IJSHE

9,3 Teaching sustainability to

business students:
shifting mindsets
206
Wendy Stubbs
School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University,
Received 30 July 2007
Revised 6 September 2007 Clayton, Australia, and
Accepted 19 November 2007 Chris Cocklin
Faculty of Science, Engineering and IT, James Cook University,
Townsville, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to describe a framework used to help MBA students understand and
reconcile the different sustainability perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the corporate sustainability literature is undertaken
to develop the sustainability framework.
Findings – The sustainability framework relates basic concepts and assumptions within the
ecocentric, ecological modernization and neoclassical paradigms to organizational practice and
behavior. For the most part, the MBA students have only been exposed to neoclassical economic
thinking within the other MBA subjects. The aim of the sustainability framework is to shift the
students’ thinking by engaging with sustainability from different perspectives, rather than presenting
one version of sustainability to them. The framework has proven to be useful in developing critical and
reflective thinking and discussion.
Originality/value – The paper provides a summary of sustainability concepts as applied to
business practices and describes how this is used in teaching sustainability to business students.
Keywords Education, Teaching, Ecology, Economics
Paper type Case study

Introduction
Sustainability is a key issue for organizations in the twenty-first century as they
increasingly acknowledge that their policies and practices have social and/or
environmental consequences. Accordingly, many companies are implementing
elements of sustainability into their business practices. In step with this trend is the
increasing recognition that sustainability-related subjects need to be included in the
curricula of business courses, particularly MBA programs. Recent research into
sustainability education in the top 50 global MBA programs shows that over seventy
percent of them offer one or more units on sustainability related topics (Christensen
et al., 2007). One current debate is whether sustainability should be integrated into core
International Journal of Sustainability course offerings for MBA students or whether sustainability should be taught as
in Higher Education
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2008
pp. 206-221 The authors thank Monash University for financially supporting this research, and gratefully
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1467-6370
acknowledge the contributions of Ed Lockhart to the design and teaching of the MBA subject
DOI 10.1108/14676370810885844 referred to in this paper.
standalone elective subjects (Christensen et al., 2007, Tilbury et al., 2004). One potential Teaching
danger of teaching standalone sustainability units is the educational disconnect that business
may arise between the free-market focus of MBA curricula and the social and
environmental externalities associated with the operations of free-markets as they are students
currently constructed. Carrithers and Peterson (2006, p. 373) found in their research
into the “pedagogical gulf” that exists within the teaching of markets and capitalism
by different faculties, that: 207
. . . the gap is so wide and the ideas that are promoted are so disconnected that students are
trapped into choosing one or the other position (or neither) and are left unable to link the two
sides of the discussion. Such an educational process is not one that produces free and
reasoned discernment.
In light of this, it is imperative that new methodologies and frameworks to facilitate the
understanding of sustainability concepts in the business environment are developed
(Cervantes, 2007). It is important for students to understand the worldviews that
underlie different interpretations of sustainability in the context of business, to avoid
this educational disconnect. Goekler (2003) argues that for students to effectively learn
about sustainability, they need to develop the ability to think in new ways – to engage
with different worldviews.
This article outlines a framework used in teaching sustainability to MBA students
at Monash University in Australia that challenges the students’ worldviews and
encourages them to explicitly analyze their assumptions about business, the
environment and society. In using this framework the authors try to shift the students’
mindsets to view sustainability from different perspectives, to reconcile the “us and
them” thinking (Carrithers and Peterson, 2006) between different sides of the
sustainability debate.
This article first provides some background information on the Monash University
MBA program and the sustainability unit. There is a continuum of sustainability
perspectives and the paper outlines three major worldviews located on this
sustainability continuum: ecocentrism, ecological modernization and the neoclassical
economic worldview. The paper then discusses the characteristics of organizations
within each of the three worldviews. The article concludes by discussing the
implications of the framework for teaching sustainability to business students.

Monash University MBA and sustainability

Monash University’s MBA was ranked 49th in the world’s top 100 business schools in
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2006 MBA rankings (the business information arm
of the Economist magazine). The sustainability unit, “Corporate sustainability: the
business case”, has been taught as a standalone subject for the past ten years. It was
developed by the School of Geography and Environmental Science (SGES) and is
taught by SGES lecturers. The unit is currently offered as a summer intensive elective,
over four Saturdays and three Wednesday afternoons. It consists of a series of lectures,
videos and audio outlining the three dimensions of sustainability (economic,
environmental and social), followed by industry case studies and guest speakers to
explore and reinforce the key concepts. The framework is introduced on the first day
and subsequently used to help guide discussion on how different industries and
organizations are approaching sustainability. For most of the students, it is their first
IJSHE introduction to sustainability. Sustainability is currently not integrated into the MBA
9,3 core units, although a few MBA lecturers discuss sustainability concepts in their units.
Monash University also offers a Master of Corporate and Environmental
Sustainability Management (MCESM) and a MBA/MCESM double-degree. A Master
of Business with a Specialization in Sustainability will be available from 2008.

