Introduction

It was June 17, 2019, and a sunny and quiet afternoon. Sitting at her desk and glancing out of the window, Lisa Brown let her eyes wander over the lush campus greens. Reflecting on the beauty of nature, she was fully committed to preserving it and being responsible in the way natural resources were used.

She went back to thinking about her latest assignment.

Brown, the assistant to the director at Swotting School of Business, Michael Wilson, had just met with Wilson to start a conversation about what the school should engage in during the next academic year to sensitize its students to more sustainable practices and becoming responsible leaders of tomorrow.

Since 2013, when Swotting School of Business became a signatory of the PRME initiative, the school had organized at least one major event each year to promote awareness among its students. Considering which project to favor, Brown andWilson had just revisited some of the school's previous projects. They had agreedthat Brown would review all of them in more detail during the next week or two, and for her to also devise at least one additional alternative they could consider when selecting among the different options.

Wilson wanted to meet again within two weeks to decide which alternative to select. Prior to that meeting, Brown needed to collect and structure data with

regard to previous projects and potential new ones, prepare her analysis, and develop a recommendation for Wilson regarding which project he should select.

Swotting School of Business and the PRME

Swotting School of Business is a small business school located in Western Canada. Being a special-purpose teaching university, the school is mostly focused on

providing applied undergraduate education. Its four-year Bachelor of Business Administration degree program had the largest enrolment in the school at about 900 students. In addition, the school also offered a variety of diploma and certificate programs, with a total enrolment of about 1,800 students, mostly serving the educational needs of the local region.

Swotting School of Business became a signatory of the United Nations' PRME initiative in 2013. The PRME was 'developed in 2007 by an international task force of

sixty deans, university presidents and official representatives of leading businessschools and academic institutions' (United Nations, 2007), and focused on sixprinciples (https://www.unprme.org/about-prme/the-six-principles.php). Committed to supporting the PRME, Swotting School of Business pledged, amongothers things, to 'develop the capabilities of students to be future generators ofsustainable value for business and society at large and to work for an inclusive andsustainable global economy' (United Nations, 2007). The school further pledged to'facilitate and support dialog and debate among educators, students, business,government, consumers, media, civil society organizations and other interested groups and stakeholders on critical issues related to global social responsibility andsustainability' (United Nations, 2007).

During the past years, as part of its commitment to the PRME, Swotting School of Business had run various projects to develop its students into responsible leaders and to engage them in dialogue and debate around sustainability topics. For

example, sustainable mornings was introduced as a place where the Swotting community could assemble to exchange ideas about how the university could become more sustainable. In 2016 and 2017 the school organized PRME essay competitions, encouraging students to review best practices related to the UnitedNations' 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals). In

2017, Swotting School of Business added a sustainability symposium to further encourage dialogue between various community members. The sustainable case competition followed in 2018, in which teams of students had the opportunity to compete with each other, focusing on developing sustainable solutions to real- world problems.

For the 2019-2020 academic year, Wilson was open to retrying one of the previous projects or to exploring new alternatives. He explained to Brown that ultimately he

would base his selection on how well a project aligned with the school's goals.

Basis for Judging Projects

Brown quickly sensed that she needed to better grasp what Wilson meant by the'school's goals'. As those goals would form the basis for his decision, Brown felt thatshe had to define criteria that she could use to evaluate all projects.

While clarifying what he meant, Wilson pointed out that, when assessing potential projects, Brown should focus on faculty commitment, student engagement, the time to develop and execute a project, as well as PRME alignment and impact.

Faculty Commitment

One point that had always proven difficult when running projects in the past was to get faculty members committed. Faculty members are important resources for most projects to make sure that an academic format is chosen and for their

expertise in various areas. For faculty, however, it was normally difficult to commit to particular projects and particular dates, especially when project planning started so early that they would not yet know their full teaching schedule. As many would be restricted by teaching or other commitments during the teaching semesters, it was also normally difficult to find dates on which faculty members could meet to plan. Moreover, dates to carry out activities for which faculty members would have to be present were also difficult to agree on in advance. Wilson thus emphasized

that projects that only used a few faculty resources were easier to manage. Therefore, he preferred projects that only needed a few faculty members and for which their time commitment would be relatively straightforward and limited. In other words, the fewer faculty resources a project required, the better it would fare in comparison with other projects.

Student Engagement

The likelihood of attracting students to participate in activities was very important

to Wilson. On the one hand, he certainly did not want to see faculty and staff being disappointed at the end of a long project-planning phase, only seeing a few students participating in an activity. Not only would it be disappointing for them, but he also feared that low participation could be counterproductive to getting faculty to volunteer for such projects in the future as they might not see the benefit of planning and executing a project. Low participation could also have a negative bearing on future projects-if it was generally known that only a few students participated, negative word-of-mouth could further reduce the number of participants in future years. And the fewer students who participated in activities, the more limited the opportunity of each project to create visibility and to raise awareness for the PRME and SDGs. Wilson therefore pointed out that a project that would attract many students would be ideal. Brown added that, based on previous experience, she had found that projects that required little to no preparation from students had resulted in higher levels of student attendance.

