The Scandal That Won't Die: How a Flawed Business School Paper Keeps Getting Cited

A paper published in Management Science has been cited over 6,000 times and continues to shape investment decisions and public policy, despite being fundamentally flawed. The study, titled "The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance" by Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2014), claimed that "High Sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance."

The paper's success stems partly from its feel-good message that appeals across the political spectrum. For progressives, it provides evidence supporting environmental and social sustainability. For conservatives, it demonstrates that free markets can deliver sustainability without government regulation. For centrists, it suggests the system works. This ideological flexibility, combined with the baseline business school narrative that firms do well by doing good, helped the paper become the most cited publication in Management Science since 2006.

But there's a critical problem: the method described in the paper is not the method the authors actually used. After two years of pressure, the authors finally acknowledged this discrepancy in September 2025. Yet they have refused to submit a corrigendum to correct the record.

Andy King, a business school professor who has been pushing for accountability, has encountered a frustrating wall of institutional resistance. When he contacted Management Science, the journal's policies allow only authors to request corrections. They permitted him to submit a comment for review, but it must go through a lengthy review process.

King has also reached out to research integrity offices at the authors' institutions:

• London Business School (Ioannou's employer) claims there is no violation because Ioannou did not conduct the analysis, a position King finds irrelevant to the issue of correcting a misreport.
• Harvard Business School (Serafeim's employer) has declined to disclose the existence or outcome of any internal review.
• Oxford (where Eccles is currently affiliated) claims Harvard is responsible for Eccles's actions since the research occurred when he was at HBS.
• The UK Research Integrity Office says it is powerless to act.

This case exemplifies a broader pattern of institutional failure when it comes to research integrity. Similar stories abound: a University of California professor who engaged in blatant data misrepresentation faced no consequences; a Cornell professor committed extensive research fraud and only left after a long process, with the university unresponsive to outside concerns; Columbia University continues denying it misreported its U.S. News data; and a Rutgers political science professor received an award from the American Political Science Association for a book containing plagiarized material, with the association refusing to revoke the award even after being informed.

The response from institutions often resembles what King calls the "Lance Armstrong" defense - attacking truth-tellers rather than addressing the underlying problems. When confronted with evidence of misconduct, cheaters frequently play the "Javert card," acting as if it's perfectly acceptable to plagiarize or misrepresent data, and portraying their critics as obsessed weirdos. This creates a country club mentality where members must deal with impertinent caddies who call them out on every mistake.

The consequences of this institutional failure are severe. These authors continue teaching at major business schools, influencing the next generation of business leaders with potentially flawed research. The paper continues to be cited roughly 2,000 times per year, shaping investment practice and public policy based on methodology the authors themselves have acknowledged is incorrect.

What makes this particularly galling is the contrast with how institutions typically handle other forms of misconduct. If a professor were caught plagiarizing student work or falsifying grades, the consequences would be swift and severe. But when it comes to research integrity - the very foundation of academic credibility - institutions often hide behind bureaucratic procedures and jurisdictional disputes.

The case raises fundamental questions about the purpose of research integrity offices and academic oversight. If these institutions cannot or will not act when authors acknowledge their own methodology was misrepresented, what exactly is their function? The current system appears designed to protect institutions and individuals rather than maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

For now, the paper remains uncorrected, continuing to influence business practice and policy based on methodology its authors have acknowledged was not what they actually used. The scholarly community's refusal to address this acknowledged error represents a failure not just of individual researchers, but of the entire academic system that claims to value truth and integrity.