Decoupling responsible management education: Do business schools walk their talk?

Abstract

Corporate scandals in recent decades have prompted business schools to advance programs to better develop the next generation of responsible business leaders. Despite these efforts, some scholars have raised concerns about the effectiveness of responsible management education (RME), particularly that business schools have decoupled pedagogical practices from stated RME objectives. That is, a school's actual RME implementation does not match its stated commitment. Given limited empirical evidence verifying decoupling and its conditions, we surveyed undergraduate students at U.S. business schools, applying the theory of planned behavior to assess factors influencing student intentions to practice responsible management in their careers. We found some evidence of decoupling, including indication that a school's external commitment to RME as well as its level of RME curriculum integration do not reliably overcome decoupling to improve RME effectiveness. The results thus indicate that business schools may not fully walk their responsible management talk. We provide feedback on how to help resource-constrained schools combat decoupling, highlighting the need to particularly strengthen faculty subjective norm and student perceived behavior control to better influence student responsible management intentions.

Full text

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Abstract
Corporate scandals in recent decades have prompted business schools to advance programs to
better develop the next generation of responsible business leaders. Despite these efforts, some
scholars have raised concerns about the effectiveness of responsible management education
(RME), particularly that business schools have decoupled pedagogical practices from stated
RME objectives. That is, a school’s actual RME implementation does not match its stated
commitment. Given limited empirical evidence verifying decoupling and its conditions, we
surveyed undergraduate students at U.S. business schools, applying the theory of planned
behavior to assess factors influencing student intentions to practice responsible management in
their careers. We found some evidence of decoupling, including indication that a school’s
external commitment to RME as well as its level of RME curriculum integration do not reliably
overcome decoupling to improve RME effectiveness. The results thus indicate that business
schools may not fully walk their responsible management talk. We provide feedback on how to
help resource-constrained schools combat decoupling, highlighting the need to particularly
strengthen faculty subjective norm and student perceived behavior control to better influence
student responsible management intentions.
Key words: responsible management education, ethics, sustainability, decoupling, theory of
planned behavior, institutional theory
1

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
1. INTRODUCTION
Responsible management represents the ethical balance of economic, social, and environmental
goals for business leadership, thereby encompassing overlapping fields such as ethics, corporate
social responsibility, and sustainability (Nonet, Kassel, & Meijs, 2016; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015).
Existing literature supports a breadth of motivations to engage in responsible management
practices. Foremost, scholars emphasize the ethical basis for responsible management, including
conforming to social expectations and ensuring the long term viability of society (Mintzberg,
1983). From an organizational perspective, responsible management can lead to enhanced
organizational performance (such as cost reduction), customer loyalty, and employee retention
(Haugh & Talwar, 2010; Margolis, Elfenbein, & Walsh, 2007; Russo & Fouts, 1997). Additional
motivations include meeting governmental expectations and sustaining environmental resources
(Bansal & Roth, 2000; Darnall, Jolley, & Handfield, 2008).
With this, scholars have emphasized a change in the role of the manager to engage in
responsible management to meet the expectations of diverse stakeholders (Radoynovska, Ocasio,
& Laasch, 2020). As Peter Drucker (1973, p. 325) stresses “If the managers of our major
institutions, and especially of business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one
else can or will.” Mintzberg (1983, p. 11) further underscores how “problems of social
responsibility are inherent in the very conception of the large corporation.” Business leaders
have since demonstrated some action in pursuing responsible management initiatives while
adding responsible management to key organizational performance indicators (Kell & Haertle,
2011; Moosmayer & Davis, 2016).
Yet some declare limited progress in responsible management practice, noting continued
corporate ethical violations (Chen & Soltes, 2018; Porter & Kramer, 2019). As one obstacle,
Schaltegger and Hörisch (2017) declare that firms primarily pursue sustainability to merely boost
2

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
reputation and legitimacy with stakeholders. Traditional business education may also be to
blame for similar reasons (Petriglieri, 2012; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). In specific, while business
schools have increasingly incorporated responsible management into curricula (Rasche, Gilbert,
& Schedel, 2013; Snelson-Powell, Grosvold, & Millington, 2016), some scholars have raised
concerns of “decoupling” wherein schools externally communicate a commitment to responsible
management education (RME) but then insufficiently implement RME to bring about meaningful
change (Rasche et al., 2013; Snelson-Powell et al., 2016). In other words, business schools
symbolically adopt the RME concept but do not follow through on implementation in the school
or curricula, provoking subsequent claims that some business schools may not walk their talk
and that responsible management is not yet embedded in business schools (Alcaraz,
Marcinkowska, & Thiruvattal, 2011; Doh & Tashman, 2014). If decoupling is, indeed,
problematic in U.S. business schools, we are then potentially failing to prepare our students to
meet the social, ethical, and sustainability challenges that await them in the workplace. In turn,
we would not expect improvements in responsible management professional practice as
requested by our stakeholders like employers, NGOs, and even the students themselves. In the
long run, responsible management will then fail to reach its desired level of effectiveness.
Ultimately, scholars seem to agree on the importance of RME, but “much less is known
about the conditions under which implementation occurs” (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015, p. 248).
Likewise, empirical evidence of decoupling is still highly limited. Our paper therefore
investigates RME decoupling by focusing on responsible management perspectives of students
from six U.S. business schools with different levels of commitment to and implementation of
RME. In doing so, we seek to address two related research questions. First, can we find
evidence of RME decoupling? Second and if so, what conditions promote or inhibit decoupling?
3

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
We address these questions with analyses of survey data from U.S. business students,
applying both institutional theory and the theory of planned behavior. In doing so, we seek to
offer several contributions given claims of limited RME integration. First, extant literature has
yet to provide sufficient empirical evidence of decoupling (Moratis, 2016; Rasche & Gilbert,
2015). Consequently, we test RME decoupling conditions to understand if and how it occurs.
As a second, related contribution, evaluating RME decoupling “helps us to better understand the
necessary conditions for changing educational practices” (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015, p. 248).
Specifically, we apply the theory of planned behavior to provide constructive insight into how
schools can deploy constrained resources to improve RME effectiveness as well as better
promote responsible management initiatives to students (Cheng & Chu, 2014). Third, previous
RME research has typically not measured actual student outcomes (Cullen, 2017), and existing
empirical decoupling research relies on data from business school administrators (e.g., deans,
program directors). Without student perspectives like that herein however, we cannot ascertain if
RME efforts are ultimately effective.
The remainder of the paper starts with a review of RME. We then apply institutional
theory to develop research hypotheses of potential decoupling conditions. We subsequently
empirically evaluate decoupling under the lens of the theory of planned behavior to investigate
how students’ responsible management intentions in their future careers are influenced by
particular components of RME, specifically their attitudes about responsible management, their
perceptions about how faculty view responsible management, and their beliefs in their abilities to
practice responsible management. We then present the research methods, including survey data
collection and subsequent application of group-moderated structural equation modeling. We
close by discussing ideas and opportunities inferred by the results.
4

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
2. RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION (RME)
Business education throughout the 20th century focused heavily on profitability and shareholder
value without significant attention to social impacts (Friedman, 1982). As concerns have
deepened over corporate scandals however, employers and other stakeholders like non-
government organizations (NGOs) increasingly contend that business schools must play a critical
role in building responsible management skills through RME (Laasch & Gherardi, 2019;
Weybrecht, 2017). Laasch (2018) emphasizes the importance of focusing individual leaders who
incorporate responsible management in daily practices. As such, business schools are expected
to produce leaders with specific responsible management competences who can not only
integrate economic, environmental, and social criteria into decisions but also ensure
organizational accountability of these decisions (Doherty, Meehan, & Richards, 2015; Dyllick,
2015; Laasch & Moosmayer, 2016). Our definition of responsible management as the ethical
balance of economic, social, and environmental goals for business leadership therefore
encompasses extant literature of overlapping, interrelated topics in business ethics, corporate
social responsibility, and sustainability (Nonet et al., 2016), which share a vision within business
education of enhancing responsible management professional practice with formal knowledge,
critical thinking, and soft skills (Nonet et al., 2016; Rasche et al., 2013; Rosenbloom, Gudić,
Parkes, & Kronbach, 2017). The definition allows for a flexible and broad interpretation of
responsible management to meet the objectives of individual educational and business
institutions (Alcaraz et al., 2011).
2.1 RME Legitimacy
5