Time to Develop and Execute

Wilson also considered the time it would take to develop and execute a project as important. In recent years projects had tended to be very time consuming-both to develop and to execute. Due to the small size of the school, Wilson felt that it would be vital to select a project that would not demand too much time to develop and execute. A second reason to favor projects that would not take too much time to

plan and run was that it would normally be easier to gain buy-in from faculty and staff because the effort needed would be clearly defined from the outset. Thus, he considered projects that took little time to develop and execute as better than those with long development and execution timelines.

PRME Alignment and Impact

To Wilson it was very important that students learn about the PRME and SDGs. Creating that kind of awareness would clearly align with the PRME commitment the

school had signed up for. Wilson argued that a project that focused explicitly on the SDGs or responsible management practices would have more impact on creating awareness than a project with an insipid theme. Likewise, a project that would address two or several SDGs would be better than one that only touched on one. In addition, projects with active learning components he considered would bettermeet the school's goals than those that only focused on passive learning. He explained that students who actively participated projects were exposed to deeper learning, which had more long-term impacts. Especially when students spent significant time on a specific topic, they could immerse themselves in relevant material. Superficial activities, on the other hand, were less likely to make a lasting impact. Hence, projects that clearly focused on making an impact would rank higher than those for which an impact would be non-essential.

Having contemplated the criteria to judge all projects, Brown and Wilson wondered how important each criterion was in selecting a project. They both felt that student

engagement was most important. After all, the whole idea was to create more awareness. Thus, they decided student engagement would be at least twice as important as any other criterion. Faculty commitment and time to develop and execute would be about equally important. Furthermore, PRME alignment and impact would be approximately 50% more important than faculty commitment and time to develop and execute.

Projects to Consider

Brown and Wilson still needed to decide which projects to consider for the 2019-2020 academic year. Both felt that it would certainly be nice to have a new idea. Wilson, who was pressured for time, however, did not want to spend another hour or so discussing the pros and cons of several new ideas. Instead, he asked Brown to give it some thought and to present one or more ideas in her analysis the next time they met.

Although new project ideas would certainly be nice to have, Wilson had pointed out that one of the old projects could still be a valid option. Thus, Brown would have to consider the main projects from the past when preparing her analysis. Projects from the past included: (a) a PRME essay competition, (b) a sustainability symposium, (c) sustainable mornings, and (d) sustainable case competitions.

PRME Essay Competition

The PRME essay competition allowed students to elaborate on sustainable practices and how best practices could be implemented at the university or within the wider community. The aim was to have students engage with topics that contributed to a socially responsible and sustainable development of the region. Developing the essay competition was not a very time-consuming task. In the past, one faculty member volunteered to select a suitable theme, formed a panel of judges consisting of several faculty members, and together with a staff member took care of practical aspects such as advertising the competition. Panel members

did not have to meet in person but could provide their assessment of all essays in writing, using a rubric and criteria that were developed for the competition. For students, the time commitment was rather extensive. Students had to commit to write a , which involved a considerable amount of time. To attract students to participate, cash prizes were considered and extensive advertising for the competition was carried out too. Yet, the number of participating students was

consistently low. Students complained that it was too much work and that they could not receive academic credits for their essays. For those students who participated, however, writing an essay was a very high-impact exercise. Those students completely immersed themselves into relevant topics, developed their own thoughts around the PRME and responsible management practices, and captured their studies in the form of academic essays.

Sustainability Symposium

The sustainability symposium was put into place to foster a dialogue between students, educators, businesses, and the local community. From a PRME perspective, the project was very interesting because it did not only cater to students but created a platform for different stakeholders to assemble and exchange ideas on the topic of sustainability. The event featured, for example, student work, First Nations initiatives, and sustainable business practices-both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Various presentations focused on several different SDGs-related topics. Many practical solutions and ideas that could be implemented in the near future were brought to the attention of the audience. For that reason, the event was very attractive from an impact point of view. It was, however, very time consuming to plan. Many external and internal speakers needed to be secured and coordinated. Some faculty members were secured as speakers too. For those faculty members, preparation and participation time was moderate as they could partially draw on existing presentations and research

findings. Coordinating all speakers made it difficult to schedule the event during the teaching period. Hence, it took place after the teaching and exam period. It was envisioned that students would show up in large numbers, as the topics were verytimely and interesting. Further, the students' time commitment wasminimal as they only had to show up, listen, and engage. Showing up, however, turned out to be a challenge as the late date after exams caused students not to attend the event. For

the few students that did show up, engaging in the event was not easy because most speakers chose a lecture-style format that did not encourage much active participation. Some of the shortcomings could potentially be eliminated in the future through different timings and more engaging interaction.

