Challenges of integrating sustainability in management education: A 25‐year review of institutional logics, paradoxes and sensemaking

IF 13.4 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Simona Grande, Francesca Ricciardi, Eusebio Scornavacca, Andreas Erich Wald
{"title":"Challenges of integrating sustainability in management education: A 25‐year review of institutional logics, paradoxes and sensemaking","authors":"Simona Grande, Francesca Ricciardi, Eusebio Scornavacca, Andreas Erich Wald","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although sustainability has been championed in management education for over 25 years, its integration remains uneven, fragile and contested. Existing literature mirrors this fragmentation—often descriptive, celebratory or narrowly focused, offering limited insight into the organisational processes that shape integration. Synthesising 70 peer‐reviewed articles, this systematic review asks: What explains the complexity and contested nature of sustainability integration in management education through inter‐, multi‐ and transdisciplinary approaches, and with what implications? We identify three predominant rationales underpinning integration: (1) skills/employability—preparing graduates for market demand in sustainability competencies; (2) standards alignment—compliance with frameworks such as Principles for Responsible Management Education, the Sustainable Development Goals and accreditation requirements and (3) moral/ethical—commitments to societal and environmental responsibility. Using institutional theory, we interpret these as manifestations of coexisting civic, market and professional logics. We further surface nine recurrent tensions that shape implementation and leverage paradox theory to group them across four domains: organising (stability vs. change; autonomy vs. control), learning (breadth vs. depth; conventional vs. transformative learning), performing (aspirations vs. resource constraints; rigour vs. relevance; neoliberal vs. public purpose) and belonging (disciplinary silos vs. integration; pluralism vs. coherence). Finally, mobilising sensemaking theory, we examine how educators and institutions actively navigate competing logics and paradoxical tensions through iterative processes of sensegiving, sensebreaking and sensemaking. By integrating these perspectives, the study advances an integrative, organisationally grounded framework that helps explain why sustainability integration remains complex. In doing so, the review reframes sustainability integration from a pedagogical add‐on to an ongoing organisational transformation, with implications for research, policy and practice in management education.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.70034","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although sustainability has been championed in management education for over 25 years, its integration remains uneven, fragile and contested. Existing literature mirrors this fragmentation—often descriptive, celebratory or narrowly focused, offering limited insight into the organisational processes that shape integration. Synthesising 70 peer‐reviewed articles, this systematic review asks: What explains the complexity and contested nature of sustainability integration in management education through inter‐, multi‐ and transdisciplinary approaches, and with what implications? We identify three predominant rationales underpinning integration: (1) skills/employability—preparing graduates for market demand in sustainability competencies; (2) standards alignment—compliance with frameworks such as Principles for Responsible Management Education, the Sustainable Development Goals and accreditation requirements and (3) moral/ethical—commitments to societal and environmental responsibility. Using institutional theory, we interpret these as manifestations of coexisting civic, market and professional logics. We further surface nine recurrent tensions that shape implementation and leverage paradox theory to group them across four domains: organising (stability vs. change; autonomy vs. control), learning (breadth vs. depth; conventional vs. transformative learning), performing (aspirations vs. resource constraints; rigour vs. relevance; neoliberal vs. public purpose) and belonging (disciplinary silos vs. integration; pluralism vs. coherence). Finally, mobilising sensemaking theory, we examine how educators and institutions actively navigate competing logics and paradoxical tensions through iterative processes of sensegiving, sensebreaking and sensemaking. By integrating these perspectives, the study advances an integrative, organisationally grounded framework that helps explain why sustainability integration remains complex. In doing so, the review reframes sustainability integration from a pedagogical add‐on to an ongoing organisational transformation, with implications for research, policy and practice in management education.
在管理教育中整合可持续性的挑战:制度逻辑、悖论和意义的25年回顾
尽管可持续性在管理教育中得到了超过25年的倡导,但它的整合仍然不平衡、脆弱和有争议。现有的文献反映了这种分裂——通常是描述性的、庆祝性的或狭隘的,对形成整合的组织过程提供了有限的见解。本系统综述综合了70篇同行评议的文章,提出了以下问题:如何解释通过跨学科、多学科和跨学科方法将可持续性整合到管理教育中的复杂性和争议性,以及其中的含义?我们确定了支持整合的三个主要理由:(1)技能/就业能力-为毕业生在可持续能力方面的市场需求做好准备;(2)标准一致性-遵守框架,如负责任管理教育原则,可持续发展目标和认证要求;(3)道德/伦理-对社会和环境责任的承诺。运用制度理论,我们将这些解释为公民逻辑、市场逻辑和专业逻辑共存的表现。我们进一步揭示了塑造实施的九种反复出现的紧张关系,并利用悖论理论将它们分为四个领域:组织(稳定vs.变化;自主vs.控制),学习(广度vs.深度;传统vs.变革学习),执行(愿望vs.资源约束;严格vs.相关性;新自由主义vs.公共目的)和归属(学科孤岛vs.整合;多元化vs.一致性)。最后,运用语义理论,我们研究了教育者和机构如何通过语义赋予、语义破坏和语义构建的迭代过程积极地导航竞争逻辑和矛盾的紧张关系。通过整合这些观点,该研究提出了一个综合的、基于组织的框架,有助于解释为什么可持续性整合仍然很复杂。在此过程中,该综述将可持续性整合从教学上的补充重新定义为正在进行的组织转型,对管理教育的研究、政策和实践都有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书