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Institutional theory provides a practical context for the pursuit of RME as well as potential
associated decoupling. Institutional theory maintains that organizations recognize acceptable or
desirable behavior relative to “some socially constructed system of norms” (Suchman, 1995, p.
575). They then conform to such expectations to be seen as legitimate by others (Scott, 1995).
For example, as stakeholders to business education such as students, accreditation bodies,
employers, and NGOs intensify expectations about responsible management mindsets and skills,
schools face pressure to embed RME into academic and career readiness programs or risk losing
legitimacy in the eyes of these stakeholders (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Accordingly, business
schools have communicated greater commitment to RME in the last decade (Hommel &
Thomas, 2014; Moon & Orlitzky, 2011; Snelson-Powell et al., 2016).
However, attaining RME legitimacy is challenged by the underlying time and resource-
intensive requirements of implementing RME programs and curricula (Painter-Morland, 2015;
Solitander, Fougère, Sobczak, & Herlin, 2012). For instance, RME entails a complex blend of
top-down change from leadership and bottom-up consensus building by faculty (Doherty et al.,
2015; Greenberg et al., 2017), requiring agility and eagerness to change curricula (Cornuel &
Hommel, 2015; Weybrecht, 2017). Yet faculty may deflect such responsibility to others (Maloni,
Smith, & Napshin, 2012), and academic freedom can impair the enforcement of curriculum
change (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Faculty also highlight the lack of contemporary RME
pedagogical tools (e.g., case studies) (Baetz & Sharp, 2004; Doh & Tashman, 2014). Moreover,
resource-starved schools may divert attention from RME to revenue-generating initiatives such
as executive MBA programs or highly visible majors (Doherty et al., 2015; Rasche & Gilbert,
2015). Resources are also siphoned away to support accreditation and school rankings (Cornuel
& Hommel, 2015; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Last, research productivity seems to represent the
6

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
definitive standard of business school performance (Doherty et al., 2015), just as net income may
override long term social and environmental initiatives in industry.
2.2 Decoupling
With these challenges, business schools can struggle to build, implement, and maintain
comprehensive RME initiatives. Following institutional theory, such challenges in
operationalizing RME pose barriers to the school’s ability to conform (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
That is, external RME expectations conflict with internal constraints and capabilities. To resolve
this conflict, schools could decouple actual RME practices from stated objectives. Specifically,
decoupled RME signifies “symbolic” or “ceremonial” implementation with limited
transformation of values and curriculum (Moratis, 2016; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). As such,
RME may not be integrated into the school’s culture, signaling a lack of importance to students
(i.e., hidden curriculum) (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Likewise, faculty sense the lack of school
commitment and cynically do not follow the stated RME vision (MacLean & Behnam, 2010;
Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Decoupling can therefore lead to “patchy” and “ad hoc” RME learning
(Doherty et al., 2015; Hommel, Painter-Morland, & Wang, 2012; Rasche et al., 2013).
Decoupling fundamentally challenges RME, “making it unclear how many schools are in
reality committed to the substantive implementation and how many hide behind general
statements” (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015, P. 240). Although scholars subsequently stress the need to
evaluate external RME claims versus actual pedagogical practices (Snelson-Powell et al., 2016),
only a few scholars have directly addressed decoupling. These works provide some, albeit
limited, indication that business schools are inclined to overstate the extent to which RME is
implemented. In one study, Rasche and Gilbert (2015) construct but do not test theoretical
arguments for decoupling, arguing that factors such as resource stringency, internal resistance,
7

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
competing pressures, and ambiguous institutional pressures reduce a business school’s ability to
fully engage in RME. Moratis (2016) responded to Rasche and Gilbert (2015) with a survey of
MBA program directors in the Netherlands, finding some evidence of RME decoupling
stemming from internal challenges. Particularly, they indicate that decoupling can be relatively
unique to individual academic institutions depending on commitment and resources. Moreover,
they suggest that RME “adoption may well disguise rather than diminish decoupling” (Moratis,
2016, p. 238). In the most detailed decoupling analysis currently available, Snelson-Powell et al.
(2016) interviewed deans at 40 U.K. business schools, finding some evidence of decoupling.
Syncing with Moratis (2016), they found decoupling to differ by school with smaller, more
prestigious business schools better able to avoid decoupling and larger, resource-wealthy schools
more prone to decoupling.
3. DECOUPLING CONDITIONS
This extant literature indicates several conditions that affect the likelihood of RME decoupling.
We specifically explore the school’s stated commitment to RME as well as its level of RME
curricular integration, which represent the primary factors under the direct control of the business
school for engaging in RME. We build arguments for each as research hypotheses below using
institutional theory to consider RME conformity strategies for the sake of legitimacy building.
3.1 RME Commitment
First, we expect that schools with RME central to their organizational objectives, such as through
affiliation with the United Nations Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME)
are less likely to decouple (Snelson-Powell et al., 2016). Specifically, scholars tout PRME as an
innovative solution to advance RME (Haertle & Miura, 2014). Developed with the U. N. Global
8

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Compact just over a decade ago as a reaction to perceived ineffective RME, PRME provides a
framework for exploring how to implement RME at an individual institution as well as a vehicle
for communicating such implementation with stakeholders through networking and bi-annual
Sharing Information on Progress (SIP) reports (Escudero, 2006; Haertle & Miura, 2014).
Moreover, Principle 2 of the PRME delineates how members are expected to incorporate
responsible management into their own organizational practices to mirror what they teach in the
classroom. Members of the self-guided PRME community can thus benchmark RME best
practices to facilitate their own continuous improvement (Haertle & Miura, 2014), helping them
overcome resource constraints. In doing so, PRME seeks to enable educational institutions to act
as agents of change to “virally” infuse responsible management (Carteron, Haynes, & Murray,
2014). Following institutional theory, RME commitment reduces ambiguity as described by
Rasche and Gilbert (2015), thereby increasing the clarity of RME objectives as well as
commitment to RME external expectations desired by employers, accreditation bodies, and
NGOs. Consequently, the loss of legitimacy from decoupling at such committed schools would
be severe, thereby pressuring these schools to follow through on stated RME objectives. We
therefore hypothesize that RME committed schools are less likely to decouple:
H1: RME decoupling will be lower at business schools with an external commitment to
RME.
3.2 RME Curriculum Integration
Existing literature also emphasizes the importance of integrating RME within core business
classes, contrasting “bolt-on” and “built-in” approaches (Sterling, 2013). As bolted-on, RME is
only offered in an elective course, which by nature suffers from lack of reach to all students and
student self-selection bias (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). As built-in, RME content is woven within
9

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
the core curriculum, allowing deeper and broader student learning (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang,
2015; Snelson-Powell et al., 2016). In between, schools may focus RME in one required core
class, which does reach all students but lacks full curricular integration. Returning to
institutional theory, curricular integration provides a formal organizational RME structure from
which the school is less likely to decouple (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran,
1999). We thus expect RME curriculum integration to help overcome decoupling:
H2a: RME decoupling will be lower at business schools with RME integrated across the
curriculum than at schools with only a core RME class.
H2b: RME decoupling will be lower at business schools with a core RME class than schools
with only an elective RME class.
H2c: RME decoupling will be lower at business schools with RME integrated across the
curriculum than at schools with only an elective RME class.
4. DECOUPLING AND THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR
An underlying dilemma with decoupling research is how to confirm decoupling. The limited
extant RME decoupling literature has done so using perceptual data from samples of business
school leadership such as deans and MBA program directors (Moratis, 2016; Snelson-Powell et
al., 2016). While am informed source of data, administrators might be inclined to overstate RME
effectiveness because of conformity and legitimacy pressures. We subsequently argue for the
need to supplement administrative perceptions with student perspectives. Specifically, an
effective RME program should develop students who are committed to the professional practice
of responsible management, including supporting attitudes and skills. Without measuring
student outcomes, ultimate RME effectiveness remains unclear, especially given continued
ethical violations by large, multinational organizations (Chen & Soltes, 2018; Porter & Kramer,
10

