What Has Changed for Top MBA Schools Within a Decade in terms of Mindfulness?

International Journal for Business Education International Journal for Business Education

Volume 163 Number 1 Article 5

October 2022

What Has Changed for Top MBA Schools Within a Decade in What Has Changed for Top MBA Schools Within a Decade in

terms of Mindfulness? terms of Mindfulness?

Dr. Damla Aktan

Independent Researcher

, [email protected]

Asst. Prof. Nilgün Gürkaynak

Izmir University of Economics

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/ijbe

Part of the Accounting Commons, Adult and Continuing Education Commons, Adult and Continuing

Education and Teaching Commons, Advertising and Promotion Management Commons, Agribusiness

Commons, Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business Analytics

Commons, Business and Corporate Communications Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons,

Educational Leadership Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Educational Technology Commons,

Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons, International Business Commons, Junior High,

Intermediate, Middle School Education and Teaching Commons, Management Information Systems

Commons, Marketing Commons, Online and Distance Education Commons, Organizational Behavior and

Theory Commons, Other Business Commons, Other Education Commons, Other Teacher Education and

Professional Development Commons, Secondary Education Commons, Secondary Education and

Teaching Commons, Technology and Innovation Commons, and the Vocational Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Aktan, Dr. Damla and Gürkaynak, Asst. Prof. Nilgün (2022) "What Has Changed for Top MBA Schools

Within a Decade in terms of Mindfulness?,"

International Journal for Business Education

: Vol. 163: No. 1,

Article 5.

DOI: 10.30707/IJBE163.1.1675491516.818366

Available at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/ijbe/vol163/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for

inclusion in International Journal for Business Education by an authorized editor of ISU ReD: Research and eData.

For more information, please contact [email protected].

What Has Changed for Top MBA Schools Within a Decade in Terms of

Mindfulness?

Dr. Damla Aktan

Independent Researcher

Asst. Prof. Dr. Nilgün Gürkaynak

Faculty of Business/Izmir University of Economics

Corresponding Author: Damla Aktan, damlaaktan@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The concepts of “mindful consumption” and “sustainability” emerged as indispensable parts of both

academia and business life. Based upon an initial research conducted in 2012, this comparative study

aims to understand the change in MBA curricula occurring over a decade, in terms of mindfulness

content inclusion, as well as sustainability and ecological orientation. Comparing the years 2012 and

2022, the results trace the evolution of the integration of concepts into curricula through an

examination of the official websites of the top 100 MBA schools of the Financial Times Global

Ranking.. The study aims to summarize how, at first sight, the concepts of sustainability, mindful

consumption and ethics are incorporated into these schools’ curricula.

Keywords: Mindfulness, mindful consumption, sustainability, MBA Schools, MBA curriculum

Background

The concepts of green consumer, green marketing, sustainable consumption, mindful consumption

as well as the notion of “good works” are increasingly appearing in marketing arena- both academic

and practical- due to issues such as global warming, scarcity of resources, climate change, and global

poverty. These changes emphasize the importance of sustainable action for all stakeholders.

Marketers have an important role to play in guiding both their own companies and consumers to

take responsible action. The studies on marketing curriculum analysis focus on topics such as gap

analysis and integration of new concepts to marketing curriculum (Borin and Metcalf, 2010;

Christensen et. Al, 2007; Davis, Misra and van Auken, 2002); and Young and Murphy, 2003), but not,

so far, on MBA programs, to our current knowledge.

Over the years, many studies have explored fostering responsible and sustainable production and

consumption including Belk, Dholakia and Venkatesh (1996), Crane and Desmond (2002), Fisk

(1967,1981), Holloway and Hancock (1964), Holbrook (1999), Hunt (1977), Hunt and Barnett (1982),

Zif (1980), Layton and Grossbart (2006) and Mick (2007). Ecological sustainability as a business goal

has been studied since 1990s Costanza et. al. (1991), Durning (1993), Epstein and Roy (2003), Hart

(2007), Pfeffer (2010) and Farrel (2010).

The literature review is partially from the author Damla Aktan’s PhD thesis on Mindfulness. The first part of

the research for 2012 top 100 MBA schools was presented 9th EBES Conference in Rome, Italy.

The turn of the millennium also marked an increase in interest on the topic. Reports such as the UN

Millennium Development Goals, which integrate environmental sustainability as a target, seem to

have fueled this interest. Studies on the role played by strategic management and supply chain in

ensuring sustainability include Bansal and Roth (2000), Bansal (2005), Campbell (2007),

Schneiderman (2009), Lastzo and Zhexembayeva (2011) and studies on the role of marketing

include Chabowski et al. (2011), ), Crittenden and Ferrel (2011), Hult (2011), Kuosmanen (2009),

Moisander and Pesonen (2002), Spaargeeen (2003).

Mindful consumption, on the other hand, being a comparatively recent concept in marketing

literature, can be summarized as an approach that creates a threefold sustainability, in social,

economic, and ecological environments. Following earlier studies by Jacob and Brinkerhoff (1998),

mindful consumption was introduced into the marketing literature by Sridharan and Viswanathan

(2008) and Sheth, Sethia and Srinivas (2011).

Compared to other graduate degrees, MBA programs are more targeted at business life, as most of

their students are currently employed or seeking jobs in the public or private sectors, rather than in

academia. Thus, one can argue that the outcomes of MBA programs are more likely to include the

principles and practices of business life. Businesspeople’s practices will be directly impacted by

introducing the concepts of socially responsible, economically mindful and ecologically sustainable

production and consumption principles into education.

Within this perspective, the research aims to explore, between 2012 and 2022, the evolution of the

integration of the above concepts into the curriculums of top 100 Universities ranked in Financial

Times Global Ranking The authors of the study hold that these top universities are important

reference points for the many other MBA programs offered throughout the world.

