Management Science paper claiming sustainable firms outperform peers faces backlash for flawed methods. Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2014) study, cited over 6,000 times, allegedly misrepresented research techniques. Authors admitted the discrepancy in 2025 but refused to issue a corrigendum, leaving the analysis uncorrected.

Co-author Henk van der Heijden (Ioannou) and team acknowledged the error after two years of pressure. Management Science declined to act, citing policy requiring author-initiated corrections. London Business School (Ioannou's institution) dismissed concerns, while Harvard Business School and Oxford University shifted blame between departments. Research Integrity Offices globally have dismissed the case, citing jurisdictional limits.

Andy King, a business school critic, highlights systemic issues: UC Berkeley ignored data misrepresentation, Cornell expelled a fraudster only after prolonged pressure, and Columbia University denies U.S. News ranking errors. The American Political Science Association refused to revoke a plagiarism-tainted award. These patterns suggest entrenched tolerance for uncorrected errors in business research.

King proposes a satirical 'Second Chance U' for disgraced academics, where students use AI tools freely. Until institutions prioritize integrity over reputation, flawed studies like this one will continue shaping policy and investment decisions.