Next Article in Journal
Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, and Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Going the Extra Mile (or Not): A Moderated Mediation Analysis of Job Resources, Abusive Leadership, Autonomous Motivation, and Extra-Role Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gender Reporting Guidelines in Italian Public Universities for Assessing SDG 5 in the International Context
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/admsci12020055
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends

by
Federico Schimperna
*,
Fabio Nappo
and
Federica Collaretti
Department of Economics and Law, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, 03043 Cassino, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(2), 55; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055
Submission received: 31 December 2021 / Revised: 25 April 2022 / Accepted: 26 April 2022 / Published: 28 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, and Universities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper aims to analyse how universities are currently improving CSR teaching, pointing out some new challenges and trends emerging from a context in which CSR issues have become increasingly important. The research provides a longitudinal study of the literature for a period of 20 years. After screening the retrieved documents, we based our analysis on 31 main scientific documents. Our findings highlight how universities are improving CSR teaching by utilising the development of new curricula and new teaching methods, such as case methods, service learning, problem-based learning, and action and experiential learning. The paper is novel because it explores how the request for human resources with CSR skills forced universities to widen their teaching programs. Our findings suggest valuable and useful insights for the academic and professional community.

1. Introduction

During the last two decades, many environmental, social, and ethical concerns emerged, among which include climate change, the depletion of natural resources, corporate scandals, and bad working conditions (Lombardi et al. 2021a; Russo et al. 2021). Many stakeholders, such as public powers, investors, consumers, employees, suppliers, and non-governmental organisations, are increasingly requiring the development and strengthening of CSR practices (Kolk and van Tulder 2010; Duque-Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel 2019). Additionally, universities are expected to be essential for the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 UN Agenda (Caputo et al. 2021; Venturelli et al. 2021; De Iorio et al. 2022). This led universities to develop education with respect to CSR and sustainability (Boyle 1999; Gorski et al. 2017), becoming pivotal in educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011; Osiemo 2012; Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019).
Since the late 1990s, universities have started to introduce CSR and sustainability issues into their curricula (Schroeder-Saulnier 2007; Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012), and by teaching CSR, incorporating day-to-day activities, and providing practical support, they have deeply enriched students from both a practical and theoretical point of view (Tokarčíková et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2018). In addition to other subjects such as entrepreneurship, the method of teaching promoted by universities is constantly being updated (Schimperna et al. 2021). Indeed, universities developed many methods and techniques to teach CSR and sustainable development, among which include the following (Figueiró and Raufflet 2015; Gatti et al. 2019): case method, service learning (SL), problem-based learning (PBL), and action and experiential learning.
We aim to point out a literature review on how universities have improved CSR teaching since 2001 in an attempt to fill the current gap in the literature. Our paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (I) How is CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting? (II) What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities? (III) What are the implications that arise for universities? We developed a Structured Literature Review (SLR) (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020; Secundo et al. 2020), and after entering our search query into the Scopus database, we finally collected 31 documents published from 2001. Lastly, we provide valuable findings in the following three research areas that emerged from a cluster analysis: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) university social responsibility (USR) and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. Our findings aim at defining the state-of-the-art of CSR teaching at university, proposing issues for academics and practitioners.

2. Research Method

We developed the following SLR by analysing how universities are improving CSR teaching through the development of new curricula and new teaching methods. This section defines the research protocol and selected criteria for SLR (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020). To develop our analysis, we based our research on the following items: (a) time of publications; (b) geographical distribution of articles; (c) authors’ citations; (d) articles citations and connected journals; (e) emerging keywords and topics; (f) cluster analysis (Secundo et al. 2020; Schimperna et al. 2020; Lombardi et al. 2021b).
Based on Scopus as the leading resource to find documents, our search relied on “Article title, Abstract, Keywords”, while the selected query relied on the following group of keywords: (“universit*” OR “higher education” OR “business school” OR “education”) AND (“CSR” OR “corporate social responsibility” OR “university social responsibility”) and “teaching”). After the selection of this group of keywords, we limited the search field only to documents published from 2001 to 2021.
Thus, our first result relied on 241 documents. Then, we limited the search field to business, management, and accounting areas and English research documents; after conducting discussions in the research group, we selected 31 documents, avoiding the highest number of false positives and negatives (Petticrew and Roberts 2008). We decided to exclude documents that did not contain useful information or findings on CSR teaching at universities or its inclusion in curricula. Our research is updated up to 19 February 2022, and Table 1 summarizes our documents selection process, while Appendix A provides the full list of these documents.
Using VOSviewer software (Van Eck and Waltman 2017), our analyses relied on countries per document, citations of sources, citations of documents, co-occurrence of keywords, and bibliographic coupling to obtain clusters. The following section provides our main findings.

