciplines (Barthel & Seidl, 2017)
41
Intercourse teaching, researching or project development. Presence of linkages with otherknowledge areas like: environment, biology, medicine, nutrition, agronomics,geography, engineering, architecture, citizenship, sociology, psychology, political science,history, law, economics and business. (Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017); (Sachs, 2017)
42
Sustainability thematic connected to nuclear management curriculum:Management theories, Human Resources Management (HRM), Finances,Marketing. Operations, Information Systems, Métodos quantitativos, Business policy andcompany economy.. (Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017)
58
43 Active data collection for SIPs (interviews included) (Solitander et al, 2012)
44 Report is structured under the PRME six principles(Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017; de Assumpção & Neto,2020)
45Presence of technological forecasting, 4.0 industry or Artificial Intelligence approaches,aiming at the education for future, intertwined with sustainability
(Gitelman, Kozhevnikov & Ryzhuk, 2019; Goralski &Tan, 2020; Dehnavi & Al-Saidi, 2020 )
46 Partnerships between the triad: business, science and education (Gitelman, Kozhevnikov & Ryzhuk, 2019
47 Legitimacy focused partnerships with industry (Borglund et al., 2019)
48 Collaboration networks for research and education, inside and outside the PRME community (Avelar, da Silva-Oliveira & da Silva Pereira, 2019)
49 Presence of immersion programs (Wood Jr & Pansarella, 2019)Table 12. New Proposed categoriesSource Elaborated by author
59
The 49 categories are therefore resulting of four primary bibliographic sources:
(I) initial categorization by Cezarino & Corrêa (2015), (II) 19 papers obtained in the review,
(III) 22 papers from the PRME Special Issue and (IV) secondary cited works from items (II)
and (III), and suggestions from the interviewed specialists that were relevant added to the
model. Figure 8 represents a Sankey diagram that shows the flow from the reviewed
references into the categories and the conversion of the Organizational-Pedagogical categories
into the proposed typology: Critical-Instrumental.
Figure 8. References conversion into dimensionsSource: Elaborated by author
We grouped our sample by the thematic association in a resulting framework of
16 categories, as shown in Table 13. The “Review Category ID” refers to the 49 categories
(Tables 11 and 12) obtained through the review process. The “Grouping Name” is the broad
designation of the cluster of categories, “Grouping ID” refers to 1 - 16 groups formed, and the
“Initial Dimension placing” indicates the initial reasoning towards the dyad
60
critical-instrumental, made through the alignment between the definitions of the constructs
and the categories described in the reviewed papers.
REVIEWCATEGORY ID GROUPING NAME
GROUPINGID
PRELIMINARDIMENSION
40,41,42 Broader curriculum II Instrumental
45 Technological Forecast IX Instrumental
15, 16,5,1,6,7 Sustainability integrating disciplines V Instrumental
28,4,03 Diverse learning methodologies VI Instrumental
46,47,48,32 Multiple stakeholders partnerships XI Instrumental
10,11 Planning towards interdisciplinarity XII Instrumental
43,44,13,36,37 Reporting through interdisciplinarity XIII Instrumental
14,12 Research-teaching linkages XIV Instrumental
33,38,25 Autonomous learning environments I Critical
34,35,39 Creative thinking and reflexivity III Critical
29,30,31 Spaces of discomfort IV Critical
2,26,27,49Extra-class, experiential and/or servicelearning VIII Critical
9,19 Diversity and equality VII Critical
23,24 Local communities interaction X Critical
8,17,18,20,22 Other wicked problems XVI Critical
21 Climate change and crisis management XV CriticalTable 13. Categories groupingsSource Elaborated by author
4.3. Validated typology
The typology of 16 categories were validated through nine interviews with
educators linked to the PRME Schools. The interviews followed a semi-structured script
(APPENDIX V - SEMI-STRUCTURED SCRIPT) aimed at harnessing perceptions regarding
interdisciplinarity, management education, sustainability education, and how all these themes
are bound together in a context of a PRME School who is among the “Champions'' Group.
The validation took place as an expert elicitation (Diep et al., 2020) or a simplified version of
a Delphi-like technique. So, we combined an unstructured interview with a form fulfillment
after the online meeting.
61
The interviewees were asked if they agreed with the category's description, their
relevance to the theme, and their assignment to the critical or instrumental dimension. The
summary of experts' profiles is shown in Table 14.
ID ROLE BACKGROUND
RMEEXPERIENCE INYEARS
COUNTRY INTERVIEW
VALIDATIONBy formulaire
A
Sustainability andInternationalrelationscoordinator
Sustainability andCorporateGovernance
7 Brazil
B
Associate Dean,CommunityEngagement &Sustainable Impact
Economics 3 Portugal
C Emeritus Professor BusinessManagement 20 Mexico
D Full-timeProfessor
BusinessManagement 12 Switzerland
ESustainability andCSR Director /Researcher
Economics 15 Finland
FSocialResponsibilityCoordinator
Corporategovernance 5 Finland
G Full-timeProfessor
BusinessManagement 20 Switzerland
H Associate Dean BusinessManagement 6 Russia
I ResearchAssociate
BusinessManagement 1 Switzerland
J Sustainability/CSR Director
BusinessManagement 6 Mexico
K Lecturer BusinessManagement 10 Australia
L Full-timeProfessor
BusinessManagement 15 Colombia
Table 14. Specialists profileSource: Elaborated by author
62
The specialist's evaluation of the Initial dimension placement can be observed in
Figure 09. Some of the categories were evaluated in an approach very similar to the one
obtained in the systematic review, like Instrumental tagged ones: II) Broader curriculum, V)
Sustainability integrating disciplines, VI) Diverse learning methodologies, XII) Planning
towards interdisciplinarity, and XIII) Reporting through interdisciplinarity. And the critical
tagged ones: III) Creative thinking and reflexivity and IV) Spaces of discomfort.
Most of the differences in the categorizations remained in the categories that were
initially aligned to the Critical dimension. This was also expressed in the interviews. Most of
the specialists agree that it is difficult to define what could be considered a critical approach.
Figure 09. Specialists view on the categoriesSource: Elaborated by author
Considering the variability of the answers, we defined an interval with five
dimensions for allocating the categories following the reasoning: Instrumental prevalent
(more than 80% of the evaluations tagged on instrumental); Instrumental (60 to 80% of the
evaluations tagged on instrumental); Transition (40 to 60% of the evaluations tagged
critical/instrumental), Critical prevalent ( more than 80% of the evaluations tagged on critical)
and Critical (60 to 80% of evaluations tagged on critical).
63
The specific comments over their perception on interdisciplinarity's role in
education for sustainable development in business school are indicated in the sessions of Item
4.4. PRME Reports Categorization.
4.4. PRME Reports Categorization
The 37 PRME Champion signatories reports were evaluated with content analysis
supported by text mining tools. Three of the reports were five years old, so we did not include
them in the mapping. One report comprises a unique format, resembling a law or juridic text,
which was also not included in the analysis. Therefore, 33 reports were considered for the
categorization and mapping.
Table 15 portraits the schools considered in the mapping, their type of
organization, the parent organization, country, and the main topic guide keywords prospected.
64
BUSINESS SCHOOL PARENTORGANISATION
ORGANIZATION TYPE
COUNTRY TOPIC GUIDES
Copenhagen Business School Businessschool
Denmark Responsible related; PRME; Knowledge Education; Future; Social Impact
Deakin Business School University Australia Awareness students; Leadership DBS; Environmental sustainability; Ethics Ers(engage responsibility social)
EGADE Business School Tecnologico deMonterreyUniversity System
Businessschool
Mexico Global Principle; Environmental impact; Chile; Inclusion International;Responsibility Social
Gabelli School of Business FordhamUniversity
Businessschool
United Statesof America
Education Business; Responsibility Issues; Corporate Impact; Work Community
George Mason UniversitySchool of Business
George MasonUniversity
University United Statesof America
Government Business; Change Center; Understanding Social; Community-engaged
Glasgow Caledonian University University UnitedKingdom
Report Information; Challenges Sustainability; Common good community; AimsKnowledge; Impact Economic
Gordon Institute of BusinessScience
University ofPretoria
Businessschool
South Africa Student Sdgs; Model Assessment; Improvement Future; Data Specific; LearningSociety
Gordon S. Lang School ofBusiness and Economics
University ofGuelph
Businessschool
Canada Issues Students; Business Economics; Course Related; Issues Environmental;Program Education
Hanken School of Economics* Businessschool
Finland Responsible Education; Students Course; Research Impact; Social Sustainability
IEDC-Bled School ofManagement
Businessschool
Slovenia Conferences better; Successful education; Development Faculty; Societyeconomies; Economies activities
IESEG School of Management France Responsibility business; Companies Topics; ICOR Environmental; CommunityIESEG; Activities education
65
Institute of Business Studies -Moscow, RANEPA
Businessschool
Russia During Actions; Behaviour Prevent; Management Account; Behaviour tasks;Effective business
IPM Business School Businessschool
Belarus Knowledge Challenges; Economy circular; Entrepreneurs women; DevelopmentCircular; International Government
ISAE Brazilian BusinessSchool
Businessschool
Brazil Criteria Ab; Programmes initiatives; Employees Related; Sdgs PRME;Mechanisms Related
Kemmy Business School,University of Limerick
Businessschool
Ireland Global international; Change Module; kbs Faculty; Including range; ResponsabilityManagement; Social Teaching
Kristianstad University KristianstadUniversity
Businessschool
Sweden Prme Kristianstad University; Issues Areas; Wil business; Course Programme;Society life
La Trobe Business School La TrobeUniversity
BusinessSchool
Australia Economic Environmental; Lbs Sdgs; CDAC Build; Economic Year; Report Covid;Report Education.
Leeds School of Business University ofColorado atBoulder
Businessschool
United Statesof America
Online Lab; Responsability Social; Leaders Environmental; Lab Cesr; Cu CesrFellows; Environmental Business
Newcastle University BusinessSchool
Businessschool
UnitedKingdom
Ethical Critical; Global Perspectives; Environmental Social; School Range;Context Students
Nottingham Business School Nottingham TrentUniversity
Businessschool
UnitedKingdom
Impact Waste; Ethics Sustainable; Rsb Lab Address; Core Issues; IntegratedExample
Nottingham UniversityBusiness School
Businessschool
UnitedKingdom
Engagement Companies; Business Management; Professional Equality; FinancialDevelopment; Social Business
Nova School of Business andEconomics
UniversidadeNova de Lisboa
Businessschool
Portugal Future create; Knowledge community; Development corporate; Program faculty;Change Impact
Queen's Management School Businessschool
UnitedKingdom
Activities Responsibility; Rights Human; ERS Data; Environmental Economic;Global Society
66
Rohrer College of Business,Rowan University
Businessschool
United Statesof America
Graduate Business; General Awareness; Responsible Leadership; Reporting Period;Focused Community
School of Business,Government, and Economics
Seattle PacificUniversity
Businessschool
United Statesof America
Global Business; Global Economics; Graduate program; Business issues; LeadersFaith
Sobey School of Business Saint Mary'sUniversity
Businessschool
Canada Service Learning; Social Business; Learning course; Global Responsible;Leadership Leaders; Impact Environmental
Stockholm School ofEconomics
Businessschool
Sweden Misum Finance; Students Faculty; Learning Aims; Misum research; SwedenSchool
T A PAI Management Institute Businessschool
India Financial Access; Effective Coverage; Sdgs Goal; Management Better; BetterProducts.Business Local
Universidad Externado deColombia School ofManagement
ExternadoUniversity
BusinessSchool
Colombia N/A
University of Applied Sciencesof the Grisons
University Switzerland Further competence; Diversity Areas; Diversity Uas Grisons; Integrity Role;Education Competence; Hotel Approach.
Graduate School of Business University ofCape Town
South Africa
Winchester Business School The University ofWinchester
BusinessSchool
UnitedKingdom
Principle Education; Staff; Management Ethics; Community Work; BusinessSocial; Values Report; Higher Future.
ZHAW School of Managementand Law
Zurich Universityof AppliedSciences
School ofManagementand Law
Switzerland Sml Law; Responsibility Initiative; Responsability Management; DevelopmentInitiative; Knowledge Business; Events Alumni
Table 15. PRME ChampionsSource: UN PRME (2020)
67
The content analysis was supported initially by the Voyant-Tools dashboard and
later by Leximancer software. The text was evaluated through the principles of text mining
and Keyword in Context (KWIC) perspectives.
Reports were scanned to find adherence between the 16 categories proposed here
and the schools' practices, projects, and actions. The allocation among the categories followed
the reasoning of two intensity levels: prominent and present. They were defined according to
the report's overall characteristics, and the criteria were adjusted during the evaluation
process.
Intensitylevel
Criteria
Prominent Category keywords are extensively present (i.e. >= 1 occurrence/page)ORThe report has a dedicated section for the category (i.e., Section depicting service learning inthe local community)ORInstitution won a specific certification, award, or holds a chair for that category (i.e., AthenaSwan Award)ORPresence of multiple events for the category (i.e., a hackathon, an artificial intelligencelecture, and a workshop on bitcoin)ORPresence of the category in different dimensions of the school (i.e., a published paper onclimate tipping points + a student-led event in partnership with fridays4future + a communityopen course climate literacy)
Present The category is noticeable in the statements as a value, a principle, or a future goal.ORThe category appears in a single event/practice (i.e., a single paper published on the thematicor a single workshop held)
Table 16. Categories Intensity level reasoningSource: Elaborated by author
By addressing the intensity level to the five categories gradient of
instrumental-critical dimensions, we obtained the results described in Figure 10. The
horizontal axis portrays the interdisciplinarity categories groupings ID, depicted in Table 13,
from I to XVI. The bottom of the figure with grouped bar charts shows the sum of the
presence and intensity of each one of the categories in the reports evaluated.
