Reflections on Holixec Education: A Macromarketing Response to Contemporary Educational Challenges?

Abstract

This commentary reflects on the ‘holixec’ education framework proposed by Batat (2024) in relation to macromarketing scholarship, especially the wider marketing pedagogy literature. We suggest that holixec education codifies rather than revolutionizes current practice and is applicable to work within existing educational structures (rather than critiquing, challenging, or transforming them), thus resonating with the developmental school of macromarketing through (rather than the critical school). Further, ‘holixec’ education remains largely grounded at the individual level without concrete guidance to address systemic complexities. On a broader level, we identify what we see as perhaps the most obvious challenge ‘holixec’ education and similar models must overcome—that they are of little practical use without empirical scrutiny, while such scrutiny can go against the ethos of holistic education. This challenge leaves instructors with little guidance to navigate and manage the messiness that arises from systemic complexities.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, we are concerned that the practical reality of business (and marketing) education edges toward primarily teaching operational benefits—sometimes masked as employability skills—while neglecting having students grapple with broader societal implications. Because of this shared concern, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the ‘holixec’ education framework proposed by Batat (2024) “as an alternative teaching and learning model” (p. 4) with the promise to “revolutionize higher education” (p. 4).

Drawing on our own experience, we aim to reflect on holixec education in relation to (a) macromarketing's focus on marketing alongside and within marketing systems and society and (b) the wider marketing pedagogy literature. In brief, we conclude that, as holixec education runs alongside similar efforts in marketing and business education, it is perhaps most useful as a framework to reflect upon and organize existing (individual) practices within current education structures. However, as it does not offer a way to critique, challenge, and transform existing structures and practices, it remains largely grounded at the individual level. Consequently, holixec education does not (yet) provide concrete guidance to address systemic complexities as a core concern for macromarketing scholarship and pedagogy and is thus unlikely to revolutionize the business school or marketing education.

We begin by introducing the key components of Batat's (2024) framework—its’ foundation, guiding principles, and outcomes—followed by positioning it within macromarketing discourse, and connecting it with previous scholarship on marketing education. We conclude with a brief reflection of potential next steps to enrich the framework.

Holixec Education

Batat (2024) outlays a suggestion to innovative business education by introducing an educational approach that draws together holistic and execution-oriented learning strategies, blending these two words into the term ‘holixec’ education. The purpose of this approach is to address challenges and changes in higher education, particularly in business schools, such as those driven by experiences post Covid-19 pandemic and technological developments, among others. Central to the proposed framework is the question “[i]n what ways can we reshape the future of higher education to better align with student needs, workforce demands, and various challenges?” (p. 1). We appreciate the ambition expressed by Batat (2024), which aims to better equip students for an increasingly changeable world in a way that encompasses both soft skills inherent in personal and leadership development, as well as the hard skills and knowledge necessary to be socially responsible leaders in the twenty-first century. As students are required to navigate an increasingly complex world—both technological and otherwise—the attempt to prepare “them to be successful market actors and social agents who can contribute positively to their workplaces and society” (p. 2) is a laudable one.

Batat's (2024) notion of a holixec education is visualized as a “learning tree” (p. 6), which includes its foundation (expressed in the MECCDAL model as the tree's roots), facilitation (four guiding principles comprising the tree's trunk), and learning outcomes (individual capitals representing the tree's branches). The MECCDAL model is introduced as “a comprehensive framework for the twenty-first business education landscape” (Batat 2024, p. 5) and combines “seven core pillars, each symbolizing a unique aspect of education” (p. 6): Mens (mind), executio (execution), cor (heart), corpus (body), digitus (digital), anima (soul), and lingua (language). The four guiding principles include ethicality, holism, humanism, and executionism. Finally, the proposed learning outcomes of the holixec education are that of several capitals, drawing on the foundational work of Bourdieu [1986] 2018.

We now position the overall framework within the wider macromarketing discourse, before turning our attention to connecting the three elements of the “learning tree” with marketing scholarship.

