Higher Education Offerings and Sustainable Development: Insights from

Mauritius

Mrs S. D. Lukea-Bhiwajee

Lecturer

University of Technology, Mauritius

Mrs P. Ramseook-Munhurrun

Lecturer

University of Technology, Mauritius

Ms P. Naidoo

Lecturer

University of Technology, Mauritius

Chaired by: Ms Florence Nakayiwa-Mayega, Director of Planning, Makerere University, Uganda

ABSTRACT

Sustainability and sustainable concepts are key issues for business and community in the 21st

century. Since past generations have compromised with the existence of the present and

future generations, strong efforts are being put together to create awareness and educate the

new generation about sustainability issues. The role of education, and particularly higher

education, in promoting sustainable development cannot be overestimated. Sustainability is

becoming an increasingly important issue for universities worldwide. Universities today face

the task of improving and perfecting the educational system in such a way that stimulates a

new mentality in people of the 21st century. Education defines the future of any society, and is

equally important for an individual and for the community. University curriculums are being

developed to integrate sustainability and sustainable concepts in higher education in the

quest of preparing the new generation to adopt more sustainable behaviours.

Education for sustainable development is a fairly new concept in Mauritius, like many other

parts of the world. The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which sustainable

development concepts through the university curriculum helps in creating responsible

citizens. This paper sought to assess students’ perceptions of and commitment to university

sustainability. The research questions are thus phrased as follows:

1. Are students concerned about the present/future?

2. What do students know about sustainability?

3. How responsible are students towards sustainability?

This paper therefore provides insights on how to promote sustainable development for the

community, with a focus on the contribution that can be made by the university curriculum.

This pilot study takes place in one of the tertiary institutions in Mauritius among final year

students following undergraduate and postgraduate courses in management, tourism and

social sciences. It attempts to find out the students’ perceptions and understanding of

sustainable development, but most importantly, the extent to which tertiary education has

helped these students embrace sustainable concepts and behaviour though the curriculum,

teaching and other activities they provide. Based on relevant literature, a survey

questionnaire was devised for this purpose. Various aspects of sustainability as perceived by

university students have been gauged. Based on the findings obtained, the study recommends

ways of enhancing university offerings to be in line with sustainable development. In

addition, an understanding of students’ perceptions of sustainability may give insights into

whether or not and how they are likely to engage in sustainable practices.

… .. … ..

… .. … ..

1 INTRODUCTION In the words of Balachandran (2011: 41), “sustainable development is the buzz word today

in industrialised countries and it has been absorbed into the lexicon of globalisation”. The

Brundtland (1987, p8) Commission defined sustainable development as being “behaviour that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs” (See Dale & Newman 2005). However, over the years many definitions of

sustainable development have emerged and according to Bower (2011) “it is often considered

to be related to environmental issues and carries economic and political baggage from

multiple constituencies. (See also for example Giddings, Hopwood & O’brien 2002)”. In line

with this, as advocated by Azlan et al., (2010: 260), “companies are expected to take care of

the social and environmental impact caused by their enterprises within their respective

theories” and go further by adding that “ sustainability is a key issue for the business

community in the twenty first century”.

Irrespective of the definition, meaning and perception of SD, as indicated by Mochizuki &

Fadeeva (2010: 391), “there is a general consensus on the notion of education as an important

tool in achieving change and sustainable development”. In fact, the UNESCO has declared

the period 2005 to 2014 as being that of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) with

the vision “ a world where everybody has the opportunity to benefit from education and learn

values, behaviour and lifestyles required for a sustainable future for positive societal

transformation” ( UNESCO 2005: 6). The characteristics of ESD have also been defined by

the UNESCO as being:

based on the principles and values that underlie SD

focused on the well being of all three realms of sustainability – environment, society

and economy

a promotion of lifelong learning

locally relevant and culturally appropriate

based on local needs, perceptions and conditions, but acknowledges that fulfilling

local needs often has international effects and consequences

formal, non formal and informal education

Accommodating of the evolving nature of the concept of sustainability

focused on content, taking into account context, global issues and local priorities

Built on civil capacity for community based decision making, social tolerance,

environmental stewardship, adaptable workforce and quality life.

