Content uploaded by Diane L Holt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diane L Holt on May 27, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The role and impact of the business school curriculum
in shaping environmental education at Middlesex
University
Diane Holt
Cite as: Holt, D. (2003) "The role and impact of the business school curriculum in shaping
environmental education at Middlesex University", International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 4(4): 324 – 343
Introduction
Environmental education has long been viewed as a critical step in the process of creating an
environmentally literate population, leading to changing attitudes and behaviours of the population
and a more environmentally sustainable way of life. Leal Filho (1997, p. 80) defines environmental
education as a process of understanding and clarifying the value of the environment and the
relevance of environmental resources with a view to encouraging people to use such resources in a
more sustainable way.
Leal Filho further defines environmental management as the growing field of knowledge,
characterised by the identification of processes, tools and instruments, through which
environmental resources may be used in a more balanced way. Thus it could be argued that
environmental education shapes our knowledge and perceptions of the ecological environment, and
environmental management is the process of managing our impacts on this environment,
developing tools and techniques to do so.
As illustrated in Figure 1 an individual's environmental knowledge and awareness may arise from a
variety of sources and influence their individual actions (Holt et al., 1999). During each person's
lifetime they receive an unstructured, informal education arising from their passive, or interactive
participation in environmental education from the family, media and social interaction. However, it
is the structured and formal inputs that are shaped by green curriculum developments. In stage one
this occurs in the prescribed school-based environmental curriculum. In stage two generic, or
discipline specific, environmental education may occur in the further or higher education (FHE)
sectors, varying from institution to institution and possibly across each institution (examples include
Collett and Karakashian, 1996; Howard et al., 2000; Perdan et al., 2000; Van Weenen, 2000;
Wemmenhore and de Groot, 2001). The final element of Figure 1 is corporate environmental
education; again variably dependent upon each company an individual either works for, or has
interaction with as a consumer or supplier. The values and agenda of the corporate entity (often
publicly displayed in their mission statements as “artefacts of culture”) shape the education that is
received from the corporate world.
Holt and Anthony (2000a) pose the argument that there may be an individual viridity (defined as a
state or quality of being green, (after Angell and Winn, 1997)). This viridity may be dependent upon
an individual's personal ethos informed by a knowledge base, shaped by the influences in Figure 1
and possibly restrained by differential socio-economic circumstances (after O'Riordan, 1976;
Gladwin et al., 1995).
Figure 1: The sources of environmental education and training
This paper focuses on the role of the higher education (HE) sector in environmental education but it
is important to recognise the role school-based environmental education and the informal
educational role of the media may have had in the burgeoning awareness of environmental issues in
society. It is this societal and institutional awareness of the need for “sustainability” that has shaped
the role universities have to play in developing an environmental literate graduate population, the
research universities undertake to develop tools and techniques for environmental management,
and the integration of ideas about nature and society into the curriculum.
The UK's environmental strategy discussed in This Common Inheritance (HMSO, 1990) notes that
educational establishments have a vital role to play in developing an environmentally aware and
literate populace:
Public debate and decisions, including consumer choices, require sound knowledge and awareness
of environmental decision. The education system must play an important part in promoting
environmental awareness, understanding and competencies.
This recognition with regard to the HE sector in the UK is emphasised by the 1998 Sustainable
Education Panel, developed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR),
to consider issues concerning education for sustainable development and to make partial
recommendations for action. This panel has set a goal that by 2010 all FHE in the UK should have
staff fully trained and competent in sustainable development and should be providing students with
relevant sustainable development learning opportunities (Perdan et al., 2000). This Panel supports
the Forum for the Future project, which has set up the HE Partnership for Sustainability (HEPS)
initiative, of which Middlesex University is a member.
HEPS aims to “establish a pioneering partnership group of HE institutions that are seen to be
achieving strategic objectives through positive engagement with the sustainable development
agenda, and to generate the transferable tools, guidance and the inspiration that will encourage the
rest of the sector to do likewise.” One of the working principles of HEPS is to “measure, wherever
possible, progress and achievements against desired outputs and outcomes”. It is the topic of
measurement of environmental sustainability and changes caused by the “intervention” through
University curriculum that is the main focus of this paper.