Positioning Holixec Education Within Macromarketing Discourse

Macromarketing scholars maintain a holistic perspective of the world—including marketing systems—and the need to see this systems view reflected in education. What they disagree on is how best to get there, with diverse perspectives on offer. We begin our positioning of Batat's (2024) holixec education model with a brief review of systems thinking in marketing, and how the two dominant schools of macromarketing thought address the complexities arising from the intersections across and within systems.

Systems Thinking in Marketing

The call to understand systems has been evident in the marketing literature for at least 70 years (Shapiro 2006). For example, Alderson and Cox (1948) argued for a systems approach to marketing, going beyond the customer-organizational dyad. Alderson (1957) further developed this by naming the various actors and organizations that are of importance in understanding such systems; he argued to break away from the dominant economic perspective that saw exchange and markets as an atomistic system where the system is view as one where components are interacting randomly with each other. Instead of an atomistic system, Alderson argued that systems reflect group behavior, where the system is an expression of the individuals within it and that systems’ have their own communication, power, and other changeable relational structures that go far beyond economic considerations. However, while attention in the 1960's sought to include broader societal activity in marketing thought (Kotler and Levy 1969), marketing increasingly shifted toward a micro focus, specifically in consumer behavior (Shapiro 2006); alongside a decreased integration of a distribution focus in marketing thought, despite calls to attend to this brushed aside area of marketing (Bowersox 1969).

It is macromarketing scholarship that has since continued to advance the importance of a systems perspective. For example, upon the launching of the Journal of Macromarketing in 1981, the editor, George Fisk, argued that the goal of the journal was to “provide a forum in which people can debate and clarify the role of marketing in society […] The word macromarketing implies that we care about the consequences of large marketing systems on large social issues” (Fisk 1981, p. 3). Reflecting this long tradition within marketing scholarship systems thinking in an educational context, Batat (2024) warns educators against taking an “atomistic” perspective by “teach[ing] different courses or strategies as separate topics without integrating them into a comprehensive educational journey” (p. 2). This resonates with macromarketers, and specifically their aim to understand the wider implications of marketing. Two schools of thought within macromarketing thought exist, and they disagree—broadly—on what is needed to do so, and—specifically—marketing's role within this endeavor (Mittelstaedt et al. 2015).

Different Schools of Macromarketing Thought

These two schools of thought are often contrasted as the developmental and critical schools (e.g., Reppel 2012; Mittelstaedt et al. 2014; Mittelstaedt et al. 2015). While the developmental school argues that marketing has the potential to positively influences societal well-being, and does so by working within existing institutions, (well-regulated) markets, and marketing systems, the critical school not only critiques the current situation, but also attempts to tackle the assumptions inherent in it with an aim to seek and explore alternatives. Slightly provocatively, Witkowski (2010) summarizes this by extending George Fisk's provision that “the purpose of macromarketing is to save the world” (Witkowski 2010, p. 4) by adding that it is also to “save the world from marketing and marketing from itself” (p. 4f). In other words, a development perspective presupposes that current systems can be modified or adapted to achieve improved well-being, while the critical perspective actively questions if this is possible (Mittelstaedt et al. 2014).

Such discussions are also being realized in sustainability literature and thus go beyond the field of macromarketing. For example, as Adloff and Neckel (2019) outline, the futures we collectively envision can influence the actions we think are needed to achieve sustainability; a view predicated on control, where existing power structures are further entrenched, will favor the status quo, while a view of modernization will seek to moderately improve existing structures (e.g., green growth), and, finally, a view of transformation would seek to fundamentally change the underlying tenants of our systems, such as the need for growth and competition.

Although Batat (2024) describes holixec education “as an alternative teaching and learning model” (p. 4) to reform higher education, including marketing education, the approach appears to be positioned more as a tool/framework for improving what exists rather than fundamentally critiquing or challenging it with the aim to transform or perhaps even replacing current structures. While Batat (2024) argues for a “rethinking of the student educational journey, the institutional system, and academic landscape” (p. 2), the approach offered focuses on using diverse learning materials, class formats, and assessment methods, and align across subjects. Such efforts have long been undertaken by instructors and business schools. In that sense, perhaps a better label for positioning Batat's (2024) holixec educational approach within macromarketing discourse would be the reformist school—to use a term with which Stan Shapiro has described the developmental school of macromarketing thought. This also aligns with the modernization view of sustainability suggested by Adloff and Neckel (2019), where existing structures are fine-tuned. As one of us proposes elsewhere (Beninger 2025), a modernization approach can help perhaps mitigate some disturbances that plague (marketing) systems; yet will likely fall short of realizing benefits that could potentially be honed by that of a more transformative approach.

