This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de los Andes]On: 16 May 2013, At: 18:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development Southern AfricaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdsa20

Corporate citizenship education forresponsible business leadersPaul Prinsloo , Cecilia Beukes & Derick De JonghPublished online: 16 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Paul Prinsloo , Cecilia Beukes & Derick De Jongh (2006): Corporate citizenshipeducation for responsible business leaders, Development Southern Africa, 23:2, 197-211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03768350600707868

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Corporate citizenship education forresponsible business leaders

Paul Prinsloo, Cecilia Beukes & Derick de Jongh1

Corporate scandals, concerns about global warming and the continued abuse of natural and

human resources by business demand a critical reflection and redefinition of global leadership.

Management education in general and corporate citizenship education in particular are

claimed to play a crucial role in reassessing what responsible business practice entails. There

are several initiatives to ensure that businesses act more responsibly. Legislation and enforcement

are foundational components of any strategy to counter the erosion in corporate ethics and the

abuse of natural and human resources, but this is not enough. Education and training can play

an important role in shaping responsible business and citizen behaviour. Corporate citizenship

education should include not only acquiring a working knowledge of applicable legislation but

also interrogating the complex challenges and paradoxes business leaders face. This article

explores the role corporate citizenship education plays in a global redefinition of responsible

business leadership.

1. INTRODUCTION

Corporate citizenship is located in a dynamic and often confrontational interplay

between society and business. Social capital – the product of ‘networks of co-

operations . . . between actors from different social and cultural backgrounds’

(Habisch, 2001: 11) – starts to play an increasing important role. Partnerships

between these different actors are becoming increasingly important for companies,

and their success depends on a ‘global partnership alchemy’ based on ‘engagement,

innovation and governance’ (Zadek, 2001: 200). These partnerships are, however,

often confrontational and paradoxical.

A recent case in point is Freeport-McMoRan, an American company that operates a giant

open-pit copper and gold mine in Papua, Indonesia. An editorial entitled ‘Recklessness in

Indonesia’ describes the environmental abuse caused by this company’s operations as

‘breathtaking’. The company has already produced one billion tons of waste and it is

foreseen that another five billion more tons will be produced before the operation

shuts down. Some of the waste has been dumped into the mountains surrounding the

mine and some into a system of rivers that descend steeply into the island’s low-lying

wetlands and estuaries (New York Times, 2006).

This example illustrates the messiness of choices faced by corporations and governments

in the 21st century. This company provides jobs for 18 000 people and ‘according to

company estimates, has provided Indonesia with $33 billion in direct and indirect

benefits from 1992 to 2004, almost 2 per cent of the country’s gross domestic

1Respectively, Curriculum and Learning Developer, Institute for Curriculum and Learning Devel-opment, UNISA; Professor, Department of Management Accounting, School of AccountancySciences, College of Economic and Management Sciences, UNISA; and Director, Centre forCorporate Citizenship, UNISA.

Development Southern Africa Vol. 23, No. 2, June 2006

ISSN 0376-835X print=ISSN 1470-3637 online/06=020197-15 # 2006 Development Bank of Southern AfricaDOI: 10.1080=03768350600707868

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

product’ (New York Times, 2006). There is also the $20 million the company has paid to

the police and military for infrastructure and a secure working environment.

In such a case, corporate citizenship is about acting with ‘integrity and mindfulness’

(Waddock, 2001: 26) and ‘an ethics of care’ (Dion, 2001: 118). The question facing cor-

porate citizenship education is how to assist and encourage corporations to act responsi-

bly and ethically in the midst of new opportunities and often within countries where there

is little regulation and an abundance of untapped resources. At present there are,

however, growing concerns about the lack of ‘integrity and mindfulness’ in business.

In a newspaper article entitled ‘Corporate crime on a bull run in SA’ Jenvey reports

on research that suggests corporate fraud is increasing in South Africa (2005: 3). The

same research questions the effectiveness of new legislation trying to curb corporate

crime (Beeld, 2006: 25).

A balance between legislation and enforcement, on one hand, and global education and

training on the other hand, could be what is needed to address these complexities on

various levels and in different forums. This article explores some steps towards achieving

this balance:

. a global initiative by the European Foundation for Management Development

(EFMD) [the EFMD is recognised globally as an accreditation body of quality in man-

agement education and has established accreditation services for business schools and

business school programmes, corporate universities and e-learning programmes

(http://www.efmd.org/)] and the United Nations (UN) Global Compact [The

Global Compact involves all the relevant social actors: governments, who defined

the principles on which the initiative is based; companies, whose actions it seeks to

influence; labour, which is responsible for the concrete process of global production;

civil society organisations, which represent the wider community of stakeholders; and

the United Nations, which is the world’s only truly global political forum, as an

authoritative convener and facilitator (http://www.unglobalcompact.org/About

TheGC/index.html)] towards growing more responsible business practices and

leaders;

. the role international legislation and the teaching thereof plays in ensuring compli-

ance; and

. the role a critical caring pedagogy can play in contributing towards lasting change.

When the above balance is struck it may result in ‘alchemy’, the word Zadek (2001) uses

to describe the dynamic and unpredictable and often ‘magical’ result that can be

achieved. The metaphor is appropriate for talking about corporate responsibility. Stake-

holders will mostly look after their own interests, so it may be hard to believe that they

can actually find common ground to look out for everyone’s best interests – not just

those of the company or its capital. The point about alchemy – the medieval quest for

the element or process that would turn base metal into gold – is that it involves striving

for what is perhaps, and even probably, unobtainable.

