RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS CASE BASED RESEARCH

International Research Journal of Management and Commerce Vol. 4, Issue 6, June 2017 Impact Factor- 5.564

ISSN: (2348-9766)

© Associated Asia Research Foundation (AARF)

RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS

CASE BASED RESEARCH

Dr. Renu Bhargava

Director Indira School of Business Studies, Pune

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this case based research paper is to provide a critical analysis of the

fundamental challenges facing the role of business schools in implementing Responsible

Management Education (RME) and related contributions in the areas of education, research

and faculty role. The paper builds its case based on the existing literature on the needed

changes in business schools.This case discusses possible approaches for business schools

regarding the way education can be modulated for students to become responsible for

generating sustainable value for business and society at large and to work for an inclusive and

sustainable global economy. On the basis of the recently published Principles for Responsible

Management Education (PRME: www.unprme.org) as well as contemporary learning theories,

this paper provides a glimpse of how a particular management school fostered the foundation for

institutionalizing RME. Besides the author has also made an attempt to present some concrete

recommendations about how to foster students‟ development towards becoming long-term

thinking, responsible business leaders based on the experience of the business school under

consideration. The paper argues that students learning for RME needs to occur within powerful

learning environments to provide active, problem-based and self-directed acquisition of

knowledge, skills and attitudes. Two approaches suggested by the author for transfer of learning

are real-life case studies, administered through structured inclusion of RME in curriculum and

real-life student projects which both lead to strong buy-in from students, faculty and Industry

partners. Both approaches are exemplified with certain details of initiatives utilized to embed

RME, getting people involved in incorporating RME in the academic and extra-curricular

activities, reviewing the return on effort and making further revisions based on this. As a natural

outcome, the institution is in the process of shifting from “Input Based” to “Outcome Based”

teaching and learning. Program and Course objectives are being redefined; pedagogy reworked;

evaluation modalities being changed – to make for more insightful and responsible „managerial

human-ware‟. It was felt imperative by the author to select a case based approach to describe

the journey for institutionalizing RME leading to recommendations, which may assist business

schools identify challenges and ways to proactively resolve them.

Keywords: Responsible Management Education (RME), Sustainability, OutcomeBased

Learning (OBL), Course Level Objectives, and Program Level Objectives.

Introductionand Background

Academic institutions have the potential to generate a wave of positive change, thereby helping

to ensure a world where both enterprises and societies can flourish. Academic institutions help

shape the attitudes and behavior of business leaders through business education, research,

management development programs, training, and other pervasive, but less tangible, activities,

such as the spread and advocacy of new values and ideas. The roles and responsibilities of

business as a global force are becoming more urgent and complex, and concepts related to

societal responsibility and sustainability are gaining recognition as essential elements in business

management. Any meaningful and lasting change in the conduct of corporations toward societal

responsibility and sustainability must involve the institutions that most directly act as drivers of

business behavior, especially academia. In the light of the pressing economic, social and

environmental crises the world is facing, the feeling is spreading that not only business and

economics but business schools also need to change fundamentally, if they want to be a

provider of solutions to these crises and thereby keep and regain their legitimacy.

Indira School of Business Studies (ISBS) is part of the Indira Group of Institutes (IGI), an

educational institution in Pune, India, that offers education in management for post graduate

students. ISBS was influenced by the United Nations Global Compact

([email protected]) launched in the year 2000, which is working to promote responsible

corporate citizenship and ensuring that business is part of the solution to the challenges of

Responsible Management Education (PRME). ISBS recognized and acted on the governing

principle - „Make a good person first, good manager will follow‟ and sensing its deep alignment

with the principles advocated by PRME ISBS became an ardent supporter of its principles and

today proudly espouses membership in its forum. Several insights presented in this case are a

result of the presentation of ISBS and its work towards sustainable education in 6thPRME Asia

Forum in India in November 2015, and its related work is shortly being published in a

forthcoming book.While adopting the United Nations‟ Principles for Responsible Management

Education (PRME), ISBS was well aware of the challenges it would face towards cultivating

RME.These are stated below for the reader to get a perspective on the problems and how ISBS

dealt with these in the data presentation section.

