Business Accreditation
Earning AACSB accreditation signifies a business school’s commitment to strategic management, learner success, thought leadership, and societal impact.
AACSB Global Standards for Business Education™ and Accounting Accreditation Standards
AACSB Global Standards for Business Education™ (Global Standards)
Download the proposed Global Standards, subject to a vote of the accreditation council at ICAM in Seattle, Washington, USA on April 14 at 1:20 p.m. PT.
Key Changes
- A new structure that distinguishes between global standards and the process of accreditation.
- Teaching as a critical pillar of impact: There is an expectation that faculty in all four categories demonstrate a commitment to high-quality teaching within programs they support as a key component of faculty qualifications.
- Societal impact is central and flexible: Schools have the flexibility to select different societal impact focus areas to tell their impact stories related to curriculum, scholarship, and engagement. For ease of understanding the big picture of societal impact, we have now consolidated societal impact into Standard 9.
- Eligibility criteria are rigorous and quantifiable: Greater rigor is sought to better reflect the expectations of the new Global Standards.
2026 Accounting Accreditation Standards
Download the proposed Accounting Accreditation Standards, subject to a vote of accounting accredited schools at ICAM in Seattle, Washington, USA on April 14 at 1:20 p.m. PT.
Key Changes
- Reordered and modernized the standards to align with the structure of the Global Standards for Business Education.
- Strengthened Digital Agility Standard A5: focused not only on what technology is being deployed, but on how technology is being used to solve accounting problems, exercise professional judgment, and respond to real-world accounting contexts.
- Repositioned and sharpened Impact of Accounting Scholarship Standard A6 which explicitly calls out the expectation that accounting scholarship should meaningfully inform or influence accounting practice, professional standards, regulatory oversight, public policy, governmental and nonprofit accounting, etc.
- Disaggregated the former Table A6 into two distinct tables: 1) Table A3, aligned with Business Standard 3, focusing on the professional qualifications of accounting faculty, and 2) Table A5, aligned with the new Accounting Standard A5 on Digital Agility, focusing on technology expectations in accounting education.
- Added new Standard A7 to elevate academic and professional engagement, emphasizing strong connections to practice and preparation of graduates for professional success.
About the Standards Task Force
Working in collaboration with members and stakeholders, the STF is leading a thorough and inclusive process to examine how the standards can more effectively support business education worldwide. This work includes gathering input from the field, analyzing current and emerging trends, and identifying opportunities to improve clarity, relevance, and global applicability.
The AACSB Standards Task Force (STF) is comprised of global business education leaders, entrusted with guiding the review and refresh of AACSB’s accreditation standards to ensure their continued relevance and alignment with the future of business education. Learn more about the task force here.
AACSB Business Accreditation Standards
Global Standards and 2026 Accounting Accreditation Standards FAQs
How do I access the webinar that was held on the exposure drafts?
Click here and select register for webinar. Already registered? Fill out the form to have a link to the recordings sent to your email.
When will the Global Accreditation Standards for Business Education be ratified?
The vote to ratify the Global Standards for Business Education (and the 2026 Accounting Standards) will take place on 14 April 2026 during the International Conference and Annual Meeting (ICAM) in Seattle, Washington, USA. Voting rights are held by the Accreditation Council, which is composed of AACSB-accredited schools. The ratification vote will take place at the Annual Meeting from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (PST). A positive vote will result in the standards becoming effective on 1 July 2026. Please note, if you are not attending ICAM, you may designate a proxy to vote on your behalf. Instructions will be provided when the voting notice is sent to accredited schools on 25 March 2026.
Will there be a comparison document for the changes from the 2020 to the 2026 standards, as well as an Interpretive Guidance Document?
Yes, AACSB will provide a comparison document closer to the vote. The Interpretive Guidance document will be available to members when the standards go into effect.
Are the Accounting Standards also being updated and if so, what are the main areas that have been updated?
Yes, the Accounting Standards are being revised. The main updates are:
- Reordered and modernized the standards to align with the structure of the Global Standards for Business Education.
- Digital Agility is a standalone, strengthened standard: focused not only on what technology is being deployed, but on how technology is being used to solve accounting problems, exercise professional judgment, and respond to real-world accounting contexts.
- Added Standard A6: Impact of Accounting Scholarship which explicitly calls out the expectation that accounting scholarship should meaningfully inform or influence accounting practice, professional standards, regulatory oversight, public policy, governmental and nonprofit accounting, etc.
- Disaggregated the former Table A6 into two distinct tables: 1) Table A3, aligned with Business Standard 3, focusing on the professional qualifications of accounting faculty, and 2) Table A5, aligned with the new Accounting Standard A5 on Digital Agility, focusing on technology expectations in accounting education.
- Increased expectations around professional engagement for all accounting learners.
- Requirement to administer a survey to accounting learners that assesses teaching effectiveness for degree programs.
Will CIR and Initial schools with visits in 2026-2027 be required to transition to the Global Standards?
If you have a CIR visit during the phase-in year (2026-2027), you may choose to go up under the 2020 standards or the new 2026 standards. We will be looking for a small pilot group of CIR schools interested in going up under the revised standards. If you're interested in being part of that pilot group, reach out to your AACSB accreditation manager or email [email protected]. Initial accreditation schools will be visited under the 2020 standards in 2026-27.