Occasionally we have glimpses of really good, caring corporate practices, but these often

arise from the beliefs and values of a specific CEO. When he or she leaves, the company

often returns to keeping the shareholders happy. This may appear cynical, but it is an

expression of the almost disbelief that capitalism at its core can seek mutual benefits

rather than just pursue selfish interests. In keeping with this element of doubt, Zadek

(2001) also uses the metaphor of the search for the Holy Grail.

198 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

The choices companies are faced with within the domain of corporate citizenship are

often paradoxical in the sense of ‘conflicting with preconceived notions of what is

reasonable or possible’ (Oxford Dictionary, seventh edition). There are a number of

authors who suggest that talking about ‘responsible capitalism’ or ‘compassionate

capitalism’ is a contradiction in terms (e.g. McLaren, 1994; Sargis, 2003). The business

case for corporate citizenship is thus often confronted by sceptics in business and

outside it, who accuse corporate citizenship of being merely ‘window-dressing’, or

‘green-washing’.

2. SEARCHING FOR A ‘GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP ALCHEMY’

There have nevertheless been several global initiatives searching for this ‘alchemy’ to

effectively address the ‘downsides of globalisation such as social exclusion, ecological

problems and mutual distrust between actors from different social and cultural back-

grounds’ (Habisch, 2001: 11). These include the UN Global Compact, the Millennium

Development Goals and an initiative by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), pub-

lished in 2002 and entitled ‘Education and sustainability: Responding to the global

challenge’.

It is important that corporate citizenship education be part of a broader educational

response to issues of global sustainability. Nevertheless, it is also part of a spectrum

of business education aiming to empower business leaders in the 21st century to take

responsible and profitable decisions. A recent example of a global strategy between

business and education was initiated by the EFMD to redefine responsible business lea-

dership.

In 2002 the theme of the EFMD’s annual meeting was ‘Global responsibility’. There was

consensus at that meeting that the EFMD could and should have a global strategy to cri-

tically redefine responsible business leadership. A partnership was established with the

UN Global Compact and an invitation to become involved was issued to some of the

Compact signatories and to the EFMD’s academic members. As a result, in 2004,

senior representatives from 21 companies and centres for leadership learning from

around the world formed a unique working coalition. Supported by the UN Global

Compact, the EFMD and the participating organisations, the group’s objective was to

promote understanding of what constitutes globally responsible leadership and to

develop this practice.

An important characteristic of the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative is the involve-

ment of stakeholders from a range of backgrounds and environments: academics from an

array of international business schools and non-governmental organisations (NGOs),

representatives from major multinational corporations and students from participating

business schools. While it was acknowledged that business schools play a major role

in shaping business practices, it was realised that businesses themselves had to be

involved. Without the constructive engagement with business, represented by some

multinational corporations, any redefinition of the purpose of business would have

remained a futile academic exercise.

Another important characteristic is an acknowledgement that there are no ‘definitive

answers to the demands of a dynamically changing agenda’, resulting in the need for

a ‘global approach where all the cultures, from both developed and developing countries,

can learn from one another’. Globally responsible leadership should be ‘participative,

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

iterative, and inclusive, open to all concerned stakeholders’ (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 5).

On the subject of multinational corporations, Baumann comments:

The growing budgets of some trans-national companies often signify a dis-

connection of power from obligations: duties to employees, but also to the

younger and weaker, towards yet unborn generations and towards the self-

production of the living conditions of all; in short, freedom from the duty

to contribute to daily life and the perpetuation of the community.

(Bauman, 1998: 9)

Bauman compares these new transnational companies with the absentee landlords of the

feudal era: ‘In contradiction to the absentee landlords of early modern times, the late-

modern capitalists and land-brokers, thanks to the new mobility of their by now liquid

resources, do not face limits sufficiently real – solid, tough, resistant – to enforce com-

pliance’. Whenever it does happen that the cheap labour or gold reserves run out, such a

landlord would ‘have little difficulty with packing its tents and finding an environment

that was more hospitable – that is, unresistant, malleable, soft’. Many of the affluent

transnational corporations would see no ‘need to engage, if avoidance will do’

(Bauman, 1998: 11).

On the other hand, according to Sison, a number of multinational companies have started

‘to act as governments’. The original nation-state model ‘is breaking down as a result of

demographic changes, migration and multiculturalism, among other things’. Multina-

tional companies such as Mobil fulfil ‘state functions, such as providing “public

goods”’, that is, becoming involved in ‘relief, welfare and educational programmes’.

They offer ‘environmentally friendly products and services . . . that contribute to

human wellbeing’, provide ‘jobs, salaries and employee benefits’ and create ‘shareholder

wealth’. Sison says ‘Mobil has behaved like a welfare state’ (Sison, 2001: 166–80).

Within this context the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative realised that ‘business has

the power to contribute significantly to building a better world. This will require critical

thinking, self-reflection, courage, compassion, strong ethical principles and a visible

commitment to becoming a real force for common good’ (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 9).