68
Figure 10. Intensity Interdisciplinarity Heatmap. Categories: Autonomous learning environments (I), Broadercurriculum (II), Creative thinking and reflexivity (III), Spaces of discomfort (IV), Sustainability integratingdisciplines (V), Diverse learning methodologies (VI), Diversity and equality (VII), Extra-class, experientialand/or service-learning (VIII), Technological Forecast (IX), Local communities interaction (X), Multiple
69
stakeholders partnerships (XI), Planning towards interdisciplinarity (XII), Reporting through interdisciplinarity(XIII), Research-teaching linkages (XIV), Climate change and crisis management (XV) and Other wickedproblems (XVI).Source: Elaborated by author
Generally, the majority of the categories appear represented in all the reportsevaluated. Among the results, we highlight some points: the categories VI and XI, “DiverseLearning Methodologies” and “Multiple stakeholders partnerships,” which are the only onesthat appeared in 100% of the reports—followed by categories II, “Broader curriculum”(96%), VIII, “Extra-class, experiential and/or service learning” (96%) and XVI, “Otherwicked problems” (96%).
The lowest recurrent categories are the I – “Autonomous learning environments”(78%), IX – “Technological Forecast” (69%) and XIV – “Research-teaching linkages” (69%).
Regarding the intensity, the category with the most “Prominent” indicators is theVI - Diversity and equality (72%). And the ones with lowest scores are the XIV - Researchand Teaching Linkage (15%) and Technological Forecast (24%). The categorie IV - Spaces ofdiscomfort (57%) is the one with higher “Presence”.
4.5. PRME Principles and Categories
The categories' presence were also framed towards what PRME principle it wasconnected to. This information was addressed through the Gephi Software for networkanalysis, working on a node and edges approach. Principles and categories are considered thenodes in a bipartite network. The school framing a practice, aligned with one the 16categories, under one or more of the six principles, constitute the edges of the network. Forinstance:
Ex1. Business School 2 presented an interdisciplinary student led initiative(Category I - AutonomousLearning Environments) in their “Methods” session. Therefore, we got one edge connecting the nodes“Autonomous Learning Environments” and “Method”.Ex2. When another institution, Business School 3, framed their student-led program under the “Values”session, we got another edge connecting “Autonomous Learning Environments” and “Values”.
Two main measures were used, the “weighted grade” and the “modularity class”.The weighted grade of each node can infer the relevance of the thematic in the broadercontext. The modularity class is a clustering algorithm (Blondel et al., 2008) to highlightcommunities, although it is usually used for larger networks, it plays its part in thisvisualization, since the results are in coherence with the reports text analysis and specialistinterviews.
NODES TYPEWEIGHTEDGRADE
MODULARITYCLASS
Method Principle 161.0 1
Values Principle 126.0 0
70
Purpose Principle 106.0 1
Partnerships Principle 93.0 2
Dialogue Principle 77.0 2
Research Principle 73.0 2
Diverse learning methodologies Instrumental prevalent 49.0 1
Spaces of discomfort Critical prevalent 49.0 0
Multiple stakeholders partnerships Instrumental 47.0 2
Diversity and equality Critical 45.0 0
Sustainability integrating disciplines Instrumental prevalent 44.0 0
Local communities interaction Critical 43.0 2
Broader curriculum Instrumental prevalent 42.0 1
Extra-class, experiential and/orservice-learning Instrumental 42.0 1
Other wicked problems Critical 41.0 2
Climate change and crisis management Critical 41.0 2
Planning towards interdisciplinarity Instrumental prevalent 40.0 1
Creative thinking and reflexivity Critical prevalent 38.0 1
Technological Forecast Transition 35.0 1
Autonomous learning environments Transition 34.0 1
Research-teaching linkages Instrumental 33.0 2
Reporting through interdisciplinarity Instrumental prevalent 13.0 0Table 17. Principles and categoriesSource: Elaborated by author
71
Figure 11. Principles and categoriesSource: Elaborated by author
The clustering analysis from modularity allows us to observe that Cluster 01 isformed mainly by the “Instrumental” labeled categories connected to the “Method Principle”node. The “method” node is also the one with the higher weighted grade (161), followed by“Values” (126) and “Purpose” (106). Cluster 0 represents a transition cluster with “Values”bound to the diversity and critical thinking categories. Cluster 2 informs a community formedby the three least graded principles: Dialogue, Research, and Partnerships, alongside thecategories associated with wicked problems and with stakeholders interactions.
5. DISCUSSION
Discussion is carried within main topics that study evoked, we draw our reflectionusing a combined reasoning of the interviews, reports examples and the frameworksdeveloped.
5.1. A HARD TO DRAW LINE
The specialists' interactions revealed the dyad critical-instrumental comprise agradient hard to draw a dividing line. The categories validation indicates that there alsodifferences in the perception since only six of them were classified either on Critical prevalent(Creative thinking and reflexivity; Spaces of discomfort) or Instrumental prevalent (Broadercurriculum; Sustainability integrating disciplines; Diverse learning methodologies; Planning
72
towards interdisciplinarity; Reporting through interdisciplinarity). The majority of thecategories remain on a threshold of different perceptions.
When it comes to the practices observed in the reports, we can see that many canbe categorized under different dimensions: the Nova School of Business and Economicsfosters the fellowship “Data Science for Social Good Europe,” the last edition broughttogether 15 international data scientists to work with real-world problems from municipalitiesboth locally and across Europe in problems that range from thematics like public health,safety, environmental issues, city operations, and social services" (Nova SBE, 2019, p.25)
This is one of many other examples of how the same documented initiative cantackle several perspectives of the interdisciplinarity categories here presented: Transitioncategory of “Technological Forecast” (data-science/technology-oriented), the Instrumentalprevalent of “Broader curriculum” (since it scoping diversity of thematics under themanagement lens), and the Critical category of “Local communities interaction” (since ittackles local municipality problems).
Specialist C exemplifies the difficulty of drawing this line with an approach ofcase studies regarding education on finances that can be considered an “instrumental” coremanagement discipline and posits serious critical debate on ethics.
Specialist E goes further, pointing that context is of utmost importance, for thecritical-interdisciplinary framing, since, for instance, all the categories could be present in abusiness school without none of them addressing, for instance, the needs of the oppressed,which is present on the definition of critical interdisciplinarity goals.
Specialist J points that interdisciplinarity seems not to be among the PRME goals:it is not part of the Business School objectives and aims. The interviewed pointed out thatdrawing a line between critical and instrumental does not make too much sense, and that itwould be a more feasible approach if we frame the instrumental interdisciplinarity as thegoal-oriented practices and projects, and the critical perspective as the underlying purpose thatgrounds the achievement of the goals: “Critical interdisciplinarity is more a way we challengeour assumptions, and not a practice or project.” This perception finds common ground inKlein (2010), regarding that interdisciplinarity typologies are instead a movable gradient thana static frame. Fazenda's (1991) perspective of interdisciplinarity shifts the perspective fromthe curriculum to the individuals in these transformational assumptions challenging.
5.2. REPORTING AND SDGS
One of the few guidelines of PRME for the Sharing Information in ProgressReports (SIP) elaborations refers to the framing under the PRME principles. Most schools dothat: the category XIII - Reporting through interdisciplinarity is perceived in 90% of thereports. It is also ubiquitous that schools report their practices under the dual-axis of PRMEPrinciples and SDGs.
According to Specialist A, the main challenge towards interdisciplinarity, and alsoPRME, strengthening, is destined to reporting: “Our next challenge is to report what isalready done properly: in this matter, SDGs framework posits a useful tool that can be tailoredto the specific institutional context. Some of the 169 targets can be selected to work as Key
73
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for organizational and academic purposes''. The sameperception is brought by Specialist K, who considers both platforms (PRME and the SDGs) asa tool to create awareness, to benchmark what is being done by putting in evidence how thelocal practices are part of a bigger picture of the international 2030 agenda.
Some reports are intensely visual (ZHAW School of Management and Law), withmany graphics, frameworks, and links to interactive dashboards (University of AppliedSciences of the Grisons). Others are more textual oriented, and this does not seem to hinderthe reporting utility: the EGADE Business School, for instance, offers a report without manyvisuals, therefore is highly effective in communicating its initiatives in the dual-axis of PRMEPrinciples versus SDGs.
Some schools did not use the SIX principles to scope the initiatives; instead, theyportrait them at the beginning of the report as a foundation of the whole system, but not forcategorization. One example is the IESEG School of Management, which uses the SDGs toframe the initiatives, while the Six Principles are only addressed at the beginning of thereport. Another example of a merge of six principles is the Gordon Institute report: the schooldivides its report into narratives whose principles and strategic areas are interconnected sothat, throughout the text, it is no longer possible to identify about which principles that actionis referring to.
Figure 12. Examples of SDGs and Six Principles occurrence in the reports. Visuals SDGs + Six Principles(items 1 and 2), Text informed SDGs alignment (Item 3), Visuals SDGs only (Item 4)Source: Elaborated by author
Many schools address Principles 1 (Purpose) and 2 (Values) as intrinsically boundin how they are always represented together in the reports. A similar thing happens toprinciples 5 (Dialogue) and 6 (Partnerships) as dyad that comprises the same initiatives; oneexample is the EGADE Business School. This perspective can be observed in the cluster
74
analysis that bound together Purpose and Values in the same cluster and Dialogue andPartnerships.
There is no clear definition of what the schools consider inside the frame of eachprinciple: George Manson University describes its broader curriculum dimension, with themany undergrad thematics that are approached under the umbrella of the Principle 2, Values,while the Deakin Business School focuses on integrating SDGs explicitly in the curriculumand strengthening the nexus between sustainability capability and employability skills acrosscore units in all DBS bonded to the third Principle, Method. The same vision is shared by theFordham University, Gabelli School of Business, and the T A PAI Management Institute. Thisaligns with the interviewed Specialist B's assumptions, which pointed to a diversecomprehension about the meaning of each one of the principles by the different schools.
5.3. BROADER MANAGEMENT CURRICULUM, ORGANIZATION TYPE, ANDCONTEXT
Out of the 33 champion schools analyzed, 16 are part of a university structure,and 17 are standalone business schools. The category related to the broadening of thecurriculum is present in 90% of the reports evaluated but are only prominent in 33%, one ofthe lowest prominence counts among categories: usually, the reports mention courses that aresaid to act as sustainability fostering through interdisciplinarity, but they end up to be theusual CSR and Business Ethics courses.
Among the exceptions, we could mention George Mason University, whichportrays 14 undergraduate and 12 graduate courses addressing sustainability and highlights itsseries of five liberal-arts-based courses called “Foundations” that are meant to introducestudents to the social, global, professional, historical, and legal contexts of business.
One of the main differences noticed is mandatory vs. optional: many schoolsaddress the issues in courses or disciplines that are not essential for completing the businesscurricula. In this sense, schools like Hanken School of Economics bring the question to asolid approach: in the school, the module “Global Competences” is mandatory for thesecond-year master’s students. Similarly, Stockholm School of Economics highlights how itincreased by 20% the sustainability presence in the core curriculum through its “GlobalChallenges Track” and by putting sustainability as one of the four pillars in their wholecurricular and pedagogical planning, alongside core management disciplines of Finance,Retailing, and Innovation.
When it comes to diversity of the curriculum, Kemmy Business School seems tobe very fast forward by bringing together mental health, fitness, and nutrition in a joint coursewith departments of Physical Education and Sport Sciences (PESS) and Psychology forHigh-Performance Leadership.
Being part of a parent organization is said to impact interdisciplinarity andfacilitate the widening of the curricula: some specialists argue that it is easier when you are abusiness school inside a university structure because you have closer contact and anadministrative bond with different knowledge areas.
75
Specialist J pointed that working interdisciplinarity on faculties or businessschools inside a university is challenging due to the siloing effect that happens: each collegetends to focus on its individual goals, and there are not enough tools to bring differentexpertise professionals together. In this matter, the interviewee said that “PRME works on acontact base” and that interdisciplinarity is harder to foster by institutional/formal ways: “ThePRME network seems to be good for research collaborations not that much for educationalapproaches. Interdisciplinarity happens either naturally, due to demand for projects and or forattending calls for grants”.
The same view appears in the talkings of Specialist K: “Being a standalonebusiness school is ‘bad” for interdisciplinarity” and also that the more diversity you bring intothe curriculum and educational practices, the more “messy” the outcomes can be.
Specialist J also points that two ways can be seen in the interdisciplinarity atbusiness schools: I) informal, bottom-up initiatives nested in personal contacts foster a “lowerscale” of collaboration, it usually faster but with a bit of impact and II) formal, top-downinstitutional programs and projects, which progress at a lower speed (due to organizationalconstraints) but in medium-long term are expected to have more than marginal contributions.
The educational organization type and structure greatly impact howinterdisciplinarity is tailored towards sustainable development education. Since sustainabilityis, by default, “transversal,” it can’t be appropriately addressed by isolated departments insidean institution; the PRME framework acts similarly. Therefore the same vectors that carrysustainability integration also carry the PRME principles through different institution levels.Therefore, one of the interdisciplinary dimensions is merging with interdepartmental andinterpersonal cooperation.