What is the transition timeline for Schools with Visits in 2027-2028 and beyond?
For CIR schools with visits in 2027-2028 and beyond, the 2026 standards will be required. For initial accreditation schools with visits in 2027-2028 or later, your accreditation manager will work with you on a case-by-case basis to determine which standards apply, depending on your visit timeline.
What is the transition timeline for schools that have not yet reached the visit stage of the accreditation process?
Initial Accreditation Schools: Your accreditation manager will proactively reach out to you with specific guidance after the vote. Your accreditation manager is listed on the Contacts tab in myAccreditation if you have questions in the meantime.
Do the revised standards retain the minimum 40% requirement for Scholarly Academics (SA), and has the Additional Faculty classification been removed?
The 2026 standards state: "Normally, a minimum of 40 percent of a school’s faculty resources are SA and 90 percent are SA+PA+SP+IA at the global level (i.e., across the entire accredited unit) and in disciplines in which the school offers degrees or majors". Faculty not meeting the school's own faculty classification definitions will be listed as Additional faculty as this designation remains.
In Standard 3, part-time faculty with teaching-only responsibilities are allocated 10% time devoted to mission per course. Is there any maximum percentage if they teach more than one course a year?
At this time, there is no maximum percentage specified for part-time faculty members. This would be a school decision. The intent in standardizing this percentage is to simplify the calculation for schools.
Would you expect to see part time lecturers with significant, deep industry experience aligning more with the revised PA (Practice Academic) category rather than the revised IA (Instructional Academic) category?
The distinction between PA and IA faculty lies primarily in the nature of engagement. Faculty classified as PA bring deep, extensive, and sustained professional experience, typically at a senior or executive level. While an IA faculty member would also be expected to bring substantive professional experience demonstrating applied disciplinary expertise, IA faculty sustain currency through more teaching-focused activities. Both PA and IA would normally be expected to hold a master’s degree or higher in a relevant field to their teaching. Some schools may find that they have some faculty currently classified as IP under the 2020 standards that could meet the PA definition under the revised Global Standards.
Given the increased emphasis on industry engagement for Scholarly Academics (SA), will there be any relaxation of the publishing expectations for SA?
SA faculty are expected to engage actively in the academic and professional life of the school to advance its mission, strategy, and overall success. While the primary emphasis is on academic engagement and scholarship, the proposed Standard 3 also expects SA faculty to maintain meaningful connection with industry and professional communities. There is still an expectation that SA faculty are producing peer-reviewed publications consistent with the school’s criteria. The decision on whether to modify a school’s SA criteria would be a local decision.
Many business schools, globally, now have collective bargaining agreements that do not allow traditional teaching/course evaluations. What do you suggest for responding to Standard 7?
AACSB recognizes that collective bargaining agreements or local regulations in some regions may limit the use of traditional teaching or course evaluations. In such cases, schools are encouraged to demonstrate how they systematically assess and improve teaching effectiveness using alternative, context-appropriate methods.
What is the expected evidence behind this language: “Schools should foster learner agility in adopting and adapting to new technologies and understanding their appropriate and responsible use, ensuring that human judgment and intelligence guide the application of digital intelligence.” In practical terms, what would you consider strong examples or documentation that a school is meeting this expectation?
A few examples may include:
- Course syllabi or materials that address digital literacy or emerging technologies.
- Sample documentation showing how students are taught to question, validate, and contextualize outputs from digital systems.
- Faculty guidance and documentation on appropriate technology use in coursework, framing technology as a decision-support tool rather than a decision-maker.
- Course level AI or technology use guidelines.
What is the expectation to demonstrate proficiency in teaching. Could this be satisfied by a school's defined criteria and thresholds using existing course evaluation process, or is AACSB expecting a separate approach?
Schools should demonstrate teaching effectiveness as defined by their own criteria and in alignment with Standard 7. Examples of criteria that demonstrate teaching effectiveness may include:
- Faculty currency of subject matter expertise
- Use of current and relevant technology in the classroom
- Meaningful and regular engagement with the business community
- Learner preparedness to enter the workforce or advance in their current employment
- Innovative pedagogical approaches in instructional delivery
2025 Annual Update
In the spirit of continuous improvement, AACSB enhances the accreditation standards and interpretive guidance annually.
On 28 February 2025, AACSB released its annual update which took into consideration the legal and political environment surrounding higher education and accreditation and reframed terms that have become politicized in the U.S. and around the world. These changes to the 2020 Guiding Principles and Standards for Business Accreditation and Interpretive Guidance uphold our mission and values, while mitigating risks for our members. The technical edits also clarified that Scholarly Academic faculty are indeed expected to produce peer-reviewed journal articles as part of their portfolio of scholarship.
AACSB is proud to serve its diverse global network and has issued an open letter to clarify the intent, content, and implications of the changes. You can find more information in the FAQ.
The standards fulfill the following key objectives:
- Reinforce long-held AACSB commitments to mission focus and peer review
- Emphasize a principles-based and outcomes-focused approach, as well as relevance for business schools now and in the future
- Recognize the changing landscape of student demographics and reflect the activities we envision business schools of the future will undertake to ensure continuous improvement and high quality in business education
- Elevate the importance of thought leadership in the context of a school’s mission.
- Characterize the guiding principles that represent key values to AACSB
The nine standards are organized into three categories:
For accounting accreditation standards, click here.