Sustainable Mornings

Sustainable mornings were introduced as a place for the Swotting community to exchange ideas about how the university could become more sustainable. Pop-up

stands were used around campus at different times to engage passers-by in conversations around actions the university could take to become more sustainable. The pop-up-stand format allowed for great flexibility with regard to event timing. A faculty or staff member, for example, could quickly set up a stand and spend as much time as they had available. Most arranged pop-up stands overlapped with breaks between lectures, when there was significant movement on campus. This approach proved to be very effective. Students-as well as some faculty-asked questions, shared ideas, and engaged in conversations at the pop- up stands. There was no preparation for students at all, but the ones who stopped by and engaged appeared to show some genuine interest in sustainability and, thus, some good discussions took place. However, many students were also rushing between classes and often did not have time to fully engage. Based on this, one could conclude that engagement was moderate and the created impact was also best described as moderate. That is, students heard somewhat about PRME

and SDGs-related topics, but it remained unclear if they actually learned something. Organizing sustainable mornings required very little effort. No particular topic needed to be prepared, the pop-up stands-once obtained-were up and running in no time. Moreover, scheduling was so flexible that whoever had time to run a discussion on campus could do it whenever they wanted.

Sustainable Case Competition

The sustainable case competition aimed at getting students together for a day to solve a real-world sustainability challenge and to present their innovative solutions to a panel of academics and influential business leaders in the community. As a one-day event, students would not have to commit too much time to the event. They would be at the university from early morning to early evening. As they would not get access to the case prior to the event, no preparation was necessary for the students and their time commitment was clearly limited to about 10 hours in which

they formed groups, analyzed the case, prepared solutions, and presented their solutions to a panel of judges. Students could sign up as teams or find team members on the spot. Thus, everyone who was interested could simply attend. The only restriction was the number of teams the competition could feature. As it turned out, student interest and participation in the competition was high. Students were attracted by the format and by the opportunities to win cash prizes, meet business leaders, and deal with real-world problems. Cases usually addressed several SDGs, such as SDG 1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere), SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), and SDG 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable). From a planning perspective, the initial investment was high. Student competitions of this format were new at Swotting School of Business. Although faculty had some experience taking students to competitions elsewhere, developing rules, promotional material, and composing a challenging case turned out to be very time consuming. Only a few faculty members were willing to invest

the time to create the content needed in the competition. The second time the case competition was offered, most time was spent on developing a new case, as much of the other material could be adapted without too much effort. Faculty who participated in the panel of judges only needed to invest limited time as they only needed to attend a short briefing session on how to judge proposals and then attend the presentations, which were up to three hours long. The presentations

showed that the students had fully immersed into their topics. They had focused on the problem-the SDGs-and created sustainable solutions. Having been involved at such a level was a clear indication that the sustainability case competition would fare as a high-impact practice.

Alternative Projects

Finally, yet importantly, Wilson mentioned to Brown that he was also open to new ideas. In fact, Wilson encouraged Brown to look for alternative projects that could

fit the school's goals.

To get Brown started, Wilson suggested she look at some of the PRME Champions to see what approach they had taken. One school he mentioned was Copenhagen Business School (CBS). He had seen that CBS had promoted a few activities on their website (https://www.cbs.dk/en/knowledge-society/strategic-areas/principles- responsible-management-education/activities), some of which were rather interesting.

Wilson, however, stressed that he was not looking to copy a particular project. He rather wanted Brown to broaden her horizons by looking at what others were doing in order to generate some new ideas that might suit the Swotting School of Business.

The Decision

Having experimented with different formats on how to raise awareness among students for the PRME and SDGs, Wilson wanted a more formal analysis of which project to select for the next academic year. To make a decision, Wilson wanted to meet with Brown again in the next week or two. He wished to receive a recommendation on which project to select. For this, Brown needed to review former projects, collect additional information about at least one alternative project, create criteria to score project traits, and prepare a quantitative analysis of

the various options, using a weighted factor scoring method-allowing Wilson to make an informed decision and select one project in the next meeting.

a) Imagine you were Lisa Brown, establish criteria for evaluation and assign scores or values for project traits, and define weightings for all criteria.

b) Assign values to all criteria for the four projects.

c) Devise an alternative project to raise awareness for sustainability and/or developing responsible leaders. You might use a project from your own institution or be inspired by another PRME signatory. For your alternative project, assign values to all criteria.

d) Using the weighted factor scoring method, compute total scores for each project and make a recommendation on which project to select for the next academic year.