interdisciplinary

a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and higher

order thinking skills

The Agenda 21 of the global action plan for delivering sustainable development accepted at

the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 clearly spelt out that “education is critical for

promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address

sustainable development issues (UNCED, 1992). In line with same and to cope with such

“unprecedented growth” (Brower, 2011) as far as sustainability is concerned, Azlan et al.,

(2010:261) point out that, “it is the responsibility of universities, especially business schools,

to have a curriculum that addresses this emerging trend”. Sibbel (2009) goes further to say

that “higher education should be a resource for sustainability .... Business schools should

realise that their role has changed. They are not just producing products or people that can

help companies make profit, but produce managers that can make profit within the concept of

sustainability”. Azlan et al., (2010:261) also more precisely advocate that “business

managers now need exposure and skills in implementing sustainability”

However, the extent to which management education is catering for the business world, has

experienced many controversies over the last few years and many factors have been put

forward to explain business schools’ failure (See Bennis & O’Toole 2005, Ghoshal 2005,

Grey 2004, Vermeulen 2005, Pffefer & Fong 2002, Starkey et. al., 2004, Alvesson &

Willmott 2003, Clegg & Ross- Smith 2003 as cited in Chia & Holt 2008). In the words of

Harrison et al., (2007:332), “the sustained pressure in business schools to adopt a teaching

curriculum and pedagogical approach that appears immediately relevant to the perceived

needs of practitioners is overwhelming”.

Longenecker & Ariss (2002:642) describe management education as a “formal classroom (off

site) learning experience that attempts to expose managers to new concepts, practices and

situations that can be transferred to the workplace”. Over the years, the importance of

management education has grown. For example, in a research carried out by Longenecker &

Ariss (2002) themselves, 88 % of managers surveyed agreed that effective management

education could help them in many work related and personal issues such as

(i) exposure to new and better ideas and business practices

(ii) enhanced motivation & increased confidence

(iii) Problem identification

(iv) Orientation towards career development among others.

Although the positive outcomes of management education are very well recognized and the

value chain for management education is considered to be “the creation, assimilation, and

dissemination of knowledge about business management” (Friga et al., 2003:234), ever since

its popularisation in the early 1990, management education has had to face several crises. A

significant report in 1988 (See Porter & McKibbin 1988 as cited in Friga et al., 2003)

condemned them for their complacency and lack of adaptation to recent developments in the

business world. In the mid 1900’s, research showed that the famous Ford Foundation

campaign in America (as reported by Clinbell & Clinbell 2008), prompted considerable

reforms to take place as far as management education was concerned. For example,

researches carried out by business schools were found to lack relevance to ‘real’ business

world. (See Rowley et al., 1998, Wheeler 1998, Schlossman et al., 1998 as cited in Friga et

al., 2003).

Over the years, there has also been a growing perception that standard management courses

are being taught to students year in and year out without taking into consideration the context

in which the individual is working. In fact, researchers speak about the “commodification”

(Beatty, 2004:187) of management education, or even worse, the “Mc Donaldisation of

higher education” (Hayes & Wynard 2002 in Seers 2007: 559). Put in the words of Dafaur

2001 (as cited in Babu & Jayabal 2005:103), “management education is taught in a way that

reaches automation by repeating the same things year after year till the old notes get too

yellow and crispy”. Very recently, Seers (2007:558) indicated that there is a need to see how

we can fit our concern “in a larger, evolving context, so that we can turn our attention to

adapting to the emerging context and creating our future role”.

This is confirmed by the words of Pfeffer & Fong (2002: pg 78) who indicate that “there are

substantial questions about the relevance of their (i.e. business schools’) educational product

and doubts about their effects on both careers of their graduates and on management

practice”. And in the words of Grey (2004: 181), “what we (academics) are not teaching are

reliable techniques, that is, things which when managers do them have (even reasonably),

predictable effects”.

Business schools have also been accused of adopting the scientific model. Over the years, it

was found that the scientific model was geared towards “curves, matrices, rules and statistical

analyses, and arrows indicate a world that is tending towards equilibrium, to balance and to

consistency” (Chia & Holt 2008: 473). In an update revisiting the Gordon and Howell report,

Porter and Mc Kibbin 1998 (as cited in Friga et al., 2003) shared the same opinion with

Leavitt (1986) and acknowledged that business school’s curricula were seen as too focused

on analytics, with insufficient emphasis on problem finding as contrasted with problem

solving and implementation, and insufficiently integrative across the various functional areas.

