Irish Academy of Management Conference 2014 University of Limerick: 3-5 September 2014. Track: Teaching, Learning & Education Competitive Paper The Relationship between Concern for Environmental Sustainability and the Capacity for Wisdom and Other Factors among Postgraduate Business Students: An International Comparison Authors Bernard McKenna Business School, The University of Queensland, Australia Olaf Sigurjónsson School of Business, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. Auður Arnardóttir School of Business, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. Roberto Biloslavo The University of Primorska, Slovenia Cagri Bulut Yasar University, Turkey Carlo Bagnoli Universita Ca’ Foscari, Venice, Italy Subhasis Ray Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar. David Rooney Business School, The University of Queensland, Australia Hannes Zacher University of Groningen, Netherlands Wendelin Küpers Karlshochschule International University, Karlsruhe Mark Dibben University of Tasmania, Australia Rob Macklin University of Tasmania, Australia Jonathan Gosling Exeter University, UK Address correspondence to: Bernard McKenna Business School The University of Queensland St Lucia, 4072, Australia b.mckenna@uq.edu.au 61 7 3346 8149  ABSTRACT The paper presents the results of an exploratory international survey, excluding USA, of postgraduate business students including MBAs. The central purpose was to consider the relationship between the propensity for wisdom and adopting an ecological perspective that is more compatible with long-term planetary sustainability. Other variables were considered. Students were more inclined to the New Ecological Paradigm [NEP], with a significant strong correlation between the level of wisdom and environmental concern. Stronger NEP and wisdom scores were positively correlated with subjective wellbeing and psychological wellbeing. Although there was no correlation between gender and wisdom, there was a positive correlation between wisdom and those with children as well as those who are partnered, suggesting the importance of experience in wisdom formation. Gender also did not correlate with environmental concern. Students reasonably strongly agreed with sustainability being a significant part of the Business degree curriculum. Further curriculum implications are provided.  INTRODUCTION Environmental sustainability must now be considered as the pre-eminent global concern beyond even the potential for nuclear terrorism and global poverty. This is because, even if we acted globally now, the planet is likely to experience an increase of at least 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. This is not conjecture as the IPCC (2013) and even a World Bank sponsored report (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research 2012) estimate that a temperature rise of at least 4 degrees Celsius is likely by the end of the century. Even gloomier predictions are provided by James Hansen, the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues that even 1°C in global warming will lead to a cataclysmic ‘tipping point’ (Hansen et al., 2008). Just one of the destructive outcomes should this happen is sea level rises of 20 to 40 centimetres by 2100 accompanying a temperature rise of 1.4 to 3.8 degree Celsius. Clearly the impact of such sea rises on low lying countries such as Bangladesh and large city populations such as New York, Miami, and New Orleans in the USA, Amsterdam and Rotterdam in Europe, Mumbai and Kolkata in India, and Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Tokyo in Asia will be catastrophic in human and economic terms. Although the advanced industrial nations have been largely responsible for this parlous state of the environment, the situation has become even more critical as China and India, the world’s most populous nations, increase their GDP. Chinese cities’ air pollution is similar to that of developed countries in the 1960s, causing adverse health effects including respiratory disease and premature mortality estimated at 300,000 per year. Rural China also suffers severe pollution because of coal and biomass fuelled stoves, leading to 420,000 premature deaths annually (Kan, Chen, & Tong 2010). Over 28% of China’s major rivers had the lowest grade of water and two-thirds of the rural population do not have safe piped water leading to increased cancers and diarrhoea. About 70% of worldwide electronic waste is generated in China, and pollution from heavy metals is increasingly threatening people’s health. In the face of these dire facts, people might be excused for suffering a form of psychic numbness and be attracted by denialist political policies. But these characteristics should not be present in our future leaders. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See http://www.ipcc.ch/ makes several predictions based on different 21st century scenarios. The best, but also most unlikely, scenario is that we stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions to year 2000 levels by reducing global population and developing clean technologies, thereby inducing an increase of less than a degree by 2100. The actions of business leaders will be as important as governmental action in trying to prevent this global catastrophe. Thus, it is important to know whether emerging business leaders from postgraduate business degrees believe that the environmental issue is urgent and whether they believe that they are capable of doing something about that in their future business roles. Because radical environmental action requires intelligence, foresight, courage, and a virtuous commitment to human flourishing, it is worthwhile considering whether there is a relationship between wisdom and a commitment to environmental action. Also worthy of consideration are whether other variables such as personality, values, and other demographic factors (age, sex, geography) are related to Environmental Concern and Wisdom. Of importance also is whether those who do identify as concerned feel a sense of agency that they are able to effect change. To get some sort of idea about the profile of current MBA and Master of Business (or similar postgraduate degrees) students in terms of their concerns about environmental sustainability and an ability to take environmental actions, an international survey study was undertaken. WISDOM AND SUSTAINABILITY The central variable in this study is wisdom. However, this is a much contested term and its measurement is highly problematic. We begin broadly with the proposition that wisdom is a social practice not just an intellectual capability (Rooney, McKenna & Liesch, 2010) that guides the art of living coherently and appropriately according to the situation by producing excellence for oneself and others by integrating intellectual and ethical virtues in praxis. In this way, wisdom is the peak of human social excellence. Such an approach is consistent with Glück and Bluck’s (2013) MORE model of wisdom. However, at the core of wisdom is virtue, which may be underpinned by religious, other spiritual, or humanist values, but which must be reflexively critical about its own axiological foundations There is insufficient space to survey the various theories of wisdom. For an excellent overview, see Trowbridge (2005). . Apart from virtue, wisdom is characterised by four other factors. First, a wise person possesses an equanimous and actively open mind. This involves openness to new ideas, experiences and critique, and the ability to mindfully, skillfully, and constructively work with any situated relativities of values and politics. Second, a wise person possesses educated self-awareness and social intelligence. A wise person possesses self-knowledge built on a capacity for self-transcendence, and possesses nous to understand their position in various social orders. Third, a wise person has empathy and exercises prosocial behavior. This involves empathetic and careful consideration and understanding of others’ needs, including emotional and social needs, to find the right and ethical (virtuous) thing to do. Fourth, a wise person is courageous, generous, and is prudently responsible in exercising their power and knowledge. This involves knowing how and when to adapt to the environment and how and when to change the environment (Sternberg, 2004), including having mastery and courage to alter the environment to better enable well-being. However, despite knowing others and life so well, a wise social practitioner is not selfishly manipulative and does not abuse their knowledge, power and influence. Fifth, a wise person will be, in appropriate circumstances, be a galvanizing leader and artful communicator. This involves an aesthetic, forward-looking, constructive, and positive way of living as a skilled and ethical communicator, political actor, deep and transcendent thinker, and humble leader. Thus, socially practiced wisdom has a multidimensional capacity for integration of consciousness, behaviour, culture, and systems (Küpers and Statler 2008, p. 387; see also Vervaeke and Ferraro 2013;) in a process of praxis. We propose that future leaders with a commitment to sustainability in a world whose dominant paradigm is global growth capitalism in a neo-liberal political framework will need to display these wisdom characteristics. METHOD Students enrolled in an MBA or a coursework Business Masters degree were recruited from Australia, Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Italy, Norway, Slovenia, and Turkey by a network of international colleagues. They were invited to complete an online survey written in English, but also in Turkish for Turkish students. Because the purpose of the survey was to provide descriptive information and because there is little information about the relationship of the variables in this population, no hypotheses were formulated. Five variables were measured: wisdom; commitment to sustainability; sense of unity with the student’s business course and with global issues; psychological