208 Sustainability framework

While the many and varied perspectives on sustainability can be placed along a
continuum, they can be summarized into three broad “camps” (Gladwin et al., 1995):
ecocentrism, ecological modernization and the neoclassical economic paradigm. This
tripartite framework allows students to examine sustainability within a
“business-as-usual” model and to explore different approaches for change without
confusing the students with too many “shades” of sustainability. Each of these
paradigms, or worldviews, is based on sets of shared fundamental assumptions about
sustainability but they are not closed or static: “many schools of thought and subtle
variations flourish” within each worldview (Gladwin et al., 1995, p. 881). Individuals
and organizations may draw assumptions from the different worldviews in a variety of
ways (Hopwood et al., 2005) and organizations’ behaviors and practices may reflect
aspects of more than one worldview.
The neoclassical economic worldview is the dominant paradigm today (Cotgrove,
1982; Egri and Pinfield, 1996). Underpinning this paradigm is neoclassical economic
theory, which focuses on unlimited economic growth via the operation of free markets
and increasing consumption of products and services. Proponents of this view believe
that the limits to growth are very distant or non-existent (Beckerman, 1974, 1995;
Simon, 1984; Simon and Kahn, 1981). Technology can, and will, solve any issues of
environmental degradation through the substitution of natural capital with
human-made capital and the development of new technology and processes to deal
with pollution and waste.
The antithesis to the neoclassical perspective is ecocentrism. Proponents of the
ecocentric worldview believe that it is impossible to have infinite growth in a finite
environment (Schumacher, 1973). Ecocentrism promotes the inherent worth of nature
rather than its instrumental value – ecosystems are viewed as having inherent worth
independent from human value judgments (Purser et al., 1995). The ecocentric
perspective draws on concepts of: egalitarianism; decentralized social, economic and
political systems; bioregionalism (regions governed by nature not legislature);
communalism; collectivism; and cooperation (Egri and Pinfield, 1996).
In the 1980s and 1990s ecological modernizers began to challenge the ecocentric
view that there was a zero-sum trade-off between economic prosperity and
environmental concern (Dobson, 2003; Hajer, 1995; Jacobs, 1991; Jänicke, 1990;
Weale, 1992). While not promoting an end to growth, supporters of ecological
modernization (EM) do not believe that growth can go on forever in a finite world. EM
focuses on improving human welfare and environmental stewardship (maintaining the
integrity and variety of nonhuman nature) in addition to economic prosperity – a
prosperous economy depends on a healthy ecology and vice versa (Gladwin et al.,
1995). Jacobs (1997, p. 9) recommends economic restructuring to “shift onto a new path
of economic development in which technological advances and social changes combine
to reduce, by an order of magnitude, the environmental impacts of economic activity”.
 The following three sections describe the characteristics of organizations within Teaching
each worldview, which frames subsequent discussions with the students on how business
organizations can be sustainable.
students
The neoclassical business
Neoclassical organizations have a denatured view of the environment – they are 209
“above” nature. They have a production/consumption bias that ignores environmental
degradation (Shrivastava, 1995). Neoclassical organizations rarely question the logic of
continually producing new products for unlimited consumption nor do they question
whether environmental degradation is linked to industrial production and
unsustainable consumption patterns. Exploitation of natural resources is legitimate
(resources are “free” and plentiful). Concerns about natural resource depletion are not
strategic organizational issues unless they impact profitability (such as fears of price
inflation and foreseeable resource shortages). Organizations focus on short-term
(quarterly) financial performance and their planning cycles are typically one to four
years (Costanza et al., 1991). The short-term focus of the neoclassical organization
means that straight-line discounting and high discount rates (Gladwin et al., 1995) are
used, which favors harvesting of resources over preservation for future generations.
Profitability and financial performance are of primary importance to the
neoclassical organization. The purpose and main objectives of the firm are usually
couched in economic terms. Shareholders are the dominant stakeholders and their
claims (financial) are prioritized above other stakeholders’ expectations. Maximizing
profits and shareholder value is achieved by increasing the efficiency of a neoclassical
organization’s operations through technological innovation, focusing on cost reduction
and expanding market share. Organizations must be highly competitive to gain the
best resources (human and natural) and increase their profitability.
The pursuit of sustainability is associated with increases in the cost of operations
(such as implementing technology to reduce waste and emissions) unless a cost-benefit
analysis shows a positive return on investment (e.g. as a result of resource efficiency).
Typically, neoclassical organizations pursue environmental reforms if it is in their
self-interest (Purser et al., 1995), to gain or retain organizational legitimacy (Bansal and
Roth, 2000), to enhance competitive advantage and increase profitability (enhance
brand and reputation), if legislation dictates (compliance), responding to public concern
(Banerjee, 2001), or due to pressure from stakeholders. The motivation for
sustainability is couched in terms of a business case or it is perceived as a duty and
obligation (van Marrewijk, 2004).
The level of integration of sustainability issues into the strategic planning process is
relatively low, reflecting managers’ perceptions of the importance of these issues.
Integration occurs at the business strategy level (allocating resources to achieve
competitive advantage) and/or the functional strategy level (“compliance” focus on
operating procedures at a functional level, such as marketing or production) (Banerjee,
2001). Environmental strategies focus on pollution prevention or reduction, as opposed
to pollution control and clean-up. Regulatory pressures are a major factor influencing
environmental strategy (Banerjee, 2002). Social strategies focus on philanthropy
(Porter and Kramer, 2002) and corporate community involvement (Suggett, 2003,
Zappala and Cronin, 2002).
IJSHE Organizations reduce waste and improve resource productivity if it results in
9,3 reduced costs and therefore positively contributes to the financial bottom line.
Otherwise, pollution and waste are treated as externalities (Shrivastava, 1995). These
costs are not internalized and therefore are not reflected in the price of products –
neoclassical organizations externalize the social and environmental costs of their
activities and internalize the economic benefits (Sharma and Starik, 2004), unless
210 legislation dictates otherwise.
Neoclassical organizations do not take responsibility for the product once it is sold.
Typically, products are designed for a target life-span so that they must be discarded
and replaced. The disposal of a product at the end of its life is not the responsibility of
the organization that manufactured it and organizations do not typically recycle their
own products. Downcycling (end-of-life products are used to produce lower quality
products) is used if it can be shown to be cost effective. The production cycle reflects a
linear take-make-waste approach rather than a circular borrow-use-return approach
(McDonough and Braungart, 2002), which is typically energy and resource intensive.
Neoclassical organizations tend to have a hierarchical structure in which
authorities, responsibilities, information and communication are compartmentalized
in different units (Doppelt, 2003). The most common structures are functional,
divisional and matrix where power and authority are concentrated at the top. Power
struggles often emerge due to competition between the units. Employees are often seen
as costs and resources which can be “cut” to reduce expenses and improve profitability.
Social welfare is seen as the responsibility of the government, not the organization.
However, organizations will invest in employees (for example, training, bonuses,
benefits, flexible employment conditions) if they believe it will lead to higher revenues
and corporate success (Steurer et al., 2005). Social and environmental concerns are
typically not integrated into employee performance measures, although a “balanced
scorecard” approach (taking into account customers, people, processes and financial
dimensions) is often used. Its anchor point remains the financial position of the
organization (van Marrewijk, 2004).
The performance of a neoclassical organization is typically measured in terms of
financial factors, such as revenue, profits and shareholder return, and legislative
compliance. Environmental and social impacts are noted in annual reports where
required by law.

