Deconstructing a Contested Discourse: A Conceptual Model of Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustainability Integration in Business School Curricula

There does not exist one, agreed upon conceptualization of "ethics, responsibility, and sustainability (ERS) integration in business school curricula". This explains the variety of topics and proposed actions in the literature. Authors often prescribe normative conceptualizations of what ought to be and critique conceptualizations that differ from their own. Such conceptualizations are based on epistemological, ontological, and ideological positioning, which lead to varying conceptualizations of ERS, and in turn lead to different conceptualizations of what ERS in business school curricula should be. Competition arises as to what the "true" conceptualization of the concept is. The concept is thus contested. This research aims to deconstruct the discourse of "ERS integration in business school curricula" and identify points of contestation. Based on a content analysis of 75 articles, three phases of contestation have been identified: 1) ways of thinking, 2) ERS conceptualizations, and 3) methods of curricular integration. At each phase, there is the potential for contestation among authors. In the first phase, the literature is critical of the dominance of positivism in business schools. In the second phases, while there is a unanimous challenge to the disparate view of the economy, society, and the environment (i.e., the classic economic theory), there is disagreement among the authors as to the what reconceptualizations should look like. In the third phase, there is a trajectory of ERS curricular integration conceptualizations, ranging from incremental integration with transmissive pedagogies to transformative integration that aims at learner self-actualization. The purpose of this paper is not to propose a "correct" conceptualization of ERS in business school curricula, but rather to call attention to the points of contestation that occur within the discourse. We hope that by deconstructing these points of contestation, we can collectively begin to understand the tensions that arise and the complexity that is at play within the discourse. It is within this complexity that we may even begin to see deeper wisdoms.