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
2019). We therefore evaluate decoupling via differences in student responsible management
perspectives across business schools. Coupling (the antithesis of decoupling) would be
evidenced by significant differences in student perspectives across schools relative to the
hypothesized decoupling conditions.
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides an effective lens to evaluate the presence
of decoupling by measuring student intentions to practice responsible management in their future
careers (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). The TPB maintains that intention to undertake an action (e.g.,
practicing responsible management) is a highly consistent predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen & Madden, 1986), and focusing on intention rather than solely on attitudes
better equips identification of long run tendencies (Krueger Jr., Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). In the
context of responsible management for instance, the TPB should therefore be useful in predicting
choices and behaviors not only early in students’ careers but also later as they undertake
leadership positions.
Figure 1 shows the TPB model, which predicts that an individual’s expected behavior
(intention) is a function of three antecedents: 1. their attitude toward the behavior (attitude), 2.
their beliefs about people who matter to them approving or disapproving of the behavior
(subjective norm), and 3. their confidence in their capabilities to perform the behavior (perceived
behavioral control) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). Assessing these antecedents provides feedback to
business schools not only on specific sources of decoupling but also on how to improve RME
effectiveness.
< Insert Figure 1>
Accordingly, the TPB has been applied to explain professional choices related to responsible
management (Henle, Reeve, & Pitts, 2010) and pursuing environmental sustainability in the
11

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
workplace (Swaim, Maloni, Henley, & Campbell, 2016). The TPB has also been applied in
RME, examining student environmental choices (Swaim, Maloni, Napshin, & Henley, 2014) as
well as the impact of role models in influencing ethical intentions (Baden, 2014). All of these
papers found significant exploratory power of the TPB on behavioral intention, though the
relative influences of individual TPB antecedents vary across the studies. For instance, Henle et
al. (2010) found all TPB antecedents to be significantly influential on time-stealing at work, and
Swaim et al. (2016) found all three antecedents to affect supply chain manager intentions to
practice environmental sustainability. In contrast, other work by Swaim et al. (2014) found that
attitude retains a dominant effect on student intentions to pursue environmental sustainability.
Additionally, Baden (2014) focused on subjective norms, finding influences from both positive
and negative role models on student ethical intentions.
4.1 Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Behavioral Control
We next consider each TPB antecedent in more detail. The first factor, behavioral attitude,
identifies one’s views of the consequences of a behavior and the desirability of those
consequences. Specifically, the TPB posits that a student’s attitude about responsible
management should result in stronger intentions to practice it. For example, a student may
believe that responsible management is “good business” that will enhance the organization’s
likelihood of success and may even be critical for business survival (Haski-Leventhal, 2014).
The literature has indeed validated a link between attitude and intention in the context of
responsible management practice with pollution reduction and clean production technology
(Cordano & Frieze, 2000; Corral, 2003). Specific to education, Ng and Burke (2010) detected a
positive relationship between student behavioral attitudes and support of sustainable business
12

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
practices. Moreover, Swaim et al. (2014) provide support for a link between student
environmental sustainability attitudes and intention, while Randall (1994) found attitude to be
the most important factor in students taking a business elective course.
The second factor considered in the TPB is normative beliefs or subjective norm, which
focus on social pressures a person feels from others who matter to them. That is, individuals
evaluate how important others may approve or disapprove of engaging in a behavior, which can,
separately from the individual’s own attitude, affect the likelihood of behavioral intention. Given
the research at hand, students may be influenced by others to pursue responsible management.
Previous literature has analyzed different sources of student responsible management subjective
norm. For example, Swaim et al. (2014) highlight professors, business leaders, and politicians as
most influential to students over family, friends, other students, and celebrities regarding
environmental responsibility. We focus herein solely on faculty influences for several reasons.
First and foremost, faculty are the primary connection between the business school and its
students, directly able to promote the responsible management objectives of the school. In
comparison, schools have limited, if any, control over the influences of other subjective norm
sources. Moreover, existing literature maintains that faculty act as the primary agent of student
socialization (Weidman, 2006). It is widely accepted that student-faculty connections result in
improved student retention and persistence with degree completion. Some have even argued that
faculty-student interaction is the primary factor in generating student motivation and
involvement (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) with Thomas (2005) emphasizing the importance of
faculty subjective norm to enhance student perceptions of sustainability legitimacy. Accordingly,
extant research has found a positive association between subjective norm and intention to
practice sustainability and ethics (Cheng & Chu, 2014; Flannery & May, 2000; Henle et al.,
2010; Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas, 1999; Taylor & Todd, 1995). In educational research,
13

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Swaim et al. (2014) found a weak but significant link between subjective norm and student
career sustainability intentions, while Baden (2014) found that negative role models deter
students from unethical behavior yet negatively impact student self-efficacy. In contrast, they
found that positive role models also deter student intentions of unethical behavior while
strengthening self-efficacy.
As the third TPB antecedent, perceived behavioral control reflects one’s sense of their
personal knowledge and capability to accomplish an intended action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
In the context of RME, we expect that a student should be more confident in performing
responsible practices if they have been exposed to related principles in their coursework and
have applied responsible management techniques through experiential learning. Yet, research
exploring the link between behavioral control and intention has been equivocal. On one hand,
Riemenschneider et al. (2011) found no support for a link between perceived behavioral control
and student ethical intentions, and Swaim et al. (2014) detected no significant influence of
perceived behavioral control on student environmental sustainability intentions. These results,
however, are in stark contrast with other studies identifying a strong correlation between
perceived behavioral control and intent to both purchase environmentally-friendly products and
decrease household waste (Chan & Lau, 2002; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Taylor & Todd, 1995).
The above studies focus on testing the individual TPB antecedent paths (i.e., attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) to intention. However, our hypotheses herein
focus on the differences between schools across each path as hypothesized in H1 and H2. That
is, we expect the individual paths (e.g., attitude to intention) to be stronger for certain schools if
the decoupling hypotheses are indeed true.
5. METHODS
5.1 Survey Development and Administration
14

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
We tested the hypothesized decoupling conditions relative to the TPB model with student survey
data, administering scales that measure undergraduate business students’ perspectives of RME
and their intentions to practice responsible management in their careers (Appendix). Data was
collected from six U.S. business schools (identified as A, B, C, D, E, and F) to assess the
particular decoupling conditions presented in the hypotheses (Table 1). Following existing
literature, we closely adopted direct measures for the TPB constructs with scales from Haski-
Leventhal (2014) and Swaim et al. (2014). To assess initial validity and reliability, the proposed
scales were piloted with 38 undergraduate business students and were also reviewed by four
scholars outside of the research team. The final survey was administered via Qualtrics, an
internet-based survey tool, to approximately 12,562 undergraduate students taking business
classes at the six schools with useable responses collected from 2,544 students (20.3% response
rate). We asked 42 non-respondents to answer a subset of survey items (intention). Their
responses do not significantly differ from those of respondents, therefore minimizing concerns of
non-response bias.
< Insert Table 1>
The divergent population sizes of the different business schools led to uneven sample sizes. We
therefore randomly sampled 150 responses from the larger schools (A, C, D, and F) to limit the
influence of these schools in the analyses. Two-population t-tests of means as well as multi-
group analyses of the underlying structural models verify that the applied reduced samples are
representative of the overall larger samples for the bigger schools.
15

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
5.2 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 depicts mean responses for each school and overall, while Table 3 shows correlations.
The descriptive statistics depict strong responsible management perspectives across all schools.
Survey items for attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control all retain means
above a value of five (given seven representing “strongly agree”), and the item means for
intention all exceed a value of six. Interestingly, the students feel somewhat more strongly about
responsible management than their interpretation of professors’ respective feelings. We
conducted ANOVA tests to evaluate instances where responses from one school significantly
differed from responses from the other schools. Table 2 reveals that very few responses differed,
indicating that student perspectives are similar across the schools.
< Insert Table 2>
< Insert Table 3>
5.3 Measurement Model
We applied partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess the model.
PLS-SEM is effective when the research objective is the prediction of the dependent variable,
including the relative importance of antecedents (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Jöreskog &
Wold, 1982). Even though the TPB is theoretically established, we are particularly concerned
with maximizing predictability of student responsible management intentions, including how this
predictability may differ across schools. Therefore, PLS-SEM represents a more appropriate
approach than covariance-based SEM, which focuses on model fit and theory validation. PLS-
16