In order to better understand the importance of mindfulness in both academic and professional area,

the next section will briefly summarize concepts of sustainability and mindful consumption, with also

reference to mindful marketing.

Sustainability

“In the final analysis, accepting and living by sufficiency rather than excess offers a

return to what is, culturally speaking, the human home…” (Durning, 1993)

Environmental damage caused by excessive consumption threatens human health, welfare and many

other valued things in life (Stern,1997 cited in: Sheth, Sethia and Srinivas 2011). This reality explains

the emerging increase in attention to the sustainability concept.

Sustainability, defined by UN (1987) as “meeting the present needs without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs”, includes environmental, economic and social

aspects. It is a relevant concept for many fields; but as Hult (2011) argued, marketing has an

opportunity to contribute significantly to the understanding of the concept, its boundaries, its merits

in terms of managing a set of economic, environmental and social marketplace issues. While Hunt

(2011) sees sustainable marketing as marketing within and supportive of sustainable development,

Hult (2011) differentiates his position, seeing market focus sustainability as a key factor for

companies. Crittenden et al. (2011) similarly incorporated sustainability into a market perspective,

through allowing a strategic alignment of sustainability into marketing strategies to gain competitive

advantage.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2008) states that current global consumption

patterns are unsustainable, and that changes will be required in consumer lifestyles and

consumption patterns. Durning (1993) highlights the issue of the limits to consumption that will be

needed to save the world if people continue to destroy the environment with overconsumption and

are not satisfied with lower levels of consumption. Accordingly, greater satisfaction may be created

not just through consumption, but also through leisure, human relationships, or other non-material

things. Emphasizing that sustaining the environment, which, in turn, aids sustaining humanity, would

require a shift in the values of society, as well as combinations of change in logic, which, in the long

run, will lead to the convergence of the lower, middle and upper-level classes of society (Durning,

1993). Sanne (2004) develops some policies for sustainable consumption as a response to the need

for change of character of consumption in richer countries, and states that the political system

should abandon the dogma of economic growth, and redefine it in terms of individual well-fare, less

dominated by material aspects.

A closer look at the materialism concept is necessary at this point: Belk (1983) defines it as the

importance that a consumer attaches to worldly possessions. However, the majority still see the

glorification of consumption as the remedy for the dismal economic milieu of the 1970s, marked by

high inflation and stagnant growth (Benett and O’Reilly, 2010, p.20). Belk (1983) points out that all

major religions criticize excessive materialism and sees it as contrary to societal well-being. Inglehart

(1981) similarly states that affluent societies tend to adopt increasingly less materialistic goals as

they become satisfied with the fewer needs, and move on to more abstract, less materialistic goals.

For instance, Webster (1975) defined a socially responsible human as “a non-violent person who is in

search for spiritual growth, values the beauty of the world and has an ability to see and to give

energy to all the good things in the world”. Accordingly, green-consumers are “goal-oriented people

who take into account the public impacts of their consumptions, aim to create social change and

improve the sustainable development”. Anderson and Cunningham (1972) also see green

consumerism as an ethically oriented behavior promoted by social marketing. However, these

emerging views did not become predominant throughout 1980s and 1990s.

The perspective that excessive consumption is not the sole remedy for social and economic issues

was revisited at the turn of the century. Kozinets (2001-2002) recalled that in some societies,

reactions against consumerism, took the form of, for example, the socially engaged projection of

Romantic utopia, or anti-consumerist festivals. Spaargaren (2002), looking from a theoretical and

policy perspective, states that the announcement and wide acceptance of clear environmental goals

with respect to all relevant consumption patterns such as clothing, feeding and traveling, make it

possible to reduce the impact of daily routine consumption behaviors. Moisander and Pesonen

(2002) focused on the ways of constructing self and the other as green consumers. Sheth, Sethia and

Srinivas (2011) emphasizes the essential role of green products with lighter footprints over the total

life-cycle in increasing environmental sustainability.

From business perspective, Closs et al (2011) takes a supply chain perspective for sustainability, and

states that sustainability initiatives necessitate radical changes in business procedures. Cronin et al

(2011) also argue for a “green perspective “of sustainability, in which organizations are expected to

engage in sustainability-oriented marketing strategies.

Proctor and Gamble’s sustainable packaging is a good example of the practical contribution of

marketing tools to sustainability (Proctor and Gamble,2011). The company now aims to encourage

more than 4.4 billion consumers in 180 countries to be more mindful in their buying decisions.

Additionally, Wilhelm (2012) describes an example from mobile phones sector of encouragement of

sustainable consumption through a strategy of product lifetime extension. These are among the

many initiatives from the business community.

The concept of practical sustainability is widely applied, and there are even sustainability indices for

companies. Dow Jones’ sustainability index launched in 1999 is the first global index tracking the

financial performance of the leading sustainability-driven companies worldwide, providing asset

managers with reliable and objective benchmarks to manage sustainability portfolios. Corporate

Sustainability is defined as a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by

embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social

developments. Leading sustainability companies display high levels of competence in addressing

global and industry challenges in a variety of areas, including strategy, finance, customer and

product, governance and stakeholder, and human. (See: http://www.sustainability-index.com/)

Mindful Consumption and Mindful Marketing

Global consumption has moved beyond its primary utilitarian function of serving basic human needs

(Shaw and Newholm, 2002), and the domain of marketing assumed a key role, by offering “mindful

consumption” and “mindful marketing” as important constructs to this aim. Although its

acknowledgment within marketing is relatively new, the concept of mindfulness is well-established in

a variety of disciplines. These include social psychology and education (Langer, 1989), quality

research (Fiol and O’Connor, 2003), as well as reliability subjects in organizational behavior (Weick

and Sutcliffe, 2001), individual and organizational reliability (Butler and Gray, 2006), reliability and

conflict handling (Ndubisi, 2012), relationship quality (Saavedra et al, 2010), customer orientation

(Ndubisi, 2012), innovation and information technologies (Swanson and Ramiller, 2004), ideal school

and classroom education (Demick, 2000; Richard and Perkins, 2000), creativity (Reilly et al, 2010),

organizational media uses (Timmerman, 2002), and past experiences on mindfulness of habitual

entrepreneurs (Rerup, 2005).