For an education model to be holistic, it must include at least some form of critical appraisal of the current—often messy, unfair, and unsustainable—situation. Consequently, we suggest that holixec education, with its implicit focus of working within existing (institutional and power) structures, is best perceived as fitting a developmental rather than critical positioning within macromarketing discourse. As the holixec education model sits firmly within a developmental/reformist orientation, the question remains as to how holixec education may be able to address systemic issues effectively with the existing institutional and power structures?

Addressing Systemic Issues

To reflect on this important question, we focus on one tenant of the approach, namely the focus on economic growth. As Batat (2024) stresses, “[t]he goal is to educate future leaders […] for a positive impact on society and the environment while contributing to a sustainable economic growth” (p. 2), where the desired outcome is to have students “become well-rounded thinkers and doers, capable of transforming creative ideas into economic capital and tangible outcomes for positive change” (p. 3). The drive is to contribute to the current dominant focus on economic growth, but also while “teaching students how to… accumulate wealth” (p. 11), where the “concept is not merely about producing degree holders, but individuals who can generate wealth.” (p. 11). While Batat (2024) notes the need for “sustainable economic growth” (p. 2, italics added), this focus aligns with a dominant paradigm within marketing—and much marketing education—that of economic liberalism, predicated on continuous economic growth (Mittelstaedt et al. 2014), underscoring that it seeks to reform, rather than fundamentally critique and challenge.

Recently, however, macromarketers are increasingly considering degrowth as a fundamental critique of the feasibility of continuous economic growth, and thus the developmental school's foundation of requiring such growth. This degrowth perspective is reflected in recent literature (e.g., Helm, Little, and Frethey-Bentham 2024; Lloveras and Quinn 2017) and book reviews (e.g., Benton 2022) in this journal, as well as at the annual Macromarketing Conference where one of us participates in the organization of a track on degrowth. The downscaling of production/consumption toward improved human and environmental wellbeing (Schmelzer et al. 2022) represents a break from a traditional focus on economic growth. Economic growth, as argued by Lloveras and Quinn (2017), is often seen “as the ultimate foundation for wellbeing and a panacea to many kinds of societal problems” (p. 132), despite bringing a range of social and ecological costs. Degrowth is seen as an alternative framework that can benefit marketing (Lloveras et al. 2022), but requires deep transformations of existing systems (Nesterova 2020) rather than improvements at the margins—to put it provocatively.

While holixec education can be viewed as a call to move toward a more holistic approach focused on execution, it is doing so largely within the current dominant paradigm. To truly move toward a revolutionizing business education would require bridging the development and the critical schools. For example, Kopnina and Bedfor (2024), arguing for the need for critical pedagogy in business schools, contend that even recent pushes within business education focused on sustainability, such as those centered around the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is fundamentally at odds with the natural planetary boundaries and thus “impedes the implementation of deep structural change needed for sustainability” (p. 577) because, to their view, the SDGs are themselves predicated on the idea of more economic growth. To truly revolutionize marketing education, we need to integrate a critical perspective.

Connecting Holixec Education with Previous Scholarship and Practice

Whether situated within the developmental or critical school, instructors from both marketing and other business disciplines have been grappling, like Batat (2024) does, on how best to integrate a more holistic and execution-oriented approach to business education. Appreciating this overall goal, we therefore would like to draw attention to a selection of parallel attempts in recent—and past—years by marketing scholars to realize similar goals.