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
SEM also does not require an assumption of data normality like covariance-based SEM (Hair et
al., 2011), which applies herein as Shapiro-Wilk tests reveal that all scales retain significant
skewness and kurtosis to signify underlying non-normal distributions.
We first assessed the measurement model to evaluate scale reliability and validity (Hair,
Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). Table 4 reveals the strength of the measurement model. First,
composite reliability values exceed 0.80. Next, convergent validity is verified with factor
loadings for all items but one exceeding 0.70. The one exception (A3) has a loading (0.69)
significantly larger than a 0.50 minimum and is retained. As further evidence of convergent
validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeds the expected 0.50
value. Discriminant validity is validated with heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios all falling
below the recommended maximum of 0.85 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). Moreover, the
HTMT confidence intervals do not include a value of one. Furthermore, we verified that no
collinearity issues exist given variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all items falling between
values of 0.20 and 5.00. Last, factor level variance inflation factors (VIFS) are all below the
recommended 3.30 value, thus minimizing common method concerns (Kock, 2015).
< Insert Table 4>
5.4 Structural Model
We then ran the bootstrapping procedure in PLS-SEM to validate the structural model to prepare
for the multigroup analyses of the decoupling hypotheses (Figure 2, Table 5). The r2 value for
the overall model (i.e., schools combined) is 0.46, which is considered at least moderate in
strength (Hair et al., 2014). This is supported by the Q2 value of 0.30 from the PLS-SEM
17

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
blindfolding procedure, which indicates large predictive relevance of the TPB antecedents (Hair
et al., 2014). Attitude retains the most significant relationship with responsible management
intention as shown by an extremely strong effect size (f2=0.65) (Hair et al., 2014). Unexpectedly,
subjective norm retains a significant negative relationship with intention, though the effect size is
weak (f2=0.01). Perceived behavioral control has a positive relationship with intention but also
with a weak effect size (f2=0.03). Across all schools, attitude therefore represents a significantly
stronger predictor of intention than the other TPB antecedents.
< Insert Figure 2>
< Insert Table 5>
6. ASSESSMENT OF DECOUPLING
With the measurement and structural models established, we now focus on differences between
school groupings with the hypothesized decoupling conditions. To test the hypotheses, we
applied PLS-SEM multi-group analysis (MGA) to assess decoupling by comparing the
antecedent path strengths across different schools (Sarstedt, Henseler, & Ringle, 2011).
Specifically, we expect that the TPB path strengths for schools with the conditions hypothesized
to reduce decoupling (i.e., RME commitment and RME curriculum integration) to be stronger
than for schools lacking these conditions. For example, the influence of faculty subjective norm
on student responsible management intentions should be stronger at schools that have a firm
commitment to RME than those schools that do not. PLS-SEM MGA statistically evaluates path
differences, thereby testing the hypothesized decoupling conditions.
18

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
6.1 Decoupling: External RME Commitment
First examining RME commitment, three of the schools (A, B, and C) demonstrate an external
commitment through PRME affiliation. Moreover, responsible management is prominent within
the mission statement of school B. The other three schools (D, E, and F) do not have an external
commitment to RME. To test H1, we therefore compared the path strengths of the committed
schools (A, B, and C) relative to the other schools (D, E, and F) via PLS-SEM MGA. Stronger
TPB paths for the externally committed schools as identified with a significantly small p-value
(< 0.05) would suggest no decoupling. Figure 3 shows the structural results for each group of
schools, and Table 6 reveals that the attitude to intention path is larger for RME committed
schools via the associated p-value (p=0.03). However, the subjective norm path is not
significantly different (p=0.45) nor is the path for perceived behavioral control (p=0.92).
Existing literature suggests, though not unequivocally, that religious affiliation may help
overcome decoupling (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Consequently, we also ran this MGA without
the lone religious school (B), comparing schools A and C to D, E, and F. However, the results
were the same as above. Therefore, an external commitment to RME only relates to a stronger
influence from attitude but not subjective norm or perceived behavioral control, suggesting some
evidence of decoupling. We thus declare limited support for H1 that decoupling will be lower at
schools with an external RME commitment.
< Insert Figure 3>
< Insert Table 6>
6.2 Decoupling: RME Curriculum Integration
19

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Pursuing H2, we next compared schools with different levels of RME curricular integration.
One school (B) has integrated RME (i.e., built-in) with both a required class and RME material
coordinated across its core curriculum. Two of the schools (C and E) require a core responsible
management class but do not coordinate RME across other core classes. Finally, the other
schools (A, D, and F) offer only an elective class (i.e., bolt-on). Admittedly, we were unable to
control for religious affiliation in this analysis since the lone religious school (B) is also the only
school with an integrated RME curriculum.
The MGA results (Figure 4, Table 7) reveal inconsistent differences between the three
groups, providing mixed evidence that decoupling will be lower at schools with greater RME
curriculum integration. Comparing the school with integrated RME (B) versus those with RME
in only a required core class (C and E) (H2a), the influence of both attitude (p=0.04) and
subjective norm (p=0.03) are significantly stronger at the integrated school, but perceived
behavioral control is significantly weaker (p=0.97). Comparing the RME core class schools (C
and E) to those with only an elective class (A, D, and F) (H2b), no differences were found for
subjective norm (p=0.37) and perceived behavioral control (p=0.31). However, attitude was
actually stronger for the schools offering only an elective (p=0.96). Assessing the integrated
RME school (B) relative to those with only an elective class (A, D, and F) (H2c), the attitude
path (p=0.36) is not stronger for the integrated school, unlike H2a. However, the subjective
norm path (p=0.01) is stronger for the integrated school while the perceived behavioral control
path (p=0.97) is weaker. We therefore declare conflicting support for H2a, H2b, and H2c.
< Insert Figure 4>
20

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
< Insert Table 7>
7. DISCUSSION
As summarized in Table 8, the results offer moderate evidence for RME decoupling, showing
both limited and conflicting support for the conditions hypothesized to reduce decoupling. This
syncs with Snelson-Powell et al. (2016) who found conditions proposed in existing literature to
not reliably help address RME decoupling. Consequently, decoupling itself appears to be
inconsistent and difficult to overcome (Moratis, 2016).
< Insert Table 8>
Regarding H1 for instance, the path from student responsible management attitudes to intention
is significantly stronger for the externally committed schools, yet the paths from both subjective
norm and perceived behavioral control to intention are not stronger. An external commitment to
RME in itself therefore does not appear to be strong enough to fully overcome decoupling, which
counters some findings from Snelson-Powell et al. (2016) of the importance of RME being
central to a business school’s objectives. On one hand, their study covered more schools (40).
On the other hand, their interpretation of decoupling was derived from interviews with the
schools’ deans without feedback from students.
Conflicting support was found for H2 that stronger curricular integration of responsible
management can lessen decoupling. On one hand, subjective norm retains a stronger effect on
intention for the school with an integrated RME curriculum than for the schools with either a
core RME class or solely an RME elective. On the other hand, perceived behavioral control has
21

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
a stronger effect on intention for the core and elective RME class schools than for the integrated
RME school. In between, attitude has a stronger effect for the integrated school over the core
class schools but not the elective schools. These conflicting results align with Snelson-Powell et
al. (2016) who found that decoupling can still occur with a built-in curricular approach in some
circumstances. Regrettably, our results reveal that a built-in approach to RME, despite its
projected promise, does not fully best a bolt-on approach (Rasche et al., 2013; Sterling, 2013).
7.1 RME Challenges
Overall, the results indicate that current methods thought to boost RME may not yield significant
intended impacts on students. An important premise underlying this study has been that
stakeholders expect business schools to graduate students who are motivated and prepared to
practice responsible management. The more we know about successes and challenges in
educating our students about responsible management, the more effective we will be in
graduating the next generation of responsible business leaders. Beyond some exceptions
however, our results lend at least some support to concerns that responsible management may
remain “peripheral to management education” (Painter-Morland, 2015, p. 61).
In this vein, there is literature challenging the impact of RME with some scholars
particularly questioning the effectiveness of PRME. For instance, Principle 2 of PRME
emphasizes how schools should incorporate responsible management practices, like those set in
the U. N. Global Compact, not only in curricula but also our own organizational practices. In
other words, our responsible management practices in our school operations should align with
what we teach. Such practices, combined with the information sharing and benchmarking
approach underlying PRME, should ideally elevate responsible management pedagogical
22