wellbeing; subjective wellbeing; and relative importance of environmental sustainability as a business curriculum component. Demographic data was also sought about age, sex, nationality, highest level of educational attainment, primary area of work expertise, monthly income (when in full time employment), marital status, and parental status. It should be noted that the nationality of the student may not necessarily be the same nation as the university s/he is attending. Because of the potential for survey fatigue, the shortest versions of some tests were preferred. The wisdom scale used is the 20-item Brief Wisdom Screening Scale that was developed from Glück et al’s (2013) meta-analysis of wisdom scales. Self-report scales to measure wisdom are quite problematic. Commonly used self-report scales include the 3D-WS Scale developed by Ardelt (2003, 2011), Greene & Brown’s Wisdom Development Scale, 2009) and Webster’s SAWS (2003, 2007). The Bremen style of measuring wisdom (Mickler & Staudinger, 2008; Staudinger & Glück, 2011) was eschewed as it was felt that students were unlikely to take the time to write a minimum of 200 words in response to a question. The self-report scales were critiqued in Glück et al’s (2013) meta-analysis and found to be deficient. Furthermore Zacher, McKenna & Rooney’s (2013) study found that Ardelt’s study was largely a study of emotional intelligence rather the three elements (affective, cognitive, and reflective) claimed. Glück et al (2013) found that, in terms of content validity, the self-report measures of wisdom ‘differ both in how wisdom is defined and how those definitions are operationalized’ (p. 3). In terms of face-validity, they find that the Bremen model is a superior performance-based measure because participants are unaware of the specific rating criteria or that they are being tested for. It is argued that the best model is one that focuses on one’s own life. The twenty one items in this survey are taken from Glück et al’s (2013) meta-analysis because these were found to be the most valid and reliable components of the scales that they measured. To test for commitment to environmental sustainability, the 15 item New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) was used as it measures the environmental concern of groups of people. The NEP includes three major themes: ecological limits to growth; the importance of maintaining the balance of nature; and rejection of the anthropocentric notion that nature exists primarily for human use. To identify each student’s sense of unity with the Planet and with their Business Degree, and hence their affiliative priorities, students were asked to choose from three Venn diagrams (no connection; partial connection; full connection): You-Planet; Business School-Planet; You-Business School. The traditional measures of Subjective Wellbeing [SWB] and Psychological Wellbeing [PWB] (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; Ryff, 1989) are very long. Thus this survey included only three questions each to measure SWB and PWB on a seven-(1989) point Likert scale (Baumeister et al., 2013). SWB and PWB are related but distinct aspects of positive psychological functioning that draw heavily on formulations of human development and existential challenges of life (Keyes, et al., 2002, 1008). PWB, according to Ryff (1989) is determined by self-acceptance; positive relations with others; autonomy; environmental mastery (shape the environment to meet personal needs); purpose in life (find meaning in one’s efforts and challenges); and personal growth (making the most of one’s talents and capacities). SWB measures include affective dimensions of happiness and cognitive assessments of life satisfaction. Some aspects of PWB (such as personal growth, purpose in life) reflect self-fulfilment meanings of eudaimonic well-being (p. 1007). Whereas PWB measures hedonic elements of Life satisfaction – “individuals’ perceived distance from their aspirations”, and Happiness – balance of positive and negative affect (p. 1008). By contrast, SWB engages with the existential challenges of life. Openness to experience is the primary means of distinguishing those with high levels of psychological thriving (i.e., PWB) but low levels of happiness (ie, SWB). Thus high openness ‘may enlarge the potential and capabilities of individuals for self-fulfilment at the same time that it may invoke costs regarding negative feelings and evaluations of life’ (p. 1019). In other words, high PWB is more likely to indicate higher levels of wisdom, but higher levels of wisdom may not necessarily produce higher levels of happiness. One question asked students to rank order which courses they considered to be the most important to the least important components of a postgraduate or MBA degree. The components are: Finance, Economics, Management, Innovation, Leadership, International Business, Environmental Sustainability, and Other. Results & Conclusions There was a high rate of incompletion leading to results for each item varying considerably. Basic descriptive data is provided first (Table 1). The average age of participants was 27.1 years (sd = 7.53), the youngest being 19 and the eldest 58. 