Pressing Issues Faced by ISBS

i. Lack of clarity on the role of educational institution to impart the “wisdom” of RME

through education.

ii. Lack of deliverable and “formalized” knowledge on Sustainable Development.

iii. Short time in which such knowledge needs to be imparted to students.

iv. Measurement of expected outcome of Social Responsibility within the individual

students and an awareness of global ethical values.

v. Clear Corporate Governance guidelines on „how companies should be run‟

vi. Requirement of the faculty to upgrade from „learn‟ to „teach‟ RME in their respective

„domain of expertise‟.

vii. Local business houses and industry at the „threshold‟ level of awareness on the theme.

viii. Initial efforts restricted to isolated, stand-alone initiatives.

Research Design

Presented case based research paper is factual and interpretative. The researcher‟s efforts

include recording, constructing, presenting, and producing a chronicle of facts. Additionally the

researcher is construing, synthesizing, clarifying, and producing a history, meaning and

understanding. The paper pulls together insights from literature and develops practical

conclusions based on the existing literature on the needed changes in business schools for

creating responsible management education. The presentation of findings in this research aim

to outline the path taken by ISBS to incorporate the “wisdom” of Responsible Management

review for that phase as experienced by the business school. Though each phase led to gradual

transformation leading from the preceding phase, however, a distinction has been made for

aggregating data for easy comprehension by the readers.

Literature Review

Even though ethical education is not new, the pressure for business schools to implement

comprehensive business ethics educational standards into the curriculum has clearly risen. The

most straightforward and clear-cut postulate for business schools to take ethical education

seriously is the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) which were issued in

2007 by the UN Global Compact([email protected]). The PRME (www.unprme.org) can

be seen as a manifesto for business schools to “help shape the attitudes and behavior of business

leaders through business education, research, management development programs, training, and

other pervasive, but less tangible activities, such as the spread and advocacy of new values and

ideas. Through these means, academic institutions have the potential to generate a wave of

positive change, thereby helping to ensure a world where both enterprises and societies can

flourish(PRME, 2007, p. 3).Business schools can see themselves initiating a transformation from

career training centers towards enablers of corporate responsibility (Bieger, 2011). As Starkey

and Tempest – have stated: “We need to consider a broader definition of the role of the business

school as a force for achieving the good of business and society” (2009, p. 577). Responsible

management education at business schools is geared towards the goal of “Sustainable Corporate Responsibility” (see Schüz, 2012 in this issue) which is based on the triple bottom line: creation

of sustainable social, environmental and economic value. A large focus will be put on educating

for “Sustainable Corporate Responsibility” as conceptualized in this issue by Schüz (2012).

Based on the experience in the business school, the paper assumes the postulate that student

learning needs to occur within complex learning environments to provide active, problem-based

and self-directed acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes. The role of business schools is

thus seen as a creator of challenging learning environment. Furthermore, learning does include a

metacognitive process enabling students to question, explore and make meaning of the values

and assumptions that guide their business decision-making process.How can academic

institutions foster student learning in order to become responsible business leaders who create

sustainable social, environmental and economic value? Answering this question requires a short

there are intercultural differences on how to take on ecologic responsibility depending on the

respective perceptions of nature (Barthelmess 2013). The role of education is focused on creating

challenging learning environments allowing the students to actively generate and develop core

competencies.Responsible Management Education has already become a key issue for many

academic institutions (Escudero, 2011). It is evident that the principles for responsible

management education can only be justified if they trickle down to the institutional and

educational level of academic organizations (for many practical examples see Escudero,

Albareda, Alcaraz, Weybrecht and Csuri, 2012).

Presentation of Findings

Presented below is phase wise projection of facts,followed by review of each phase as they

emerged in the effort to implement RME by ISBS.

