Ranking business schools on their contribution to "Education for sustainable development" : methodologies initiatives for implementation

(1)

to "Education for sustainable development" : methodologies initiatives for implementation

著者 Siegenthaler Claude Patrick, Spitzeck Heiko

出版者法政大学人間環境学会

journal or

publication title

人間環境論集

volume 7

number 2

page range 19‑32

year 2007‑03‑31

URL http://doi.org/10.15002/00004506

(2)

1９

RankingBusinessSchoolsontheircontributionto

“EducationfOrSustainableDeveloplnent，，

MethodologiesandlnitiativesfOrlmplementation

ＣＩａｕｄｅＰａｔｒｉｃｋＳｌＥＧＥＮＴＨＡＬＥＲＨｅｉｋｏＳＰｌＴＺＥＣＫ

Abstract

lnthecontextoftheUNDecadeofEducationfbrSustainableDevelopmentbthequestionaIises,howeffectively filtu1℃businessleaders-today'sstudents-arepreparedtomasterthechallengesofimplementingSustainable Development（SD).Thisissuehasr巴cenUybeenaddressedbyanumberofinitiatives,whichaimatcunPicula changebyconductingsuweys,evaluationsandrankings・ThispaperdiscussesthecurrentstateofBESDas depictedbythisyoungresea1℃hstreamofcontentandvaluedrivenevaluationsBasedonagenerichameworkof universitymnkings,themajorinitiativesandtheirmethodologiesarechamcterisedThisanalysisrevealsthe absenceofanimportantdimensionofevaluation,whichcouldbeconsideredtoyieldvalidandconsistentresults：

theper℃eptionsofthestudents-ultimatelythemostimportantstakeholdersofBESD．

developmentisimportanttotheircompanys fUture',ｏｎｌｙ３０％saytheyhavethe`skins,infOrも mation,andpersonnel，tomeettllechallenge・m

Hence,inthecontextoftheUNDecade,the questionarises,iffUturebusinessleaders-who arebusinessstudentsoftoday-areprovidedwith anappropriatequalificationbyinstitutionsof highereducation

Whereatthispointsomescholarsraisethe question,ifbusinessschoolscouldbeconsid‐

ｅｒｅｄａｓ“silentpartnersincorporatecrime'，

(SwansonandFiPederick2003）byelevatingn錘 rowselfinterestandaheroicselfconceptionof managers（Mintzbelg2004）abovethecommon good,othershavestartedtoresearchthecontriP butionofmanagementeducationtowardssusP tainability・Ｔｈｅｙｄｏｓｏｂｙｃｏｎｄｕｃｔｉｎｇａｎｄｐｕｂ‐

lishingsurveys，evaluationsandrankingsfor BESD・Thispaperlooksintotheeme埴enceof thisnewtypeofvalueandcontentdrivenevalua tion，whichhasaclearunder1yingagenda beyondthesakeofscientificanalysis:theyall aimatcurriculachangeandthemainstreaming TheEmergenceofBESD-anditsevaluation

TheWorldSummitonSustainableDeveloP mentinJohannesburg2002concludedwiththe declarationoftheUNDecadeofEducationfOr SustainableDevelopment2005-2014.Institu‐

tionsofhighereducationworldwidewerecalled upontoenhanceskills,knowledgeandvalues，

whichwillenablepeopleofallagestotaketheir shareofresponsibiUtyforpeoPleandtheplanet

lnaworldstronglydrivenbyeconomics,the powerofcompaniesandtheirleadersputsthem atthefOrefiPontfOrtherealizationofSD､The scopeoftheirmpactsonthesocialandenviron- mentalcommonscallsfOrawarenessandcomP

mitment（Gioia2002).However,fUmrCbusmess leaderscanonlyrealiseSDgiventheypossess therequiredawareness,motivation,knowledge andskiUstointegratesustainabilityintodayto daybusinesspractices（Gioia2003）AtleastfOr thelattertworequirements,thisseemsnottobe thecaseasWeeks（2004）mentions:“Arecent ArthurD・LittlestudyofFortune500CEOs reportedthatthough90％said，‘sustainable

(3)

2０

ofBESD・

BeingactiveaschangeagentsiOrBESDmva限 iouscontexts,wepersonaUysharethisagenda andtheaimofouranalysisistoaddpropoｓａｌｓｏｎｗｈｅｒｅａｎｄｈｏｗｔｏｉｍｐｒｏｖｅｔｈｅｑualityofthe existingmethods・Inordertocontribute，we analysetheeffectsofBESDevaluationsondiffe雁 enttypesofunivelsitiesinanrststep・Thenwe investigatethecurTentstateofgeneraluniversiw rankingmethodsinordertoderiveagenenc hPameworkofcriteriamuse,whichenablesusto characterisethecurrentmethodsappliedto BESDevaluationandfOrmulaterecommenda‐

tionsfbrimprovementslbbeclearｏｎｔｈｅｓｃope ofouranalysis:A1thoughwebelieveinthe importanｃｅｏｆ“greemngthecampus”initiatives asbeingpartofBESD,weconcentrateinthis paperontheanalysisofcurricularelatedBESD，

henceevaluationsofenvironmentalpelfbrmance ofuniversitiesarenotaddressed．

onthesocialandecologicalcapitaｌＹｅｔ,theinte grationofsustainabiH⑪intothisgenemlmanage menteducation（oftenreferredtoas“main‐

strCammg，,）isfbundtobemuchlessdeveloped：

“Ofthecorecourseso雌祀dbythelOOsurveyed

schools,onlyahandfUlofaccounting,econom‐

ics,marketing,operations,andmfblmationtech‐

nologyclassesincorporatecontentonsocial impactand/orenvironmentalmanagement，，

(AspenlnstituteandWRI2003:４)．

Inordertounderstand,ifandWhichevaluation

schemeswouldhelptobringaboutchange

towardｓＢＥＳＤ,oneneedstoaddressthedrive】ns behindthoseactivities・Here，thekeyrolein estab1ishingBESDisfOundtobewithmdividual

facultymembersthattakeleadelnshipmstarting

BESDinitiatives.Ａnotherstrongdliveraresm‐

dentsandalumni,thatteam-upwithfacultymem房 bersandengageinorganisingextracurricular activitiessuchasworkshops,conferencesand lectureseries-oftenalsoinvolvingrepresentaP tivesfrombusinessandNon-Governmental Organisations・Specialisedstudentscommittees suchasNETIMPACT（anetworkofsome ll，O00MBAstudentsandalumni）oroikos

lnternational（withl61ocalchapters）have

becomeinfluentialchangeageｎｔｓｆＯｒＢＥＳＤ・

FYnallyseveralscholarspomtouttheroleofbusi‐

nesssupportfOrBESDactivities（Weeks2004；

NErlMPACT2005）

Ontheotherhand,alowpronleisdrawnfOr universityleadersandadministratorswhenit comestodrivingBESDhomitspioneeringstate toamorecomprehensiveandmainstreamed institutionalisation（MattenandMoon2004)．

