The Historical Evolution of Business Education: From Trade Practice to Global and Digital Learning

Author: Mario Li

Affiliation: Swiss Global University LLC

ORCID iD: 0009-0007-0270-3366

Received 5 June 2024; Revised 20 July 2024; Accepted 5 August 2024; Available online 30 August 2024; Version of Record 30 August 2024.

 Volume 1, December 2024, (10008)

10008.pdf

Download PDF • 476KB

Abstract

Business education has not evolved as a linear movement from practice to theory or from local training to global professionalism. It has been transformed through iterative institutional translations that have selectively combined practical commercial knowledge, university legitimacy, professional identity, social responsibility and digital delivery. This article builds a historically grounded conceptual account of business education from early trade practice and apprenticeship to present-day global and digital learning. The article deploys interpretive historical synthesis to investigate five broad phases of change in business education: embedded commercial learning, guild and apprenticeship socialization, the ascendancy of formal schools of commerce, university-based management education, and digitally mediated lifelong learning. The analysis argues that business education is best conceptualized as an adaptive institutional field marked by three enduring tensions: practice versus academic legitimacy, standardization versus contextual relevance, and economic utility versus public responsibility. The article adds to management education and business school studies by reframing the history of business education as a set of institutional settlements rather than a simple story of progress. It offers four theoretical propositions accounting for the evolution of business education as economic change disrupts inherited knowledge models, as legitimacy pressures reshape curricula, and as new technologies change both access and pedagogy.

Keywords: business education, business schools, curriculum development, MBA, online education, globalization, management education

1. Introduction

Business education holds a special place in higher education, as it is expected to deliver practical employment, managerial competence, organizational judgment and broader social accountability simultaneously. It teaches accounting, finance, marketing, operations, strategy, entrepreneurship, leadership, ethics, analytics, and organizational behavior, but its identity is not reducible to any one of these. Its central problem is more durable: how societies organize the learning needed to participate responsibly and effectively in economic life.

The history of business education is therefore more than just a list of schools, degrees, or teaching methods. It is a history of the definition, institutionalisation, contestation and redistribution of business knowledge. Trade, bookkeeping, family enterprise, apprenticeship and merchant communities underpinned early commercial learning. Later, modern business schools translated elements of this practical knowledge into curricula, credentials, research programs, and professional identities. Today’s digital platforms and global programs have once again transformed the field, altering who can access business education, how learning is delivered, and what is relevant managerial knowledge.

Existing scholarship has made important strides in correcting narrow and U.S.-centric histories of business schools. Recent work has shown how the history of business schools is constructed through philanthropy, gender, coloniality, modernization, entrepreneurship and alternative institutional imaginaries (Amdam & Elias, 2021; Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015; Cooke & Kumar, 2020; McLaren, 2019; McLaren et al., 2021; Spicer et al., 2021; Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021; Wanderley et al., 2021). This literature has also critiqued the tendency of management education to forget its own intellectual history and to present contemporary business school models as natural or inevitable (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).

This paper addresses a research gap by looking at the history of business education in the context of what has often been a series of separate conversations: one about business schools as institutions, one about management ideas, one about responsible management education, and one about online and digital delivery. These conversations are rich analytically, but they can leave the long-term evolution of business education fragmented. What is underdeveloped is an integrative account of how different historical modes of commercial learning became institutional settlements that linked economic needs, pedagogical practices, claims of legitimacy, and social expectations.

The article asks how business education has been transformed from embedded trade practice to a globally and digitally mediated field and what theoretical pattern accounts for this transformation. The argument is that business education changes by adaptive institutional settlement. Settlement happens when a particular historical period provides a stable answer to four questions: what business knowledge is important, who can teach it, how learners should demonstrate competence, and what social purpose the education should serve. These settlements are never fixed. They are troubled by economic transformation, institutional competition, technological change, and ethical critique.

The contribution is threefold. First, the article traces the history of business education, linking pre-university commercial education to formal business schools, management education, debates on responsible management and digital education. Second, it transforms this account into theoretical propositions that can inform future empirical research. Third, it contributes to debates about business school purpose by demonstrating that the current pressures for digitalization, sustainability, and lifelong learning are not external additions to business education; they continue a long-standing pattern of adaptation under contested legitimacy.

