AACSB Pulse: Positive Business School Impact

Host Eileen McAuliffe, AACSB's executive vice president, chief thought leadership officer, and managing director of EMEA, asks Katrin Muff, president and co-creator of the Positive Impact Rating, three pressing questions related to the impact of business schools on society:

1. What inspired the creation of the Positive Impact Rating, and how did you and your collaborators shape its methodology to reflect values beyond traditional rankings? 
2. Who takes part in PIR, and how can business schools use their PIR results to accelerate institutional change
3. How might schools leverage the PIR framework to better identify or refine their societal impact focus?

Transcript

[00:00] Intro: Welcome to AACSB Pulse, the podcast that tackles critical topics in global business education today, three questions at a time. We talk with deans, industry leaders, and other big thinkers about the trends reshaping education, leadership, and the future of work.

From the rise of AI to the demands of a new generation of learners, from geopolitical shifts to the call for more meaningful research, AACSB Pulse brings these topics and more into sharp focus.

AACSB Pulse: three big questions. Bold answers. Better business schools.

[00:38] Eileen McAuliffe: It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome our guest, Katrin Muff. Welcome Katrin. I’m so pleased to have you here with us today. For those of you that don’t know Katrin already, Katrin is the director of the Institute for Business Sustainability, president and co-creator of the Positive Impact Rating, and a professor of practice at Luiss Business School in Italy.

[00:59] Eileen McAuliffe: Katrin, thank you so much for speaking with me today.

[01:03] Katrin Muff: Thank you so much, Eileen. I so appreciate being able to be here and look forward to this conversation with you as well. Thanks for the opportunity.

[01:10] Eileen McAuliffe: Wonderful. Right, well, with no further ado, let’s jump on into what we call our big three questions. Let’s just start at the beginning of the Positive Impact Rating, or the PIR, journey. So what inspired the creation of the Positive Impact Rating?

I mean, I am so curious about what drove that original kind of thinking and curiosity around such a formidable piece of work that does have such significant impact.

And perhaps you could just share with me, how did you and your collaborators shape the methodology to reflect the values beyond this kind of persistent conversation, this persistent narrative around traditional rankings and all the kind of fundamental issues around traditional rankings?

[02:04] Katrin Muff: Yeah, with pleasure. Well, the Positive Impact Rating kind of started with a simple but radical question we ask ourselves: If business schools are preparing the leaders of tomorrow, why aren’t we also measuring how well the schools are prepared to do so and actually “walk their talk”? When we launched in 2020, most of the ratings still measured success, mostly through alumni salaries, faculty publication, and employer surveys. These are useful, but in our view, they miss the bigger picture, especially at a time when climate change, inequality, and trust in institutions are shaping the business landscape.

So, we designed PIR [pronounced like peer] to be different in three ways. First, who provides the data? While we collect the voices of students and faculty, the published PIR rating is student based. Students are considered a most interesting and often ignored stakeholder at the school, if you want.

We assess the role of business schools in the context of the 21st-century challenges.

[03:10] Katrin Muff: However, they experience how sustainability, inclusion, societal engagement shows up in class, in the culture, but also in leadership decisions. In 2025, that meant that more than 17,000 students across 28 countries were telling us exactly what they thought schools should start and stop doing to create positive impact.

Then second, we looked at what we wanted to measure. We didn’t just want to ask, Is your school good? We ask whether it is moving forward and in what direction. We assess the role of business schools in the context of the 21st-century challenges.

We measure three broad areas: Energizing, we call it, it covers culture and governance; then Educating, which is about curriculum, learning methods, and student support; and Engaging, which is about the societal engagement and community impact. Then Enabling is a fourth area which the faculty assesses.

[04:14] Katrin Muff: This developmental approach values progress over perfection, and it works very well across the different local contexts.

Third, we also reflected strongly about how we wanted to position the results. PIR is a rating, not a ranking, so it avoids all the disadvantages of rankings. Schools are placed in one of five levels, from Progressing to Pioneering, and we actually publish only the top three levels, as we don't want to shame, but celebrate, schools for their efforts.

We list schools alphabetically within each level, to promote collaboration and not competition. In a way, our secret of success was how the methodology was developed. It was co-created with NGOs that represent business, society, and the planet, namely with U.N. Global Compact, with Oxfam, and with WWF. Students were at the heart of the process, with networks like oikos and Net Impact involved from day one.