Here,theinclusionofBESDintoacc1℃ditation standardsorrankingschemesisrecognisedas

effectivetoraiseawarenessandcommitment fromtheacademicadministrations（Gioiaand Corley2002;MattenandMoon2004）andthere withcomplementthecurrent“bottom-up ^P，

activitieswithastrongbackinghFｏｍ“topdown，'・

OuroveIviewstartswithacharacterisationof BemgweUawareoftheoftencriticizedrank‐

ingoverkill，whatisthepointinexpanding towarｄｓＢＥＳＤ？Itisamajortangibleachieve･

mentofthevariousinitiativesmthisnewevalua tionfield,thattheydepictthecurrentstateof BESDanddriveitsdiscussioninsideandoutside theuniversities・Theyallconclude,thatsustain‐

abilityrelatedcoursesof6eredaresteadUyonthe rise,howeverBESDisyetstillatthemargin- capturedinthespecialist，sniche:theactivities areoftenconcentratedondealingwithsustain‐

abilityissuesfromaspecialisedpointofview，

educatingexpertsfOrveryspecificpositionssuch asCSRofficers,sustainabiUtyanalysts,ｅ､Ⅵron‐

mentalpoUcyadvisers,etc．（AspenInstituteand WRI2003;AspenlnstituteandWRI2005)．

However,mostfUmreleadersemergehFomthe generalmanagementdisciplines，suchas accounting，finance，marketing，ｈｕｍａｎｒｅ‐

sources,etc・Itisassumedthatdecisionsmade withinthosetraditionaldomainsareattheheart ofcomoratepowerandhavethebiggestimpact

(4)

2１

explicitBESDrequirementsyetintegratedinto

accreditationstandards・Neverthelesswelistthis fOnnofevaluationastheycouldplayanimpo好 tantroleinthenearfUture､Tablelshowsthedif ferentBESDevaluationsconsideringevaluator andaudienceofeachapproachidentihed：

TheimpactoneducationalshPategiesofthese evaluationsdependsnexttothescopeofthe audience,mostontheattitudeoftheuniversi可．

Theattitudesofuniversitiesregardingtheinte‐

grationofBESDcanvaryfiPomprogressive,to passiveandfinallytodefensive､T1Iesecategories representWeberianidealtypes（Weberl972)，

whichweusetodiscusstheeffectsofthediffe隈 entiypesofevaluation

ProgressiveuniversitiesintegrateBESDmto theircurriculumasapartoftheirselfunder‐

standingasa`gooduniversitycitizen'educating responsiblebusinessleaders・TheirBESDactivi‐

tieshelpthemtostrengthentheirprofileandto differentiatethemselveshPomcompetingunive展 sitiesAstheyperceiveBESDasanopportunity，

theyareinterestedincontinuousimprovementof theirBESDprogrammeｓａｎｄautono-mously changecurriculum・Thusitisexpectedthatself

assessmentsandbenchmarkinghaveahigh changepotentialforprogressiveuniversities，

whilerankingandaccreditationonlyhavea mediumimpacLThepotentialfOrchangeinthis contexttriestofbsterdialogueaboutBESDprac tices,Whichleadtoaltemtionsofthecurriculum integratingBESDintospecialistcouTsesasweU asmainstreaminｇＢＥＳＤｉntocorecourses・

Passiveuniversitiesarenotactivelyscreenlng fOrimprovementsoftheireducationalpractice However,theyareopentosuggestionsprovideｄ thedifferentevaluationapproacheswecould

identibmthesustainabihtyneldfOsteringo埴an‐

isationalchange・ThatperspectivehelpstocharL acterisecurrentinitiativesaccordingtotheir natureandpotentialimpact・ｍｅｄｉｆ(erentfOrms identifiedwere:selfassessment,survey,bench‐

marking,rankingandaccreditation･T11eymove alongalinefiPomautonoｍｏｕｓｅｎｇａｇｅｍｅｎｔｆＯｒＢＥＳＤｗｉｔｈｎｏｏｒｆewinternalstakeholders involvedtoextemaUyimposedBESDcriteriaby stakeholders・A11ofthepresentedinitiativeswill bepresentedinmoredetanlatermthispaper・

Selfassessmentsareusedeitherbyuniversity administrationorotheruniversitymtemalstake holders（e・gstudents）toidentifyareasfor improvement,Surveysprovideanoverviewof BESDactivitiesinhighereducationingeneraL basedonquestiomairessenttoadministrations orstakeholdersofBESDsuchasstudentolganル sations,alumniorbusinesses・Benchmarkingis carriedoutbygroupsofuniversitiesinorderto identibrbestpracticesorextemalstakeholders evaluateuniversitiesagainstaclassification drawnfiPombestpractice-whatwecaUextemal benchmarkingFinallyrankingstakethebench‐

markingapproachastepfUrtherbyweighmgdif ferentindicatorsandputtingtheevaluatedinsti‐

tutionsintoanumericorder、

Accreditationsmndardscouldbeviewedasa typeofexternalbenchmarking・However,they arenotdirectedtoidentifybestpractice,but benchmarkuniversitiesagainstminimum requirements・Althoughthemostrecognised accreditationstandards-EQUISandAACSBcall fOranintegrationofvaluesandethics（EQmS 1998;AACSB2004）therearenospecificand

Tablel：EvaIuationmethods,evaluatinginstitutionsandtheiraudience．

EvaImnlionmcthod EvaluIznIor AudiDnce

Selfa霊Pssment InternalBenchmarki ､８ Surveys

ExtemalBenchmarkmg Rankmg

Accredi砲Inc、

Umv已宙ily

GroupofUniversjties Third-Party Third-Party Third-Party Third-P麺lｙ

Administration＆Facult ｙ

ParticipatjngUmiversitjes'Administ【ａｔnon＆Facu1ly

AuBESDStakeholders

Adminisbatjon＆Faculty,PoliEymake毎,０.BESDSlakehoIde庵 Students,AdminislmtIoHLotheTBESDStakeholde届

Administratiom,Students,olherBESDS垣keholde届

(5)

2２

bycomparisonswithothers（benchmarking，

ranking）asweUasaccreditations,whichhelps

themtoat亡actsmdenttalent､Thusitisexpected thatthoseuniversitiescanbemotivatedbyexte炉 nallytriggeredevaluationstoenhancetheir BESDactivities・

Defensiveuniversitiestrytosticktotheiredu‐

cationalagenda,ｗｈｉｃｈｈasprovensuccessfillfOr years・Theyareresistanttochange,ａｓｔｈｅｙｐｅ砂 ceiveBESDasathreattocuUTentpracticeanda wasteofresources･However,ifexternalevaluさ tionssuchasrankmgsoraccreditationsshow impactonstudentattraction,resea｢℃hhlnding，

etc・defensiveunivemsitiesevenmallｙｃｏｍｐｌｙｗｉｔｈ

thenewrequlrementsimposedbystakeholders ThefOllowingtablepostulatesaconnection betweenuniversitytype,evaluationmethodused andtheresultingpotentialfOrChangetowards BESD：

Asaccreditationbodieshavenotyetintegrated BESDrequirementsmtotheirstandards,extelL nalevaluationsmthefmmofrankingsarecon‐

sideredtobethemosteffectivewayｔｏｆＯｓｔｅｒ

`ltop-down，,olganisationalchangeatpassiveand

defensiveunive鱈itiesEspeciallythepublicityof rankingsisproventodriveeducationalpoHcyat institutionsofhighereducation（Merisotis2002：

