Search results

This essay makes the point that the corona crisis should motivate business schools and scholars to reflect on their interpretation of responsible management education (RME). It suggests both a conceptual and a practice renewal of RME, by respectively highlighting the relevance of the constructs organizational climate (OC) and professorial roles (PR) and calling for an enactment of business schools’ employer responsibility. It also argues that beyond mere techno-pedagogical and strategic developments, business schools’ post-pandemic challenges should encompass a narrative change.

Review of recent studies on the neo-liberalization of business schools and the implications of the latter on management educators and management education.

The corona crisis carries the risk of putting center stage and amplifying the entrepreneurial narrative in business schools. Such a narrative is deeply rooted in neoliberal assumptions. However, the corona crisis is also an opportunity to renew RME and to favour critical studies, encourage moral imagination and embark collectively on systemic activism.

Like other recent work, this paper reflects on what RME should mean and how business schools should set and fulfill their RME agenda in the aftermath of the corona crisis. To complement those former work, this paper proposes that the constructs of OC and PR be invited into the conceptualization of RME and insists that business schools acknowledge their employer responsibility.

This study aims to examine Canadian institutional investors’ interest in the political activities of their portfolio companies and the companies’ strategic responses. This study also explores the decoupling of social and political responsibilities of companies, contributing to underexplored institutional and ethical perspectives in corporate political activity (CPA) analysis.

The authors conducted a qualitative content analysis of diverse public documents produced by crucial actors in the responsible investment (RI) industry, such as associations; standard setters; environmental, social and governance (ESG) providers; responsible investors’ funds; and companies belonging to those funds.

Companies’ CPA disclosures frequently show inconsistency and opacity, reflecting similar issues in ESG ratings. Differences in perceptions of CPA’s importance among ESG standards may cause this inconsistency. While sustainability metrics often neglect CPAs, particularly lobbying in ESG reports, responsible investors, even those following PRI, seem to distance themselves, not rigorously overseeing CPA disclosures. The findings indicate that institutional uncertainty prompts companies to offer only superficial compliance to investor expectations.

The present approach comprehensively explores corporate political actions, encompassing diverse perspectives within the RI industry. This study examines the disparity between responsible investors’ declared intentions and their real-world actions concerning corporate political responsibility. Finally, the authors emphasize that institutional complexity results in a disconnect between responsible investors’ policies and their actual investment practices. This decoupling is also evident between corporate policies and their disclosures and between the expectations of standard setters and rating agencies.