Mindfulness aspects are defined as a sense of wonder, a feeling of union with nature, a sense of

peace of mind, a feeling of wholeness, a feeling of joy, a feeling of living in the present movement,

and a sense of being accepted within the universe (Jacob and Brinkerhoff, 1999). Mindfulness at

individual level involves openness to novelty, alertness to distinction, sensitivity to different contexts,

awareness of multiple perspectives, and orientation in the present-paying attention to the

immediate situation (Sternberg, 2000). Mindfulness is considered to require a desire to continually

renew situational awareness, to cast doubt, and probe further to resolve doubtfulness (Malhotra,

Lee, and Uslay, 2012); mindlessness is defined by decreased activation of the cognitive, a resulting

state of a reliance on past experience, , as in the case of an automatic pilot (Langer, 1989).

Psychologically, mindfulness refers to the cognitive qualities of individuals’ state of alertness and

awareness, which is characterized by active information processing, the continual creation of new

categories and distinctions, and the exploration of and attention to multiple perspectives (Langer,

1989). Another definition states that it is a receptive attention to, and awareness of present events

and experience (Brown et al., 2007). Studies of the mindfulness concept in business context provide

the following definition: an ongoing identification of new dimensions of context, which can improve

foresight and current functioning, connecting and sharing individuals’ mindfulness to create new

meaning and knowledge to help individuals and organizations to achieve greater congruence

between intentions and outcomes (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006). Accordingly, areas covered by

organizational mindfulness include preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to

operations, commitment to resilience and deference to expertise. Sheth, Sethia and Srinivas (2011)

emphasize the necessity for redirecting the consumption patterns for a more sustainable world via

market operations. Mindful consumption is defined as a way to reach this goal. It represents a

confluence of a mindful mindset and mindful behavior. The mindful mindset is associated with “a

sense of caring for self, for community and for nature”, and mindful behavior is characterized by

“tempering of excesses associated with acquisitive, repetitive and aspirational consumption modes”.

The customer-centric sustainability is defined as the consumption-mediated impact of marketing

actions on the consumer’s environmental, personal and economic well-being (Sheth, Sethia and

Srinivas, 2011).

In comparison to managerial approaches, marketing has only recently focused on mindfulness. In

managerial context, mindfulness approaches mainly focus on individuals’ and organizations’ ability to

achieve reliable performance in changing environments in terms of how they think, gather

information, and perceive the world around them, and whether they are able to change their

perspective according to the emerging situation (Langer, 1989, 1997). A study in marketing field

comes from Malhotra, Lee, and Uslay (2012), focusing on the mediating role of mindful marketing;

however, this study focuses not on the consumption side, but on the effect of mindful marketing on

quality orientations, their interaction and consequences.

More recent studies on mindful consumption includes diverse studies, such as challenges against

transformation to mindful consumption (Bahl et. Al, 2016), a systematic literature review on the

concept (Fischer et. Al, 2017), views of different consumer segments (Milne et al., 2020), scale

development and validation (Gupta and Verma, 2019), effects of mindfulness meditation on mindful

action and life satisfactions (Gupta and Verma, 2019), and a critical review of mindfulness and

sustainability relationship (Thiermann and Sheate, 2020).

Sheth, Sethia and Srinivas (2011) point out that attitudes and values shape the consumption

patterns. A change in both behavior and mindset levels through bringing greater consciousness,

referred to as mindful consumption, is deemed as a particular solution to the problem of

“overconsumption”. Humanity has a real obligation to protect the environment regardless of

utilitarian concerns, and thus, caring for self, for the community and for nature are defined as the

motivators for behavioral change towards mindful consumption (Sheth et al., 2011). In this process

of behavioral change, marketing is considered to have a potential role in facilitating mindful

consumption, and to advance it by encouraging and reinforcing through the use of product, price,

promotion, and place attributes.

Mindful marketing is referred to as an increasingly important notion that aligns marketers’ and

consumers’ interests. The expected mission of such marketing is cultivating mindful consumption

through means that are effective, efficient, and ethical, while simultaneously considering the

interests of both buyers and sellers (Sheth and Sisodia, 2006). Accordingly, marketers should seek

ways to find win-win strategies by aligning marketing functions with consumer interests and thus

prevent waste-producing, unethical marketing.

With all its strategies mindfully-designed to address the gap between consumers and marketers,

mindful marketing is considered to lead to mindful consumption, value co-creation, which in turn,

increases the mindfulness of consumption (Malhotra, Lee and Uslay, 2012). Mindful consumption-

oriented marketing takes into account consumers’ environmental, personal and economic well-being

(Sheth et al., 2011). Accordingly, the core value of such consumption is dependent on consumer’s

mindset of caring for themselves, the community and nature through transforming behavior,

tempering their self-deferating? surpluses associated with acquisitive, repetitive and aspirational

consumption.

Diverse names are given to mindful consumption behavior practices. In literature, the terms

voluntary simplicity, ethical consumption, green consumption and socially responsible consumption

can be regarded as subcategories of mindful consumption, or as paths towards mindful behavior. A

green consumer, for instance, is defined as “goal-oriented people who take into account the public

impacts of their consumptions, aim to create social change, and improve the sustainable

development” (Webster, 1975), and behaviors of those consumers are considered to be ethically

oriented (Anderson and Cunningham, 1972). Peattie (1998) moves the focus of research on green

consumers from the individual consumer to individual purchase. Accordingly, two aspects affecting

individual purchase are “the degree of compromise”, that is, the necessity to pay more or travel

further, and “the degree of confidence”, that is, the consumer’s level of confidence that the product

addresses a genuine issue and represents an environmental benefit.