[05:25] Katrin Muff: The process was driven by a group of global academic experts in responsible management. We tested the methodology during two years with multiple schools in key geographic regions before we published the first results at the WEF [World Economic Forum] in 2020.

Now, for the 2025 edition, we added a major innovation, the faculty survey. And we could finally implement the originally intended dual stakeholder perspective. This let schools compare how the faculty thinks they’re performing, kind of the internal perspective, to how students actually experience it, kind of the external perspective.

Those comparisons were revealing in our 2025 pilot, where we did this for the first time. Faculty tended to rate learning methods and programs higher, while students rated culture and public engagement higher. So this can be insightful to a school.

You know, PIR was inspired by a belief that what we measure shapes what we value.

[06:34] Katrin Muff: By putting the student voice and societal contribution at the center, we hope that we're helping business schools to redefine excellence for the world they serve, not just markets they supply.

[06:47] Eileen McAuliffe: It’s wonderful. I’ve got so many questions just on this, so many questions. And I’m going to have to sit down with you again and we're going to have to have more coffee.

[06:55] Eileen McAuliffe: I really loved the way you introduced, and you were so diplomatic, around the rankings versus ratings. I think that's a real challenge. A lot of schools get really hung up on rankings, rankings, rankings, and that drives particular kinds of behavior. And I think the fact that you're taking your evaluation through the student lens moves us away from that in some ways.

But the classification that you have around Progress to Pioneering I think is wonderful. I mean, it just shows that instead of having a list of 1 to 100 or whatever, you've got classifications where everyone is contributing something, but by a different measure at different levels. So I really like that all-inclusive, all-embracing kind of process. Superb.

Faculty tended to rate learning methods and programs higher, while students rated culture and public engagement higher.

[07:44] Eileen McAuliffe: The third point I might make is around that dual perspective of faculty in 2025, that innovation around faculty versus student perspectives and how they're kind of not, they're not aligned. And I suppose it’s good that they're not aligned. It’s wonderful that they’re not aligned because just to be able to look at that internal versus external perspective I think is so rich.

I think this internal versus external juxtaposition is something that we really need to work hard together to try and resolve because in business schools, folk think they're doing wonderful work and educating the leaders of the future, when actually the perception is that the leaders of the future, or the changemakers of the future, actually don’t see it in the same way, is what I’m hearing from your research, which is wonderful and really enlightening.

[08:36] Eileen McAuliffe: Let me move along onto a couple of follow-up questions as well. I really loved your slogan, that is, the PIR is “enabling business schools from being the best in the world to being the best for the world.” I’m curious as to your view as to whether you think these ideas are mutually reinforcing, or is there this inherent competition that we’ve already talked about a little bit?

[09:08] Katrin Muff: I think it’s an “and-and.” We often see that business schools in some areas find it easier to collaborate and to learn and develop with each other. And in others, of course, they are sometimes competing for the same student they want to have in their MBA class.

We run a PIR working group annually, which is one of my favorite activities that I do, where we have all PIR schools who want sign up and it’s both faculty, dean, and students that are participating from the school, and they work together in four sessions over six or nine months to exchange ideas of how they can actually work with the students so that the student becomes a changemaker.

And what we notice is that it’s really enriching for schools to sit together with other schools, to have students, faculty, and the dean’s office present in one meeting, and often we try to moderate these sessions as “walking the talk” of making them very co-creative, and we develop case studies as a result from that that we share on our website.

[10:24] Eileen McAuliffe: Yeah, I think it’s so refreshing to hear about the voice and the perspectives and the inclusion of students because it is so often they that are the engine machine of a business school, that, you know, without students we can’t exist, really.

Let me, let me just move us along a little bit further now in terms of participation. So you’ve talked a little bit about some of your business stakeholders and so on and so forth. But who takes part in the PIR, and how can business schools use the PIR results to better their innovation, their institutional progress, you know, to accelerate change?

Particularly when the value and relevance of higher education at the moment is under such severe scrutiny. If you think about research funding in particular, a lot of the funding is going towards medicine, engineering, where tangible outputs can be seen, you know, there’s real innovations. In business schools, that innovation is not as obvious; it’s a little bit more opaque. What do you think about this area?