This is Specialist A statement that focuses on how it is essential to moveinterdisciplinarity “away” from just the curricular grid and integrate it into the organizationalstructure. The interviewed stressed that both PRME and sustainability are not long-lasting ifthey are not addressed daily in the institution. This enforces our perception of the relevance ofthe SDGs framework for reporting and planning towards sustainability. It also points to theinterdisciplinarity approach's capability to act as a binder to long-lasting sustainability politicsand refocuses a little bit the lens to the people: interdisciplinarity is about curriculum butmostly about curriculum people (Specialist A). This is aligned with the assumptions ofFazenda (1991) regarding the assumption that interdisciplinarity is an attitudinal perspectivethat can flourish in the ones involved with education.
The relevance of the organizational structure role on interdisciplinarity bouncesback to Cezarino & Corrêa (2019), and also was identified in the content analysis of thereports: the business schools Copenhagen Business School, Newcastle University BusinessSchool, University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons and Stockholm School of Economics,uses a seventh PRME principle to frame their reports, the “Organizational Practices”principle.
76
Figure 13. The seventh PRME principle: organizationSource: Elaborated by author
The schools signal an equivalent level of attention to this dimension, openingroom in the report for acknowledging organizational practice's relevance for the whole PRMEagenda. Thematics like sustainable campuses, sustainable buildings, campuses working asliving labs, or testbeds for sustainability are often highlighted under the OrganizationalPractices umbrella. Certifications for sustainability, green procurement practices, and circulareconomy approaches inside the campus are also present.
The NewCastle report stresses that this is a way for the schools to “walk theirtalk”: “Sustainability is embedded in the School’s operations. We live and breathe responsiblemanagement principles, and this is what the students see, in concrete terms, beyond what isbeing said in the classroom” (NewCastle, 2020, p.48). The decoupling effect is one of themajor fault lines in management education (Cant & Kulik, 2009; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015);therefore, the signaling of organizational commitment reverberates and overextends thestructure dimension into the direction of academic outcomes.
In summary:I) There is no direct linkage indicating that you will have a broader curriculum by
being part of a university: Hanken and Stockholm School of Economics signals substantialwidening and prioritizing sustainability curricula and are characterized as “standalone”business schools. Nevertheless, the schools under the giant universities umbrella seem toshow more “unexpected interactions” in joint curricular planning, like the example fromKemmy Business School.
II) Embedding different actors inside the school structure (staff, administrative,undergraduate, and graduate) is the traditional way schools try to interdisciplinary themselves.
III) The lower recurrence of the “Broader Curriculum” category can be partiallyexplained by dislocating interdisciplinary approaches from the regular curricular grid to
77
projects and extracurricular activities. The higher count signals in categories related toaddressing wicked problems and civilizational challenges.
5.4. PRME ROLE, PARTNERSHIPS, AND BRIDGING STRUCTURES FORCIVILIZATIONAL MATTERS
Fostering cooperation between stakeholders calls for changing operation methodstowards a business, not a usual model (Dietler et al., 2019). In this sense: “PRME schoolshave a role in general awareness: as promoters of the 2030 plan among different stakeholders.A PRME Champion school can promote the agenda in its entire context like classassociations, sector organizations, unions, companies, city halls, other universities, NGOs,etc.” (Specialist A). Specialist C highlights that PRME fosters interdisciplinarity in two maindimensions: the structure in six principles is, by default, an interdisciplinary approach, and thepartnerships that the network provides also open a window of opportunity for connecting witheducators from different backgrounds. For instance, the participation of a professor with aPh.D. in physics in a joint project about ethics in business.
Nevertheless, it also indicates many barriers regarding partnerships: some schoolseasily partner up for research goals, “paper writing,” but very few integrate themselves toimprove education methodologies. In a similar direction, Specialist K points out that PRMEhas a role in promoting interdisciplinarity. Still, it is not possible to establish causalitybetween being a PRME signatory and the “interdisciplinarity expertise” of the school.
In a slightly different approach, specialist K sees PRME as much more focused oneducation than in research: “the way it is conceived to be” and as an enabler for partnerships.Schools show an overall substantial diversity and quantity of partners: either academic-close(inside the campus, university), academic-like (networks, accreditation instances), ornon-academic partners (private business, government, NGOs).
Fordham University highlights its partnerships with companies like Nasdaq andBMW. The George Mason University mentions accreditation institutions like the Academy ofBusiness in Society, AACSB International, Ashoka U, and GRLI. Nottingham BusinessSchool and Nova School of Business and Economics partner with the National Health System(NHS) public UK healthcare system. The Glasgow Caledonian University developed theAfrican Leadership College (ALC), a network of 25 higher education African institutions.The South-African Gordon Institute of Business Science also highlighted a joint effort withHarvard Business School to develop an executive leadership training project.
Some partnerships are unique and contextual and fit the broader scope of the 2030Agenda: George Mason University promotes the Honey Bee Initiative (HBI) to empowerlocal communities through sustainable beekeeping while fostering research and educationoutputs for students. It is also an example of a partnership that needs expertise outside thebusiness core curriculum, connected with one wicked problem: the biodiversity crisis.
It seems that partnering up has a strong linkage with addressing “Climate changeand crisis management” and the “Other wicked problems” categories. They appear clusteredin the Figure 11 graph: to avoid the siloed knowledge areas, schools reach for expertisearound then, in the neighboring colleges of the university, or beyond the walls.
78
Glasgow Caledonian University holds the GCU’s Centre for Climate Justice, astructure that, among many partnerships, contributed to UNESCO’s Report on ‘ChallengingInequalities – Pathways to a Just World.’ The Hanken School of Economics fostered a courseon food waste issues, partnering with International Food Waste Coalition, Ikea, SodexoFrance, and Sodexo Sweden.
The Deakin Business School has its structure, the Centre for Energy, theEnvironment and Natural Disaster (CEEND), that fosters integration between businessknowledge and energy, environment and natural disasters, themes recurrent in the Australiandebate: to do so partner-up with government and industry.
The Stockholm School of Economics’s Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets(Misum) carries interdisciplinarity and multi-stakeholder in its motto and focus onoverarching research:
To meet this ambition, the Misum team created an energetic research momentumwith three dynamic new platforms and one cross-cutting initiative: 1.) AccountingFrameworks 2.) Human Capital and Sustainable Development 3.) SustainableBusiness Development through Entrepreneurship and Innovation, and theSustainable Finance Initiative, which investigates how financial markets may bestserve at the intersection of each research theme. (MISUM, 2021).
Wicked problems as biodiversity conservation are recurrent in many of thereports, like the example of the contributions given by the other Aussie PRME Champion, LaTrobe Business School, to the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary, spreading its range from businessto fauna and flora conservation and restoration (La Trobe Business School, 2020). The NovaSchool of Business and Economics moves efforts towards forest management through theAssessment of Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity, and Well-Being in Portugal (ASEBIO)(Nova School of Business and Economics, 2019).
79
Figure 14. Bridging Structures for interdisciplinaritySource: Elaborated by author
One of the dimensions that seem to have been more recurrent in the more recentreports (2020 and 2021) is a disaster and crisis management. COVID-19 indubitable had astrong effect on how the school's interface society and students. Interdisciplinarity manifestsitself in this dimension since pandemics more likely had their origins on the pillars ofbiodiversity crisis (Lorentzen et al., 2020), household-healthcare issues, and outbreaksurveillance (REF) and systematically manifests itself, with nuclear points on publichealthcare coverage, education challenges, economics, and international cooperation. All thereports in the covid timeframe addressed it. It is not feasible to address pandemics, from thebusiness lens, without dialoguing with knowledge fields usually detached from the coremanagement curriculum.
Some actions reported might not sound related explicitly to academic outputs, likephilanthropic-like initiatives to aid vulnerable local communities and safeguard students'health and permanence. Nevertheless, these initiatives are also opportunities to reflect on theschool's role in society. If the school can’t afford to aid its surroundings in a moment of peril,probably its structure is loosened from the community patchwork. These actions are casestudies for a unique crisis management context. In this sense, the Aussie La Trobe BusinessSchool, for instance, partnered with the Medibank, Red Cross, and St. Vicent de Paul tosupport students in need with grocery vouchers (La Trobe Business School, 2020).
There are specific contextual issues related to the schools' mainexpertise/knowledge focus or with previous crisis management experiences, and these areopportunities to frame interdisciplinarity. For instance, the University of Applied Sciences ofthe Grisons highlighted its many endeavors to overcome education restrictions since theschool is a management and tourism education hub:
One of the significant challenges, however, was the replacement of field trips. Thestudents of the Bachelor's major of Sustainable Tourism and InternationalDevelopment would usually spend a week in Morocco in January to learn in thefield how sustainable tourism development can succeed in a country with highdevelopment potential” (University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons, 2021, p.20)
The school managed to rewire it is the methodological approach into a veryinstrumental dimension since Information and communications technology (ICT) gained morerelevance, but also in a society demands oriented way, since the students had to transformtheir regular in-site visits to emerging economies into a project for a “country basedsustainable tourism product development,” and also had to consider the enormous impactcovid-19 had on tour operators worldwide.
Similar context-based resilience was observed in the Graduate School ofBusiness, and the school used its previous expertise with water security initiatives to improvethe COVID-19 response
The last few years have presented the UCT GSB with an opportunity to flex ourmuscles in managing crises. The content that we teach about leading in a VUCA(volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world had to be directly applied to the
80
way we do business during both the water crisis of 2018 and the Covid-19 pandemic(University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business, 2020, p.17).
On a geographic broadening action, there is the example of ISAE BrazilianBusiness School, and the BS mapped the Covid-19 impact on the whole Paraná state, aBrazilian province with 11 million inhabitants and a thriving economy (ISAE BrazilianBusiness School, 2021).
In summary:Since embedding changes in the very fundamental structures of the schools is a
daunting task, sustainability matters are usually allocated in special centers, advisorycommittees, and other flexible structures, which seems to provide a trade-off betweenintegration and goal-reaching: these structures can partner up and move more freely, but theycan also become decoupled and act as standalone research centers or service-learning hubs.
I) Centers acts as interdisciplinarity bridging structures (Klein & Newell; 1997),they detach from bureaucratic structure constraints and reconnect again in a perspective that iseither geographically, attitudinal, stakeholder-oriented, or timely different, to generate impact;
II) Covid-19 is seen as an opportunity for interwovenness crisis managementskills with the ongoing foreseen efforts to climate action. A similar perspective happened inthe very foundations of PRME. In 2008 the subprime crisis was an ethical window ofopportunity for business schools to show how they could “provide” the world withleaderships able to conduct business with transparency and international grade governancestandards. The covid-19 laboratory for business schools shows how their leadership can beeducated to manage a systemic and once-in-a-time worldwide crisis.
III) Among the wicked problems addressed by the schools, the main focus seemsto be climate crisis and pandemics. Around 90% of the schools presented some practiceregarding one of these two issues in the Climate change and crisis management (XV)category.
IV) The “Other wicked problems,” category XVI, is even more recurrent, withalmost all schools (96%) portraiting some initiatives that are predominantly related to foodsecurity, biodiversity conservation, and healthcare management.
5.5. STUDENT-LED PROJECTS, DIVERSE LEARNING METHODOLOGIES, ANDLOCAL COMMUNITIES INTERACTIONS
The rigidity of structures regarding interdisciplinarity also fosters transformationsinside the course limits, teaching practices methods, or outside the formal courses in thehidden or informal curricula (Borges et al., 2017).
Specialist C points out that several methodologies were experienced last year:incorporating business simulators, online dashboards, and business case databases. Casestudies are not novel for a long time but seem to still work as the most popular methodology:almost all schools (Schools IDs 3,4,8,9,12,19,20,21,23,29,31,34 heatmap Figure 11) mentioncase studies in the curricular grid. The SDGs are portrayed as a diverse and goal-oriented toolthat can be easily integrated into leadership training. One of the examples given was theAim2Flourish business case database, with more than 3000 SDGs themed cases, that works
81
both as a repository and also as competition for the schools to submit their successfulexperiences
Specialist J points out that SDGs act as a “blanket” that can be thrown over thevery dimensions of the school; nevertheless, despite its more substantial potential forinterdisciplinarity, this blanket seems, most of the time, detached, like floating in decoupleddimension, with few points of contact.
We argue here that sewing interdisciplinarity threads can only recouple thisblanket since the SDGs set 169 diverse targets to solve systemic problems and demandsystemic curricular and extracurricular (Specialist J). In many business schools, thisrecoupling is done or seems to be practiced through student-led projects and communityservice learning insertions. The SDGs are very contextual reasoning, reflecting differentemphasis, and therefore adaptable to the usual “outside the walls” projects carried by students(Specialist K).
These student organizations usually are composed of undergrads, but there arealso many occurrences of alumni and graduate-led organizations: SSE students entirely runthe SSE Student Association, and members of the SSE Student Association represent studentson all SSE boards/committees that discuss or decide educational questions (Stockholm Schoolof Economics, 2019, p.10)
In some reports, like the one from Kemmy Business School, the studentorganizations have a nuclear role in RME actions; the report as mentioned above mentionsEnactus 24 times in their report in all of the Six Principles dimensions (Kemmy BusinessSchool, 2020)
Enactus is the most recurrent “brand” of student organizations: it is mentioned inthe IESEG School of Management, Glasgow Caledonian University, Sobey School ofBusiness, Nottingham University, and Nottingham Business School. The organization, whosemotto is “to engage in students' entrepreneurial action for a better world,” is an example ofhow the students can either organize themselves in a homely and local way or outsourceinternationally validated frameworks with multiple ways to link into the school’s hiddencurriculum.
