Business schools worldwide are under growing pressure to embed sustainability and ESG criteria
— environmental, social and governance standards — into their programmes. Accreditation bodies
demand it, recruiters increasingly expect it, and students are arriving with stronger opinions about
corporate responsibility than any previous generation. But a major new study suggests that how
deeply sustainability is taught, and crucially where, makes far more difference to student learning
than most institutions currently recognise.
The research, published in the Journal of International Education in Business by Professor Anand
Asthana of CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School, PUCP, Lima, Perú, is a cross-cultural
study of sustainability integration effectiveness in international business education, demonstrating
cultural contingencies in transformative learning and providing evidence-based guidance for
culturally responsive curriculum design. The findings carry direct practical implications for
curriculum designers, faculty members and institutional leaders across the world.
The research distinguishes between shallow and deep sustainability integration. Shallow
integration adds ESG topics through guest lectures, case studies or standalone modules while
leaving conventional business assumptions largely untouched. Deep integration challenges
students to question the foundations of business practice, including regulatory systems, competing
stakeholder interests and the assumptions behind sustainability metrics. Students in programmes
using deep integration demonstrated significantly stronger cross-contextual sustainability
competence: the ability to navigate different regulatory systems, balance stakeholder interests and
apply sustainability thinking across diverse settings. The gains were substantial rather than merely
cosmetic.
The study’s most important finding concerns culture. Drawing on the theory of cultural tightness-
looseness, it shows that societies differ in how strongly they enforce social norms and tolerate
deviation. This cultural context shapes whether paradigm-challenging teaching promotes learning
or generates resistance. In culturally loose contexts, particularly North America and Europe,
students readily engaged with critical discussions about business assumptions and corporate
sustainability narratives. In culturally tight contexts, including much of Asia and Latin America,
students were often reluctant to question established business thinking. Instead of openly resisting,
many produced technically correct answers that avoided the deeper normative issues. As one
faculty member observed, students learned to «perform compliance» without engaging with the
challenge
The research does not suggest that deep integration is ineffective in tighter cultures. Rather, it
requires different teaching strategies. Successful instructors introduced analytical foundations
before asking students to take normative positions, framed critical thinking as professional
competence rather than opposition to authority, and used unfamiliar international case studies
before moving to local examples. Cross-site exchanges with students from other countries
encouraged debate between peers, while redesigned assessments requiring students to defend
positions across competing institutional perspectives proved especially effective.
For curriculum designers, the implications are clear. Institutions should measure cultural tightness-
looseness rather than rely on regional stereotypes when planning courses. The study found that
cultural context explained 52 per cent of variation in institutional learning outcomes. Assessment
should also match learning objectives: if teaching encourages critical thinking but exams reward
only description, students quickly conclude that deeper engagement is optional.
The study also highlights three priorities for institutional leaders. Faculty should be protected from
evaluation systems that penalise the productive discomfort associated with transformative
learning. Professional development should help instructors recognise their own cultural
assumptions before facilitating critical discussion. Finally, universities should invest in
international student exchanges, which consistently improved students’ ability to navigate differing
regulatory environments.
The broader message is that sustainability education cannot be delivered in the same way
everywhere and achieve equivalent results. Cultural differences are not barriers to overcome but
pedagogical realities that require thoughtful course design. Rather than prescribing a universal
model, the study proposes adaptive integration: evidence-based approaches that institutions can
tailor to the cultural context of their students. According to the authors, this is the future direction
for serious sustainability education in international business.
Referencia
Asthana AN (2026;), «Integrating sustainability and ESG criteria into international business curricula: impact on student learning outcomes». Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-11-2025-0169
