This article discusses the evolving role of accreditation in management education and its broader implications for society. It highlights how the rise of academic accreditation, particularly in business schools, reflects a shift in dynamics between the state, businesses, and non-profit organisations. Eric Cornuel, EFMD President argues that accreditation agencies, as part of the third sector, have emerged as mediators between various stakeholders in management education. These agencies have established standards and fostered cooperation, balancing the interests of companies, public institutions, and students. The article concludes by emphasising the importance of the third sector in creating conditions for other sectors to realise their potential for societal benefit.

---

There is a broad consensus on the definition of the areas in which the role of the third sector should be exercised (social justice, empowerment and citizenship, access to care, social innovation, convergence of social goals). However, the third sector also has an important role to play in catalysing, maximising and coordinating the contributions made to society by the state and by business.

The mechanisms established to leverage this dynamic effectively are examined here through the case of an accreditation system developed by an international non-profit organisation for academic management education institutions, set against the backdrop of reduced government involvement and a redefinition of corporate social responsibility.

The not-for-profit sector is often referred to in continental Europe, and in France in particular, as the social and voluntary economy. This name has the particular merit of referring explicitly to the types of activities undertaken and, above all, to their aims.

The approach is different in the English-speaking world, and is based on two approaches.

First of all, this sector is usually viewed in terms of its role in society, which comprises five types of activity:

• Defending social justice and equality
• Promoting the empowerment and development of citizens
• Encouraging access to healthcare and the well-being of citizens and communities
• Fostering research, innovation and the capitalisation of knowledge
• Mobilising resources and involving the community

More significantly, a much more functional approach is commonly adopted. This is reflected in the widespread use of the expression ‘third sector’, which in French refers to something that is neither the state nor the business world. This justifies the use of the adjective third (tiers or tierce), which implies otherness, a sense of being alien, and even that a person or institution is unknown or perhaps an outsider; the most common synonyms for the noun ‘tiers’ are mediator, intermediary, negotiator.

The term ‘third sector’ therefore has the great merit of pointing out the inconsistency of a static concept of not-for-profit organisations as simply what is not public and not for profit, making up a sector just as public organisations make up one, or not-for-profit organisations another. Instead, it highlights the fact that the third sector is what makes it possible in society to combine the activities of the public with the achievements of the private sector: it is insufficient to maintain that the ultimate purpose of the public sector is to enable the state to achieve its objectives, that the private sector is focused on the production of wealth, while not-for-profit organisations are focused on the general good of society, and that this is the result of a static vision. We need to approach these phenomena in a dynamic way, by understanding how the third sector interacts with the other two sectors to perform the five types of activity set out above and improve social functioning, which necessarily means contributing to the advancement of the other two sectors.

The discussion below sheds some light on this dynamic in the specific case of the institution of an accreditation system operated by an international non-profit organisation for academic management education institutions, set against a backdrop of state retreat and a redefinition of corporate social responsibility.

The rise of academic accreditation

International accreditation in management education has become increasingly important, both in terms of quality and quantity. This now plays an essential role in the way business schools and management faculties develop their strategies and policies, and it is easy for any impartial observer to see that they are a central element of their communication policies.

This trend can be illustrated by a few figures relating to management education, which is the field in which accreditation has advanced the most. EQUIS accreditation, the benchmark accreditation in Europe and one of the two most important globally was created in 1997, some 25 years ago.

By September 2010, 126 business schools across 35 countries had achieved accreditation. By December 2023, this number had grown to include 218 business schools and management faculties from 51 countries, spanning all continents.

This radical change, which affects the entire world of higher education to varying degrees, is evidence of a profound societal shift.

Accreditations are issued by academic agencies, most of which have the status of international not-for-profit organisations or, in the United States, professional organisations (which also correspond to the definition of not-for-profit organisations across the Atlantic).

In the not-so-distant past, however, academic institutions, including the most illustrious were primarily concerned with acquiring or maintaining recognition by the state. The phrase ‘recognised by the state’ or ‘accredited by the state’ was seen as a necessary condition for existence in the academic world. At the same time, students invariably raised the question of accreditation or recognition by the state, and this was seen as a decisive factor for attending one institution or another, given that the most prestigious always met these criteria. However, the recognition of a course or degree, the restructuring of a department or the expansion of a faculty all involved substantial, demanding and challenging processes; where such processes are still in place, they have largely lost their central importance. The internationalisation of academic management courses is in itself a sign of the declining importance of criteria for state recognition, particularly for students.