361)．

ｌｎｂｌｅ２:Universitytypes,evaluationmethodsandtheirchangepotential

UnWeH百iw TVpe

Ｂ"DIO，旬Ｉｉｒｍ

metlnnd C1mn8epotentjalaJRdeHbm Progme＝ive SeuLa室SPS屋ｍＰｎｔ

Su｢Veys

Benchmarking Ranking

ArfrPdi瞳tion Ｈｉｇｈ

Identilyingame西lbrimprovementmakesmajnsb℃amin8BESDmanageableandIhe adminisImUoncansetsImtegにpGrlCrmancegoalgfbrEontinualimprovement Medium

ProvidingadministmlDmandIacultyinIbrmationontheemergenceofBESDmorder brUco唖Uzewhatemphasi9is8i泥ntoitsintegration・CouldseTveasa8enETal

benEhmarkandghowtrendS1 Hi8hinternal／Mediumexternal

Theunwe燗ityidentiIi圏beslp【HNcUcEsandcanenhamceconlmuouslmpmvemenL Medi1nrTD

ＧｏｏｄｓcoTcsIeadloreinlbmEementDfstralB8yandempowcrBESDleaderBhjp･Ｂａｄ scoreHmayinspireenhancementofBESDaEtivilieB．

Medinnm

SucccssMaccrCditationconHrmBs廿ategybyextem日lparUeswilhlDwEflbrL Pasgive Ｓｅｌｆa員電｡臼且、｡nｔ

Surveys

BenEhmarkjng

Rmlking

A垣cTCdil月tinn Low

AsBESDisnotofshnlegIcimportanＥｅｔｈｅｒｅｉｓｎｏｍｏｔｉｖａｔｉｍｔｏｅｩ〔eにutesellL a&sc5smen坊andmanagGchangetowaTdsBESDinteRratjon．

Low

ABEuuTem殖WrI8mdicatealowpmDfiIeofBESＤａｔｕｍｖ巴rBitjes,theumversitygets nomotivationIoim両oveiIssIandjng．

LowinteTnal／Mediumex蛇ｍａｌ

Benchmarkm8makes8apBjnthe亡urTiculumvisibleandpositio砥ｌｈｅｕｎＷｅ届ity againsIlhebertEhmarkThjｓｉＢＢｕｐＩｍｓｅｄｔｏｍｇｇｅＴａｒＥｖｉｅｗｏfcurT℃ntpmctiにCs，

whichmayle趣toadaptationkDbenchmarks Ｈｉｇｈ

RaⅡYkingSmake8a願incurTiEuIumv鱈ｉｂｌｅａｎｄｄでatepublicattenIionand contmveTsy､Ｉｎｏｒｄｅ「togamrEpuIaUonumve【召iUesmayadoptstmlegiestoimpmve theirmnkmg【℃sulta

Ｈｉｇｈ

TTUｓ〔anbeconsidcrEda'`le8ar，enfbrmmentofminimaIBESDstandards,which univ巴TsitiPswoulclItuUowduetoiIs祀putationalimmEt．

Ｄ⑥血 Self･as②◎缶gｇｍｅｎｔ

SｕｗＥｙＢ

B巳nchmarkin8

Ranking

AccneditaUon Low

ThcresistEmcelochanImwiⅡnotgiupp〔DrtselILassessmenls．

Low

ThcgeneralIowprofileDfBESD凸tuniveTsilieswiⅡreinfbTceIheunW巴TsiVsoPinion thatthGlopici811otreIewmt．

Lpwintemal／Mediumel(にrna1

Ａｓ〔uTrentpmcU鱒hasworkcdweIloverthDyearstheu､ive鱈ｉｔｙｉｇｌ雌elylodispute thequa1Ⅱｙａｎｄｒ＄uⅡsofth⑧bcnchmarkmHexcIrlBeandnotiniUateEhanHe Medium

RankingcxcraⅨ〕ＢｏｎｌｙｈａｖｅａｎｉｍｐａｃｔｉｆｔｈｅａｆｌもctpmspectWestudents,Otherwise theyWiubediBPuleda8比nchmarkingI℃su1ls．

Ｈｉｇｈ

ThjBcanbeconBidemPda〃1Ｇgal',enlbr塵mmtofminjmalBESDstandaZds,whjEh univcrsdtieswouldlOⅡowduetotheriskoflosingpmspectivSstuden姑ａｎｄ【℃ＢＧ臼】てｈ ltmd且

(6)

2３

BESDperspective-theycontributetothe accountabiUtyandstakeholderorientationofuniP versitiesbydenningandweightingcriteriafOr theevaluationofauniversity,sperfOrmance

Butdespitetheirhistoryandprommence,the ｗｏｒｌｄｏｆｒａｎｋｉｎｇｓｉｓ１`aworldofdifference ”

Whenitcomestothemethodologiesandcriteria appUedasUsher（2006）pointsoutmhisglobal surveyofuniversityrankings・Ｗｅｈａｖｅｃｏｎ‐

Ermedthishndmgbyourselvestakingacloser lookat4ofthemostwidelyrecognisedintern缶

tionalrankingschemes（TheTimesWorld

UniversityRanking,theAcademicRankingof WorldUniversities,theFinancialTimesMBA Ranking）aswellasatthe3mostprominent Germanmediaran]dngs(CHEHochsChuhnnking，

StudentenspiegelandWIWOUni-Ranking):The

methodologicaldifferenceswithinthose schemesarestriking:ｅ９.thenumberofcritena appUedstartsataround25criteriawiththe711Iｅ

ＴｊｍｅｓＷＤｒｌｄＵ"ｉｖｅ灯ｉｌｙＲａＷ"９（Jobbins2002；

Ince2004）themostcomprehensiveapproach coｍｐｒｉｓｅｓａｂｏｖｅ６００ｉｔｅｍｓｗｉｔｈｔｈｅＣＨＥ‐

HocAscMrα'MＥｍｇ（Federkeil2002;Berghoff，

FbderkeiletaL2004).Ananalysisofallthecrite riayieldedseveraltypes,whichwedividedinto twomaincategories:objectiveandsubjective indi⑫tors，

Theobjective-factbased-criteliaareloaded withdatahomscientincdatabasesorquestion‐

nalressenttouniversityadministratorsand/or alumniWefUrthercategorisedthemaccordmg totheirfbcalpointmanyindicatorsfOundtlyto graspstructuralcharacteristicsoftheschools

suchasthenumberofmtemationalscholarsor theGMATscoresofstudentsenroUedAlthough manyofthosestructuralcriteriaareonlyindi‐

recUypointingatthequalityofeducatioｎ（e9．

thestudenttoiacultymtio）theyareeasytocol

lectandareusuallywellaccepted・Thesecond sub-categoryaddressesobjectiveperfOrmance indicatorstocharacteriseresultshPomresearch orachievementsbygraduatesTheindicators ToputtheneedfbrevaluatingBESDactivities

ofpassiveanddefensiveuniversitiesintoper‐

spective:SeveralsuIveys（Wheeler,Horvathet

al2001;AspenlnstimteandWRI2003;Matten

andMoon2004;AspenlnstituteandWRI2005）

sofarhavesucceededinrecelvmgselfdeclared prohlesofBESDactivitiesfromabout90USand 35Canadianbusinessschools，ahandfulof schoolsmSouthAmericaandAsia,８inSouth Ahicaandaboutl70Europeanuniversitiesand universitiesofappliedsciences・With590MBA

programmesworldwide（AspenInstituteand

WRI2005）andsome690instimtionsofhigher

businesseducationmEuropealone（Mattenand

Moon2004),thisleavesthemajorityofbusiness schoolswithoutanytangibletrackrecordfor BESD（fOrshnnarconclusionsseeCoopey2003；