2. Theoretical Orientation: Business Education as Adaptive Institutional Settlement

This article examines business education as an institutional field rather than as simply a set of programs. Shared norms, taken-for-granted practices, professional claims, and pressures for legitimacy stabilize institutional fields, but they also change when those arrangements no longer fit economic or social conditions. Business education is particularly susceptible to such change as its value is contingent on relevance to practice and legitimacy in higher education. Three tensions structure the historical analysis. First, there is the tension between practice and academic credibility. Business education has always relied on practical knowledge, but universities need generalizable concepts, research-based claims, and disciplinary credibility. This tension accounts for the repeated attempts of business schools to marry cases, projects, internships, simulations, and analytics with scholarly theories of markets, organizations, and decision-making (Bridgman et al., 2019; Cummings & Bridgman, 2016; McLaren, 2019).

The second tension is between standardisation and contextual relevance. Business schools have frequently borrowed models from abroad, particularly through the international diffusion of US-style management education. But models never travel unchanged; they are always adapted. They are translated through local political economies, professional structures, cultural expectations and state priorities (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015; Cooke & Kumar, 2020; Wanderley et al., 2021).

The third tension is between economic utility and public duty. Business education is supposed to prepare graduates for organizational performance, but it is also increasingly evaluated by its contribution to sustainability, ethics, inclusion, and public good. Responsible management education research shows that embedding responsibility in curricula requires more than just adding sustainability topics; it requires changes in competence frameworks, institutional incentives and the moral assumptions embedded in management learning (Azmat et al., 2023; Dierksmeier, 2020; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2022; Laasch et al., 2023; Russo et al., 2023).

Adaptive institutional settlement thus provides a useful theoretical lens. It avoids two common oversimplifications. It does not treat business education as simply a practical response to labor markets. It does not treat it as simply an academic project seeking legitimacy. Rather, every historical period is seen as producing a momentary compromise among economy, pedagogy, institution, and society.

3. Methodology

The study adopts an interpretive historical synthesis. This design is appropriate as the article aims to build a conceptual explanation over a long historical trajectory rather than to test a causal hypothesis using a single data set. This article applies interpretive historical synthesis to identify recurrent patterns of institutions in the evolution of business education, and to link literatures that are frequently considered in isolation, including business school history, management education, entrepreneurship education, responsible management education and digital learning.

The selection logic followed four criteria. First, sources were included if they directly addressed the historical development, institutional purpose, legitimacy, pedagogy, or international diffusion of business education and management education. Second, the most recent studies (2020–2024) were privileged if they contributed to discussions on the history of business schools, responsibility, digital learning and post-pandemic educational change. Third, only earlier sources that offered lasting conceptual or historical bases for understanding business education as an institutional field were included. Fourth, sources were limited to scholarly works with valid DOIs, which kept the reference base verifiable and suitable for journal submission.

The analytical procedure had three steps. Periodization was the first step. The article divided the evolution of business education into five analytically separable phases: embedded trade learning, guild and apprenticeship systems, formal schools of commerce, university-based management education, and global digital learning. The phases are heuristic, not fixed, and overlap across regions and institutions. The second step was to code each phase on the four settlement questions (relevant knowledge, authorized educators, evidence of competence, and social purpose) thematically. The third step was theoretical abstraction, which involved the translation of recurrent patterns into propositions concerning the evolution of business education.

The scope is deliberately synthetic and conceptual. It does not claim to offer a global history of all business schools or of all national systems. It also does not assume a common sequence for all regions. The goal is to develop a theoretically useful account of what happens to business education when economic organization, institutional legitimacy, technology and social expectations interact.

4. Historical Analysis

Figure 1. Historical evolution of business education from embedded commercial learning to global and digital lifelong learning.

Note. The figure summarizes the five historical settlements examined in the article and highlights the three enduring tensions shaping business education across periods: practice versus academic legitimacy, standardization versus contextual relevance, and economic utility versus public responsibility.

