Toward a model of global citizenship in business education

Abstract The world is rapidly changing because of ecological, social, geopolitical changes and digital transformation. For example, the global pandemic has accelerated the digital transformation and encouraged more online learning and working. Furthermore, reducing the speed of climate change is one of the major issues of our time. To be able to deal with major changes in our environment, employers, employees, and students (future employees) need to readjust how they evaluate their business, organizational activities, and education. Business schools have the responsibility to prepare the students with skills and values to engage in this rapidly changing environment. This means a change from the traditional profit maximization approach only to, among others, the development of global competencies and a global mindset. The development of a comprehensive framework for Global Citizenship in business education will therefore help organizations and educators alike. Based on an extensive literature review and an empirical study through focus groups and in-depth interviews of the professional field and educators a model of Global Citizenship for business education and practitioners is presented. The model of global citizenship consists of components encouraging the development of global competencies and attributes. These competencies and attributes are needed for (international) professionals to act as responsible global citizens.

The international dimension of numerous recent events (e.g., #MeToo movement; the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement) has demonstrated the interconnectedness of the world. Nations and people, regardless of geographical boundaries, are affected worldwide even though their specific local needs may vary significantly from country to country. The world faces enormous challenges; natural resources are scarce and population growth has enormous social and environmental consequences (Bardi, 2022;Heinonen, 2022). The underlying complexity of these problems requires organizations, business, and education to fundamentally rethink their roles. Business education should adapt to global changes and challenges. In this sense, tertiary international business education is expected to address and contribute to the solution of today's environmental and social problems, which transcend geographical boundaries (de la Torre & Young, 2020). Solving these problems requires a transition in education from an emphasis on knowledge transfer to the acquisition of competencies and soft skills, such as attitudes, values, and the ability to both understand and respond to global challenges (Heinonen, 2022;UNESCO, 2014). The UN has emphasized the importance of global citizenship for education by including it in the Sustainable Development Goals. Global citizenship is goal 4.7 of SDG 4, Quality Education (UNDP, 2022). As stated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), "Global Citizenship Education (GCED) aims to empower learners of all ages to play an active role, both locally and globally, in building more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies." UNESCO's report sets out three learning domains to foster global citizenship education: cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral (Raveendran, 2021;UNESCO, 2015, p. 22). Recognizing the importance of this responsibility, various universities are now working on implementing global citizenship in education.