Such an approach, caused business schools to simply offer a narrow focus on only the skills

required for “entry level jobs to graduates in the course of management education” (Clinbell

& Clinbell 2008: 101).

As a result of such management education delivered by business schools, Hambrick

(2005:106) opined that “combine agency theory with transaction cost economics, add in

standard versions of game theory and negotiation analysis, and the picture of the manager

that emerges is one that is now very familiar in practice: the ruthless hard driving, strictly top

down command and control focused, shareholder value obsessed, win at any cost business

leader. Or even in the words of Ghoshal (2005:76) who states that “business schools have

actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility”. Over the years,

management education has unfortunately produced executives who have become “obsessed

with shareholder value…self interested and emotionally detached from their companies as

living, breathing institutions” (Hambrick 2005: 106). (See also Azlan et al., 2010)

On the other hand, Giacalone (2004:418) advocates that, “business schools teach financial

success, power and status, but a real education teaches students to leave a legacy transcending

the bottom line. It is an education that helps the next generation pave a better road for those

who follow them”. And as put forward by March 2006 (in Harrison et al., 2007: 333) “the

primary usefulness of management education lies in the transmission of fundamental ideas

and ideals that might shape managerial thinking and not the solution to immediate managerial

problems”. This view converges with those of Mill 1867 (as cited in Harrison et al., 2007:

333) and both see management education as “professionalised knowledge in particular and is

more about shaping and honing perceptions, mentalities and dispositions rather than the

systematic dissemination of knowledge”.

Taking into consideration the words of (Donaldson 2002:96), “education is a core mission of

all universities. For schools of business and management, a key issue is whether they are

improving practice”, it is thus high time for academics to think how to integrate effectively

sustainability in management and business education (See also for example Rusinko 2010,

Sammalisto & Lindhqvist 2008). As put forward by Azlan et al., (2010), “it is important for

students to understand the philosophy and the world view underlying the interpretation of the

concepts for them to internalise these concepts into their business activities as well as for

charting business strategies that support sustainability”.

In line with the above, Rusinko (2010: 509) advocates that “ to effectively integrate

sustainability in management education, it is necessary to address how it should be

implemented or delivered, that is , through already existing structures or by creating new

structures”. In other words, whether sustainability can be included in the business curricula

as a new course, a new topic, through case studies, a module in itself or a new program (ibid).

However, researchers agree that both curricular and co curricular activities are important for

engagement of students as far as sustainability issues are concerned (See for example Ahren

2009, Kuh 1995). And at the same time, that “the goal of sustainable education is to explore

the reconciliation of critical ecological, social and economic imperatives” (Dale & Newman

2005:356) and that therefore sustainable education must be “rooted in the science of

complexity to a larger degree than environmental education”.

The major aim of this study is to critically analyse the extent to which the various courses

being dispensed at tertiary level imbibe the concepts of sustainability in students, or the

managers and employees of tomorrow. In doing so, it also

(i) gauges the understanding of students as far as the meaning of sustainability is

concerned

(ii) analyses why students perceive sustainability knowledge to be important for them

(iii) finds out students’ perception as to the extent to which they feel that sustainability

concepts are included in their programme of study and how

(iv) enquires whether management education has brought some change in their

behaviour in being more sustainable prospective employees/citizens

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In order to address these research questions, a survey was carried out with University

students asking them about their perceptions of and commitment to sustainability. The survey

questionnaire consisted of three sections, which gauged the respondents’ demographic

profiles, attitudes towards sustainable development and attitudes toward sustainability in the

university curriculum respectively. Section 1 asked for demographic information: gender,

age, undergraduate/postgraduate students, and field of study. Section 2 of the questionnaire

consisted on three multiple choice questions to gauge respondents’ understanding of

sustainable development. Section 3 consisted of 26 questions measuring the respondent’s

understanding of and commitment to sustainable activities. Responses were provided using a

five-point Likert-type scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree with a (3) neutral

response option.