Apel2005l

Agamstthisbackground,wenndthatextemal evaluationscanprovideamajordriverfOrBESD，

especiallywhentheyareresultinginrankings・

Ｈｅｒｅgeneraluniversityrankingscanofferaref erencefiPamewolkofcriteriamordertocharac terisetheexistingBESDrankingsandtodeteIも nnnepotentialimprovementsregardingevalua‐

tionmdicators．

CriteriaforEvaluationsofUniversities

Sincethel980Dsnumerousuniversityrankings andespeciallyMBAprogranmeshaveevolved throughouttheworld・Someofthem-suchas theFinancialTYmesRankingsortheAcademic RankingofWOrldUniversitieshavetumedmto influentialmstimtionsofhighereducationpolicy byyieldingmuchattentionbymedia,business andacademialngeneral，alltheseranking schemesstrivetoidentifythe“bestuniversities'’

0ｒ“leadinguniversities，'､T11erankingshelpstu‐

dentsmakethechoiceofwheretostudy,assist employersintherecruitingprocessandthey sparkcompetitionamonguniversities,claiming toidentifysuccessfactorsfOracademicperfO好 mance､FinaUy-andmostinterestingfromthｅ

(7)

2４

OblectlVB ^nnIn小

0.9．

ＦａｑｎＩｙ

0.9.IBC血yloSIudontI畝ｂｎｍ山eroIImEUnscImhJ3 StudenlsBＯＢ・ｇｎｕｍｂｅ｢ｏｆＰｈＤｓｔ“e､瞳

ＧＭＡＴｓｃＤにｓ

０．９１Ｇ個duates

e､95日伯Iy empIoym0ntIElIo

RBsea1℃ｈｅ.’

CapBclly

ｒＥ

『.:l1MMMI1w鯛IilH蕊j塵iｆ

００.応putatiombrp『n.蛇ｏｒ毒７審1＝T7?＝声:字

向…M…"陸i鍵襲醗

PeIfmmancB

..i篭iii麓|垂|義３，，

ｅ・gcitatIonS awaIdS

FigUrB1，CategoriesofcriteriaappliedingeneraIunive鱈ityrankings

usedinthiscategolyaresupposedtoevaluate

theef【bctivenessofeducationintermsofacade

micsuccess（e・gthenumberofpublications

andtheircitation-frequencies）orcharacterise theachievementsofgraduatesineducational

terms（durationofstudy,scores,failurerates，

etc.）oreconomicterms（salary,careerpro‐

gY℃ss,etc.)．

nisnotwithoutgoodreason,thatsomeofthe

mostwidelycitedrankingsarecliticised,giving

highweighttopopularcitationorawardbound criteria・Asthesearelongtermmdicatorsofsuc cessgiventhetime-lagbetweenthefactual

achievementintermsofgroundbreaking rCseamhanditsrecognitio､,theyfavourvelyold

umversitiesintheEnglishspeakingareawith shrengthintraditionalsciences（Usher2006).It mustbekeptmmindthatthesecritenameasure

excellenceinresearch,butnotthequalityand

effectivenessofteachingOntheotherhand，

mdicatorsUkesalaIyandcareerprogresscannot solelybeattributedtothequalityandperfOr‐

manceofuniversities,butrenectthereputation ofaschooｌａｎｄｔhefactthathighlyreputable

schoolsattracthigherratiosofoutstanｄｍｇｓｍ‐

dents・Hence,objectivepelfbrmancemdicators arenotmdependenthromsubjectivecriteria．

subjectivecriteriaarcbasedonsurveysUsmg

questionnaires,theyaresupposedtorevealthe reputationoftheuniversitiesandevaluatethe

qualityofeducationbasedontheopinionsand

exper1encesofstakeholders-students,alumni，

facultyandemployersSomerankingsareexclu‐

sivelybasedonsubjectiveclitelia:fOrexample theWirtschaftsWocheUni-Ranking（Welpe 2004）reUesonasuweyamonghumanresource

managersofthe600biggestcompaniesin Germany；theywereaskedtochoosetheir favouriteuniversitiestorecruithFomandtochalL

acterisethesealongthreecriteria:qualityofthe

orybasedteaching,pmcticeorientationofteach‐

ingandtheinternationalityoftheuniversity、

OtherrankingssuchasTheTYmesaskedfaculty membersatuniversitiestonametheleading

facultiesintheirfield（s)．FortheCHB

Hochschulmnkingthesubjectiveopinionsofsm‐

dentsconcemingthequaUtyofcoaching,teach‐

ing,programmesoffered,infrastructure,etc､are complementarytothemanyfact-basedcriteria theyevaluate

Similartotheobjectivecriteriaaddressing

salaryandcareerprog1℃ss,reputationoriented

subjectivemdicatorsmayreHectthequalityand

effectivenessofeducationwithacertainmertia againstgradualchangesintｈｅｒｅalsituationof theuniversities．

Thesecondtypeofindicatorsweidentihedas

(8)

2５

Subjectivecriteriarenecttheperceptionsof

thestakeholdersofuniversitiesandtherefOreare avaUdbasisfOrevaluatingtheirperformance・

Thisisespeciallytmeastoday,sonUnesurveys canreachweUbeyondsmallhPactionsoftherele vantgroupstocoverremarkablesharesofthe fUUsample・ＴｈeStudentenspiegel（Friedman 2004）attracted80U00outof380'000students，

theCHE-Hochschulrankingsomel801000stu‐

ｄｅｎｔｓｏｕｔｏｆ７００'000ａｎｄｔｈｅＦｉnancialTimes MBARankingcovered35％ofaUeligiblealumni・

SuchparticipationratioscomparewellｔｏｐｏｍｉｃａｌｖｏｔｉｎｇａｎｄｈｅｎｃｅｃａｎｂｅａｔtributedasimilarstaP msofauthority・

Wecomplementedourresearchongeneral universityrankingsbyattendingthesecond meetingofthelnternationalRankingExperts Group（Berlin,Ｍａｙ2006）inordertolearn whatissuesthoseexpertsputontheiragenda Notsurprisinglytheplenarysessionsdemon‐

stratedaconsensusthatmnkingsareconsidered asaneffectiveapproachhomtheperspectiveof thevariousstakeholdersofhighereducationOn theotherhandtheauthorsofmanyprominent rankingschemestookamoderatestanceonthe vaUdityoftheirownrankingseg・admittingthat mostcriteriaareinpuboriented‐lookingat capacitiesandstructures‐ratherthanatgiving proofoftheeffectivenessofeducation（output）