Global citizenship
There are different ways to interpret global citizenship in higher education; as a result, it can be challenging to understand the GC concept (Horey, Fortune, Nicolacopoulos, Kashima, & Mathisen, 2018). Previous studies report how the concept of global citizenship surfaced in history. For example, it was mentioned 400 years B.C., when Diogenes the Greek Cynic philosopher was asked where he came from and replied, "I am a citizen of the world" (Gaudelli, 2016, pp. 2-3;Nussbaum, 1997, p. 5). Later, a group of philosophers called Stoics built on Diogenes' idea by setting the notion of kosmoupolitês or world citizen. The Stoics cosmopolites believed that the first duty of human beings was to the moral and social community, with respect to all humankind rather than to a particular government that divides and encourage people to think in divided groups (Nussbaum, 1997). Nussbaum (1997) argues that global citizens see human beings as one community and reinforce attitudes: among others, such as empathy, dignity, and mutual respect for all kinds of human beings regardless of ethnicity and gender. In so doing, she explicitly advocates for global citizenship in education since it promotes attitudes of individual and collective self-awareness, a sense of cooperation in addressing global challenges, and recognition of the moral obligations of wealthier and more fortunate nations to the world (Nussbaum, 1996;Schattle, 2009, p. 7). According to Clifford and Montgomery (2014), recognition of moral obligations is precisely the contrast between global citizens from cosmopolitans. As Clifford and Montgomery emphasized: "This moral sense of responsibility and obligation to others lies at the heart of the differentiation of a global citizen from the common conceptualization of a cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitans have been seen as part of a wealthy elite with access to education to enable them to move freely around the world, knowing of, but perhaps not taking action on, moral issues (p. 29)." As such, global citizenship is a broader concept of citizenship because it entails not only environmental challenges and social issues but also the contribution and commitment of citizens to the issues that transcend local borders (Carabain, Keulemans, van Gent, & Spitz, 2012).
To create a framework for international education that aims to prepare students to become global citizens, Morais and Ogden (2011, p. 3) provide an empirically validated conceptual blueprint and tool for assessing the impact of education abroad. They operationalized the definition of global citizenship and synthesized its attitudes and attributes based on three dimensions: social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement. The first dimension concerns global justice, caring for others, and understanding the interconnectedness of global and local issues. The second dimension focuses on global knowledge, intercultural communication, and self-awareness. Finally, the third dimension emphasizes political voices, global civic activism, and involvement in civic organizations. The objective of their study was to assess the prevalence of the desired attributes of global citizens among students. Fundamentally, this framework for global citizenship pertains to students who went abroad for their education.
In another study, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller examined antecedents and outcomes of the global citizenship identity, in which the antecedents of the term are related to an individual's normative environment and global consciousness. According to them, these antecedents can predict prosocial values and behaviors that include "intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world" (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013, p. 859). According to Horey et al. (2018, p. 15), the attributes of global citizenship can be viewed as "understanding, values, and actions, while outcomes can be seen as perceptions or competencies." Nevertheless, notions of global citizenship can be confusing. For example, there are two main typologies of global citizenship according to Oxley and Morris (2013). In 2013, Oxley and Morris (p. 306) traced the development in the prevailing literature on global citizenship and provided another approach to definitions. They divided global citizenship into two main frameworks: cosmopolitan and advocacy, which were then each divided into four types of global citizenship. First, cosmopolitan types are associated with politics, morals, economics, and culture. Second, advocacy types are associated with social, critical, environmental, and spiritual issues. Based on the concept of a typology of global citizenship, Oxley and Morris attempt to frame its multiple conceptions to help educators employ the concept in the curriculum with their school policies, proposals, and courses. In 2017, Goren and Yemini conducted an empirical literature review, where they applied the Oxley and Morris (2013) types of global citizenship. They found 90 articles that are predominantly in K-12 schools. According to Goren and Yemini (2017), Oxley and Morris' typology is not applicable to higher education since, unlike primary and secondary schools, it has more curriculum flexibility and is often attributed to the international experience of students going abroad for their studies.
In a recent meta-analysis on global citizenship education, Pashby, da Costa, Stein, & Andreotti, 2020 outlined a social cartographic map with nine different typologies. First, Pashby, da Costa, Stein, & Andreotti explained the heuristics used, starting with the social cartography approach consisting of three discursive orientations: neoliberal, liberal, and critical. This new frame identifies three interfaces, spaces of ambivalence, between the orientations: neoliberal-liberal, neoliberal-critical, liberal-critical (p.146). Second, they defined the discursive approaches of GCE with their interfaces, pointing out the similarities and differences and how they are "generally framed and thus limited, by a common metanarrative: the modern/colonial imaginary. This metanarrative naturalizes a Western/European standpoint and corresponding set of colonial and capitalist social relations, projecting a local (Western/European) perspective as a global design" (p. 146). Third, based on decolonial criticism, they identified and highlighted a specific lacuna by naming a boundary of GCE discourse that could lead to the generation of dialogues in the contemporary context. This boundary refers to the limits of a contemporary/colonial narrative that is abusive and unsustainable, denying the deep-rooted and interconnected existence of being. In the GCE field, they have found that the implications of these boundaries for our current and future research and practice are relatively neglected. As a result, they offer new insights into responding to the complex and overlapping global problems. Finally, they suggested a new set of distinctions between methodological, epistemological, and ontological levels as an alternative to creating change in the approach of GCE.
Previous studies also argue about the terminology. Different scholars contest that the notion of global citizenship and its semantics imply legal challenges and consequences (e.g., Bowden, 2003;Miller, 2013;Parekh, 2003). On the other side, Rhoads and Szel enyi (2011) argue that the term goes beyond a narrow political definition that ignores the lives of citizens in an increasingly complex globalized world (2011, p. 16). As noted by Rhoads and Szelenyi: "global citizenship is not so much a static identity, as it is an ability, disposition or commitment" (p. 267). Educators have been urged to shift away from the fixed definition of the term and to focus more on the constructive debate about how students can learn to become global citizens, as a mindset for learning and as a curricula outcome (e.g., Jones, 2013;Killick, 2012;Lilley, Barker, & Harris, 2015aRhoads & Szel enyi, 2011). Lilley, Barker, and Harris (2015b, p. 18) reframed global citizens as "sought-after employees" of tomorrow.
Throughout the above literature, there has been a consensus that the concept of global citizenship is nebulous (e.g., Andreotti, 2014;Gaudelli, 2016). It can be comprehended and interpreted differently (e.g., Marshall, 2007;Morais & Ogden, 2011;Oxley & Morris, 2013;Schattle, 2009). As such, it has not escaped criticism. Andreotti (2014) and Jooste and Heleta (2017) advocate that it is a concept of the Northern Hemisphere that does not fit into the Southern Hemisphere. For example, in her study, Andreotti (2014) attempts to draw distinctions between soft versus critical global citizenship education. Andreotti stressed the need for informed decisions when making pedagogical choices and questioned whether educators are "critically literate" to teach global citizenship because of their assumptions and limitations in the Northern Hemisphere. Different researchers point out that GCE is a Western/European concept (e.g., Clifford & Montgomery, 2014;Woods & Kong, 2020) highlighting an enduring modern/colonial global imaginary (Pashby et al., 2020). Others point out that the development of the concept and its current increased use in educational institutions also brings the probability of it becoming a buzzword to gain traction (Jooste & Heleta, 2017;Levintova, Johnson, Scheberle, & Vonck, 2011). Hence, the suggestion that it can be developed by education abroad (Morais & Ogden, 2011) challenges what it means and how to implement it (Streitwieser & Light, 2016), which is, most of the time, merely accessible for an elite (Khoo, 2011).
In 2022, Massaro published a systematic review of the literature on global citizenship in higher education. She pointed out that institutions have not implemented any universal approach to developing global citizenship in higher education, the main exception being the opportunity to study abroad. This development in higher education has generated concern as a means of achieving the goal of global citizenship education since only a tiny percentage of students can go abroad, and not all those who go abroad become global citizens.
Taken together, these results suggest that there is still a need to build a new form of global citizenship education in the business curriculum that can mirror and contribute to rapidly changing societies and environmental challenges. The key themes that cut across the articles are linked to the social, cultural, moral, critical, and environmental issues of global citizenship which pave the way for additional research on the hidden competencies underlying global citizenship for the business higher education of a curriculum at home. The digital transformation and increased use of information and communication technology by students and academics have given rise to opportunities for all students and not just the elite.
Higher education institutions are entrusted with preparing students with skills, attitudes, and values about the broader responsibility to the interconnectedness of our environment and human beings (Assis, Reysen, Gibson, & Hendricks, 2018). Indeed, efforts to pursue a sustainable development path can only be achieved by empowering students to become responsible and active global citizens. Global citizenship in higher education has been identified as the mechanism to achieve this goal (Golmohamad, 2008;Nussbaum, 1996;Pike, 2013;Raveendran, 2021). This clearly implies consequences in pedagogy (Andreotti, 2014;Freire, 2021;Schattle, 2009), if education is to take the lead in this process (Duivenboden, 2022). As stated by Schattle (2009, p. 18) "if the specific term global citizenship is only hazily defined on campus (or not unpacked at all), to what extent does global citizenship bring intellectual substance on the table?" Further, it is apparent from the analysis that little attention has been paid to better communicate how higher education can facilitate and prepare students to behave as global citizens (Massaro, 2022).
In summary, research has shown that there is still limited literature on how to unpack GCE in higher international business education. Furthermore, it is still vague what competencies global citizens should work on in higher education (Massaro, 2022;Schattle, 2009). In this study, therefore, the elements of global citizenship are explored with practitioners to make them more practical, independent of study abroad, and in international business education at home. It is essential to concretize the GC sub-components and integrate them into a global citizenship model (GCM) providing a framework for the development of the curriculum to prepare students properly for their roles in society.