The ecocentric business

Ecocentric organizations implement closed-loop, cradle-to-cradle production systems.
They use each other’s waste and by-products and share and minimize their use of
natural resources and energy. Firms not only reduce their use of natural resources but
seek to renew them.
Shrivastava (1995) describes ecocentric organizations as part of a network of
organizations that seek to emulate the idea of natural ecosystems (biomimicry). They
treat nature as the primary stakeholder and seek to minimize environmental
degradation by cooperating with each other. Within this “industrial ecosystem”
(Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989; Graedel and Allenby, 2003; Tibbs, 1993), the
organizations share infrastructure to support recycling and renewable energy.
Ecocentric organizations produce eco-friendly products by reducing packaging and
material use. They use low energy processes, smaller amounts of resources, recycled
content and they minimize waste and pollution (eventually eliminating the concept of Teaching
waste). The cost of any pollution or waste is internalized in the cost of the product. By business
aiming for zero waste, an ecocentric organization focuses on a preventative approach
rather than a controlling approach after pollution and waste is created (Shrivastava, students
1995) – it aims to “do no harm” (Hawken, 1993) and to be ecologically benign
(McDonough and Braungart, 2002) rather than make amends if harm is done (such as
offsetting greenhouse gases by purchasing carbon credits). 211
An ecocentric organization sells services rather than products (Hart, 1997; Hawken,
1993; Lovins et al., 1999) and takes responsibility for the complete life-cycle of its
solutions. For example, a firm will lease a floor-covering service rather than sell carpet,
or lease dissolving services rather than sell solvents so that it can reuse the same
solvent many times (Lovins et al., 1999). End-of-life products are recycled to produce
new products of the same quality or used as inputs for other organizations in an
industrial ecosystem. An ecocentric organization minimizes the use of virgin materials
and non-renewable forms of energy, recognizing that earth’s resources are finite
(Shrivastava, 1995).
The high discount rates used under the neoclassical model results in short-term
consumption of natural resources and eventually exhaustion (Gladwin et al., 1995).
Under the ecocentric business model, firms do not use discounting methods or they
implement “hyperbolic discounting” (Gowdy and Erickson, 2005, p. 215), where the
near future is discounted at a higher rate than the distant future: “A hyperbolic
discount rate would have a dramatic effect on cost-benefit calculations of the future
benefits of global climate stability or biodiversity”.
Ecocentric firms pursue sustainability because of ethical motives (Bansal and Roth,
2000) – it is the “right thing to do”. They integrate sustainability issues into their
enterprise strategy (which examines the role of business in society and the mission of
the firm) (van Marrewijk, 2004). They express their purpose in terms of restoring the
environment – leaving the world better than you found it (Hawken, 1993) – and
pursuing equity (inter-generational, intra-generational and inter-species equity).
Banerjee (2001) notes that few businesses have integrated sustainability concerns at
this level.
Gladwin et al. (1995, p. 886) describe the structure of an ecocentric organization as
heterarchical, “established by an egalitarian interplay of interconnected parts”.
Ecocentric organizations are people-driven, focusing on improving workplace culture
and practices (van Marrewijk, 2004). They employ non-hierarchical structures where
internal relations and process take primacy over parts (Gladwin et al., 1995). Firms
emphasize participative decision-making, decentralized authority and low earning
differentials (the difference between the highest and lowest salary) (Shrivastava, 1995).
Ecocentric firms employ consensus oriented decision-making processes and have flat
organizational structures. Shareholder value is balanced against the interest of other
legitimate stakeholders (van Marrewijk, 2004).
The values of an ecocentric organization are more aligned to post-patriarchal
feminist values and its goals are aligned with stakeholder welfare (rather than
shareholder wealth) (Shrivastava, 1995). An ecocentric organization aims to improve
the quality of life of all its stakeholders (with nature as a dominant stakeholder) and it
takes a long-term perspective. The human being “behind” the employee and the
IJSHE customer is recognized and internal and external stakeholders are included in business
9,3 decisions.
Ecocentric organizations do not focus on short-term financial results but rather on
the restoration of the natural environment and stakeholder welfare and equity, while
recognizing the need to make profits to support their goals.

