Carla Liuzzo, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Queensland University of Technology

Endless economic expansion isn’t sustainable. Scientists are telling us our planet is already beyond its limits, with the risks to communities and the economy made clear in the federal government’s recent climate risk assessment.

Sustainability is a hot topic in Australian business schools. However, teaching about the possible need to limit economic growth – whether directly or indirectly related to sustainability – is uncommon.

Typically, business school teaching is based on concepts of sustainable development and “green growth”.
Under these scenarios, we can continue to grow gross domestic product (GDP) globally without continuing to grow emissions – what is known as “decoupling”. It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” promise for sustainability.

Our new research published in the journal Futures shows business students themselves are interested in learning the skills they would need under an alternative post-growth future.

Emerging alternatives to ‘growth is good’

There is mounting evidence of the difficulty of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions growth. The United Nations goals of sustainable development are “in peril”.

This has led to increased interest in no-growth or post-growth economic models and to the movement towards degrowth. Degrowth means shrinking economic production to use less of the world’s resources and avoid climate crisis.

Explicit teaching of degrowth rejects the belief in endless growth. This presents a challenge to traditional concepts in business education, including profit maximisation, competition and the notion of “free markets”.

The issue, and one that degrowth invites students to consider, is that green growth and sustainable development are underpinned by the need for continued economic growth and development. This “growth obsession” is pushing the planet and society to its limits.

Students are keen

Our new study provides a snapshot of students’ interest in alternative systems. It reveals 90% of respondents are open to learning about different economic models.

The study found 96% of students believe business leaders must understand alternative models to continued economic growth. Yet only 15% were aware of any alternatives that may exist. Most (71%) believed viable alternatives exist, but they admitted to lacking sufficient knowledge.

The study had 61 participants currently studying a masters of business administration (MBA) in a top Australian institution.

The research raises the question: if future business leaders are not made aware of alternatives, won’t they continue to assume growth is “inherently good”, and perpetuate the business practices that have pushed humanity beyond planetary boundaries?

The trouble with endless growth

Advocates of the “beyond growth” agenda argue endless growth is not possible. They promote alternate measures of progress to GDP, such as the recent Measuring What Matters report.

Degrowth proposes scaling back the consumption of resources as part of a transition to post-growth economies. Their aim is what economist Tim Jackson calls prosperity without growth. This entails businesses sharing value with communities, and reducing production of things like fast fashion, fast food and fast tech.

It is a rejection of maximising profit in favour of maximising value, based around meeting real needs like housing, food and essential services. Some industries would grow, such as care, education, public transport and renewables. Others may shrink or vanish.

Degrowth and post-growth aren’t alien concepts. There are grassroots movements such as minimalism. Social media abounds with lists of “things I no longer buy”, social enterprises, the right-to-repair movement and community-supported agriculture.

Degrowth also invites students to debate concepts like modern monetary theory, income ratio limits and universal basic income.

The role of business schools

Business schools are doing great work teaching students about changing consumer preferences for green alternatives, new global standards for reporting environmental and social impact, and ways businesses can reduce their environmental impact.

The Australian Business Deans Council in March this year detailed these efforts in its Climate Capabilities Report. This highlighted the need for business schools to produce graduates capable of “balancing business and climate knowledge”.

Our study of Australian business school students shows they are open to learning about degrowth. It challenges the assumption that ideas critical of endless growth would be unwelcome in business schools in Australia.

There is an argument for making explicit degrowth teaching in business schools more accessible because business schools have been criticised for not doing enough to address climate change and social inequality.

Globally, degrowth is starting to be taught explicitly in business schools in Europe, the UK and even the US.

Business schools have long been criticised for a culture of greed and cutthroat competition. As one distinguished professor from the University of Michigan recently put it, “today’s business schools were designed for a world that no longer exists”.

The introduction of no growth or degrowth scenarios to business schools in Australia may go some way to ensuring they are preparing leaders for the future – not priming students for a world that no longer exists.

Carla Liuzzo, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cassandra France, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, RMIT University

Optus finds itself in a perilous situation once again. Last week’s 13-hour Triple Zero network outage left about 480 customers unable to call for emergency help. Three deaths linked to the outage are being investigated.

That outage wasn’t an isolated incident for Optus. Just this week, the Federal Court imposed a A$100 million penalty on the telco for “unconscionable conduct” involving predatory sales tactics toward customers in vulnerable situations, which went on for years.

Both those crises come on the back of a 2022 data breach and a 2023 major network outage, which also affected Triple Zero calls. Optus vowed then to “ensure it will not happen again”.

These repeated failures signal serious problems within, and for, Optus. As its chief executive Stephen Rue was repeatedly asked this week – how can Optus regain customers’ trust?

Building trust before the crisis

To shore up a brand against damage from potential crises, companies should proactively build a reservoir of goodwill with their customers and the wider public.