Research questions
This qualitative study presents a detailed analysis of the following research questions: The aim of this research is 2-fold: (a) to investigate current business practitioners' understandings and expectations of the concept of global citizenship and its competencies and attributes and (b) to propose a model of global citizenship for higher education that includes elements of the existing literature and the businesses' understandings and attributes of GCE in a learning environment.

Research design and procedure
As mentioned above, the preliminary phase of this study was based on an extensive literature review on global citizenship and on the enumerated attributes (e.g., values and understanding), attitudes, skills, and values that global citizens are expected to have to fulfill their obligations (de la Torre & Young, 2020) in society. As such, there are many possible alternatives for defining the concept of global citizenship and its competencies for the field research. UNESCO's concept is according to Fernekes (2016) "one that is broadly representative of work being done in the field." Therefore, in this study, UNESCO's (2014) vision of global citizenship, is implemented along with the learning dimensions validated by Morais and Ogden (2011). As indicated in the work of Swedberg (2020) exploratory research is appropriate for the development of new concepts. UNESCO (2014UNESCO ( , 2015, see also Table 1), Morais andOgden (2011), andSchattle (2009) an extensive literature review, in addition to exploratory qualitative research, are the basis for this study.
To gain a deep understanding of global citizenship and its role in business education as well as provide insight into the participants' experiences and perceptions, data was gathered from current international business practitioners from the Northern and Southern hemispheres. This included two focus group sessions (N ¼ 6 and N ¼ 9), and five semi-structured indepth interviews (see Table 2 below). The in-depth interviews were also carried out to get more insight into the underlying issues (Stokes & Bergin, 2006) and compare and validate the results obtained from the two previous focus groups. This exploratory study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. As such, all focus group sessions and interviews were conducted and recorded online via MS Teams with the previous consent of all participants.
All the sessions and interviews followed the same sequence of questions and structure. For the focus groups, there were three researchers and one Bachelor's student assistant and for the in-depth interviews, there was one researcher and one Bachelor's student assistant.
In addition to the earlier focus groups, one more focus group was held among faculty members (N ¼ 13) who have extensive experience supervising internship and thesis writing in companies working internationally. The aim was to receive feedback from the faculty members regarding the analysis of the data, categories, and results gathered to prevent and reduce the researcher's bias. After this session, comparisons were drawn and the contextual information for the design of the model was pre-determined for the DBS. solidarity, and respect for differences and diversity. 5. Learners act effectively and responsibly at local, national, and global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world. 6. Learners develop motivation and willingness to take necessary actions.
1. Learners grow into informed and critically literate individuals: knowledge of global governance systems, structures, and issues; understanding the interdependence and connections between global and local concerns; knowledge and skills required for civic literacy, such as critical inquiry and analysis, with an emphasis on active engagement in learning (p. 23). 2. Learners grow into socially connected individuals respectful of diversity: understanding of identities, relationships, and belonging; understanding of shared values and common humanity; developing an appreciation of, and respect for, differences and diversity; and understanding the complex relationship between diversity and commonality (p. 23). 3. Learners grow into ethically responsible and engaged individuals: Based on human rights approaches and including attitudes and values of caring for others and the environment; personal and social responsibility and transformation; and developing skills for participating in the community and contributing to a better world through informed, ethical, and peaceful action (p. 24). Note: Adapted from Global Citizenship Education: Topics and Learning Objectives by UNESCO (2015, pp. 22-24).
To conclude the process, an interactive session was held with seven academic researchers. During this last session, the analyzed data and interpretation of the results were explained, presented, and discussed for verification and important insights. The researchers were asked to provide feedback regarding the analysis, main categories, and model's design with its components and dimensions. This data contributed to the findings' validity and the final visualization and design of the GC model (see Figure 1).

Sampling, selection, and access
All participants were selected by purposive sampling (Bernard, 2017;Charmaz & Belgrave, 2007). Forty people participated in the entire study from April 2021 to December 2021. The business practitioners selected were from different industries and companies which operate internationally. Different invitations were sent (by the business connection office, employees at the research center, and a manager with an international portfolio) to the companies to participate in one of the focus groups or interviews. Participants were assigned to the focus groups based on various diversity criteria (age, gender, ethnicity, cultural background, years of experience in a company). As a result, the focus groups consisted of a diverse group of participants (see Table 2). The gatekeepers (Creswell, 2014, p. 233), a policy officer and a manager, selected faculty teachers to be involved in a third focus group based on their different specializations and roles in the curriculum. The third focus group followed the same research guidelines and assisted the researchers in discussing the final themes and results to be integrated into the GC conceptual model. Subsequently, an iterative feedback session was held with seven research colleagues based on the data collected, topics, themes, and model design. The range of perspectives brought to light the interplay between the beliefs of those in the professional field, existing education processes, and challenges in our world that transcend individual countries' agendas.