Similar to green consumers, a socially responsible consumer is considered to be contributing to

sustainability, and is defined as “a non-violent person who is in search of spiritual growth, values the

beauty of the world and has an ability to see and to give energy to all the good things in the world”

(Webster, 1975). Socially responsible consumers may also adopt the concept of voluntary simplicity,

which is the “singleness of purpose, sincerity and honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior

clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief purpose of life, an ordering and guiding of our

energy and our desires, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure greater abundance of

life in other directions” (Gregg, 1936 quoted in Elgin, 1977). Gregg’s formulation of the concept and a

number of more recent writings have emphasized the spiritual dimension of this conservation-

oriented life style; however, voluntary simplicity is summarized as material simplicity (non-

consumption-oriented patterns of use), self-determination (desire to assume greater control over

personal destiny), ecological awareness (recognition of the interdependency of people and

resources), human scale (a desire for smaller-scale institutions and technologies), and personal

growth (a desire to explore and develop the inner self) (Elgin and Mitchell, 1977, p.5). It is defined as

the degree to which individuals select a lifestyle intended to maximize their direct control over daily

activities, and to minimize their consumption and dependency (Barton, 1981). Such examples

demonstrate individual behavior patterns that may be categorized under mindful behavior

attributes.

While writing our literature review, we found a study conducted in 2006 by Christensen et al. (2007),

which was very similar to the current research in its focus on how business schools respond to the

concepts of ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability in terms of education. Their

focus is more on management curriculums, but nevertheless, supports our point of view and

research aim, by emphasizing the importance of integrating emerging concepts to business

curriculums. This also enlightened our research methodology, described in the following section.

Methodology

Scope of the Study

This research is designed to compare the MBA curriculums of Financial Times 2012 MBA ranking

analysis to Financial Times 2022 Global MBA rankings while also seeking to understand

understanding the evolution of the content’s integration to the marketing curriculums. The current

study is based on Financial Times Global rankings 2012

and 2022

. Other ranking services, such as

Times Higher Education Rankings, QS World University Rankings and US News World rankings, were

rejected in favor of a global list, with a larger sample of schools, at least 100 universities, and an MBA

specific list. Additionally, the researchers chose to base the research on a media source targeting the

business community. The research focused on MBA programs due to the practical nature of the field.

Business professionals attending particular Executive MBA programs are focused on managerial or

The list has been accessed through http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2012

on April 27, 2012. The complete list is included in the appendix.

The list has been accessed through https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2866/mba-2022

on March 2, 2022. The complete list is included in the appendix.

entrepreneurial skills rather than academic careers. Most MBA students have substantial work

experience after their undergraduate degrees. Many are supported by their employing organizations,

financially or through released time. Therefore, MBA programs have considerable connections with

the business world which directly impacts society at large.

Research Questions

The research aims to understand and compare how top 100 MBA schools have adapted their

curriculums to the evolving nature of marketing and world conditions since 2012. The research is

based on exploring the following questions:

• Do the top 100 MBA schools integrate concepts of “mindful consumption”,

“sustainable/sustainability”, “social responsibility”, “green marketing”, “green consumer”,

“economic development”, “ecological sustainability” into their overall curriculum, core

marketing courses and elective courses?

• Do the top 100 MBA schools have separate specialty areas or concentrations with the

selected concepts in marketing academia?

• How the MBA schools listed by FT 2022 compared to 2012 Global Rankings respond to the

change in the marketing academia?

Research Methodology

The MBA program curriculums of Business Schools listed in top 100 in 2012 and 2022 were accessed

through their respective websites. The above selected concepts were investigated separately in

terms of course contents and course descriptions listed in the curriculums of the MBA programs.

First, the overall curriculums of the MBA and Executive MBA programs were analyzed to see whether

any of these concepts were visible in the main description of the program. Later, each of the core

marketing courses, and the elective courses were individually analyzed. In this process, first, the

course names were reviewed and analyzed to identify any specific courses directly named with these

concepts. In case of the presence of such a course, the course content and description were analyzed

to understand how the concept was integrated. Also, each marketing course and marketing elective

was analyzed separately via the course descriptions to understand if they included these or similar

concepts sharing the same aim. In 2012, only 3 of these 100 MBA programs omitted detailed

information about their curriculums, while in 2022, the number was 7. After excluding those with

insufficient information, the detailed analysis included 97 MBA programs in 2012 and 93 MBA

programs in 2022.

Results and Discussion: What Has Changed Within a Decade?

For the year 2012, the analyses of 100 MBA schools are categorized in three groups. The first group is

analyzed in terms of primary attention to the selected concepts, and includes the universities who

focus on the concepts and those who included them in their core courses. The core courses are also

analyzed and grouped in terms of marketing or management-oriented courses. Then, those schools

who have concentrations and core courses were grouped as the schools with primary attention to

the concepts under focus. Secondly, the elective courses were grouped in terms of the ecological

and social focus areas, again with marketing or management orientation; and those with either

management or marketing-oriented electives were categorized under the second group, i.e., those

with secondary attention to the selected concepts. Finally, all the universities in 2012 were grouped

geographically. Grouping was done for all the universities in 2012., and this grouping was repeated

for the year 2022 for comparative analysis. An additional grouping was included for those universities

with special centers, concentrations, focus areas for sustainability or mindfulness orientations.