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
effectiveness at PRME schools to reduce decoupling. Yet, scholars contend that the self-
regulating, voluntary aspects of PRME limit its effectiveness (Burchell, Kennedy, & Murray,
2015; Solitander et al., 2012). For example, both Burchell et al. (2015) and Louw (2015)
maintain that PRME has not served as a primary catalyst for responsible management
pedagogical change. Likewise, Godemann et al. (2011) note that few PRME participants have
thoroughly embedded responsible management within their curricula.
RME and PRME in general are likely not failing. Current RME efforts support valuable
knowledge exchange and debate, thereby encouraging pedagogical innovation (Burchell et al.,
2015). Moreover, institutions are still learning how to effectively approach and implement RME,
and changes to the prevailing responsible management culture in a business school, including
faculty mindsets, will take time. From this perspective, the findings here suggest that RME is
still a work-in-progress that requires significant further development.
We caution, however, that business schools must avoid complacency stemming from the
isomorphism trap highlighted in institutional theory. While RME has seemingly been established
as legitimate in business education, institutional theory warns how decoupling can lead to
isomorphism in which organizations become more like one another (Boxenbaum & Jonsson,
2008; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). From this standpoint, isomorphism can work against RME
when the generally accepted level of RME effectiveness is not rigorously validated across
business schools. In other words, current typical RME efforts may facilitate complacency. In
turn, this limits the learned responsible management competencies of our students and the
subsequent effectiveness of responsible management in professional practice, thereby failing to
meet the expectations of our stakeholders. The results thus ultimately stress that business
23

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
schools must more rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of their individual RME programs,
including measuring student outcomes, to push the boundaries of RME beyond the status quo.
7.2 Attitude
In response, the TPB offers meaningful insights to help schools understand how to increase the
effectiveness of RME and reduce decoupling. Our results herein can help resource-constrained
schools combat decoupling by identifying where to adjust RME initiatives to most effectively
influence student intentions to practice responsible management. First, our results reveal the
relative importance of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, divulging how
attitude dominates impacts on student intentions to practice responsible management in their
careers. The TPB contends that attitudes evolve from beliefs and values (Ajzen, 1991), and the
strong influence of attitude is consistent with literature highlighting the importance of affecting
student values as a part of RME (Haski-Leventhal, 2014; Haski-Leventhal, Pournader, &
McKinnon, 2017; Moosmayer, 2012). Yet, scholars contend that business schools are relatively
ineffective at developing student values and attitudes (Allen, Bacdayan, Berube Kowalski, &
Roy, 2005; Cornuel & Hommel, 2015). This could imply that the strong student attitudes
established in our findings are formed without significant impact from the business school,
which would sync with literature identifying prioritization of social values by the current
generation of business students (Maloni, Hiatt, & Campbell, 2019).
Consequently, the importance of attitude impels business schools to help students
carefully assess and develop their individual values. Existing literature emphasizes the need to
demonstrate to students not only direct drivers of firm responsible management (e.g., reputation,
regulations) but also aspirational motivations (e.g., benevolence, environmentalism) (Kashyap,
24

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Raza, & Iyer, 2006). To do so, pedagogy can focus more so on a human-centered world view
versus the organizational focus traditionally emphasized in business education (Giacalone &
Thompson, 2006). Additionally, Borkowski and Ugras (1998) suggest applying ethics theory
and case studies to help students internalize responsible management decision making.
Ultimately, scholars recommend that schools formally assess student values at the program level
(Moosmayer, 2011).
7.3 Subjective Norm
The strength of attitude in affecting responsible management intentions also emphasizes the
relative lack of influence of the other TPB antecedents. That is, the dominance of attitude could
reflect ineffective faculty subjective norm and perceived behavior control. This furthers
concerns of decoupling, signifying that students may be self-determining their responsible
management future in the face of insufficient impacts from faculty and curricula.
For example, the significant negative influence of subjective norm on intention is
counterintuitive and certainly deflating. As faculty, we hope that our authority holds some level
of influence on students’ career intentions. However, the students, who based on our results hold
strong responsible management attitudes and intentions, appear to counter perceived faculty
attitudes. This suggests that students may not view faculty as positive responsible management
role models and may feel dissatisfied with the strength and consistency of faculty RME
messages. Indeed, decoupling would manifest as weak and inconsistent RME content across
courses. In response, students step up to serve as the primary agent to champion RME.
Extant literature does identify several challenges with coordinating faculty responsible
management efforts. As one, faculty can be resistant to change, especially that which is
25

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
developed by leadership or faculty champions lacking influence (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015;
Solitander et al., 2012). Also, academic freedom emerging from the tenure system and the
limited influence on curriculum by school leadership allow faculty resistance, especially when
current courses are perceived as already crowded with critical content (Alsop, 2006; Premeaux,
2012; Premeaux & Mondy, 2002). Additionally, faculty responsible management knowledge can
lag contemporary industry practice, thereby stressing the need for continued training (Haertle &
Miura, 2014; Perry & Win, 2013).
Moreover, certain faculty may disagree not only on the importance of responsible
management concepts relative to other goals (e.g., maximizing shareholder wealth) but also on
the faculty role in influencing versus educating students (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). Similarly,
faculty may believe that RME belongs or is sufficiently covered elsewhere in the business school
(Dean & Beggs, 2006; Maloni et al., 2012). Finally, many business faculty were not rigorously
trained in teaching during their doctoral programs, thereby making a complex, polarizing, multi-
layered topic like RME extremely difficult to teach (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015).
As a result of these challenges, faculty participation in RME initiatives can be
inconsistent, and faculty can subsequently deliver tacit messages in the classroom that debase the
importance of responsible management (Perry & Win, 2013; Rasche & Gilbert, 2015). In fact,
some argue that without the right enablers in place, faculty perceptions of the legitimacy of
responsible management at their institution may decline to the point of cynicism (Rasche &
Gilbert, 2015). In that case, faculty subjective norm could have a negative impact on student
responsible management intentions as seen in our results.
Ultimately, the results urge immediate and deliberate action to enhance faculty impacts.
At a minimum, scholars emphasize the need for faculty training and incentives to implement
26

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
RME (Greenberg et al., 2017). As deeper insight, Cameron (2006) underscores a higher teaching
standard for responsible management, shifting from a focus on “not doing bad” to stress positive
practices based on virtuousness. Moreover, Moosmayer (2011) found that a faculty member’s
own economic and social values affect their intention to influence student values. While faculty
values will differ within the business school, it thus remains important to assess institutional
values and infuse a relatively shared set of values throughout the school (Cornuel & Hommel,
2015; Greenberg et al., 2017). To do so, research highlights a blend of top-down change from
leadership and bottom-up faculty consensus building (Doherty et al., 2015; Greenberg et al.,
2017). In addition, responsible management values of future faculty should be assessed during
the recruitment and hiring to ensure fit (Moosmayer, 2011). Schools must also enable the
transfer of values from one generation of faculty to the next (Cornuel & Hommel, 2015).
7.4 Perceived Behavioral Control
Although perceived behavioral control retains a significant link to intention in the results, the
effect size is weak. As such, simply having been taught responsible management may not
necessarily have a marked impact on student intentions, furthering dialogue regarding the true
impact of teaching responsible management within business education (Jewe, 2008; Waples,
Antes, Murphy, Connelly, & Mumford, 2009). That is, can responsible management skills truly
be taught? Our results seem to question whether or not our efforts to do so can be fruitful, at
least given current responsible management pedagogy (Wang & Calvano, 2015).
Responsible management decision making has indeed been described as complex,
requiring students to elevate critical thinking as well as develop proficiency in collaboration and
systems thinking (Ortiz & Huber-Heim, 2017). Literature also promotes active learning wherein
27