43% of participants are married and 84% have children. The students appear to more strongly favour the New Ecological Paradigm (Table 2) indicating that they acknowledge ecological limits to growth and are more likely to reject an anthropocentric understanding of humans in relation to nature, and that they consider it relatively important to maintain a balance with nature. Table 3 reports on what participants in the study consider important subject matter in their MBA and Masters study programmes. The most important MBA subject according to all 724 participants are innovation (M=3.49), management (M=4.05), leadership (M=4.40) and environmental sustainability (M=4.79). A total of 17.0% of all participants put environmental sustainability in the first place as the most important subject to be taught. When subject matter is broken down according to nationality of the participant (for nation with 20 participants or more), the picture varies somewhat upon the location (see table 3). Environmental sustainability is seen as very important subject matter for example in India, Asia, but much less so in Germany, Denmark and Iceland.  Total Australia Asia India Slovenia Turkey Italy Germany Denmark Iceland All others # 682 21 24 145 46 67 211 20 40 52 56 % 100 2.7% 3.1% 18.5% 5.9% 8.6% 27.0% 2.6% 5.1% 6.6% 7.2% Males 50.1% 61.9% 29.2% 64.1% 26.1% 46.3% 45.0% 45.0% 65.0% 55.8% 48.2% Females 49.9% 38.1% 70.8% 35.9% 73.9% 53.7% 55.0% 55.0% 35.0% 44.2% 51.8% Mean age 27.46 38.33 24.83 24.21 30.28 31.36 23.42 24.30 26.17 39.98 31.18 age SD 7.46 10.45 3.92 4.96 6.58 5.77 1.32 1.80 3.97 7.59 9.98 Single 56.3% 33.3% 83.3% 85.5% 28.3% 53.7% 55.0% 50.0% 52.5% 15.7% 50.0% Married/partnered 43.7% 66.7% 16.7% 14.5% 71.7% 46.3% 45.0% 50.0% 47.5% 84.3% 50.0% Without child 83.0% 61.9% 95.8% 89.4% 73.9% 70.1% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21.2% 73.2% Have child/children 17.0% 38.1% 4.2% 10.6% 26.1% 29.9% 1.0% 0% 0% 78.8% 17.0% Table 1: Description of Participants  N Min Max Mean SD Dominant Social Paradigm 673 1.000 5.000 2.96 .59 New Social Paradigm 676 1.000 5.000 3.81 .56 Table 2: New Social Paradigm and Dominant Social Paradigm Orientation N Mean importance SD 1st place Innovation 724 3.49 2.20 18.5% Management (including HR) 724 4.05 2.32 12.9% Leadership 724 4.40 2.56 13.8% Environmental sustainability 724 4.79 2.98 17.0% Finance 724 4.79 2.54 11.3% Economics 724 4.85 2.41 8.3% International business 724 5.88 2.43 4.0% Accounting 724 6.19 2.47 3.3% Marketing 724 6.42 2.27 2.4% Other 724 9.62 1.54 0.4% Table 3: Relative importance of MBA and MBus courses in order (n = 724); lower score = higher importance  N 1 place 2 place 3 place 4 place % putting En. Sustain. 1 place Australia 21 Leadership Innovation Management En. Sustain. 14.3% Asia 24 Management Leadership Economics En. Sustain. 20.8% India 145 Innovation Leadership En. Sustain. Management 37.9% Slovenia 46 Innovation Finance Management En. Sustain. 15.2% Turkey 67 Innovation Management Economics En. Sustain. 20.9% Italy 211 Innovation Management En. Sustain. Finance 14.2% Germany 20 Management Leadership Innovation Intern. Bus. 5.0% Denmark 40 Finance Innovation Economics Leadership 2.5% Iceland 52 Leadership Management Finance Innovation 3.8% Table 4: Nationality and importance of Business Course Subject Matter Table 5 provides information on the degree to which students identified with their Business School in relation to their identification with the natural environment. This indicates that students identify more with the natural environment (M = 3.53) than with their business school (M = 3.32), although there was considerable difference among students as indicated by a high standard deviation on a 5 point scale. Relatively, the students see their business school as not particularly identified with the natural environment (M = 3.23), although again, opinion was widespread (SD = 1.095). Identification Type N Mean Std Dev Identification with Business School 619 3.32 .943 Identification with the natural environment 622 3.53 .989 Business School identification with the natural environment 619 3.23 1.095 Table 5: Sense of Identification between Students, Business School, and the Natural Environment (1 = low identification; 5 = high identification) Table 6 provides a correlation table of the survey components. It can be seen that environmental concern (NEP) and wisdom (WSS) were significantly and positively correlated (r=.166, p<.001). Those who report high environmental concern have higher subjective wellbeing (SWB) (r=-.077, p<.05) and psychological wellbeing (r=-.101, p<.01). A t-test of independent samples did not reveal a significant difference is in the environmental concern across gender, where females (M=3.87, SD=.78) are not significanly more environmentally concerned than males (M=3.79, SD=.75). Looking at wisdom, Table 6 further