It was clear that much had changed within a decade. The analysis of FT 2022 Global Rankings shows

that the ecological and social focus of most of the universities increased sharply, parallel to the

awareness about the concept and the effect of global problems. For 2022, it would have been

convenient to avoid grouping the universities with primary or secondary attention, because nearly all

focus on the concepts through incorporating either core or elective courses into their curriculum.

Instead, therefore, a similar grouping was performed in terms of focus, core courses, elective courses

and geographical concentrations available in the universities.

Universities with Primary Attention to the Selected Concepts

The first set of tables provides a comparative analysis the overall orientations of the schools in the

lists, in terms of integrating the concepts to their MBA curricula. The data is analyzed according to

the availability of a core course, an elective course, or a special center/focus area. Ecological focus is

more related to the sustainability aspect, while social focus examines the lists of schools having

social-oriented courses, either focused on management or marketing. Table 1 shows the universities

with special concentration areas in the 2012 list, while table 2 shows the overall concentrations in

2022. Whereas in 2012, less than 10 schools had a focus on three of these concepts, the number had

nearly tripled by 2022. The tables for 2012 includes all the schools analyzed and found on list,

however, the numbers nearly doubled, therefore, the tables include only details of the top 5 schools,

while the total number is also given in the table

Table 1

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Focus - 2012

Ecological Focus

(5)

Social Focus

(3)

Ecological + Social Focus

(2)

MIT:Sloan

University of

Pennsylvania:Wharton

Emory University:Goizueta

Business School

Duke University

University of Oxford: Said

Business School

University of Toronto: Rotman

School of Management

University of Michigan: C Stephen M.

Ross School of Business

University of Illinois at

Urbana -Champaign

UCLA:Anderson School of

Management

University of Virginia: Darden School

of Business

Boston University School of

Management

BabsonCollege: Olin

The total numbers of available schools are shown in the table, but only top 5 names are listed for 2022 list.

Please contact the authors for the full list and analysis of the universities.

Table 2

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Focus - 2022

Ecological Focus

(33)

Social Focus

(37)

Ecological + Social Focus

(9)

Edhec Business School

Ohio State University: Fisher

College of Business

Insead

IE Business School

Alliance Manchester Business

School

University of Virginia: Darden

School of Business

Imperial College Business School

Northwestern University,

Kellogg School of Management

University of Oxford: Saïd

Business School

Essec Business School

Emory University Goizueta

Business School

Imperial College Business School

Durham University Business

School

Yale School of Management

University of North Carolina:

Kenan-Flagler

As part of the first set of comparison with primary intention of schools to the concepts, Table 3 and

Table 4 shows the core course analysis in the lists of 2012 and 2022. The core courses within the

selected universities focus more on the management aspect, while a sharp increase is clearly visible

in number of courses offered by the schools. Fewer than 10 schools have core courses focusing on

the concepts in 2012, but this number had nearly doubled by 2022, although with a stronger focus

for the management than marketing orientation.

Table 3

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Core Courses - 2012

Management courses

Marketing courses

Social Focus

London Business School

IE Business School

China Europe International Business School

Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School

LancasterUniversity of Management School

University of Minnesota Carlson School of

Management

University of Washington Foster School of

Business

Thunderbird School of Global Management

Aston Business School

Ecological Focus

University of Illinois at

Urbana Champaign

Ecological + Social

Focus

Hong Kong UST Business School

Dartmouth College Tuck

School of Business

University of Cape Town GBS

Vanderbilt University Owen Graduate School

of Management

George Washington University

Table 4 shows the universities offering marketing or management courses as core curriculum in

2022

. Both social and ecological focused courses have become more numerous, and European

universities and the United States offer more of such courses compared to 2012. In the US, Europe

and Asia, schools can be found that focus on both the social and ecological impacts in core courses

such as State and Society, Sustainable Operations, Business, Environment and Sustainability, Business

and Environment, Social Entrepreneurship, Management in Public and Private Nonprofit Sector,

Green Energy Entrepreneurship, Climate change, Sustainable Luxury: CSR and Impact Strategies in

the Luxury Sector. Two universities, Alliance Manchester Business School and Esade Business School,

offer marketing courses, such as Managing Ethics and Social Responsibility, and Not for profit

consultancy project under marketing fields.

Table 4

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Core Courses - 2022

Management Courses

Marketing Courses

Social Focus

Ohio State University: Fisher

College of Business

Alliance Manchester Business

School

Northwestern University,

Kellogg School of Management

Esade Business School

Yale School of Management

Esade Business School

Ecological Focus

Essec Business School

IE Business School

Edhec Business School

Durham University Business

School

Yale School of Management

Ecological + Social Focus

Insead

University of North Carolina:

Kenan-Flagler

Essec Business School

Yale School of Management

HEC Paris

Only top 5 schools are listed. Please contact the authors for full list if needed.

Universities with Secondary Attention to the Selected Concepts

Additionally, there was also sharp increase in elective courses offered in curriculum. Table 5-1 and 5-

2 show the universities offering elective courses in the 2012 list, while Table 6 shows the universities

offering elective courses in 2022 within the MBA programs

Table 5-1

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Elective Courses - 2012

Management courses

Marketing courses

Social Focus

Insead

Duke University

Hong Kong UST Business School

New York University Stern School

of Business

Indian Institute of Management

University of Oxford Said

Business School

Georgetown University McDonough School of

Business

University of Western Ontario

Richard Ivey School of Business

Rice University Jones Graduate School

SMU Cox School of Business

Imperial College Business School-London

Boston College Carrol School of Management

Lancaster University Management School

University of Minnesota Carlson School of

Management

Thunderbird School of Global Management

University of St. Gallen

Ecological

Focus

Harvard Business School

Stanford Graduate School of

Business

New York University Stern School of Business

Pennsylvania State University

Smeal College of Business

Indian School of Business

University of California at Irvine

Paul Merage School of Business

Yale School of Management

Nanyang Business School

University of Edinburgh Business School

It is inspiring to learn that mindfulness-oriented courses can be found in universities’ elective

curriculums in all areas of world. There seem to be fewer marketing focused courses compared to

management, but more elective courses are available in the field now than a decade earlier, both

ecologically and socially. In 2012, there was a limited number of elective courses (less than 15) in all

fields.