3. Results

Our analysis relies on 31 documents mainly connected to the aim of the review. The following subsections aim to answer the three following research questions:
-
RQ1: How is CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting?
-
RQ2: What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities?
-
RQ3: What are the implications that arise for universities?

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Firstly, by focusing on the trend of publications between 2004 and 2016, we found an irregular trend of publications because there are years in which one, two, and four documents were published or none were published all. It is only from 2017 onwards that the trend of publications became regular, as there were three or four documents for each year considered.
Secondly, by focusing on the perspective of countries, we identified the main countries contributing to our SLR (Table 2). The most influential countries are the UK and the USA (seven documents), followed by Spain (four documents). Moving to the analysis of related citations, we found that the UK is the leading country (555 citations), followed by Germany (455 citations) and the USA (387 citations).
Thus, the USA, the UK, Spain, and Germany can be regarded as leading countries for the aims of this SLR. Focusing on the number of citations per source, the Journal of Business Ethics is the first in ranking (705 citations; 6 documents), followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (220 citations; 3 documents) and the Journal of Management and Organization (80 citations; 2 documents). Table 3 shows our findings.
The next step of our bibliometric analysis was the identification of the most frequently cited documents (Table 4). Our analysis pointed out that Matten and Moon is the most cited document (299 citations), followed by Christensen et al. (274 citations) and Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (156 citations).
We also adopted another specific measure: the citations per year (CPY). Table 5 provides our findings, highlighting how Hesselbarth and Schaltegger is the document with the highest CPY value (17,3). The second place is taken by Matten and Moon (15,7), while the third belongs to Gatti et al. (13,7). Moreover, in addition to business, management, and accounting, we tried to identify the other thematic areas of the selected documents. Our analysis pointed out the following thematic areas: (i) engineering; (ii) economics, econometrics and finance; (iii) social sciences; (iv) decision sciences; (v) energy; (vi) environmental science; (vii) arts and humanities; (viii) medicine.
By conducting occurrence analysis, we found the most relevant keywords in 31 analyzed documents. We selected two as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword and deleted useless words, discovering that corporate social responsibility, sustainability, university social responsibility, teaching, social responsibilities, higher education, and sustainable development are the most relevant keywords. Table 6 shows our findings.
Lastly, we also investigated all keywords clusters by conducting co-occurrence analysis, choosing the full counting method and selecting two as the minimum number of occurrences for a keyword. Our cluster analysis highlighted three main clusters. Cluster 1 (red colour) comprised corporate social responsibility, higher education, experiential learning, problem-based learning, sustainability, management education, business schools, and curriculum; cluster 2 (blue colour) comprised university social responsibility, university, economic and social effects, social responsibilities, and social aspects; cluster 3 (green colour) comprised students, teaching, business education, corporate-sustainability, and sustainable development (Figure 1).