Business School Student organization
Copenhagen Business School CBS Diversity and Inclusion; CBS Feminist Society; CBSBuilding Tomorrow; CBS Volunteering; Dansic; Oikos; CBSBlockchain Society; CBS Climate Club; CBS Model UnitedNations; Female Invest; Onde Danmark; 180 Degrees;
Glasgow Caledonian University Enactus
Gordon S. Lang School of Business andEconomics
Lang Student Association
Gothenberg School of Business, Economics,and Law
Handels Students for Sustainability (HaSS)
Hanken School of Economics Hanken Business Lab
IESEG School of Management Enactus; Responsible Leaders
82
Kemmy Business School, University ofLimerick
Enactus
Leeds School of Business, University ofColorado Boulder
CSR Fellows (Net Impact Affiliated)
Nottingham Business School, NottinghamTrent University
The Oath Project; Enactus; Aiesec
Nottingham University Business School Enactus
Nova School of Business and Economics CEMS Club Lisbon; The Economics Without Borders; NOMAMarketing Consulting Student Club; NOVAFRICA StudentGroup; Nova Case Team; Nova Creative Hub; Nova DebateClub; Nova Economics Club; Nova Investment Club; NovaJunior Consulting; Portfolio Management Club; Oikos; NovaSBE Awareness Club; Nova SBE China Club; Nova SBEFinTech Club; Nova SBE Hospitality Student Club; Nova SBELeadership for Impact Student Club; Nova SBE MindspaceStudent Club; Nova SBE Startup Club; Nova SBE Students'Union; Nova SBE Venture Capital and Private Equity Club;Nova Skills Association; Nova Social Consulting Club;Nova-Tech Club; Nova Women in Business; Social InvestmentClub; Tuna for Tuna
Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary'sUniversity
Enactus
Stockholm School of Economics Students Association (Sasse)
University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons Student-Hub
Table 18. Students OrganizationsSource: Elaborated by author
Some student-led projects are not restricted to local impact: the students from theIrish Kemmy Business School developed an innovation for attenuating health issues related tofood insecurity in Malawi (Kemmy Business School, 2020). Through its Enactus office, thesame institution provided over 6000 hours of student community volunteering work in 2019,which matches Specialist K's perception of how PRME is an enabler of communityinteractions that are sometimes shaped in practices like volunteering service learning.
The Canadian Sobey School of Business is one of the examples that excel atservice-learning. The keyword is counted 46 times in the 30-page report. The initial statementof the school thanks precisely all the participants for their “services to our community”: thesense of belonging and university outreach is assertive all over the report. Specific actionsmentioned are the service-learning actions on the MBA level course on Ethical Issues, thegraduated “Environmental and Sustainability Management” bachelor course, and specificprojects like the Helping Homelessness that partners with a local city office for Housing andSupport:
Welcome Housing and Support representative Beth McIsaac, remarked on theorganization’s experience with the students that the service learning was incrediblyimportant because it exposed the students to issues they may have not been aware of,and forced them to see things from a different perspective (Sobey School ofBusiness, 2020, p.11).
83
In summary, it seems that when the global calls for addressing wicked problemshit the unyielding curricular grid and can’t correctly penetrate the core disciplines, they seemto liquefy and run through the more flexible and versatile student-led contexts: “Theundergrads, the upcoming generations, have some kind of predisposition towardssustainability” (Specialist K). This effect seems to be following the studies of Høgdal,Rasche, Schoeneborn & Scotti (2019), Killian et al. (2019), and Borges et al. (2017) when itcomes to hidden curriculum and the specific manifestation of it in students organizations orclubs.
The formal management curriculum usually is not enough for training the newleaderships; on the other hand, the combined call from society needs and the student'saspirations of “doing the right thing” find a fruitful ground in the independent studentprojects. It is one of the manifestations of how interdisciplinary is not necessarily the result ofconnecting disciplines. In the approach above, it happens on a different and hard-to-connectlevel. The students carry small disciplinary parts with them and instinctively, and withself-efficacy, merge them in a critical yet goal-oriented way.
5.6. FINAL REMARKS
Results indicate that the most significant gap in the categories refers to theresearch-teaching linkage. Significantly few reports indicate active interactions between thepost-graduate students and the undergraduate. This seems to be the central fault line observedsince one of the main dimensions of interdisciplinarity refers to the intensity of the exchangebetween specialists (Fazenda, Varella, & de Oliveira Almeida, 2013).
Diversity and inequality matters are addressed in an intensity that differs from theother wicked problems. In the reports that this issue appears, the programs, projects,certifications, and bridging structures are really focused and seem to have a strong presence inthe college environment.
6. CONCLUSION
The research carried here aimed at exploring education for sustainable
development in the business schools milieu. By choosing the UN-PRME as the primary data
source, we signal the intention of harnessing information from an international validated
educational platform bound to the United Nations and, therefore, to the 2030 Agenda.
The call for educating new leaders able to rewire business sustainably can only be
addressed through a de-siloed education, systemic in content, partnerships, and structures.
The proposed categorization framework in instrumental and critical dyad showed
that it is possible to frame an array of 16 categories comprising the most recurrent
interdisciplinarity practices in the literature. It also showed that the dyad should be read in a
84
contextual and gradient perspective. Interdisciplinarity is not a not a static concept, neither a
universal definition (Japiassu, 1994; Fazenda, Varella, & de Oliveira Almeida, 2013)
The specialists' validation shed light on it by showing how mixed the categories
can be and how there is a slight prevalence of the perception of the interdisciplinarity
approaches as instrumental.
Specialists' interviews confirmed the validation informed, yet the perception
related is an even more merged category. There is a consensus that business school
interdisciplinarity should be goal-oriented, provide critical thinking opportunities, and solve
civilizational matters.
Report analysis reassures that PRME champion schools can act as a benchmark
for practices regarding education for sustainable development since the majority of the
categories were found in the reports. Among the most highlighted dimensions are:
I) Partnerships with a wide array of stakeholders have power over promoting
interdisciplinarity;
II) Schools use detached and alternative bridging structures to expand their grasp
beyond the business core curriculum. These structures are specialized centers from the
college, but also students initiatives that take shape autonomously and organically;
III) Crisis management context linkages with interdisciplinarity, in the past-covid
era mainly with climate action initiatives, and recently relocated partially to tackle the
pandemics.
IV) The wicked problems of food, the biodiversity crisis, healthcare, diversity,
and inequality are among the most recurrent issues.
The frameworks here presented contribute in a practical manner to aid business
schools in implementing education for sustainable development through a diverse set of
categories that can either be scoped with the lens of the dyad critical-instrumental and
benefiting from the benchmarked practices referred. Nevertheless, it may sound like a denial
of the very interdisciplinarity concept (Fazenda, 2008). Therefore, we state that it must
consider an attitudinal change towards the interdisciplinarity mindset (Fazenda, 1998), both
from the organizations and individuals. The 16 categories framework proposed here is only
meaningful if dyed with the contextual hues of the school or educational project that it is
applied.
To bring together the perspectives of interdisciplinarity from education grounded
scholars to the context of Education for Sustainable Development in the business context is a
way to contribute to the advancement of research in these fields, also, in an interdisciplinary
85
way. The review of the constructs: interdisciplinarity, and Education for Sustainable
Development, pointed out that they are peripheral and yet to be explored. Nevertheless, they
appear connected to the other keywords of the research, like PRME, management education,
business schools, etc.
By linking the keywords mapping with SDGs framework, we provide future
research agenda questions that can guide studies on interdisciplinarity education for
sustainable development.
ID Research agenda questions SDGs & keywords Suggested Theory/Approach/Topic*
1 How does covid-19 crisis management canaid in educating leaderships for wickedproblems?
SDG 13 (climatechange)
Corporate SocialResponsibility / Learningunder conditions of rapidchange
2 How can natural sciences be integrated intobusiness education?
SDGs 14-15(environmentalprotection;biodiversity; ecology;conservation of naturalresources; ecosystem)
Systems / Integrated learning
3 How can water systems management beimproved through interinstitutional serviceinnovations?
SDGs 6 - 14 (watersupply)
Service innovation / Integratedlearning
4 Do service-learning activities act as livinglabs for urban development?
SDG 11 ( urban area) Undergraduate businesseducation / Service Learning /Experiential Learning /Innovation in managementeducation
5 How does interdisciplinary educationimpact the better decision-making of publicmanagers towards sustainability?
SDG 16 (policymaking, decisionmaking)
Public Policy Analysis /Management Competencies /Storytelling in organizations
6 What's the relevance of reportingsustainability in crisis times?
SDG 9 - SDG 16(interdisciplinarycommunication;innovation; policy)
Signaling theory / Assessmentof Academic environment
7 How sustainability criteria impact healthpolicy decision-making?
SDGs 3, 12, and 16 -(health care policy;health policy; publichealth)
Public Organizations // Connection managementTheory and practice /
8 How sustainability literacy in medicaleducation reflects in health policy invulnerable settings?
SDGs 3 and 4 (medical education)
Public Policy Analysis /Diversity and managementeducation
9 Does the professor's profile act as aregulator between the curricular grid and
SDG 4 (Curriculum) Assessment of AcademicEnvironment / Connecting
86
teaching practice? management Theory andPractice
10 How can biomimicry be integrated intomanagement education?
SDG 12 (productdesign)
Integrated learning /Innovation in managementeducation
11 What are the sustainability interface pointsbetween engineering and managementeducation?
SDGs 4, 9, 7 e 6(engineeringeducation)
Innovation in managementeducation / Integrated learning/ Connecting managementTheory and Practice
12 How does carbon handprint and footprintcan be integrated into academic researchprojects?
SDG 7 (energy) Quality assurance inEducational Environments /Assessment of AcademicEnvironment / BusinessSchools Rankings
*Main management theories and competencies described in the Academy of Management Learning &Education authors dashboard
Table 19. Research Agenda and QuestionsSource: Elaborated by author
7. REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (2010). Chaos of disciplines. University of Chicago Press.
Abler, M., Bachmaier, R., Hawelka, B., Prock, S., Schworm, S., Merz, A. K., & Keil, S.(2020). “It just magically happened overnight!”–support for the digitalization of medicalteaching provided by an interdisciplinary e-tutor team. GMS journal for medical education,37(7).
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J.& Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a criticalreview of the literature. Health services research, 42(1p1), 329-346.
87
Adler, P. S. (2016). 2015 Presidential address: Our teaching mission. Academy ofManagement Review, 41(2), 185-195.
Alberto, L. C. S. A. C., & Zabala, C. S. L. U. (2018). Socio-environmental analysis:ecodevelopment education zone and Mondragon Cooperative experience. Sociedade e Estado,33(3).
Alcaraz, J. M., & Thiruvattal, E. (2010). An interview with Manuel Escudero The UnitedNations' principles for responsible management education: a global call for sustainability.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 542-550.
Aleixo, A. M., Leal, S., & Azeiteiro, U. M. (2018). Conceptualization of sustainable highereducation institutions, roles, barriers, and challenges for sustainability: An exploratory studyin Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1664-1673.
Almeida, I. M. D., Jackson Filho, J. M., & Vilela, R. A. D. G. (2019). Reasons forinvestigating the organizational dynamics of the Vale tailings dam disaster in Brumadinho,Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Cadernos de saude publica, 35(4).
Anderson, E., Schiano, W. T., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide.Harvard Business Press.
Anderson, L., Hibbert, P., Mason, K., & Rivers, C. (2018). Management education inturbulent times.
Annan-Diab, F., & Molinari, C. (2017). Interdisciplinarity: Practical approach to advancingeducation for sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals. The InternationalJournal of Management Education, 15(2), 73-83.
Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., and Michaud, G. (eds) (1972). Interdisciplinarity:problems of teaching and research in universities. pp. 89–97. Paris: Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development, 89–97.
Avelar, A. B. A., da Silva-Oliveira, K. D., & da Silva Pereira, R. (2019). Education foradvancing the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: A systematic approach.The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), 100322.
Bacon, C. M., Mulvaney, D., Ball, T. B., DuPuis, E. M., Gliessman, S. R., Lipschutz, R. D., &Shakouri, A. (2011). The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and student praxisprojects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Baden, D., & Parkes, C. (2013). Experiential learning: Inspiring the business leaders oftomorrow. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 295-308.
Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Telukdarie, A. (2018). Importance of innovation and flexibility inconfiguring supply network sustainability. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecologicalresponsiveness. Academy of management journal, 43(4), 717-736.
88
Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 16(2), 122-131.
Barile, S., Orecchini, F., Saviano, M., & Farioli, F. (2018). People, technology, andgovernance for sustainability: The contribution of systems and cyber-systemic thinking.Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1197-1208.
Barnes, J. A., & Harary, F. (1983). Graph theory in network analysis. Social networks, 5(2),235-244.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-yearretrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6), 643-650.
Barthel, R., & Seidl, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and socialsciences–status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS One, 12(1), e0170754.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software forexploring and manipulating networks. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conferenceon Web and Social Media (Vol. 3, No. 1).
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools have lost their way. Harvardbusiness review, 83(5), 96-104.
Bernal, J. D. (1944). The social function of science. London: George Routledge & sons ltd.
Bled School of Management (2018). Sharing Information on Progress. Bled, Slovenia.Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding ofcommunities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment,2008(10), P10008.
Borges, J. C., Cezarino, L. O., Ferreira, T. C., Sala, O. T. M., Unglaub, D. L., & Caldana, A.C. F. (2017). Student organizations and communities of practice: Actions for the 2030 agendafor sustainable development. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2),172-182.