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
students retain primary ownership in shaping responsible management solutions (Ortiz & Huber-
Heim, 2017). Scholars further contend that developing such skills demands resource-intensive
cross-departmental and cross-course learning (Annan-Diab & Molinari, 2017; Doherty et al.,
2015; Painter-Morland, 2015).
Baden (2014) found that negative role models can significantly deter perceived control,
so pedagogy may be more effective in focusing on positive responsible management examples.
Faculty can also collaborate with industry and other stakeholders like NGOs to explore inventive
ways to impart responsible management application skill sets (Dickson, Eckman, Loker, &
Jirousek, 2013; Giacalone & Thompson, 2006). Perceived behavioral control can be further
reinforced outside of the classroom through informal learning, such as student organizations,
internships, and service and experiential learning (Awaysheh & Bonfiglio, 2017; Borges,
Ferreira, Borges de Oliveira, Macini, & Caldana, 2017; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2017; Tyran,
2017).
8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The limitations of the research design herein highlight opportunities for future research. First,
our analysis was limited by the number of schools willing to partake in the study. We
persistently requested participation from more than 40 schools yet received limited interest. This
may herald schools’ self concerns about decoupling. Consequently, more schools could be
surveyed, including leading RME institutions (e.g., PRME champions) as well as those in other
global regions. Additionally, while we studied two decoupling factors directly under business
school control, other factors have been suggested in the literature, including school rankings and
prestige, dominant department (e.g., finance versus management), and school resources (Rasche
28

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
& Gilbert, 2015; Snelson-Powell et al., 2016). As found by Snelson-Powell et al. (2016),
particular combinations of these factors could help overcome or enable decoupling.
The relatively strong values for the survey scale means warn of potential social
desirability bias. While we utilized existing scales in this research, scholars could pursue further
RME scale development with particular attention to social desirability impacts. In addition, the
dominance of student attitudes in affecting responsible management intentions urges further
study of how and when such attitudes are formed as well as pedagogical methods to influence
these attitudes (Kolodinsky, Madden, Zisk, & Henkel, 2010). Relatedly, the counterintuitive
negative impact of faculty subjective norm also impels researchers to understand how some
faculty are able to more effectively establish influence, including how their values stimulate
students (Moosmayer, 2012). In this sense, scholars could study RME decoupling from the
faculty perspective, assessing additional conditions like tenure and training.
While our assessment of decoupling is arguably less subjective than that in existing RME
literature, future research could develop more rigorous responsible management progress
measures, such as a formal RME assessment tool (Carteron et al., 2014). Further, the results
should ideally be validated with longitudinal data to study the efficacy of RME critical success
factors in overcoming decoupling (Hilliard, 2013). Such longitudinal data could even follow
graduates into the workplace to evaluate how RME translates to professional practice.
9. CONCLUSION
Our study indicates that business schools may not fully walk their responsible management talk,
despite committing to RME and strengthening RME curricula. This lends support to the idea
that conformity to institutional RME pressures may cause schools to overlook sufficient cultural
29

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
and pedagogical change needed to infuse responsible management into student learning (Haski-
Leventhal et al., 2017; Thomas, 2005). As RME has been described as rapidly changing as well
as cluttered with many different initiatives (Storey, Killian, & O'Regan, 2017), some scholars
indicate that business schools have moved too slowly to fully embrace our role in promoting
stronger responsible management (Greenberg et al., 2017; Karakas, Sarigollu, & Alperen, 2013;
Weybrecht, 2017). Others challenge “the actual nature of business schools’ commitment to the
RME agenda” (Moratis, 2016, p. 238) with some even asserting that “responsible management
education (RME) is (so far) a largely unfulfilled promise” (Cornuel & Hommel, 2015, p. 3).
Likewise, literature indicates that even managers are disappointed with the ethical skills of
graduating students (Sigurjonsson, Arnardottir, Vaiman, & Rikhardsson, 2015).
While we do not contend that RME is a failing effort, it appears to still be a demanding
work-in-progress (Burchell et al., 2015; Solitander et al., 2012). Our results signal the need for
greater urgency and speed of this progress. In this vein, scholars call for increased accountability
to adapt business education to lead change in responsible management professional practice
(Haski-Leventhal, 2014; Moosmayer, 2012; Petriglieri, 2012). The business school must be the
place to challenge the status quo, both in the expectations of responsible management in practice
and how to instill responsible management mindsets in our students (Akrivou & Bradbury-
Huang, 2015). We must take a hard look at ourselves, including our values, commitment, and
accountability, to accept ownership for forging future business leaders who are both motivated
and trained to curtail the negative environmental and social impacts of business. Failure to do so
challenges the legitimacy of our educational institutions.
30

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
31

Decoupling Responsible Management Education: Do Business Schools Walk Their Talk?
APPENDIX: SURVEY
Let's define responsible management as the ethical balance of economic, social, and
environmental goals for business leadership. This view encompasses ethics, corporate social
responsibility, and sustainability and applies to all areas of a business. You can read more about
the U.N. Global Compact and Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME).
Construct Item
AttitudeaA1 Responsible management is smart business
A2 Business has a social responsibility beyond making profits
A3 Companies should do more for society
A4 Responsible management and profitability can be compatible
A5 Responsible management is critical to the survival of a business
Subjective
Norma
SN6 My (business school) professors believe that responsible management is
smart business
SN7 My (business school) professors believe that business has a social
responsibility beyond making profits
SN8 My (business school) professors believe that companies should do more
for society
SN9 My (business school) professors believe that responsible management is
critical to the survival of a business
SN10 My (business school) professors believe that responsible management and
profitability can be compatible
Perceived
Behavioral
PC11 I have learned a lot about responsible management in my (business
school) classes.
ControlaPC12 I have the skills to apply the learned responsible management principles
in my future career
PC13 I feel well-trained to assist my future employer in achieving their
responsible management objectives
PC14 I have the ability to lead responsible management practices in my future
career
IntentionaI9 I plan to apply responsible management principles in my career
I10 I intend to seek out opportunities to apply responsible management
principles in my career
I11 It will be important to me to practice responsible management in my
career
I12 It will be important to me that my employer actively practices responsible
management
ContentaC13 My (business school) professors include responsible management in their
course content
a (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree)
32

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and
perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-
474.
Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming
business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management learning &
education, 14(2), 222-240.
Alcaraz, J. M., Marcinkowska, M. W., & Thiruvattal, E. (2011). The UN-Principles for
Responsible Management Education: Sharing (and evaluating) information on progress.
Journal of Global Responsibility, 2(2), 151-169.
Allen, W. R., Bacdayan, P., Berube Kowalski, K., & Roy, M. H. (2005). Examining the impact of
ethics training on business student values. Education + Training, 47(3), 170-182.
Alsop, R. J. (2006). Business ethics education in business schools: A commentary. Journal of
Management Education, 30(1), 11-14.
Annan-Diab, F., & Molinari, C. (2017). Interdisciplinarity: Practical approach to advancing
education for sustainability and for the Sustainable Development Goals. The
International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part B), 73-83.
Awaysheh, A., & Bonfiglio, D. (2017). Leveraging experiential learning to incorporate social
entrepreneurship in MBA programs: A case study. The International Journal of
Management Education, 15(2, Part B), 332-349.
Baden, D. (2014). Look on the bright side: A comparison of positive and negative role models in
business ethics education. Academy of Management learning & education, 13(2), 154-
170.
Baetz, M. C., & Sharp, D. J. (2004). Integrating ethics content into the core business curriculum:
Do core teaching materials do the job? Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 53-62.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of management journal, 43(4), 717-736.
Borges, J. C., Ferreira, T. C., Borges de Oliveira, M. S., Macini, N., & Caldana, A. C. F. (2017).
Hidden curriculum in student organizations: Learning, practice, socialization and
responsible management in a business school. The International Journal of Management
Education, 15(2, Part B), 153-161.
Borkowski, S. C., & Ugras, Y. J. (1998). Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1117-1127.
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational institutionalism (pp. 78-98). London: SAGE Publications.
Burchell, J., Kennedy, S., & Murray, A. (2015). Responsible management education in UK
business schools: Critically examining the role of the United Nations Principles for
33