The surveys were randomly distributed to undergraduate and postgraduate students at a

public university in Mauritius from April-June 2012. One of the Schools within the university

focuses on the aspects of sustainable development. Based on the specific requirements of the

School, sustainability concepts are conducted on different levels, starting from undergraduate

studies and finishing with doctoral studies. Data were collected from a total of 500 students

from that School of the university. Respondents voluntarily participated in the survey and

received no extra-credit for doing so. Although demographic information was collected,

respondents remained anonymous. A total of 456 questionnaires were retained for analysis as

44 questionnaires were incomplete and therefore they were removed from the sample. The

response rate was thus 91 percent.

The data were analysed and presented into percentages and mean scores. Mean scores

indicate the average level of agreement with an item on a 5-point scale (1 being strongly

disagree and 5 being strongly agree). Higher mean score for an item indicates higher degree

of agreement in the area addressed by this item. Unlike the percentages, mean scores do not

provide a breakdown of responses by response category. Thus, mean scores may be less

informative than percentages. However, mean scores are useful in examining changes in

scores over time. In addition to descriptive statistics, t-tests were used to test whether there

was a significant change in their agreement toward sustainability in the university curriculum

and p-values are presented.

3 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS Demographic Characteristics

The findings of the demographic profiles are as follows. The majority (68.2 percent) of the

respondents were undergraduate students and 31.8 percent were postgraduate students. Most

of them (54.4 percent) were female. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 52 and most of

them (55.9 percent) were younger than 25. The majority of the respondents were in the field

of Tourism and Hospitality (33.1 percent), Safety & Health (27.8 percent), Communication

(16.2 percent), Education (11.2), Social Science (9.2 percent) and others (2.5 percent). The

demographic characteristics of the sample confirm that it is representative of the

demographics of the entire student populations from which the samples were taken.

Sustainability-related activities at the University

This study sought to assess students’ perceptions of and commitment to sustainability. When

asked to identify the factor(s) students associated with sustainability, the findings showed that

the majority of the respondents attributed sustainability to environment, society, culture and

Economy (39.3 percent), followed by environment only (18 percent), environment, society

and economy (14.5 percent) and environment and culture (9.2 percent).

In order to assess students’ knowledge of sustainability, they were asked to choose from three

options and their responses were as follows: there should be clear planning in the use,

management and exploitation of resources which are renewable to a large extent (50.2

percent); cultural setting has an important role to play in order to make society, state and

economy contribute in the long run (32 percent); and giving value to human rights which is

the fundamental ethical principle that provides power to citizens and communities to

experience freedom and dignity in their lives (17.8 percent).

When asked how sustainability could be incorporated into their higher education

programmes, the majority of the respondents (31.4 percent) indicated by integrating in

existing University courses, followed by integrating in existing taught modules (29.8

percent), creating cross-disciplinary sustainability courses (24.1 percent) and creating new

discipline (14.7 percent). The majority of the respondents specified that fundamental courses

in sustainable development should be integrated into the study curriculum. This means that

from the start, the concepts of sustainable development must be embedded into all the

programme of study and modules at the university, requiring a cultural shift, not just the

provision of an extra optional module or course. The respondents themselves were also

supportive of this thinking.

Attitudes toward sustainability in the university curriculum

The results indicated that overall, the students were generally agreeable toward the

sustainability development in the university curriculum as the mean ranged from 4.47 to 3.55.

The results of t-tests (p < 0.05) carried out for each item separately across the five factors,

suggested that the students positively perceived the inclusion of the sustainable development

in the curriculum. The majority of the respondents agreed (M = 4.16, SD = 1.01) that

sustainability as a module should be integrated in all curricula in higher education in

Mauritius. Depending on the discipline, the concept of sustainable development should be

used in different contexts. Therefore, sustainability concept should be introduced into the

curriculum based on the field of study.

