Between Standardisation and Storytelling: Reflections on the Transition to SIP 2.0 from the PRME Champions Group

This article draws on reflections gathered during a meeting of the PRME Champions group, held at the American University in Cairo on Friday 26 June 2026, ahead of the PRME Global Forum. The discussion explored the opportunities and challenges associated with the transition to the new PRME Sharing Information on Progress reporting framework (‘SIP 2.0’) and the PRME Commons.

It was co-led by Laura Steele of Queen’s University Belfast and Petros Vourvachis of Loughborough University, both members of the PRME Chapter UK & Ireland Steering Committee, together with Margaret McKee of St Mary’s University, Canada.

Reflections on the Transition to SIP 2.0 from the PRME Champions Group

The transition from SIP 1.0 to SIP 2.0 marked an important milestone in the development of the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). Sharing Information on Progress (SIP) reporting has always carried a dual purpose: it is a mechanism of transparency and accountability, but it is also intended to support reflection, institutional learning, and stakeholder engagement. PRME describes the SIP as an annual process through which Signatory Members document how responsible management education (RME) is being advanced in practice, while contributing to a shared body of learning across the global PRME community (PRME, 2026a). The move to SIP 2.0 sharpens that ambition by placing reporting within PRME Commons, a digital platform designed to make reports more structured, searchable, and useful across institutions and over time (PRME, 2026b).

Insights from members of the 2026-2027 PRME Champions group gathered at the June 2026 PRME Champions Meeting held at the American University in Cairo suggest that this transition was broadly welcomed but not without challenges. The discussion pointed to a productive tension: SIP 2.0 offers greater comparability, continuity, and evidence use, while raising questions about workload, institutional voice, narrative richness, and equity across different organisational contexts. This should not be seen as a flaw in SIP 2.0, but as one of the central challenges of making reporting more useful. The value of the SIP will depend not only on the quality of what institutions submit, but on whether the process helps schools reflect more honestly, learn from one another, and strengthen their practice over time.

The academic literature on PRME provides useful context for this shift. Early studies of SIP reports recognised the reporting process as central to PRME’s capacity to build accountability and learning, while also identifying the limits of a voluntary, non-regulatory model (Alcaraz, Marcinkowska, & Thiruvattal, 2011). Godemann et al. (2014), drawing on early SIP evidence, argued that PRME had become an important catalyst for RME, but also noted that progress was uneven and depended heavily on how signatories interpreted and enacted the Principles. Burchell, Kennedy, and Murray (2015) reached a similar conclusion in the UK context: PRME may not always operate as a direct driver of curriculum change, but it can provide language, legitimacy, and a framework that committed individuals and institutions can use to advance change.

This is where SIP 2.0 has clear potential. Champions described the new structure as helpful because it gives institutions a clearer framework for reflection. Under SIP 1.0, schools often had considerable freedom in how they presented their work. That allowed creativity, but it also made comparison and synthesis difficult. SIP 2.0’s more standardised approach can help institutions move beyond a collection of stories towards a more systematic account of progress. It can also make internal work more visible. One contributor described the SIP process as a ‘bird’s-eye view’ of activities across the school, revealing initiatives and forms of collaboration that may otherwise remain disconnected. This echoes PRME’s own claim that reporting can help institutions document progress over time, identify gaps, and strengthen their approach to the Principles (PRME, 2026a).

The value of that structure is also practical. Champions noted that a standardised process reduces the time spent on report design and presentation. It can also support the creation of a usable evidence base, not only for PRME, but for strategy, accreditation, rankings, communications, and internal planning. This is important because RME is not only a curriculum issue. Beddewela et al. (2017) show that embedding RME requires sustained institutional support, alignment with organisational values, and attention to the practical conditions under which faculty work. Later work by Beddewela, Anchor, and Warin (2020) frames RME as a strategic intra-organisational practice that needs to be institutionalised across functional areas. A better structured SIP can help with this, particularly if the data collected for PRME is also useful to programme teams, accreditation leads, research centres, professional services colleagues, and school leadership.

At the same time, Champions raised concerns about the administrative demands of SIP 2.0. Annual reporting, evidence uploads, and object-based submissions may create a heavy burden, especially where administrative support is limited. The contributor function in PRME Commons was seen as helpful in principle, but there was scepticism about whether busy colleagues would consistently engage with it. In practice, the work may still fall to a small number of people who know the institution well enough to gather, interpret, and present the evidence. This point is important because the literature warns against symbolic adoption. Rasche and Gilbert (2015), for example, argue that business schools may decouple public commitments to RME from actual organisational practice when they face limited resources, internal resistance, competing pressures, or ambiguous expectations. SIP 2.0 can reduce that risk if it supports meaningful evidence use. However, it may increase the risk if it becomes a technical exercise completed by one overextended individual.

A further concern relates to narrative. Several Champions felt that SIP 1.0 reports often carried a stronger sense of institutional identity. They could show not only what a school had done, but how it understood its responsibilities, its context, and its distinctive contribution. SIP 2.0 improves comparability, but contributors worried that it may reduce opportunities for creativity and storytelling. This is an important consideration because RME is not a neutral checklist. Azmat, Jain, and Sridharan (2023) show that embedding the SDGs in business schools involves awareness-building, institutionalisation, knowledge creation, and knowledge dissemination. These processes are shaped by culture, discipline, geography, governance, and stakeholder expectations. A report that captures only standardised evidence may miss the contextual work through which RME becomes meaningful.