Only top 5 schools are listed in the table for 2022 while the whole list is included in 2012. Please contact the

authors for the full list 2022 if needed.

Table 5-2

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Elective Courses - 2012

Management courses

Marketing courses

Ecological +

Social Focus

Columbia Business School

Ohio State University Fisher

College of Business

IESE Business School

University of California at Berkeley - Haas School

of Business

Johnson Cornell University

University of Cambridge Judge Business School

University of Michigan – Stephen M. Ross School

of Business

Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of

Business

University of Virginia Darden School of Business

University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler

Business School

Ohio State University Fisher College of Business

University of Washington Foster School of

Business

George Washington University

University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of

Business

University of College Dublin Michael Smurfit

Graduate Business School

However, in the 2022 list, 71 out of 100 schools were offering electives. These were given names

such as climate change and business strategy; sustainability and competitive advantage; integrity,

responsibility and good governance in business; sustainability marketing; sustainability business;

business and climate change; business and ethics at the base of the pyramid; business and society;

corporate responsibility; ethical decision-making; ethics in action; impact investing: capital for social

impact; managing for social impact; social entrepreneurship; sustainability strategy; social

entrepreneurship; building businesses for sustainability; and leading social innovation.

Table 6

Grouping of the Universities in Terms of Elective Courses – 2022

Management Courses

Marketing Courses

Social Focus

Emory University Goizueta

Business School

Esade Business School

Yale School of Management

Georgetown University

Mcdonough School of Business

Esade Business School

New York University Stern School

of Business

Politecnico di Milano School of

Management

University of California at Berkeley

Haas School of Business

University of Toronto Rotman

School of Management

Rutgers Business School

Ecological Focus

Imperial College Business

School

Yale School of Management

WHU – Otto Beisheim School

of Management

Politecnico di Milano School of

Management

London Business School

Ecological + Social Focus

Insead

Dartmouth College Tuck School of

Business

University of Virginia Darden

Georgetown University

McDonough School of Business

University of Oxford Saïd

Business School

New York University Stern School

of Business

Imperial College Business

School

University of California at Berkeley

Haas School of Business

Essec Business School

The final set of tables geographically compares the schools in the list of two years incorporating the

concepts into their curricula. There is considerable increase in overall number of the universities

offering courses or having centers worldwide.

Figure 1

Geographical distribution of the schools offering mindfulness courses

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Europe

Asia

Africa

Oceania/Other (Australia and…

Schools Offering Mindfulness Courses

2012 vs. 2022

Number of Schools offering courses

2022

Number of Schools offering courses

2012

Table 7-1 and 7-2 show the geographical grouping comparably between the two years, and show an

almost two-fold increase in the number of schools offering courses either as core or elective. It is

exciting to see a greater number of Asian countries within the list, and also a growing number of

Australia and Canada schools offering specific courses. The number of courses in US and European

universities seems to have slightly decreased while universities in Asian as well as other regions

gained a higher profile. It is, however, disappointing to see the African region eliminated from the

list, and it is possible that there is a specific, but yet unknown reason for this.

Table 7-1 Geographical Distribution of Universities- 2012

2012

Total

Those

without

any

course

Those

with

courses

36,7%

63.3%

Europe

46.2%

53.8%

Asia

54.5%

45.5%

Africa

100%

Oceania/Other

(Australia and

Canada)

100%

Total number

100

100%

Table 7-2 Geographical Distribution of Universities- 2022

2022

Total

Those

without

any

course

Those

with

courses

96%

Europe

19.2%

80.8%

Asia

11.1%

88.9%

Africa

Oceania/Other

(Australia and

Canada)

100%

Total number

100

100%

A final grouping shows the universities with specialized centers on sustainability, social innovation,

social entrepreneurship, or mindfulness as of 2022. Table 8, provides grounds for optimism for a

continued increase in the number of universities with established centers or research concentrations,

initiatives or focus areas for the concepts.

Table 8

Universities in terms of Centers, Specializations or Focus Areas – 2022

Universities with Specialized Centers on Sustainability, Social Innovation or Mindfulness

US (28 schools)

Yale School of Management

Miami University Herbert Business School

University of Pittsburgh Joseph M. Katz Graduate School

of Business

The Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania

Washington University Olin School of Business

Boston University Questrom School of Business

Europe (6 schools)

University of Oxford Saïd Business School

HEC Paris

IMD Business School

University of Cambridge Judge

Mannheim Business School

Lancaster University Management School

Asia (China, Singapour; Mexico,

South Korea, India, Hong Kong)

(6 schools)

Tsinghua University School of Economics and

Management

NTU Singapore Nanyang Business School

CUHK Business School

Ipade Business School

HKUST Business School

Indian Institute of Management Calcutta

Other (Australia, Canada)

(2 schools)

Smith School of Business at Queen's University

Melbourne Business School

Total

Although most development was seen in US, interest in more specialized research has grown in

Europe and Asia since 2012. Furthermore, Australia and Canadian Universities have similarly

witnessed increasing awareness on mindfulness. University of Oxford: Said directs Skoll Centre for

Social Entrepreneurship, University of Pittsburgh: Katz directs Special Center for Sustainable

Business, University of Maryland: Smith directs the Center for Social Value, University of Texas at

Austin: McCombs directs the Global Sustainability Leadership Institute, while several other majors or

special initiatives exist in other universities. 42 of 100 schools have centers, specializations, majors,

or initiatives regarding the concepts independent of geographic location. UCLA Anderson School of

management is one school offering Leaders in Sustainability and Social Impact Specializations.