Environmental education at Middlesex University
Middlesex University is modern UK university based on six campuses throughout North London. The
University has over 25,000 students and the highest number of overseas students in 2001 of any
university in the UK. It became a university in 1992, along with the rest of the UK's then
polytechnics.
Middlesex University is a member of the Forum for the Future and one of the 18 UK universities
involved in the HEPS. Its environmental mission statement
(http://www.mdx.ac.uk/mission/environment.htm) states that the University seeks to incorporate
an environmental ethos into its operations and to promote an environmentally responsible
community through teaching and research. This is achieved by integrating green issues into
academic work and by demonstrating good environmental practice in the way they operate.
Since the Policy Statement on the Environment was approved in 1993 Middlesex has:
Incorporated sustainable management principles into their operational practices via the
development of a Code of Good Office Practice, a policy on purchasing and a landscaping
policy.
Reduced waste through the establishment of an energy use policy as well as systems to
recycle paper, cardboard, toner cartridges, bottles and aluminium cans.
Developed environmental guidelines for contracts for maintenance, building and
refurbishment projects.
Promoted the inclusion of environmental issues within all areas of academic study.
Provided training and development opportunities to enable staff to meet the university's
environmental objectives.
Introduced incentives encouraging the use of bicycles for intercampus transport and
established cycle routes.
Used a review of traffic management to inform the development of a formal Transport
Policy.
In 1997 the university was awarded a Going for Green Sustainable Communities Grant of £50,000.
This was to develop an environment work experience placement module available to students from
all disciplines. It consists of both taught and works based components and utilises the experience of
staff within our National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships. This Centre also validates the
Forum for the Future scholarship programme, offered to 12 outstanding young graduates who have
demonstrated a commitment to sustainable development.
Formal responsibility for implementing Middlesex University's environmental policy rests with the
deputy vice-chancellor and the institution's management team. Supporting the management team is
the university's environment advisory group (EAG), which meets three times a year and reviews all
policies, monitors their impacts and makes recommendations. The group includes staff from the
university's campuses, its principal academic units and services as well as representatives from the
student body (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/eag/index.htm).
Through its Environmental Curriculum Sub-Group, the EAG seeks ways and means of progressively
integrating environmental issues into the university's diverse academic curriculum. Environmental
responsibility, sustainable development and sustainable communities underpin all initiatives.
Environmental education in the Business School
Middlesex University Business School (MUBS) is based primarily on the Hendon campus in North
London and provides a range of undergraduate, postgraduate and post-experience courses to over
5,000 students. The students are drawn from around the world, with over 1,200 non-European
students from 88 countries studying in Hendon in 2001. The student body is ethnically and culturally
diverse and reflects the University's educational mission to provide educational opportunities to
students from wide variety of backgrounds and prior educational qualifications.
The main constraints to teaching sustainability in a business school like MUBS have been examined
in detail in Holt et al. (1999). However these constraints can be summarised as follows:
The student body at MUBS is culturally very diverse, coming from all parts of the world and
bringing with them a wealth of experience. However, this also means that perceptions of
the importance and relevance of environmental issues may differ. It is also very difficult to
predict what their previous environmental education may be.
Most students will probably not be involved at the onset of their careers in an
environmental project in the workplace, although they will perhaps be exposed in some
way to the corporate environmental policy. Therefore any particular skills need to be able
to stand the test of time and perhaps focus more on the fundamental concepts
underpinning those skills.
The modular academic structure allows a high degree of flexibility. However, ensuring that
each student receives a balanced environmental education is difficult to control and
monitor. Due to the specific requirements of accrediting institutions it may be difficult to
add compulsory generic environmental elements.
The Hendon campus has a large student body, increasing number of students who work
part-time to support their studies and a high number of students who live within
commuting distance of the campus. These factors all combine to produce a scenario where
students “drop in” to the campus and spend large amounts of time working off campus.