Itwasespeciallyinterestingthattheranking expertsunanimouslyexpressedalackofan underlyingconceptof“goodeducation'１ｍｃｕｌも rmtrankingschemes,amajorpointofconmverb syasalreadyGioiaandCorley（2002）have pomtedout・ThiscontrastsclearlywithBESD evaluationastheretheunderlyingconceptofSD isbyexplicitlyanormativedimensionand requiresthedehnitionofeducationalcontentin ordertobeevaluated

lntheirconcludingsessiontheexpertsnegoti‐

atedtheBerlinPIinciplesonRankmgofHigher EducationInstitutionｓ（CHE,UNESCO-Cepeset aL2006）ａsafirststeptowardstheestablish‐

mentofqualitystandardsofrankingtobedevel opedmthemture・Theseplinciplesstipulatetwo waystodealwiththelackofnormativefOundaP tionofcurrentgeneraluniversityrankings：（１）

RankingsshouldexpUcitlystatetheirahnasthey arenonnaUyusedaspoUcyinstrumentsand（２）

inordertoincreasetheacceptanceatuniversi‐

tiesastakeholderapproachisencouragedBy invo1vingdifferentstakeholdersintheprocessof dehningthecriteriafOr‘`goodeducation，，later

discussionswiUbecircumvented・

WhenwenowintroduceanddiscussthevanP ousBESDevaluationinitiatives,ｗｅｗｉＵｆｉｎｄｔｈａｔｓｅｖｅｒａｌｏｆｔｈｅＢＥＳＤｅvaluationsidentified alreadyUveuptothesereconmendations．

Theexisting（B）ESDEvaluationLandscape

Sincel99qmanyprOjectswerelaunchedto addressSDtopicsatuniversitiesingeneral・

SeveralchartersUketheCOPERﾉWCU3Clhar7er signedbymorethan300EuropeanUniversities havebeenissued,stipulatingrequirementsto integratesustainabilityintohighereducation (Mader,2004).Thesechartersa1℃fUndamental statementstoacknowledgetheroleofuniversi‐

tiesfbrSDbutstiUlackaprofOundoperationali‐

sationAnumberofinitiativesgowellbeyond andhavedevelopedevaluationschemesfOrthe monitoringofprogressandqualityofeducation

fbｒＳＤ：

SelfAssessmentlnitiatives

TﾉteAHd"j"ｇノ"ｓｗｍｅ"r/ｂｒＳ“tai"αＭｊｒｙｉ〃

Higﾉie｢Ezmcq巾〃（AjSHE）hPomtheDutchDHO aimstooperationalisesustainabilityindicators fOrhighereducationingeneral（Roorda2002)．

ItissetupaccordingtotheselfLassessments madebytheEuropeanQualityFoundation・

AISHEisaprocess-orientedtoolfbranalysing

currentsustainabiliWaspectsatauniversityand toidentifyareasfOrimprovement・Indicators

usedaremainlyobjectiveandfOcusoncapacity

andperformance・Ｅｖaｌｕａｔｉｏｎｉｓｄｏｎｅｂｙａｓｍａｌｌ

(9)

2６

gmupsetupbyiacultymembers,administrators andstudents､ＩｎａｓｏｃａＵｅｄ“consensusmeetP ing”participantsagreeonevaluationsandon prioritiesThegoalofAISHEistoexpandacross Europer巴sultingmcerti且cateslawardsandother formsofofficialrecognition（Shriberg2002：

262),butithasnotyetr℃achedthisstageAsec ondprOjectprovidingamethodfOrselfassess‐

ｍｅｎｔｉｓｔｈｅＵＬＳＦＳＪＪｓｒａｉ"q6iljjyAss2ssme"ｊＯ脚Cs"o""αjra/》ｗ?lrﾉＤＢＤ)OiveJqsjlyLeα`ers./brq SHsmi"α比Fmm”（USLF2001).Itisaqualita‐

tivequestionnairedesignedtoinitiateandfOster debateaboutsustainabiliweducation・ItaUows studentsand/orfacultymemberstoencourage debatewithotheracademicactors（stafLother students,facultyandadministrators).Themdica torsusedaremainlyobjectiveandcapacityoli‐

ented・Finally,thethirdselfevaluationtoolispro‐

videdbytheForImz/ｂｒ／ｈｅＦ皿mre，sHjgher Etmcqrio"２１（HE2J）prOjecfThisisanonUne

toolwhereuniversitiescanentertheirdataon

enⅥronmentalperfOrmanceindicators（Forum fOrtheFuture2003）Onlyonesectiontackles theissueofsustainabilityeducationwithobjec tivecapacityborientedindicators・TheHE21has beendevelopedinaprocessconsultingdifferent stakeholderorganisationsandisbasicallyexe cutedbyamemberoftheuniversityadmmistraP tionThisiscomplementedbytheHigher

EducationPa｣tnel9shipfOrSustainability（HEPS）

prOjectlWhereeducationalaspectsarethemam fbcus（FbrumfOrtheFuture2004).HEPSpro‐

videsfbrinstitutionalrenectionthrDughalistof questions・AsthesetoolsaremeantfOrselfL assessmentcross-campuscompansonsaredifn- culttoperfbml（Shribelg2002:263)．

fbrcouUnsework,reseaI℃h,extracurricularactivi‐

ties，etc、relatingtoCSRCorporateSocial ResponsibiUtytopicsinawidesensemcluding ethicsandenvimnmentalmanagement､Thesurb veyresultedinmtheEABiSBusinessmSociety DirectoIy-anonlinecatalogueofferingcourse descriptionsthatcouldbeenterCdandupdated onlinebyfacultyoradministrators・InSouth

AhicaHammanetal（2006）preparedasurvey

partlybasedonthequestionnairehomMatten andMoon,comPlementedbysendingoutques‐

tionnairestoalumni,businessrepresentativesm sustainabilityrelatedpositionsaswellａｓＮＧＯｓａｓｗｅｌｌａｓａｎｉｎｔｅｒｎｅｔｒｅｖｉｅｗｏｆＭＢＡｐｒｏ‐

grammes､ThefOcuswasalsooncontentoffereｄａndwiththestakeholdersonpe1℃eptionsabout theidealcontenttobetaughttostudents・

However,theresponseratewaslimitedtolOout ofl7schoolsandespeciaUylowregardingstake

holders（only25outof300stakeholderap‐

proached1℃spondedtothesurvey)．

T11e2005ﾉVﾋﾞﾋﾟﾉ)，ｑｐａａＣｿmprerCtmric"肋、（Ｍ）

swTey（Netlmpact2005）providedanotherevalP uationofthegeneralstateofBESDmtegration mtocurriculabasedontheopimonsofthelead ers69oftheNetlmpactlocalchapterrep1℃sentaP tivesabouttheircampus・Itisintendedtogive

Netlmpactchaptersbestpracticehintsanda soundargumentinconvincingtheirbusiness schooltointegratesustainabiUtytopicsmtothe cuniculum・AsNetlmpactmembersaI℃activists fOrBESDtheirevaluationisHkelytobebiased lndicatorsusedaresubjectiverepresentationsof theperceivedquantityandquaUtyofteachingin

theareaofBESD．

InternalandexternalBenchmarking

As（Mader2004）reports，ｔｈｅＥＳＭＵＣＱｐｅ"zjcHsBe"ｃｈｍｑ成i"ｇＣＤ"cepraimedatan mtemalbenchmarkingwithmtheCopemicusini‐

tiative,buthefOundtheprojectsuspended althoughaquestionnairehadbeensentoutto universitiesin2003・Thequestionnairecomprls‐

ＳｕⅣeys

ThemostcomprehensivesurveyonBESDwas caITiedoutbyMattenandMoonincollaboration withtheE"mpeα"Aazdbmy/brB“me3si〃Sociely