This issue is particularly significant for institutions in historically underrepresented countries. A standardised reporting format can make global analysis more feasible, but it may also privilege institutions with stronger administrative capacity, more developed reporting infrastructures, or greater familiarity with English-language sustainability discourse. Champions therefore called for attention to language, design, storytelling, and ‘native’ forms of institutional expression. The point is not to reject comparability, but to avoid confusing comparability with sameness. The 2026 PRME Global Insights Report demonstrates the value of aggregated SIP data in identifying patterns across the Principles, including SDG integration and equity and inclusion frameworks (UN Global Compact, 2026). The next challenge is to ensure that such synthesis remains sensitive to institutional difference.

The Champions’ discussion also points towards a more developmental future for SIP reporting. Contributors suggested templates for internal data collection, clearer alignment with accreditation requirements, feedback mechanisms, regional summaries, and opportunities to learn from comparable institutions. These suggestions are consistent with the wider literature. Christ and Burritt (2019) argue that business academics have a role in addressing the SDGs through knowledge generation and practical engagement, while Eustachio et al. (2024) find that PRME signatory schools provide greater support for sustainability-related teaching. SIP 2.0 could strengthen these effects if reports become the basis for structured feedback, peer learning and collaboration, rather than simply annual submission.

The move from SIP 1.0 to SIP 2.0 should, therefore, be understood as an ongoing transition. Its promise lies in making RME more visible, comparable, and cumulative. Its risk lies in making reporting feel narrower, heavier, or less ‘human’. The task for the PRME Secretariat, Chapters, and Champions is to hold both sides together: data and story, structure and context, accountability and learning. If SIP 2.0 can do that, it will not simply document institutional progress. It will help create the conditions in which progress becomes more likely.

Session Facilitators and Authors

• Laura Steele, Queen's University Belfast

• Petros Vourvachis, Loughborough University

• Margaret McKee, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary's University

Contributors

• Dina Abdel Fattah, The American University in Cairo

• Ahmed  Abdel-Meguid, The American University in Cairo

• Katalin Ásványi, Corvinus University of Budapest

• Emma Avetisyan, Audencia Business School

• Jill Bogie, Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)

• Rumina Dhalla, University of Guelph

• Vishwas Dohale, Dublin City University

• Tanya Dos Santos-Ford, Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)

• Dina El-Bassiouny, The American University in Cairo

• Hadia Fakhreldin, The British University in Egypt

• Rasha Goumaa, Nottingham Trent University

• Alexandra Grammenou, ZHAW School of Management and Law

• Stephen Homer,  Sunway University

• Dante Ignacio Leyva De La Hiz, CUNEF University

• Sherif Kamel, The American University in Cairo (AUC)

• Kerstin Maria Klein, University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons

• Vivek Kumar Jha, TA Pai Management Institute, Manipal

• Gustavo Adolfo Yepes López, Universidad Externado de Colombia

• Jeremy Larner, The University of Nottingham

• Weng Marc Lim, Sunway University

• Muhammad Mazhar, Nottingham Trent University

• Helen Millward, Keele University

• Christiane Molina, EGADE Business School

• Swati Nagpal, La Trobe Business School

• Priya Sharma, Sunway University

• Noemi Sinkovics, Newcastle University

• Reto Steiner, ZHAW School of Management and Law

• Christian Van Buskirk, University of Victoria

• Andrea  Varga, Corvinus University of Budapest

References

Alcaraz, J.M., Marcinkowska, M.W., & Thiruvattal, E. 2011, ‘The UN-Principles for Responsible Management Education: sharing and evaluating information on progress’, Journal of Global Responsibility, 2(2), pp. 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/20412561111166021

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

Beddewela, E., Warin, C., Hesselden, F., & Coslet, A. 2017, ‘Embedding responsible management education: staff, student and institutional perspectives’, The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2B), pp. 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.013

Beddewela, E., Anchor, J.R., & Warin, C. 2020, ‘Institutionalising intra-organisational change for responsible management education’, Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1836483

Burchell, J., Kennedy, S., & Murray, A. 2015, ‘Responsible management education in UK business schools: examining the role of the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education as a driver for change’, Management Learning, 46(4), pp. 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614549117

Christ, K.L., & Burritt, R.L. 2019, ‘Implementation of sustainable development goals: the role for business academics’, Australian Journal of Management, 44(4), pp. 571-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219870575

Godemann, J., Haertle, J., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. 2014, ‘United Nations supported Principles for Responsible Management Education: purpose, progress and prospects’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.033

Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D.U. 2015, ‘Decoupling responsible management education: why business schools may not walk their talk’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3), pp. 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614567315

PRME 2026a, Preparing for your SIP, Principles for Responsible Management Education.

PRME 2026b, About Sharing Information on Progress (SIP), Principles for Responsible Management Education.

UN Global Compact 2026, PRME Global Insights Report, UN Global Compact.