Alongside business in the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative were several business

schools of international repute. These schools’ ‘complicity’ in failing to produce respon-

sible corporate leadership (Swanson & Frederick, 2003: 24), and concerns about the

arrogance, impatience and self-serving characteristics of many graduates with MBAs

(Mintzberg, 2004: 92), made it crucial to involve them. The UN Global Compact/EFMD Report (2005: 33) argues that: ‘Corporate global responsibility issues need to

be integrated across the curricula, not just as a stand-alone course. Business schools

will also need to embrace the fact that the common good is their responsibility and,

like business, will need to move away from protecting out-dated models of business

thinking.’

2.1 A call for engagement

The UN Global Compact/EFMD Report (2005: 5) asks two questions: what is globally

responsible leadership and why is it a business imperative; and how can we create a new

generation of globally responsible leaders?

200 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

At stake is a move towards Zadek’s ‘partnership alchemy’ (2001: 200). He suggests that:

‘The widening gap between those who are beneficiaries of change and those who are

excluded from its benefits poses a fundamental threat to the project of economic and pol-

itical modernisation that countries at all levels of development are pursuing’ (Zadek,

2001: 201). The UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative attempts to facilitate such a part-

nership between ‘beneficiaries of change’ and those previously excluded from the

debate. He lists a number of critical determinants of effectiveness and efficiency for

such a partnership, inter alia:

. The shifting context of different ‘drivers and triggers’ in the lives of the different

participants.

. A clarity and openness on the common purpose and agenda.

. Mutual agreement on the scope and complexity ‘of the partnership’s intended

locations and levels of action, variety of functions, range of desired outcomes and

time-scales’.

. Transparency, representation and accountability both within the partnership and

externally.

. Communication strategies and systems. (Zadek, 2001: 203).

This partnership seems to be realised in the ‘call for engagement’ that the EFMD/UN

Global Compact has issued which foresees ‘a global alliance of companies and learning

institutions, networking, acting and learning together to implement and promote globally

responsible leadership’ (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 39). This approach

of ‘partnership-based governance’ (Zadek, 2001: 212) results in ‘a collaboration between

individuals and/or organisations from some combination of public, business and civil

constituencies who engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial, innovative relationships

to address common social aims through combining their resources and competencies’

(Andriof & McIntosch, 2001: 218).

The UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative assumes that the interests of both stake-

holders and shareholders should be taken into consideration. It is not a matter of

either/or. Such multiple stakeholder engagement is often messy and paradoxical

(Calton & Payne, 2003: 8) and may lead to conflict among groups of shareholders as

a stakeholder group (Barnea & Rubin, 2005: 2) and among different groupings of

stakeholders.

2.2 A redefinition of the purpose of business

Organisations are still largely construed in narrow economic terms. It is therefore appro-

priate that any new approach should:

go well beyond a new coat for an old system. If the movement for global

responsibility just sticks new labels onto old practices it will not be taken

seriously; if it puts old wine into new bottles it will be reduced to a public

relations operation. (De Woot quoted in UN Global Compact/EFMD

Report 2005: 19)

Business practices tend to focus on a financial definition of corporate activity and respon-

sibility and to prioritise ends above means. The Report does not question the need for

businesses to be profitable, but argues that ‘profitability without accountability to the

needs of society raises questions about how we understand the behaviour and objectives

of businesses’ (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 12). It further recommends

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

the broadening of the role of business and the scope of its activities: ‘Whether they recog-

nise it or not, they have civic responsibilities’ (2005: 13).

The new definition proposed by the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative reads as

follows: ‘The purpose of the globally responsible business is to create economic and

societal progress in a globally responsible and sustainable way’ (2005: 19). The defi-

nition still acknowledges that business creates economic progress (and wealth), but

has added that the contribution of business is much wider than just economic progress.

The responsible business will still be sufficiently profitable ‘to reward investors.’ This

factor differentiates business from ‘organisations such as governments, unions, associ-

ations, NGOs and universities’. The social consequences of the profitable business are

among others to create employment, pay wages and improve working conditions.

This broadening of the purpose of business crosses a threshold. Corporations which ‘buy-

in’ to the new definition ‘have accepted the fact that, beyond profits, there is a political,

social and environmental dimension to their activities that cannot be ignored. They have

moved beyond compliance’ (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 20).

In the above context, the Report envisages various interventions of ‘measure and

reward’. It acknowledges that the success of this new approach to business must

provide payoffs for both business and its managers. These pay-offs ‘go far beyond finan-

cial gains’ and involve gains in social capital. The Report further acknowledges that

‘social and environmental problems are long-term and complex and the returns accruing

to the business may take place over a time horizon much beyond the quarterly measure-

ment system employed by most organisations’ (2005: 31–2).

In a world where business constantly finds itself confronted with complex issues, there

are no easy ways of dealing with the ‘messiness’, but clear-sighted recognition of the rea-

lities is essential. The sober and analytical world of legislation is providing business with

a necessary component for developing more globally responsible business practices and

leaders. Corporate citizenship education faces the challenge of not only opening up the

spaces of responsible business leadership but also providing business leaders with a

critical working knowledge of applicable legislation.

3. THE RELATION BETWEEN LEGISLATION AND CORPORATE

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Guidelines for corporate codes of responsible conduct, and the development of scoring

systems for these guidelines, not only enhance the confidence of markets but also ensure

compliance. Enron announced significant errors in accounting transactions and filed for

bankruptcy at the end of 2002. This was in stark contrast to the fact that it was seventh on

the Fortune 500 list in 2001 because of its income of US$100,8 billion in 2000 (Harvard

Law Review, 2003: 2128).