Holistic Perspectives in Marketing Education

A notable example is a recent special issue in the Journal of Marketing Education by co-Guest Editors Joya Kemper, Emily Moscato, and Ann-Marie Kennedy. Provocatively titled “Hacking the System: Sustainability and Macromarketing in Marketing Education”, one of the articles published in that special issue collected over 200 sustainability marketing syllabi from 21 countries spanning 14 years (Brocato et al. 2022). The authors found that such courses included general knowledge of sustainability, but also applications of it to real-world problems and “affective outcomes” (p. 342), such as awareness of ethical issues and connecting organizational, local, and global issues; Brocato et al. (2022) also found elements such as critical thinking, speaking persuasively, and taking personal action related to sustainability included in the syllabi. In their words, the syllabi indicated that, by “combining knowledge, application, and affective objectives, students are encouraged to change their way of thinking and to consider a more holistic approach to sustainability education” (Brocato et al. 2022, p. 344; italics added) “by providing ways they can become change agents to businesses” (p. 349) and society. They conclude: “We find that objectives that focus on application and practice have gained importance over time and suggest a creative class design will be crucial to foster students’ holistic understanding of sustainability and marketing.” (p. 350).

In other words, marketing syllabi dating back to at least 2007 focused on application (i.e., execution-oriented learning) and on holistic approaches designed to effect real change at the nexus of the personal and societal. Such examples seem to align with the holixec education approach with its’ philosophy focused on bridging a holistic approach and execution, by having students learn “to analyze problems, strategize, execute, and understand the impact of their decisions” (Batat 2024, p. 3), albeit within those specific sustainability marketing courses themselves. Therefore, while we appreciate that holixec education seeks to “revolutionize higher education” (p. 4), its’ overall thrust—that of integrated a holistic and execution-focused approach—is one that has been active in many marketing classes for decades.

The attention to such matters in stand-alone sustainability-oriented marketing courses (the focus of Brocato et al. 2022) could be accused of displaying what Batat (2024) refers to as “atomistic education” wherein instructor teach “different courses or strategies as separate topics without integrating them into a comprehensive educational journey” (p. 2). However, Batat's (2024) contention for the need to move from atomistic to holixec education seems to stress, on one level, to do so in specific courses—such as the luxury marketing course example (pp. 14–5)—but also to do so across courses within business schools. Therefore, at least in the former, such efforts are seemingly already happening across at least the 21 countries examined in Brocato et al. (2022). If we turn to the latter, to integrate the tenants of holixec education across courses and at the institutional level, we can also see evidence this is increasingly happening. Educators involved in accreditation processes at their business schools—such as with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), European Foundation for Management Development's Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA), as well as country-level educational accreditation bodies—will recognize that, for example, the goals noted in the holixec education approach to increase both learner-centricity and the focus on both soft and hard skills have long been mainstays of these accreditations, including skills to execute the knowledge through real-world or quasi-real settings. For example, the AACSB has focused on positive societal impact, as well as learner progression across classes (not just within), and innovation and experiential learning in teaching and curriculums (e.g., service learning, consulting projects, etc.), where “its accredited members share a common purpose—preparing learners for meaningful professional, societal, and personal lives” (AACSB 2024, p. 9). In this way, across and within classes, business schools have sought to bring in this holistic and execution-oriented approach.

As we reflect on the holixec education's overall approach we see that macromarketing—and marketing and business schools in general—have been working to integrate holistic and system-based efforts in our classrooms. We note overall support for ensuring learners have a systems-based understanding of the world and can apply the knowledge that they learn. We now continue our reflection by turning our attention to the more specific aspects of holixec education, including its foundations, guiding principles, and desired learning outcomes.

Delivering Holistic Education in Marketing

Foundation of Holixec Education

Although the combination of holistic and execution-oriented learning has, for a long time, been a guiding principle within macromarketing, Batat (2024) proposal of the MECCDAL model to realize the goal of holixec education within and between classes, as well as at the strategic business school level, may provide the scaffolding for those of a more micro inclination to adapt their teaching toward a holistic appreciation of the consequences and implications of our collective endeavors.