Process of analyzing focus groups data and interviews
A qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012, p. 170) based on a repeated data-driven process was conducted to generate categories, a coding guide for the patrons, themes, and subthemes based on the analysis and interpretation of the gathered answers. First, the researchers identified critical topics based on exploratory surveys and open questions executed during focus group sessions and interviews with business practitioners. Next, the information gathered during those sessions was analyzed and coded. Finally, they were inductively matched with the attributes described in the participants' terminology. During the fieldwork, all focus group sessions and interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and shared with the participants to check if the researchers clearly understood the information. In addition, consent for approval to use the transcripts is asked and received.
Two researchers carried out the analysis of the respondents' narratives; the researchers reviewed the data through a process of reading, identifying, and coding for themes and patterns in passages based on the degree of consensus or dissent. Thus, the excerpts presented have been selected as examples of commonly expressed views among the respondents. In instances where the passages indicate differing perspectives, their texts, and narratives are further underpinned and explained. All names of our respondents and companies are anonymized. The quotes of respondents will be represented with symbols ( Ã for the first focus group, # for the second focus group, and & for the indepth interviews followed by a number identifying each respondent).

An exploratory survey
During the focus group sessions, five questions based on the above research questions were administrated as part of the written part of each qualitative interview (see Table 3, questions 3.1-4.3). To ensure that all experiences and insights were registered individually by participants in the focus group sessions, an online survey tool was utilized.
During the fieldwork with the companies, both focus group participants and interviewees indicated an understanding and awareness of global citizenship Open questions based on the discussion 4.2 Which competencies do you experience as priority from the perspective of your business (Multiple answers possible).
Open questions based on the discussion 4.3 Apart from these behavioral skills, what should a Global Citizen know, understand, or possess from the perspective of your business?
Open questions based on the discussion Moderation 5. Summarize the discussed issues, prioritized attributes, mindset, and competencies constructed during the session. 6. Assess the consensus in the group. and the broad global challenges affecting business and the well-being of human beings. However, there are differences in the results. Based on the analysis of all data from all settings, the next conclusions can be drawn. Table 4 below shows a summary of the analysis of the major topics examined during the qualitative field work based on the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews with representatives from the international companies. Most participants stressed that global citizenship goes beyond understanding other cultures, even though this may be the first step in developing GCs. A GCM is not complete without an understanding and commitment to social and environmental issues. Some participants emphasized the need to learn other languages and cultures as a prerequisite for any global citizen. Others also emphasize empathy, social responsibility, environmental responsibility, and accountability as essential attributes of any global citizen. By analyzing the discussions, it became clear that almost all respondents shared a general understanding of the concept of global citizenship and its relevance for business and educational institutions. In addition, some of them expressed their concern regarding the complexity and ambiguity of the multifaceted concept of global citizenship. Some challenges with the concept of global citizenship in the business field While ideologically inclined toward global citizenship, the concept was considered troublesome for a few participants. Some participants were more familiar with the ideas of cosmopolitanism as described by Clifford and Montgomery (2014, p. 29). Of our 20 participants, 18 articulated the value of global citizenship as an essential issue while not necessarily addressing it as an explicit concept in their companies. Three participants from different companies pointed out the difficulties in saying whether it was embraced as part of their vision. According to Clifford and Montgomery (2014), the concept of global citizenship can be challenging and confrontational in a capitalist society. One participant in the second focus group elaborated on why he could not answer that question. He identified its importance and pointed out that he shared its vision. However, he could not say if it was part of the mission and mindset of his multinational company. In addition, he explained his difficulty in affirming whether or not the concept of a global citizen is significant in his company since they do not explicitly mention this concept.
In another setting, one interviewee (1&) pointed out that from a business perspective, a global citizen can be interpreted differently. He defined a "global citizen" as a "global corporate citizen." He further explained from his perspective that a global corporate citizen requires intercultural and leadership competence as critical assets when explaining its importance for the business. Over half of them argued that the younger generation entering the workforce is looking for companies with a more sustainable, social, and inclusive basis for business. Commonly, there was a recognition that future professionals may be "agents of change." [ … I fundamentally I believe that companies of the future are going to be measured based on their impact to society and the planet, and not as much based on the revenues that they're generating for themselves. The other flip side of that is that individuals, and the next generation, are going to be attracted to the companies that are leading with a purpose and that are taking action that do good for people on the planet]. (&2) Another participant corroborated that scenario during the first focus group. He pointed out the differences between generations regarding global issues and sustainability that he was observing in his company: [ … I'm also wondering; do you really feel like we need to make students aware? Or do you see that there is already a natural change with the youngsters that they are very much more open toward the concept of sustainability, fair trade, and so on? At the end of the day, at least from where I am, if we get new students that are new applicants, they find it very important what [our company] is doing when they harm nature, how are we reducing emission and CO2? And that's not just one person I've talked to, almost all the youngsters find it extremely important to work for a company that has a global awareness of doing good and making sure they are not harming the planet in either way. I think you still must do that, let's put it that way. But I think it's also easier than for example, my generation, when I was studying, because we had a completely different mindset, we wanted to go to the big 4, make as much money in a short time period and retire at 55 or something like that. And now, they are much more involved in all kinds of things … ]. ( Ã 2)