A. Embedded Commercial Learning: Commerce, Records and Merchant Practice

The first business schools were not part of universities or professional schools. They were part of commerce itself. Trade required numeracy, records, contracts, storage, transport, pricing, negotiation, trust and reputation. In early and medieval contexts, they were gained by participation in family businesses, merchant networks, administrative offices, and craft communities. Learning was contextual, relational and practical. Demonstration of competence was through successful participation in transactions, not through formal assessment.

This early form is significant in that it reveals a lasting characteristic of business education: the field grows out of situated practice. Consulting projects, simulations, live cases, and internships are among the contemporary pedagogies that continue to maintain that business knowledge is meaningful when applied to consequential problems. The difference historically is that modern institutions have formalized and credentialed what the earlier commercial communities passed on through experience.

Embedded commercial learning also shows that business education has always had a moral and social dimension. Trade was based on trust, on keeping promises, on credit-worthiness, on social standing. Business competence was never just a technical matter. It had to do with judgment of relationships and obligations, of proper behavior. This is an important point for current debates, as responsible management education is often perceived as a new addition to business curricula. However, ethical and social expectations were already embedded in premodern commercial learning but in other institutional forms (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2022).

B. Guilds, Apprenticeship and Professional Socialization

Guilds and apprenticeship systems brought a more structured settlement to commercial learning. They controlled admission, directed the development of skills, kept standards, and associated economic activity with social identity. Responsibility was learned gradually under the supervision of masters. They acquired technical skills, behavioral discipline, and the conventions of a trade community. Teaching was a vocation, not an academic discipline; masters, merchants and guilds were the accepted repositories of knowledge.

The model established a lasting pedagogical principle: business learning is participation in a community of practice. The language of experiential learning is not the language of apprenticeship, but the logic is the same. Students learn business judgment by being exposed to ambiguity, feedback, responsibility, and consequences. The persistence of work-based learning in business education shows that formal curricula have never replaced the logic of apprenticeship; they have reconfigured it.

The guild settlement also illustrates the relationship between education and institutional control. Business knowledge was not neutral information accessible to all. It was about entry, hierarchy, status and standards. Later business schools faced a similar problem. They democratized access to managerial knowledge, but at the same time they generated new forms of selection through degrees, rankings, admission criteria, accreditation, professional networks (McLaren et al., 2021; Spicer et al., 2021).

C. Industrialization and the Commercial School Proper

The scale and complexity of economic organization changed with industrialization. Factories, transport systems, financial institutions, colonial trading networks and administrative bureaucracies were expanding and needed new forms of coordination. Accounting, commercial law, finance, logistics and management demanded systematic training that apprenticeship alone could not provide. This problem gave rise to the formal school of commerce as institution. Schools of commerce converted practical knowledge into systematic teaching. This was not simply a pedagogical innovation; it was a claim of legitimacy. Commerce was presented as a subject that could be learned, taught and examined. Business education started to be displaced from embedded practice to specialized institutions. The authority to teach was no longer restricted to merchants, but was given to teachers who could devise curricula for modern economic life.

This phase also introduced a tension that is still unresolved. Formalization made business education more scalable and visible, but it risked decontextualizing knowledge from the practical settings that gave it meaning. The later rise of case teaching, consulting projects and internships can be seen as efforts to repair this breach and restore complexity to the classroom. The field is characterized by repeated oscillations between codification of business knowledge and its re-embedding in practice.

D. University-Based Management Education and the Legitimacy Quest

The advent of business education in the university created a new settlement. Business knowledge ceased to be mere occupational preparation; it became a subject for research, theory, and academic credentialing. This development gave business education status, resources, and disciplinary recognition but also expectations of rigor that may be in tension with professional relevance.

This tension was exacerbated in the twentieth century by the development of university-based business schools. Research-based models of management education increased the academic status of business schools, but also drew criticism for encouraging technical rationality and isolating faculty from managerial practice. A more complicated history than simple blame narratives suggests underlies the research-based model (McLaren, 2019) and it was philanthropy and geopolitical projects that shaped the institutionalization of management education (McLaren, 2020; Cooke & Kumar, 2020). These findings caution against interpreting business school development as a neutral response to market demand.

The rise of the MBA also helped to further entrench university-based management education as a global qualification. Its basic functional architecture -- finance, accounting, marketing, operations, strategy and organizational behavior -- provided a standardized template for management preparation. But this template also restricted the definition of management knowledge. Historical critiques of management education show that theories and teaching devices are often simplified, de-contextualized or naturalized in the classroom (Bridgman et al., 2019; Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).

