Calls for the inclusion of ‘sustainable development’ in the business curriculum have increased in the wake of financial crisis and increased concern about climate change. As a result, new initiatives are emerging and new teaching approaches are being developed with the expectation that business students will be better equipped to address environmental and social challenges. However, in relation to the business curriculum, education for sustainable development has been argued as being particularly challenging (Springett 2005). The challenges relate to assumptions underpinning orthodox business theories (Hühn 2014) and that sustainability issues often are uncertain and complex. Uncertainty and complexity is particularly challenging for predominant responsibility regimes relying on science as a source of independent, objective and reliable knowledge.

To facilitate an analysis of the applicability of different responsibility regimes for addressing complex and uncertain sustainability issues, Pellizzoni (2004) has developed a typology of responsibility regimes. Liability regimes are based on laws and regulations and can be likened to the ‘polluter-pays-principle’. Accountability regimes are characterised by ‘good governance’ or ‘the audit society’. Care regimes are based on normative beliefs, e.g. the idea that the welfare state should take care of its citizens or, from a business perspective, the ‘good master’ taking responsibility for the needs of his workers that he knows the best. Responsiveness regimes implies taking responsibility by anticipating the needs of others without being prompted or without the need for previously established principles. Different responsibility regimes have different implications for what a responsible business person needs to know and do. These include knowing and following laws and regulations in the juridical system (liability regime), formulating and following up on self-imposed principles (accountability regime), knowing and providing for the needs of one’s workers as the good master (care regime) and listening to what stakeholders want before deciding what to do (responsiveness regime).

When acknowledging uncertainty and complexity as a permanent condition, a rupture occurs in the linear process from scientific knowledge to legislation that industry could rely on to operate ‘safely’. This implies a deficit with regard to liability regimes, because the system requires a state that knows what to ask for and how to apply control and sanctions. This deficit can be seen as a backdrop to the development of accountability regimes. Proponents of accountability regimes emphasise the benefits of the integration of environmental concern in corporate decision-making. However, in face of uncertainty and complexity, accountability regimes suffer from the same deficit as liability regimes, in that both regimes depend on predefined principles (expressed in law or in the form of voluntary regulations).  In contrast to liability and accountability regimes, care or responsiveness regimes do not rely on pre-defined principles. Either one just knows, like a mother is assumed to know the needs of her child (care regime) or one makes a judgement by listening to others needs in a given situation (responsiveness regime). In the absence of principles, personal feelings are necessary ‘tools’ when listening to the needs of others and deciding what to do. Considering the deficits of liability and accountability regimes in the face of uncertainty and complexity, Pellizzoni argues (without discarding other regimes) for an increased attention to responsibility understood as responsiveness (Pellizzoni 2007).

Against this background, it is important to contribute with knowledge about how education for sustainable development can enhance responsible business practices. The purpose of this article is thus to contribute knowledge about the roles of a business person that are articulated in business education when the concept of sustainable development is included in the curriculum, and how these roles can make students, as future business people equipped to address uncertain and complex sustainability issues. 

Andersson, Pernilla. Teaching business education for sustainability. Andersson, Pernilla. 2016. "The Responsible Business Person - Studies of Business Education for Sustainability." Phd, Södertörn University (Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 116). Andersson, Pernilla. accepted. "Business as un-usual through dislocatory moments." Environmental Education Research. Andersson, Pernilla, and Johan Öhman. 2015. "Logics of business education for sustainability." Environmental Education Research:1-17. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1015493. Andersson, Pernilla, Johan Öhman, and Leif Östman. 2011. "A business to change the world." Utbildning & Demokrati 20 (1):57-74. Fergus, A. H. T., and J. I. A. Rowney. 2005. "Sustainable Development: Lost Meaning and Opportunity?" Journal of Business Ethics 60 (1):17-27. doi: 10.2307/25075243. Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth. 2007. Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory, Routledge innovations in political theory ; 26. London: Routledge. Gross, Matthias. 2007. "The Unknown in Process Dynamic Connections of Ignorance, Non-Knowledge and Related Concepts." Current Sociology 55 (5):742-759. Hühn, MatthiasPhilip. 2014. "You Reap What You Sow: How MBA Programs Undermine Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics no. 121 (4):527-541. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1733-z. Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New reflections on the revolution of our time, Phronesis (London), 99-1834809-7. London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985/2001. Hegemony and socialist strategy : towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso. Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2004. "Responsibility and Environmental Governance." Environmental Politics 13 (3):541-565. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000229034. Springett, Delyse. 2005. "‘Education for sustainability’ in the business studies curriculum: a call for a critical agenda." Business Strategy and the Environment no. 14 (3):146-159. doi: 10.1002/bse.447.