Conclusion and Future Research

The data shows great changes in the last decade in terms of FT top 100 MBA schools’ integration of

the mindfulness concept to their curriculums. The change is visible in not only centers established to

promote the concepts of sustainability, social innovation or entrepreneurship or mindfulness, but

Top 6 schools are listed for 2022 while the total number available is mentioned in the table. Please contact

authors for the full list if needed.

also in the range of courses offered. The course contents are expanding from sustainability focus

towards a greater social focus, as well as from management to marketing focus. Additionally, in the

management field, it is more common to see courses emphasizing mindfulness or personal well-

being, while the marketing field also started to recognize the crucial importance of our impact on the

world. The geographical data shows a larger awareness and visible impact worldwide. Even though

data evaluation shows a slight decrease in the number of US and European universities involved,

there is growing interest from Asian, Canadian, and Australian universities. It seems obvious that the

world needs more focus in social and sustainable mindfulness and logic, both in theory and in

practice, especially in Asia, considering the need for improvement in life in that region. Despite this

small geographic shift of emphasis, in all geographic areas, there is a much higher number of courses

–both core and elective- available, with a corresponding increase in the centers focusing on these

concepts than 2012.

To sum up, in contrast to 2012, of 100 universities in FT Global Ranking 2022, 42 MBA Schools have

centers or specializations regarding the concepts of ecological or social sustainability, 71 have a wide

variety of electives in both management and marketing field, and 91 actively incorporate the

concepts as well as practical implications into their curriculums.

Further research will be conducted to understand the business community and business

practitioners’ expectations for business schools regarding the inclusion of the concepts to the

curricula, as well as their expectations regarding the implementation of the concepts in the field. The

research will also be expanded to identify the numbers enrolled in those classes, and the number of

related research projects carried out by academia.

References

Achrol, Ravi and Kotler Philip (2012). Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol.40, pp.35-52

Anderson, W.T and Cunningham, W.H. (1972). The Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of Marketing.

Vol. 36. 23-31

Arnould, Eric J. (2007). Should Consumer Citizens Escape the Market?. The ANNALS of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 611, pp.96-111

Bahl et. Al. 2016. Mindfulness: Its Transformative Potential for Consumer, Societal, and Environmental

Well-Being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing .35(2). pp. 1-30

Bansal P. (2005). Evolving Sustainability: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development.

Strategic Management Journal. 26(3),197-2018

Bansal P. and Roth K. (2000). Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness. Academy

of Management Journal. 43(4), 717-736

Belk, Russel W. (1985). Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World. Journal of Consumer

Research. Vol. 12. pp.265-280

Belk, R, Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1996). Consumption and Marketing: Macro Dimensions.

Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing

Belk, R. (2001), Materialism and You. Journal of Research for Consumers. Issue 1 (web-based journal).

http://jrconsumers.com/academic_articles/issue_1?f=5799

Berns, M, Townend, Andrew, Khayat, Zayna, Balagopal, Balu, Reeves, Martin, Hopkins, Michael S. and

Kruschwitz,Nina (2009), The Business of Sustainability: What It Means to Managers Now, MIT

Sloan Management Review

Borin, N and Metcalf Lynn (2010). Integrating Sustainability into the Marketing Curriculum: Learning

Activities That Facilitate Sustainable Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Education. 32:140

Campbell, J.L (2007). Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional

Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review. 32(3), 946-967

Chabowski, B.R, Mena, J. A, Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. (2011). The Structure of Sustainability Research in

Marketing, 1958-2008: A Basis for Future Research Opportunities. Journal of the Academy of the

Marketing Science. 39(1). 55-70

Choi, Sungchul and Ng, Alex (2011). Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price

Effects on Consumer Responses. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.104. pp. 269-282

Christensen et al. (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:

347-368

Closs, D.J, Speier, C., and Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to Support End-to-End Value Chains: The

Role of Supply Chain Management. Journal of the Academy of the Marketing Science. 39(1). 101-

116

Crane, A. and Desmond, J. (2002). Societal Marketing and Morality. European Journal of Marketing.

36(5/6),548-469

Crittenden, Victoria L., Crittenden, William F., Ferrel, Linda K., Ferrel, O. C., and Pinney, Christopher C.

(2010). Market-oriented Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Propositions. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science. Vol.39. pp.71-85

Cronin, J.J, Smith, J.S, Gleim, M.R, Martinez, J, and Ramirez, E. (2011). Sustainability-Oriented Marketing

Strategies: An Examination of Stakeholders and the Opportunities They Present. Journal of the

Academy of the Marketing Science. 39(1). 158-174

Davis, Richard, Misra, Shekhar and Stuart van Auken (2002). A Gap Analysis Approach to Marketing

Curriculum Assessment: A Study of Skills and Knowledge. Journal of Marketing Education. 24:

218

Durning, Alan (1993). How Much Is Enough?. The Social Contract. New York: W.W. Norton & Company

Epstein, E.J, and Roy, M.J. (2003). Making the Business Case for Sustainabilty: Linking Social and

Environmental Actions to Financial Performance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. (9).79-96

Elgin, D. and Mitchell, A. (1977). Voluntary Simplicity. The Co-Evolution Quarterly. Summer: 4-18.

Farrel, C. (2010). The New Frugality:How To Consume Less, Save More and Live Better. New York:

Bloomsbury

Fırat, A. Fuat, Dholakia, Nikhilesh and Venkatesh, Alladi (1995). Marketing in a Postmodern World.