3.2. Emerging Topics by Clusters

From the cluster analysis, the following three main topics emerged: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) USR and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. In this subsection, we try to point out the main insights coming from the literature, providing a joint analysis of the previous topics.
The last few decades have been disrupted by many events that led to the demand for ethical standards and the sustainable development of public and private organizations (Cornelius et al. 2007; Burga et al. 2017). Multinational companies, financial service providers, consultancies, non-profit organizations, and so on started to search for sustainability management experts (Deitche 2010; Kiron et al. 2012; Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014). In the light of these previous considerations, the need for the development of education about sustainability and CSR emerged (Boyle 1999; Gorski et al. 2017; Doh and Tashman 2014) and universities became essential for educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011; Osiemo 2012; Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019) and for the transition to a sustainable society (Corcoran and Wals 2004; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010; Palma et al. 2011). The introduction of CSR teaching and learning led to many benefits. Introducing CSR issues into the curricula fosters a more positive attitude toward social responsibility, improving ethical decisions for society (Tormo-Carbó et al. 2019) and positively affecting business performance (Claver-Cortés et al. 2020).
Universities’ legitimacy, granted by many stakeholders, relies on their ethical, moral, and functional impact on society (Golant and Sillince 2007): “The unique CSR engagement roles of universities include (1) elevating the functional and moral standards which guide them, (2) improving internally and externally the public arenas so that engagement defines and fosters positive social impact, and (3) fostering research, teaching, and community service as engagement that produces social impact by raising standards of moral and functional expectations that improve community” (Heath and Waymer 2021). The social role of the university goes beyond knowledge production and dissemination (Sitnikov et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2021), contributing to a deeper economic, social, sustainable, technological, legal, and cultural development and simultaneously promoting social justice (De la Cruz Ayuso and Sasia Santos 2008; Domanski et al. 2017; Mancha et al. 2017). In this scenario, it is possible to define USR “as the ability to develop and promote a group of principles and values through the development of four processes: management, teaching, research, and community outreach (Hernández and Saldarriaga 2009)” (Gomez 2014). USR practices foster interdisciplinary work between professors, researchers, deans, scientists, politicians, students, and external stakeholders characterised by ethical teaching, learning, training, and management (Bacigalupo 2008; Domanski et al. 2017).
Thus, universities are responsible for many stakeholders, among which include students, alumni, staff, and the local community (Ali et al. 2021), and they have to ensure fairness in accessing higher education and in order to improve teaching, research, and training (Phan et al. 2021). The role of universities is an exclusive one because building a sustainable tomorrow starts with the production and dissemination of knowledge. In the current scenario, there is a strong need for disseminating knowledge about CSR values, particularly, sustainability, ethical and moral values, human rights, and transparency (Esfijani and Chang 2012). Universities should not only provide students with opportunities to build business skills but also foster the understanding of business decisions and actions’ consequences on society and the potential damage they could cause (Kolodinsky et al. 2009; Setó-Pamies et al. 2011).
The main changes universities made to improve CSR knowledge and dissemination refer to the “expansion of tuition, diversification of funding sources, organizational restructuring, planning, controls and accountability, linking and responsibility with the social environment; updating of knowledge and renewal of skills, as well as the definitive establishment of the action shared between university, the productive apparatus at local, regional and national levels, with the centers of public and private decision” (Hernández García de Velazco et al. 2020). Additionally, since the late 1990s, many universities have introduced sustainability topics into core and elective modules, especially at the MBA level (Christensen et al. 2007; Schroeder-Saulnier 2007; Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012). According to Matten and Moon (2004), there are many differences in contextualisation, understanding, and the packaging of CSR teaching. The concept of sustainability can decline in several perspectives, especially in terms of the following: (i) green business promotion; (ii) ethics or legal compliance; (iii) entrepreneurship; (iv) opportunity for business continuity, security, and regional economic development (de Loura 2014). Focusing on the incorporation of CSR issues into the curricula, the literature highlighted the following three different broad pedagogical approaches: (i) coverage of some CSR issues in an existing course; (ii) introduction of one or more separate courses that deal specifically with CSR issues; (iii) integration of CSR into disciplines, programs, and course material (Thomas 2004; Rusinko 2010; Pizzutilo and Venezia 2021).
The interconnection between teaching CSR, conducting day-to-day activities, and providing practical support allows students to easily apply their new knowledge and skills (Tokarčíková et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2018). CSR and sustainable development can be taught by using many methods and techniques, among which include the following four examples (Figueiró and Raufflet 2015; Gatti et al. 2019): case method, SL, PBL, and action and experiential learning. Case methods rely on the presentation of concrete management situations, in which students must actively engage in discussions to find valuable solutions (Mesny 2013; Reficco et al. 2019). SL implies students’ participation in service-learning projects, interacting with many different stakeholders to understand the complexity and relevance of CSR and sustainability (Brundiers et al. 2010). PBL relies on the creation of a real problem and the involvement of students to find a valuable solution, exchanging information with their colleagues to acquire knowledge and critically reflect on the underlying issue (García-Rosell 2013; Gatti et al. 2019). Lastly, action and experiential learning allows cognitive engagement (MacVaugh and Norton 2012), and it relies on learning by acting (Shrivastava 2010) and involving students in critical and deep reflections by the adoption of discussions, projects, teamwork, and games (Gatti et al. 2019). Among these different techniques, simulation games seem particularly suited for providing a structured environment to understand and learn complex problems (Doyle and Brown 2000).
Additionally, CSR learning can be supported by a more effective use of mobile apps, Web 2.0 tools, and new technologies in general. The use of these tools is justified by three factors: (i) the new millennials and generation Z students are digital natives; (ii) new technologies allow students to be reached globally; (iii) new technologies can make learning easier (Montiel et al. 2020).