This tends to lead to a decreasing concept of “ownership” or responsibility for the site
unlike some campus universities where students tend to spend most of their time on-site
(due to living, studying and socialising there). In these latter instances, students appear to
perceive a greater sense of stewardship and responsibility for the care of “their” campus.
The curriculum is designed around modules and validated by the University's quality assurance
department into programmes, including a highly flexible joint honours pathway. There is no
compulsory environmental literacy module in the Business School. The constraints of professional
bodies and the timetable have prevented such an inclusion. However, all students have the option to
take one of the level one introductory classes from the social science and environmental faculty, but
these may be on a different campus.
Thus environmental education at MUBS occurs in a discipline-focused manner. It is integrated into
the curriculum of a range of modules, reflecting the emergence of environmental and social
responsibility into the corporate environment and therefore the curriculum. Many of the
“traditional” business and management classes contain case studies that discuss environmental
matters (such as an organisation that has suffered from adverse publicity due to their environmental
actions, the marketing of “green” products, corporate branding, project modules with an
environmental theme or environmental strategy as part of the wider examination of corporate
strategy). However there has been no systematic analysis of the environmental content of these
traditional business school modules – so knowledge about what environmental topics and case
studies are taught in the mainstream modules is available on an anecdotal basis only.
There are two undergraduate modules that are solely focused on environmental matters. These are
level 3 modules (final year undergraduate) in environmental management and environmental law.
The Environmental Law Module is an optional module on the LLB and joint honours law pathway and
is concerned with the extent to which the Law and Policy may contribute to the protection of the
physical environment. It aims to ensure that the student will appreciate the role which law and
practice have in the prevention, protection, clean up and compensation relating to harm caused to
this environment. The module considers the various approaches and methods which are employed,
with topics studied in a comparative, critical and practical way. The specific aim of the module is to
ensure that students are able to have an overview of the legal rules and practice in this area and be
able to identify and suggest both legal and policy solutions to pollution and harm caused to the
environment.
The Environmental Management module is an optional module on the BA International
Management programme, BA Management, BA Business Administration and Joint Honours
Management programmes. In September 2001 53 students took this class, while another 14 had
taken it during a summer school programme in July 2001. Its specific aims are to:
provide an overview of the debate surrounding the relationship between business and the
natural environment;
explore aspects of environmental policy, legislation and practice affecting and within
organisations; and
explore options to reduce and ameliorate an organisation's impact on the natural
environment.
In addition to these modules there are also a number of tourism modules that examine
environmental issues as a significant component of the syllabus, as well as business ethics module. A
number of students have chosen to study an undergraduate project with an environmental
management or green marketing theme, and coursework within modules also may have an
environmental component. However, it is only the environmental law, environmental management,
business ethics and tourism classes that have a significant, structured formal input via lectures and
workshops that focus on environmental matters. The other forms of types of learning experiences,
such as coursework and undergraduate projects, tend to be decided by the student(s) who choose to
undertake a piece of work with an environmental theme.
There was a dedicated environmental management postgraduate module in MUBS but this has not
run due to lack of numbers for two years. A specialised environmental management pathway,
comprising two additional modules added to the mainstream MBA programme was available, but
this again has not run in the business school due to lack of numbers. However the Centre for
Environment and Safety Management for Business (CESMB), based in Social Sciences as a self-
funded unit, has had more success. They have delivered a number of targeted postgraduate
diplomas, post-experience short courses and training programmes, funded through European and
UK government monies to local businesses and postgraduate students.
This seems to suggest that within large traditional business schools like Middlesex, there is still not
an economically feasible market for whole programmes dedicated to corporate environmental
management. However, there is potential for modules/units that cover these topics as part of a
much larger programme of study. However, the success of CESMB's bespoke programmes does
suggest that there is a market for these types of discipline specific bespoke environmental training
and development courses.
Thus the debate is perhaps focused around the tensions between the need for environmental
education in a business school and the ability (particularly for a large school) to generate a voluntary
market for such educational experiences. Since complete programmes of study appear to be
economically unfeasible in a traditional school (rather than a unit focused on delivering training and
development), then attention must focus on the need for compulsory environmental education and
if so in what form.