[11:37] Katrin Muff: It’s a great question. If we look back over the past years, the PIR participation is very broad and diverse. From 2021 to 2025, we have publicly recognized 124 schools from 33 countries in all five continents. In 2025 alone, we feature 86 schools, including both global flagship brands as well as regionally focused institutions. More than half of them are AACSB accredited, and about two-thirds are PRME [Principles for Responsible Management Education] signatories.

What they have in common is the courage and the willingness to listen to their students and to act on what they hear. And we really celebrate them for that. This is not so obvious for every business school to be so open.

You know, as higher education faces skepticism about value and relevance, PIR offers that rare asset, kind of unfiltered stakeholder evidence that can be tied to a mission, to strategy, and to measurable outcomes.

The most transformative schools don’t just kind of receive the report; they invite students and faculty to interpret the results together.

[12:44] Katrin Muff: It shows the business schools where they’re strong, where they’re lagging, and most importantly how to bring a community—the students, but also the faculty—with you on the journey.

Now, if you look at kind of how to do that and how it creates value, participation with the PIR starts with a simple act: It's basically inviting on average about 200 students to take the survey. But the value really comes from what the school does next. PIR gives each school a confidential report showing scores across seven dimensions, and it benchmarks it against peers. It also provides dedicated reports that contribute to AACSB, to EQUIS, and to the PRME reporting.

So we see schools use this data in three main ways. First is for strategy and accreditation. Many schools fold the PIR results into AACSB self-studies, into EQUIS ERS reporting, and into PRME SIP [Sharing Information on Progress] reports.

[13:42] Katrin Muff: Because the survey can include school-specific focal topics, the data can directly assess accreditation standards on societal impact, governance, and engagement.

For AACSB, our Energizing area, which includes governance and culture, can be used for the guiding principles as well as Standard 1: Strategic Planning. The student and faculty input in our area Educating, which includes programs, learning methods, and student support, can contribute to Standard 4: Curriculum, as well as Standard 7: Teaching Effectiveness and Impact. Our Engaging area, assessing the institution as a role model and public engagement, contributes to your Standard 9: Engag[ement] in Societal Impact. We also added four specific AACSB questions that relate to Standard 9, Table 9.1, for societal impact, just as an example.

[14:40] Katrin Muff: A second main use relates to curriculum and culture change, and we are very keen on that too. The student voice pinpoints high-impact areas for reform, from integrating sustainability and finance and marketing to rethinking assessment methods. For example, in the past years, BI Norwegian Business School committed to embedding sustainability in all 15 bachelor programs, reaching 12,000 students. So we’re very proud of that. That’s great.

And then third, also—this is probably a bit softer—there is dialogue and co-creation. The most transformative schools don’t just kind of receive the report; they invite students and faculty to interpret the results together. And this has resulted in many excellent examples of how students can become changemakers.

Eileen McAuliffe (left) talks with Katrin Muff (right) about the Positive Impact Rating.

[15:30] Eileen McAuliffe: Yeah, wonderful. So we talked about how PIR can be used in evidencing activities and innovations for accreditation purposes. And that’s wonderful. And I think I heard you say schools can use it to make structural changes in curriculum, which is something that I was very interested in, and also some governance kind of restructuring.

But I’m particularly interested in this area where you’ve got, so BI was a wonderful example, of you know, including sustainability in I think you said 15 of their programs reaching 12,000 students. How can PIR help schools that are in different geographical regions, where, let’s say they have another, a different kind of set of priorities? So, for example, in the U.S., employability might be something that they’re sharply focusing on. In EMEA, sustainability is a very big issue for many of our schools.

[16:37] Eileen McAuliffe: So how do you think PIR could flex or adapt to the broader geographical requirements of a particular region?

[16:50] Katrin Muff: Indeed, it’s a very good point because regional differences matter. And it was very important for us in that methodology process to make sure it is applicable across different economic zones, but also different cultural regions.

So indeed, in North America, we hear students often frame positive impact around employability, diversity, and mental well-being, whereas in Northern Europe, Scandinavian countries, priorities skew more towards climate authenticity and systems change. In Africa and Latin America, there is social equity and community partnership that dominate. So our region-by-region analysis means that a dean in Nairobi can act on a different signal than a dean in Barcelona, while still being aligned with a global movement that we all have.

It was very important for us in the methodology process to make sure it is applicable across different economic zones, but also different cultural regions.