4. Conclusions and Future Research Agenda

During the last decades, the need for ethical standards, for the sustainable development of public and private organizations, and for sustainability management experts has emerged (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014; Burga et al. 2017). This led universities to develop education about CSR and sustainability (Boyle 1999; Gorski et al. 2017), becoming pivotal in educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011; Osiemo 2012; Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019). Additionally, whether the introduction of CSR issues into the curricula allows a more positive attitude toward social responsibility has been studied, improving ethical decisions for societies (Tormo-Carbó et al. 2019) and positively affecting business performance (Claver-Cortés et al. 2020).
This paper provides an SLR study focused on how universities have improved CSR teaching. We aimed to answer the following three research questions: (I) How has CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting? (II) What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities? (III) What are the implications that arise for universities? Our bibliometric analysis answered the first research question, while cluster analysis and a literature review was conducted for the other two. This SLR relies only on 31 documents, suggesting that innovations in CSR teaching seem to be an immature field from a business, management, and accounting point of view. By conducting the cluster analysis, we found the following three main topics: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) USR and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability.
Universities contribute to economic, social, sustainable, technological, legal, cultural development, and social justice (De la Cruz Ayuso and Sasia Santos 2008; Domanski et al. 2017; Mancha et al. 2017). USR practices foster interdisciplinary work characterised by ethical teaching, learning, training, and management (Bacigalupo 2008; Domanski et al. 2017), and since the late 1990s, many universities have introduced CSR and sustainability topics into their curricula (Schroeder-Saulnier 2007; Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012). By teaching CSR, conducting day-to-day activities, and providing practical support, universities facilitate students’ application of their new knowledge and skills (Tokarčíková et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2018). Additionally, universities developed many methods and techniques to teach CSR and sustainable development, such as case method, SL, PBL, and action and experiential learning (Figueiró and Raufflet 2015; Gatti et al. 2019). Even with these considerations, the method of teaching promoted by universities is constantly updated, and there is still the need to identify new methods, techniques, and tools for teaching CSR and to disseminate it more widely.
This research has several limitations, among which include the analysis of a single specific field over the last two decades, the use of only one research database (Scopus), and the selection of a limited number of keywords to find and select documents. Thus, our future research techniques will be based on additional databases, such as Google Scholar, and keywords to increase the number of available documents. Additionally, we could decide to focus on other perspectives that are different from CSR teaching and adopt a comparison between different countries.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, F.S.; Writing—review & editing, F.N. and F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Documents’ Full List