GC competencies and attributes
When discussing the topic and how to translate and prepare higher education students as global citizens, several of our participants insisted on the necessity of a clear common foundation based on values and ethics as a critical element for global citizenship education.
[ … Values must be the foundation of everything you teach.] (&5) Two interviewees, both with extensive international careers in different business industries in HR and High Tech, provided a clear example of what they expect as a foundation from global citizens in the business arena. From their perspective, there is an urgent call for values and ethics. There is a necessity for commitment, transparency of values, and ethics in the processes and policies inside international business.
[ … ] I spent several years working for (Company Y, which is a multinational company for computer technology), and in that period of time, I had a chance to sit down with [ … ], the CEO of the company. And in a question that I posed to him, which was "if you think about this amazing technology and these capabilities that we have in front of us for future generations, what would you advise them? How do we get people into this space and create the technological solutions of the future?" And his response was that he would advise students to study ethics. And I thought, wow, wait a minute. You're [ … ], head of [ … ], and I thought you were going to come up with "Go for machine learning and AI and quantum … " And no, he said, "I want every technological student to study ethics." I thought that was a really important message that he was telling us because we can build the wrong things, too. That will set us all back. (&2).
[ … ] global citizenship is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of existing [ … ] from a business perspective [ … ]it has all to come from the foundation and the company's values. And those values you need, first of all to make sure that you have the right co-workers that really believe and trust in your values. And, that you make it really clear to the consumers in the end. (&3) One American interviewee (&4), with more than 30 years of experience with environmental and employee safety issues related to operational activities in the USA, shared his perspective on values, ethics, collaboration, and social responsibility. In his perception, organizations with a well-articulated and meaningful set of values can make a difference. During the interview, he provided examples of collaborative efforts from different stakeholders who are currently making strides in that direction in California. But he also pointed out that ethical practices come back to the individual's awareness, behavior, and actions.
[ … ] company A, that's another company that has really tried to integrate concepts of ethics into their organization. And instead of having a Chief Ethics Officer, they actually have different people across the organization, in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities that are supposed to serve as advocates on a day-to-day basis, to talk about, to explore ethical issues. And this is fantastic. When I grew up, all decision making within organizations was based on economics. What's the return on investment? What's the payback? What's the internal rate of return? What's our return on capital here? And that was the key driver. And of course, that was because organizations were mostly oriented to respond to shareholder concerns, the profit motive, and increasingly, it's not just shareholders. It's all stakeholders. And so consequently, to respond to all stakeholders, it boils down to ethics. I think one of the other sources … was regarding the Edelman Trust Barometer, which really is a very interesting annual review of corporations and how they are perceived by their stakeholders. And core to that is really their ethical practices [ … ] Ethics is huge. We need more of it, if we just stop to realize how our day-to-day practices affect others [ … ] We all love to buy T shirts that only cost e2, but on the supply side, end of that, there is a very poor woman in Bangladesh that is struggling to put food on the table to make that happen.] Others also introduced the challenges regarding values and ethics linked to the digital transformation they are dealing with, claiming the need for this context as part of the global citizenship education agenda. In the following three excerpts, participants describe the challenges behind digital transformation and business ethics and values in different industries and roles.
[ … So, if you have no way to kind of know who you are working with, in some way, you rely on credibility and reputation there. Some people have a digital profile, but you don't know who is behind that digital profile, so you look at, "ok, what's their credibility like?" What did they do in the past, who have they worked with, etc.? I think you should look at Global Citizenship like, well, you work with people worldwide, and in this case, you work with people internationally but also digitally … ]. (#8).
Interacting with the previous respondent: [ … I would like to hop in on this point as well, because what was said about credibility in relation to knowing who's behind the screen and who are you engaging with, I think that's increasingly important when working with sustainable business. So, supply chain transparency, for business and human rights for instance, really knowing who produced your food, what steps our food (or anything), who produced your product, or sourced your raw materials and how that get you to the final product]. (#1) [ … I will start, so in my company this is, say … really the question when we do a supplier selection, so basically, we calculate that kind of like a cost into the total equation]. (#2) The discussion, as mentioned above, generated a concrete area for attention identifying the link between global citizenship with values and ethics, critical thinking, leadership, and its implication with respect to human rights. Johnson and Johnson (2010) pointed out that human beings are often not conscious of their values; still, they are essential to our lives since they orient our actions and influence the quality of our relationships. Therefore, ensuring that students have moral and ethical values is part of the responsibility of education. There was a clear consensus on this attribute as a critical element of global citizens from all business practitioners.
As mentioned in the excerpts above, values and ethics should aim at the well-being of human beings in a social, digital, and ecological environment. Through exploring this aspect, the next challenge in education was highlighted since education needs to prepare students for the interrelationship of those scenarios, choices, and consequences. "Education must take the lead in the transition to a sustainable world" (Duivenboden, 2022), and global citizenship is a means to this end (Oxfam Great Britain, 2015;UNESCO, 2014UNESCO, , 2015.
The challenge encountered during the sessions and interviews was related to the aim linked to question number 5 in Table 3. The fact is that many of the participants found it challenging to prioritize the competencies and attributes required of a global citizen. This may indicate there is a limited difference in the importance of all competencies and attributes as they relate to GC. Most participants endorsed at least six competencies they expect a global citizen working in an international company to have. In addition, there was a clear consensus on the following outcomes: critical thinking and the ability to reflect and investigate, values and ethics, intercultural competence, collaboration, leadership skills, and a mindset of continuous professionalization to learn to successfully deal with current debates in societies and the workforce. However, when discussing the competencies and their corporate policies and management practices, participants mentioned that one aspect that surfaced was the matter of being interculturally competent and inclusive to behave as a global citizen. This may indicate that these are more important than some of the other competencies and attributes. Comments were: [ … I'd like to comment on this. I think when you are hiring someone for your team I don't know if we necessarily look for collaboration skills but that's certainly a bare minimum. So, we want to know that our people can work well and collaborate well. It's kind of like a compliance thing. They need to meet that and in addition, we look for strong critical thinking skills, strong systems thinking skills, those are kind of the more positive impact areas that we go for. I'd say the bare minimum is to be able to collaborate with your colleagues, and also international colleagues, because we are an international organization … so, you need to be able to work with colleagues in Latin America, Southeast Asia, South Africa, so you need to have those abilities. (#1) [ … I'd like to respond to that because I think that what you just mentioned sometimes has two ways of going at it. Sometimes, when hiring managers are looking for someone who can collaborate, they are looking for a cultural fit, which can be scary if you're only hiring based on your cultural fit because then you are hiring people that are one certain way. One example: sometimes you need to hire people who are not in your cultural fit to gain that cultural diversity and become that global citizen. (#7).
A further indication of the importance to be inclusive and intercultural competent was: [I would agree with that, I think diversity is really important, having a diverse team but having everyone be able to work together and listen to each other and respect each other's … I think it depends on the role, and where they are geographically based. In my experience when hiring someone for our team, 90% of the applicants might be (same ethnic group and gender), so the pool is just bigger of people in that realm. But if we have some more international positions open to remote working then you get a really diverse applicant. It's challenging to, of course, not be biased, that's very difficult.] (#1) In the same focus group, another participant reacted to the dialogue of the participants above: [ … it's also about kind of shaping the culture within the company. It's really nice if everyone can feel included, if you are able to get people from all over the world, in our case, because they don't just bring innovation, they also bring cultural knowledge or new partners that we would otherwise not have access to, there's all sorts of things that have benefits of having a diverse team. Including being really open and receptive to a lot of new things too, in our case, really helps a lot because we are in a fast-moving environment, where, when I wake up in the morning, I already feel like I am way behind, and I think that really helps … ]. (#8).
Another participant briefly emphasized her opinion in the discussion. For her, being interculturally competent and inclusive means being able to recognize and understand how to engage with others, which also reflects more the local diversity where they work, such as her place in Rotterdam, which is a multicultural place in the Netherlands. According to her, a moral compass for social justice is crucial; the stage to making a change involves a high motivation related to doing the right thing. As she said: " … I also think it is fair." (#9) Being "interculturally aware" does not seem enough to create changes as pointed out by Davies (2006). The excerpt below illustrates the extent to which the challenges are related to the lack of commitment to recognize and empathically understand the needs of others-especially when dealing with diversity and inclusiveness.
[ … 'Intercultural awareness'. I think it's where we need to step up the game. It's intercultural accountability instead of just awareness. … So, my thinking here was intercultural accountability. The reality is that we sign people up for all these biases, training, for DNI training and everything else. But frankly, it's not working. It's not working! The gap is getting bigger in terms of the lack of inclusion of diversity, diverse representation at the top. All this stuff that we're doing, it is not working. And so other than trying to help people become more and more aware, actually, I want them to become accountable. I want people to do stuff, and I want them to have a mindset that says, "I need to do something today. I'm not going to wait for someone else to do it or to tell me what I need to do or to think that sounds nice." You got to do stuff, right. And so, I think that 'accountability' is important here, and I would associate it with the 'intercultural' piece because that's where all the bias stuff comes in, because it's a different ethnic group. It's a different religion to mine. It's a different color, different gender, different whatever, it's all different for me. So, I have bias. And so how can we be more accountable for the way that we treat others in the world that is more inclusive? … But I would go for accountability because awareness, we're going sideways at best. We're really going backwards. And I think we need more accountability in the world … ] (&2) Likewise, in another interview: [ … And I think, the challenge for corporations, and I think that goes back to that inclusion and being a global citizen is, the embracing side, being comfortable with what is uncomfortable … ]. (&1) In the different discussions, it was evident that a change is deemed necessary for consciousness to include values, attitudes, behaviors that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Furthermore, different participants state that mutual appreciation and respect for differentiation (Golmohamad, 2008, p. 523) are imperative to permit the necessary conditions for change and social justice.