We suggest that the MECCDAL model could potentially be useful as a framing device to assess education offerings, to see if such offerings seek to develop the seven tenants of the model, including knowledge, execution skills, emotional abilities, physical welfare, digital mindfulness, technical skills, and language use. To demonstrate its utility, however, the model must be assessed in practical terms. Indeed, although multiple benefits of this model are stated in Batat (2024), unfortunately, no substantiated proof of such benefits are yet provided. Reflecting on these seven aspects, both co-authors recognize these pillars in their own classes, but also at the institution level. For example, in a recent Consumer Behavior (CB) course taught by the second author, the class focused on developing students’ knowledge of the multidisciplinary aspects of CB spanning psychology, sociology, and communications, among other disciplines (mens), applying this knowledge through analysis of real-world cases and companies to craft strategies (executio), reflecting on personal and professional development (cor), providing a healthy learning environment (corpus), learning about Generative AI with an eye on empowerment and citizenship (digitus), reflecting on their own consumption (anima), and developing communication skills through presentations and in-class exercises (lingua). In this way, MECCDAL framework seems to codify current educational approaches, rather than attempting to replace them.

Guiding Principles of Holixec Education

The holixec approach included four guiding principles, as summarized in Table 2, of ethicality, holism, humanism, and executionism. As ethics and systems-thinking remain at the core of macromarketing and macromarketing pedagogy (Shapiro et al. 2021), we support the effort of instilling the importance of fostering ethical thinking, understanding interconnected dynamics, centering humans in the learning process, and focusing on implementation, respectfully. In the following, we reflect on each principle with the aim to enrich them to more fully reflect the complexity of these constructs.

First, a proposed guiding principle is that of ethicality, which Batat (2024) describes as a focus on moral standards that “promotes ethical decision-making alongside economic considerations” (p. 7). Ethics, which can denote rules of decision-making, is “a study of what constitutes good and bad conduct, including related actions and values (Barry 1979)” (cited in Chonko 1995, p. 19) prompts questions around which moral standards—or “value systems” (Batat 2024, p. 7)—is employed, and how instructors can ensure they align their teaching and learning methods, and the boundaries therein. Even just considering duty-based theories versus consequence-based theories—as taught in marketing ethics courses and textbooks (e.g., Murphy et al. 2016)—would prompt discussion around what is the best course of action. For example, while Batat's (2024) nonmaleficence (drawn from principles from the biomedical field) stresses the importance of not harming students’ academic or personal well-being, including avoiding stress, as instructors, we recognize that assessments can be stressful, and that such stress can be an unavoidable aspect. From a duty-based perspective, although duties vary widely depending on the philosopher (Murphy et al. 2016), one could be to “do no harm.” This duty would infer that, by the instructor imposing this stress, this could be an unacceptable action against students; however, consequence-based theories focus on the outcome, and this perspective could argue that the net outcome is a positive, that students learn despite some stress. Therefore, more details about ethicality would be useful to help instructors integrate this principle into their teaching.

Second, the principle of holism is described as understanding learners’ needs, growing the educators (soft) skills, having a multidisciplinary approach in teaching, using diverse teaching methods, and including both summative and formative assessments. Many marketing instructors and institutions already engage in these five elements. We feel limiting the holism principle, that is, “fostering a nuanced understanding of phenomena by considering various interconnected dynamics” (Batat 2024, p. 8), to these five elements is a missed opportunity to engage with macromarketing thought that focuses—at its core—on the idea that understanding the wider and interconnected nature of societies (and, in particular, marketing systems) is not only helpful, but also necessary. Both of us co-authored work on macromarketing pedagogy (e.g., Shapiro et al. 2021; Watson et al. 2022) that stresses the value this holistic view can bring students, such as, for example, integrating multidisciplinary aspects into the classroom and unveiling—and interacting with—this complexity.