There is an argument in place for general environmental literacy type courses to be compulsory for
all FHE students. However this surely presupposes that all students entering a University or College
have no, or ill-formed, knowledge or awareness of environmental matters, or that if they are
environmentally literate already can always benefit from reinforcement.
However there are a number of critical questions when considering the role of environmental
education in a university:
Are students ignorant of environmental matters?
How do you assess their environmental literacy?
Is it the role of HE to teach them about the general environmental matters?
What role does informal societal environmental education play in development of
awareness, knowledge and action?
Is discipline specific education not more relevant and feasible in HE?
Increasingly universities are being required to developed modules/units that cover generic skills such
as teamwork, presentations, self-assessment and learning styles as so forth. MUBS has such a
compulsory class, along with a compulsory statistics module and then four remaining modules in
first year. These four provide the foundation modules for the degree pathway chosen. The inclusion
of a compulsory year one literacy module at this stage in MUBS (and similar business schools) is
unfeasible. Owing to the constraints of timetables but more importantly given our lack of
understanding of what environmental attitudes, knowledge and action our students already have,
their viridity so to speak, before they join us.
There has been some work undertaken on student's environmental values in the general literature
but no empirical work undertaken that assesses the change student's make over the lifespan of their
time in a university. It was in recognition of this that in 1998 MUBS and the School of Social Sciences
(SS) undertook an environmental survey of their student body (stage one and two of this project
have been discussed in more detail by Holt and Anthony (2000a, b).
Assessing students’ environmental knowledge, action and attitude
The first stage of the project consisted of a sample comprising of first year undergraduate students
in the two disciplines of Social Science and Business Stage. The questionnaires were given out to
between 20-25 per cent of the first year cohorts in those schools. Of those returned a selection of
127 questionnaires from each school were randomly selected and evaluated (Holt and Anthony,
2000b). Stage two involved the analysis of a group of 200 employees of a large international
telecommunications company (Nortel) with a strong commitment to environmental improvements
(Holt and Anthony, 2000a). Stage three involved returning to the first year Business School sample at
the end of their degree course in order to assess the impact of their educational and cultural
experiences on their environmental behaviour, during their three years at the University. Of the 221
questionnaires collected from the Business School students in year one, 98 could be potentially
compared with an identical survey administered to the students at the end of their undergraduate
programme (detailed in Table I). The diversity and flexible nature of the provision at Middlesex
means that students move programmes and take a range of modules. It was decide to administer
the final questionnaire randomly in a range of undergraduate modules. Of the original sample of
221, 123 were discarded as they had either not finished the degree or could not be identified via
student number for comparison in the longitudinal study. During the randomly administered
questionnaires to a variety of year 3 cohorts, 52 students were identified who had completed a
recognisably questionnaire in year 1.
Findings from stage one and two of the study
In the 1998 studies (Table II) environmental attitudinal statements were classified as being
sustainability, ecocentric or technocentric focused as defined by O'Riordan (1976). On the whole all
three groups tended to agree with the ecocentric statements, and disagreed with the technocentric
questions. However, questions 14 and 15 indicate that those associated with economics and the
environment show some interesting dichotomies that are perhaps representative of society as a
whole. Both the academic sample and the corporate group strongly agreed that we have no choice
but to protect the environment, yet also agree strongly that economic growth is fundamental. This
follows the standard paradigm of environmental management - that of economic growth and
achieving environmental protection, unsurprisingly this belief was strongest among the business
students (79 per cent) than the social scientists (49 per cent).
As we can see those statements that could be classed as having “sustainability” overtones (1, 3, 5, 6,
7) were strongly agreed with by every group, with a mean of 1.4-1.7. Sustainable development
incorporates the paradigms of intergenerational equity and futurity and many of the respondents
believed strongly in these ideals. In the student groups almost 84 per cent of social scientists and 75
per cent of business students agreed that a fair society was better than a rich one and 98.4 per cent
of the combined group believed we have a duty to our children and grandchildren to preserve the
environment. A total of 86.5 per cent of social scientists and 74.3 per cent of business students
stated that we should live in harmony with nature even if it means sacrifices, and over 70 per cent of
both student groups believed the most important problems we face are environmental. All the
groups showed a marked distrust in the ability of politicians to preserve the environment. Strong
disagree was expressed with the statement that scientists were able to solve any problem and that
they knew all the facts. A belief in the “rights” of other nations and animals was also strong.