The study also wanted to assess how sustainable development was promoted at the University

and most of the respondents agreed (M = 4.33, SD = 0.799) that it was promoted through

“Field work and research projects”. This was followed by “Instructions/explanation given in

lecture” (M = 0.403, SD = 0.993). The findings in the field work and research category

suggest students are engaged in sustainability issues, with research projects being an outlet

for this interest. The findings further revealed that sustainable development was also

promoted by “application of theory” (M = 3.80, SD = 1.05) and “real-life case study” (M

=3.76, SD = 1.08). The analysis of theory and real-life case studies are important

methodological approaches communicating sustainability principles and developing creative

thinking by the students. Using these methodologies, a cross-section of complex problems

could be interpreted from social, economic, environmental, ethical and other perspectives.

The findings thus showed that sustainability aspects were considered in the university

curricula offerings.

The study also assessed whether sustainability knowledge was important for being a

responsible student and citizen (Table 1). It is observed that most of the respondents agreed

for being a responsible citizen (M = 4.42, SD = 0.88) and for professional development (M =

4.23, SD = 0.89). Educating students about the benefit of sustainable development and their

individual actions, can potentially influence behaviour as a responsible citizen.

The study also examined whether university education has increased the students’ awareness

of the factors of sustainability. The findings revealed that the respondents agreed that there

was an increased awareness of environmental issues (M = 4.25, SD = 0.88), followed by an

increased awareness in social and cultural issues (M = 4.14, SD = 0.93) and lastly an

increased awareness in economic issues (M = 4.04, SD = 0.93). The aim is to educate and

equip students with conceptual and integrated knowledge about economic progress, social

and cultural harmony, environment protection and resource conservation issues. It is also to

prepare students for leading roles in sustainable development.

Eleven questions were used to assess the respondents’ attitudes toward University curriculum

on sustainable development enabling them to embrace habitual behaviours. The respondents

agreed to all the statements and the highest agreement was observed for “water conservation

practices” (M = 4.47, SD = 0.79). The finding under this factor also showed that respondents

were embracing sustainable behaviours in relation to “waste reduction, including toxics and

recycling” (M = 4.0, SD = 0.99). Changing the attitude of the students is a necessary

prerequisite to behaviour change on campus and in the community. Including sustainable

development is the university curricula, may contribute to a sustainable development-friendly

culture on campus and in the wider community. Although one does not always act in ways

which are consistent with one expressed beliefs and attitudes, changing attitudes can

sometimes alter behaviour (Nickerson, 2003). The students surveyed also expressed concern

about wasteful consumption and pollution. The respondents indicated good support for

sustainability, and most of them agreed that they were personally engaged in sustainable

practices. This is explained by the fact that student responses were reflecting the state of

sustainable practices in the community (Table 1).

4 CONCLUSION The paper demonstrated that the aspect of sustainability is being incorporated in the

curriculum at the university under study in Mauritius. Sustainability in the university

curriculum is being implemented on a number of study programmes and therefore learning

and change for sustainability is taking place at the University. The university through its

programmes is helping students to develop awareness and understanding of sustainability. By

raising students’ awareness of sustainability and by providing opportunities to participate in

it, the university can be a powerful change agent with far-reaching impacts.

Table 1: Agreement toward sustainability in the university curriculum

Factor Statement Mean

Std.