The fact that the directors of Enron devised schemes to overrule existing codes of

conduct serves as proof of the need to develop and introduce other means, such as

legal guidelines and a comprehensive educational strategy, to encourage responsible

conduct in business practices. A broader strategy than a mere ‘ethics architecture’ will

have to be designed to counter the negative effects of mismanagement by individuals

and corporations (Hatcher, 2003: 42). Organisations are therefore under pressure

to adopt good corporate practices and to convince their stakeholders that they have

responsible governance. There is, however, concern about the role of management in

202 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

responsible governance: ‘Management fraud is unstoppable because no controls . . . exist

to completely control management’s actions’ (Tipgos, 2002: 34).

In this regard Sarbanes-Oxley (Scheepbouwer, 2003: 13) indicated in its report that

corporate mismanagement in the United States was out of control:

. Ten per cent of public companies restated financials because of irregularities from

1997 to 2001.

. The cost of these restatements amounted to ten per cent of investors’ stock from the

day before the restatement to the day after the restatement.

. The cost of restatements to investors amounted to 18 per cent of their stock value from

60 days before the restatement to 60 days after the restatement.

. The number of restatements on the part of public companies due to irregularities

increased from 92 in 1997 to 225 in 2001.

. The median size of these companies increased from US$500 million market capitali-

sation in 1997 to US$2 billion in 2002.

Research indicates that no matter how many codes of ethics a business may have, ethics

can only be enforced to a degree (Prozesky, 2003: 2). Ways of decreasing and eventually

stopping this erosion of accountancy practice ethics must be explored. A strategic alli-

ance between legislation and corporate citizenship education is crucial.

Corporate codes of ethics in some form or another are indeed present in US companies

(Harvard Law Review, 2003: 2125–6). About 90 per cent of the Fortune 500 companies

have adopted their own, while about 50 per cent of all other companies have some type of

code. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) announced the

strengthening of its ethics enforcement process and changed bylaws in order to act in

the public interest (Priest, 2003: 1).

Examples of legal guidelines for responsible corporate conduct include the Cadbury

Report (UK), the King Reports (South Africa) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (US).

These legal guidelines, however, cannot function on their own without the support of

a comprehensive education strategy.

Corporate citizenship education has to give business leaders a critical working knowl-

edge of legislation in a global context. For example, the King II Report in South

Africa (2003) expects that corporations will ‘operate as good corporate citizens’

(Barrier, 2003: 68). According to the Code of Corporate Practices and Conduct of the

King Report (2003: 20–41), organisational integrity requires the following: ‘Every

company should engage its stakeholders in determining the company’s standards of

ethical behaviour. It should demonstrate its commitment to organisational integrity by

codifying its standards in a code of ethics.’ Stakeholders should initiate internal rules

and regulations, and make provision for the required controls to enforce these

agreements on acceptable behaviour.

To set guidelines for responsible corporate governance in the United States, the Sarbanes-

Oxley Act Section 406 was imposed in 2002, in the aftermath of the fall of Enron. In an

effort to manipulate stakeholders’ opinion towards a favourable view of corporate

activities, the directors of Enron failed to keep to well-developed ethical guidelines that

had been adhered to for decades (Hatcher, 2003: 44). They devised a series of schemes

(Holtzman et al., 2003: 26) to circumvent accounting principles, and artificially increased

earnings through a group of special purpose entities or ‘raptors’, designed to prevent

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

write-downs of earnings and to pay vast amounts to a small group of executives and their

friends. They voted twice to suspend the code of ethics (Tipgos, 2002: 37) when financial

structures were created but not recorded on balance sheets (Hatcher, 2003: 44).

Companies realise that they should change their approach towards sustainable corporate

citizenship in terms of thinking, planning and activities (Hatcher, 2003: 43). They regard

this as an opportunity to reinforce their value systems, culture and climate with the focus

on accountability, and to comply with the standards of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In this

Act, the term ‘code of ethics’ is defined as ‘such standards as are reasonably necessary

to promote:

(1) honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent

conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;

(2) full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports

required to be filed by the issuer; and

(3) compliance with applicable governmental rules and regulations’ (Harvard Law

Review, 2003: 2131).

When codes of ethics are not regarded as legal documents in order to establish the

accountability responsibilities of a company, the codes alone will not make the

company more ethical. Training sessions, especially those designed to develop middle

managers’ competencies (Berenbeim, 1992: 78) are required for good leadership,

which will in turn produce good organisations. The mismanagement of Enron raises con-

cerns about the practice of training employees in good corporate citizenship, but not

upper-level management.

Deakin & Konzelmann (2003) reflect on the effects of the Enron scandal. They ponder

whether the collapse of Enron shows that the corporate governance system is working

as The Economist proposes (quoted in Deakin & Konzelmann, 2003: 583); or whether

the Enron debacle shows ‘serious failures of monitoring, which can be traced back to con-

flicts of interest on the part of board members and its auditors’; or whether ‘Enron’s

business model exemplifies the pathology of the “shareholder value” system’ which

focused on ‘short-term stock appreciation’. They conclude that Enron’s demise requires

a ‘profound reassessment of current orthodoxies’ (Deakin & Konzelmann, 2003: 582–6).