shows a significant positive correlation between wisdom (WSS) and subjective wellbeing (SWB) (r=-.412, p<.001) and psychological wellbeing (r=-.315, p<.001). Wisdom is also significantly and positively related to increased age (r=-.223, p<.001) and increased education (r=-.113, p<.01). A t-test for independent samples showed that participants who report having child or children self-rate higher on the wisdom scale (M=3.63, SD=.44) than participants who don’t have child/children (M=3.50, SD=.36), t(1,678)=-3.431, p<.001 (small effect size r=.13). A t-test for independent samples further showed that participants who report being not single they self-rate higher on the wisdom scale (M=3.57, SD=.39) than participants who are single (M=3.49, SD=.37), t(1,684)=-2.560, p<.001 (very small effect size r=.06). Table 7 reports on national comparisons for alignment with the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), Wisdom Scale (WSS), Subjective Wellbeing (SWB), and Psychological Wellbeing (PWB). National differences are observed. For example, Slovenian students showed the strongest commitment to the New Environmental Paradigm and the Danish students the least. Slovenian students displayed the highest SWB, the Turkish and Germans the lowest, while in PWB the Indians rated highest and the Italians the lowest.  Study N M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. DSP 747 2.94 0.59 0.634 2. NEP 745 3.82 0.56 -.187* 0.703 3. WSS 691 3.53 0.38 .003 .166*** 0.718 4. SWB 697 3.91 0.68 .069 .077* .412*** 0.819 5. PWB 696 3.84 0.76 .020 .101** .315*** .444*** 0.883 6. Gender 687 1.50 0.50 -.090* .102** -.049 .059 .060 - 7. Age 685 27.46 7.46 -.237** .061 .223*** .036 .038 -.098* - 8. Education 680 4.52 0.67 -.051 -.016 .113** .035 .091* -.053 .159*** - 9. Marital status 684 0.44 0.50 -.110** .034 .097* .099** -.028 .072 .390** -.055 - 10. Parenthood 677 0.17 0.38 -.122** .003 .131** .032 .060 -.096* .751** .129** .436*** - Table 6: Correlation table of the survey components Correlation *** = p < .001, ** = p < .01, *= p < .05, Chronbach‘s alpha stated in bold. Gender (1=male, 2=female), Education (1=secondary school, …6=Ph.D), Marital status (0=single, 1=partnered), Parenthood (0=no child, 1=child)  New Social Paradigm (NSP) Wisdom (WSS) Sub. Wellbeing (SWB) Psy. Wellbeing (PWB) N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Australia 21 3.63 .68 3.83 .34 4.08 .59 3.97 .65 Asia 24 3.75 .54 3.41 .34 3.89 .59 3.74 .80 India 145 3.92 .48 3.56 .33 4.05 .53 4.13 .56 Slovenia 46 4.07 .43 3.61 .35 4.22 .62 3.75 1.00 Turkey 67 3.90 .53 3.59 .50 3.71 .75 3.98 .79 Italy 211 3.81 .49 3.38 .32 3.79 .68 3.63 .78 Germany 20 3.99 .59 3.55 .41 3.70 .67 3.75 .79 Denmark 40 3.47 .70 3.55 .32 4.00 .86 3.73 .82 Iceland 52 3.68 .61 3.73 .38 3.96 .70 3.99 .56 Others 56 3.83 .46 3.51 .37 3.93 .77 3.79 .80 Total 682 3.83 .54 3.52 .38 3.52 .68 3.85 .77 Table 7: Mean score in NSP, WSS, SWB and PWB across countries  DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS A caveat to be placed over this discussion is that the level of data from different countries varies, and, consequently, it would be inappropriate to draw firm comparative conclusions between each country. This is particularly so given the age variation, with Iceland and Australian participants being older while Italian, Indian, and Asian students are among the youngest. The age variation could impact the Wisdom Score, for example, as there is considerable evidence that wisdom generally increases with age until the mid-70s, and there wa a positive correlation between age and wisdom in this study. The differences, however, indicate that it is a reasonable proposition that MBA and postgraduate students [from now called Business Students] from different countries vary in terms of the variable indicators considered in this study. The students displayed a considerably stronger orientation to the New Environmental Paradigm in contrast to the existing dominant paradigm. That is, these students share a feeling of concern about the environment and are open to sustainability measures that would incorporate ecological limits to economic growth; respecting the balance of nature and development, and rejecting to some degree the anthropocentric assumptions of growth economics. It should be noted, however, that the NEP measure has been criticised as a poor predictor of environmental behaviours, although some studies show that the NEP Scale can be a useful predictor of reported and observed behaviour. Students in those countries that fell below the mean of 3.83 included Denmark (3.47), Australia (3.63), Iceland (3.68), and Asia (3.63). Given that the differences among nations is relatively small (SD = 0.56), one must be cautious in categorising. However, it is worth noting that Iceland and Denmark showed the lowest preference for including Environmental Sustainability in Business courses. In fact, students displayed a positive orientation to including a course on environmental sustainability, rating it higher than such