Phase 1 (2006- 2011)

Orienting the stakeholders for Responsible Management Education (RME)

ISBS recognized that the outcome from exposure to RME should reflect in an increased sense of

awareness and some degree of engagement in Social Responsibility within the system/ individual

and an awareness of global ethical values. Activities were identified and carried out to bring

about a sense in the perspective of introducing RME in a structured manner. Initial efforts were

directed towards faculty upgrading from „learn‟ to „teach‟ Responsible Management in their

respective „domains of expertise‟. This was challenging to begin with as the local business

houses and industry was just at the „threshold‟ level of awareness on the theme. There was

awareness about Climate Change, GHG pollution and „Carbon Trade‟, however, responsibility to

society was primarily translated to conformance to law and to philanthropy. Academics were

hardly in a position to contribute to clarity on the issue to the industry. This phase therefore

focused on creating awareness among students and faculty alike. ISBS began with holding

„workshops‟ on Sustainability during students Induction Programs. This was done through films such as Al Gore‟s “An Inconvenient Truth,” video clips from C.K.Prahalad‟s “Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” and exercises. The sessions were rounded off with competitive quizzes

to generate higher engagement. Students worked for community service through initiatives such

as volunteers with Habitat for Humanity in building a village for the underprivileged in a district

From these first-steps, ISBS chalked out the following plans to improve student awareness about

Sustainability: (a)Organize at least one „mega‟ event on Sustainability through the students‟

forum to create excitement, involvement and commitment to the theme of Sustainability and

deliver the message that “Sustainability can be fun”! (b) Encourage their participation in

city-based activities promoting Sustainability with initiatives such as Tree Planting drives and “Save

Fuel” demonstrations. (c) Increase participation of students in CSR activities. (d)Certificate

Course on Sustainability.(e)Collaboration with Confederation of Indian Industriesand local

Industry, students were made to work in projects adding sustainable value to society through

students Social Responsibility Council.Not for profit projects such as recycling waste by using

technology to convert the waste into compost for utilization as manure were taken up by

students. To improve faculty awareness on the theme of Sustainability, management organized

lectures by recognized speakers and included „Book Report‟ type sessions on sustainability

linked themes in faculty forums.

Activity highlights leading to greater inclusion of RME on campus:

i. Wave of Global Consciousness: On the up-side was the emerging global concern voiced

world-wide about the threats to human rights and ecology. Numerous bodies, both

(inter)governmental and non-governmental, were opening up to a discourse and dialogue on the

issues. UN institutions such as the UNFCC and UNESCO provided detailed information on the

present status of human rights and climate change. This led to modified Corporate Governance

guidelines. While the role of educational institution appeared clearer, ISBS was not clear how

this could be achieved. The challenge was how to impart the “wisdom” of RME. Lack of deliverable and “formalized” knowledge on Sustainable Development, the short time in which

such knowledge had to be imparted to students of management studies (four semesters over two

years), the lack of faculty training on the theme and the challenges in making major changes in

the syllabus. It was in this context that ISBS began its journey to incorporate RME.

ii. Top-Down Approach: To achieve this, there was need for the central advisory body on

campusto become the „Championing Guide‟, and ISBS duly empowered its advisory council to

advance the initiative.

iii. Inclusion in Curriculum: Since ISBS consciously worked towards weaving the theme of

socially relevant and responsible education into the curriculum, the initial efforts involved did

add up to isolated, stand-alone activities. This was replaced by efforts to weave the theme more

sensitizing students towards increased awareness of social concerns and sustainability in domain

subjects. Students were assessed on their performance towards social and community outreach

programsand domain subjects related with sustainability affecting their grades.

iv. Placement Relevance: Placement forms an important milestone for both the students and

the institution. ISBS always took great pride in offering to its „clients‟ responsible citizens,

mature and eager candidates. This served the primary stakeholders well.Students‟ participation in

Sustainability Electives in Program, and in the Corporate Social Responsibility and community

service initiatives of the Institute became hallmarks for assessing their participation in campus

recruitment processes.

v. Certificate Course on Sustainability: Such course was introduced in the curriculum. The

content of the course was developed around the principle of Triple Bottom Line. Knowledge of

theoretical constructs was complemented by interaction with internationally acclaimed experts

through workshops.

vi. Series of Seminars on „Sustainability‟ were hosted by leading management thinkers

from industry and non-government organizations to spread awarenessabout the concept. In

addition, interactive brainstorming sessions were conducted with the faculty members of ISBS

on ways to incorporate concept of Sustainability into the curriculum and into the Institute‟s

research agenda. As sustainable solutions required innovative approaches, ISBS introduced

certificate course on Innovation Management.Industry-Academia workshops were organised in

different cities on “Learning Organization” and one such initiative was facilitated by stalwart

such asProfessor PeterSenge.