Deviation t-value

Integration of sustainable development

in curricula

Sustainability as a module

should be integrated in all

curricula in higher education in

Mauritius

4.16 1.012 11.02**

Sustainability is promoted through Dissertation Theme/topic 3.65 1.089 9.05**

Field work and research projects 4.33 .799 17.23*

Real-life case study 3.76 1.083 11.79**

Application of theory 3.80 1.048 10.67**

Instructions/explanation given in

lecture

4.03 .993 7.85*

Peers in the same discipline 3.54 1.074 11.07**

Peers in other disciplines 3.51 1.113 13.87*

Sustainability knowledge is important For personal development 4.12 .890 10.34**

For professional development 4.23 .889 16.89*

To embrace green jobs 4.15 .985 20.16**

To be a responsible citizen 4.42 .806 15.87**

University education on Sustainable

Development has enabled

Increase awareness of

environmental issues

4.25 .880 10.56**

Increase awareness of social and

cultural issues

4.14 .929 7.68*

Increase awareness of economics

issues

4.04 .930 16.91**

University curriculum on sustainable

development has enabled student to

embrace habitual behaviours with

respect to

Energy conservation practices 3.95 .986 19.21**

Waste reduction, including

toxics and recycling

4.00 .989 11.98*

CO2/air pollution reduction

practices

3.90 .980 8.34**

Water conservation practices 4.47 .789 11.35**

Responsible purchasing of

consumable and non-consumable

3.75 1.022 16.27*

Having respect for others 3.79 1.039 12.63**

Being willing to serve others 3.91 1.025 15.87**

Adopting the appropriate

attitudes and values vis- a-vis

others

3.84 1.009 19.52*

Adopting ethical behaviours 3.97 1.008 11.78**

Equal distribution of wealth and

resources

3.79 1.025 13.72*

Efficient use of public goods 3.93 1.067 10.23**

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

REFERENCES Nickerson, R.S. (2003), Psychology and Environmental Change, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Ahren 2009 in Rusinko C A 2010, “Integrating Sustainability in Management and Business

Education: A Matrix Approach”, Academy of Management learning and education, Vol. 9, No. 3 pp.

507-519

Alvesson & Willmott 2003 in Chia R, Holt R , 2008, ‘The Nature of Knowledge in Business

Schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, vol.7 , no. 4, pp.471-486.

Azlan A, Siti N A K , Dzulkifli A R, Hasnah H 2010 , “Development of MBA with specialisation in

sustainable development : the experience of Universiti Sains Malaysia”, International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 11, issue 3, pp. 260-273.

Beatty, J, 2004, ‘Grades as money and the role of the market metaphor in management education’,

Academy of Management Learning and Education, vol.3, no. 2, pp.187- 196.

Bennis & O’Toole 2005 in Chia R, Holt R, 2008, ‘The Nature of Knowledge in Business Schools”,

Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol.7, no. 4, pp.471-486.

Bhalachandran G, 2011 “Kautilya’s model of sustainable development”, Humanomics, Vol. 27,

Issue 1, pp 41-52.

Brower H H , 2011, “ Sustainable Development through service learning: A pedagogical framework

and case example in a third world context ”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol.

10, no. 1, pp. 58 -76.

Chia R, Holt R, 2008 , ‘The Nature of Knowledge in Business Schools’, Academy of Management

Learning and Education , Vol.7 , no. 4, pp.471-486.

Clegg & Ross- Smith , 2003 in Chia R, Holt R , 2008, ‘ The Nature of Knowledge in Business

Schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education , Vol.7 , no. 4, pp.471-486.

Clinbell S K , Clinbell J M , 2008, ‘The Tension in business education between academic rigor and

real world relevance : The Role of Executive Professors’ , Academy of Management Learning &

Education, Vol. 7 , no.1, pp.99-107.

Dafaur 2001, in Babu , T D , Jayabal G 2005, ‘An analytical study of the teaching methods at

affiliated B schools in Hyderabad and Secunderabad’, Journal Of Services Research, Vol.5 , no.1, pp.

101- 122.

Dale A, Newman L 2005 “ Sustainable Development , education and literacy”, International Journal

of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 4 pp. 351-362.

Donaldson, L, 2002, ‘Damned by our own theories: contradictions between theories and management

education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 96-106.

Friga P N , Bettis R A, Sullivan R S , 2003, ‘Changes in graduate management education and new

business school strategies for the 21st century’, Academy of Management Learning and Education ,

Vol. 2 , no. 3, pp. 233-249.

Ghoshal S, 2005, ‘Bad management theories are destroying good management practices’, Academy of

Management Learning & Education, vol.4 , no.1, pp. 75- 91.

Giacalone R A, 2004, ‘A transcendent Business Education for the 21st Century’, Academy of

Management Learning & Education, Vol.3, no.4, pp. 415- 420.

Giddings, Hopwood & O’Brien, 2002 in Brower H H , 2011, “ Sustainable Development through

service learning: A pedagogical framework and case example in a third world context”, Academy of

Management Learning and Education, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 58 -76

Grey, C, 2004, ‘Reinventing Business Schools: The Contribution of Critical Management Education’,

Academy of Management Learning and Education, vol.13, no.2, pp. 178-186.