NR.AuthorsTitleYearJournal/Source
1Pizzutilo, F., Venezia, E.On the maturity of social responsibility and sustainability integration in higher education institutions: Descriptive criteria and conceptual framework2021International Journal of Management Education
2Ali, M., Mustapha, I., Osman, S., Hassan, U.University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis2021Journal of Cleaner Production
3Heath, R.L., Waymer, D.University Engagement for Enlightening CSR: Serving Hegemony or Seeking Constructive Change2021Public Relations Review
4Phan, C.X., Van Le, L., Duong, D., Phan, T.C.The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Image: A Case Study in Vietnam2021Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
5Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Úbeda-García, M., (...), Sánchez-García, E., Poveda-Pareja, E.Students’ perception of CSR and its influence on business performance. A multiple mediation analysis2020Business Ethics
6Hernández García de Velazco, J.J., Ravina Ripoll, R., Chumaceiro Hernandez, A.C.Relevance and social responsibility of sustainable university organizations: Analysis from the perspective of endogenous capacities2020Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues
7Christy Jeril Singh, A., Anthony Raj, S., Samuel Joseph, C.Corporate affairs courses in higher education: Computation of students’ awareness level on CSR using predictive modeling techniques2020International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research
8Montiel, I., Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Antolin-Lopez, R.New Ways of Teaching: Using Technology and Mobile Apps to Educate on Societal Grand Challenges2020Journal of Business Ethics
9Reficco, E., Jaén, M.H., Trujillo, C.Beyond Knowledge: A Study of Latin American Business Schools’ Efforts to Deliver a Value-Based Education2019Journal of Business Ethics
10García-Rosell, J.-C.A Discursive Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility Education: A Story Co-creation Exercise2019Journal of Business Ethics
11Gatti, L., Ulrich, M., Seele, P.Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes2019Journal of Cleaner Production
12Boulocher-Passet, V., Farache, F., Lonsdale, N., Popma, W.A Practical Approach for Developing Social Consciousness and Responsibility in Marketing Students2019Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility
13Smith, N.M., Smith, J.M., Battalora, L.A., Teschner, B.A.Industry-University Partnerships: Engineering Education and Corporate Social Responsibility2018Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
14Sitnikov, C.S., Bocean, C., Tudor, S.Integrating new visions of education models and CSR 2.0 towards University Social Responsibility (USR)2018Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications
15Demetriou, M., Thrassou, A., Papasolomou, I.Beyond teaching CSR and ethics in tertiary education: The case of the University of Nicosia, Cyprus (EU)2018World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development
16Gorski, H., Fuciu, M., Dumitrescu, L.Sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Essential topics for business education2017Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education
17Burga, R., Leblanc, J., Rezania, D.Analysing the effects of teaching approach on engagement, satisfaction and future time perspective among students in a course on CSR2017International Journal of Management Education
18Mancha, R., Hallam, C., Wurth, B.Licensing for good: Social responsibility in the university-industry technology transfer process2017PICMET 2016—Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology Management For Social Innovation, Proceedings
19Müller-Christ, G., Liebscher, A.K.Transdisciplinary teaching of CSR by systemic constellations2015New Perspectives On Corporate Social Responsibility: Locating The Missing Link
20Tokarčíková, E., Kucharčíková, A., ɰurišová, M.Education of students of the study program informatics in the field of corporate social responsibility2015Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences
21De Loura, I.C.Dilemmas in sustainability: A pedagogical approach to raise awareness on the key role businesses play to practice and promote sustainability2014Journal of Management Development
22Doh, J.P., Tashman, P.Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula2014Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
23Gomez, L.The importance of university social responsibility in Hispanic America: A responsible trend in developing countries2014Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability
24Hesselbarth, C., Schaltegger, S.Educating change agents for sustainability—Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration2014Journal of Cleaner Production
25García-Rosell, J.Struggles over corporate social responsibility meanings in teaching practices: The case of hybrid problem-based learning2013Management Learning
26Wright, N.S., Bennett, H.Business ethics, CSR, sustainability and the MBA2011Journal of Management and Organization
27Setó-Pamies, D., Domingo-Vernis, M., Rabassa-Figueras, N.Corporate social responsibility in management education: Current status in Spanish universities2011Journal of Management and Organization
28Mallen, C., Bradish, C.L., MacLean, J.Are we teaching corporate citizens? Examining corporate social responsibility and sport management pedagogy2008International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing
29Cornelius, N., Wallace, J., Tassabehji, R.An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools2007Journal of Business Ethics
30Christensen, L.J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L.P., Hoffman, W.M., Carrier, J.Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and future research directions2007Journal of Business Ethics
31Matten, D., Moon, J.Corporate social responsibility education in Europe2004Journal of Business Ethics