University-based business education thus gained legitimacy by a compromise. It had practical relevance for employers, intellectual credibility for universities and professional mobility for students. But this compromise also produced vulnerabilities: managerialism, over-standardization, limited historical consciousness, and inadequate attention to social consequences.

E. Internationalization, Americanization and Context Translation

In the twentieth century business education became increasingly international. US business school models, MBA degrees, case teaching, research standards, and accreditation frameworks gained considerable power. But the internationalisation of business education was not purely a matter of diffusion. It was about adaptation, resistance, hybridity and unequal power relations. Research on global history of management education has focused on the role of the circulation of business school models through the involvement of philanthropic foundations, modernization agendas, and postwar political economy (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015; Cooke & Kumar, 2020; McLaren, 2020). Studies of Global South histories further demonstrate that business school development cannot be understood simply through North Atlantic institutional narratives (Wanderley et al., 2021). These contributions expand the field by questioning whose histories are archived, who is marginalized, and how business education participates in larger structures of power.

So the internationalization settlement was one of standardization and localization. Shared degree structures and curricula allowed mobility and recognition, and local institutions adapted them to national regulation, labour markets and cultural expectations. Current transnational and online programs continue this pattern. Business education is delivered in formats that are internationally recognizable, but its legitimacy is dependent on relevance in context.

F. Responsibility, purpose and the public role of business education

In recent years, the public role of business education has become more explicit. Corporate scandals, financial crises, inequality, climate change and technological disruption have resulted in a more pointed scrutiny of what business schools teach and what assumptions they reproduce. The critique is not just that business schools do not teach ethics. That dominant paradigms of management education may normalize narrow assumptions about value, performance, and human motivation (Dierksmeier, 2020).

In response, responsible management education has emphasized ethics, responsibility, sustainability, social impact, stakeholder reasoning, and the Sustainable Development Goals. But the literature suggests that implementation is patchy. PRME and similar frameworks can shape curriculum and student attitudes, but they can also be symbolic if not coupled with institutional change (Azmat et al., 2023; Russo et al., 2023). Competence-based approaches suggest that responsible management requires personal, behavioural and intellectual capacities and not only isolated ethics modules (Laasch et al., 2023; Montiel et al., 2020).

This development must be seen in historical perspective. Responsibility is not a late decorative layer to be added to business education; it is a re-imagining of the field’s social purpose. Previous merchant learning associated capability with trust and conduct. Guilds linked learning to standards and community. Universities’ business schools connected learning to leadership in the economy and the professions. The question is whether business education can prepare its graduates to make organizational decisions that are technically competent, socially legitimate and ecologically conscious.

G. Digital learning and the reshaping of access

The latest settlement in business education is brought about by digital learning. Online courses, learning management systems, virtual collaboration, analytics, simulations, asynchronous discussion, and hybrid delivery have changed the environment in which business education is accessed and experienced. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this transition, but the shift toward digital and blended business education was already well underway.

Digitalization influences business education in two aspects. First, it alters delivery. This enables learners to engage across borders and career stages, and makes business education more flexible and possibly more inclusive. Second, it alters content. Business curricula have come to be characterized by data analytics, artificial intelligence, platforms, digital strategy and technology-enabled organizing. The field is now expected to teach digital transformation as well as undergo digital transformation (Xie et al., 2020).

Thus the digital settlement is ambivalent. It democratises access but raises issues around engagement, assessment, community, academic integrity and depth of experience. It enables modular lifelong learning but can also fragment educational formation. It increases global reach but may increase competition and standardisation. The historical lesson is that technology does not supplant older tensions in business education. It rearranges them.

This broader interpretation also requires us to pay attention to what is often hidden in formal curricula. Critical accounts of management education demonstrate that business schools can reproduce narrow assumptions about markets and managerial agency, unless historical, ethical, and indigenous perspectives are actively incorporated (Doucette et al., 2021; Ghoshal, 2005). Recent work on business school purpose and responsible management assessment further suggests that institutional change requires explicit tools, leadership commitment, and public-good orientation rather than isolated course-level reform (Garcia-Feijoo et al., 2020; Haertle et al., 2017; Kitchener, 2024; Tahmassebi & Najmi, 2023; Verma et al., 2021).