212
The ecological modernization business
An ecological modernization (EM) organization pursues “win-win” options, seeking
self-interest without doing harm to stakeholders and nature (van Marrewijk, 2004). It
focuses on being profitable, improving the welfare of its stakeholders and on
minimizing its environmental impacts (reducing its ecological footprints). Gladwin et al.
(1995) refer to this as moving from “greening”, where an organization focuses on
instrumental or process objectives (such as pollution reduction), to “sustaining” – a
focus on outcomes such as assuring ecosystem and socio-system health and integrity.
EM organizations focus on not just “reducing the bads” but on “realizing the goods” –
not just tackling the symptoms of the problem (such as pollution) but on tackling the
core cause of the problem (what causes pollution). An EM organization’s aim is to “do
no harm” to the environment and its stakeholders but its strategy is to make amends if
it does harm them (Hawken, 1993), such as offsetting harmful emissions by purchasing
carbon credits or planting trees.
Firms pursue sustainability for ethical and economic reasons – it is the “right thing
to do and the smart thing to do”. For example, redesigning manufacturing processes
not only reduces pollution and waste, it also reduces costs. EM firms integrate
sustainability issues into their corporate strategy (determines the kinds of businesses
and markets a firm should enter (Banerjee, 2001)) to meet its enterprise goal of
balancing social, environmental and economic outcomes.
A driving factor for neoclassical organizations is quarterly financial reporting while
“stewardship” and intergenerational equity drives EM firms (Gladwin et al., 1995).
This implies planning horizons more akin to decades than quarters. An EM firm
employs low, or close to zero, discount rates to slow the depletion of natural resources
(Gladwin et al., 1995), ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources across
generations. It takes a stakeholder view of the firm rather than a shareholder-dominant
view and acknowledges that nature and future generations are stakeholders.
An EM organization invests significantly in technology and new processes to
design low-impact products that reduce its ecological footprint (minimize pollution,
waste, resource usage and energy) but it is skeptical that technology can solve all
problems. In addition to investment in new technology, organizations and societies will
also need to reduce consumption of resources (Hart, 1995; Starik and Rands, 1995).
Recycling is central to an EM firm’s operations as it works towards implementing
technology and processes to close the loop of output and input processes.
An EM organization offers services such as leasing, if financially viable, so that it
can keep control of the total life-cycle of a product. It competes in the marketplace to
sell its products and services and hence to improve its revenues and profits but it also
cooperates with its suppliers, customers, competitors and other stakeholders to reduce
its environmental impacts. This form of “coopetition” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff,
1996) is demonstrated by joint research and development initiatives for new
technology and processes and investment in shared infrastructure to support Teaching
sustainability, such as recycling facilities. business
EM organizations recognize the whole and the parts, or “holons” (Gladwin et al.,
1995). They use flatter structures than the traditional hierarchical model, arranged students
more by process rather than by function (Doppelt, 2003). They often employ a network
structure (Doppelt, 2003, van Marrewijk, 2004) where semi-independent groups form to
accomplish specific tasks (such as cross-functional teams). Because the groups tend to 213
be temporary, power and authority are usually based on resources and expertise rather
than on a person’s position in a hierarchy (Doppelt, 2003). The groups also may include
external stakeholders, such as customers and suppliers – stakeholders are part of the
organization’s network. EM firms recognize that interdependency and cooperation
(Korhonen, 2002) are key elements of sustainability. Joint planning of company policies
and management systems occurs between the organizations and their stakeholders.
In an EM organization, there is an alignment between collective and individual
needs and motives. Career development and performance appraisal systems are
structured to facilitate this: “Managers support their employees, often professionals, in
order to bring them into the flow, accomplishing both their own as well as their
organization’s objectives and creating a feeling of self-actualization” (van Marrewijk,
2004, p. 155).
EM organizations use a triple bottom line approach to reporting their performance,
either developing their own measurement and reporting system around economic,
environmental and social outcomes, or adopting global sustainability reporting
guidelines such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
Table I outlines the characteristics of a typical business under each sustainability
worldview. Due to its reductive nature, the table does not adequately capture the
complexities of each business model, but it serves to summarize the key organizational
assumptions underlying each paradigm. Each worldview has its critics. The
neoclassical paradigm is criticized for leading to global ecological crisis, the
marginalization of people and communities and social inequities (Gladwin et al., 1995;
Korten, 2001). The ecocentric position is criticized for being too rigid or impractical to
implement – it is based on an “all too convenient idealization of nature” (Eckersley,
1992, p. 55). Ecological modernization is criticized for “selling out”, traveling the easy
road of political compromise and legitimizing and sustaining the very structures and
systems that have been responsible for environmental destruction (Christoff, 1996;
Gladwin et al., 1995; Gouldson and Murphy, 1997).