Responsible Management Education as a driver for change. Management Learning,
46(4), 479-497.
Cameron, K. (2006). Good or not bad: Standards and ethics in managing change. Academy of
Management learning & education, 5(3), 317-323.
Carteron, J.-C., Haynes, K., & Murray, A. (2014). Education for sustainable development, the
UNGC PRME initiative, and the sustainability literacy test: Measuring and assessing
success. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 79(4), 51-58.
Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2002). Explaining green purchasing behavior: A cross-cultural
study on American and Chinese consumers. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 14(2-3), 9-40.
Chen, H., & Soltes, E. (2018). Why compliance programs fail and how to fix them. Harvard
Business Review, 96(2), 115-125.
Cheng, P.-Y., & Chu, M.-C. (2014). Behavioral factors affecting students' intentions to enroll in
business ethics courses: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and social
cognitive theory using self-identity as a moderator. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1),
35-46.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental
managers: Applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Academy of management
journal, 43(4), 627-641.
Cornuel, E., & Hommel, U. (2015). Moving beyond the rhetoric of responsible management
education. Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 2-15.
Corral, M. (2003). Sustainable production and consumption systems--cooperation for change:
Assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner
technologies. The case of the in-bond industry in northern Mexico. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 11(14), 411-426.
Cullen, J. G. (2017). Educating business students about sustainability: A bibliometric review of
current trends and research needs. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 429-439.
Darnall, N., Jolley, G. J., & Handfield, R. (2008). Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability? Business strategy and the
environment, 17(1), 30-45.
Dean, K. L., & Beggs, J. M. (2006). University professors and teaching ethics:
Conceptualizations and expectations. Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 15-44.
Dickson, M. A., Eckman, M., Loker, S., & Jirousek, C. (2013). A model for sustainability
education in support of the PRME. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 309-
318.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Doh, J. P., & Tashman, P. (2014). Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of
corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business
school curricula. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
21(3), 131-142.
34

Doherty, B., Meehan, J., & Richards, A. (2015). The business case and barriers for responsible
management education in business schools. Journal of Management Development, 34(1),
34-60.
Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.
Dyllick, T. (2015). Responsible management education for a sustainable world. Journal of
Management Development, 34(1), 16-33.
Escudero, M. (2006). Global corporate citizenship and academia: A global convergence.
Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the U.S. metal-
finishing industry. Academy of management journal, 43(4), 642-662.
Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Giacalone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). From the guest co-editors: Special issue on ethics
and social responsibility. Academy of Management learning & education, 5(3), 261-265.
Godemann, J., Herzig, C., Moon, J., & Powell, A. (2011). Integrating sustainability into business
schools—Analysis of 100 UN PRME Sharing Information on Progress (SIP) reports.
Greenberg, D. N., Deets, S., Erzurumlu, S., Hunt, J., Manwaring, M., Rodgers, V., & Swanson,
E. (2017). Signing to living PRME: Learning from a journey towards responsible
management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part
B), 205-218.
Haertle, J., & Miura, S. (2014). Seven years of development: United Nations-supported
Principles for Responsible Management Education. S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal, 79(4), 8-17.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151.
Haski-Leventhal, D. (2014). MBA student values, attitudes and behaviors: A cross-cultural
comparison of PRME signatory schools. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 79(4),
29-41.
Haski-Leventhal, D., Pournader, M., & McKinnon, A. (2017). The role of gender and age in
business students’ values, CSR attitudes, and responsible management education:
Learnings from the PRME international survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 219-
239.
Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the
organization? Academy of Management learning & education, 9(3), 384-396.
Henle, C. A., Reeve, C. L., & Pitts, V. E. (2010). Stealing time at work: Attitudes, social
pressure, and perceived control as predictors of time theft. Journal of Business Ethics,
94(1), 53-67.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hilliard, I. (2013). Responsible management, incentive systems, and productivity. Journal of
Business Ethics, 118(2), 365-377.
Hommel, U., Painter-Morland, M., & Wang, J. (2012). Gradualism prevails and perception
outbids substance. Global Focus, 6(20), 30-33.
35

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. (2014). Research on business schools: Themes, conjectures, and
future directions. In A. M. Pettigrew, E. Cornuel., & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional
development of business schools (pp. 6–35). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Jewe, R. D. (2008). Do business ethics courses work? The effectiveness of business ethics
education: An empirical study. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 1-6.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. O. A. (1982). The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent
variables: Historical and comparative aspects. In H. O. A. Wold & K. G. Jöreskog (Eds.),
Systems under indirect observation, Part I (pp. 263-270). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen’s
theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16(5), 441-460.
Karakas, F., Sarigollu, E., & Alperen, M. (2013). The use of benevolent leadership development
to advance principles of responsible management education. Journal of Management
Development, 32(8), 801-822.
Kashyap, R., Raza, M. I. R., & Iyer, E. (2006). Toward a responsive pedagogy: Linking social
responsibility to firm performance issues in the classroom. Academy of Management
learning & education, 5(3), 366-376.
Kell, G., & Haertle, J. (2011). UN Global Compact and Principles for Responsible Management
Education: The next decades. Global Focus, 5(2), 14-16.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach.
International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.
Kolodinsky, R. W., Madden, T. M., Zisk, D. S., & Henkel, E. T. (2010). Attitudes about corporate
social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 167-
181.
Krueger Jr., N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Laasch, O. (2018). Just old wine in new bottles? Conceptual shifts in the emerging field of
responsible management. Centre for Responsible Management Education Working
Papers, 4(1).
Laasch, O., & Gherardi, S. (2019). Delineating and reconnecting responsible management,
learning, and education (RMLE): A research agenda through a social practices lens.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Laasch, O., & Moosmayer, D. (2016). Responsible management competences: Building a
portfolio for professional competence. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Annual Conference, Anaheim.
Louw, J. (2015). "Paradigm change" or no real change at all? A critical reading of the U.N.
Principles for Responsible Management Education. Journal of Management Education,
39(2), 184-208.
MacLean, T. L., & Behnam, M. (2010). The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between
compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy
of management journal, 53(6), 1499-1520.
Maloni, M. J., Hiatt, M. S., & Campbell, S. (2019). Understanding the work values of Gen Z
business students. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3),
forthcoming.
36

Maloni, M. J., Smith, S. D., & Napshin, S. (2012). A methodology for building faculty support
for the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education. Journal of
Management Education, 36(3), 312-336.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis
and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial
performance (Ann Arbor 1001, 48109-1234).
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy,
4(2), 3-15.
Moon, J., & Orlitzky, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability education: A
trans-Atlantic comparison. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(5), 583-603.
Moosmayer, D. C. (2011). Professors as value agents: A typology of management academics'
value structures. Higher Education, 62(1), 49-67.
Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). A model of management academics' intentions to influence values.
Academy of Management learning & education, 11(2), 155-173.
Moosmayer, D. C., & Davis, S. M. (2016). Staking cosmopolitan claims: How firms and NGOs
talk about supply chain responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 403-417.
Moratis, L. (2016). Decoupling management education: Some empirical findings, comments, and
speculation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3), 235-239.
Ng, E. S., & Burke, R. J. (2010). Predictor of business students' attitudes toward sustainable
business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 603-615.
Nonet, G., Kassel, K., & Meijs, L. (2016). Understanding responsible management: Emerging
themes and variations from European business school programs. Journal of Business
Ethics, 139(4), 717-736.
Ortiz, D., & Huber-Heim, K. (2017). From information to empowerment: Teaching sustainable
business development by enabling an experiential and participatory problem-solving
process in the classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part
B), 318-331.
Painter-Morland, M. (2015). Philosophical assumptions undermining responsible management
education. Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 61-75.
Perry, M., & Win, S. (2013). An evaluation of PRME's contribution to responsibility in higher
education. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(49), 48-70.
Petriglieri, G. (2012). Are business schools clueless or evil? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2012/11/are-business-schools-clueless
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating shared value. In G. G. Lenssen & N. C. Smith
(Eds.), Managing Sustainable Business (pp. 327-350). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Premeaux, S. R. (2012). Tenure perspectives: Tenured versus nontenured tenure-track faculty.
Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 121-127.
Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (2002). Perspectives on tenure: Tenured versus nontenured
tenure-track faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 335-339.
Radoynovska, N., Ocasio, W., & Laasch, O. (2020). The emerging logic of responsible
management: Institutional pluralism, leadership, and strategizing. In O. Laasch, R.
Suddaby, R. E. Freeman, & D. Jamali (Eds.), Research Handbook of Responsible
Management (pp. 420-437). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
37