Environmental knowledge had initially been assessed by the use of statements that the respondents
had to indicate as definitely true through to definitely false. Only those answers that were correct
were calculated, although adding in the “possibly true/false” values may alter these figures
significantly. Questions ranged in nature from those on global warming, sea level rise, and CFCs to
species extinction. Therefore the study attempted to establish how much individual “knew” about
the environment.
Membership of environmental organizations was not common in any group, 80 per cent of social
scientists, 89 per cent of business students and 74 per cent of Nortel employees did not belong to
any “environmental” NGO or pressure groups. While slightly more Nortel employees were members
of one organization, at least 91 per cent of each group was only a member of one or no
environmental groups. A total of 80 per cent of the combined sample were not members of any
environmental groups.
Many individuals demonstrate their concern about environmental issues by giving money to an
environmental cause or even actively demonstrating. Respondents were asked if they had ever
undertaken one or more of four specific actions; whether they had donated money to an
environmental cause; signed a petition on an environmental issue; been actively involved in an
environmental project; or actively demonstrated about an environmental issue. A total of 70 per
cent of the social scientists, 79 per cent of the business students and 80 per cent of the Nortel
employees had undertaken none or only one of the above actions.
When examining the student groups the survey indicates that the “easier” or passive activities have
received most support, with 60 per cent of social scientists and 32 per cent of business students
having signed an environmental petition in the last 12 months. A total of 37 per cent of business
students and 39 per cent of social scientists had donated money to an environmental cause. Perhaps
not unsurprisingly less students had undertaken any “active” measures, with only 9 per cent of social
scientists and 5 per cent of business students having been involved directly with an environmental
project. However, the number of individuals who had actively demonstrated about an
environmental issue, was surprisingly high in both groups (7 per cent of social scientists and 6 per
cent of business students).
The key issue in terms of sustainable development and the role of environmental education is
whether high levels of concern for the environment are translated into corresponding actions that
promote sustainability. Environmental actions encompass a broad range of activities from signing an
environmental petition, to joining an environmental pressure group, through to recycling all wastes
and seeking to live a fully sustainable lifestyle. Those actions cost in terms of time, convenience and
money i.e. the green premium tended to be undertaken less often that those that did not “cost”. An
activity that saved money, such as switching lights off was popular. Yet those actions that saved
money but were inconvenient or required a cost outlay were less popular; for instance leaving the
television on standby for convenience sake or buying energy efficient light bulbs that required an
initial cost outlay.
Another cornerstone concept of sustainable development and green consumerism is the selective
choice of goods, or services that have a lower impact upon the environment. All groups did appear
to consider environmental issues when purchasing goods. In addition to the expected high values for
products not tested on animals, or which are ozone friendly, over 70 per cent of social scientists and
33 per cent of business students would avoid using the services of companies with poor
environmental records. Interestingly while 75 per cent of social scientists use a bottle bank, only 51
per cent use a can bank and 52 per cent recycle their paper. Less business students undertake these
activities, with only 51 per cent using a bottle bank, 37 per cent a can bank and 46 per cent recycling
their paper.
Shaping attitudes and actions – success or failure?
In the final stage of the project the emphasis was placed upon identifying whether or not the
educational and cultural experiences the undergraduate students had been through had made a
difference in their behaviour and attitudes.
Data analysis
The data were compared with the identical survey administered three years previously and the
changes are summarised in Table III (see end of paper). However only a selection of responses was
compared. Thus seven indicator questions were used to judge whether a change in the knowledge
base had occurred. Some of the excluded knowledge questions were in hindsight ambiguous or
inappropriate. Therefore the seven knowledge questions reflected topics such as water pollution,
global warming, air pollution and water resources. In order to analyse environmental actions the
answers were scored as yes=1, n=0 in the first set of questions, and almost always=2, sometimes=1,
never=0 in the second set of questions. The cumulative score originally (in the first survey) and now
(in the second survey) are presented and the change identified (relative to the original score). All of
the original questions were utilised to assess this composite score for environmental action.