Environmental complexity and uncertainty
There was an overlap in the consensus with the focus group sessions and indepth interviews on whether global citizens should embrace values and different skills that enable them to make long-term commitments to lead to the transition to a sustainable world and human well-being. Therefore, educating students to understand and take responsibility for their actions regarding cultural, socio-economic, and environmental issues is vital to achieve long-term commitments. As indicated by the conceptual model of Morais and Ogden (2011), the discourse of global citizenship is related to efforts and actions of global civic engagement. For instance, recognizing and empathetically understanding the needs of others and trying to make a difference. One interviewee illustrated the importance of the need to embrace and engage in social and environmental responsibilities for global citizens: [ … ] I used to be on the board of an NGO in San Francisco. That was all about making sure that first world health and safety practices were evolving also in the developing world. An example that we used was a picture of a little boy in the dark of a public sidewalk. He's using a hammer to break apart lead acid batteries to recover the Lead (Pb) so the Lead can be recycled … so he can make a little bit of money for his family. And, of course, Lead (Pb) is a neurotoxin. And these Lead (Pb) acid batteries are full of sulfuric acid. I use that example to really talk about the producer responsibility because the manufacturer of that battery is all about cold cranking power and amperage and voltage, and they need to also be thinking about the end-of-life aspects of their products as well and making sure that they are responsible return policies as well [ … ]. (&4) In another interview, one participant warned that the professional field and education cannot ignore or suppress the magnitude of the challenges of the global citizenship concept, emphasizing the difficulties and risks related to the topic. However, he also stressed the call for professionals to behave as global citizens, showing self-awareness, empathy, values and ethics, and responsibility for their actions to others. Furthermore, GC practitioners also understand that local needs can vary from country to country.
[ … I think one thing that a lot of us in corporations miss sometimes is the action. You know, we talk about making an impact, and all those elements we talk about, but what are companies and people actually doing about it? Are we making a difference from the world perspective, are we helping the needy, are we making a difference, are we really impacting the government? Or is this just a booklet or a rubber stamp to get it? Or just a nice topic to have? Are we really promoting diversity? Are we walking the talk? It's nice to talk but it all comes down to execution, right? What can you really make the difference on. I think it's about giving back. We talk about the global citizen, and there are parts of the world that are going through a lot, and all the things we talk about here are first world problems. And there's people that don't have basic food or light or water.
Then I think, we should worry about this before … Are the first world problems becoming so detached from the third world problems? (&1) Likewise, during one of the focus group discussions, other participants acknowledged and addressed the global and local issues, and themes and challenges regarding the global citizenship concept.
[ … If you talk about social responsibility and GC, there is a real big theme, and we here in the Western part of Europe might think that we are very social, responsible, and accountable for the things that we do and the way we do business here but how about doing business with countries like Indonesia or in Africa or wherever where they still have very different problems or challenges as we saw in the financial times. So, I do believe that somehow this need not all be included, but I am afraid that if you just have them shown separately that you might lose the focus of the students at the end of the day and what it's all about. Because they will not be able to resolve starvation, for example, or drugs or flooding, or whatever, and that is, as far as I'm concerned, also a big part of GC.] ( Ã 2) Another participant in the same focus group answered later in the discussion her perception on how to address the concept of global citizenship. She raised a point that was taken up in detail in the follow-up to this focus group discussion: [ … Yes, and to build on that, I think it's a pretty big topic. It could become a 'farfrom-your-bed' thing or something that is really overwhelming. I think the important thing is to realize that each of us are individuals in this module and that we have a responsibility and actually can contribute and actually can make change. Even if you are one individual, part of a big whole, you can still make a difference]. ( Ã 4) Finalizing it, in the same discussion: [This is indeed a big discussion … I feel like maybe I can relate a little bit less, because I feel like you are talking about me when you talk about the millennial … I feel the biggest responsibility education has is to create awareness of the interconnectedness of all these items because I feel like not everyone can see that interconnectedness. I think most people have in their belief systems, you know a plastic bag is wrong, single-use plastic is bad, etc. But how do we get there? [inaudible] I think where education comes in with that awareness is sort of sparking that curiosity for people actually to research certain items by themselves. And then you get to the interesting things that are less low-hanging fruit. … I read an article as well, about the Western world having the luxury to care about these items more, but then when you have that spark of curiosity you might also start reading about concepts like effective altruism, where even somebody who's greedy or earns a lot of money is spending money to help the world ( … ) that's basically every day you have to open the newspaper. It's more that it created my awareness of the interconnectedness of all these items then sparking my curiosity to shape my own opinion on it. ( … ) And I think that is the role of education … I think the core responsibility of an educational institution is more to give me the tools and the means. As someone who graduates to understand that there is this interconnectedness and to explore for myself what that means and be critical also in the day and age where fake news is becoming more predominant that you really shape that critical thinking, that curiosity. To try to triangulate news sources etc.] ( Ã 5) During the focus group session some participants pointed out opportunities and necessary changes in pedagogies (Freire, 2017(Freire, , 2021 and curriculum to prepare students as future global citizens practitioners: [ … I think engaging with other universities is very important, especially global South and global North collaborations going. I would like to reflect on my time at the (name of the UAS), that although it was very international there were still a lot of neo-colonial undertones to it, where international students, Asian students would adapt to the European way of doing things and that was seen as better, and I think that's very problematic and a signifier of greater global issues that we have and it's not an issue specific to the (name of the UAS), but it's something that I think would be really cool if you could find a way to break against that. And, giving the international students more of a lead to actually foster an international atmosphere.] (#1) Responding to the above comment in the focus group: [I think she has a really good point; I think the curriculum that is usually offered is from one direction, one perspective, usually the European way or the Dutch way of doing things, and because you have a group that international, let them bring the news cases, what are they doing in their home countries, that is different from the Netherlands, and makes a difference from their perspective, what are they innovating on. And if everyone says something, then you can turn these lessons into practice] (#7) Different perspectives will lead to a better global understanding and, thus, a more appropriate view and implementation of global citizenship. Cooperation among universities across the globe, especially between developed and emerging countries, will help in limiting bias from a pure Western perspective.
In the research findings of the focus groups and interviews, as discussed above, were also compared to the model of Morais and Ogden (2011). Although their model, is well-researched, in this study similar but not always identical terms were used (see Table 5 below). Some of the terms used in the model are not widely used by business professionals. Despite the direct concern for the well-being of others, some of the responsibilities and engagement indicators were not mentioned or described. This is probably the reason that terms like altruism and global civic activism are not often referred to by the participants in this study (see Table 5). However, in general, three dimensions of Morais and Ogden (2011) were mentioned or described by the participants of the study as important (see Table 5).