traditional business courses as Finance, Economics, International Business, Accounting, and Marketing. Of note is that 37.9% of Indian students rated Environmental Sustainability as their first choice of courses, which is markedly different from the Northern European countries of Denmark, Iceland, and Germany. Considering that Asian and Turkish students also showed considerable support for Environmental Sustainability courses being incorporated in Business degrees, a tentative hypothesis could be formed that student countries whose economies might be broadly described as ‘developing’ (i.e., developing more rapidly than US and European countries from a relatively lower economic base). People’s identification with groups and institutions can strongly affect the norms and behaviours of those people (Terry & Hogg, 1996). Thus, very tentatively we can say that the students’ relatively stronger identification with the natural environment (M = 3.53) than with the business school that they are attending (M = 3.32) might indicate a set of personal norms that are slightly at odds with those of the institution. Consideration of the correlations provides some of the most interesting points for consideration. The first important finding is that environmental concern (NEP) and wisdom (WSS) were significantly and positively correlated. Thus, one might propose that students possessing wisdom characteristics are more likely to understand the importance of environmental concern. An implication of this finding is that, rather than directly teaching about environmental issues, it may be more useful to develop wisdom skills. The primary pedagogic concern would be to encourage students to identify and evaluate their own values. This might be done either by reductively asking what they value most in life as invariably students will identify family, relationships, and fulfilment as crucial. When asked to work from these teleological hopes to determine what values underlie them, it is often the case that being wealthy or powerful are seen to be less important than more benevolent and universal values. This can be supplemented by completing and reflecting upon the Schwartz Value Inventory (Schwartz, 1994). Other ‘virtues’ that correlate well with wisdom are openness to new ideas and experience, educated self-awareness, emotional empathy operating within a process of continual praxis and reflection. As there was no significant gender difference in environmental concern, although females scored slightly higher, there would not appear to be any gender specific issues worth considering. Given the positive correlation between wisdom and environmental concern, it is noteworthy that both of these variables also positively correlated with subjective wellbeing and psychological wellbeing. These are encouraging findings as they suggest that eudaimonic outcomes at a personal level are associated with a wise disposition. That wisdom is significantly and positively related to increased age, having a child or children, non-single status could be understood as supporting other findings that wisdom is enhanced by age and experience, though causal relations cannot, of course, be inferred at this stage. That wisdom was also positively correlated with levels of education possibly implies that the experience of education itself contributes to wisdom and, with that, greater environmental concern. This research project was motivated by a concern about whether our future leaders, those currently undertaking postgraduate business degrees, are predisposed to a new environmental paradigm that is crucial to responding potential environmental catastrophe in their lifetime. Previous research has not shown up business students in a good light. For example, there is research that indicates that business students have lower levels of ethical reasoning (Simmons et al. 2009). However, like it or not, business leaders will find that the signficance of climate change, sustainability and CSR will continue to grow as business becomes more complex and challenging (Moon and Orlitzky 2011). The 2010 UN Global Compact-Accenture Report found 93% of CEOs from 766 global corporations recognised sustainability as vital to their future success in addition to 96% of CEOs acknowledging full integration of sustainability needed in their business operations and strategies (Accenture 2010). Thus, incorporating Sustainability issues in postgraduate business degree programs incorporate environmental issues wholistically into business curricula if we are to properly equip our future leaders with any sort of capability to deal with the complex issues they will face. Given the positive correlation between wisdom and NEP, we propose that sustainability oriented adopt a wholistic wisdom approach that fundamentally alters the foundational ethic of business education centred on ‘human flourishing’, or eudaimonia (Biloslavo & McKenna, 2011). Future research possibilities have been identified from this research as well. For example, is there a difference