From the above it would seem that an educational strategy should capacitate learners to

question personal and organisational beliefs, practices and meta-narratives – the ‘ortho-

doxies’. This may require corporate citizenship education to become at times a ‘counter-

education’ (Gur-Ze’ev, 2003: 41), a ‘counter-narrative’ or ‘oppositional pedagogy’

(McLaren, 1997: 520; De Jongh & Prinsloo, 2005: 118).

On a macro level the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative is already countering the

established ‘orthodoxies’ which celebrate profitability as the sole purpose of business.

The initiative is opposed per se to irresponsible and unethical business behaviour. For

the UN Global Compact/EFMD initiative to be successful, the authors propose a critical,

caring curriculum and pedagogy.

4. THE ROLE OF A CRITICAL CARING PEDAGOGY

4.1 The rationale for a different pedagogical approach

The final challenge lies in business education – and, indeed, in our education systems as

a whole. Global spending on business education is $US2.2 trillion. Tens of thousands of

204 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

business degrees are granted annually. Yet, corporate scandals have highlighted the

inadequacy of management education for developing complete and rounded leaders

with the perspectives and critical abilities for our times. The increase in personal as

well as cultural capital these business qualifications bring is awkwardly separated

from new increased responsibilities. (UN Global Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 13–14)

It is important to note that education as a whole, and not only business school education,

is duty bound to redefine how to be more than Homo economicus, living in houses that

self-interest built (Mintzberg et al., 2002: 68). It is not only globally responsible business

leaders that are needed but also locally responsible citizens.

Although all educators must accept the responsibility for thinking anew about sustain-

able living, business schools and business curricula have a special responsibility. The

role business schools play in shaping current business practices should not be overesti-

mated. Very few of the current successful business leaders in the world have done an

MBA (Mintzberg, 2004: 112). However, ‘MBAs are becoming CEOs in increasing

numbers’. Mintzberg continues to call the present graduates of business schools

‘Mercenaries in the Executive suite’ (2004: 90–1). In 2002 the Aspen Institute published

the results of a survey of the attitudes towards business and society of almost 2000 MBA

students from 13 leading business schools. They found that that to ‘maximise value for

shareholders’ far outweighs other possible company responsibilities, such as ‘create

value for the local community’. Mintzberg claims it is the arrogance of most MBAs

that gets them hired, and not their competence (2004: 73–4).

Management education emphasising sustainability is in many cases ‘a stranger at the

door’ (Springett & Kearins, 2001: 213). Critical Management Studies has over the

past ten years opened up ‘the debate about the social and moral implications of manage-

ment practice’ (Perriton & Reynolds, 2004: 65) and critical management education has in

this time developed an identifiable set of pedagogical beliefs, namely:

. A commitment to questioning the assumptions and taken-for-granteds embodied in

both theory and professional practice, and to raising questions about management

and education that are moral as well as technical in nature, and concerned with

ends as least as much as with means.

. An insistence on foregrounding the process of power and ideology that is subsumed

within the social fabric of institutional structures, procedures and practices, and the

ways that inequalities in power intersect with such factors as race, class, age and

gender.

. A perspective that is social rather than individual, just as the nature of our experience,

as individuals, is social. Notions of community are likely to figure in critical pedago-

gies albeit with problematised interpretations of the construct.

. An underlying but fundamental aim that is emancipatory – the realisation of a more

just society based on fairness, democracy and ‘empowerment’, of identifying and con-

testing sources of inequity and the suppression of the voices of minorities. (Perriton &

Reynolds, 2004: 65)

The challenge is therefore to infuse education and business education in particular with

multidisciplinary, practical and ethical questions and analyses reflecting the complex and

often paradoxical challenges community and business leaders face. In addition, innova-

tive learning approaches need to be introduced, engaging not only the intellect but the

whole person.

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

Looking for an appropriate pedagogical approach to not only ‘teach’ a new definition of

business practice, but actually to find it, is very important. There is a strong body of evi-

dence from the fields of adult learning and neurobiology to indicate that present teaching

methods do not necessarily lead to changes in people’s perspectives (e.g. Taylor, 2001;

Yorks & Kasl, 2002). It may also be relatively easy to grasp one element of a new

approach and hope that this will make the difference. For example, while whole-

person learning is thought to be effective in bringing about meaning perspective

changes, it needs critical literacies and a framework of planetary citizenship to guide

people to becoming ‘whole’ learners, in communities. Whole-person learning on its

own does not question the meta-narratives or orthodoxies and their effects on society.

What is needed is a pedagogical approach that will lead to a fundamental shift in the

assumptions and premises of individuals and corporations alike. This requires a redefini-

tion of ourselves and our locations and relationships and the powers that shape class, race

and gender. Such a pedagogical approach may open up possibilities for a more just and

compassionate society (Simons, 1987; Beukes & Prinsloo, 2005). The authors therefore

propose a holistic, transformative, heuristic pedagogy for discovering and formulating

new ways of being human and new ways of doing business.

4.2 Three elements in a new pedagogical approach

These are neither definitive nor the exclusive answer to exploring pedagogical options

for educating globally responsible leaders, but rather crucial glimpses of or pointers

towards a new direction in our journey towards new ways of being human.

4.2.1 Planetary citizenship – interdependency

Concerns about the state of our planet and the inequalities between people are growing.

The WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Living Planet Report of 2004 ‘estimates that humanity

is currently consuming natural resources at a rate which is 22 per cent above their renewal

ability and, in some countries, over five times the rate of renewal ability’ (UN Global

Compact/EFMD Report, 2005: 7). Furthermore, ‘the world is becoming polarised into

central and peripheral economies, with the gap between rich and poor, between the

powerful and the powerless, growing so large that, by the late 1990s, the three

hundred largest corporations in the world accounted for 70 per cent of foreign investment

and 25 per cent of world capital assets’, and ‘125 million children cannot go to school,

and 110 million children, young people and adults have to leave school before they

have completely acquired the basic skills of reading and writing’ (Cole, 2005: 6).

The issue is not just how corporations should be exemplary citizens, but how all are

affected. All human life on earth has planetary citizenship – whether as individuals or

as corporations. The issue is therefore not how to teach a new definition of business

but how individuals and businesses can explore the implications and responsibilities

of this citizenship. The future of Homo economicus needs to be re-evaluated. There is

more to life than increasing wealth in houses that self-interest built. As Mintzberg

et al. observe, ‘A society devoid of selfishness is certainly difficult to imagine. But a

society that glorifies selfishness can be only imagined as base’ (2002: 67). We should

therefore rediscover being Homo sapiens, living on a planet with finite resources.

Planetary citizenship rejects the objectification of nature, Earth and other cultures as ‘the

Other’. Some cultural and religious texts explicitly command humans to subdue the earth

206 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

and reign over it – making Man [sic] the centre of the universe. Such an anthropocentric

worldview explains to a certain extent the history of colonisation and environmental

exploitation. Combined with empirical science, which makes nature and the human

race objects of enquiry, this worldview is a recipe for potential abuse. And, further com-

bined with modernity’s emphasis on short-term satisfaction without taking into account

longer-term effects, it to some extent explains many of the underlying tenets of today’s

business practices and modern humanity’s enchantment with consumption (Bauman,

2004: 108–9). Bauman’s succinct exploration of ‘waste’ – where it comes from and

what people do with it (or what it does to them) – challenges the exploitation of

human and natural resources for short-term pleasure and profit.

The teaching of planetary citizenship, emphasising interdependency and taking into

account the long-term effects of human and business practices, will therefore be a

‘counter-narrative’. School and business school curricula should be introducing the

world as a self-regulating organism (Gaia), instead of ‘the industrial earth’ and ‘a

non-billable resource’. The concept of planetary citizenship personalises nature and

acknowledges the Earth as an essential partner in the survival of humanity. In a ‘multi-

stakeholder learning dialogue’ approach as explored by Calton & Payne (2003), or a

‘partnership governance’ as proposed by Zadek (2001), the Earth as stakeholder is

ready to take up her legitimate position.

4.2.2 Critical literacies

In the light of the challenges facing humanity, the question is no longer whether acquiring

an MBA or another degree makes a student ‘educated’. The question has become far more

serious than some cultural and socio-economic assumptions about education. The indivi-

dualistic arrogance of many of our graduates, in particular some MBAs, sometimes sadly

hides a lack of competence to operate responsibly within contexts of finite resources and to

see the labour force as more than just ‘human capital’ (Mintzberg, 2004). There are serious

concerns that the present educational project delivers computer- and information-literate

students who have neither the skills nor the values to deal with the risks and uncertainties

of modernity. They may have an MBA or another degree, but should they be considered as

suitably educated for the 21st century? What will be the long-term effects of their business

decisions and practices? What legacies will they leave? What values, knowledge and

skills are necessary for the human race to survive and prosper in an often unpredictable

universe with finite resources? What literacies will be essential?

MBA curricula should encourage learners to explore different viewpoints and to question

accepted orthodoxies. Davis et al. argue that: ‘Teaching seems to be less about helping

students to know what they don’t know and more about helping them to notice what they

haven’t noticed. Teaching is about affecting perception – that is, about pointing to

various aspects of the world in a deliberate attempt to foster different habits of

perception/interpretation’ (2000: 26). In such a context curricula should be:

transitional, emergent, temporal spaces in which learners have integrated,

authentic, multidimensional learning-experiences. Curricula result in the

transformation of the individual and society. All curricula flow from, perpe-

tuate and result in socioeconomic and political belief systems and structures.

(Prinsloo, 2005)

Curricula should furthermore ‘make the invisible visible’ (Sheared & Sissel, 2001). Con-

sidering such a curriculum as a temporary artefact, critical thinking and reflectivity

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

become paramount (e.g. Brookfield, 1987, 2003). The heuristic curriculum develops a

critical consciousness in which learners interrogate economic, cultural and political com-

monplaces. Learners are encouraged to investigate and redefine cliched explanations of

poverty, racism and sexism, and to be bold enough to explore different responses to the

dilemmas involved in creating societal wealth while addressing vast inequalities and

managing finite resources.

Within the heuristic curriculum as transformative space, learners critically interrogate

and negotiate responses to:

. the enchantment of consumption and the naturalisation of capitalism (Cole, 2005) and

the dehumanising effects of late capitalism;

. the production, classification and maintenance of waste (as explored by Bauman,

2004);

. hedonistic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer culture;

. the need for possible alternative economic dispensations to address the increasing dis-

parities between classes of people, different communities and continents; and

. the challenge of growing towards a more just, compassionate and sustainable society.

