Source: The Conversation – France – By Alessandro Ghio, Research professor in Accounting, ESCP Business School

In March 2025, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a leading accreditation body, revised its guiding principles. This included removing the phrase “diversity and inclusion” from its accreditation standards and replacing it with the more neutral “community and connectedness”. The decision emerged amid a shifting legal and political climate in the United States, following a wave of executive orders and legislative efforts aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public institutions.

For years, diversity and inclusion have been central to how business schools engage with and signal social responsibility, shaping policies on faculty hiring, student recruitment and curricula. The AACSB change is more than a semantic adjustment – it reflects growing pressure on institutions to retreat from politically sensitive terrain.

Now, business schools – many of which once celebrated DEI as a strategic and ethical imperative – are being forced to re-evaluate. Will they continue to invest in inclusion, or quietly abandon it under mounting institutional and political scrutiny? The answer will have global consequences, not just for higher education, but for the kind of leadership business schools claim to cultivate.

Accreditation bodies: shaping business schools’ strategies

The AACSB’s shift could have a significant impact on how business schools engage with diversity. As higher education institutions have embraced neoliberal, market-driven models, fuelled by students’ consumer-like expectations, external validation from accreditation bodies has become essential. Only 136 institutions (about 1% of all business schools) worldwide hold “triple accreditation” – accreditation by the AACSB, EFMD Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA). This status allows business schools to signal their elite standing and adherence to high international standards – and to charge higher tuition.

Accreditation offers tangible benefits, including use of prestigious logos, membership in exclusive networks, mutual recognition of academic credits, student exchange opportunities, and access to shared resources and best practices. These benefits shape strategic decisions, as business schools prioritise accreditation to maintain their reputation and competitiveness to attract high-paying students.

Many institutions even have associate or deputy deans dedicated to fulfilling accreditation requirements. Among these requirements has been the long-standing “diversity checkbox”, which required schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. AACSB was not alone in this focus: AMBA, another leading accreditation body that specialises in MBA programmes, annually recognises schools for their diversity efforts and initiatives promoting inclusion.

Accreditation pressures are compounded by the influence of business school rankings, another powerful driver of institutional priorities. Rankings such as the Financial Times’ business school list include diversity-related indicators, such as gender balance in classrooms, representation of women among faculty, and international faculty diversity. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Best Schools Diversity Index placed US universities George Washington, Howard and Morgan State at the very top in 2024. While these institutions don’t typically rank highly in overall MBA rankings, the diversity index offered them visibility and a competitive edge to attract prospective students.

With accreditation bodies and business school rankings shaping institutional identities, a key question emerges: will business schools continue to prioritise diversity if structural incentives erode, or will it quietly disappear from the agenda?

Diversity at a crossroads

While the language of diversity has become commonplace in business school messaging – “we place inclusion and diversity at the heart of everything we do”; we “engage with DE&I strategically, practically – and of course via forefront research”; we [“want] to encourage and contribute to the conversation on diversity for and with all the students” – many institutions have gone beyond rhetoric, implementing concrete policies to promote diversity across student bodies, faculty recruitment and course content.

In France, the grandes écoles – often criticised for perpetuating social elitism, as highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – have introduced targeted admission pathways for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In the UK, business schools have begun auditing faculty diversity, particularly in terms of race and ethnicity. In Germany, where women professors remain underrepresented, ongoing efforts seek to address persistent gender imbalances in academic positions.

These initiatives were not developed in a vacuum. Accreditation standards and external recognition gave institutions the legitimacy and incentive to act. Diversity became part of the strategic fabric – an ethical development, yes, but also a business case aligned with the values that accreditation and rankings rewarded.

Now, with a major accreditation body stepping back and public discourse increasingly polarised, that alignment is beginning to fracture. In the US, federal support for diversity-related research is shrinking. Facing pressure from the Department of Education to end diversity initiatives or risk losing funding, some universities have already taken action by alternately moving to close DEI offices; removing references to DEI from websites, policies and official materials; or even cancelling a planned celebration of International Women’s Day.
At least two US schools have either severed or planned to sever links with the PhD Project, a programme founded in 1994 that is devoted to “increasing the number of brilliant educators from all communities”. In Europe, some institutions may quietly reduce their commitments, no longer seeing DEI as worth the political or institutional risk.

The dilemma is no longer about how to advance diversity – but whether to defend it at all. Business schools must decide: is diversity still central to their mission, or just another line item to be dropped when the pressure mounts?

If business schools are serious about their social mission, they must continue investing in diversity – not as a symbolic gesture, but as a structural commitment. Diversity, equity and inclusion are not peripheral concerns; they are embedded in frameworks like the Principle of Responsible Management Education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5: Gender Equality; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities) – benchmarks that many institutions cite as central to their values. More than 30 Nordic business schools, all members of AACSB, recently issued a joint statement that diversity remains a core value for them.

Diversity and knowledge

Beyond institutional mandates, diversity is foundational to the production of credible knowledge. In Why Trust Science? (2019), historian Naomi Oreskes argues that while “diversity does not heal all epistemic ills”, it plays a crucial role in identifying blind spots and challenging groupthink. Drawing on feminist theorists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino, she shows how epistemic communities that are diverse – and critically engaged – are better positioned to identify and correct biases. In more homogeneous groups, dominant assumptions often go unchallenged, leading to structural oversights that undermine both knowledge and legitimacy.

At a time when trust in academic institutions is eroding, ensuring diverse perspectives is not just desirable – it is necessary. For business schools, which train future leaders and decision-makers, the stakes are especially high.

This is a moment not to retreat from diversity, but to reclaim it. Rather than treating it as a politicized liability, schools can reassert it as a core academic and democratic value – a way of remaining relevant, rigorous and responsible. And in a climate where “woke” has become a catch-all insult, schools also have an opportunity to reclaim the term – not as provocation, but as a return to its original meaning: a principled alertness to social realities and structural injustice. The LGBTQI+ community’s reclamation of “queer” as a term of empowerment and resistance against societal norms can point the way.

By reinforcing their commitment to diversity, business schools can help deepen critical inquiry, rebuild public trust in science and ultimately equip their students for leadership in this fractured world – which they will need to understand in all its complexity.

Alessandro Ghio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively – https://theconversation.com/business-schools-are-facing-challenges-to-their-diversity-commitments-they-must-reinforce-them-to-train-leaders-effectively-252988