Using the sustainability framework in teaching

A number of researchers draw on opposing perspectives on sustainability to stimulate,
and broaden, business students’ interest in sustainability (Cordano et al., 2003; Kearins
and Springett, 2003; Rusinko, 2005; Springett, 2005). Kearins and Springett (2003) and
Springett (2005) present two perspectives – weak sustainability (neoclassical
perspective) and the more radical strong sustainability (deep ecology perspective) –
and use critical theory to inform their teaching. Kearins and Springett (2003) use three
critical skill-sets to bridge the two paradigms: reflexivity, critique and social
action/engagement. This approach encourages students to reflect on, and critique, the
assumptions underlying different approaches to sustainability at both an
organizational level and a personal level. “Involving students in meaningful learning
 9,3

214

Table I.
IJSHE

business within
Characteristics of

alternative worldviews
Ecocentric Ecological modernization Neoclassical

Purpose of business (business Increase quality of life and enhance Pursue social, economic and Increase revenue/profit (“sustainable
objectives) social equity (human and environmental goals. Firms need to profit growth”) and maximize
non-human species) make a profit to exist but do not just shareholder value
exist to make a profit
Strategic approach Organizational commitment to Profitability through minimizing Pursuit of technical efficiency – use
nature (ecological integrity): environmental impact and balancing of technology to decrease labor costs
minimize the use of virgin materials stakeholder claims. “Try not to harm and increase productivity and
and non-renewable energy; eliminate life or the environment, and make profits. Sustainability is typically
emissions and effluent; minimize the amends if you do” (Hawken, 1993, viewed as a cost but some firms use
life-cycle costs of products and p. 139) it to gain competitive advantage
services; and renew natural
resources. “Leave the world better
than you found it” (Hawken, 1993,
p. 139)
Structure Non-hierarchical Systems approach (not maximizing Hierarchical (functional, divisional
Decentralized authority the “parts”) or matrix)
Industrial ecosystems – each Horizontal integration across Command and control
organization is part of a whole organization (cross-functional teams) Maximizing individual parts (silos)
system Network structure. Intra- and Competition between departments
inter-organizational cooperation
Approach to nature and the Harmony with nature. Resources are Technological innovation to Above nature
environment finite minimize resource usage. Use Resources are free, plentiful and to
renewable/human-made resources be exploited now, not saved for
instead of non-renewable. future generations
Stewardship
Attitude to technical progress (to Technological skepticism Prudent skepticism Technological optimism
solve resource constraints and
pollution)
Timeframe focus Long Medium-Long. Concern for current Short. Typically quarterly reporting
generation and future generations and 1-4 year planning cycles
(continued)