(EABiS).Withl70universities/businessschools respondmgtotheirquestionnaire,theysearched

(10)

2７

identifythebestplacestostudy､Second,it selvesasleveragefOrchanginguniversitycurric‐

ulaandresearchtowardstheintegrationofsus‐

tainabilitytopics､Fbrthe2005edition,９１busL nessschoolsparticipatedｗｉｔｈ６０ｓｃｈｏｏｌｓｆｒｏｍｔｈｅＵＳａｎｄｌ５ｈｏｍEurope・Universityadminis tmtorsareaskedtocompletethesurveyconsist ingofobjectivecapacityandpelfOrmance-based mdicatorsandtheirdataisreviewedandevalu1at edbyacir℃leofexternalexperts・Theranking methodhascontinuallybeenrevisedandnow comprisesfOurdimensions:Ｓｍ火"rOppommi〃

(basedonthenumberofcoursesoffered)，

Srllde"rEV〕o””（basedonthenumberofhoulnS smdentsdealwithBESDtopicscomparedtothe totalhoursoftheprogranⅢ､e),Cbme"'（based onthedegreetowhicheachcourseemPhasizes thevalueofSD）ａｎｄＲｅｓｅａｒｃｈ（basedonthe numberofpubUcationsmmagazinesconsidered asrelevant).Forthennalscore,eachdimension wasratedagainstthebestperfOrmerofthat dimensionaｎｄｅａｃｈdimensionfinallywas weightedat25％､Thequestionnalrewasdevel opedincollaborationwithapanelofbusiness schoolfaculty・ＩｎＣａｎａｄａＴｈｅＫ'zighjSchooノＲａ'１ki"９（Troper2005）hasfOllowedthebasic conceptofBGPin2003andcovered34busmess schoolsin2005･Thisnationalrankingisalso basedonquestionnairesmappingobjective capacityindicatorsalongthreedimensions：

ＣＯ"'ＦｅＷＤ汰４５％（basedoncoreandelective courseswithBESDcontent),'"SF""tio"αﾉ３０％

(basedonSDchairs,SDinstitutes,students competitions,loanprogrammes,extracurricular lecmres,etc.）andnnallySmde"r-Ledmiriarかe3

25％（basedonsmdentgmupsrelatingtoSD)．

esaseriesofqualitativequestionsaddressing theuniversitiesESDstrategy,itsimplementation planaswellasitsmonitoringsystem,allinallfOl‐

lowingakindofplanPdo七heckapproach・Based onthedescriptiveanswersofadministrators，

casestudiesonbestpracticesweretｏｂｅｄｒａｗｎａｎｄｐｒｏｖidedtoallrespondents（astheprQject wassuspended,wedonotmcludeitmtable3）A velydifferentapproachresultedｉｎｔｈｅＥｔｍｃｍｍ〃

αboJ4rq"｡/brS“ｍｉ"qbjﾉﾉﾘi〃Ａ“ｉｍｌｊＱ〃BJJJj"ess SchooﾉsRepor［preparedbytheAustralian ResearchlnstitutemEducationfOrSustainabiUty (ARIES）andArupSustainabilityforthe AustralianGovernment-Departmentofthe EnvironmentandHeritage（TY1buly,Crawlyand Berry2004）Atotalof37Australianbusiness schoolswerebenchmarkedagainstbestpractice exampleshPomabroadCriteriawerebasedespe- ciaUyontheBeyondGreyPinstripesranking method（seebelow）mcombinationwithcrite riadevelopedjointlywithAustralianbusiness schools,whichparticipatedactivelyinthestudy andpreparedm-depthcaseStudies､Thecriteria toevaluatethe37sChoolswereallboundtomput mdicatorssuChascapacityandstructureThree typesof1℃ferenceschoolsweredenned:leading edge,goodpracticeandacceptablestandard TYlentheprogrammesdocumentationsavailable throughtheintemetwereusedtoqualitatively evaluatetheschools・nleschoolsthemselves werenotmvolvedmthedatagatheringandeval

uation

Rankings

ThepioneersofBESDrankingaretheAspen lnstimteandtheWorldResou1℃esInstihqtewith

theB2yo"ｄｏ”ｙＰｉ"srripes（BGP)')evaluation (AspenlnstimteandWRI2003;Aspenlnstimte andWRl2005).Smcel998,fUUtimeMBApro‐

grammesaroundtheglobeareinvitedtopartici‐

pateinthisbiennialsurvey,Itisdedicatedtotwo maingoals:nrstofall,itissupposedtohelPstu‐

dentssea1℃hmgibrsustainabilitycompetencetｏ

ThefO11owingtableprovidesanovervlewof ^C evaluationmethods,mdicatorsandstakeholders involvedwithinthediscussedBFSDevaluations：

Itbecomesveryclear,thatmostofthecurrent BESD-evaluationapproachesrelyonobjective，

(11)

2８

ＴａｂＩｅ３:ComparisonofexistingBESDevaIuationapproaches

ＳＡ－ＳｄｆＡ…函ＳｍＥＴ１１ (1)Fb屯ug8遼山ｏｎにscardmTUy (2)Actjvistb西

capacityorientedindicatorsonly・Astrong emphasisisputonselfdeclarationandthe rewewofcurriculadescription,whichmakesit dif5culttograspthepmgressofmainstreannng BESDandtendstorewardthespecialisation approachtoBESDSelfdeclarationisalsoprob lematicmthatrespect,thatinsuchacasethe subjectiveperceptionoftheadministratorcan notbeconsideredasvalidA1thoughsomestake‐

holdermvolvementwasfOund（intheNetlmpact surveyorwiththewｏｒｋｓｏｆＨａｍｍａｎｅｔ・al.)，

thoseapproacheshavenotyetyieldawellfbund‐

edevaluationastherearechallengestobemet concemingbiasandsufDcientresponseHence theexistinginitiativesaremainlygoodatdepict ingthesupplysideofspecialisedBESDcourse wolkandhencetheircontributiontorevealand fbsterBESDaddressmgthemaiorityofbusmess smdentsisvelylimited・

FUrthermoreouranalysisidentinedaregional andmstitutionalgap:mostoftheevaluationsconF centrateonMBAFprogranⅢnesandnotthebusiP nessschoolscomprisingundergraduatepro‐

grammes､AndtherankingsareinfactconcenP tratedontheEngUshspeakinga1℃awithonlya fewschoolsbeyondrespondmg．

ＣｏｍｐｌｅｍｅｎｔｉｎｇｔｈｅＢＥＳＤｅｖａｌｕａｔｉｏｎｌａｎｄ‐

scape-theoikosSurvey

Thebasicco､ceptoftheoikossuweyistoadd thesubjectiveperspectivetOthecurrent schemesbylettingbusinessstudentsevaluate BESDattheirschools・Theaimistomotivate

businessschoolstomtegratesustainabiutytopics intotheirteachmgandresearchbyabenchma1k ingandrankingexerciseStudentevaluations concemingthequalityofcourseworkandteach‐

ersareawellestabUshedandvalidapproachm highereducation（fOrareviewofresearchin thisneldseeCashml995）

TYlestudentevaluationswillbemadethrough anonlinesurveythatcoverscriteriainthree areas:Mindset（perceptionsandattitudes)，