References

  1. Ali, Muhammad, Ishamuddin Mustapha, Sharina Osmand, and Umar Hassan. 2021. University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 286: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bacigalupo, L. 2008. La responsabilidad social universitaria: Impactos institucionales e impactos sociales. Educación Superior y Sociedad 13: 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boulocher-Passet, Véronique, Francisca Farache, Nadia Lonsdale, and Wybe Popma. 2019. A Practical Approach for Developing Social Consciousness and Responsibility in Marketing Students. In Responsible People. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 155–72. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyle, Carol. 1999. Education, sustainability and cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 7: 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brammer, Stephen, Annie Powell, and Andrew Millington. 2012. Embedding sustainability in business schools: The state of the art in teaching and learning, research, and operations. ICCSR Research Paper Series 60: 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brundiers, Katja, Arnim Wiek, and Charles L. Redman. 2010. Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: From classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11: 308–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Burga, Ruben, Joshua Leblanc, and Davar Rezania. 2017. Analysing the effects of teaching approach on engagement, satisfaction and future time perspective among students in a course on CSR. The International Journal of Management Education 15: 306–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caputo, Fabio, Lorenzo Ligorio, and Simone Pizzi. 2021. The Contribution of Higher Education Institutions to the SDGs. An Evaluation of Sustainability Reporting Practices. Administrative Sciences 11: 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Christensen, Lisa Jones, Ellen Peirce, Laura Pincus Hartman, W. Michael Hoffman, and Jamie Carrier. 2007. Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics 73: 347–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Claver-Cortés, Enrique, Bartolome Marco-Lajara, Mercedes Úbeda-García, Francisco García-Lillo, Laura Rienda-García, Patrocinio Carmen Zaragoza-Sáez, and Esther Poveda-Pareja. 2020. Students’ perception of CSR and its influence on business performance. A multiple mediation analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review 29: 722–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Corcoran, Peter Blaze, and Arjen E. Wals. 2004. Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 10, p. 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cornelius, Nelarine, James Wallace, and Rana Tassabehji. 2007. An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics 76: 117–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Iorio, Serena, Giovanni Zampone, and Anna Piccolo. 2022. Determinant Factors of SDG Disclosure in the University Context. Administrative Sciences 12: 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De la Cruz Ayuso, Cristina, and Perú Sasia Santos. 2008. La responsabilidad de la universidad en el proyecto de construcción de una sociedad. Educación Superior y Sociedad 13: 17–53. [Google Scholar]
  15. De Loura, Isabel Canto. 2014. Dilemmas in sustainability: A pedagogical approach to raise awareness on the key role businesses play to practice and promote sustainability. Journal of Management Development 33: 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Deitche, Scott M. 2010. Green Collar Jobs: Environmental Careers for the 21st Century. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. [Google Scholar]
  17. Doh, Jonathan P., and Peter Tashman. 2014. Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21: 131–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Domanski, Dmitri, Jürgen Howaldt, and Antonius Schröder. 2017. Social Innovation in Latin America. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 18: 307–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Doyle, Declan, and F. William Brown. 2000. Using a business simulation to teach applied skills–the benefits and the challenges of using student teams from multiple countries. Journal of European Industrial Training 24: 330–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Duque-Grisales, Eduardo, and Javier Aguilera-Caracuel. 2019. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics 168: 315–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Esfijani, Azam, and Elizabeth Chang. 2012. Metrics development for measuring virtual university social responsibility. Paper presented at 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Rome, Italy, July 4–6; pp. 724–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferrer-Balas, Didac, Rodrigo Lozano, Donald Huisingh, Heloise Buckland, Pere Ysern, and Gyula Zilahy. 2010. Going beyond the rhetoric: System-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production 18: 607–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Figueiró, Paola Schmitt, and Emmanuel Raufflet. 2015. Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review with focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. García-Rosell, José-Carlos. 2013. Struggles over corporate social responsibility meanings in teaching practices: The case of hybrid problem-based learning. Management Learning 44: 537–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gatti, Lucia, Markus Ulrich, and Peter Seele. 2019. Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production 207: 667–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Golant, Benjamin D., and John A. A. Sillince. 2007. The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies 28: 1149–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gomez, Lina. 2014. The importance of university social responsibility in Hispanic America: A responsible trend in developing countries. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: Emerging Trends in Developing Economies. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gorski, Hortensia, Mircea Fuciu, and Luigi Dumitrescu. 2017. Sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Essential topics for business education. Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education 3: 413–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Heath, Robert L., and Damion Waymer. 2021. University engagement for enlightening CSR: Serving hegemony or seeking constructive change. Public Relations Review 47: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hernández, Rubén Darío, and Amparo Saldarriaga. 2009. Gestión de la responsabilidad social universitaria. Caso: Escuela de Ingeniería de Antioquia–EIA. Dyna 76: 237–48. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hernández García de Velazco, Judith Josefina, Rafael Ravina Ripoll, and Ana Cecilia Chumaceiro Hernandez. 2020. Relevance and social responsibility of sustainable university organizations: Analysis from the perspective of endogenous capacities. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 2967–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hesselbarth, Charlotte, and Stefan Schaltegger. 2014. Educating change agents for sustainability–learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production 62: 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kiron, David, Nina Kruschwitz, Knut Haanaes, and Ingrid von Streng Velken. 2012. Sustainability nears a tipping point. MIT Sloan Management Review 53: 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kolk, Ans, and Rob van Tulder. 