The stakeholders
Treatment of externalities
Product life-cycle
Production systems approach
Cooperation or competition?
Performance measures
Table I.
Ecocentric Ecological modernization Neoclassical
Nature is the dominant stakeholder. Address needs of all (human) Shareholder is dominant. Place
Place nature at the centre of stakeholders. Acknowledges shareholder concerns at the centre of
organizational concerns interconnections between humans organizational concerns
and rest of nature – nature is a
stakeholder.
Fully internalized – pollution and Supports internalizing costs. Focus Pollution, waste and costs of social
waste are eliminated on reducing pollution and waste degradation are externalized (unless
through technology and redesigned legislated)
processes
Focus on selling services. Sell low-impact products and Not responsible for product
Responsible for complete life of services. Responsible for end-of-life (disposal/reuse) nor
product/service: cradle-to-cradle. concerned with designing
disposal/reuse of products at end of
life low-impact products unless it
increases profit/revenue
Circular (closed loop) production Employs recycling. Moving towards Linear production systems. Energy-
systems such as biomimicry and closed loop systems and resource-intensive. Limited
industrial ecosystems downcycling
Cooperation Coopetition Competition
Triple bottom line (TBL). Emphasis TBL – more equal weighting of Financial and market measures such
on environmental and social impacts economic, environmental and social as revenue, profit, shareholder value,
such as waste and pollution, use of performance market share, return on equity,
resources and energy, biodiversity, return on assets and return on
and wellbeing and welfare of investment
stakeholders and local communities
Teaching
students
business
215
IJSHE at a personal level is key to retaining their interest” (Kearins and Springett, 2003, p.
9,3 195). The authors follow this approach (primarily using reflexivity and critique) to
broaden the students’ perspectives on sustainability, while also engaging them at the
personal level.
After debating the three perspectives with the class, the authors then use the
framework throughout the course to analyze how different organizations address
216 environmental and social issues. This is achieved by working through two case studies
(banking industry and automotive industry), using guest speakers from a variety of
industries that reflect different sustainability perspectives (such as automotive,
manufacturing, banking, steel and energy), and consolidating the students’ learning
with a group assignment. The personal learning aspect is achieved through a session
with an “inspirational life coach” and a final essay on how the students will – or will
not – “personalize” sustainability in their careers and/or lives.
The two case studies were chosen to contrast the sustainability issues of a product
manufacturing industry and a service industry. In groups, the students work through a
process to analyze: how an organization from each industry typically makes its money;
the major sustainability issues and risks (environmental, social and economic); the
implications of these issues and risks – how they impact the business (attaching a
likelihood and consequence rating to each issue/risk); and responses (solutions) to these
sustainability issues and risks – how the business should resolve the issues. The
solutions proposed by the students range from “radical” transformative change
drawing from the deep ecology paradigm – such as redesigning products and
processes (closed-loop production) – to neoclassical incremental changes such as
recycling initiatives and purchasing offsets (offset carbon emissions by purchasing
carbon credits or planting trees). The students are asked to consider the following
when they recommend solutions: shape the industry or adapt to industry changes
(leader or follower?); focus or diversify?; timeframe (now, medium-term, long-term);
and, implications for structures, systems, style (culture), staff, skills and “super goals”
(vision, mission and goals). The learning from these sessions is reinforced in the group
assignment. The students choose an organisation (the authors suggest it is one of the
organizations that the students work for so they have some inside knowledge) and
prepare a 5,000-word report using the same process used in class to analyze the two
case studies. The students present an interim report to the class (10-15 minute
presentation) one week before the assignment is due. The class is expected to
participate in question time to provide feedback on the proposed solution, and on the
underlying perspective(s) taken by the group.
The aim of the industry guest speakers is to reinforce how different organizations
interpret and implement sustainability. Drawing on the three sustainability
perspectives, the students critique the organizations” approaches. Organizations are
chosen that represent the different sustainability perspectives. For example, the
Interface speaker draws on concepts from deep ecology and ecological modernization,
such as closed loop systems and biomimicry (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2006a). A steel
company reflects a neoclassical approach to sustainability (offsetting environmental
impacts through planting trees). One leading “neoclassical” bank draws on some
aspects of ecological modernization and Bendigo Bank reflects a deep ecology
communitarian approach with its community banking model (Stubbs and Cocklin,
2006b).
 Postulating that organizational change is predicated on personal change, the life Teaching
coach guest speaker challenges the students to examine their “taken for granted” business
assumptions. Through a series of exercises the students reflect on their own values and
aspirations. The final essay asks the students to reflect on and appraise their career students
aspirations and how sustainability will influence (or not) this. In the essay the authors
ask the students to discuss their intended career path for the next five years; how
sustainability will influence, or be integrated into, the role(s) they envisage; and what 217
they need to do to realize this plan.
The in-class case studies combined with the guest speakers and the group
assignment allow the students to critically engage with the sustainability framework
at a practical level which broadens their perspective on sustainability. The life coach
and personal essay results in high levels of engagement with the sustainability
perspectives at a personal level, providing an opportunity for students to turn the lens
on themselves.
One issue that emerged in teaching the sustainability unit as a summer intensive is
the limited time the students have to reflect on the different approaches to
sustainability. An extra week has now been added into the unit to provide a break to
allow a little more time for reflection.