Institutions now emphasise ‘accreditation’ in their communications and make it a top priority in their strategies. The number of national and international accreditation agencies has proliferated and are hierarchical in terms of both their prestige and the difficulty of obtaining accreditation.

This trend should obviously be seen in the context of the development of certifications (ISO standards being the most prominent) in practically every field – hospitals, companies, libraries, etc., all consider it a priority to be certified to the most demanding standards possible.

This phenomenon has often been analysed [1], but it is worth highlighting one particular aspect: it is a sign of state power when acknowledgement by the state is the central issue for institutions seeking recognition. In contrast, the emergence of accreditation awarded by non-state institutions as a pivotal element in institutional strategies represents a move in which the authority of the state is to some extent shifting towards the not-for-profit sector.

The contraction of the state and its consequences

The signs of this change are very much in evidence in France, as in all European countries. Until relatively recently, major public institutions referred solely to their public trusteeship. Moreover, the state oversaw or had the power to recognise organisations in all areas of social life, from hospitals to academic institutions, prisons, libraries, etc.

We are now seeing this trend reversed. Public institutions now seek recognition, in the form of certification or accreditation, from not-for-profit organisations. Accreditation processes no longer make any difference in terms of the behaviour or expectations of public institutions compared with private institutions (whereas differences were still perceptible some fifteen years ago, if only because public institutions, which benefited from the legitimacy conferred by being part of the state, submitted far fewer applications for international accreditation).

This trend, in which public institutions seek legitimacy from assessment institutions outside the public sector, is a new phenomenon in Western societies, even if the seeds of it have been present for a long time.

Susan Strange, in her book The Retreat of the State [2], argued back in 1996 that the power of non-state actors over society as a whole was on the rise. She pointed out that governments were increasingly unable to set the rules of the game for major political and economic phenomena. She examined globalisation in particular, demonstrating that a host of actors independent of the state could dictate the rules of the game, with particular emphasis on the role of multinationals.

She noted that shrinking state boundaries were creating gaps in the development of economic and social superstructures, and that international companies were rushing in to take advantage of these loopholes. For example, accounting rules are no longer written by governments but by major auditing firms, so that a company is seen primarily as a sum of its assets, and therefore as a financial product that is easily traded, rather than as a social body rooted in a working community with a long-term perspective. Similarly, at the time Strange wrote The Retreat of the State, in the second half of the 1990s, banks were seizing the power to write the rules of the game of financial regulation (or rather deregulation) for their own sector, which was supposedly governing them.

The trend described by Strange is thus clearly identified. States, which are undergoing a process of retrenchment, are increasingly unable to write the rules of the economic and social game, to the advantage of businesses, which are gradually acquiring the power to write the rules intended to govern them. This process creates the conditions for an unstable economy and an increasingly divided and aggressive society. Susan Strange sadly passed away in 1998, but her readers have often experienced the impact of her ideas on economics, for example, during the 2008 crisis.

The social significance of the role played by not-for-profit organisations in granting academic accreditation

Management education has been impacted by the competition between the state and business to establish the rules for how society operates since well before the phenomenon of state retreat described by Susan Strange.

The field of management education is undergoing a process of paradoxical change in many respects. It should be emphasised that there has been a lively debate throughout the history of management education since its origins. Management training institutions have the particular task of training managerial staff for a specific sector of society, namely businesses. They have very often been described as the black sheep of the academic world, insofar as, while all other academic fields define themselves as serving culture (faculties of history, literature, philosophy, etc.) or the common good (faculties of medicine, law, etc.), business schools and management faculties were considered to be more crudely at the service of companies supporting commercial activity (and sometimes defined themselves as such).

With society as a whole being transformed into a place where businesses were starting to define the rules of the game, it was to be expected that the management education sector would look no further than companies to define standards, expectations and objectives.

Indeed, the general environment seemed to favour it. Susan Strange explored this theme at length, studying the replacement of the state by business as a slow evolution where the latter is seen as an actor whose influence on the institution of economic and social rules and norms gradually increases. However, other authors analysed this phenomenon in a more confrontational way, likening it to more of a conquest than a peaceful evolution [3]. By the 1990s, all these authors agreed that companies, as social institutions, had a desire to displace the state as part of a process described as deregulation.