4.2.3 Whole-person education

Most Western education practices have until recently emphasised individual cognitive

development as the only, or the most important, aspect of education. Education was

seen as a transfer of knowledge from the all-knowing teacher to ignorant learners, in a

pedagogy which Freire called ‘banking education’ (1976).

Research in adult learning and neurobiology has opened up teaching and learning to

involve much more than just the cognitive acquisition of knowledge (Taylor, 2001:

218; Kovan & Dirkx, 2003: 102). There are different ways of knowing – experiential,

presentational, propositional and practical. In all these, people learn not only with

their rational abilities but by responding to the learning experience with all their

senses and abilities (affective and cognitive; conscious and unconscious).

Many business schools’ curricula contribute to the reinforcement of students’ ‘false self

and their conformist behaviour’, which makes them willing to conform to present

business practices and orthodoxies (Dubouloy, 2004: 467). The MBA should not only

be a carefully constructed ‘space’ where competencies are gained; Dubouloy suggests

that it should be a ‘transitional space’ where students are allowed to discover themselves

and ‘abandon their false self, erected as protection against a threatening environment’

(Dubouloy, 2004: 467). Dubouloy’s research is supported by ‘transformation theory’

which describes transformative learning as:

a deep, structural shift in basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions . . .a shift of consciousness that dramatically and permanently alters our way of

being in the world. Such a shift involves our understanding of ourselves and

our self-locations; our relationships with other humans and with the natural

world; our understanding of relations of power in interlocking structures of

class, race, and gender; our body-awareness, our visions of alternative

approaches to living; our sense of possibilities for social justice and peace

and personal joy. (Morrell & O’Connor, 2002, quoted by Kovan & Dirkx,

2003: 102)

Transformative learning celebrates individuation instead of individualism. Individuation

stresses the formation and differentiation of individual beings, apart from yet intimately

208 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

connected with the broader collective. It refers to the ‘process by which a person becomes

“whole”, through the recognition and integration of conscious and unconscious elements

of oneself’ (Kovan & Dirkx, 2003: 103). Lange (2004: 121–139) describes transforma-

tive learning as ‘a vital dialectic for sustainable societies’ which results in broadened hor-

izons and a personal growth where ‘being’ is more important than ‘having’.

In a ‘society of meanness’ (Mintzberg, 2004: 153) where self-interest is celebrated and

individuals are enchanted by consumption (Firat & Venkatesch, 1995: 240) business

school students should discover authentic lives in a variety of communities. They

should establish, discover and sustain participatory networks of learning and the

implications of being Homo sapiens, together, on this planet. Learning should be rela-

tional, interdependent, emerging and context-bound. Theory and practice are no

longer fragmented but meet in praxis – where the learner and the teacher are engaged

in a reflective, continuing process of reattribution, redefining, constructing, deconstruct-

ing and reconstructing competencies.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The present belief systems permeating business practices are very old, deeply entrenched

and remarkably complex. Not only is it necessary to question present ways of thinking

about being human and doing business; humanity also faces the challenge of securing

life on this planet for future generations. This requires a multidimensional global approach.

Legislation is a necessary part of a global strategy. Enforcement will play an important

role in ensuring more sustainable business practices. A new heuristic pedagogical

approach will also help create more sustainable business belief systems and practices.

As we discover new ways of being and new ways of thinking, we are creating spaces

for narratives of the future in which globally responsible business leaders will play a

crucial role.

REFERENCES

ANDRIOF, J & MCINTOSCH, M, 2001. Perspectives on corporate citizenship.

Sheffield: Greenleaf.

BARNEA, A & RUBIN, A, 2005. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between

shareholders. Available at: www.olin.wustl.edu/jfi/pdf/csr.conflict.pdf (accessed 23

January 2006).

BARRIER, M, 2003. Mervyn King: principles, not rules. Internal Auditor, August,

68–73.

BAUMAN, Z, 1998. Globalisation. The human consequences. New York: Columbia

University Press.

BAUMAN, Z, 2004. Wasted lives. Modernity and its outcasts. Cambridge: Polity.

Beeld, 2006. Sarbanes-Oxley bevraagteken na skuldigbevinding, 13 January, p. 25.

BERENBEIM, RE, 1992. The corporate ethics test. Business and Society Review,

77–80.

BEUKES, CJ & PRINSLOO, P, 2005. Re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?

Teaching ethics in accountancy. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19(5):

931–942.

BROOKFIELD, S, 1987. Developing critical thinkers: challenging adults to explore

alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

BROOKFIELD, S, 2003. Racializing criticality in adult education. Adult Education

Quarterly, 53(3): 154–69.

CALTON, JM & PAYNE, SL, 2003. Coping with paradox. Multistakeholder learning

dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business

and Society, 42(1): 7–42.

COLE, M, 2005. New labour, globalisation and social justice. In Fischman, GE,

McLaren, P, Sunker, H & Lankshear, C (Eds), Critical theories, radical pedagogies

and global conflicts. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 3–22.

DAVIS, B, SUMARA, D & LUCE-KAPLER, R, 2000. Engaging minds. Learning and

teaching in a complex world. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DEAKIN, S & KONZELMANN, SJ, 2003. After Enron: an age of enlightenment?

Organisation, 10(3): 583–7.

DE JONGH, D & PRINSLOO, P, 2005. Why teach Corporate Citizenship differently?

Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 18: 113–22.