Ⅵsibility（ofBESDhDmfacultyandadministm, tion）andlmpact（SDspeciEcknowledgeofstu‐

dents).ＴｈｅcriteriaaredevelopedincoUabora←

tionwithsustainabiliWeXpertshPomacademia，

businessandNGO，s、

Mindset

T11equestionstobeansweredinthemmdset sectionaUowustosearchfbrastatisticanysignif icanttypologyofstudentsbasedontheiratti‐

tudeSandbehaviourstowardssustainability issues､Theresultinglypologythenisusedｔｏ

C四

l則pTfbT五Ｗ､､｡

Ｘ

ＸＸＸＸＸＸ

ＸＵＤｌ

Ｘ

Ｘ(u、

RcputatIon

QuamIy ^XUz】

Ｓｍ団Ⅱ豚ＤｕＰ oｆ

Ｆ口c181ty，

墨ｄｍ１Ｌｍｄ

豆hwUd両n粒

鯛AL,,‘

admin．，ＤｈｘＩ麺jbUom

Sｄｆ ngTls露Iinn

Self、“.＆

ＮＧＯ mＬ国凸凹､。

CoveTnmPn1nU surwy

Ａ丘tWist

■09911唾Ｉ

Ｓｅｌｆ BIm7n元ｌｌＤＤｄ■ぬ exI正n＄とcxt､TＴｍＩ

③1画■

塗ｋ昇日ヨニ

、夛導〕・祷云〕

Ｅ旦巴も日

色シヨ国西口、

_ｍ

Ｅ

(12)

2９

P

・KmWIpdgB．

■

L1emmy Figure2・CategoriesoftheoikosSurvey

determinepopulationsofcertaintypesofstu‐

dentswhocareaboutthesocialandecological mpactsofeconomicactivitiesanda１℃especially recepIivetoBESD・Weconsidersuchapopula‐

tion‐oritsabsence‐ｔｏｂｅａｐｒｏ河indicatorfbr thevaluesembodiedmthecultureofaunivemsi‐

ty,whichaffectsthesocialisationofstudents，

theirextmculTicLUarleammgopportunities（stu二

dentolganisations）aswellastheirresponsⅣe

nesstoBESDingeneraL

Furthermore,onecanexpectthosestudents highlyreceptivetoBESDtoevaluatetheu､ive炉 sibrmorecriticallythanthe“average,，lypeof student・AfactoranalysisshaUtestthishypothe sisandeventuallyenableustoadjustbiased answersmthetwootherdimensionsofthesurと vey．

membersaresignallingahighrelevanceof BESDcontentsduringtheirexams,casestudies ortennpapers6AlsothecredibiUtyoftheunivel塔

sity,sadmimstlationconcemmgtheimplementaF

tionofSustainableDevelopmentistobeevaluat edbythestudents・

Ofmaiormte1℃stareespeciaUythemdicators onactivityandquality・ＴｈｅｙａＵｏｗｕｓｔｏｄｅｔｅ砂 minethelevelofBESDmainstreamingandifstu‐

dentsaresatisfiedwiththeuniversitiesBESD activities､ＴｈｏｓｅmdicatomsalsoaUowanextemal

validationofresultsWhencomparedtosurveys usingobjectivemdicators‐suchastheEABIS dajabaseorBGP・Ｓｕchinsightsarevaluablenot onlyfOrstudentsseekingBESDorientedlearn‐

mgenvlronments,butespeciallyfbridentib'ing bestpracticeandrevealingstartingpointsfOr improvement．

Visibility

Atthecoreofthequestionnaireisaseriesof subjectivequestionsinthevisibilitysection demonstratingthesmde"ｒｓＷｓｍｍａ６ｉ"ZyperCep‐

zio":nrstweaskstudentstotell,iftheyencoun‐

teredBESDduringspecialorcorecourses Second-wheretheyidentnyBESD-thescopeof activitiesandtherespectivequalityaretobe characterisedTYlird,studentsareaskedtoshare theirperceptionconcemmgthecredibilityofthe universityasanorganisatio､,especiallyifiaculty

lmpact

Thethirdsection‐impact‐compnsesasenes ofquestionsthatchallengesmdentstodemon‐

strateiftheyarefamiUarwiththeveryessential termsandconceptsofＢＥＳＤ､Thelmpactsection thusdemonstratesalittlePISAPtesr”BESD l“Hes・nlisaddsanothertypeofmdicatortothe characteristicｓ(mindseOandper℃eptions(Visi‐

bility)ofthestudents:anobjectivetestoftheir sustainabilityliteracy・certainly,ｓｕｃｈａｔｅｓｔｉｓ

(13)

3０

disputableasitrequiresadefinitionofthe

O6

essentiar，contentsofBESD,WhiChevelrystu-

dentofeconomicsandmanagementshouldhave learnedAtcurrent,thereisnosuchgenerally accepteddefinition・Here,theoikosranking methodbreaksgroundbysynthesisingtheopin ionsofleadingsustainabiUtyscholarsandbusi‐

nessrepresentatives．

Refe｢ences：

AACSBAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoOlsof Business（2004).Ethicseducationinbusiness schoo1s:ReportoftheEthicsEducationTask Fbrce,AACSB,Ｓｔ・IDuiS

Apel,Ｈ、（2005).Online-UmfiPagezuEinstellungen ｚｕｒ“BndungfUremenachhaltigeEntwicklung，，，

ｗｗｗ・die-frankfurtde/Clear/pub/Online‐

BehPagung､pdMO2/2005)．

AspenlnstituteandWRI（2003)．BeyondGrey Pinstripes2003,AspenlnstituteandWorld Resourceslnstimte,http://www・beyondgreypm stripes・org/pdf/2003-beyond-grey-pinstripes Pdf

AspenlnstituteandWRI（2005）BeyondGrey Pinstripes2005,AspenlnstituteandWorld ResourcesInstitute,http://www・beyondgrWpm stripes､org/pdf/2005-beyond-greLpinstripes、

pdf

Berghoff,Ｓ､，GFederkeil,ｅｔａＬ（2004)．Das Hochschulranking ^Centrum ^fur Hochschulentwicklung,ArbeitspapierNr､５４．

Cashin,ＷＥ．（1995).StudentRatingsofTeaching：

TheResearchRevisited,ＩＤＥＡＰａｐｅｒＮｏ､３２，

CenterfOrFacultyEvaluation＆Development KansasStateUnivelsity、

CHE，UNESCO-Cepes，ｅｔａＬ（2006）．Berlin PrinciplesonRankingofHigherEducation lnstitutions．Berlin，CentrumfUr Hochschulentwicklung,UNESCO-Cepesandthe lnstitutefOrHigherEducationPoUcy－http://

www,Che.｡e/downloads/Berlin-Principles-IRE G-534・pdf（06/2006)．

Usher,Ａ・（2006)．“AWOrldofDifference:AGlobal SurveyofUniversityRankingandLeague THUbles':Proceedingsofthe2ndMeetmgofthe lntemationalRankingExpertGroup（IREG)：

MethodologyandQualityStandardsof Rankings・Berlin

Coopey,』．（2003)．“SustainableDevelopmentand EnvironmentalManagement:ThePelfOmlance ofUKBusinessScho０１s.，,Management lEaming34(1):５－２６．