Borglund, T., Prenkert, F., Frostenson, M., Helin, S., & Du Rietz, S. (2019). Externalfacilitators as ‘Legitimizers’ in designing a master's program in sustainable business at aSwedish business school–A typology of industry collaborator roles in RME. The InternationalJournal of Management Education, 17(3).
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisisdue to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-6.
Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our commonfuture. New York, 8.
89
Cai, Y., Lenton, T. M., & Lontzek, T. S. (2016). Risk of multiple interacting tipping pointsshould encourage rapid CO 2 emission reduction. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 520-525.
Cant, G., & Kulik, B. W. (2009). More than lip service: the development and implementationplan of an ethics decision-making framework for an integrated undergraduate businesscurriculum. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(4), 231-254.
Castillo, N. M., Lee, J., Zahra, F. T., & Wagner, D. A. (2015). MOOCS for development:Trends, challenges, and opportunities. International Technologies & InternationalDevelopment, 11(2), 35.
Castro Benavides, L. M., Tamayo Arias, J. A., Arango Serna, M. D., Branch Bedoya, J. W., &Burgos, D. (2020). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematicliterature review. Sensors, 20(11), 3291.
Cassely, L., Revelli, C., Ben Larbi, S., & Lacroux, (2020) A. Sustainable development driversof companies: An international and multilevel analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management. In press.
Catanante, B. (2000). Gestão do ser integral: como integrar alma, coração e razão no trabalhoe na vida. In Gestão do ser integral: como integrar alma, coração e razão no trabalho e na vida(pp. 142-142).
Cezarino, L. O. (2013). Mensuração da interdisciplinaridade nos cursos de graduação emadministração. (Doctoral thesis). Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade,Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Cezarino, L. O., & Corrêa, H. L. (2019). Mensuração da interdisciplinaridade nos cursos degraduação em Administração. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior(Campinas), 24(1), 174-188.
Cezarino, L. O., Abdala, E. C., Soares, M. A., & Fernandes, V. D. C. (2018). Students'knowledge of sustainability issues in higher education. Latin American Journal ofManagement for Sustainable Development, 4(1), 24-40.
Cezarino, L. O., Liboni, L. B., Oliveira, M. F., & Caldana, A. C. (2016). Soft systemsmethodology and interdisciplinarity in management education. Systems research andbehavioral science, 33(2), 278-288.
Cicmil, S., Gough, G., & Hills, S. (2017). Insights into responsible education for sustainabledevelopment: The case of UWE, Bristol. The International Journal of Management Education,15(2), 293-305.
Charan, P., & Murty, L. S. (2018). Institutional pressure and the implementation of corporateenvironment practices: examining the mediating role of absorptive capacity. Journal ofKnowledge Management.
Choi, I. (2014). Connections and Overlap Between Capacity Building Measures, NonprofitManagement Competencies, and Training Needs of Nonprofit Managers.
90
Copenhagen Business School (2019). 2019 Responsible Management. Copenhagen,Denmark. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Cornuel, E., & Hommel, U. (2015). Moving beyond the rhetoric of responsible managementeducation. Journal of Management Development.
Corriveau, A. M. (2020). Developing authentic leadership as a starting point to responsiblemanagement: A Canadian university case study. The international journal of managementeducation, 18(1), 100364.
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling;merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of advanced nursing, 26(3), 623-630.
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., & Glowatz, M. (2020). COVID-19: 20Countries' Higher Education Intra-Period Digital Pedagogy Responses. Journal of AppliedTeaching and Learning (JALT), 3(1).
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). The “anthropocene”. In Earth system science in the anthropocene (pp.13-18). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Dallaire, C. O., Trincsi, K., Ward, M. K., Harris, L. I., Jarvis, L., Dryden, R. L., &MacDonald, G. K. (2018). Creating space for sustainability literacy: the case ofstudent-centered symposia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Darian-Smith, E., & McCarty, P. (2016). Beyond interdisciplinarity: Developing a globaltransdisciplinary framework. Transcience: A Journal of Global Studies, 7(2), 1-26.
da Veiga, J. E. (2015). Para entender o desenvolvimento sustentável. Editora 34.
Dehnavi, S., & Al-Saidi, M. (2020). Educating water professionals for the Arab world:Archetypes, change agents and complex realities. Energy Reports, 6, 106-113.
Department of Business Administration and Work Science of Kristianstad University (2020).Sharing Information on Progress: Responsibility, Ethics and Sustainability. Kristianstad,Sweden. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips
Department of Finance and Banking RANEPA (2017- 2019). Sharing Information onProgress. Moscow, Russia. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Diep, L., Martins, F. P., Campos, L. C., Hofmann, P., Tomei, J., Lakhanpaul, M., & Parikh, P.(2020). Linkages between sanitation and the sustainable development goals: A case study ofBrazil. Sustainable Development.
Diep, L., Hofmann, P., Tomei, J., Campos, L. C., Teh, T. H., Mulugetta, Y., ... & Lakhanpaul,M. (2020). Mapping Synergies and Trade-Offs between Sanitation and the SustainableDevelopment Goals.
Dietler, D., Leuenberger, A., Bempong, N. E., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Cramer, C., Eggen, R.I., ... & Utzinger, J. (2019). Health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: from
91
framework to action, transforming challenges into opportunities. Journal of global health,9(2).
de Assumpção, M. R., & Neto, M. P. M. (2020). State-of-the-art practices being reported bythe PRME champions group: A reference to advance education for sustainable development.The International Journal of Management Education, 18(2), 100369.
de Paula Arruda Filho, N. (2017). The agenda 2030 for responsible management education:An applied methodology. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2),183-191.
de Paula Arruda Filho, N., & Beuter, B. S. P. (2020). Faculty sensitization and development toenhance responsible management education. The International Journal of ManagementEducation, 18(1), 100359.
Dickmann, M., Parry, E., & Keshavjee, N. (2019). Localization of staff in a hostile context: anexploratory investigation in Afghanistan. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 30(11), 1839-1867.
Dyllick, T. (2015). Responsible management education for a sustainable world: Thechallenges for business schools. Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 16-33.
Dyer, G., & Dyer, M. (2017). Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: theAmerican College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment. Journal of CleanerProduction, 140, 111-116.
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing atypology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment,29(2), 156-174.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.
Dubois, S., & Walsh, I. (2017). The globalization of research highlighted through the researchnetworks of management education institutions: The case of French business schools. M@n@ gement, 20(5), 435-462.
EGADE Business School (2017-2018). Sharing Information on Progress. Monterrey, NuevoLeón, México. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Elfert, M. (2019). Lifelong learning in Sustainable Development Goal 4: What does it meanfor UNESCO’s rights-based approach to adult learning and education?. International Reviewof Education, 65(4), 537-556.
Elshof, L. (2003). Technological education, interdisciplinarity, and the journey towardsustainable development: nurturing new communities of practice. Canadian Journal ofScience, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(2), 165-184.
Escudero, M. (2011). PRME and four theses on 20 the future of management education.Business schools and their contribution to society, 201.
92
Facultad de Administración de Empresas Universidad Externado de Colombia (2018-2019)Informe de Progreso. Bogotá, Colombia. Recovered fromhttps://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Faculty of Business and Law (2017-2018). Sharing information on progress. Melbourne,Austrália. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Fazenda, I. C. A. (1991). Interdisciplinary Practices in School. Cortez: São Paulo.
Fazenda, I. C. A. (1997). O sentido da ambiguidade numa didática interdisciplinar. Didática eformação de professores: percursos e perspectivas no Brasil e em Portugal, 3, 241-255.
Fazenda, I. C. A. (1998). A aquisição de uma formação interdisciplinar de professores.Didática e interdisciplinaridade, 17, 11-20.
Fazenda, I. C. A. (2008). Interdisciplinaridade e transdisciplinaridade na formação deprofessores. Ideação, 10(1), 93-104.
Fazenda, I. C. A. (2008). Didática e interdisciplinaridade. Papirus Editora.
Fazenda, I. C. A., Varella, A. M. R. S., & de Oliveira Almeida, T. T. (2013).Interdisciplinaridade: tempos, espaços, proposições. Revista e-curriculum, 11(3), 847-862.
Fordham University, Gabelli School of Business (2017-2018). Sharing Information onProgress. New York, United States. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Forray, J. M., & Leigh, J. S. (2012). A primer on the principles of responsible managementeducation: Intellectual roots and waves of change. Journal of Management Education, 36(3),295-309.
Fougère, M., Solitander, N., & Young, S. (2014). Exploring and exposing values inmanagement education: Problematizing final vocabularies in order to enhance moralimagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 175-187.
Fortuin, I.K.P.J. & Bush, S.R. (2010), “Educating students to cross boundaries betweendisciplines and cultures and between theory and practice,” International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 19.
Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2009). The global financial crisis of 2008: what wentwrong?.
Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. D. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook ofinterdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press.
Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability.Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241-255.
93
George Mason University School of Business (2018-2019). PRME Progress Report. Fairfax,United States. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Gitelman, L., Kozhevnikov, M., & Ryzhuk, O. (2019). Advance management education forpower-engineering and industry of the future. Sustainability, 11(21), 5930.
Glasgow Caledonian University (2018). Sharing Information on Progress. Glasgow, UnitedKingdom. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Golinelli, G. M., Barile, S., Saviano, M., Farioli, F., & Masaru, Y. (2015). Towards a commonframework for knowledge co-creation: opportunities of collaboration between Service Scienceand Sustainability Science. Service Dominant Logic, Network and Systems Theory andService Science: Integrating Three Perspectives for a New Service Agenda.
Goralski, M. A., & Tan, T. K. (2020). Artificial intelligence and sustainable development. TheInternational Journal of Management Education, 18(1), 100330.
Gordon Institute of Business Science (2019-2020). Sharing Information on Progress.Johannesburg, South Africa. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics (2018-2020). Sharing Information onProgress. Ontario, Canada. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Gothenburg School of Business, Economics and Law (2020). Sustainability 2020 PRMEReport. Gothenburg, Sweden. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Greenberg, D. N., Deets, S., Erzurumlu, S., Hunt, J., Manwaring, M., Rodgers, V., &Swanson, E. (2017). Signing to living PRME: Learning from a journey towards responsiblemanagement education. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 205-218.
Grey, C. (2007). Possibilities for critical management education and studies. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 23(4), 463-471.
Guimarães, M. J. E. (2008). Interdisciplinaridade: consciência do servir. FAZENDA, ICA Oque é interdisciplinaridade. Cortez Editora.
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability:Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297-316.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporatesustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academyof management review, 39(4), 463-487.
Hanken School of Economics. (2016-2016). Sharing Information on Progress. Helsinki,Sweden. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
94
Hallinger, P., & Wang, R. (2020). Analyzing the intellectual structure of research onsimulation-based learning in management education, 1960–2019: A bibliometric review. TheInternational Journal of Management Education, 18(3), 100418.
Haertle, J., Parkes, C., Murray, A., & Hayes, R. (2017). PRME: Building a global movementon responsible management education. The International Journal of Management Education,15(2), 66-72.
Hart, J. (2019). Interdisciplinary project-based learning as a means of developingemployability skills in undergraduate science degree programs. Journal of Teaching andLearning for Graduate Employability, 10(2), 50-66.
Hays, J. M., Pereseina, V., Alshuaibi, A. S. I., & Saha, J. (2020). Lessons in sustainableprocess paradigm. a case study from Dubai. The International Journal ofwoodManagementEducation, 18(1), 100366.
Herzner, A., & Stucken, K. (2020). Reporting on sustainable development with studentinclusion as a teaching method. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(1),100329.
Høgdal, C., Rasche, A., Schoeneborn, D., & Scotti, L. (2019). Exploring student perceptionsof the hidden curriculum in responsible management education. Journal of Business Ethics,1-21.
Hayes, R., Parkes, C., & Murray, A. (2017). Development of responsible managementeducation and the Principles for Responsible Management Education in context. In Educatingfor Responsible Management (pp. 13-27). Routledge.
Harbin, J., & Humphrey, P. (2010). Teaching management by telling stories. Academy ofEducational Leadership Journal, 14(1), 99.
Heckhausen, H. (1972). Discipline and interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity: problems ofteaching and research in universities, 83, 89.
He, J., Nazari, M., Zhang, Y., & Cai, N. (2020). Opportunity-based entrepreneurship andenvironmental quality of sustainable development: A resource and institutional perspective.Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120390.
Hernández García, Á., González González, I., Jiménez Zarco, A. I., & Chaparro Peláez, J.(2016). Visualizations of online course interactions for social network learning analytics.
Herrmann, B., & Rundshagen, V. (2020). Paradigm shift to implement SDG 2 (end hunger): Ahumanistic management lens on the education of future leaders. The International Journal ofManagement Education, 18(1), 100368.
Hervieux, C., McKee, M., & Driscoll, C. (2017). Room for improvement: Using GRIprinciples to explore potential for advancing PRME SIP reporting. The International Journalof Management Education, 15(2), 219-237.
95
Hilal, A. H., & Alabri, S. S. (2013). Using NVivo for data analysis in qualitative research.International interdisciplinary journal of education, 2(2), 181-186.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jacob, D., Taylor, M., Bindi, M., Brown, S., Camilloni, I., Diedhiou, A.,Djalante, R., Ebi, K. L., Engelbrecht, F., Guiot, J., Hijioka, Y., Mehrotra, S., Payne, A.,Seneviratne, S. I., Thomas, A.,Warren, R. & Zhou, G. (2018). Impacts of 1.5 C globalwarming on natural and human systems. In Global warming of 1.5° C.: An IPCC SpecialReport (pp. 175-311). IPCC Secretariat.