5. Theoretical Propositions

Four theoretical propositions are derived from historical analysis.

Proposition 1: Business education changes when the inherited forms of commercial learning no longer fit the scale, complexity or legitimacy needs of economic organization. The proposition explains the evolution from embedded trade practice to apprenticeship, formal schools of commerce, university business schools, and digital platforms.

Proposition 2: Each significant stage of business education consolidates a transitory settlement of practical relevance, sanctioned knowledge, competence evaluation and social aim. These settlements are provisional, as the field is subject to changing labor markets, academic standards, regulatory expectations and social critique.

Proposition 3: Internationalization of business education leads to hybridization rather than simple convergence. Global models move through uneven institutional circuits but are translated by local histories, state systems, professional cultures and political economies.

Proposition 4: Digital and responsible management education are not separate futures for business education but linked pressures that require the field to integrate access, technological capacity, ethical judgment, and contextual reflexivity.

6. Discussion

The article contributes to management education and business school studies by re-framing business education as adaptive institutional settlement. This framing explains the resilience of business education to repeated criticism. It is not the product of a stable curriculum, nor of a single institutional form. It comes from the capacity to reconfigure practical knowledge, institutional legitimacy and social purpose under changing circumstances.

This article builds on historical work on business schools, connecting institutional histories to wider patterns of commercial learning. Recent work has questioned hegemonic origin stories, highlighted alternative pasts, and revealed the political and philanthropic interests behind business school development (Cooke & Kumar, 2020; McLaren et al., 2021; Spicer et al., 2021; Wanderley et al., 2021). The current article extends that work by arguing that business education should not be understood from the moment business schools became university institutions. Its deeper history explains why experiential learning, practical judgment, socialization, and moral conduct are still at the heart of it even when curricula seem very technical.

The article also speaks to debates on responsible management education. It argues that the social legitimacy of business education is not a new curriculum problem but a recurring responsibility problem. As economic activity grows in importance for society, the education field is put under pressure to justify not only how it produces competent managers, but also what kind of economic actors it produces. This interpretation is consistent with recent work by Azmat et al. (2023), Haski-Leventhal et al. (2022), Laasch et al. (2023) and Russo et al. (2023) and illustrates the need for greater institutional integration of responsibility, sustainability and ethical competence.

The discussion also addresses the debates in digital learning. Delivery effectiveness, student satisfaction or technology acceptance are common ways to evaluate online and hybrid formats. Those questions are important, but what a historical view adds is another question: what institutional settlement is digital learning creating? Digital business education has the advantage of access and flexibility, but it must still preserve the formation of judgment, community and responsibility. If it turns into little more than content distribution, it could threaten to undermine the very forms of situated learning that made business education so valuable even in its earliest days.

Finally, the article contributes to theory by identifying three persistent tensions in the field: practice versus academic legitimacy, standardization versus contextual relevance and economic utility versus public responsibility. These tensions are not problems to be solved once-and-for-all. They are generative tensions structuring the field. Strong business education is not achieved by choosing one side of each tension, but by building institutions and curricula that can hold them in productive tension.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The article has several limitations. First, it is a conceptual historical synthesis, not an archival study of one country, institution or program. Its propositions need more empirical testing. Second, the periodization used here is analytical, not universal. The sequences may be different in national and regional histories, especially when considering colonial administration, socialist planning, religious education, vocational systems, or postcolonial state-building. Third, the article is largely about institutional and curricular change, less so about student experience, faculty work, language politics, and the political economy of rankings and accreditation.

Future research may test the adaptive institutional settlement framework by comparative case studies of business schools in different regions. Archival research might examine how particular institutions adapted global models to local curricula. Longitudinal studies could explore how digital and hybrid programs maintain or erode experiential learning. Research on responsible management education could explore whether courses in ethics and sustainability are core decision-making courses or are peripheral to core decision-making courses. Further work could also explore how business education is experienced by learners from different social backgrounds in terms of access, mobility, socialization or exclusion.

