Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 349–356 | Cite as

Regulatory Perspectives on Business Ethics in the Curriculum

  • Geoff MooreEmail author
Article

Abstract

The paper begins by providing a classification of the regulatory environment within which Business Schools, particularly those in the U.K., operate. The classification identifies mandatory vs. voluntary and prescriptive vs. permissive requirements in relation to the Business and Management curriculum. Three QAA Subject Benchmark Statements relating to Business and Management, the AMBA MBA guidelines, and the EQUIS and AACSB standards are then compared and contrasted with each other. The cognitive and affective learning outcomes associated with business ethics contained in each of these statements are then detailed. The conclusion is that from an international perspective compliance with relevant standards, while requiring due consideration, should be relatively straightforward. From a U.K. perspective, however, the QAA Subject Benchmark Statements provide the most rigorous standards and to meet these will require considerable development on the part of many Business Schools in the U.K. For those academics engaged in this area, however, this represents an opportunity not to be missed.

Keywords

Business-ethics curriculum quality-assurance-agency teaching-business-ethics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AACSB: 2003, ‘Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation’, see http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation.Google Scholar
  2. AMBA: 2002, ‘Accreditation of MBA Programmes’, see http://www.mbaworld.com.Google Scholar
  3. Bligh, D., Thomas, H., McNay, I. 1999Understanding Higher Education. An Introduction for Parents, Staff, Employers and StudentsIntellect BooksExeterGoogle Scholar
  4. Ethics, Business 2003‘Business Ethics Classes: To Require or Not?’, Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility Report1720Google Scholar
  5. Cowton, C. 2002‘On Two-by-Two Grids: Or, the Arkeology of Management Thought’Reason in Practice24751Google Scholar
  6. Cowton, C., Cummins, J. 2003‘Teaching Business Ethics in UK Higher Education: Progress and Prospects’Teaching Business Ethics73754Google Scholar
  7. Cummins, J. 1999The Teaching of Business EthicsInstitute of Business EthicsLondonGoogle Scholar
  8. EQUIS: 2003, ‘European Quality Link (EQUAL) European MBA Guidelines’, see http://www.efmd.be/equis.Google Scholar
  9. Gray, R., Owen, D., Adams, C. 1996Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental ReportingPrentice-HallLondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly, M. 2003‘It’s a Heckuva Time to be Dropping Business Ethics Courses. MBA Programs are Downsizing Ethics Requirements at Precisely the Wrong Time’Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility Report http://www.business-ethics.com/BizSchlsDrop Ethics.htm15 October 2003Google Scholar
  11. Molyneaux, D. 2004‘Integrating Ethics into Undergraduate Accountancy Education: An Experience after Andersen’Journal of Business Ethics54377390Google Scholar
  12. QAA, 2000, ‘Subject Benchmark Statement for General Business and Management’, (Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency), see http://www.qaa.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
  13. QAA: 2000, ‘Subject Benchmark Statement in Accounting’ (Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency), see http://www.qaa.ac.uk.Google Scholar
  14. QAA: 2002, ‘Subject Benchmark Statement in Masters Awards in Business and Management’ (Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency), see http://www.qaa. ac.uk.Google Scholar
  15. SBE, 2003, ‘The Society for Business Ethics Newsletter’, Spring, see http://www.societyforbusinessethics.orgGoogle Scholar
  16. SBE, 2004, ‘The Society for Business Ethics Newsletter’, Spring, see http://www.societyforbusinessethics.orgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastleU.K

Personalised recommendations