Holley, K. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary strategies as transformative change in highereducation. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 331.
Horban, O., Kravchenko, O., Martych, R., & Yukhymenko, N. (2019). The regulatoryfunctions of education in behavioral models.
Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory insustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework.Organization & Environment, 27(4), 328-346.
Huang, J., Yu, H., Dai, A., Wei, Y., & Kang, L. (2017). Drylands face potential threat under 2C global warming target. Nature Climate Change, 7(6), 417-422.
Huckle, J., & Wals, A. E. (2015). The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development:business as usual in the end. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 491-505.
Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Anderson, K. D.,Baird, A. H., ... & Bridge, T. C. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching ofcorals. Nature, 543(7645), 373-377.
Hughes, M. Ü., Upadhyaya, S., & Houston, R. (2018). Educating future corporate managersfor a sustainable world: recommendations for a paradigm shift in business education. On theHorizon.
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity:Typology and indicators. Research policy, 39(1), 79-88.
IESEG School of Management (2018-2019). Corporate Social Responsibility andSustainability Report. Paris, France. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
IPM Business School (2020). Sharing Information on Progress. Minsque, Belarus. Recoveredfrom https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
ISAE Brazilian Business School (2021). Sustainability Report. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Jain, S., Aggarwal, P., Sharma, N., & Sharma, P. (2013). Fostering sustainability througheducation, research and practice: a case study of TERI University. Journal of cleanerproduction, 61, 20-24.
96
Japiassu, H. (1994). A questão da interdisciplinaridade. Seminário Internacional SobreReestruturação Curricular. Anais. Porto Alegre.
Ji, Z. (2020). Does factor market distortion affect industrial pollution intensity? Evidencefrom China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122136.
Johns, R. A., & Pontes, R. (2019). Parks, rhetoric and environmental education: challengesand opportunities for enhancing ecoliteracy. Journal of Outdoor and EnvironmentalEducation, 22(1), 1-19.
Jonas, H. (1973). Technology and responsibility: Reflections on the new tasks of ethics.Social Research, 31-54.
Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., Barman, B., Das, P. &Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduatestudents during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 105194.
Kapp, K. W. (1961). Toward a science of man in society. In Toward a Science of Man inSociety (pp. 200-211). Springer, Dordrecht.
Kassel, K., Rimanoczy, I., & Mitchell, S. F. (2018). A sustainability mindset model formanagement education. Developing a Sustainability Mindset in Management Education, 3-37.
Kell, G., & Haertle, J. (2013). UN Global Compact and Principles for ResponsibleManagement Education–the next decades. In EFMD Insights into Sustainability and SocialResponsibility 21(23), (pp. 21-23). European Foundation for Management Development(EFMD) in association with GSE Research.
Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick (2020). Sharing Information on Progress.Limerick, Ireland. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Khurana, R. (2010). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of Americanbusiness schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. PrincetonUniversity Press.
Killian, S., Lannon, J., Murray, L., Avram, G., Giralt, M., & O'Riordan, S. (2019). Socialmedia for social good: Student engagement for the SDGs. The International Journal ofManagement Education, 17(3), 100307.
Kirby, W., & Van der Wende, M. (2019). The New Silk Road: implications for highereducation in China and the West?. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,12(1), 127-144.
Klein, J. T. (1984). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. structure, 71,72.
Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. Handbook of theundergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, andchange, 393-415.
97
Klein, J. T. (2006). Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary andtransdisciplinary research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 75-80.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. The Oxford handbook ofinterdisciplinarity, 15, 15-30.
Kysilka, M. L. (1998). Understanding integrated curriculum. Curriculum journal, 9(2),197-209.
Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarityvs. interdisciplinarity debate.
Krizek, K. J., Newport, D., White, J., & Townsend, A. R. (2012). Higher education'ssustainability imperative: how to practically respond?. International Journal of Sustainabilityin Higher Education.
Laasch, O. (2020). Tackling doctoral education in responsible management: Resources forlearning from ethical professors and intellectual shamans.The International Journal ofManagement Education.
Lambrechts, W., Gelderman, C. J., Semeijn, J., & Verhoeven, E. (2019). The role ofindividual sustainability competences in eco-design building projects. Journal of CleanerProduction, 208, 1631-1641.
Landau. M., Proshansky, H., and Ittelson, W. (1962). The interdisciplinary approach and theconcept of behavioral sciences. In: N.F. Washburne (ed.) Decisions: values and groups, II, pp.7–25. New York: Pergamon.
Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P., Nagalingam, S. V., & Adebanjo, D. (2019).Prioritization of sustainable supply chain practices with triple bottom line and organizationaltheories: industry and academic perspectives. Production Planning & Control, 1-15.
Laszlo, C., Waddock, S., & Sroufe, R. (2017). Torn Between Two Paradigms: A Struggle forthe Soul of Business Schools. AI Practitioner, 19(2).
La Trobe Business School (2018-2020). UN PRME Sharing Information on Progress.Melbourne, Australia. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Lattuca, L. R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academicwork. The journal of higher education, 73(6), 711-739.
Leal Filho, W., Eustachio, J. H. P. P., Caldana, A. C. F., Will, M., Salvia, A. L., Rampasso, I.S., ... & Kovaleva, M. (2020). Sustainability Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: AnOverview of Challenges. Sustainability, 12(9), 1-21.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative dataanalysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70.
98
Leeds School of Business (2018-2019). Sharing Information on Progress. Boulder, UnitedStates. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Lenoir, Y., Rey, B., & Fazenda, I. (2001). Les fondements de l'interdisciplinarité dans laformation à l'enseignement. Éditions du CRP.
Lenton, T. M. (2011). Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change, 1(4),201-209.
Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., &Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against.
Leximancer. (2019). https://info.leximancer.com/. Retrieved December 18, 2020, fromhttps://info.leximancer.com/
Lindsay, T. K. (2013). The likelihood of higher-education reform. Society, 50(3), 236-244.
Lo, K. Y., & Kwan, C. L. (2017). The effect of environmental, social, governance andsustainability initiatives on stock value–Examining market response to initiatives undertakenby listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6),606-619.
Loewe, M., & Rippin, N. (2015). Translating an ambitious vision into global transformation:the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (No. 7/2015). Discussion Paper.
Lorentzen, H. F., Benfield, T., Stisen, S., & Rahbek, C. (2020). COVID-19 is possibly aconsequence of the anthropogenic biodiversity crisis and climate changes. Dan Med J, 67(5),A205025.
Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon tipping point. Science Advances, 4 (2).
Lozano, R. (2012). Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: ananalysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 14-26.
Lynton, E. A. (1985). Interdisciplinarity: Rationales and criteria of assessment.Interdisciplinarity revisited: Re-assessing the concept in the light of institutional experience,15-25.
Madan, M., Chopra, M., & Dave, M. (2016). Predictions and recommendations for the highereducation institutions from Facebook social networks. In 2016 3rd International Conferenceon Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom) (pp. 3882-3891). IEEE.
Mäkinen, E. I. (2019). The power of peer review on transdisciplinary discovery. Science,Technology, & Human Values, 44(6), 1020-1047.
Miller, R. C (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences: A 1981overview. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies.
99
Miller, T. R., Muñoz‐Erickson, T., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Transforming knowledge forsustainability: towards adaptive academic institutions. International Journal of Sustainabilityin Higher Education.
Miotto, G., Polo López, M., & Rom Rodríguez, J. (2019). Gender equality and UNsustainable development goals: Priorities and correlations in the top business schools’communication and legitimation strategies. Sustainability, 11(2), 302.
MISUM. Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets (2021).
Molthan-Hill, P., Robinson, Z. P., Hope, A., Dharmasasmita, A., & McManus, E. (2020).Reducing carbon emissions in business through Responsible Management Education:Influence at the micro-, meso-and macro-levels. The International Journal of ManagementEducation, 18(1), 100328.
Moroni, A. (1978). Interdisciplinarity and environmental education. Prospects, 8(4), 480-494.
Morse, J.M., "Qualitative generalizability." (1999): 5-6.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. Qualitative nursing research: A contemporarydialogue, 127-145.
Mousa, M., Massoud, H. K., Ayoubi, R. M., & Abdelgaffar, H. A. (2020). Should responsiblemanagement education become a priority? A qualitative study of academics in Egyptianpublic business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(1), 100326.
Muff, K., Kapalka, A., & Dyllick, T. (2017). The Gap Frame-Translating the SDGs intorelevant national grand challenges for strategic business opportunities. The InternationalJournal of Management Education, 15(2), 363-383.
Mulia, P., Behura, A., & Kar, S. (2016). Categorical imperative in defense of strongsustainability. Problemy Ekorozwoju–Problems of Sustainable Development, 11(2), 29-36.
Nature. Why interdisciplinary research matters. Nature. 2015; 525(7569):305. doi:10.1038/525305a PMID: 26381966
Nerini, F. F., Tomei, J., To, L. S., Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., Black, M., Borrion, A., Spataru, C.,Castan-Broto, V. Anandarajah, G., Milligan, B & Mulugetta, Y. (2018). Mapping synergiesand trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Energy, 3(1),10-15.
Newcastle University Business School (2020). Sharing Information on Progress. Newcastle,Australia. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., Agha, M. & Agha,R. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic: areview. International Journal of Surgery.
100
Niesten, E., & Jolink, A. Motivations for Environmental Alliances: Generating andInternalizing Environmental and Knowledge Value. International Journal of ManagementReviews.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: map the interactions betweenSustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534(7607), 320-322.
Nova School of Business and Economics (2019). Sharing Information on Progress. Cascais,Portugal. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Nottingham University Business School (2019). Principles for Responsible ManagementEducation 2019 Sharing Information on Progress. Nottingham, England. Recovered fromhttps://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Nottingham Business School (2019). Sharing Information on Progress. Nottingham, England.Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Nwagwu, I. (2020). Driving sustainable banking in Nigeria through responsible managementeducation: The case of Lagos Business School. The International Journal of ManagementEducation, 18(1), 100332.
Ndubuka, N. N., & Rey-Marmonier, E. (2019). Capability approach for realising theSustainable Development Goals through Responsible Management Education: The case ofUK business school academics. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3),100319.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of managementreview, 16(1), 145-179.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional andresource‐based views. Strategic management journal, 18(9), 697-713.
Ortiz, D., & Huber-Heim, K. (2017). From information to empowerment: Teachingsustainable business development by enabling an experiential and participatoryproblem-solving process in the classroom. The international journal of managementeducation, 15(2), 318-331.
Orzes, G., Moretto, A. M., Moro, M., Rossi, M., Sartor, M., Caniato, F., & Nassimbeni, G.(2020). The Impact of the United Nations Global Compact on firm performance: Alongitudinal analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 227, 107664.
Parkes, C., Kolb, M., Schlange, L., Gudić, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (2020). Looking forward:Leadership Development & Responsible Management Education for advancing theimplementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Article 100387. Theinternational journal of management education, 18(2), 1-4.
Painter-Morland, M., Sabet, E., Molthan-Hill, P., Goworek, H., & de Leeuw, S. (2016).Beyond the curriculum: Integrating sustainability into business schools. Journal of BusinessEthics, 139(4), 737-754.
101
Pennington, D., Ebert-Uphoff, I., Freed, N., Martin, J., & Pierce, S. A. (2019). Bridgingsustainability science, earth science, and data science through interdisciplinary education.Sustainability Science, 1-15.
Peterlin, J., Meško, M., Dimovski, V., & Roblek, V (2020). Automated content analysis: Thereview of the big data systemic discourse in tourism and hospitality. Systems Research andBehavioral Science.
Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic management: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being.Cambridge University Press.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating shared value. In Managing sustainablebusiness (pp. 323-346). Springer, Dordrecht.
Prandini, M., Vervoort Isler, P., & Barthelmess, P. (2012). Responsible management educationfor 21st century leadership. Central European Business Review, 1(2), 16-22.
Pucihar, A. (2020). The digital transformation journey: Content analysis of ElectronicMarkets articles and Bled eConference proceedings from 2012 to 2019. Electronic Markets,30(1), 29-37.
Queen’s Management School (2019). Sharing Information on Progress. Belfast, NorthernIreland. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Ralph, M., & Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities.Higher Education, 67(1), 71-90.
Ramboarisata, L., & Gendron, C. (2019). Beyond moral righteousness: The challenges ofnon-utilitarian ethics, CSR, and sustainability education. The International Journal ofManagement Education, 17(3), 100321.
Radinger-Peer, V., & Pflitsch, G. (2017). The role of higher education institutions in regionaltransition paths towards sustainability. Review of Regional Research, 37(2), 161-187.
Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2015). Decoupling responsible management education: Whybusiness schools may not walk their talk. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3), 239-252.
Rasche, A., & Escudero, M. (2009). Leading change: The role of the principles forresponsible management education. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 10(2),244-250.
Roblek, V., Meško, M., Bach, M. P., Thorpe, O., & Šprajc, P. (2020). The interaction betweeninternet, sustainable development, and emergence of society 5.0. Data, 5(3), 80.
Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. Taylor & Francis.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton,M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van derLeeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L.
102
Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P.Crutzen & J. Foley. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space forhumanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).
Rooks, D., & Winkler, C. (2012). Learning interdisciplinarity: Service learning and thepromise of interdisciplinary teaching. Teaching Sociology, 40(1), 2-20.
Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining andextending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social science & medicine, 35(11),1343-1357.