Environmental attitudes/values were assessed using a selection of the original statements
(statements 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 17 from Table II). These statements were scored 5=strongly agree
through to 1= strongly disagree. The cumulative score for both surveys was compared and then the
mean value score identified. These attitudinal statements are all ecocentric and/or sustainability
focused.
It is important to note that the data set analysed in this final stage is Business School students only,
representing a sample of the original respondents. The 52 questionnaires were analysed with
reference to the original survey completed, thus looking at changes that had occurred. Further work
is needed to explore the implications of the data presented. The results have not been cross-
tabulated with the demographic data collected and the data presented do not represent all of the
questions posed, some of these remain for further analysis.
Environmental curricula studied in degree programme
As can be seen in Table I, 52 student questionnaires could be compared with those completed at the
start of the students’ studies. In addition to the identical questions previously asked, students were
asked about their environmental experiences at the University (Table IV). The results indicated 13.5
per cent of the respondents had studied a dedicated environmental module, while 17.3 per cent had
undertaken an environmental piece of coursework. 26.9 per cent had covered environmental issues
in other modules. There were 13 business school modules that were mentioned as having an
environmental component in the classes (in addition to the two dedicated MUBS undergraduate
modules discussed previously). Most of these modules are second and third year classes with an
cohort size ranging from 40-150, suggesting significant numbers of students of the student body will
have some environmental educational input at some point in their undergraduate degree.
Interestingly 55.8 per cent of the students believed they had become more environmentally aware
over the previous three years, and 53.9 per cent of the respondents believed that the University had
a role in this. Those students who identified reasons for their awareness tended to comment on the
role of social factors, with only three identifying the university classes as playing a part in this
awareness building. The majority of the respondents cited interaction with fellow students, the
media, television and work experience as playing a role in their increased awareness. This seems to
correspond with the influence of the informal societal environmental education as discussed in
Figure 1.
The sample was analysed by selecting seven indicator questions, and the mean number of correct
responses in the survey was 5.3. However, the improvement in correct answers was only 16 in total.
Table IV indicates that in 13 instances the number of correct answers in fact decreased between the
first and second survey but only two of these cases were students who had undertaken an
environmental learning experience (module, coursework or topic in modules). The biggest
improvement in the knowledge score was a student who had undertaken all three environmental
education experiences discussed.
The total number of actions taken in both samples is very similar but this masks large increases and
decreases in action as illustrated in Table III. The second survey did indicate an increase the total
number of environmental actions taken, but this figure would have been significantly higher if not
for the offsetting number of negative scores, with sample ranging from −11 to 16. The three highest
increases in environmental action taken occurred in the group that had undergone the
environmental educational experiences. However although we can say that the total group have
improved overall it is still a relatively low increase.
The questions selected for analysis all had an ecocentric or technocentric focus. As can be seen from
the discussion of the stage one results in Table III the students had a strong affinity with these
statements already. However we have seen a slight increase in the agreement with these values
from 4.1 to 4.2. However this again masks some sweeping changes such as the decrease from 4.5 to
2.7. Interestingly the mean score for the group that studied the environmental curricula improved
from 4.17 to 4.24, while the group that did not undertake an environmental learning experience still
improved but less so (from 4.13 to 4.16).
Conclusions
The results from the study are indicators only of the influence of environmental education and
would need a much larger study to establish the causal effect of environmental education on
students’ knowledge action and attitude. What is obvious, however, is the differing levels of
responses among the students in Table III.
The role of dedicated subject specific learning experiences appears to make a difference not only in
attitude but perhaps more importantly in actions. This suggests that perhaps universities should
concentrate on these discipline specific experiences above that of generic “awareness” modules.
Environmental topics are a taught in at least 15 modules at MUBS at undergraduate level. Those
students who had received a lot of environmental input did appear to have improved their
knowledge, action and attitudes but this is a judgement based, rather than statistical, assessment.