The global citizenship model
According to the literature review and insights generated by the participants, future practitioners need to show interest in and understand other geographic regions, cultures, and languages to learn to behave as global citizens. Therefore, education needs not only to explore the international context but also engage with the related issues and challenges, even when students cannot go abroad, which is imperative to develop global awareness and accountability. Second, future practitioners as global citizens need to maintain a firmly articulated set of values and ethics aimed at the wellbeing of others and the environment. Participants often mentioned the need to develop leadership skills and display awareness, responsibility, and accountability for their actions toward others and the environment (Morais & Ogden, 2011;Schattle, 2009). Third, the ability to effectively collaborate (Mattessich & Johnson, 2018), think, and behave inclusively (Talmage & Knopf, 2017) to respond to local and global challenges that transcend geographical divisions (Noddings, 2005). Therefore, being interculturally competent (Bennett, 2008) and accountable is imperative (Davies, 2006). Fourth, they are well-informed, open to dialogue, and concerned with new ways of looking at the world; they have problem-solving skills and are critically aware (Freire, 2017(Freire, , 2021. Fifth, they are aware of the continuous need to keep professionalizing themselves (lifelong learning) to respond to global and local challenges and needs. Finally, it is critical to understand that all these elements (competencies and attributes) are interconnected and part of a future global citizen practitioner.
The development of the GCM provides a response to RQ2: What are the implications of the findings for developing global citizenship competencies and attributes for the (business) education curriculum? This benefits students and the organizations that employ graduates when they are better prepared to meet the challenges in our globalized world. The business world is changing rapidly, and considering these changes and challenges, innovation in business programs is imperative. Based on the empirical research and literature review, a model for global citizenship has been developed (see Figure 1 below). The GC model is linked to some of the most important trends in society, namely social transformation, ecological change, and digital transformation and these are linked to nine important competencies and attributes of global citizens.
Given the complexity of the issues, all actions need to be addressed in a collaborative effort between organizations, education, and research for positive societal impact. A recent description of the business environment, systems interaction, and societal trends can be found in Tuninga (2022). Changes in systems have a major impact on the organizational environment and the way in which we need to behave. In the context of interacting systems, three important changes and transformations can be described: (1) Social change, (2) Ecological change, and (3) Digital transformation. Changes in these areas have been selected based on literature, practitioners in focus groups, and their importance and global impact and are considered some of the most important current trends affecting organizations.