By engaging consumers in positive brand actions, such as genuine corporate social responsibility, brands can build a halo that buffers the brand during times of crisis.

Indeed, Optus spent decades cultivating a strong identity as a trusted, community-minded brand. This is exemplified by its long-running “Yes” tagline, which has been central to shaping an approachable and people-centred image, making it more than a faceless utilities provider.

Optus has embedded its brand into Australia’s cultural life through sponsorship of major sporting events, from the Australian Open tennis to the naming rights to Perth’s Optus Stadium.

Yet, this image has been chipped away over recent years. In 2022, Optus experienced what has been deemed a “preventable” data hack, which leaked 9.5 million consumers’ private information. In 2024, Optus was the most distrusted brand in Australia, according to Roy Morgan. But it managed some improvement in 2025, moving to the 4th most distrusted brand – though that was before this latest outage.

The recurrence of crises for Optus, year after year, dismantles the accumulated brand image and intensifies negative responses from a range of stakeholders.

How to respond during a crisis

Effective brand response to a crisis is dependent on the nature of the crisis itself, meaning that there is no one single strategy suited to all circumstances. In the case of Optus, we see an incredibly severe case of harm arising from failures to deliver on a telecommunications company’s key purpose: making phone calls.

Previously, Optus has proudly shared stories of how they keep “the community connected” and provide “the backing of a strong network”.

Yet these recent events undermine these claims and demonstrate process and performance deficiencies which can be incredibly difficult to recover from, especially in light of the severity of consequences for some customers.

So far, Optus’ crisis response has shown it understands the importance of owning their accountability and expressing remorse for what happened as a consequence of its mistakes. (Though some have questioned why it took Singapore-based parent company Singtel nearly a week to issue its own “deeply sorry” statement.)

But taking responsibility is the only first step in the process. It also requires real commitment and action to effect change and avoid recurrence.

Optus are taking steps, announcing an independent review, which it says will be made public. But as governance expert Helen Bird pointed out this week, the company promised the same thing about its November 2023 Triple Zero outage – but didn’t follow through.

Even if it’s different this time, with experienced business and government leader Kerry Schott conducting the new investigation, Optus still needs to follow through with clear actions and real evidence of change.

How can Optus start to rebuild?

Brands can take many years to recover from major crises. The ongoing nature of crises at Optus make that road to recovery even more challenging. Yet, if Optus and its parent company Singtel are committed, there are certainly many actions they can pursue.

For Optus, transparency in action will be critical.

Optus needs to show not just accountability for failure but corrective action for resolution.

It cannot correct the dire consequences of its multiple previous missteps. But the company can seek to avoid repeating those mistakes again.

As others have pointed out, there are measurable ways to judge Optus’ ongoing response – which could involve the federal communications minister imposing new conditions on Optus’ licence to operate.

Beyond the immediate investigations and responses to the latest Triple Zero outage, Optus could also reinvest in winning back public goodwill, such as potentially exploring opportunities to donate and support emergency services and local communities.

Importantly, these cannot be simple, short-term fixes, but must involve long-term commitments.

Through frequent, public progress updates and evidence of investment in action which leads to substantiated outcomes, the brand may be able to rebuild some of the damage done to Australians’ trust – especially its customers’.

Cassandra France, Lecturer in Marketing, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, Senior Lecturer of Marketing, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sage Meredith Goodwin, Purdue University and Oscar Winberg, University of Turku

“Is there any way we can screw him?” asked President Richard M. Nixon.

“We’ve been trying to,” an aide replied, alluding to the White House’s efforts to remove from the airwaves an ABC talk show host whose critiques of the administration had placed that “son of a b—h” on the chief executive’s enemies list.

Over 50 years ago, Nixon and his team sought to use the full weight of the federal government – with calls to network executives, Federal Communications Commission complaints, IRS audits and FBI investigations – to silence “The Dick Cavett Show.”

Cavett, who seemed to personify the liberalism that Nixon despised, had drawn the president’s ire by platforming anti-war activists like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, along with left-wing radicals such as Stokely Carmichael.

Nixon ultimately failed in his attempt to silence Cavett. ABC executives were committed to independent media, while the broadcasting industry as a whole had garnered the attention and trust of an enormous audience, which insulated them from political pressure.

It’s a sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s second term, during which he has loudly announced his desire to rid the nation’s televisions of his critics, and is making headway in doing so. In July 2025, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late night show. While the network maintained this was “purely a financial decision” based on ratings, it came in the wake of Colbert mocking both the president and the network.

“I hear Kimmel is next,” Trump crowed in the days after. Lo and behold, ABC briefly suspended Jimmy Kimmel on Sept. 17 over comments the comedian made about the response to the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The suspension was lifted five days later, after it generated widespread backlash and became a flash point for free speech debates in the U.S.