DION, M, 2001. Corporate citizenship as an ethics of care: corporate values, codes of

ethics and global governance. In Andriof, J & McIntosch, M (Eds), Perspectives on

corporate citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf, pp. 118–38.

DUBOULOY, M, 2004. The transitional space and self-recovery: a psychoanalytical

approach to high-potential managers’ training. Human Relations, 57(4): 467–96.

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT (EFMD)

available at: www.efmd.org/ (accessed 1 February 2006).

FIRAT, AF & VENKATESH, A, 1995. Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchant-

ment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3): 239–67.

FREIRE, P, 1976. Education, the practice of freedom. London: Writers and Readers

Cooperative.

GUR-ZE’EV, I, 2003. Socrates, counter-education, and diasporic love in a postmodern

era. Journal of Thought, 38(3): 41–66.

HABISCH, A, 2001. Foreword. In Andriof, J & McIntosch, M (Eds), Perspectives on

corporate citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf, pp. 11–12.

Harvard Law Review, 2003. The good, the bad, and their corporate codes of ethics:

Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the problems with legislating good behavior. Harvard

Law Review, 116: 2123–41.

HATCHER, T, 2003. New world ethics. American Society for Training & Development

(ASTD). TþD, August: 42–7.

HOLTZMAN, MP, VENUTI, E & FONFEDER, R, 2003. Enron and the raptors. CPA

Journal, 4: 24–33.

JENVEY, N, 2005. Corporate crime on a bull run in SA. Business Day, 29 November, p. 3.

KING REPORT ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA, 2003.

Parklands: Institute of Directors in Southern Africa.

KOVAN, JT & DIRKX, JM, 2003. ‘Being called awake’: the role of transformative learn-

ing in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2): 99–118.

LANGE, EA, 2004. Transformative and restorative learning: a vital dialectic for sustain-

able societies. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2): 121–39.

MCLAREN, P, 1994. Introduction. Traumatizing capital: oppositional pedagogies in the

age of consent. In Castells, M et al., Critical education in the new information age.

New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

MCLAREN, P, 1997. Multiculturalism and the postmodern critique: towards a pedagogy

of resistance and transformation. In Halsley, AH, Lauder, H, Brown, P & Wells, AS, (Eds),

Education, culture, economy, society. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 520–40.

210 P Prinsloo et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3

MINTZBERG, H, 2004. Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

MINTZBERG, H, SIMONS, R & BASU, K, 2002. Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Man-

agement Review, Fall: 67–74.

New York Times, 2006. Editorial. Recklessness in Indonesia, 9 January.

TIPGOS, MA, 2002. Why management fraud is unstoppable. CPA Journal, December:

34–41.

PERRITON, L & REYNOLDS, M, 2004. Critical management education. From

pedagogy of possibility to pedagogy of refusal? Management Learning, 35(1): 61–77.

PRIEST, A, 2003. AICPA members vote to strengthen CPA ethics enforcement.

Available at: AccountingEducation.com www.aicpa.org/index.htm (accessed 22

February 2006).

PRINSLOO, P, 2005. The curriculum as contested space: an inquiry. Paper delivered at

the conference ‘Knowledge production in the 21st century’, Bergen, Norway 31

August–2 September 2005.

PROZESKY, M, 2003. Ethics in the accountancy profession. Accountancy SA, June:

2–5.

SARGIS, J, 2003. Liberatory ethics, education, paedeia and democracy: experiences of

the US educational system. Democracy & Nature, 9(1): 125–142. Available at: www.de

mocracynature.org/dn/vol9/sargis_education.htm (accessed 6 February 2006).

SCHEEPBOUWER, M, 2003. A Kafkaesque backlash. Accountancy SA, September: 13.

SHEARED, V & SISSEL, PA (Eds), 2001. Making space. Merging theory and practice

in adult education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

SIMONS, R, 1987. Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility. Language Arts, 64(4):

370–83.

SISON, AJG, 2001. When multinationals act as governments: the Mobil corporation

experience. In Andriof, J & McIntosch, M, Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Shef-

field: Greenleaf, pp. 166–84.

SPRINGETT, D & KEARINS, K, 2001. Gaining legitimacy? Sustainable development

in business school curricula. Sustainable Development, 9: 213–21.

SWANSON, DL & FREDERICK, WC, 2003. Are business schools silent partners in

corporate crime? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9, Spring: 24–7.

TAYLOR, EW, 2001. Transformative learning theory: a neurobiological perspective on

the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing. International Journal of Lifelong

Education, 20(3): 218–36.

UN GLOBAL COMPACT. Available at: www.unglobalcompact.org (accessed 1

February 2006).

UN GLOBAL COMPACT/EFMD REPORT, 2005. Towards globally responsible

leadership. Brussels: EFMD.

WADDOCK, S, 2001. Integrity and mindfulness: foundations of corporate citizenship.

In Andriof, J & McIntosch, M, Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield:

Greenleaf, pp. 26–41.

YORKS, L & KASL, E, 2002. Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning:

reconceptualising experience and the role of affect. Adult Learning Quarterly, 52(3):

176–92.

ZADEK, S, 2001. Partnership alchemy: engagement, innovation and governance. In

Andriof, J & McIntosch, M, Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf,

pp. 200–14.

Corporate citizenship education for responsible business leaders 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

los

And

es]

at 1

8:07

16

May

201

3