European Journal of Marketing. 29(1). pp.40-56

Fiol, C.M. and O’Connor, E.J. (2003). Walking up! Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons,

Academy of Management Review. 28(1). pp.54-70

Gupta, S and Verma, H. 2019. Mindfulness, mindful consumption, and life satisfaction: An experiment

with higher education students. Journal of Research in Higher Education. 12(3). pp. 456-474

Habib, Maggie (2010). P&G Launches Initiative to Make Conservation of Natural Resources More User

Friendly. http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/29079-P-G-Launches-Initiative-to-Make-

Conservation-of-Natural-Resources-More-User-Friendly

Holbrook, Morris B. (1999). Higher Than the Bottom Line: Reflections on Some Recent Macromarketing

Literature. Journal of Macromarketing. 19(1). pp.48-74

Hult, G. Thomas M. (2011). Market-focused Sustainability:Market Orientation Plus!. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science. Vol.39. pp.1-6

Inglehart, Ronald (1981). Post-materialism in an Environment of Insecurity. American Political Science

Review. 75 (December). 880-900

Jacob, Jeffrey C. and Brinkerhoff, Merlin B. (1999). Mindfullness and Subjective Well-Being In The

Sustainability Movement: A Further Elaboration of Multiple Discrepancies Theory. Social

Indicators Research. Vol. 46. pp.341-368

Kozinets, R.V. (2001). Utopian Enterprise:Articulating the Meaning of Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption.

Journal of Consumer Research. 28 (1). 67-89

Kozinets, R.V. (2002). Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations From Burning Man.

Journal of Consumer Research. 29 (1). 20-38

Kotler, Philip and Levy, J. Sidney (1969). Broadening the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing. 33

(January). 10-15

Laszlo, Chris and Zhexembayeva, Nadya (2011), Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big Competitive

Advantage. Sheffield:Greenleaf Publishing, UK

Layton, Roger A. and Grossbart, Sanford (2006). Macromarketing: Pas, Present, and Possible Future.

Journal of Macromarketing. 26(2). pp.193-213

Lee, D., M.J.Sirgy (2002),V. Larsen, and N. D. Wright (2002). Quality of Life (QOL) Marketing: Proposed

Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Macromarketing. 22(2). 158-169

Mick, David Glen (2007). The End(s) of Marketing and the Neglect of Moral Responsibility. American

Marketing Association. 26 (2). pp.289-292

Moisander, Johanna and Pesonen, Sinikka (2002). Narratives of Sustainable Ways of Living:Constructing

the Self and the Other as a Green Consumer. Management Decision. Vol. 40/4. pp.329-342

Monahan, D, Gearding, R, Hunt, Z. (2011). P&G’S Mindful Challenge:ReLOADED.

Peattie, K. (1998). Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the Green Consumer.

Proceedings of the Business Strategy and the Environment Conference. ERP:Shipley

Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building Sustainable Organizations:The Human Factor. Academy of Management

Perspectives. 24(1). 34-45

Proctor and Gamble (2011). Environmental Sustainability: Sustainable Packaging, Sustainable Operations.

http://www.pg.com/en_US/sustainability/environmental_sustainability/index.html

Sanne, Christer (2002). Willing Consumers-or Locked-in? Policies for a Sustainable Consumption. Urban

Studies. Royal Institute of Technology

Schneiderman, B. (2009). Supply Chain and Sustainability-will this marriage last?. Cygnus Publications

Sheth, Jagdish N., Gardner, David M., and Garret, Dennis E. (1988). The Macromarketing School of

Thought. Marketing Theory, Evolution and Evaluation. 138-144 John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA

Sheth, J.N. and Sisodia, R.S. (2006). Does Marketing Need Reform?, in Sheth, J.N. and

Sisodia, R.S. (Eds). Does Marketing Need Reform: Fresh Perspective on the Future.

M.E.Sharpe, Armonk. NY. pp.3-12

Sheth, Jagdish N., Sethia, Nirmal K. and Srinivas, Shanthi (2009). Mindful Consumption. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science. Vol.39. pp.21-39

Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful Consumption: A Customer-Centric

Approach to Sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 3(9)

pp.21-39

Sheth, Jagdish N. (2011). Impact of Emerging Markets on Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and

Practices. Journal of Marketing. Vol.76. pp.166-182

Shultz, C.J, II, T. J. Burkink, B.Grbac, N.Renko (2005). When Policies and Marketing Systems Explode: An

Assesment of Food Marketing in the War-Ravaged Balkans and Implications for Recovery,

Sustainable Peace, and Prosperity. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 24 (1). 24-37

Spaargaren, Gert (2003). Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective.

Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 16. pp.687-701

Sridharan, Srinivas and Viswanathan, Madhu (2008). Marketing in Subsistence Marketplaces:

Consumption and Entrepreneurship in a South Indian Context. Journal of Consumer Marketing.

25 (7). pp.455-462

Thierman, U.B and Sheate, W. (2019). The Way Forward in Mindfulness and Sustainability: a Critical

Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. 5, pp.118-139

Wapner, P. and Matthew, R. A. (2009). The Humanity of Global Environmental Ethics. Journal of

Environment and Development. Vol.18. 203-222

Webster, F.E. (1975). Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of

Consumer Research.Vol. 2. 188-196

Wilhelm, Wendy Bryce (2012). Encouraging Sustainable Consumption through Product Lifetime

Extension: The Case of Mobile Phones. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 3(3).

pp.17-32

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2008). WBCSD Report on Sustainable Consumption

Facts and Trends. Retrieved on March 15, 2012 from:

http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?DocTypeId=25&ObjectId=MzI2ODI

Young, Mark R. and Murphy, J. William (2003). Integrating Communications Skills into the Marketing

Curriculum: A Case Study. Journal of Marketing Education. 25: 57 http://www.sustainability-

index.com/07_htmle/sustainability/corpsustainability.html