EQmS.（1998).EQIⅡSQualiwStandald＆http://wwwｂ ehndorg/attachments/tmpl-LarLO41027xvp8L attO41027ecWhpdf（０４/2006)．

Federkei1,Ｇ．（2002)．“SomeAspectsofRanking Tofmthehorizontalgaptheiirsteditionofthe

oikossurveyshaUconcentrateonEuropeanbusi‐

nessschools・Alsostudentsofalllevels,fiPom assessmenttoPhDshaUbeinvitedtoparticipate mordertocircumventtheverticalgap・TheBGP projectalreadydemonstratesthatarating schemefOrBESDisfeasibleandappreciatedby participatinguniversitiesAsJaimeAlonso Gomez,Director/Dean，GraduateSchoolof BusinessAdministrationandLeadership

(EGADEMonterrey）putsit:“Participatingin

theBeyondGreyPinstripes2003studyprovided atremendousopportunitytoconsolidateour schoCl'ｓｓ位ategyinthisarCa.”（Aspenlnstitute andWRI2003:４)．

AnalysmgexistingBESDevaluationschemes weidentinedalackofsubjectiveevaluationindiP catorslikereputationorquaUty､Regardingthe potentialfOrinstimtionalchangefUrtheracon‐

centrationonNorthAmelicanbusinessschoo1s andMBAFprogrammescouldbenoticedThe proposedoikossurveyaddressesthesegapsby evaluatingEuropeanbusmessschoolshomasm‐

dentsIperspectiveltcomplementsassessments donebyBeyondGreyPmstripesandtheKnights SchoolandfUrtherresearchcoulddeIveintothe correlationbetweenobjectivecapacity岩oriented andsubjectivequality-orientedindicators、

OverallBESDevaluationcouldbefurther extendedtoawideraudiencebymcludmgopmP ionsofbusinessrepresentativesandalumni

(subjectivereputatioIrbasedmdicators)．

(14)

3１

Mintzbe埴,Ｈ（2004).ManagersnotMBAs3ahard lookatthesoftpracticeofmanagmgandman‐

agemenddevelopment，Berret-Kbhler：San Francisco・

Netlmpact（2005).NetImpactChapterCumculum Survey，http://www､netimpact・org/associa‐

tions/4342/mes/CurTiculum%20Change池OSurv ey%20Results962005ppt（12/2005)．

Roorda,Ｎ・（2002).AssessmentandpolicydeveloP mentofsustainabilityinhighereducationwith AISHE・TmchmgSustainabilityatUniversities- TowardsCurriculumGreenin9.Ｗ.Ｌ・Filho・

ＮｅｗＹｏｒｋ,Peterlang

Shribe屯,Ｍ・（2002)．“Institutionalassessmenttools forsustainabilityinhighereducation.”

IntemationalJournalofSustainabiliUinHigher Education3(3):254-270．

Swanson,、Ｌ＆Frederick,WBC．（2003).`ArebusiP nessschoolssilentparmersmcorporatecrime？，

JoumalofCorporateCitizenship,９(1):24-27．

Tilbury,，.,Crawley,CandBerry,Ｆ、（2004)．

EducationAboutandForSustainabilityin AustraUanBusinessSchools,Reportpreparedby theAustralianResearchlnstituteinEdoqmtion fOrsustainability（ARIES）andArupSustain‐

abilityfbrtheAustralianGovernmentDeparb mentoftheEnvironmentandHelitage

Troper,Ｃ・（2005)．“KnightSchools-AGuideto

businessschoolsfOrstudentswhowantto

changetheworld，，CorporateKnights3(3)：

28-46．

USLF（2001).SustainabiUtyAssessmentQuestion- naire（SAQ）forCollegesandUnive形sities・

Washmgton,UniversityLeadersfOraSustain‐

ableFiJIture

WeberM．（1972lWirtschaftundGesellschaft，

Tiibmgen

Weeks,Ａ・（2004).nPainingaNewGenerationof BusinessLeade】ns,GreenMoneyJoumal，

www・greenbiz・com/news/reviewsthirdchn?Ne wsID-26973，（09/2004)．

ＷｅｌｐｅＣ．（2005）．Ｒａnking2005-Diebesten Hochschulen,Wirtschaftswochee-Magazin，

http://www・wiwo､de/pswiwo/、/ww2/Ｓｍ/build ww/id/1220/id/99008/bt/2/SH/O/depot/O/ｍｄｅｘｈｔｍｌ，（03/2005)．

Wheeler,，.,DHorvath,ｅｔａｌ．（2001)．“Graduate Methodology-TheCHE-RankingofGerman

Universities.”HigherEducationinEurope27 (4):389-397．

JanFriedmann,et.a1.（2004).DieEUtevonmo屯e､，

SpiegelPRangUste-WOstudierendieBesten,Der Spiegel48,22.11.2004:178-200．

ForumfOrtheFuture（2003)．Reportingfor Sustainability-GuidancefOrHigherEducation lnstitutions､London,http://www､fbrumibrthefU‐

ture・olguk/docs/publications/240/reporting fbrsustainability・pdf（03/2006)．

FbrumfbrtheFuture（2004).HEPSLeamingand skiUsfbrsustainabledevelopment:deveIopmga sustainabilityliteratesociety・London,http://

www・fbrummrtheiUture・or9.uk/pubUcations/lea mingandskills-page222､aspx（03/2006）．

Gioia,ｎＡ（2002比`Businesseducation,srolein thecrisisofcorpomteconfidence.]，Academyof ManagementExecutivel6(3):142-144．

Gioia,，.Ａ・（2003)．“BusinessOrganizationas lnstrumentofSocietalResponsibility.，, OrganizationlO(3):435-438．

Gioia,Ｄ・ＡａｎｄＫＧＣｏｒｌｅｙ（2002)．“BemgGood VersusLookingGood：BusinessSchool RankingsandtheCir℃eanTiPansfbrmationhPom Substancetolmage.”AcademyofManagement l全arningandEducationl(1):107-120．

HamannRetaL（2004).Corporatecitizenshipin SouthAhicanbusmesseducation,SouthAh｢ican JoumalonBusmessManagement,３７(2):1-9．

Ince,Ｍ、（2004).Elementsthatpaintaportraitof globalpowers,WorldUniversityRanking,The TYmesHigherEducationSupplemenL

Jobbins,，．（2002)．`oTYleTYmesHigherEducation Supplement-LeagueTablesinBritain：An lnsider,ｓⅥｅｗ.,,HigherEducationinEurope27

(4):383-388．

Mader,Ｃ・（2004).IntegrationofSustainabilityinto Unive応ities-GoodPracticesandBenchmarking fOrIntegration，Masterthesis，Universityof

Gmz

Matten,Ｄ・ａｎｄＪＭｏｏｎ（2004)．“CorporateSocial ResponsibilityEducationinEurope.''Joumalof BusinessEthics54(4):323-337．

Merisotis,J・Ｐ．（2002)．“OntheRankingofHigher Educationlnstitutions.”HigherEducationin Europe27(4)：361-363.

(15)

3２

LearningforBusinessandSustainabiUty.”

JoumalofBusinessAdministraUonandPolicy AnalySis27-29:123-144.

Endnotes：

1）http://wwwbeyondgreypinstripes､019/mdex.c、