8. Conclusion

Business education has been transformed from an embedded trade practice to a global and digitally mediated site through successive institutional settlements. Each settlement redefined the relationship between practical knowledge, educational authority, competence and social purpose. Guilds and apprenticeship were about standards and supervised participation. Formal schools of commerce systematized practical knowledge for industrial economies. Business schools in universities needed academic legitimacy and professional status. Internationalisation spread common models and created local translations. What is challenging for the field today is the integration of flexibility, access, technological ability and ethical judgment in digital learning and responsible management education.

The main contribution of this article is to demonstrate that business education is not just a story of institutional expansion or curricular modernization. It is a history of tension and adjustment. Its future will depend on whether business schools, and related providers, can retain the best of practice-based learning while also meeting contemporary demands for rigor, responsibility, inclusion and digital relevance.

References

Amdam, R. P., & Elias, A. L. (2021). Business schools and the executives' wives. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 300-319. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0129

Azmat, F., Jain, A., & Sridharan, B. (2023). Responsible management education in business schools: Are we there yet? Journal of Business Research, 157, Article 113518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113518

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who built Maslow's pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies' most famous symbol and its implications for management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0351

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. (2015). Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the Sao Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 482-499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0147

Cooke, B., & Kumar, A. (2020). U.S. philanthropy's shaping of management education in the 20th century: Toward a periodization of history. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0277

Cummings, S., & Bridgman, T. (2016). The limits and possibilities of history: How a wider, deeper, and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0373

Dierksmeier, C. (2020). From Jensen to Jensen: Mechanistic management education or humanistic management learning? Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04120-z

Doucette, M. B., Gladstone, J. S., & Carter, B. (2021). Indigenous conversational approach to history and business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 382-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0530

Garcia-Feijoo, M., Eizaguirre, A., & Rica-Aspiunza, A. (2020). Systematic review of sustainable-development-goal deployment in business schools. Sustainability, 12(1), Article 440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010440

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.16132558

Haertle, J., Parkes, C., Murray, A., & Hayes, R. (2017). PRME: Building a global movement on responsible management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.05.002

Haski-Leventhal, D., Pournader, M., & Leigh, J. S. A. (2022). Responsible management education as socialization: Business students' values, attitudes and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04593-3

Kitchener, M. (2024). Re-purposing business schools: Potential, progress, and precarity. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13171

Laasch, O., Moosmayer, D. C., & Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2023). The interdisciplinary responsible management competence framework: An integrative review of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability competences. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(4), 733-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05261-4

McLaren, P. G. (2019). Stop blaming Gordon and Howell: Unpacking the complex history behind the research-based model of business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0311

McLaren, P. G. (2020). Strengthening capitalism through philanthropy: The Ford Foundation, managerialism and American business schools. Management Learning, 51(2), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619890094

McLaren, P. G., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. (2021). From the editors - New times, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 293-299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0318

Montiel, I., Gallo, P. J., & Antolin-Lopez, R. (2020). What on earth should managers learn about corporate sustainability? A threshold concept approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(4), 857-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04361-y

Russo, F., Wheeldon, A. L., Shrestha, A., & Saratchandra, M. (2023). Responsible management education in business schools - High on principles but low on action: A systematic literature review. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), Article 100843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100843

Spicer, A., Jaser, Z., & Wiertz, C. (2021). The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 459-466. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0275

Tahmassebi, H., & Najmi, M. (2023). Developing a comprehensive assessment tool for responsible management education in business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), Article 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100874

Verma, S., Panigrahi, T. R., & Alok, D. (2021). COVID-19 and online learning in post graduate management programme: An empirical analysis of students' perception. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.33423/jabe.v23i2.4094

Wadhwani, R. D., & Viebig, C. (2021). Social imaginaries of entrepreneurship education: The United States and Germany, 1800-2020. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 342-360. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0195

Wanderley, S., Alcadipani, R., & Barros, A. (2021). Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0156

Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic - Online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884

#BusinessEducation #ManagementEducation #BusinessSchools #HistoryOfEducation #HigherEducation #CommercialLearning #Apprenticeship #SchoolsOfCommerce #MBAEducation #DigitalLearning #LifelongLearning #ResponsibleManagement #AcademicLegitimacy #GlobalEducation #InstitutionalChange