Search results

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework to achieve sustainable development and fulfilling these Goals will take an unprecedented effort by all sectors in society. Many universities and businesses are using the Goals within their strategies and sustainability reporting. However, this is difficult as there is currently no standard methodology to map the 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators. Work at the University of Leicester has focused on developing a robust methodology to map a higher education institution's (HEI's) research contribution to the Goals. We have integrated this unique methodology into an automated software tool to measure a university's academic contribution to the Goals using mathematical text mining techniques. Our ability to quickly and effectively map institutions' research contributions has boosted our ambitions and efforts to develop software to map the full operations of an HEI or business.

Background: This article presents a methodology to categorize scientific publications according to the targets of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. For the above, a dataset with bibliographic and descriptive attributes of 2,379 articles from 2017 by co-authors affiliated to the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, was used.

Methods: The methodology considered three relevant and consecutive milestones: establishment of the reading level that was applied for each publication record, which considers a proportional amount of information; assignment of one of the 18 categories identified for the analysis of the information, which include the 17 SDGs and the option “unclassified” and one of the 169 subcategories corresponding to the specific goals; and, finally, recording the status of the review process carried out, which allowed control of the progress and quality of the cross-review.

Results: The results show that 58.6% of the articles contribute to a primary target, of these 233 contribute to a secondary target; goals 3, 4, 9, and 11 are the most frequent in the process of assigning SDGs. There is an 81% increase in the use of alphanumeric targets when they are assigned as secondary targets. At the same time, cross-checking is shown to be beneficial when allowing the reclassification of 190 articles to some of the targets. Finally, it is established that levels 2 and 3 enabled better classification, given that the contents considered provide more information; however, it is significant that through level 1, 355 articles were categorized as “unclassified”.

Conclusions: It is concluded that the methodology allows for a conclusive, exhaustive, rigorous, extensive, and varied classification through the different milestones and actions carried out, providing strategic information for decision making and research management in the academy-society relationship.