Conclusion
This paper described a referential framework (Steurer et al., 2005) for firm-level
sustainability that is used to help MBA students understand sustainability and
reconcile the different sustainability perspectives. The framework relates basic tenets
of sustainability within the ecocentric, ecological modernization and neoclassical
paradigms to organizational practice and behavior. It provides a frame of reference to
help make sense of how organizations implement sustainability and the assumptions
that underlie their behavior.
The main aim of this framework is to help students appreciate the wide-ranging
perspectives on sustainability; to get them thinking about what the different “flavors”
of sustainability mean for organizations – the structural and cultural implications; to
critique how different organizations approach sustainability (including NGOs, publicly
listed companies, government agencies etc); to debate the different solutions and
business cases for organizations pursuing sustainability; and to consider the wider
macroeconomic implications of corporate sustainability.
The authors have found that this framework generates a good deal of class
discussion because it counterposes different sustainability perspectives with the
neoclassical “business-as-usual” thinking that underpins the MBA program. At the
beginning of the unit, the students largely accept the assumptions of the neoclassical
paradigm – until this unit they have not questioned them. By examining and
contrasting the assumptions underlying each worldview, the authors believe it helps
the students develop critical and reflective thinking. The aim is not to convert them to
any particular viewpoint but rather to help them understand and articulate all the sides
of the sustainability debate. It is continually reinforced that the framework is not static,
with three fixed “camps”. It is a continuum of positions and, in reality, people and
organizations draw from across the perspectives. The guest speakers and case studies
are selected from different industries and organizations that demonstrate viewpoints
and business practices from across the perspectives. In taking this approach, the
IJSHE authors aim to overcome the “flaw in teaching” that Carrithers and Peterson (2006)
9,3 identified and close the educational disconnect between the free-market approach and
sustainability perspectives.
While the framework is a useful starting point for challenging and broadening MBA
students’ perspectives on sustainability, integrating these concepts into core MBA
subjects would address Carrithers and Peterson’s (2006) “disconnect” issue at the
218 source. A standalone sustainability unit allows students to explore basic concepts,
principles and worldviews, but sustainability needs to be integrated into the core MBA
units. Otherwise sustainability may be seen as a separate issue, disconnected from
business strategy, the legal environment, economics, accounting, corporate finance,
marketing and international business, all of which are commonly core MBA units. This
is an area for future research and course development – how best to integrate
sustainability into existing business units. This may be prove to be an “elusive”
challenge, as suggested by Christensen et al.’ (2007) research into sustainability
education in the top 50 global MBA programs.