vii. Exposure through Research:The Indira Research and Development Centre (IRDC) at

ISBS encouraged faculty to do research on Social and Sustainable causes leading to multiple

research publications by faculty in recognized forums. In one such effort the IRDC assisted the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in conducting socio-economic survey

of villages to determine the demographic profile and socio-economic status of families in such

villages and recommended customized rehabilitation package.The emphasis was on constant and

repeated involvement of the academic community – rather than a precise measurement of

effectiveness. This was a period when PRME and its principles were linked with the initiatives

planned at institutional level. This led to revamping of the activities for “Phase 2” – which

Review Phase 1 (2006- 2011)

ISBS felt the need to reorient its mission to deliver RME and its core principles of “Purpose” and

“Values” could be better served and enhanced by bolstering efforts in “Method, Research and Partnership.” To make any meaningful impact given the limited duration of the program, the

engagement had to be intense, multi-dimensional and persistent. There was need for some

„freedom of choice‟ (for students and faculty alike); at the same time, it was necessary to communicate a „no escape‟ clause. In 2011, the advisory council at ISBS assessed the

contribution of the inputs to the development of students as „responsible managers‟ for the

industry. The rough and ready assessment of outcome at the end of 2011, using different modes

of input may be summarized as given below:

"Return on Effort"

(2011)

Purpose

100

75

Dialou

ge 50

Val

ues

25

0

Partner

ship

Met

hod

Research

The first few years of effort were focused on sensitizing the organizers, the faculty and the

students to the theme of RME through several activities. ISBS realized that the effort was not as

“balanced” as had been targeted. In fact, there was groundswell of concern among the faculty

retained value-add to the students‟ development. Priority to academics was being jeopardized.

There was need to integrate RME more fully into the course work. To achieve this more

concerted effortswere needed to enhance knowledge in the domains of CSR, Ethics and

Sustainability. For faculty, there was need for more research and dialogue on Sustainability.

More credits were needed for courses on sustainability, corporate governance and ethics. More

seminars were needed on industry practices in the area of Sustainability. While extracurricular

activities would continue and complement the academic programs, it was important not to

sacrifice academic rigor and industry readiness of students. There was an acknowledgement of

the need to assess the outcome of these initiatives in Phase 2.

Phase 2 (2011-2016)

This phase was characterized by driving the philosophy of RME with compulsory inclusion of

courses in the post graduate programs along with co-curricular initiatives. While adopting RME

care was taken to avoid restricting these teachings as mere addition of “responsibility” as a topic

in the existing curriculum. By relying on its own experiences, ISBS institutionalized faculty

champions who though faced with challenges in implementing RME, worked towards easing

these structural and cultural challenges. Common, mandatory sessions were included across

programs to sensitize faculty to the theme.

This section will encapsulate what ISBS did during the years 2011 to 2016 and how it

operationalized RME. Presented below are samples of some new courses introduced in the

PGDM program and co-curricular initiatives undertaken by students during this phase:

i. Certificate course on Sustainability: Despite limited data available in the public domain,full

credit course in sustainability continued as a mainstay in the curriculum for all functional

domains being offered for students.

ii.Integrating Sustainability in every Functional Domain: RME through sustainability led to

inclusion of related topics in every functional domain and a necessary outcome was established

through assessement for grades in each business segment, be it Marketing, Finance or Human

Resource Management.

iii. Emergence of New Courses: new courses were introduced such as:Corporate

Governance and Sustainability; Sustainability and Rural Entrepreneurship et al;

iv. Community Collaboration for Sustainability: ISBS intensified its association and partnership

with several associations in its bid to enhance the dialogue on sustainability. Some agencies

(MCCIA) and the Pune Management Association. Others –such as the Federation of Indian

Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI New Delhi), the Confederation of Indian

Industries, Pune (CII) and the National Human Resource Development Pune, Chapter

(NHRD) and the National Entrepreneurship Network (NEN) –were national bodies and

International Platforms such as UN funded PRME.

