Business Accreditation

No, the Standards (the green boxes) remain unchanged. Updates were made only to the guiding principles and interpretive guidance.

AACSB makes annual technical updates to ensure clarity and relevance. These edits do not alter the standards proper (the bold text in green boxes), which fall under the purview of the Accreditation Council. However, all other parts of the standards document, including the Interpretive Guidance, are reviewed and updated by the Business Accreditation Policy Committee (BAPC) (see p. 7 of the standards document).

BAPC, which includes representatives from the Americas, Asia Pacific, and EMEA, ensures the standards reflect the needs of accredited schools worldwide. The latest version of the standards is effective February 28, 2025, and is available on our website.

Yes, technical edits typically take effect on July 1 each year. However, due to the evolving political climate in the U.S., we accelerated this update to mitigate potential risks for both our schools and AACSB.

There are two key updates:

1. Revised language around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to reflect the evolving global and political landscape.
2. Clarification on scholarly academic (SA) status, specifying that faculty must publish peer-reviewed journal articles (PRJs) to maintain SA status. Previous language said faculty must publish peer-reviewed publications, so this is a clarification only, not a change in criteria.

The following table shows three examples of edits within the context of the interpretive guidance.

Location	Previous Language	New Language
Standard 6-1, p. 17	“The school actively seeks to attract and retain diverse learners consistent with AACSB Guiding Principle 9.”	“The school actively seeks to attract and retain learners with a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives consistent with AACSB Guiding Principle 9.”
Philosophy, p. 8	AACSB remains deeply committed to diversity and inclusion in collegiate business education. These values of diversity and inclusion foster the exploration of differences in a safe and supportive environment, where community members move beyond tolerance of differences to seeking and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity and the contributions these differences make to innovative, engaged, and impactful business experiences. When business schools unlock access, reduce barriers, and intentionally create strategies to engage disadvantaged or underrepresented populations, they create an environment of success and enhance excellence.	AACSB remains deeply committed to fostering a vibrant and dynamic learning environment in collegiate business education. Encouraging the exchange of varied perspectives in a welcoming and engaging environment enriches the educational experience and prepares graduates to engage effectively in a global business landscape. When business schools expand opportunities and implement strategies to support broader participation, they cultivate an environment that drives success and strengthens excellence in business education
Guiding Principle 9, p. 17	Diversity and Inclusion. Diversity in people and ideas enhances the educational experience and encourages excellence in every business education program. At the same time, diversity is a culturally-embedded concept rooted in historical and cultural traditions, legislative and regulatory concepts, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic conditions, religious practices, and individual and shared experiences. Within this complex environment, the school is expected to demonstrate a commitment to advancing diversity and inclusion issues in the context of the cultural landscape in which it operates. The school fosters awareness, understanding, acceptance, and respect for diverse viewpoints related to current and emerging issues.	Community and Connectedness. A strong sense of community and meaningful connections enhance the educational experience and contribute to excellence in business education. Every institution operates within a unique cultural and historical context shaped by its traditions, societal influences, and regulatory environment. Schools are expected to cultivate an environment that values engagement, mutual respect, and collaboration among students, faculty, and stakeholders. By fostering awareness and appreciation of different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences, schools prepare graduates to navigate complex global and professional landscapes with openness and understanding.

.

No, a redline version is not necessary, as the updates consist of revised wording and a clarification on SA status, neither of which materially change accreditation criteria.

The standards update is effective immediately, except for the scholarly academic (SA) status change, which includes a one-year transition period.

No. The DEI-related language updates are not substantive and will have minimal impact on accredited and in-process schools. Schools will have one year to align with the technical edit related to Standard 3.

DEI terminology has become politically charged in the U.S., with the current administration issuing two Executive Orders and the Department of Education releasing a Dear Colleague letter, signaling a significant shift in federal policy. These changes increase the risk of potential impacts on accreditation, institutional funding, and nonprofit status.

As of February 27, 2025, the majority of U.S. states have enacted legislation restricting DEI-related initiatives. You can track developments through the Chronicle of Higher Education’s DEI Legislation Tracker.

AACSB has received numerous inquiries from schools in these states expressing concern about potential risks associated with DEI language in accreditation standards. To support and protect our members and mitigate risk while staying true to our mission of elevating the quality and impact of business schools globally, AACSB removed or rephrased the terms "diversity" and "inclusion" and their derivatives from the standards.