But why has Trump been able to shake up late-night TV in ways Nixon never could?

It’s tempting to think of the network era – those decades in the 20th century when CBS, NBC and ABC dominated television – as a golden age of independent broadcasting and free expression.

However, as political historians of media, we know from our research that TV has always been a battleground of politics, business interests and broadcasting ideals.

The apparent appeasement of Trump by network executives shows just how much has changed in both the media and regulatory landscape since Nixon’s time.

Television’s decline

Direct pressure from the White House was the immediate catalyst for ABC’s decision to briefly pull the plug on Kimmel.

Brendan Carr, the chair of the FCC, threatened ABC and its affiliates while speaking on the podcast of right-wing commentator Benny Johnson.

“These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel,” he said, “or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Soon, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own dozens of ABC affiliates, announced that they would pull the show, forcing ABC to act.

That said, network television’s fading place in the American media ecosystem probably made the call a whole lot easier.

When Nixon was trying to nix “The Dick Cavett Show,” the program averaged 5 million viewers a night. The rival “Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” regularly pulled in 11 million viewers.

Yet even Cavett’s relatively smaller audience is more than double what Kimmel and his colleagues in late night television can count on today.

The rise of cable loosened the networks’ chokehold on TV news and entertainment in the late 20th century. The internet – followed by the advent of podcasts, streaming and social media – merely accelerated this trend.

By the 2010s, more viewers were watching clips of late night talk shows on their phones and computers than on television. Today, over 40% of people under 30 say they don’t watch broadcast or cable TV.

Kimmel does have over 20 million subscribers on YouTube and millions more on social media, but ABC has struggled to monetize this following.

In short, late night is no longer the TV crown jewel it once was. As a result, it’s far easier for executives to decide to cut the cord on a Kimmel or a Colbert.

Deregulation and consolidation

Broadcasting has always been a business where those at the top are swayed by the bottom line.

But back in Cavett’s day, top decision-makers at the networks were still dyed-in-the-wool broadcasting executives. Leonard Goldenson, the president of ABC whom Nixon’s aides hounded, had created the network from scratch and was invested in the ideals of independent media. Over at CBS, founder William S. Paley had spent decades building the network’s brand and reputation and held similar beliefs. They wanted to shield the respectability of their networks, which made them more resolute when confronted with political attacks.

Now, however, the ultimate decisions about what happens at ABC and CBS are made by executives at the megacorporations that own them.

Decades of deregulation – in particular, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which spurred a wave of media mergers and consolidation – have allowed broadcasting today to be dominated by a handful of massive conglomerates. They own not only the networks, but also studios, cable channels and internet services.

These media giants need government approval to further expand their empires. This includes the US$8 billion merger that made Paramount Skydance the owner of CBS in summer 2025 – a deal that was approved just a week after CBS announced the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Disney, which owns ABC, also has major deals pending that require the government’s go-ahead.

If the ultimate goal is ever-increasing profits for shareholders, getting rid of a late night show may seem like a small price to pay – especially if a particular program threatens the government’s sign-off on a massive deal.

Charging ‘liberal bias’

The decline of ratings and media consolidation has left television more vulnerable to attempts at political intimidation than ever before.

Trump is far from the first conservative to use the television networks as a political punching bag. His strategy of tarring national broadcasters with the brush of “liberal media bias” can be traced back to right-wing media activists who, as early as the 1940s, argued that the mainstream media shut out conservative ideas and voices.

Nixon, convinced that the nation’s television industry was against him, brought those tactics to the White House. In public, he relied on his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to slam the networks as part of an irresponsibly hostile liberal “unelected elite” with “vast power.” In private, Nixon abused the office of the presidency to harass and intimidate broadcasting reporters, directors and executives.

These tactics largely failed. But in Nixon’s wake, partisan media activists like former Fox News executive Roger Ailes and radio host Rush Limbaugh continued to popularize the idea of “liberal media bias” within the conservative movement.

Today, Trump’s charges of “liberal bias” or “fake news” galvanize his supporters – and make media executives sweat – because they’re a key part of modern right-wing identity.

But the president’s no-holds-barred approach is unprecedented. By threatening broadcasting licenses, instigating investigations and filing lawsuits – all while declaring the mainstream media “the enemy of the people” – Trump has turned the dial up to 11.

His administration’s success in temporarily getting Kimmel off the air is obviously one more chapter in an ongoing crisis for free speech. Unfortunately, given the trends in the relationship between American media and politics over the past half-century, it likely won’t be the last.

Sage Meredith Goodwin, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for American Political History and Technology, Purdue University and Oscar Winberg, Postdoctoral Fellow, Turku Institute for Advanced Studies & John Morton Center for North American Studies, University of Turku

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.