2010. International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review 19: 119–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kolodinsky, Robert W., Timothy M. Madden, Daniel S. Zisk, and Eric T. Henkel. 2010. Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics 91: 167–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lombardi, Rosa, Federico Schimperna, Paola Paoloni, and Michele Galeotti. 2021a. The climate-related information in the changing EU directive on non-financial reporting and disclosure: First evidence by Italian large companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 23: 250–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lombardi, Rosa, Raffaele Trequattrini, Federico Schimperna, and Myriam Cano-Rubio. 2021b. The Impact of Smart Technologies on the Management and Strategic Control: A Structured Literature Review. Management Control, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. MacVaugh, Jason, and Mike Norton. 2012. Introducing sustainability into business education contexts using active learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 13: 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mancha, Ruben, Cory Hallam, and Bernd Wurth. 2017. Licensing for good: Social responsibility in the university-industry technology transfer process. Paper presented at 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, September 4–8; pp. 307–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Matten, Dirk, and Jeremy Moon. 2004. Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics 54: 323–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mesny, Anne. 2013. Taking stock of the century-long utilization of the case method in management education. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De l’Administration 30: 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Montiel, Ivan, Javier Delgado-Ceballos, Natalia Ortiz-de-Mandojana, and Raquel Antolin-Lopez. 2020. New ways of teaching: Using technology and mobile apps to educate on societal grand challenges. Journal of Business Ethics 161: 243–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Osiemo, Lynette B. 2012. Developing responsible leaders: The university at the service of the person. Journal of Business Ethics 108: 131–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Palma, Lisiane Celia, Lessandra M. de Oliveira, and Keitiline R. Viacava. 2011. Sustainability in Brazilian federal universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 18: 250–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Petticrew, Mark, and Helen Roberts. 2008. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  47. Phan, Cuong Xuan, Lam Van Le, Duy Duong, and Thuy Chung Phan. 2021. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Image: A Case Study in Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8: 423–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pizzutilo, Fabio, and Elisabetta Venezia. 2021. On the maturity of social responsibility and sustainability integration in higher education institutions: Descriptive criteria and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Raivio, Kari. 2011. Sustainability as an educational agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 1906–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reficco, Ezequiel, María Helena Jaén, and Carlos Trujillo. 2019. Beyond knowledge: A study of Latin American business schools’ efforts to deliver a value-based education. Journal of Business Ethics 156: 857–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rusinko, Cathy A. 2010. Integrating sustainability in higher education: A generic matrix. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 11: 250–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Russo, Sarah, Federico Schimperna, Rosa Lombardi, and Pasquale Ruggiero. 2021. Sustainability performance and social media: An explorative analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schimperna, Federico, Fabio Nappo, and Bruno Marsigalia. 2021. Student Entrepreneurship in Universities: The State-of-the-Art. Administrative Sciences 12: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schimperna, Federico, Rosa Lombardi, and Zhanna Belyaeva. 2020. Technological transformation, culinary tourism and stakeholder engagement: Emerging trends from a systematic literature review. Journal of Place Management and Development 14: 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schroeder-Saulnier, D. 2007. "Both/and" Thinking in Organizational Leadership: A Grounded Theory Study. Webster University, p. 171. ISBN 9781109948790. [Google Scholar]
  56. Secundo, Giustina, Valentina Ndou, Pasquale Del Vecchio, and Gianluigi De Pascale. 2020. Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 153: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Setó-Pamies, Dolores, Misericordia Domingo-Vernis, and Noemí Rabassa-Figueras. 2011. Corporate social responsibility in management education: Current status in Spanish universities. Journal of Management and Organization 17: 604–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shrivastava, Paul. 2010. Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Academy of Management Learning and Education 9: 443–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sitnikov, Catalina Soriana, Claudiu Bocean, and Sorin Tudor. 2018. Integrating New Visions of Education Models and CSR 2.0 towards University Social Responsibility (USR). In Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: IGI Global Publisher, pp. 1633–55. [Google Scholar]
  60. Smith, Nicole M., Jessica M. Smith, Linda A. Battalora, and Benjamin A. Teschner. 2018. Industry–university partnerships: Engineering education and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Thomas, Ian. 2004. Sustainability in tertiary curricula: What is stopping it happening? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5: 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tokarčíková, Emese, Alžbeta Kucharčíková, and Mária Ďurišová. 2015. Education of students of the study program informatics in the field of corporate social responsibility. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences 23: 106–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Tormo-Carbó, Guillermina, Victor Oltra, Katarzyna Klimkiewicz, and Elies Seguí-Mas. 2019. “Don’t try to teach me, I got nothing to learn”: Management students’ perceptions of business ethics teaching. Business Ethics: A European Review 28: 506–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2017. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111: 1053–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Venturelli, Andrea, Roberta Fasiello, and Simone Pizzi. 2021. CSR Education in Economia Aziendale Curricula: An Overview. Administrative Sciences 11: 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wright, Norman S., and Hadyn Bennett. 2011. Business ethics, CSR, sustainability and the MBA. Journal of Management and Organization 17: 641–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 12 00055 g001 550
Figure 1. All Keywords’ occurrence. Source: VOSviewer.
Figure 1. All Keywords’ occurrence. Source: VOSviewer.
Admsci 12 00055 g001
Table
Table 1. Documents selection process.
Table 1. Documents selection process.
Selection CriteriaResults
Stage 1:
Search for TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“universit*” OR “higher education” OR “business school” OR “education”) AND (“CSR” OR “corporate social responsibility” OR “university social responsibility”) AND “teaching”) PUBYEAR > 2000 AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”))		241 documents
Stage 2:
Limiting the search field to business, management and accounting only 