[17:43] Eileen McAuliffe: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And that’s a really good piece that would be good to emphasize. It brings together not just the top-ranked schools that might want to work together, but it brings together that sort of collision of purpose with schools that you might not ordinarily see partnering together or working together, so they can find a joint interest or priority and then work together.

So there’s that richness, isn’t there with this, that you really are shaking up the paradigm of international partnerships, for one thing, for example, which is wonderful.

I’ve got another question that’s just popped into my head, actually. Are you seeing any growth at all in participation in PIR from regions that aren’t typically that focused on societal impact, or are becoming more, but have traditionally not been so, where it hasn’t been such a top priority for them, are you seeing any movement there?

[18:53] Katrin Muff: It’s a challenging question. When I look at which regions grow, what we see is a bit something different. We see that the growth is often a national growth that seems to be dependent a little bit on peer pressure. Once a certain number of schools in a country have opted into PIR, others follow. We see that in Western and Southern Europe quite a lot. I find it actually quite difficult to know which regions favor societal impact more or less.

One thing that we notice with the Positive Impact Rating is that schools in the Global South rate better than schools in the Global North. And we believe that this has to do with the fact that these schools in the Global South have a different role in society than a business school has in the [Global] North. We have a lot more other institutions, civil society players, around.

[19:52] Katrin Muff: Often in the Global South, a university plays a much more direct role in their community, particularly, for example, programs India. We see that it is normal for MBA students to spend a year working in community, doing really societal work. So they’re much closer to the actual consequences, both environmental and societal, of what is going on.

[20:19] Eileen McAuliffe: Exactly. So they have that stronger sense of civic purpose or civic contribution. That’s really interesting, and I love the way that we can bring this to the fore now through PIR.

So, moving on, the third question of our three big questions is looking at strategy, OK. I know it’s a passionate interest of yours as well as it is mine, but many schools today, they strive to integrate societal impact into their mission, their strategic goals and objectives. And some do it exceptionally well, don’t they? Some, some I’ve observed seem to try and shoehorn societal impact in to the point where it becomes maybe lip service or you don’t see that manifestation of evidence.

[21:11] Eileen McAuliffe: And then, from my position, when I hear a school saying I’m finding it really hard to demonstrate alignment with Standard 9 around societal impact, I kind of understand why, because it’s not deeply embedded through words and action in the strategy that they have. How do you think the schools, business schools particularly, they could leverage the PIR framework to maybe help them better identify or have a sharper focus, refine their focus on societal impact? So this is probably a little bit more future-looking than past-looking, I suppose.

[21:59] Katrin Muff: You’re hitting the nail on the head. It’s certainly a big passion of mine and it’s one that we’re scratching our head year to year. It’s a recurring challenge that I see in my work with business schools, that societal impact can be both inspiring and it can be overwhelming. It can be inspiring because it signals a higher purpose beyond financial metrics, but also overwhelming because of the possibilities, that they’re endless, like climate action, inclusion, community development, ethics, entrepreneurship for good—all of these could be valid priorities.

And in the past years, we’ve experienced exactly the same issue that you mentioned. Some schools, not all, but some schools struggle to identify meaningful focal areas.

[22:44] Katrin Muff: And they either come up with something very abstract or very generic. Like examples like employability or responsibility, or they pick an SDG, and that becomes difficult to measure and implement in a school.

This year, we did a bit of thinking and work around this strategic option that the Positive Impact Rating could be, and we realized that schools need a bit of a process, a bit of process support in this societal impact question. So what we tested now is a so-called impact-versus-feasibility matrix, as a kind of new pragmatic tool for schools to use.

It offers a strategic lens through which business schools can prioritize the changes that are most important to the students and to the faculty by mapping the initiatives according to their systemic impact one hand, and like the implementation feasibility for the school at the other hand; the matrix highlights not only what matters, but where to start.

Societal impact can be both inspiring and it can be overwhelming. It can be inspiring because it signals a higher purpose beyond financial metrics, but also overwhelming because of the possibilities, that they’re endless.

[23:49] Katrin Muff: It’s kind of a strategic prioritization tool. So schools can use it during internal planning sessions, board reviews, or accreditation preparation to anchor student and faculty voice in decision-making and track visible, meaningful progress over time.

The input for this matrix comes from two awesome open-ended questions in the PIR survey that bring so much value to schools. We ask, “What should your school stop doing?” as one, and the other one, “What should it start doing to create societal impact?” And we provide each school with a summarized analysis of these insights by students and by faculty.

In 2025, for example, those comments told schools to stop outdated teaching, to end partnerships with unethical companies, to tackle greenwashing, to start embedding sustainability everywhere, and I could name more.

[24:50] Eileen McAuliffe: I mean, I just think it’s really interesting. So having been a dean before at a number of different schools, I’ve too been on the other side of the fence wrestling with this. And I always took it back to the basic thing, What is my school about? I was in inner-city schools, very large schools with very different diverse student body and very closely embedded within their diaspora and their communities.

And so, I think a lot of my colleagues, I remember them reading a lot around strategy, around mission, and we want to do everything with the SDGs. And I just kind of, remember your purpose, remember what’s at the heart and soul of your school, and stick with that.

[25:37] Eileen McAuliffe: But I’ve got a couple more interesting points just to have a chat with you about. You talked a little bit there around helping a school be clearer about its focus. What do you think, or how can we together, help other schools learn how those that have participated in PIR have seen this tangible improvement in clarity of focus and understanding what their contribution to societal impact is? How can we work together to help schools that aren’t involved look at it and think, actually, this would be really good for my school, be really good, help me shape things. Is there a way we can share some examples, do you think?

[26:27] Katrin Muff: It’s an important and great question, and I may only have a partial answer, but it’s certainly one I’d be happy to explore further. On one hand, what we have done since the beginning is we've collected case studies. We have nearly 80 very small, like 300-word case studies that are publicly available on our website, and you can read them by a number of different areas and examples. So if you’re interested in governance or in learning or curriculum or engagement or whatever, there is a number of case studies that hopefully help a school or, you know, a dean in a strategic process to say, hmm, let me see what other schools have done.

[27:14] Katrin Muff: Another thing that we could share, something that we have done is based on a request from those schools that have had an appetite for measuring their societal impact. We created an interesting feature for AACSB schools to better measure and report on Table 9.1 for Standard 9, where we offer both quantitative and qualitative data for interesting schools.

We’ve written one report a couple of years back for AACSB assessing the outcome of that. The four questions that we’ve added all deal with the fact of like, how effective is your school in achieving its impact mission through culture and government structures, relevant knowledge and skills, own operations and public engagements?

What I notice is that most schools really appreciate the open question that says, “What should the school do to improve its impact in the chosen mission area?” And that insight is really helpful.

[28:14] Eileen McAuliffe: Yeah, wonderful. I mean, we talk about impact in so many different ways. You know, just thinking about some of the stakeholders that, you know, business schools and the students that graduate from business schools that are there to serve might be, you know, businesses establishing their own businesses or working in businesses or with businesses, and also governments. Have you witnessed schools that have gone on to work more closely and collaborate with businesses or governments as a result of the PIR results?

[28:52] Katrin Muff: Yes, I mean, students are asking very loudly to bring in broader stakeholders than just traditional business. They do want societal stakeholders in their courses, and many schools have been very reactive to that and have found wonderful ways of bringing in these stakeholders to create much more interesting needs-driven or impact-driven projects that the students then work on.

Students are asking very loudly to bring in broader stakeholders than just traditional business.

[29:20] Eileen McAuliffe: Sounds wonderful. But having that collaboration on live projects sponsored by business or government within the school is a very rich learning experience for a young person.

I’m curious as well with the PIR, have you ever had a school where they thought they were one thing, and following the PIR, they could barely recognize themselves? You know, the self-reflection of what you think your school is and then when you you go through the PIR process, you actually take another look and you think, oh my goodness, that’s how we’re perceived. Have you ever come across those examples as well?

[30:00] Katrin Muff: Yes. And what is interesting, sometimes nearly purposefully, and that you’ve been a dean, I’ve been a dean—you know how hard it is to change a school. And sometimes we’ve had a dean of a top-rated FT school who had the Positive Impact Rating done as an external lever to bring about change because he really wanted to orient his school more towards societal impact. And they already did a whole bunch of things, and he was continuously told that the school already did a lot, but he didn’t really have that feeling.

And the leadership was really shocked to see that they didn’t do so well as, and of course, as in the FT ranking, of course, you know, societal impact was kind of a key strategic priority. But asking the students to review how these changes are actually implemented was really impressive.

[30:56] Katrin Muff: So there are a bunch of schools that used the PIR sometimes for multiple years to kind of first just kind of to have a different conversation in-house and to realize, hey, we are not where we are, our students don’t perceive us as how we are, and they start to embed students into their governance processes, and then when they come back and do the PIR, suddenly they are then rated and they’re doing much better.

And yeah, it’s a visible journey to us at the PIR, but it’s not one where we want to shame the schools that take a while to get to a level three.

[31:34] Eileen McAuliffe: And it takes a certain kind of leader to have that willingness to open themselves bare, figuratively as a school, and say, This is what I’m like, you know, this is what I think I’m like; tell me what I’m really like. I mean that’s really brave leadership, I think.

And just tying that into the current kind of economic climate of business schools globally that are under so many pressures around, you know, international student recruitment, for example, or you know, political change. You know, business school leaders have to be brave, they have to be outward-facing, and they have to be able to listen to what is happening in their context and make those changes.

[32:19] Eileen McAuliffe: And the Positive Impact Rating is one of those tools, many tools, but one of those tools that comes at things from a very particular, sometimes critical, set of eyes, which is the student. Because they’re usually paying quite a lot of money for their education.

And I think that addresses my question that I had in the back of my mind was around how business schools can operate in an environment of uncertainty. Because I’ve been in business schools for more than 25 years now, and I don’t think I’ve ever experienced such a period of uncertainty as that which we’re currently navigating.

The PIR, as I understand it, is one of those tools in a dean’s toolbox or a faculty toolbox that can help navigate that uncertainty. Would you like to just draw a little bit on how that could work?

[33:16] Katrin Muff: I think what really helps is when the dean considers the student as kind of a friendly ally. Students, in my eyes, are, you know, extremely good at actually constructively helping the school. They have a lot of energy to try and create a positive change. Yes, they’re critical, and they will, you know, put the finger on issues that may be painful for a school because they’re hard to change.

What really helps is when the dean considers the student as kind of a friendly ally. Students, in my eyes, are, you know, extremely good at actually constructively helping the school. 

[33:45] Katrin Muff: But I do find that once a dean sits with students and faculty and other relevant stakeholders, and they actually look at all of the topics and make that difference between what is realistic for us internally to implement and what can create the biggest impact—that matrix I talked about—that also then students understand that not all of their issues are equally important.

But that together they may be able to focus, first of all, on some quick wins—I think quick wins are incredibly important to create the deeper transformation that is needed at a school—it doesn’t work without it—and are willing to help the school and the dean and the program managers to actually create that shift by them embracing, taking on, supporting the school with that transformation through specific projects at the school. Sometimes they receive credits for it or, you know, a work reference or something like that, so really realizing that the student is a friendly ally.

[34:52] Eileen McAuliffe: Yes, absolutely. Yes. I think you’re absolutely spot on because students have this innate ability to think freely, to clear their mind and think so freely, whereas I think sometimes business school leadership can, understandably, be fraught by process, by governance, by, you know, staying in the lines, whereas students don’t see any of that. They offer their heart and soul freely to the solution. And I think being, being part of that brokerage, brokering those solutions together—sometimes there’s not going to be an easy answer, but it’s good that the students understand why something can’t change or something can’t happen. So there’s that close partnership is truly important.

[35:46] Eileen McAuliffe: Do you know, Katrin, it’s been wonderful speaking with you today. It’s been so insightful—wonderful conversation. I can’t thank you enough for sharing your perspectives and giving us such an in-depth insight to the Positive Impact Rating.

And to our listeners, if you enjoyed this conversation, be sure to follow AACSB Pulse on AACSB Insights, Apple, or Spotify. We’ve got more great episodes coming up on the biggest issues shaping global business education today.

But for now, Katrin Muff, thank you so much for your time, your wisdom, and your creativity.

[36:29] Katrin Muff: Eileen, thank you so much. It’s been such a treat. I think you and I could just keep on going now, off recording. Thank you.

 
Read more about the Positive Impact Rating:

• How AACSB Schools Use the Positive Impact Rating
• Measuring and Magnifying Impact

About AACSB Pulse

A podcast produced by AACSB International, AACSB Pulse explores current topics impacting global business education—three questions at a time—with business school deans, industry leaders, and other big thinkers of today.

To receive new episodes, make sure to sign up for AACSB’s email newsletter, LINK, or subscribe to AACSB Pulse on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

AACSB Pulse: 3 big questions. Bold answers. Better business schools.