The role of the informal educational experiences students gain from interaction with others and
societal inputs may also be of influence and if students come from a none heterogeneous
background, as they do at Middlesex, generic environmental literacy modules are extremely difficult
to design so that they are effective. If an environmental literacy model is chosen it will have to start
from a fairly low base level of knowledge. Yet all the students surveyed are aware of some issues
and have fairly “sustainable” attitudes, albeit not the actions.
This study suggests a number of future avenues of investigation particularly focused around the
need to assess the informal role of societal environmental education and the effectiveness of
discipline specific environmental education in changing an individual's actions. The work also points
towards the need to monitor the effectiveness of any environmental education programme, be that
in schools, universities or the workplace. If institutions seek to inculcate an environmental culture
and change resultant actions then such programmes’ effectiveness has to be assessed over time –
else they are purely window dressing.
It must be recognised however than environmental issues are in fact business issues and as such
would be expected in a modern business school curriculum, irrespective of an institution's mission
statement on environmental education. Middlesex offers opportunities for environmental education
within the business curriculum but its core function is to teach students the skills necessary to
operate as a business school graduate. It could be argued that since students study core modules
and optional choices that the starting point in any business school curriculum should be to integrate
discipline specific environmental curricula into the core business programmes, through elements of
core modules. The choice then remains for students to take optional modules focused on topics such
as environmental law and environmental management.
This work is exploratory in nature and the sample size too small that causal links cannot be
established. A much larger study would be needed to establish such links, alongside detailed
interviews to assess the actual learning inputs from the curriculum. In addition the input from the
societal environment is extremely difficult to assess in a large sample and would again need detailed
analysis.
What is perhaps most important in terms of this study is the fact that is asks one of the most
controversial questions in the teaching of sustainability and environmental issues. Does what we
teach actually make a difference in moving our students towards sustainability or environmental
responsibility? Only by undertaking such longitudinal work can we assess this. In this instance, with a
small sample of students it could be argued that there has been some limited success – whether this
is enough to “make a difference” is an entirely separate debate.
Table III: Changes in environmental knowledge, actions and attitudes that took place in a sample
of 52 Business School students over a period of three years
Table III Continued
References
Angell, L.C., Winn, M.I. (1997), "Corporate viridity: an empirical reconciliation of strategic change
models", Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania State University working
paper .
Collett, E., Karakashian, S. (1996), Greening the College Curriculum A Guide to Environmental
Teaching in the Liberal Arts, Island Press, Washington, DC, .
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T.S. (1995), "Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
implications for management theory and research", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No.4,
pp.874-907.
HMSO (1990), This Common Inheritance: Britain's Environmental Strategy, HMSO, London, .
Holt, D., Anthony, S. (2000a), "Exploring green culture in Nortel and Middlesex University", Eco
Management and Auditing, Vol. 7 No.3, pp.143-54.
Holt, D., Anthony, S. (2000b), "Education for a sustainable future? An exploration of environmental
attitudes, actions and knowledge in a UK university", International Journal of Business Disciplines,
Vol. 10 No.2, pp.25-34.
Holt, D., Homewood, S., Kirby, D. (1999), "Greening a business school – the case of Middlesex
University", Journal of European Business Education, Vol. 9 No.1, pp.111-26.
Howard, J., Mitchell, D., Spennemann, D., Webster-Mannison, M. (2000), "Is today shaping
tomorrow for tertiary education in Australia? A comparison of policy and practice", International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.83-96.
Leal Filho, W. (1997), "Integrating environmental education and environmental management",
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No.2, pp.80-2.
O'Riordan, T. (1976), Environmentalism, Pion, London, .
Perdan, S., Azapagic, A., Clift, R. (2000), "Teaching sustainable development to engineering
students", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No.3, pp.267-79.
Van Weenen, H. (2000), "Towards a vision of a sustainable university", International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.20-34.
Wemmenhore, R., de Groot, W.T. (2001), "Principles for university curriculum greening. An empirical
case study for Tanzania", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No.3,
pp.267-83.