Rowan University (2017-2019). Sharing Information on Progress (SIP). Glassboro, UnitedStates. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Sanahuja, J. A., & Tezanos Vázquez, S. (2017). Del milenio a la sostenibilidad: retos yperspectivas de la Agenda 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in nursing & health,18(2), 179-183.
Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals.The lancet, 379(9832), 2206-2211.
Sachs (2017) Lecture. 4th Responsible Management Education Research Conference. Sept.2017. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7Nr_r4ph8&t=2098s>
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students.Pearson education.
Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B., & Tukker, A. (2018).Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. EnvironmentalScience & Policy, 90, 65-72.
Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2020). Why Business Schools Need Radical Innovations: Drivers andDevelopment Trajectories. Journal of Marketing Education, 0273475320922285.
School of Business, Government, and Economics Seattle Pacific University (2018-2020).Principles of Responsible Management Education: Sharing Information on Progress. Seattle,United States. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Schulz, D., van der Woud, A., & Westhof, J. (2020). The best indycaster project: Analysingand understanding meaningful YouTube content, dialogue and commitment as part ofresponsible management education. The international journal of management education,18(1), 100335.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sagepublications.
103
Shriberg, M. (2002). Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education:strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Higher education policy,15(2), 153-167.
Sibbel, A. (2009). Pathways towards sustainability through higher education. InternationalJournal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny, T.A.McOwen, C., Asch, R., Geffert, J., Wabnitz, C., Sumaila, R., Hanich, Q. A.& Ota, Y.(2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable DevelopmentGoals. Marine Policy, 93, 223-231.
Smelser, N. (2004). Interdisciplinarity in theory and practice. In: C. Camic and H. Joas, (eds).The dialogical turn: new roles for sociology in the post disciplinary age, pp. 43-64. Lanham,MD: Bowman and Littlefield.
Sobey School of Business (2018-2020). Report on our Commitment to ResponsibleManagement Education. Halifax, Canada. Recovered fromhttps://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Solitander, N., Fougère, M., Sobczak, A., & Herlin, H. (2012). We are the champions:Organizational learning and change for responsible management education. Journal ofManagement Education, 36(3), 337-363.
Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T. A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: Acomparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 218-234.
Starkey, K., & Thomas, H. (2019). The future of business schools: shut them down or broadenour horizons?. EFMD Global Focus_Iss, 13(2).
Stockholm School of Economics (2017-2019). Sharing Information on Progress. Riga, Latvia.Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
TAPMI Centre for Entrepreneurship Inclusive Growth & Competitiveness (2017-2019).Sharing Information on Progress. Manipal, India. Recovered fromhttps://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
Tavares, D. E. (2008). A interdisciplinaridade na contemporaneidade–qual o sentido. O que éinterdisciplinaridade, 2.
Thiel, M. (2020). Governing indifference in social performance reporting: Implications forresponsible management education. The international journal of management education,18(1), 2.
University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons (2021). Responsible Management Education:Sharing Information on Progress (SIP) Report. Berna, Switzerland. Recovered fromhttps://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
104
University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business (2018-2020). Sharing Information onProgress. Western Cape, South Africa. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
University of Dubai (2015-2016). Sharing Information on Progress. Dubai, United ArabEmirates. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
University of Winchester Business School (2021). Principles for Responsible ManagementEducation. Winchester, England. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.UN. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainabledevelopment. General Assembley 70 session.
UN. United Nations (2019) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. Available at:<https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019>. Last accessed: April 20th 2020
UN PRME. (2016). The Principles for Responsible Management Education: History.Available at:< http:www.unprme.orgabout-prehistory index.php>. Last accessed: January 3th2020.
UN PRME. (2020). The Principles for Responsible Management Education. Available at:<http:www.unprme.org. Last accessed: April 3th 2020.
Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: politics of targets andindicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10, 39-51.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXivpreprint arXiv:1109.2058.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2013). VOSviewer manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden, 1(1),1-53.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications usingCitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070.
Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., & Lidstone, L. (2013). Greening the ivory tower: Areview of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustainability,5(5), 2252-2271.
Vladimirova, K., & Le Blanc, D. (2016). Exploring links between education and sustainabledevelopment goals through the lens of UN flagship reports. Sustainable Development, 24(4),254-271.
Wals, A. E. (2012). Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 full-length report on the UNdecade of education for sustainable development. Unesco.
Wanasinghe, T. R., Wroblewski, L., Petersen, B. K., Gosine, R. G., James, L. A., De Silva, O.,... & Warrian, P. J. (2020). Digital twin for the oil and gas industry: overview, research trends,opportunities, and challenges. IEEE Access, 8, 104175-104197.
105
Weingart, P. (2010). A short history of knowledge formations. The Oxford handbook ofinterdisciplinarity, 3-14.
Weingart, S. B. (2013). From trees to webs: uprooting knowledge through visualization. InClassification & visualization: Interfaces to knowledge. Proceedings of the International UDCSeminar (pp. 43-58).
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. In: P. Weingart and N.Stehr (eds) Practicing interdisciplinarity, pp. 25–41. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Wersun, A. (2017). Context and the institutionalisation of PRME: The case of the Universityfor the Common Good. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 249-262.
Wersun, A., Dean, B. A., Mills, R., Perkiss, S., Acosta, P., Anastasiadis, S., ... & Bayerlein, L.(2019). An exploration of student learning for sustainability through the WikiRate studentengagement project. International Journal of Management Education, 17(3).
Weybrecht, G. (2017). From challenge to opportunity–Management education's crucial role insustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals–An overview and framework. TheInternational Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 84-92.
Wijethilake, C., Munir, R., & Appuhami, R. (2017). Strategic responses to institutionalpressures for sustainability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Winfield, F., & Ndlovu, T. (2019). Future-proof your Degree. International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education.
Woiwode, H., & Froese, A. (2020). Two hearts beating in a research centers’ chest: howscholars in interdisciplinary research settings cope with monodisciplinary deep structures.Studies in Higher Education, 1-15.
Wood Jr, T., & Pansarella, L. (2019). Inside the borders but outside the box: An immersionprogram aligned with the PRME and the SDG to foster reflexivity. The International Journalof Management Education, 17(3), 100306.
Yashiro, H. (2009). Sustainability education for the development of new business. InPICMET'09-2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering &Technology (pp. 2322-2327). IEEE.
Yeo, R. (1991). Reading encyclopedias: science and the organization of knowledge in Britishdictionaries of arts and sciences, 1730-1850. Isis, 82(1), 24-49.
ZHAW School of Management and Law (2017-2018). Sharing Information on ProgressReport. Zurich, Switzerland. Recovered from https://www.unprme.org/search-sips.
106
APPENDIX I - LIST OF PRME CHAMPIONS SIGNATORIES
Name Parent Organisation Org Type Country
Audencia Nantes School of Management Business School France
Copenhagen Business School University Denmark
Deakin University, Faculty of Businessand Law University Australia
Department of Business Administrationand Work Science - KristianstadUniversity Kristianstad University Business School Sweden
EGADE, Graduate School of BusinessAdministration and Leadership
Tecnologico de MonterreyUniversity System Business School Mexico
Externado University ManagementFaculty Externado University Business School Colombia
Gabelli School of Business Fordham University Business School United States
George Mason University School ofBusiness George Mason University University United States
Glasgow Caledonian University University United Kingdom
Gordon Institute of Business Science(GIBS) University of Pretoria Business School South Africa
Gordon S. Lang School of Business andEconomics University of Guelph Business School Canada
Graduate School of Business University of Cape Town Business School South Africa
Hanken School of Economics Business School Finland
IBS-Moscow RANEPA Business SchoolRussianFederation
IEDC-Bled School of Management Business School Slovenia
IESEG School of Management Business School France
INCAE Business School Business School Costa Rica
IPM Business School Business School Belarus
ISAE/FGVFundação Getulio VargasFGV Business School Brazil
Kemmy Business School University of Limerick Business School Ireland
La Trobe Business School La Trobe University Business School Australia
Leeds School of BusinessUniversity of Colorado atBoulder Business School United States
107
Newcastle Business SchoolUniversity of Northumbriaat Newcastle Business School United Kingdom
Nottingham Business SchoolNottingham TrentUniversity Business School United Kingdom
Nottingham University Business School Business School United Kingdom
Nova School of Business and EconomicsUniversidade Nova deLisboa Business School Portugal
Queen's Management School Queen's University Belfast Business School United Kingdom
Rohrer College of Business Rowan University Business School United States
School of Business, Government, andEconomics Seattle Pacific University Business School United States
Sobey School of Business Saint Mary's University Business School Canada
Stockholm School of Economics Business School Sweden
T A PAI Management Institute Business School India
The School of Business, Economics andLaw at University of Gothenburg University of Gothenburg University Sweden
University of Applied Sciences of theGrisons University Switzerland
University of Dubai UniversityUnited ArabEmirates
Winchester Business SchoolThe University ofWinchester Business School United Kingdom
ZHAW School of Management and LawZurich University ofApplied Sciences
School ofManagement andLaw Switzerland
Source: UN PRME (2020)
108
APPENDIX II - PRME SIX PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK
Principle 1 | PurposeWe will develop the capabilities of students to be future generators of sustainable value forbusiness and society at large and to work for an inclusive and sustainable global economy.
Principle 2 | ValuesWe will incorporate into our academic activities, curricula, and organizational practices thevalues of global social responsibility as portrayed in international initiatives such as theUnited Nations Global Compact.
Principle 3 | MethodWe will create educational frameworks, materials, processes, and environments that enableeffective learning experiences for responsible leadership.
Principle 4 | ResearchWe will engage in conceptual and empirical research that advances our understanding aboutthe role, dynamics, and impact of corporations in the creation of sustainable social,environmental and economic value.
Principle 5 | PartnershipWe will interact with managers of business corporations to extend our knowledge of theirchallenges in meeting social and environmental responsibilities and to explore jointlyeffective approaches to meeting these challenges.
Principle 6 | DialogueWe will facilitate and support dialog and debate among educators, students, business,government, consumers, media, civil society organizations and other interested groups andstakeholders on critical issues related to global social responsibility and sustainability.
109
APPENDIX III - SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhereGoal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agricultureGoal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all agesGoal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for allGoal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girlsGoal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for allGoal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for allGoal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment anddecent work for allGoal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovationGoal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countriesGoal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainableGoal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patternsGoal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impactsGoal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable developmentGoal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity lossGoal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for alland build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levelsGoal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for SustainableDevelopment
110
APPENDIX IV - REVIEW ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY
REVIEW ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY (STRING 6) - 19 PAPERS / 10 CONSIDERED FOR THE TYPOLOGY
TITLE YEAR AUTHOR JOURNAL
Does itpresentevidence on asuccessfulsustainabledevelopmenteducationaction,practice,project orlocal policy?
The evidence canbe aligned in thedefinitions ofinstrumental orcriticalinterdisciplinarity?”
CATEGORIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS CITATIONS(jan/2021)
Interdisciplinarycollaboration betweennatural and socialsciences–status andtrends exemplified ingroundwater research.
2017 Barthel, R., &Seidl, R.
PLoS One, 12(1),e0170754. YES YES Student-led initiatives 22
Interdisciplinarity:Practical approach toadvancing education forsustainability and forthe SustainableDevelopment Goals.
2017 Annan-Diab, F.,& Molinari, C.
The InternationalJournal ofManagementEducation, 15(2),73-83.
YES YES
Results monitoring/ assessment towards sustainability andinterdisciplinarity Presence of assessments involving theSDGs frameworkPresence of interface with local community projectsPresence of specific educational programs or projectsaddressing gender and other diversity issuesPresence of "spaces of discomfort" fostered by the businessschools, for reflexivity on the role of business schools
84
Educating waterprofessionals for theArab world:Archetypes, changeagents and complex
2020 Dehnavi, S., &Al-Saidi, M.
Energy Reports,6, 106-113. YES YES
Presence of technological forecasting approaches, aiming atthe education for future, intertwined with sustainability .Partnerships between the triad: business, science (research)and education
0
111
realities.
The role of individualsustainabilitycompetences ineco-design buildingprojects.
2019
Lambrechts,W., Gelderman,C. J., Semeijn,J., &Verhoeven, E.
Journal ofCleanerProduction, 208,1631-1641.
YES YES Presence of technological forecasting approaches, aiming atthe education for future, intertwined with sustainability 11
Creating space forsustainability literacy:the case ofstudent-centeredsymposia.
2018
Dallaire, C. O.,Trincsi, K.,Ward, M. K.,Harris, L. I.,Jarvis, L.,Dryden, R. L.,& MacDonald,G. K.
InternationalJournal ofSustainability inHigherEducation.
YES YES
Providing an adaptive and interactive learning environmentby using different teaching methods and tools.Promoting interdisciplinary thinking and holisticunderstanding through employing real life case studies.Ensuring the intercultural exchange of experiences throughproviding platforms and environments of exchange.
Promoting practice and demand-oriented education andresearch and fostering information and knowledge transferthrough IWRM MENA program.Empowering the students with the required knowledge andskills to become young professionals.
“It just magicallyhappenedovernight!”–support forthe digitalization ofmedical teachingprovided by aninterdisciplinary e-tutorteam.
2020
Abler, M.,Bachmaier, R.,Hawelka, B.,Prock, S.,Schworm, S.,Merz, A. K., &Keil, S.
GMS journal formedicaleducation, 37(7).
YES YES
Presence of incentives for self-regulated learning process(Fortuin & Bush, 2010; Hughes, Upadhyaya, & Houston,2018);Presence of creative and art approaches (such asexperimenting with poetry, music, movies, drawing,meditation and storytelling) (Hughes, Upadhyaya, &Houston, 2018; Harbin & Humphrey, 2010)
Socio-environmentalanalysis:ecodevelopmenteducation zone andMondragon Cooperativeexperience.