v. Community Service: ISBS students regularly participated in community service initiatives

with Non-Government Organisations (NGO) like Savali (Girl Child education),

Navkshitij (School for Mentally Challenged) Pragati foundation ( Counseling for

under-privileged youth) and Missionaries of Charity (PrernaBhavan). Participation in these

initiatives was compulsory for each student for eligibility to campus recruitment. These

were conscious administrative decisions, self- generated, and „one-off‟ initiatives were not

encouraged if they were not deemed to be sustainable. Any signal that „RME and

Sustainability is alright if convenient andeasy‟ was avoided.

vi. Community Awareness Sessions: ISBS attempted to create greater awareness and

acknowledgement of sustainability amongst institutions in the region by holding annual

research conferences in themes centredaround “Sustainable Strategies in Dynamic

BusinessEnvironment”.

Review Phase 2 (2011-2016)

As with any inter-linked activity, the design and evaluation of the sustainability initiatives

becomes more complex and time-consuming. Each activity has its own life cycle and speed.

Knowledge providers have their own beliefs and priorities. Over the period of time, since

inception of RME and its modulation through sustainability as a factor for orientation and then

ingraining it in the curriculum has eased the passage for assessing students‟ knowledge and

supervised undertaking of community outreach initiatives. The long term perspective for such

training requires mapping for detailed outcome based impact. However a debate could well be

established that hard evidence at times circumvents qualitative aspects of RME and may restrict

self-driven impetus from students, over a period of time.

The challenges faced in the first and second phase of implementation namely, exposure to

sustainability and direction for faculty; low stakeholder awareness about sustainability and low

response; varying degree of integration of sustainability in the curriculum; variations in the

quality of interventions, by far the most were covered with tweaking the system for definitive

incorporation of sustainability in the outcome based education (OBE) system. Asymmetric buy

in by internal stakeholders for outcome based model primarily arises on account of inconsistent

measurement options. However the realization of long term benefits of OBE has seen a

progressive improvement in the understanding and appreciation of sustainability among

stakeholders of the institute. A few faculty members have completed their Doctoral studies in

Sustainability and allied domains. ISBS intends to induct new faculty with specialization and

experience in Sustainability. Faculty papers and publication on the theme of Sustainability has

also seen a rise. Consequently, ISBS faculty has been able to offer „elective‟ credit-courses on the theme. Students‟ requirement for more focused inputs has been addressed. Faculty

participation in steering co-curricular activity has also increased.

As in year 2011, in the year 2016 as well, a review took stock of the relevance of our efforts in

meeting the precinct of RME. The „progress‟ is charted alongside:

"Return on Effort"

(2016)

Purpose

100

75

Dialou

ge 50

Val

ues

25

0

Partner

ship

Met

hod

Research

The emerging highlighted segment indicates the need to align and engage more vigorously with

the Business and Industry – both to assess the effectiveness of our effort, as well as to (re)align

lacking about the extent of RME required – since the assessment ended with mainly the

effort.The „journey‟ has been very rough – there have been failures, dead-ends and on many

occasions, feeling of extreme dissatisfaction. The principle learnings from the experience have

been as mentioned below:

 Keep experimenting and keep the „excitement‟ going‟. At the same time, allow for „comfort‟ of choice through diversity of activities.

 Demonstrate to all that these values are as important as classroom teachinhexperiences, grades and the conventional trappings of „education‟ – and there is no escape. Firmly shut

the gate to prevent leakages.

 Be prepared for failure and skepticism arising there from. Also for continuous improvisations. The (limited) syllabus extensions, the co- and the extra- curricular

activities have to be constantly improvised.

 Outcomes will manifest over time as there are no immediate results. Since „Responsibility‟ is an attitude, it is advisable to attempt to evaluate „successes‟ in terms

of responses (captures student attitudes as reflected in feed-back information to

situational queries) rather than scaled scores. It is very difficult to establish a „baseline‟ to formulate a rigorous scale. Perhaps, with time, and the approach to „outcome‟ based

assessments, a more rigorous assessment will emerge.

Phase 3 (2016 onwards)

In the third Phase, there was a shift in focus from “Input Based” towards an emphasis on “Outcome Based” teaching and learning – the workings of which are being established now.

