United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) has taken an initiative for companies to become sustainable and socially responsible and report the implementation of it. UNGC works on the basis of ten principles, which they encourage individual companies, NGO’s and education institutions to adapt. The Principles for Responsible Education (PRME) is inspired by Global Compact for providing voluntary standards that management schools can implement while developing leaders for tomorrow. Hence business schools are beginning to move towards accepting the broader responsibilities of management in society. Currently, over 450 signatories have joined PRME, representing approximately 80 countries.

However we have to understand the principles that are followed by the schools that follow PRME is what they actually need. Some of these Business schools do not need to do a great deal more to help prevent future bad managers; probably they need only to stop doing a lot they currently do. They do not need to create new courses; they need to simply stop teaching some old ones. By this we mean that there are so many courses that do not actually add value to the education and are just a waste of time. Theories and ideas are present for the management schools, but which idea to implement is the correct decision that should be taken wisely. We need to understand that most of the issues that have come up in the past 10 years are due to leaders who passed business school 30 years back. Hence implementing the same ideas yet again will lead to further downfall.

We understand that to correct the educational lag it is important to encourage emphasis on corporate responsibility. However is PRME the actual way the management schools should implement in order to obtain future leaders. There may be cases where management schools do not follow the PRME principles but also have the purpose, values, methods, research, partnership and dialogue that is implemented in the PRME principle. The question here is that do they still create responsible leaders and is this education for MBA leaders alone to obtain theories of management. There are so many executives maybe in thousands who may have learned these theories in a general manner even if not proposed directly to them. Even those who never attended a business school have learned to think in these ways because these theories have been in the air, legitimizing some actions and behaviors of managers, delegitimizing others, and generally shaping the intellectual and normative order within which all day-to-day decisions were made.

The lack of impact of management research on management practice and the lack of effectiveness of management education for business performance of students. Described by Milton Friedman (2002) as “liberalism,” this ideology is essentially grounded in a set of pessimistic assumptions about both individuals and institutions— a “gloomy vision” (Hirschman, 1970) that views the primary purpose of social theory as one of solving the “negative problem” of restricting the social costs arising from human imperfections. Combined with the pretense of knowledge, this ideology has led management research increasingly in the direction of making excessive truth claims based on partial analysis and both unrealistic and biased assumptions. We have to understand that all this would still not give negative consequences in management practices. This is a situation where there is no right or wrong.
A theory of subatomic particles or of the universe— right or wrong—does not change the behaviors of those particles or of the universe. If a theory assumes that the sun goes round the earth, it does not change what the sun actually does. So, if the theory is wrong, the truth is preserved for discovery by someone else. In contrast, a management theory—if it gains sufficient currency— changes the behaviors of managers who start acting in accordance with the theory. A theory that assumes that people can behave