Social change
It is clear from the comments of participants in the focus groups, as discussed above, that understanding diversity and inclusion has become more important than ever for well-functioning organizations. For example, migration has led to rapid changes in the populations of countries. Another change is, for example, the aging of the population. To better understand and be able to respond to changes in societies and their impact on markets and organizations, management teams will have to become more diverse and inclusive.
Finding a balance between globalization and regionalization is not easy. For many years the emphasis has been on the globalization of business. However, current geo-political and social changes have encouraged a trend toward more regionalization based on arguments focusing on less dependence on other regions, possibly more stable supply chains, and more opportunities for the local/regional population.

Ecological change
Climate change will have a major impact on organizations and people in the next decades. The impact will be linked to trying to reduce climate change and to build communities that can handle the impact of climate change. Sustainability will play an important role in both the reduction and prevention of the effects of climate change. To prepare the employees for the future they need to be educated on how they can analyze current organizations and develop sound sustainable organizations.

Digital transformation
Digital transformation in the GC model refers to and includes digitization, technological change, artificial intelligence, robotics, and communication technology. Throughout history, societies are often afraid of large changes in technology. For example, in the early 1900s in the UK, it was arranged by law that a man with a red flag should walk in front of a car. However, through innovation, we have continued to improve our living standards in the world. Innovation and technological changes have been focused on replacing men and women with machines and on helping men and women to do a better job. However, history shows that both types of innovations, helping and/or replacing men or women, can change society. It is, however, important that groups of people who will lose their jobs because of innovations in technology are properly reskilled and educated so they can remain a viable and important part of society.
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated digital transformation and technological change. For example, today it is common to communicate with students and employees using communication technology, such as Teams, Facetime, and Zoom. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago (pre-covid).
The link from digital transformation to social change is easily shown. The yellow vests movement which started in France in 2018 showed what happens if whole groups in society do not benefit from digital transformation, technological innovation, and globalization. The link between technological change and digital transformation can easily be shown to have an impact on sustainability. For example, if robots will replace the work in factories this may lead to the development of production which is closer to the place of consumption. These shorter supply chains will most certainly reduce the negative impact of transportation on sustainability.
Developing the right competencies and attributes to deal with the abovementioned social, ecological, and digital transformations for both employees and students is therefore more important than ever before. This is necessary to keep employees up-to-date and to constantly prepare them for new roles in the organizations as needed as well as for students to ensure they are highly employable.
The GCM consists of two important interrelated and interconnected components. As the model shows, the three main societal themes/trends can all be found in the outer ring of the model in Figure 1. The inner part of the circle includes the competencies and attributes expected of a global citizen.
Understanding the environmental changes and themes in society will enable students and employees to understand why the proposed competencies and attributes are important. The competencies and attributes provide students and employees with the tools to properly interact and respond to the changes in the environment.

Conclusions
According to the present literature and research insights, human beings need to become aware of the boundaries of our planet's resources and how their everyday actions are linked to environmental development. Global citizenship in education has been identified as a means and a necessity (Oxfam Great Britain, 2015;UNESCO, 2014UNESCO, , 2015 to equip learners for increasingly intertwined social and environmental challenges (Bardi, 2022). The pursuit of sustainable development can only be achieved by enabling each of us to become accountable and active global citizens. Global citizenship involves an awareness that we are interconnected and that in our choices, we have responsibilities for the quality of life of current and future generations and for protecting and preserving our environment. Global citizenship commences with understanding the themes related to cultural differences and socioeconomic and environmental issues and challenges. It implies the need for each of us to change and rethink our roles, actions, and consequences in this broad arena. Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013, p. 868) for example, indicate that it may be that the attributes that businesses want in new employees are those that have been associated with the identities of global citizens. In the focus groups and in-depth interviews, we found that practitioners agreed with the importance of the GC model and its various elements.
The Global Citizenship Model (GCM), as shown in Figure 1, is a tool to develop (business) education which includes many elements from the environment and competencies as discussed in the literature and an empirical study. The GC model provided in this study is a first attempt to unpack GC education in concrete elements which can be implemented and measured to examine the progress of students and employees. The GCM provides the first important step in, for example, the change in business education from a primarily profit-based/economics model to a more inclusive model including economic and multiple societal perspectives and its related competencies and attributes.
The GCM as proposed is the result of the cooperation between practitioners and academics providing their insights on how universities of applied sciences can add to the quality and efficacy of their curricula by combining theory and practice.

Limitation and future research
This qualitative research is limited by the perspectives of the researchers and the participants. To build on the implications drawn from this analysis quantitative research methods are needed to explore the scope of applicability of the GCM. In addition, it is worthwhile to closely examine whether all the elements are relevant to organizations and the (business) education furthering the importance of good global citizenship.
This research is an exploratory study that has helped identify some of the elements which could be included in a current model for GC. However, one of the limitations of this study is the sample size of the focus group and in-depth interviews. A more comprehensive survey of employers, academic staff, and students will help to further validate the various elements and understand the importance of each of the elements of the GC model. Furthermore, additional research may provide additional elements to the GCM.
This research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown period. Data should be interpreted with caution in examining the model and when implementing the GCM model in organizations and education. Major changes in society may have an impact on the GCM. However, most elements are of a general nature and should be robust enough to deal with changes in the environment and societies.
Further research will be conducted based on the theoretical positioning of global citizenship education in the pedagogical process (e.g., Horey et al., 2018;Lilley et al., 2015a) and how best to implement it in the curriculum. This would include, for example, the formulation of related goals and learning outcomes, the design and implementation of specific GC activities, opportunities for global citizenship education in the international classroom, and internationalization at home (e.g., virtual collaboration). These all need further exploration for successful implementation in business education. on this topic's agenda and contributing to publications and presenting research results at national and international workshops and conferences.