Randall, D. M. (1994). Why students take elective business ethics courses: Applying the theory
of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 369-378.
Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2015). Decoupling responsible management education: Why
business schools may not walk their talk. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3), 239-
252.
Rasche, A., Gilbert, D. U., & Schedel, I. (2013). Cross-disciplinary ethics education in MBA
programs: Rhetoric or reality? Academy of Management learning & education, 12(1), 71-
85.
Riemenschneider, C. K., Leonard, L. N. K., & Manly, T. S. (2011). Students' ethical decision-
making in an information technology context: A theory of planned behavior approach.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(3), 203-214.
Rosenbloom, A., Gudić, M., Parkes, C., & Kronbach, B. (2017). A PRME response to the
challenge of fighting poverty: How far have we come? Where do we need to go now?
The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part B), 104-120.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 534-559.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multi-group analysis in partial least squares
(PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In M. Sarstedt, M.
Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and research methods in international
marketing (advances in international marketing) (Vol. 22, pp. 195-218). Bingley, U.K.:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2017). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability
management: Legitimacy- or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 259-
276.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Foundations for organizational science).
London: SAGE Publications.
Sigurjonsson, T. O., Arnardottir, A. A., Vaiman, V., & Rikhardsson, P. (2015). Managers’ views
on ethics education in business schools: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics,
130(1), 1-13.
Snelson-Powell, A., Grosvold, J., & Millington, A. (2016). Business school legitimacy and the
challenge of sustainability: A fuzzy set analysis of institutional decoupling. Academy of
Management learning & education, 15(4), 703-723.
Solitander, N., Fougère, M., Sobczak, A., & Herlin, H. (2012). We are the champions:
Organizational learning and change for responsible management education. Journal of
Management Education, 36(3), 337-363.
Sterling, S. (2013). The sustainable university: Challenge and response. In S. Sterling, H. Maxey,
& H. Luna (Eds.), The sustainable university (pp. 43-76). London: Routledge.
Storey, M., Killian, S., & O'Regan, P. (2017). Responsible management education: Mapping the
field in the context of the SDGs. The International Journal of Management Education,
15(2, Part B), 93-103.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Henley, A., & Campbell, S. (2016). Motivational influences on
supply manager environmental sustainability behavior. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 21(3), 305-320.
38

Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student
intention and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,
124(3), 465-484.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an
integrated model. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 192-204.
Thomas, T. E. (2005). Are business students buying it? A theoretical framework for measuring
attitudes toward the legitimacy of environmental sustainability. Business strategy and the
environment, 14(3), 186-197.
Tyran, K. L. (2017). Transforming students into global citizens: International service learning
and PRME. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part B), 162-171.
Wang, L. C., & Calvano, L. (2015). Is business ethics education effective? An analysis of gender,
personal ethical perspectives, and moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4),
591-602.
Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-
analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1),
133-151.
Weaver, G., Trevino, L., & Cochran, P. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social
performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics
practices. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 539-552.
Weidman, J. (2006). Student socialization in higher education: Organizational perspectives. In C.
Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging
ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 253-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Weybrecht, G. (2017). From challenge to opportunity – Management education's crucial role in
sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals – An overview and framework.
The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2, Part B), 84-92.
39

Figure 1: Research model
Table 1: Participating schools
School A B C D E F
Accreditation AACSB AACSB AACSB AACSB AACSB AACSB
Public/privat
e
Public Private Public Public Private Public
Religious
affiliation
No Yes No No NoNo
PRME
(start)
Yes (2008) Yes (2009) Yes (2012) No No No
RME in
mission
No Yes No No NoNo
RME
integration
Elective Integrated Core
(1 class)
Elective Core
(1 class)
Elective
Full time
faculty
152 65 90 100 2162
Students/FT
faculty
44.0 23.6 47.3 21.0 20.4 56.5
Total
responses
1,061 104 860 152 124 243
Applied
responses (n)
150 104 150 150 124 150
40

Table 2: Descriptive statistics
Sample means
Construct Item
All
schools
School
A
School
B
School
C
School
D
School
E
School
F
AttitudeaA1 6.30 6.21 6.26 6.40 6.21 6.37 6.34
A2 6.07 5.97 6.19 6.11 6.03 6.15 6.03
A3 5.68 5.63 5.90 5.72 5.65 5.69 5.58
A4 6.16 6.02 6.13 6.19 6.26 6.22 6.16
A5 5.80 5.73 5.87 5.89 5.68 5.90 5.77
Subjective
Norma
SN6 5.86 5.76 5.82 5.84 5.80 5.89 6.02
SN7 5.74 5.68 5.79 5.74 5.66 5.81 5.81
SN8 5.41 5.41 5.53 5.33 5.37 5.55 5.31
SN9 5.62 5.66 5.48 5.63 5.51 5.73 5.71
SN10 5.75 5.73 5.70 5.63 5.79 5.87 5.80
Perceived
Behavioral
Controla
PC11 5.30 5.40 5.22 5.18 5.22 5.42 5.38
PC12 5.57 5.73 5.41 5.37* 5.51 5.55 5.77*
PC13 5.39 5.46 5.08* 5.26 5.40 5.55 5.51
PC14 5.62 5.69 5.38* 5.47 5.53 5.73 5.86*
IntentionaI9 6.38 6.38 6.28 6.45 6.33 6.36 6.47
I10 6.20 6.17 6.00* 6.31 6.08 6.30 6.29
I11 6.41 6.31 6.24 6.48 6.43 6.48 6.51
I12 6.36 6.31 6.24 6.47 6.31 6.47 6.36
ContentaC13 5.62 5.77 5.35* 5.57 5.48 5.61 5.85*
a 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree
* indicates p-value < 0.05 for mean difference from other schools
Table 3: Correlation matrix
Attitude
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Behavioral
Control Intention
Attitude 1.00
Subjective Norm 0.44 1.00
Perceived Behavioral Control 0.31 0.59 1.00
Intention 0.67 0.29 0.30 1.00
41

Table 4: Measurement model results
Construct Item
Factor
Loading
Composite
Reliability AVE
Attitude A1 0.81 0.87 0.57
A2 0.74
A3 0.69
A4 0.76
A5 0.75
Subjective
Norm
SN6 0.87 0.93 0.72
SN7 0.86
SN8 0.79
SN9 0.86
SN10 0.86
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
PC11 0.81 0.93 0.76
PC12 0.89
PC13 0.91
PC14 0.86
Intention I9 0.88 0.93 0.77
I10 0.87
I11 0.90
I12 0.86
42

Figure 2: Structural model results
*** indicates p-value < 0.001, ** p-value < 0.01
Table 5: Structural model results
Path Weight p-value f2
Attitude to Intention 0.66 0.00*** 0.65
Subjective Norm to Intention -0.09 0.01** 0.01
Perceived
Behavioral Control
to Intention 0.15 0.00*** 0.03
r2, Q2 (intention) 0.46, 0.33
*** indicates p-value < 0.001, ** p-value < 0.01
43

Figure 3: Differences by external commitment to RME
Table 6: Multi-group analysis results by external commitment to RME
Path
External commitment vs.
No external commitment
Path weight
difference p-value
Attitude to Intention 0.12 0.03*
Subjective Norm to Intention 0.00 0.45
Perceived
Behavioral Control
to Intention -0.11 0.92
* indicates p-value < 0.05 or > 0.95
44

Figure 4: Differences by RME curriculum integration
45

Table 7: Multi-group analysis results by RME curriculum integration
Path
Integrated vs.
Core class
Core vs.
Elective class
Integrated vs.
Elective class
Path weight
difference p-value
Path weight
difference p-value
Path weight
difference p-value
Attitude to Intention 0.16 0.04* -0.13 0.96* 0.03 0.36
Subjective Norm to Intention 0.18 0.03* 0.02 0.37 0.20 0.01*
Perceived
Behavioral Control
to Intention -0.21 0.97* 0.05 0.31 -0.16 0.97*
* indicates p-value < 0.05 or > 0.95
46

Table 8: Results summary
Decoupling
Condition School Comparison Results
RME
commitment
H1 External
commitment
(schools
A, B. C)
vs. No external
commitment
(schools
D, E, F)
Limited support
Att: stronger for external commitment
SN: no difference
PBC: no difference
RME
curriculum
integration
H2a Integrated
(B)
vs. Core class
(C, E)
Conflicting support
Att: stronger for integrated
SN: stronger for integrated
PBC: weaker for integrated
H2b Core
(C, E)
vs. Elective class
(A, D, F)
Conflicting support
Att: stronger for elective
SN: no difference
PBC: no difference
H2c Integrated
(B)
vs. Elective class
(A, D, F)
Conflicting support
Att: no difference
SN: stronger for integrated
PBC: stronger for elective
Att: attitude, SN: subjective norm, PBC: perceived behavioral control
47