Purpose

This study aims to reflect how German business schools respond to the diffusion of the triple accreditation: AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), EQUIS (European Quality Improvement System), and AMBA (Association of MBAs).

Design/methodology/approach

This study applies a multiple case study to conduct a qualitative analysis of perceived drivers, value and limitations of AACSB, EQUIS and AMBA accreditation in German business schools.

Findings

International accreditation is a seal of excellence for business schools to enhance international competitiveness and global networking, providing evidence of quality, performativity, transparency and accountability for stakeholders. International accreditation offers business schools international comparability and compatibility. International accreditation adds value and benefits to business schools. However, business schools may prioritize institutional strategies and resources to meet the requirements of international accreditations rather than a broader concept of good governance. Business schools should critically review their decisions on international accreditations in line with institutional strategic goals, mission, vision, core values and sustainable development.

Research limitations/implications

This study only focuses on international accreditations of German business schools. Further studies may focus on comparisons of national and international accreditations, impacts of international accreditation and perceptions of international accreditation from policymakers, accreditation bodies, academics and students.

Practical implications

This study offers guidance for the strategic decision-making of business schools on international accreditations, valuable feedback to international accreditation agencies and a reference for quality assurance practitioners, policymakers and accreditation bodies.

Social implications

This study discusses the social-cultural impacts of international accreditation and accreditation discrimination arising from the selectivity and the exclusivity of international accreditation. International accreditation may further enlarge their comparative advantages over non-accredited schools. International accreditation adds value and benefits to accredited business schools but puts non-accredited business schools in disadvantageous positions.

Originality/value

Business schools need to critically review their institutional strategies and decisions on international accreditation in line with institutional strategic goals, mission, vision, core values and sustainable development. The rational decision of business schools to adopt international accreditation should consider drivers, value, benefits, limitations, organizational effectiveness, transparency, social responsibility and accountability for all stakeholders. Business schools need to take effective strategies to ensure a higher quality of management education through high-quality teaching and good governance. When single accreditation is sufficient, promoting mutual recognition is advisable rather than the “beauty contests” of multiple accreditations at the national and international levels.

中文翻译：

---

德国商学院在全球竞争中对国际认证的反应

目的

本研究旨在反映德国商学院如何应对三重认证的扩散：AACSB（高等商学院协会）、EQUIS（欧洲质量改进系统）和 AMBA（MBA 协会）。

设计/方法/方法

本研究采用多案例研究对德国商学院的 AACSB、EQUIS 和 AMBA 认证的感知驱动因素、价值和局限性进行定性分析。

发现

国际认证是商学院提高国际竞争力和全球网络的卓越标志，为利益相关者提供质量、绩效、透明度和问责制的证据。国际认证为商学院提供了国际可比性和兼容性。国际认证为商学院增加了价值和好处。然而，商学院可能会优先考虑机构战略和资源，以满足国际认证的要求，而不是更广泛的良好治理概念。商学院应根据机构战略目标、使命、愿景、核心价值观和可持续发展，批判性地审查他们对国际认证的决定。

研究限制/影响

本研究仅关注德国商学院的国际认证。进一步的研究可能侧重于比较国家和国际认证、国际认证的影响以及政策制定者、认证机构、学者和学生对国际认证的看法。

实际影响

本研究为商学院在国际认证方面的战略决策提供指导，为国际认证机构提供宝贵反馈，并为质量保证从业人员、政策制定者和认证机构提供参考。

社会影响

本研究讨论了国际认证的社会文化影响以及国际认证的选择性和排他性引起的认证歧视。国际认证可能会进一步扩大其相对于非认证学校的比较优势。国际认证为经认证的商学院增加了价值和好处，但使未经认证的商学院处于不利地位。

原创性/价值

商学院需要根据机构战略目标、使命、愿景、核心价值观和可持续发展，严格审查其机构战略和国际认证决策。商学院采用国际认证的理性决定应考虑驱动因素、价值、利益、局限性、组织有效性、透明度、社会责任和所有利益相关者的问责制。商学院需要采取有效的策略，通过高质量的教学和良好的治理来确保更高质量的管理教育。当单一认证就足够时，建议促进相互认可，而不是在国家和国际层面进行多项认证的“选美比赛”。