Hambrick D C, 2005, ‘Just how bad are our theories? A Response to Ghoshal’, Academy of

Management Learning & Education, vol.4, no.1, pp.104-107.

Harrison R T, Leitch C M, Chia R , 2007, “ Developing pragmatic Awareness in University Business

Schools : The Challenge for Executive Education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education ,

vol. 6 , no. 3, pp. 332-343.

Hayes & Wynard, 2002 in Seers, A, 2007, ‘Management Education in the emerging Knowledge

Economy: Going Beyond ‘Those Who can, Do; Those Who Can’t Teach’’, Academy of Management

Learning and Education, vol.6, no. 4, pp. 558-567.

Kuh 1995 in Rusinko C A 2010, “Integrating Sustainability in Management and Business Education:

A Matrix Approach”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 9, No. 3 pp. 507-519

Leavitt, 1986 in Pfeffer J, Fong, C T, 2002, ‘The end of business schools? Less success than meets the

eye’, Academy Of Management Learning & Education, Vol.1, no.1. pp.78-95.

Longenecker, C O, Ariss S, 2002, ‘Creating competitive advantage through effective management

education’, Journal of Management Development, Vol.21, no. 9, pp. 640- 654.

March , 2006 in Harrison R T, Leitch , C M, Chia R , 2007, ‘Developing pragmatic Awareness in

University Business Schools : The Challenge for Executive Education’, Academy of Management

Learning and Education , Vol. 6 , no. 3, pp. 332-343.

Mill , 1867 in Harrison R T, Leitch , C M, Chia R , 2007, ‘Developing pragmatic Awareness in

University Business Schools : The Challenge for Executive Education’ , Academy of Management

Learning & Education , Vol. 6 , no. 3, pp. 332-343.

Mochizuki Y, Fadeeva Z, 2010 “Competences for sustainable development and sustainability,

Significance and challenges for ESD”, International Journal of Sustainability, Vol. 11, no.4, pp. 391-

403

Pfeffer J, Fong C T, 2002, ‘The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye’, Academy

Of Management Learning & Education, Vol.1, no.1, pp.78-95.

Porter & Mc. Kibbin 1998 in Friga P N , Bettis R A, Sullivan R S 2003, ‘Changes in graduate

management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century”, Academy of

Management Learning and Education , Vol. 2 , no. 3, pp. 233-249.

Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1998 in Friga P N , Bettis R A, Sullivan , R S , 2003, ‘Changes in graduate

management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century”, Academy of

Management Learning and Education , Vol. 2 , no. 3, pp. 233-249.

Rusinko C A 2010, “Integrating Sustainability in Management and Business Education: A Matrix

Approach”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 9, No. 3 pp. 507-519

Sammalisto & Lindhqvist 2008 in Rusinko C A 2010, “Integrating Sustainability in Management and

Business Education: A Matrix Approach”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 9,

No. 3 pp. 507-519

Schlossman et al. 1998, in Friga P N , Bettis , R A, Sullivan , R S , 2003, ‘Changes in graduate

management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century’ , Academy of

Management Learning and Education , vol. 2 , no. 3, pp 233-249.

Seers, A 2007, “Management Education in the emerging Knowledge Economy: Going Beyond

“Those who can Do; Those Who Can’t Teach””, Academy of Management Learning and Education,

Vol.6 no. 4, pp. 558-567.

Sibbel 2009 in Azlan A, Siti N A K , Dzulkifli A R, Hasnah H 2010 , “Development of MBA with

specialisation in sustainable development : the experience of Universiti Sains Malaysia”,

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 11, issue 3, pp. 260-273.

Starkey , Hatchuel & Tempest , 2004 in Chia R, Holt R , 2008 , ‘The Nature of Knowledge in

Business Schools’ , Academy of Management Learning and Education , Vol.7 , no. 4, pp.471-486.

Vermeulen, 2005 in Chia R, Holt R, 2008, ‘The Nature of Knowledge in Business Schools”, Academy

of Management Learning and Education, Vol.7, no. 4, pp.471-486.

Wheeler ,1998 in Friga , P N , Bettis, R A, Sullivan , R S 2003, ‘Changes in graduate management

education and new business school strategies for the 21st century’, Academy of Management Learning

and Education , Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 233-249.