Program and Course objectives are being redefined; pedagogy reworked; evaluation modalities

being changed – to make for more insightful and responsible „managerial human-ware‟. There is

a greater desire to measure and assess the outcome of the efforts and inputs to understand the

efficiency and effectiveness of approaches. For ISBS Outcome-Based Education (OBE) meant

clearly focusing and organizing everything in an educational system around what is essential for

all students to be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences; so whether it

implied credits in areas of learning or getting recruited in profiles conducive to their areas of

strength. This meant starting with a clear picture of what is important for students from the

perspective of achieving program level objectives and relating these to course level objectives

and so forth. Thus due diligence was given to following aspects:

• Plan of instruction therefore ensuring a roll out which ensured each course topic instilled

the course level objectives,

• Relating assessment to achieve program level objectives and • Putting a system in place to measure the outcome of these efforts.

Review Phase 3 (2016 onwards)

Concurrently, and in the longer term, several themes have emerged and are emerging as relevant

in management education and ISBS in particular. Mentioned in this section are some

observations:

a) Changes are being incorporated from the classical “Input-Output”, knowledge tested by

examinations alone model to “Outcome” based education model to ensure that acquired

knowledge is usable and applicable.

b) Inclusion of “RME” focus particularly for ISBS under the UN advocated initiative - PRME

(Principles of Responsible Management Education), in the wider curriculum. ISBS is an active

member of this body.

Given these imperatives with the strong „practice‟ slant, the role of the governing body at ISBS

is ensuring the upward mobility of RME and this inclusion is now changing from „desirable to

„vital‟. Similarly, the term competence has been defined as a key component of an

outcome-based education (OBE) model. The relationship between learning outcomes and competences is

a complex area and though it is a subject of some debate and considerable confusion, ISBS feels

the primary challenge to overcome this is for it to develop such technology platforms which can

assist in measuring the outcome of its inputs and link the program level objectives with the

course level objectives.

Conclusion

The author has concluded with the observation that following globalization and the increasing

recognition of the global nature of social and environmental challenges there is a greater need for

collaboration with all stakeholders. In this context, Business Schools need to play a supportive

role. Business Schools must support firms by developing managers with more concern for the

environment and society. This understanding must then translate into (a) curricular and

co-curricular interventions to promote the inculcation of these competencies; (b) modification of

materials and evaluation. The author particularly emphasizes political challenges at every level

and the role of champions inducing reflexivity in overcoming some of the barriers. The author

also argues that although faculty champions are not the most powerful actors within the business

school, they are still well positioned to inspire and instill the needed transformation of

management education.

Recommendation

Some recommendation by the author for further research andinstitutionalizing RME inBusiness

Schools are: creating acceptance and greater awareness among business schools and industry

about the need for RME, integrating concern for society and environment into the curriculum,

collaboration with internal and external stakeholders to promote sensitivity to society and

environment, continuous improvement and tracking future trends for RME.

Although no exhaustive list of recommendations can emerge, as the process is progressive and

continuous improvement is imperative to see results, it is important for business schools to make

a beginning and impress on their cohorts the need to transform business education.Challenges

mentioned by the author in the review of each phase can also augment future research and in the

authors opinion such research will further the cause and ensure Business Schools maintain their

legitimacy in the context of furthering RME.

References

 Barthelmess, Petra (2013): “Different Shades of Green: Comparative Study on Nature

Relatedness and Ecologic Consciousness among Czech, South Korean and Swiss

Students.” In preparation.

 Bieger, T. (2011). Business Schools – From Career Training Centers Towards Enablers

of CSR: A New Vision for Teaching at Business Schools. In Business Schools and their

Contribution to Society, ed. Morsing, M. and Rovira, A.S. London: Sage Publications,

104 – 113.

 Escudero, M. (2011).PRME and Four Theses on the Future of Management Education. In

Business Schools and their Contribution to Society, ed. Morsing, M. and Rovira, A.S.

London: Sage Publications, 201 – 212.

Inspirational Guide For The Implementation of PRME: Placing sustainability at the heart

of management education. Leeds: PRME.

 Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) (2007). (accessed September

28, 2012), [available at http://www. unprme.org/the-6-principles/index.php].

 Schüz, M. (2012): Sustainable Corporate Responsibility – The Foundation of Successful

Business in the New Millennium. Central European Business Review, 1 (2).

 Starkey, K and Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: the design challenge for