among students business interests and majors? Do those oriented to finance and accounting, for example, differ from those in HRM or Strategy or Marketing, and, if so, why. Do sustainability oriented curricula have to be framed differently. Should we allow students an opportunity for reflexive personal questioning about their understanding of sustainability issues, their personal telos, and the capacity for making wise judgments as managers and leaders. More cross-cultural research is also important, particularly involving Asian, Middle Eastern (Arabic, Persian, Berber, Jewish etc), and South American students where rapid economic growth is occurring. By better understanding our students, educators who are concerned about viable and useful sustainability should be able to create more relevant and useful curricula.  REFERENCES Accenture 2010. "A new era of sustainability: CEO reflections on progress to date, challenges ahead and the impact of the journey toward a sustainable economy - UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010." Accenture Institue for High Performance. Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25(3), 275-324. Ardelt, M. (2011). The measurement of wisdom: A commentary on Taylor, Bates, and Webster's comparison of the SAWS and 3D-WS. Experimental Aging Research, 37(2), 241-255. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505-516. Biloslavo, R., & McKenna, B. (2011). Sustainable development in the business school curriculum: open questions and possible answers. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(5), 693-712. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. Glück, J. & Bluck, S. 2013. 'The MORE life experience model: A theory of the development of personal wisdom.' In M. Ferrari & N. M. Weststrate (Eds.) The scientific study of personal wisdom: From contemplative traditions to neuroscience: 75-98. Dordrecht: Springer. Glück, J., König, S., Haschenweng, K., Redzanowski, U., Domer, L., Straußer, I., & Wiedermann, W. (2013). How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(July), 1-13. Greene, J. A., & Brown, S. C. (2009). The Wisdom Development Scale: Further Validity Investigations International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 68(4), 289-320. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? . The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, 217-231. [IPCC] International Pnael on Climate Change (2013). Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers Kan, H., Chen, R., & Tong, S. (2012). Ambient air pollution, climate change, and population health in China. Environment international, 42, 10-19. Keyes, C. L., D. Shmotkin, & Ryff, C. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6): 1007-1022. Küpers, W. & Statler, M. 2008. 'Practically wise leadership: Towards an integral understanding.' Culture and Organization, 14:4, 379 - 400. Mickler, C., & Staudinger, U. M. (2008). Personal Wisdom: Validation and Age-Related Differences of a Performance Measure. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 787–799. Moon, J.and Orlitzky, M. 2011. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability education: A trans-Atlantic comparison. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(5), 583-603. Rooney, D., McKenna, B. & Liesch, P. (2010). Wisdom and management in the knowledge economy. London: Routledge. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. Simmons, R. S., Shafer, W. E., & Snell, R. (2013). Effects of a Business Ethics elective on Hong Kong undergraduates’ attitudes toward corporate ethics and social responsibility. Business & Society, 52(4), 558-591. Staudinger, U. M., & Glück, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing field. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 215-241. Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793. Trowbridge, R. (2005). The scientific approach of wisdom. (PhD), Union Institute and University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. Vervaeke, J. & Ferraro, L. 2013. Relevance, meaning and the cognitive science of wisdom. In M. Ferrari & N. M. Weststrate (Eds.) The scientific study of personal wisdom: From contemplative traditions to neuroscience. Heidelberg: Springer. Webster, J. D. (2003). An exploratory analysis of a self-assessed wisdom scale. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 13-22. Webster, J. D. (2007). Measuring the character strength of wisdom. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 65(2), 163–183. Zacher, H., McKenna, B., & Rooney, D. (2013). Effects of self-reported wisdom on happiness: Not much more than emotional intelligence? Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(6), 1697-1716. 2 Relationship between Concern for Environmental Sustainability and the Capacity for Wisdom among Postgraduate Business Students: An International Comparison Relationship between Concern for Environmental Sustainability and the Capacity for Wisdom among Postgraduate Business Students: An International Comparison