Third, regarding humanism, Batat (2024) draws on the psychological and educational interpretation of humanism (citing, e.g., Rogers 1959; 1961; Evans and Hearn 1977) instead of the broader humanist philosophical movement, thus emphasizing personal feelings and aesthetic preferences rather than human dignity and critical inquiry as cornerstones of the wider humanist movement. Consequently, key humanist tensions are avoided, perhaps most obviously the conflict between individuals seeking self-actualization and their social responsibility toward the collective. For example, the instrumentalist positioning of freedom—a concept central to the humanist tradition—as giving students autonomy over and within the learning process, contrasts with the understanding of freedom in social terms, such as an act of emancipation from market forces and technology. To illustrate how this plays out within education, consider the distinction Fromm (1979, pp. 47–9) makes between “having knowledge” and “knowing.” For Fromm, the former is associated with possessing knowledge (i.e., information), while the latter requires questioning (“shattering”) of what we “hold to be true and self-evident,” which Fromm describes as an “illusion produced by the suggestive influence of the social world.” While we leave it to the reader to contemplate where their own institution stands in this regard, we note that, without acknowledging tensions, it becomes impossible to question the role business schools play in reproducing certain social relations—and thus power structures—or to facilitate social transformation. As such, it may be beneficial for holixec education to engage with humanist thought beyond a psychological and educational interpretation; to recognize the tensions inherent in the human condition, and to draw out critical inquiry as a uniquely human response to them.

Fourth, regarding executionism, many marketing instructors would support the idea that students should, ideally, be able to do something with the knowledge they learn in our classes. While many instructors strive to approximate real-world situations in their classroom, or “prioritizing realistic practical application” through simulations that force real-time decisions and case studies (Batat 2024, p. 10), many other approaches exist that actively involve students in real-world and real-time projects, such as running real companies, working on consulting projects with companies, and the like. For example, even having students engage in ongoing discussions, debate, and dialogue on key topics (Watson et al., 2024) can allow students to experience how these discussions may unfold in boardrooms, thus preparing them for such a real-world situation. Therefore, in our anecdotal assessment, what is being proposed through executionism—where executionism is a core tenant of holixec education—is already alive and well in many marketing classrooms. Further, holixec education asks students for “accuracy and flawless execution” (Batat 2024, p. 7). However, accuracy and flawnesses can be challenging when faced with the complexity of real-life situations, where the messiness can demand flexibility rather than accuracy, and an openness to the evolving and the perfectly imperfect nature of execution, especially for managers who truly embrace and acknowledge the importance of understanding and appreciating the intricacies of systems.

Outcomes of Holixec Education

Batat (2024) proposes we move away from using traditional learning outcomes, as they “can be restrictive due to their focus on specific, measurable skills and knowledge” (p. 10). Both authors disagree, as learning outcomes can be—and indeed often are—crafted to incorporate “creativity, comprehensive thinking, holistic intelligence, and real-world application” (p. 10). Nonetheless, if we look toward the proposed learning outcomes of holixec education, Batat (2024) mentions five capitals, which are named as “domains” of a sixth capital, that of human capital (p. 11). While capitals could potentially be a useful lens to appreciate what a marketing class or business degree programs aims to provide to students, we miss a full and theoretically grounded treatment of capitals. This is worth attending to, if this is to be the desired outcome of this educational approach.

Capital is a word employed to denote productive resources (“Produktivkapital,” see Roscher 1843, p. 7), where many different types of capitals have been put forth across disciplines (see, e.g., Hodgson 2014, who notes over 25 forms of capital). In a recent effort by macromarketers, one of us, together with June Francis, proposed a model of nine capitals (Beninger and Francis 2022), integrating ten existing capitals to do so, and noting that these capitals can be assessed within different (interacting) systems, such as communities and organizations, where such capitals can comprise important resources of those systems.

Moving forward, if capitals are to be used as an organizing device or proxies for learning outcomes, it could be advantageous—also for increased clarity—to utilize one of these many existing capitals frameworks and it tests its usefulness. Once again, we understand that Batat (2024) subsumed certain capitals into human capital, as evident in Figure 2 (p. 11), where economic, cultural, social, symbolic, and well-being are presented as domains of human capital. However, a well-established definition of human capital is that of skills and knowledge (Coleman 1988). It is not clear how, say, economic capital (financial resources such as money or that can be converted readily into money) or social capital (resources borne from social networks) (Bourdieu [1986] 2018), could be a domain within human capital. Further, Batat (2024) “introduces two additional dimensions—artistic and media, which are part of the outcomes of holixec education” (p. 12), both not shown in either Figure 1 (p. 6) or Figure 2 (p. 11) and instead presented as forming part of cultural capital. A definition of cultural capital, that of practices and ideas (Throsby 1999) already includes, for example, arts and cultural events (Beninger and Francis 2022). As many forms of capitals have already been named and as existing frameworks—and aggregated—frameworks of capitals already exist, if capitals are to be used as an organizing framework for outcomes of the holixec education, prompts questions about the need for Batat (2024) to propose a new framework.