References
Banerjee, S.B. (2001), “Corporate environmental strategies and actions”, Management Decision,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Banerjee, S.B. (2002), “Organisational strategies for sustainable development: developing a
research agenda for the new millennium”, Special Issue, Australian Journal of
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 105-17.
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-36.
Beckerman, W. (1974), In Defence of Economic Growth, J. Cape, London.
Beckerman, W. (1995), Small Is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens, Duckworth, London.
Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996), Co-opetition, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Carrithers, D.F. and Peterson, D. (2006), “Conflicting views of markets and economic justice:
implications for student learning”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69, pp. 373-87.
Cervantes, G. (2007), “A methodology for teaching industrial ecology”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 131-41.
Christensen, L.J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L.P., Hoffman, W.M. and Carrier, J. (2007), “Ethics, CSR and
sustainability education in the Financial Times Top 50 Global Business Schools: baseline
data and future research directions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 347-68.
Christoff, P. (1996), “Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities”, Environmental Politics,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 476-500.
Cordano, M., Ellis, K.M. and Scherer, R.F. (2003), “Natural capitalists: increasing business
students’ environmental sensitivity”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 144-57.
Costanza, R., Daly, H.E. and Bartholomew, J.A. (1991), “Goals, agenda, and policy
recommendations for ecological economics”, in Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics:
The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York,
NY, pp. 1-20.
Cotgrove, S. (1982), Catastrophe or Cornucopia? The Environment, Politics, and the Future,
Wiley, Chichester.
Dobson, A. (2003), “Janus-faced utopianism: the politics of ecology”, in Kassiola, J.J. (Ed.), Teaching
Explorations in Environmental Political Theory: Thinking about What We Value,
M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 66-80. business
Doppelt, B. (2003), Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for students
Business, Government and Civil Society, Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield.
Eckersley, R. (1992), Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach,
State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. 219
Egri, C.P. and Pinfield, L.T. (1996), “Organizations and the biosphere: ecologies and
environments”, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organization
Studies, Sage Publications, London, pp. 459-82.
Frosch, R.A. and Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989), “Strategies for manufacturing”, Scientific American,
Vol. 261 No. 3, pp. 94-102.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.-S. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 874-907.
Goekler, J. (2003), “Teaching for the future: systems thinking and sustainability”, Green Teacher,
Vol. 70, Spring, pp. 8-14.
Gouldson, A. and Murphy, J. (1997), “Ecological modernisation: restructuring industrial
economies”, in Jacobs, M. (Ed.), Greening the Millennium? The New Politics of the
Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 74-86.
Gowdy, J. and Erickson, J.D. (2005), “The approach of ecological economics”, Cambridge Journal
of Economics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 207-22.
Graedel, T.E. and Allenby, B.R. (2003), Industrial Ecology, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
(first published 1995).
Hajer, M.A. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the
Policy Process, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Hart, S.L. (1997), “Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 75, January/February, pp. 66-76.
Hawken, P. (1993), The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, HarperBusiness,
New York, NY.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and O’Brien, G. (2005), “Sustainable development: mapping different
approaches”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Jacobs, M. (1991), The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development, and the Politics
of the Future, Pluto Press, London and Concord, MA.
Jacobs, M. (1997), “The quality of life: social goods and the politics of consumption”, in
Jacobs, M. (Ed.), Greening the Millennium? The New Politics of the Environment, Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 47-61.
Jänicke, M. (1990), State Failure: The Impotence of Politics in Industrial Society, Polity Press in
association with Basil Blackwell, Cambridge (translated by Alan Braley).
Kearins, K. and Springett, D. (2003), “Educating for sustainability: developing critical skills”,
Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 188-204.
Korhonen, J. (2002), “The dominant economics paradigm and corporate social responsibility”,
Corporate Social – Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 9, pp. 66-80.
IJSHE Korten, D.C. (2001), When Corporations Rule the World, Kumarian Press, Inc., West Hertford, CT
(first published 1995).
9,3
Lovins, A.B., Lovins, L.H. and Hawken, P. (1999), “A road map for natural capitalism”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 145-58.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002), Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things,
North Point Press, New York, NY.
220 Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002), “The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 56-68.
Purser, R.E., Park, C. and Montuori, A. (1995), “Limits to anthropocentrism: toward an ecocentric
organization paradigm?”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1053-89.
Rusinko, C.A. (2005), “Using quality management as a bridge in educating for sustainability in a
business school”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 340-50.
Schumacher, E.F. (1973), Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, Blond
& Briggs, London.
Sharma, S. and Starik, M. (2004), “Stakeholders, the environment and society: multiple
perspectives, emerging consensus”, in Sharma, S. and Starik, M. (Eds), Stakeholders, the
Environment, and Society, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 1-22.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Ecocentric management for a risk society”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 118-37.
Simon, J.L. (1984), The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000, Blackwell, Oxford.
Simon, J.L. and Kahn, H. (1981), The Ultimate Resource, Martin Robertson, Oxford.
Springett, D. (2005), “‘Education for sustainability’ in the business studies curriculum: a call for a
critical agenda”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 146-59.
Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), “Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 908-35.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), “Corporations, stakeholders and
sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 61, pp. 263-81.
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2006a), “An ecological modernist interpretation of sustainability:
the case of Interface Inc”, Business Strategy and the Environment, DOI: 10/1002/bse.544.
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2006b), “Cooperative, community-spirited and commercial: social
sustainability at Bendigo Bank”, Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 251-61.
Suggett, D. (2003), Community Involvement – A Third Wave, Corporate Public Affairs, Vol. 13
No. 1.
Tibbs, H. (1993), Industrial Ecology: An Environmental Agenda for Industry, Global Business
Network, Emeryville, CA.
Tilbury, D., Crawley, C. and Berry, F. (2004), Education about and for Sustainability in Australian
Business Schools, report prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for
Sustainability (ARIES) and Arup Sustainability for the Australian Government
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
van Marrewijk, M. (2004), “A value based approach to organization types: towards a coherent set
of stakeholder-oriented management tools”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, pp. 147-58.
Weale, A. (1992), The New Politics of Pollution, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Zappala, G. and Cronin, C. (2002), “The employee dimension of corporate community Teaching
involvement in Australia: trends and prospects”, paper presented at 6th ANZTSR
Conference. The Smith Family (TSR), UNITEC, Auckland. business
students
Further reading
Dryzek, J. (1996), “Foundations for environmental political economy: the search for homo
ecologicus”, New Political Economy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-40. 221
Little, A. (2000), “Environmental and eco-social rationality: challenges for political economy in
late modernity”, New Political Economy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 121-34.

About the authors

Wendy Stubbs is a lecturer at Monash University, Australia. Her research interests are in
corporate environmental and social sustainability, corporate social responsibility and
sustainability-centric business models. She teaches corporate sustainability and environmental
policy and management at undergraduate and postgraduate level. She has published journal
articles on corporate sustainability and sustainable business models. She is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: wendy.stubbs@arts.monash.edu.au
Chris Cocklin is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Faculty of Science, Engineering and IT at
James Cook University, Australia. His research and teaching interests are in corporate
environmental management and sustainability, global environmental change and environmental
policy. He has contributed to more than 200 publications in these fields. Professor Cocklin was
formerly at Monash University, where he contributed to the establishment of post-graduate
teaching programmes in corporate sustainability and oversaw the establishment of
triple-bottom-line reporting for the university.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.