2018
Alberto, L. C.S. A. C., &Zabala, C. S. L.U.
Sociedade eEstado, 33(3). YES YES Presence of educational programs on regional, local,
cooperative or SME 0
The regulatoryfunctions of educationin behavioral models.
Horban, O.,Kravchenko,O., Martych, R.,&Yukhymenko,
YES YES
Presence of connection between business teaching andother knowledges areas;Connection of sustainability with main managementdisciplines
112
N.
Educating futurecorporate managers fora sustainable world:Recommendations for aparadigm shift inbusiness education.
2018Hughes, M. Ü.,Upadhyaya, S.,& Houston, R.
On the Horizon. YES YES Identified Contribution between social and natural sciences 3
Interdisciplinaryproject-based learningas a means ofdevelopingemployability skills inundergraduate sciencedegree programs.
2019 Hart, J.
Journal ofTeaching andLearning forGraduateEmployability,10(2), 50-66.
YES YES Active learning methodologies presence N/A
Education and trainingin global occupationalhealth and safety: Aperspective on newpathways tosustainabledevelopment
2018
Paganelli, M.,Madeo, E.,Nabeel, I.,Pilia, I., Lecca,L. I., Pili, S.,& Fostinelli, J.
Annals of globalhealth, 84(3). NO NO N/A 6
The circular lowlandsof Manga, a uniqueecosystem in semi-aridenvironment subject toan interdisciplinary andmulti-institutionalresearch [Les cuvettesdu Manga, unécosystème unique enmilieu semi-aride objetd’une rechercheinterdisciplinaire etpluri-institutionnelle]
2018
Ambouta, K. J.M., Karimou,A., Tidjani, A.D., & Tychon,B.
Geo-Eco-Trop,42(2), 245-257. NO NO N/A N/A
Building studentcapacity to lead 2017 Ahmed, S.,
Sclafani, A.,Elementa:Science of the NO NO N/A 15
113
sustainabilitytransitions in the foodsystem throughfarm-based authenticresearch modules insustainability sciences(FARMS)
Aquino, E.,Kala, S.,Barias, L.,Eeg, J., ... &Méndez, E.
Anthropocene,5
Reflections oninterdisciplinarity andteaching chemicalengineering on aninterdisciplinarydegree programme inbiotechnology
2016 Foley, G.
Education forChemicalEngineers, 14,35-42.
NO NO N/A 16
Scientific mapping toidentify competenciesrequired by industry4.0
2021
Kipper, L. M.,Iepsen, S.,Dal Forno, A.J., Frozza,R.,Furstenau,L., Agnes, J.,& Cossul, D.
Technology inSociety, 64,101454.
NO NO N/A 5
Advance managementeducation forpower-engineering andindustry of the future
2019
Gitelman, L.,Kozhevnikov,M., &Ryzhuk, O.
Sustainability,11(21), 5930. NO NO N/A 7
Sustainabilityleadership in highereducation institutions:An overview ofchallenges
2020
Eustachio, J.H. P. P.,Caldana, A.C. F., Will,M., Salvia, A.L.,Rampasso, I.S., Anholon,R., ... &Kovaleva, M.
Sustainability,12(9), 3761. NO NO N/A 7
114
Science education:Development ofenvironmental thinking
2018
Gilmanshina,S. I.,Sagitova, R.N., &Gilmanshin, I.R.
Europeanresearchstudies journal,21(3),690-704.
NO NO N/A 4
The ANRAgrobiosphèreprogram: Importanceof thematic programsfor the emergence ofnew concepts [Leprogramme ANRAgrobiosphère :l'importance d'uneprogrammationthématique pourl'émergence denouveaux concepts]
2017
Hubert, B.,Jacquet, F.,Lemaire, E.,Valentin, C.,& Guehl, J.M.
NaturesSciencesSocietes,25(3),285-294.
NO NO N/A N/A
PRME SPECIAL ISSUE- 22 PAPERS / 18 CONSIDERED FOR THE TYPOLOGY
TITLE YEAR AUTHOR JOURNAL
Does itpresentevidence on asuccessfulsustainabledevelopmenteducationaction,practice,project orlocal policy?
The evidence canbe aligned in thedefinitions ofinstrumental orcriticalinterdisciplinarity?”
CATEGORIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS CITATIONS
Education foradvancing theimplementation of the
2019Avelar, A. B.A., daSilva-Oliveira,
TheInternationalJournal of
YES YES Collaboration networks for research and education, insideand outside the PRME community 12
115
SustainableDevelopment Goals: Asystematic approach.
K. D., & daSilva Pereira,R.
ManagementEducation,17(3), 100322.
Tackling doctoraleducation inresponsiblemanagement:Resources for learningfrom ethical professorsand intellectualshamans.
2020 Laasch, O.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(1), 100329.
YES YES Evidence of doctoral programs on SustainableDevelopment Thematic linked to teaching and education 0
Reporting onsustainabledevelopment withstudent inclusion as ateaching method.
2020 Herzner, A., &Stucken, K. YES YES Integration of students in university sustainability reporting 3
External facilitators as‘Legitimizers’ indesigning a master'sprogram in sustainablebusiness at a Swedishbusiness school–Atypology of industrycollaborator roles inRME.
2018
Borglund, T.,Prenkert, F.,Frostenson,M., Helin, S.,& Du Rietz, S.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,17(3), 100315.
YES YES Legitimacy focused partnerships with industry 0
Driving sustainablebanking in Nigeriathrough responsiblemanagementeducation: The case oflagos business school.
2020 Nwagwu, I.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(1), 100332.
YES YES Partnerships with broad scope of stakeholders, including:industry, government, media, NGOs and regulators 3
Faculty sensitizationand development toenhance responsiblemanagementeducation.
2020
de PaulaArruda Filho,N., & Beuter,B. S. P.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,
YES YESPresence of "spaces", programs or initiatives that fostersstudents' reflexivity and critical thinking on the role ofbusiness schools.
2
116
18(1), 100359.
Capability approachfor realising theSustainableDevelopment Goalsthrough ResponsibleManagementEducation: The case ofUK business schoolacademics.
2019
Ndubuka, N.N., &Rey-Marmonier, E.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,17(3), 100319.
YES YES
Presence of awareness and literacy efforts towards theSDGs frameworkPresence of focal point on how universities can managecrisis, especially regarding health (SDG 3) and climateissues (SDG 13)
6
Developing authenticleadership as a startingpoint to responsiblemanagement: ACanadian universitycase study.
2020 Corriveau, A.M.
Theinternationaljournal ofmanagementeducation, 18(1),100364.
YES YES Presence of experiential learning 3
Social media for socialgood: Studentengagement for theSDGs.
2019
Killian, S.,Lannon, J.,Murray, L.,Avram, G.,Giralt, M., &O'Riordan, S.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,17(3), 100307.
YES YES
Presence of experiential learningPresence of service learningPresence of student-led projectsPresence of hidden/alternative curriculum initiativesUse of social media as learning tool
2
Governing indifferencein social performancereporting: Implicationsfor responsiblemanagementeducation.
2020 Thiel, M.
Theinternationaljournal ofmanagementeducation, 18(1),2.
YES YES Presence of focal point on governance issues (SDG 16) 1
Paradigm shift toimplement SDG 2 (endhunger): A humanisticmanagement lens onthe education of futureleaders.
2020
Herrmann, B.,&Rundshagen,V.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(1), 100368.
YES YES Presence of higher degree of attention to SDG 2 - hungerand food security issues 0
117
Inside the borders butoutside the box: Animmersion programaligned with the PRMEand the SDG to fosterreflexivity.
2019 Wood Jr, T., &Pansarella, L.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,17(3), 100306.
YES YES Presence of immersion programs 2
An exploration ofstudent learning forsustainability throughthe WikiRate studentengagement project.
2019
Wersun, A.,Dean, B. A.,Mills, R.,Perkiss, S.,Acosta, P.,Anastasiadis,S., ... &Bayerlein, L.
InternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,17(3).
YES YES
Presence of incentives for development of sustainabilitymindset in the studentsPresence of "spaces", programs or projects that fostersreflexivity and critical thinking on the role of businessschools
2
Lessons in sustainableprocess paradigm. acase study from Dubai.
2020
Hays, J. M.,Pereseina, V.,Alshuaibi, A.S. I., & Saha,J.
TheInternationalJournalofwoodManagement Education,18(1), 100366
YES YES Presence of informal learning settings 1
Beyond moralrighteousness: Thechallenges ofnon-utilitarian ethics,CSR, and sustainabilityeducation.
2019Ramboarisata,L., & Gendron,C.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(1), 100330.
YES YES
Presence of intellectual activism and/or political actionsinvolvement from the academic staffPresence of "spaces", programs or projects that fostersreflexivity and critical thinking on the role of businessschools
1
Artificial intelligenceand sustainabledevelopment.
2020Goralski, M.A., & Tan, T.K.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,
YES YESPresence of technological forecasting, 4.0 industry orArtificial Intelligence approaches, aiming at the educationfor future, intertwined with sustainability
11
118
18(1), 100330.
State-of-the-artpractices beingreported by the PRMEchampions group: Areference to advanceeducation forsustainabledevelopment.
2020de Assumpção,M. R., & Neto,M. P. M.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(2), 100369.
YES YES Relationship between research line and classroom teaching 2
The best indycasterproject: Analysing andunderstandingmeaningful YouTubecontent, dialogue andcommitment as part ofresponsiblemanagementeducation.
2020Schulz, D., vander Woud, A.,& Westhof, J.
Theinternationaljournal ofmanagementeducation, 18(1),100335.
YES YES Use of social media as learning tool 0
Creative education &political systems theircommon effect onsustainable businessattitudes.
2020 Looser, S., &Mohr, S.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(3), 100383.
NO NO N/A N/A
Morphological box forESD–landmark foruniversitiesimplementingeducation forsustainabledevelopment (ESD).
2020
Isenmann, R.,Landwehr-Zloch, S., & Zinn,S.
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,18(1), 100360.
NO NO N/A N/A
Reducing carbonemissions in businessthrough ResponsibleManagementEducation: Influence at
2020
Molthan-Hill,P., Robinson,Z. P., Hope,A.,Dharmasasmit
TheInternationalJournal ofManagementEducation,
NO NO N/A N/A
119
the micro-, meso-andmacro-levels.
a, A., &McManus, E.
18(1), 100328.
Looking forward:LeadershipDevelopment &ResponsibleManagementEducation foradvancing theimplementation of theSustainableDevelopment Goals(SDGs): Article100387.
2020
Parkes, C.,Kolb, M.,Schlange, L.,Gudić, M., &Schmidpeter,R.
Theinternationaljournal ofmanagementeducation, 18(2),1-4.
NO NO N/A N/A
Table 10. Summary of the papersSource: Elaborated by author
120
APPENDIX V - SEMI-STRUCTURED SCRIPT
ADDRESSEDTOPIC
SUB-FOCUS / SPECIFIC AIM SAMPLE QUESTION
Interdisciplinarity concept
Personal perception ofInterdisciplinarity
What do you understand byinterdisciplinarity?
Relevance and feasibility ofInterdisciplinarity
What relevance do you attach to it?
Systemic perspective withsustainability
How does interdisciplinarity linkageswith sustainability?
Education forSustainableDevelopmentandResponsibleManagementEducation
Overlapping between fields How do interdisciplinarity andsustainability linkages withmanagement education?
Perception regarding relevanceand feasibility of linkagesbetween two fields
How does the business schooleducational approach through thelens of interdisciplinarity?
Actual frame, barriers, andopportunities
Is it enough? What else could bedone?
PRME Perception regarding the networkimpact
How do you see the PRME role?
Specific examples and validationof documental data
How does it happen in your school?
Interdisciplinarity dimensions
Critical and instrumentaldimensions
How do you see this dyad?(description of the concepts)
121
APPENDIX VI - CATEGORIES FORMULARY
INTRODUCTIONThis form is part of a research that explores interdisciplinary linkages to Education forSustainable Development in Business Schools. It is been developed by the student FlavioPinheiro Martins, under the supervision of Professor Luciana Oranges Cezarino, from theSchool of Economics, Business and Accountancy of Ribeirao Preto - University of SaoPaulo.
This form aims to collect information about the perception of how interdisciplinaritymanifests itself in categories of actions, projects, and programs present in Higher EducationInstitutions.
To perform the marking on the linear scale, consider the 03 points highlighted below:
I. [Instrumental Interdisciplinarity] - Can also be called methodological Interdisciplinarity(Weingart, 2000). Its primary focus is to attend to “market and national needs” and in“short-term solution to economic and technological problems, pragmatic questions ofreliability, efficiency, and commercial value” (Klein, p.23-24, 2010).
II. [Critical interdisciplinarity] - The gravity motivation point is located in the society.It inquiries the knowledge structure to transform them, raising questions about value,motivation, and purpose. (Klein, 2010). It responds to the problems and needs of theminorities, oppressed, and marginalized groups.
III. “The distinction between Instrumental and Critical forms is not absolute (...)There is a gradient between the two. A practice, or set of practices, can be manifested in avery similar way, in both critical and instrumental interdisciplinarity dimensions.Questions: name, institution, role, and "How long have you been involved with RME orSustainable Development Education?"Questions on the categories: The sixteen categories were given and described, andrespondents asked to match each with the dimension that mostly seems adherent to it.Final room for comments and suggestions