Search results

This paper aims at explaining why “Globally Responsible Humanism (GRH)” is presented here as the pivot for a re-foundation of European Business Schools’ culture. Explaining the concept and its difference with traditional European Humanism, the related argumentation is organized around two main parts: the first one explains why the European Union and its business schools do not make sense in a globalization process driven by the financialized economy; the second one shows how a sustainable exposition of European management students to a transcultural approach, a postcolonial perspective, and critical thinking, can lead to their training as future globally responsible leaders in New Business Schools for Societal Studies.

An international political sociology perspective, applied to the interpretation of globalization trends, and a critical thinking approach to education allow for a questioning of the values and contents of mainstream business learning.

The new proposed transversal, postcolonial and interdisciplinary pedagogical approach regarding business education is conducive to closely related operational tracks: on the one hand, how to improve the skills and systemic understanding of students’ global environment; on the other hand, how to lead, organize and manage the coherent “GRH”-driven business school.

The originality of this paper stems from the combination of critical works issued from the social and human sciences realms to revisit business education.

The paper aims to explain why and how, in the USA, a very particular interpretation of economic liberalism, faring though different historical contexts, has generated, since the 1970s, a new kind of capitalism whose language, logic, legitimating paradigm and associated practices have become, thanks to “organic intellectuals” and active networks of power and influence, the “newspeak” and compass of chief executive officers from around the world, despite their always direst societal consequences.

Using history as a support to investigate the domestic and international relations contexts that bore financialized globalization, the paper is strongly located into political sociology. As such, and if we consider that political sociology is the “science of power”, the paper tries to identify precisely the networks of power and influence which transformed a specific interpretation of liberalism and business into a dominant paradigm and specific kind of capitalism, in the USA and the rest of the world. The approach helps to understand which sets of ideas and authors were deemed worth supporting by business and political networks of power and influence and how both sides drew on their reciprocal resources to transform their cosmogonies into dominant paradigms and real politics (corporate and States).

The paper provides a global but precise understanding of the complex processes that allowed some vested interests to impose their vision of economics and business on a domestic, then world, scale. It also questions the relevancy of that vision according to a presentation of the negative societal externalities the associated policies generated and according to the official investigations that have been conducted on the corporate and banking misdemeanors that it contributed to generate.

The paper illustrates a method of investigation that can be used to develop the “global view”, a prerequisite to making decisions in full knowledge of causes and consequences and thus a means to train future “globally responsible leaders”.

By revealing the hidden interests behind financialized globalization and the societal consequences of their power plays, the paper indirectly demonstrates the urgent need for an “alter‐economy” geared to meet the fundamental needs of societies and to preserve their natural environment in the long term.

The paper offers a different perspective on economics and business which is seldom presented in business schools where, owing to the discussed dominant ideology, politics is considered irrelevant to understand business and economics and where the latter are nearly always presented as vectors of good.