The widespread retreat of the state and the inroads made by businesses into the economic and social superstructure of many sectors could have led to a dynamic in higher management education where companies would have increased their influence both on the way business schools and management faculties are assessed and on the definition of the content taught. Such a phenomenon would have been consistent with the way that management education has often been regarded as a marginal, even suspect, discipline since it emerged and has developed in the academic world.

The debate about whether management education institutions should conform to the model of research institutions or professional schools has been particularly lively [4], as it overlaps with the discussion about the extent to which management education institutions are also, and perhaps primarily, at the service of companies. The question of whether they are at the service of the common good has often been asked and remains unresolved. It is clear to any observer that companies have occupied a central place in the world of business schools and management faculties since their inception. The door was therefore open to increased control of these institutions when the state retreated.

The change in direction brought about by management education agencies

However, over the last 20 years, one group of players has asserted its importance. Management education agencies have steadily increased their role, which largely consists of awarding accreditation and ensuring the consistency of programme content.

This development, far from increasing the level of conflict between businesses and other players, has instead led to a process of cooperation around the creation of standards for management education [5]. In France, for example, the chambers of commerce and industry (which are public institutions under the supervision of the state and therefore part of the public sector) have loosened their grip on several business schools (ESCP, for example, is now a société anonyme d’enseignement supérieur / higher education public limited company), while EM Lyon has even welcomed a private equity company (Qualium Investment) as a shareholder.

Businesses have increased their power within business schools, but not in terms of accreditation and teaching content standards. This new situation can be largely explained by the role played by accreditation and management education agencies. Since the early 2010s, they have acted as true mediators, consistently acting as intermediaries between companies, public institutions, students and executive education participants [6]. In particular, they have been able to demonstrate to companies the extent to which a consensual approach that takes account of the interests of all stakeholders is both beneficial to them and in line with corporate social responsibility strategies.

These agencies, which are not-for-profit organisations, have built up undeniable legitimacy over the years. They have established a dialogue with companies as well as with administrative and government authorities, and also with teachers, faculty members, students and participants in executive training courses. In this way, they have created a privileged and indisputable position for themselves, making it clear to all stakeholders in their field of activity that they are in no way acting in their own interests and have no desire whatsoever to become dictatorial authorities. They do not act as a new type of organisation in relation to companies and the state, but rather as mediators, intermediaries and facilitators. They have reconciled the goals of the various stakeholders by acting as a true third party. Their contribution to the institutional integrity of the management education sector also consists of having made the evolution of this sector visible at a time when it was undergoing profound change, both as a result of the internationalisation of training courses and the new relationships between its players. These institutions make a major contribution to the transparency of the management training sector.

Conclusion

The dynamic that accreditation agencies have created for management education is illustrative of the role of the third sector for society as a whole: the purpose of the social economy sector is as much to create the conditions necessary for the other two to realise their potential for the benefit of society, as it is to develop their own projects independently.

---

Bibliography

Ayyadi, I. (2022), ‘Certification ISO 9001 et performance organisationnelle de l’entreprise industrielle: une revue systématique de la littérature’, Alternatives managériales économiques, [S.I.], 4(4), November, pp. 391- 382. ISSN 2665-7511. Available at: https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/AME/article/view/35549

Cheyns, E. and L. Thévenot (2019), ‘Le gouvernement par standards de certification consentement et plaintes des communautés affectées’. La Revue des droits de l’homme [Online], 16, online 01 July 2019, accessed 12 December 2023, http://journals.openedition.org/revdh/6843; DOi: https://doi.org/10.4000/revdh.6843

Strange, S. (2011[1996), Le retrait de l’État: La dispersion du pouvoir dans l’économie mondiale, (The Retreat of the State:
The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy) Temps Présent

Michalet, C-A. (1998 [1976]), Le capitalisme mondial. Paris: PUF.

Rachline, F. (1985), Une économie mondiale, Hachette Pluriel, essai.

Rachline, F. (1994 [1991]), De zéro à epsilon – économie de la capture, Hachette Pluriel, essai.

Warren, B. and J. O’Toole (2005), “How business schools lost their way”, Harvard Business Review 83(5) pp.96-104

Cornuel, E. and H. Thomas (2011), “Business school futures: Evaluation and perspectives”, Journal of Management Development, 30(5) pp.444-450.

Cornuel, E., H. Thomas and M. Wood (2023) Perspectives on the Impact, Mission and Purpose of the Business School. Abingdon: Routledge.