AACSB has some 1800 members in more than 100 countries and territories. Many schools are not directly impacted by US laws. So, it is important to also clarify what this change is NOT about. For schools where DEI aligns with their mission and local laws, we are not suggesting you stop your efforts. We are saying schools everywhere make choices consistent with their individual mission, cultural context, and local and regulatory environments.

No. The standards are principles-based and mission-driven. Schools should report activities in alignment with their missions while considering their unique circumstances and regulatory contexts.

Business schools worldwide have the autonomy to design programs that best serve their students. AACSB does not prescribe programming and advises schools to remain aware of applicable state and national laws.

No, the standards are mission-driven and principles based. They have never included targets related to diversity, equity, or inclusion.

Inherently, a school’s choice of focus area for societal impact is deeply personal to the school, and there are endless ways schools can use their business school skills and expertise to make a positive impact on society. That is the goal of the AACSB accreditation standards and in fact our vision for AACSB. We do not prescribe how a school chooses its focus area. Schools choose based on their mission, resources, and strategic plans. See the Interpretive Guidance for Standard 9 for some examples.

In our annual State of Accreditation Report, we share where schools who had accreditation visits are concentrating their societal impact efforts. Last year our schools reported 661 initiatives:

Each year, AACSB conducts technical edits to its accreditation materials to clarify language, remove outdated content, and ensure consistency as the standards mature. The table of societal impact examples was included in the 2020 Interpretive Guidance to help schools understand this new concept when it was first introduced. Since then, virtually all schools have undergone a peer review visit under the 2020 standards, and the concept of societal impact is now well understood across the network. Through five years of conference sessions, seminars, and shared best practices, schools have developed a strong grasp of how to identify and demonstrate societal impact. As a result, the example table is no longer needed and has been removed as part of normal technical maintenance.

The list of possible societal impacts provided in the Interpretive Guidance did include “effect on human rights” as one of a long list of possible focus areas schools could choose for their societal impact focus area. Over the past 1,000+ visits conducted under the 2020 standards, few schools chose this as their focus area. Given that, it did not seem to be needed as an example. This does not mean schools cannot choose to work in that area. As stated above, schools can choose any focus area they wish. This is part of making technical edits. As we learn what schools are choosing to engage in through peer review visits, we can provide more refined examples.

No. Our values—Members First, Inclusivity, Global Unity, Excellence, and Curiosity—remain steadfast as we navigate this evolving landscape together. AACSB remains fully committed to fostering a community that values a broad range of perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. Creating an inclusive and engaging environment is essential to student success. We continue to uphold these principles while using language that more accurately reflects the breadth, scope, and global context of our mission.

Yes. AACSB remains fully committed to societal impact and the principle that business can be a force for good. AACSB’s standards are principles-based, meaning we do not prescribe how schools should contribute to society. Schools determine their approach based on their mission, resources, and local considerations.

No. We have never had prescriptions around sustainability, ESGs, or the use of the SDGs in any place in the standards. Neither do we mandate the inclusion of specific topics such as sustainability or ESGs in the curriculum, as we respect the principle of academic freedom as relates to curricular content.

Many schools worldwide use the SDGs as a guide to their focus area with respect to Standard 9 and societal impact. Schools are welcome to use the SDGs but have never been required to do so. In the original 2020 standards, we say with respect to Table 9-1 and the SDGs, “The school may use the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals or a label of their choice to indicate their chosen focus area(s).” If a school does not want to use the SDG framework, they choose another identifier as their focus area for societal impact. The choice of how a school defines its impact has always been left to the institution.

Over time, as we decided on technical edits each year, we found that by explicitly including a list of the SDGs in various places, some people took that to mean they were required to use the SDG framework with respect to their societal impact. Since that was not the intent to require schools to use the SDGs, we removed the list from Table 9-1 in 2023 and further clarified that SDGs were optional. The most recent technical edits again reinforce school choice in this area.

AACSB will update curriculum and reference materials for consistency in referring to guiding principles and interpretive guidance. AACSB programs and products will continue to support quality networking and the sharing of best practices among member schools.

It is likely the Accounting Standards will be reviewed alongside the Business Accreditation Standards during the same period.

Yes. AACSB staff will review all materials in the coming weeks and update them as needed.