While looking at capitals of individuals in isolation—such as their financial or social capital—can be useful, it is important to recognize that individuals are embedded within their wider systems. The capitals inherent in them—hinted at by Batat's (2024) mention of alumni networks as a form of social capital—matter. In another example, cultural capital can be viewed as “the set of ideas, practices, beliefs, traditions, and values [that] […] identify and bind together a given group of people” (Throsby 1999, p. 7), thereby underscore the wider cultural resources that individuals draw on and contribute to within a larger group setting. Therefore, if we are to use capitals as a lens to view learning outcomes, taking a macromarketing perspective, it would be useful to appreciate that individual capitals are nested within the larger resources sets of their business school, and their families, friends, and wider communities. As argued in Shapiro et al. (2021, p. 112),

“[r]ather than focusing on individual agency […] macromarketing dares to wade into the messiness. It accounts for a world shaped by dynamic complexity, where collective agency both impacts and is impacted by the context of that action.”

Concluding Remarks and Research Priorities

For us, this quote by Shapiro et al. (2021) draws out the differences between macromarketing thought and our reading of Batat (2024). We perceive holixec education as firmly rooted at the individual level with only implicit or passing recognition of wider social or collective considerations, such as the call to equip future leaders “with execution skills and decision-making capabilities for a positive impact on society and the environment while contributing to a sustainable economic growth” (Batat 2024, p. 2). In other words, we are missing concrete guidance on how educators may address the “messiness” Shapiro et al. (2021) refers to. While a focus on execution skills helps to avoid such messiness, holixec education may not align with macromarketing's conviction that it is precisely this—the complexities caused by the multitude of interactions within and across markets, marketing, and society—that makes macromarketing meaningful as a scholarly endeavor and thus gives macromarketing educators a purpose.

In addressing this gap and for holixec education to align more with macromarketing thought, it may be helpful to (a) test the framework empirically and (b) propose concrete resources and activities to implement it. We believe that Tamilia's (1992) concern remains valid that marketing education fails to offer appropriate macromarketing-related teaching resources. In service of addressing this gap, macromarketers have engaged in a variety of efforts. For example, there is a regular track dedicated to pedagogy at the annual Macromarketing Conference, and the Journal of Macromarketing has launched a pedagogy section, with articles appearing that focus on a variety of macromarketing pedagogy topics. As we look toward the future, however, more can be done. Regarding holixec education, we suggest thoroughly integrating the developmental and critical schools and interrogating marketing education literature is a sound place to start, ensuring that any provided frameworks are deeply rooted in historical and contemporary macromarketing literature. This opens the door to testing the framework empirically and to the development of accompanying proposed actions and resources.

In conclusion, we wish to make one final point. Earlier, we described how educators already engage in practices suggested by holixec education, such as focusing on ethics and holistic approaches, while ensuring that students grow themselves intellectually and emotionally, and can execute what they have learned. These existing efforts underline the contention that holixec educations and the MECCDAL model codifies rather than revolutionizing current practice. With empirical verification, we see potential for it to perhaps be applied at an institutional level to help administrators assess the current state-of-affairs within and across their courses. Implemented carefully, holixec education might thus be appropriate at the business school level. As with every attempt to narrow the dedication and enthusiasm of instructors into a set of categories to be measured, however, careful implementation remains a major caveat. While a codified framework may please managers looking for assurance through models and tools to measure what they seek to manage, we remain mindful of W. Edwards Deming's stipulation to the contrary, namely that “[i]t is wrong to suppose that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it—a costly myth” (Deming 1994, p. 35). This, then, is perhaps the most obvious challenge holixec education and similar propositions must overcome—that they are of little practical use until they are able to withstand empirical scrutiny, while such scrutiny goes against the ethos of holistic education and thus makes it more difficult for instructors to navigate and manage the messiness that arises from it.