Stage 3:
Limiting the search field to English-language research documents only
 
Stage 4:
Selection of the collected research documents mainly related to our research aim		126 documents
 
 
 
125 documents
 
 
 
31 documents
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 2. Top eight countries per documents.
Table 2. Top eight countries per documents.
Country N° of Documents N° of Citations
United Kingdom7555
United States7387
Spain472
Germany3455
Finland217
Canada215
Colombia211
Romania21
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 3. Top four citations per source.
Table 3. Top four citations per source.
Source N° of Documents N° of Citations
Journal of Business Ethics6705
Journal of Cleaner Production3220
Journal of Management and Organization280
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management146
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 4. Citations per authors/documents.
Table 4. Citations per authors/documents.
Document N° of Citations
Matten and Moon (2004)299
Christensen et al. (2007)274
Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (2014)156
Cornelius et al. (2007)109
Gatti et al. (2019)55
Setó-Pamies et al. (2011)49
Doh and Tashman (2014)46
Wright and Bennett (2011)31
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 5. Top five cited articles.
Table 5. Top five cited articles.
AuthorsTitleCitationsCPYSourceCountry
Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (2014)Educating change agents for sustainability—Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration15617.3Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 24–36Germany
Matten and MoonCorporate social responsibility education in Europe29915.7Journal of Business Ethics, 54: pp. 323–37UK
Gatti et al. (2019)Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes5513.7Journal of Cleaner Production 207, pp. 667–78Switzerland
Cornelius et al. (2007)An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools1096.8Journal of Business Ethics, 76: pp. 117–35UK
Doh and Tashman (2014)Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula465.1Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21: pp. 131–42.USA
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 6. All keywords occurrence.
Table 6. All keywords occurrence.
KeywordsOccurrence
Corporate social responsibility11
Sustainability7
University social responsibility4
Teaching3
Social responsibilities3
Higher education3
Sustainable development3
Students2
Business education2
Corporate-sustainability2
Economic and social effects2
Social aspects2
University2
Experiential learning2
Management education2
Business schools2
Curriculum2
Problem-based learning2
Source: our elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schimperna, F.; Nappo, F.; Collaretti, F. Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055

AMA Style

Schimperna F, Nappo F, Collaretti F. Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(2):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schimperna, Federico, Fabio Nappo, and Federica Collaretti. 2022. "Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 2: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop