Article body

Several debates animate the field of business schools such as the role of publications (Altbach and Wit, 2019), the convergence of business schools’ practices (Finch et al. 2016; Thomas et al. 2014), and the role of faculty (Altbach & Yukvedich, 2017; Thomas & Cornuel, 2012). In these debates, international accreditation agencies such as EQUIS, AACSB and AMBA are portrayed as the institutions dictating the standards (Rasche & Gilbert, 2015) against which business schools are assessed and assess each other (Greenwood et al. 2017). As in other transnational communities of interest (Djelic & Salhin-Andersson, 2006), accreditation agencies benefit from the absence of a formal transnational authority and the need for clarity in the market. To obtain the “quality seal” (Teixeira and Maccari, 2018) delivered by accreditation agencies and build on their image (Hou et al. 2015, Miles et al. 2016; Lejeune et al. 2015; Urgel, 2007), schools have to comply “willingly” with the accreditation’s frameworks, guidelines and recommendations although it is a costly process in terms of finance, human resources and time (Nigsch & Schenker-Wicki, 2013). This process characterized by influence and discipline mechanisms (Lawrence, Winn & Jennings, 2001) is called soft-regulation (Jacobsson, 2004).

While many scholars have investigated the impacts of “being accredited” (Lejeune et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2014), the voluntary process embedded in the institutionalization of soft-regulations implies a proactive persuasion effort from the agencies (Djelic & den Hond, 2014) often overlooked. Hence, to have a more complete perspective of the role of accreditors in the convergence of business schools’ practices, our research question is: what are the characteristics of accreditation agency legitimacy strategies and to what extent do they participate in the institutionalization of business schools’ field?

Researches into soft-regulation characteristics and institutionalization process offer key elements to investigate the persuasion effort of accreditation agencies. Combining findings from those streams of research, we wish to answer the call made by Lawrence et al. (2001) to add to their study by integrating “the role of agents more fully” (Lawrence et al. 2001, p. 641). To that aim, we conducted a historical case study analysis of EQUIS, the prestigious international accreditation awarded by the EFMD (Zhao & Ferran, 2016). Blending critical discourse analysis (Vaara, 2015) of Internationalization and Faculty standards and interviews with EQUIS regulators, we found that legitimacy is at the heart of the institutionalization process. The agency adapts its communication, assessment process and services to the needs and requests of various target communities to instigate trust and compliance. Meanwhile, the institutional power of the agency is highly influenced by the symbiotic relationship between agencies and the field. This leads us to distinguish three institutionalization categories (operations, goals and processes), of which the degree of institutionalization convergence or divergence depends on different membership levels.

In the following section, we review the literature about transnational communities of interest, their characteristics and the specificities of their institutionalization process before providing details about soft-regulations mechanisms.

Transnational Communities of Interest and Soft‑Regulation Institutionalization

International accreditation agencies such as the AACSB and EFMD are “Transnational Communities of Interest” (TCI). TCIs are composed of experts in their fields and by individuals or organizations coming from various countries and various spaces, including the state, public, and private. They form a network that strongly relies on interactions between the members, sometimes being regulators or regulatees (Hedmo et al. 2006). They are all gathered around one specific project about which they are willing to share and build up knowledge and often regulations.

TCIs face various challenges. First, they do not dispose of the legal authority that forces organizations. Both enrollment and compliance have to emerge from the voluntary decision of the organizations. Secondly, organizations operate rather differently and even more so in different countries; thus, regulations cannot be too strict. To overcome these challenges, TCIs have developed “soft-regulations” (Greenwood et al. 2017; Baudry & Chassagnon, 2012), also called “soft-norms” (Tulmets, 2014) or “soft-laws” (Djelic & Sahlin Andesson, 2006; Jacobsson, 2004). Soft-regulations include norms, standards, certifications, and guidelines (Baly, Kletz & Sardas, 2018; Mahon, 2009). They are rules made “somewhat flexible, leaving space for interpretation and adjustment” (Djelic & den Hond, 2014, p. 3) to be adapted by various actors and localized. They are combined with particular persuasive mechanisms to stimulate voluntary compliance and assimilation (Greenwood et al., 2017; Djelic & den Hond, 2014; Jacobsson, 2004). The search for consensus inside the community and inside the head of the TCI creates a back-and-forth rhythm in the formulation and formalization of the regulations (Schleifer, 2019). Institutionalization based on soft-regulations is described as “not an automatic or smooth process” (Djelic & Sahlin Andesson, 2006, p. 32).

This idea echoes Lawrence et al. (2001) proposition of institutionalization curve based on influence and discipline mechanisms (see Figure 1). Indeed, according to the authors, institutionalization based on influence mechanisms (strategies employed to convince a targeted population to adopt a rule using ongoing incentives or rewards and the support of a leading group) requires the active involvement and approval of the target population (Baly et al., 2018; Veldman & Willmott, 2016). Consequently, it is slower than institutionalization that can be forced. However, the nearly simultaneous integration of multiple populations (eager to increase their prestige by acquiring an award or to access certification schemes) leads to the acceleration of the institutionalization over time. Last, discipline mechanisms (routine mechanisms applying continuous pressure on the population until ultimately the new practice becomes totally internalized) bring stability to the process by stimulating the internalization of the rules (Baly et al., 2018; Veldman & Willmott, 2016).

Figure 1

Institutionalization curved based on influence and discipline

Institutionalization curved based on influence and discipline
Source: Lawrence et al. (2001)

-> See the list of figures

Monitoring mechanisms

While frequently described in the literature, monitoring mechanisms do not constitute the origin but the final step of the internalization process (Jacobsson, 2004). They are twofold. On the one hand, there are review, evaluation and control mechanisms (Jacobsson, 2004). They aim to encourage organizations to comply with the rules on the basis of arguments believed to be rational. Indicators are set by the institutional actor and regularly asked to the organizations through various kinds of reports (Mahon, 2009; Jacobsson, 2004). Additionally, on-site audits are organized to investigate the veracity of the reports and collect further information, generally performed by external experts (Baudry & Chassagnon, 2012; Mahon, 2009; Jacobsson, 2004). On the other hand, there are routine mechanisms: planning, deadlines and recurrent assessments. The cyclic repetition of the same demands affects the procedures and operations of the organizations. Through time, practices induced by the institutional actor are internalized and become a habit (Jacobsson, 2004; Lawrence et al. 2001).

Discursive mechanisms

In her analysis of the European discourse about European employment policies, Jacobsson (2004) identifies three major discursive specificities that play a role in the institutionalization of the field. First, the discourse serves as a common language use, providing key concepts to study and speak about the employment situation. Second, the discourse pleads for the creation of a common knowledge base that allows the comparison of the different results and characteristics of each state to identify best practices. Third, the discourse insists on the systematic dissemination of knowledge collected from the reports made by the participating countries, bringing purpose and transparency to the process. For institutions that cannot enforce laws, discursive strategies are particularly important to convince and orient their audience (Vaara, 2015; Cornelissen et al., 2015). The results from Mahon’s (2009) research about the evolution of OECD discourse and projects regarding work and family life confirm that discourses and policies evolve through time and can be impactful only with access to necessary funding and internal organization to actually collect, control and analyze state reports. To be efficient, discursive mechanisms need to be combined with monitoring mechanisms. Finally, publicity is a strong incentive to encourage organizations to lean toward new regulations. Regarding business schools’ accreditation, reports are not made public, and comparative analysis are not used as an argument to stimulate institutionalization. Publicity, however, still plays a key role in the institutionalization process: the communication strategy is built around the meaning of being accredited (Teixera & Maccari, 2018; Miles et al. 2016, Hou et al. 2015). Willmott (2011) demonstrates how accreditation agencies’ discourse influences other organizations’ discourse and eventually affects perceptions of the labor market. Thus, institutionalization is affected not only by the discourse of transnational regulators but also by the transposition of their discourses within those of other organizations.

Actors and network mechanisms

Phillips et al. (2004) suggest that texts produced by legitimate actors tend to be more easily adopted and diffused than others. This underlies the importance of both peer reviewers (Mahon, 2009) and authors themselves in the dissemination and internalization of soft-regulations. To be institutionalized, regulations should emanate from actors able to be recognized as an official voice by the organizations, to implement coercive means and to be central in the network (Phillips et al., 2004). Hedmo et al. (2006), in their research on accreditation, ranking and guidelines, point out that the best business schools are essential accredited members and board members behind the accreditation agencies. This participation on both sides of the most prestigious business schools highlights the interdependent relations between regulators and regulatees (Hedmo et al., 2006). The unique role of the regulators within network organization also suggests a certain hierarchy among members that will encourage other follower-like organizations to comply with the rules (Baudry & Chassagnon, 2012; Hedmo et al., 2006). This seemingly advantageous position of regulators might be challenging, however; because of the networking mechanisms and the dependency on the acceptance of their audience, “soft regulators are somewhat constrained in their rule-making by societal norms and expectations”, while regulatees are left with a greater agency to implement and adapt the rules (Svensson, 2009, p. 210). Therefore, building legitimacy is an essential criterion in the development of soft-regulations.

Soft regulation legitimacy

According to Sahlin & Wedlin (2008), the internalization of soft-regulations depends on the perceived legitimacy of the ideas, standards and framework proposed by regulators. Legitimacy is a predicament for regulators to expand their institutionalization power (Schleifer, 2019; Fransen, 2012; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It is a complex concept, both a status that can be granted or denied by the audience (Schleifer, 2019) and the result of a dynamic and evolving process based on various constructs.

The most common one is rationalization, also referred to as scientization (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006) or quality (Urgel, 2007). By giving a somewhat rational justification to the rule, “soft regulation gains an aura of objectivity and of conveying the best possible guidelines for action” (Svensson, 2009, p. 215). In that aspect, experts, consultants, peer reviewers and authors are essentials (Mahon, 2009; Phillips et al. 2004). Additionally, the texts themselves are important vectors of legitimacy. The type of discourse may legitimize the ideas carried by the text (Cornelissen et al. 2015; Vaara, 2015). Buchanan and Keohane (2006) recommend that organizations that do not have legal power build standards that can be understood, recognized and implemented to enforce their legitimacy. This recommendation is supported by Svensson (2009), who shows the importance of the choice of words and of the consistency with the real world in soft-regulation institutionalization in the European Union. Consistency with the real world can be understood as practice. Legitimacy through practice is the ability for regulators to provide experts able to translate discourses and standards into actions (Brès & Gond, 2014).

Quack (2009) adds two interesting notions to this legitimation process: “inclusiveness” and “procedural fairness”. Inclusiveness transcribes the attention given to various stakeholders within the decision process. The endeavor is difficult, especially when a certain level of knowledge and expertise is expected. However, the absence of inclusiveness is a disadvantage for the organization. Procedural fairness is the attention given to the standards and the process by which decision and disputes, in particular, are taken.

Finally, another source of legitimacy relates to organizational membership. Svensson (2009) explains that upon entering a group, new members expect the regulatory body to provide specific rules as much as they are expected to comply with them. Thus, regulatory bodies benefit from the desire of new members to join their (meta)organization to expand their institutionalization power. Eventually, combining various legitimation strategies makes soft-regulations stronger and “harder to question and resist” (Svensson, 2009, p. 210).

Going back to our research topic, research about accreditation agencies show they benefit from a rationalization strategy. They are perceived as providing competitive advantages (high quality standardization, quality seal) which encourage business schools to adopt the accreditation framework (Zammuto, 2008; Romero, 2008). This rationalization strategy is supported by the involvement of experts in the field throughout the accreditation process and the key role of elite business schools. The enrollment of elite business schools in several international accreditation systems increases the legitimacy of the agencies and their standards (Hedmo, 2006). Furthermore, according to Bell & Taylor (2005) their implication stimulates mimetic behaviors leading to a progressive institutionalization and standardization of the business schools’ fields. Surprisingly, these studies merely touch upon the various means deployed by the accreditation agencies when the internationalization of business schools and the attractivity of management education worldwide (Thomas et al., 2013) are pushing international accreditation agencies to adapt in order to face new competitors, to answer new demands for high quality management programs (Peters et al., 2018) and to deal with a diverse pool of members.

To summarize, very few studies have investigated the specificities of the regulations as a text, and none provides a global overview of the factors and mechanisms implemented by accreditors to enforce their text. To enrich the literature on soft-regulations and the institutionalization of business schools our research combines existing findings with the analysis of the various factors, mechanisms and strategies used by the EFMD agency to develop EQUIS legitimacy. We provide an empirical perspective of soft-regulations: the discursive and monitoring mechanisms, the characteristics of the text, of the network, of the authors and of the audience altogether, and how they participate in the legitimation and institutionalization of business schools.

Methodology

The case of EQUIS has been chosen for this study. EQUIS is both considered one of the most prestigious business school accreditations (Zhao & Ferran, 2016) and described as exerting pressure on the field (Thomas et al. 2014), especially regarding internationalization and faculty management. However, findings about the convergence of internationalization and faculty management practices are not consistent (Finch et al. 2016; Thomas et al. 2014). Therefore, we believe that an extensive analysis of the mechanisms contributing to the legitimacy and dissemination of the EQUIS framework will contribute to research about the role of the agent in the institutionalization process of business schools’ practices.

EFMD: an archetype of TCIs

EQUIS, the European Quality Improvement System, was the first accreditation system created by the EFMD in 1997, at a time when major European countries were starting to formalize their engagement toward higher education cooperation (Charlier & Croché, 2003). The EFMD is a transnational community of business schools created in 1972, gathered around common interests such as sharing practices and discussing business schools’ challenges (see Box 1).

Originally centered around a small community of European business schools and leaders of various European higher education agencies and foundations, the EFMD has grown into a global network of higher education institutions located in 90 countries worldwide. In 2020, the EFMD counted 954 institutional members, 189 EQUIS-accredited business schools and 81 employees, including 12 dedicated to EQUIS. The head office of the EFMD is strategically based in Brussels, the European capital. Since 2012, EFMD has opened branches in Hong Kong, Miami, Geneva, and Prague.

Each accreditation is managed by the EQUIS office and EFMD accreditation board. Various documents are at the disposal of the schools even before entering the process: EQUIS Standards & Criteria, EQUIS Process Manual, and EQUIS Process Manual Annexes. These documents present the purpose of the accreditation process, the expectations of the reviewers, and the areas that will be investigated. They are edited approximately each year and available on EFMD website. (see Annex 1: EQUIS accreditation process summary).

Data collection

To analyze the role of the agency in the institutionalization of business schools’ practices we apply a historical mixed methodology covering 22 years, from 1997 (EQUIS creation) to 2019 (the latest published guidebooks). This historical dimension allows to investigate the evolution of the soft-regulation mechanisms over time. Also, the speed of EQUIS to become one of the three most prestigious international accreditations in the field offers the unique opportunity to meet the authors of the guidelines. The mixed methodology combining both practices and communications (rhetoric and discourse) provides a deeper understanding of a phenomenon than single source (Cornelissen et al. 2015).

EQUIS guidebooks

Among EQUIS guidebooks, we selected EQUIS Standards & Criteria, EQUIS Process Manual, and EQUIS Process Manual Annexes; these twice-yearly published guidebooks present the framework and standards in full, and they are directly intended to candidate schools. We focused on the Introduction, the Faculty and the Internationalization chapters. We chose Internationalization because internationalization is one of the key factors of the emergence of TCI, a core dimension of EQUIS and a topic about which EQUIS is frequently criticized for pushing schools to implement internationalized practices. Studying the way EQUIS discusses and promotes internationalization gives us a unique perspective of this central feature. We chose the Faculty chapter because professors’ perspectives, attributes and research are also often used to prove the influence of accreditations (Finch et al. 2016, Nigsch & Schenken-Wicki, 2013, Lightbody, 2010, Julian & Ofori-Dankwa 2006), but very few studies intend to contrast their analysis with the actual content of accreditation regulations.

Interviews with the EQUIS community

We conducted interviews with participants who could give us meaningful insights into the creation and evolution of EQUIS regulations and practices. They all work or have been working for EQUIS either as authors, peer-reviewers, board members or administrators for many years. An unexpected benefit was that they often hold several of those positions, which brought depth to their perspective and optimized our number of interviews (9). In addition, the diversity of their nationalities and international experience reflects the transnationality of the organization. Given the opportunity, interviews were performed face-to-face or by phone. They were recorded and transcribed. On average, the lasted 70 minutes. They aimed to uncover the process set by EQUIS to build its “monitor” community, to compare the results from the guidebooks analysis with the experience and perspective of the interviewees, and, to collect information about the influence of the regulations over time.

Table 1

Interviewees data summary

Interviewees data summary

-> See the list of tables

Data analysis

We started our research by a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of EQUIS Standards and Criteria guidebooks. We believe CDAs in this paper are meaningful because they comply with Vaara (2015) criteria. The analysis of the rhetorical techniques used in the guidebooks to transcribe and make sense of the regulations gives precious information regarding EQUIS’ institutionalization strategy. Our detailed CDAs led to the emergence of specific rhetoric and strategies that both helped to answer our question and served as a basis for the interviews. In addition, the texts have been “placed in their social contexts” thanks to historical studies on EQUIS and information given by the various interviewees who were involved with EQUIS at different periods.

Phase 1-Critical discourse analysis of EQUIS guidebooks since 1997

We conduct the CDA following Vaara (2015) recommendations to have an overall understanding of the text, before proceeding with a deeper reading of the texts through the lens of the typical discursive legitimation strategies identified in the literature. We also adopted a historical perspective, which led us to add extra steps into the analytical process.

First, we started with a quick review of the documents to evaluate the lexicon and lengths of the guidebooks over time. Second, we focused on the organization of the introduction of the three chapters (General Introduction, Faculty chapter and Internationalization chapter) because introductions constitute a form of discourse more elaborated than guidelines. They reflect the EQUIS communication strategy and the importance given to each topic. From this primary analysis emerged two important periods: 1997-2006 and 2007-2019. To understand the discourse evolutions over the two time periods, we led a detailed CDA on each of the three chapter individually. We first looked for the typical discursive legitimation strategies identified in the literature by Leeuwen and Wodak (1999): Authorization (by reference to authority of an expert, a rule…), Rationalization (by reference to cognition, common sense), Moral evaluation (by reference to values and ideology) and Mythopoesis (by reference to storytelling). However, our analysis broadened the initial theoretical framework to specific discourse strategies aligned with EQUIS missions and values such as Support strategies and Common language use. Then, we compared the results of the CDAs from the first and second periods. This step was crucial to reflect the evolution of EQUIS legitimation discourse strategies. Finally, we contrasted the historical analysis of all chapters.

Phase 2-Qualitative interview coding analysis: Causation coding

We interviewed nine EQUIS regulators to explore the link between the texts and the approaches taken by EQUIS. We analyzed the data collected during our interviews using the causation coding methodology proposed by Saldaña (2012) that is intended to “serve grounded theorists in meticulous searches for causes, conditions, contexts, and consequences” (Saldaña 2012, p165), a purpose matching our research. After each transcription, we performed a primary coding, looking for emergent themes in relation to our research question. In particular, we looked for the causes and chain of events suggested by the interviewees to explain the influence of EQUIS guidelines on business schools’ practices, to justify the findings identified in the CDA and to describe the process by which they were involved with EQUIS.

Phase 3-Combination for a holistic view

We contrasted individual interviews altogether to identify recurrent coding and common themes that were later on combined with findings from the CDA to obtain a holistic view of the phenomenon. Finally, as recommended by Saldaña (2012), we organized the codes into a chronological matrix to visualize the diversity of the relationships and aggregate the codes.

Although this step was shaped by the concepts drawn from literature, it was also guided by our interpretation of the CDA results and the explanation of EQUIS regulators. This theorizing approach based on interpretation in order to identify and explain causal elements specific to a context is typical of the interpretive sensemaking approach developed by Welch et al. (2011).

Thus, we built a 6-column chronological matrix respectively titled: the source of the antecedent (The subject), the antecedent (our primary coding), Mediating Variable 1- Context (describing what is specific about the antecedent), the Mediating Variable 2- Action (insisting on its use and impact on the process), the Outcomes (i.e., consequences) and major categories. The major categories represent both the historical perspective and the main theoretical mechanisms: a set of pre-existing conditions, building legitimacy (composed of a common framework for a common identity, legitimacy of the actors and a “beneficial” process) and a multiplicator effect (see Table 3).

Lastly, we developed a synthetic model of our findings following the “process” theorizing proposed by Cornelissen, Höllerer & Seidl (2021) to highlight the legitimation strategies implemented by the accreditor and their role in the institutionalization process of business schools’ practices (see Figure 3). This ultimate step is in line with Lincoln’s (1995) criteria to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research.

Findings

The analysis of EQUIS provides a detailed picture of the different legitimation strategies implemented by the agency and of the field mechanism enhancing its institutional influence. In the following section, before we describe the main characteristics of EQUIS regulations underlying the institutionalization curve of Lawrence et al. (2001), we present a surprising feature of the EQUIS soft-regulation process.

While little is known about the factors leading to the emergence of soft-regulations, discussions with EQUIS founders indicate three specificities that have laid the groundwork for EQUIS.

EQUIS has benefited from the environment where it was born, a “club of business schools”: the EFMD community. At the time the EFMD was gathering very few members, most of them deans and representatives of leading higher education institutions throughout Europe. They regularly met to exchange about practices, challenges and cooperation opportunities. Creating an accreditation system became an ongoing debate. Some members believed having a European accreditation would be an advantage for the members, while the others preferred avoiding differentiation. All the interviewees depicted the decision of the AACSB to become AACSB International and to go to Europe as the turning point. The fear of having their institutions evaluated based on a frame that does not take into consideration the European specificities was such that the EFMD members gathered around the necessity to protect themselves. Creating their own accreditation system seemed to be the best solution:

“At that point, the deans involved in significant schools said, “We don’t want to be exported in terms of an American accreditation system, and if these guys are coming, then we can’t prevent it, but we can set up our own European-based accreditation system.”

Interview 7

Thus, before EQUIS was born, there was already a common agreement on the necessity to create an accreditation system and therefore to comply with a set of guidelines.

Table 2

CDA main findings and quotes

CDA main findings and quotes

-> See the list of tables

Table 3

Example of the chronological matrix

Example of the chronological matrix

-> See the list of tables

Dissemination and internalization: building legitimacy

A common framework for a common identity

Contrary to traditional soft-regulation descriptions (Jacobsson, 2004; Lawrence et al., 2001), EQUIS regulations are not just external regulations internalized through time.

To legitimize applying to a newly born European accreditation, the EFMD developed a discourse based on the concepts of diversity, internationalization, executive education, and practical research as the characteristics composing European business schools’ identities. These concepts were inspired by a study of the characteristics of elite business schools in leading European countries conducted by EQUAL, the think-tank of EFMD who was gathering leaders of various European higher education agencies and foundations. First, European business schools are the reflection of Europe: they are very diverse. Language, education system, and size are context-specific. Second, they have strong links with the corporate world through practical research and executive education. Lastly, they all built international exchange partnerships to create international “leaders”. References to these core values are used to legitimize the inquiries made in the Self-Assessment Reports (SAR). The Internationalization chapter of EQUIS Standards & Criteria insists on the international positioning of EQUIS to justify demands regarding this dimension: “EQUIS has been designed as an international accreditation system, recognizing schools and university faculties that are more than just high-standard national institutions”. At that stage, however, the major strategy to convince European schools was in the mythopoesis used in spoken discourses. AACSB accreditation was portrayed as “the American model”, a model made for American business schools, all using the same language and turned toward academic research that would hurt European business schools when EQUIS, a European accreditation, was being created especially for European business schools.

“We wanted the new accreditation system to reflect European values and the European context. We did not expect at that time it would go global; we thought it would be largely European. We wanted to incorporate issues that the AACSB did not incorporate. I am thinking of the importance of research and development[1], the importance of executive education, the importance of internationalization and the importance of saying, there is not one single model of a business school that is best. We believe in diversity and a multitude of models.”

Interview 7

The legitimacy of the EQUIS framework is deeply rooted in the characteristics of a small group of elite European business schools called the “Pioneer Group” and the reputation of the EQUAL members. They bring credibility to EQUIS intentions, guidelines, and framework. Looking at the Faculty chapter, a good school will be expected to be able to provide information about the “faculty size, qualification and composition”, “faculty management”, “faculty development”, “internationalization”, “ethics, responsibility and sustainability” and This strategy suggests that the EQUIS framework is fit for good schools and vice versa. “connection with practice”. In addition, if EQUIS was inspired by the most successful European schools, by following the EQUIS framework and investing in practical research, executive education and internationalization, other schools can improve their reputation and attractivity. Thus, EQUIS regulations come from the externalization and formalization of leading schools’ best practices.

A “beneficial” process

The majority of the assessment criteria have been the same since 1997:

“What struck me is that, basically, it did not change much. The important issues remain the same: faculty, internationalization, and integration of standards. It all remains the same.”

Interview 8

This stability contributes to the coherence of EQUIS requirements but also reflects the constraint and desire of EQUIS to “be a benefit for the schools” (Interview 3). Such notions of service and benefit are present throughout the process. EQUIS was born as a service to the EFMD community. The sustainability of the accreditation depends on the appreciation of this service. During the period 1996-2006, when EQUIS was growing among a small group of insiders, the tone of the guidebooks was rather coercive, while from 2007, the text adopted a softer approach [see Table 2]. Indeed, shortly after its creation schools from Canada, Hong Kong, Australia started to apply to the accreditation. The desire to profit from the attractivity of EQUIS outside Europe has pushed the agency to change its communication strategy to fit with rising needs for clarity and reassurance regarding the feasibility of the process. For example, introductions enumerate what the report should be about instead of directly addressing the school about what to do: “The size, qualification, and composition of the faculty are expected to be sufficient”, “There should be processes…” This method avoids direct confrontation while orienting the reader toward the framework.

The process is purposely arranged to leave “a space for judgment”. The diversity of the contexts in Europe (and worldwide) makes a strict comparison based on indicators impossible. For each dimension, there are very few minimum numbers and necessary requirements. Instead, EQUIS strongly relies on examples to illustrate concepts and diversity [see Table 2]. For instance, since 2007, in the Internationalization chapter, examples are listed to demonstrate the various forms internationalization can take. They also orient the schools in their practices. The statement below implies that applying schools are able to provide detailed information about the international orientation of their faculty, and they probably should dispose of a faculty fitting with these sections:

“It is expected that a school’s faculty members will have an overall profile that qualifies them to operate adequately in the international arena. This is measured not only by the nationality mix of the faculty but also by the international qualifications and experience of the faculty members, by their intercultural and linguistic skills, and by their demonstrated ability to teach international audiences.”

EQUIS Standards & Criteria 2007-2019

Often the same people write the rules, edit the rules, audit the schools, and give the accreditation. To protect the impartiality and fairness of the process, the agency formalized internal policies. The different steps of the accreditation are explained in the EQUIS Process Manual, and counterpowers are created in the decision-making process. For example, the Peer-Review Team writes the report, but the Accreditation Board makes decisions about the accreditation. Policies and practices toward procedural fairness contribute to build trust in the accreditation, not only in the eye of the accredited schools but also in the eye of the accreditors.

Legitimacy of the actors

The case of EQUIS illustrates but also nuances the actor’s characteristics proposed by Philips et al. (2004). The meaningful experience of every EQUIS actor involved in the process is key. The reputation of EQUIS authors has constantly served the accreditation’s rationalization strategy, first with the reputation of EQUIS founders (1997) and then with the quality of EQUIS itself and the quality of “leading executive education directors” [2007-2019]. The peer review teams are set up to inspire trust so judgments and recommendations are properly received. Precisely, they are composed of “4 members holding senior positions in the world of management education or with substantial experience in this field” [2007-2019], usually coming from 4 different countries and including one corporate representative and one academic familiar with the local environment. This attention is also given to advisors, to accreditation board, committee and staff members. Over time, EQUIS key actors have held different positions. Therefore, when schools apply, they interact with people who represent the full process, who are strongly international by nationality and career, who often have been deans of EQUIS-accredited schools and who have experienced the process itself on both sides. In addition, the long-term experience of EQUIS teams is also essential:

“With us, implicit knowledge is extremely important. Knowing that this one and that one do not get along, knowing that you cannot put this conference in that place, or combine the accreditation teams that way, etc. We are dealing with human nature 250,000 percent, and we are involved in areas of expertise that are extremely delicate.”

Interview 9

The dissemination of EQUIS guidelines depends on various direct and indirect networks. The main one was the EFMD community. However, soon, EQUIS became a motivation to join the EFMD network. Moreover, EPAS, now called the “EFMD-accredited program” plays an important role. EPAS regulations are EQUIS regulations applied to a smaller scope. Thus, while EPAS develops, it is actually the same regulations that are spreading to an even broader group. Finally, the authority of EQUIS seems more related to incentive means rather than coercive means. The negative consequences of losing an accreditation depend primarily on the questionable link between accreditations, ranking institutions, and schools’ reputation than on a desire to sanction. According to our interviewees, the purpose of EQUIS is to recognize the quality of good schools and to support high-potential schools to move toward stronger and better-defined models to face worldwide competition.

“I think and I hope the peer review finds a good recommendation and good areas that work for them […] And normally, in my case, in our school, it was always very helpful. This is not just talk, it is true. If you look at the path the schools developed all these years since they were accredited or the year before, it is completely different. They are different schools.”

Interview 4

Thus, the EQUIS office develops various support and rationalization strategies to gain legitimacy (see Figure 2). The flexibility left inside each dimension even seems to play against the idea of standardization. However, our study reveals that it does encourage isomorphism.

Figure 2

EQUIS discursive and monitoring mechanism evolution since 1997

EQUIS discursive and monitoring mechanism evolution since 1997

-> See the list of figures

Multiplicator effect

Deeper mechanisms are in place apart from the ones employed by the EQUIS office. The requirements to be accredited weigh heavily on applying schools. Often, they feel compelled to lead profound structural changes to align with the framework, creating tension among faculty members and staff.

“When we have been audited, we know that several months before or even years before […] there are major investments that have been made. Perhaps it was necessary to recruit teachers, perhaps it was necessary to modify a school organization, it was necessary to create a quality and accreditation department, it was necessary to recruit, to increase internationalization, to welcome more international students, to send more international students.”

Interview 2

These adjustments are strengthened by the iterative evaluation process embedded in accreditations.

When we look at EQUIS guidelines, schools are asked about their number of PhD professors, but there is no minimum number of PhD professors required. It is the same with international experience and international partnerships. However, having PhD faculty members facilitates publication in academic journals, access to research grants, and school visibility. Similarly, having an international faculty eases delivering courses in a foreign language, attracting foreign students or foreign professors able to publish in world-ranked journals. By not giving any precise goals or ways to operate in the dimensions of the framework encourages the mimetic effect of the field. Thus, schools that consider entering the process look at EQUIS-accredited schools’ practices and align accordingly.

The number of interconnections within the field intensifies the institutionalization of EQUIS soft-regulations. To date, EQUIS requirements evolve following leaders’ practices and schools’ needs. For example, in 2014, an annex was added about multicampus operations after the agency noticed that an increasing number of schools were opening campuses abroad. Consequently, EQUIS gives more visibility to this practice. However, leading business schools’ practices are themselves connected to a more global environment:

“What was also a pivotal element was that students wanted to be in an international environment, that companies wanted to recruit young people who had international perspectives. This is the market problem. In addition, there was the accreditation, and the accreditation has been a wonderful accelerator, facilitator and prescriber.”

Interview 2

Finally, despite seemingly being competitors, accreditation associations are connected. Business schools are often members of several accreditation agencies, and “competitors” often invite representatives of other accreditation agencies to their own events. These interconnections not only lead to the transfer of members but also of regulations. Accreditation agencies learn from and inspire each other at both international and national levels. Thus, the same regulations can appear under different hats in different communities.

“I copied a lot, well, not copied. I took great inspiration from what was going on [to build a national accreditation].”

Interview 1

To summarize, the case suggests that the acceleration of the institutionalization curve proposed by Lawrence et al. (2001) is related to the rhetorical and practical shift operated by EQUIS [see Table 2 and Figure 2]. The historical CDA indicates that even though the rules themselves do not express any specific demands, the context in which they are elaborated and the common characteristics of the accredited schools increase the legitimacy and institutionalization power of the EQUIS framework.

Discussion

Our paper investigates the role of accreditation agencies in the institutionalization of soft-regulations. We argue that the institutionalization of business schools’ practices and the institutional role of accreditation agencies cannot be summarized by the competitive advantage of being accredited. The detailed historical approach shows that the institutionalization of soft-regulations is a complex phenomenon, requiring the active involvement of institutional actors and various external factors. Taken all together, our findings summarized into a synthetic model in figure 3, allow us to contribute to research about soft-regulation institutionalization and the convergence of business schools’ practices in several ways.

Orchestrating soft-regulation legitimation strategies

Our findings answer Lawrence et al.’s (2001) call to explore “the link between agents and mechanisms, specifically in terms of what resources or abilities are needed on the part of agents” to deploy soft-regulation mechanisms. The left part of figure 3 exposes the various legitimacy strategies contributing to build trust into the regulations and how they are being embedded in discourses and practices. We observe that the fairness of the process, the coherence of written and spoken discourses and the support services provided are as important as the qualification and networking abilities of individual regulators (Zyzak and Jacobsen 2020) and the validation of the regulations by leaders in the field in building trust and acceptance of the assessment process. In EQUIS case, to foster inclusiveness (Quack, 2009) the mythopoesis strategy shifted from European identity to quality (Bell & Taylor 2005; Lamicq & Jensen, 2003). Accordingly, written discursive mechanisms became essential features of the guidebooks to contribute to rationalization and support’ strategies along with the range of activities proposed by the agency (meetings, advisors, preliminary analysis). These evolutions are aligned with Laurent et al. (2020) who remark that meta-organizations face a dual legitimacy challenge. They need both to appear legitimate in the eye of external actors to attract new members but they also need to remain legitimate in the eye of their current members to sustain their enrollment. Thus, along Schleifer (2019), our findings suggest that the success of soft-regulation legitimacy strategies is tempered by regulators ability to offer a service that gather various common interests. However, common interests are highly impacted by external factors. Ultimately, soft-regulators such as accreditation agencies are similar with business organizations. Their survival and the sustainability of their institutional power of is highly dependent on their ability to read the tendencies in the field and to adapt their strategy toward new threats and opportunities.

Figure 3

EQUIS soft-regulation institutionalization process

EQUIS soft-regulation institutionalization process

*: Multiplicator effect

-> See the list of figures

Elaborating on the soft-regulation institutionalization curve

In investigating accreditors legitimacy strategies, this paper elaborates on Lawrence et al.’s (2001) institutionalization curve based on influence and discipline (see figure 4). This paper takes a different perspective on the beginning of soft-regulation institutionalization which suggests that soft-regulations are external pressures to be internalized (Jacobsson, 2004; Lawrence et al. 2001). Instead, in the case of EQUIS, soft-regulations are rules and practices common to a small group of elite organizations (Phase p). It is the exteriorization of those rules and their institutionalization by the regulator that initiate the soft-regulation institutionalization process (T0).

Then, even though our findings confirm Lawrence et al. (2001) assumption that members are composed of a heterogenic population following different logics, the institutionalization seems to follow a “staggered process” aggregating one group after the other, rather than a “parallel process” targeting several populations at the same time.

Figure 4

Revised soft-regulation institutionalization curve

Revised soft-regulation institutionalization curve

The mechanisms of the temporal dynamics of soft-regulation institutionalization, adapted from Lawrence et al. 2001, p 634

-> See the list of figures

Our empirical fieldwork allows to identify: the pioneer group, elite Europeanized business schools outside Europe, and more largely, accredited members of EQUIS, members of the EFMD community, and schools further away both in terms of geography and prestige. Those groups illustrate the concept of membership levels defended by Finch et al. (2016) and the progression of the institutionalization curve.

The first phase of the institutionalization process (Phase 1) starts with the validation of the regulations by the original targeted group. The acceleration in the second phase (Phase 2) reflects the aggregation of new groups that see a purpose in submitting to the assessment process and analyze their strategy and operations through the framework. As presented in the right part of figure 3, the acceleration is also due to the networking and isomorphic mechanisms of the field (Bell & Taylor, 2005) that allow the framework to extend beyond the boundaries of formal members of the TCI. The third phase (Phase 3) represents the results of the combination of institutional actor strategies with the multiplicator effect. In particular, our case study exposes that the continuous dissemination and internalization of the soft-regulations across the field is due to the embodiment of the regulation by other institutional actors. Thus, the shape of the institutionalization curve based on influence and discipline is not only explained by the strategy of one institutional actor and the aggregation of various membership levels but also by the collective work of various institutional actors.

Measuring the institutional role of accreditation agencies

Finally, our research makes methodological contributions to the study of the institutionalization of soft-regulations. The study of EQUIS guidelines reveals that not only accreditation agencies have developed complex and strategic legitimacy approaches to persuade various groups to accept their framework and services, but also that they serve as an amplifier and promotion platform for specific practices already present, tested and validated in the field. The question then of the convergence of business schools’ practices is less about “if” and more about “how” and “how much” international accreditation agencies contribute to this phenomenon. We argue that there are 3 dimensions to be considered when wanting to measure the institutional influence of accreditation: goals, processes, and operations, and within each dimension, there are subdimensions. In other words, we argue that institutionalization should be studied from a multilevel perspective. From the study of EQUIS guidebooks, we argue that accreditation agencies directly participate in a convergence of the processes, especially as EQUIS regulations intend to impact the structure of the school (Lamicq & Jensen, 2003) (e.g., developing HR management practices, providing career support), then they lead to a certain goals’ convergence (e.g., developing internationalization, corporate relations and research) and finally they may indirectly influence operations (e.g., increasing international partnership and the type of partnership) due to the exposure they give to some practices and field mechanisms favorizing mimetic behaviors. This nuance is important, as it may explain why it is easier to identify membership convergence when focusing on operations (Finch et al., 2016) or goals (Thomas et al. 2014) than field convergence. Ultimately, these three dimensions should be taken into a historical perspective to truly measure the potential influence of accreditations over time.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to address a gap in the literature about the role of accreditors in the institutionalization of business schools’ practices. Its main contribution is a detailed illustration of the mechanisms underlying EQUIS legitimacy strategies, based on a critical discourse analysis of accreditation guidebooks since 1997 and interviews with members of the EQUIS office which allow us to answer Vaara’s (2015) call for “more fine-grained empirical analyses” of “legitimation in and through strategy discourses” (Vaara 2015, p. 17). Building upon the work of other scholars who have pointed to the central role of discourses in institutionalization process, we have studied regulations such as the core standards and criteria, and the various discursive and monitoring mechanisms implemented by the accreditor. In particular we identified the impact of members in the evolution of regulators’ legitimacy strategy, spoken and oral discourses, and services in the transnational community of interest. Importantly, this study also highlights the role of field mechanisms in a multiplicator effect accelerating the dissemination and institutionalization of practices beyond the standards proposed by the accreditors, which explains the discrepancies in the studies about the convergence and divergence of business schools’ practices.

This research emphasizes the need for further multilevel historical studies differentiating goals, processes, practices and membership to add to the understanding of the institutionalization of the business schools’ field. Our study is limited by its focus on one accreditation agency, and we encourage researchers to examine the extent to which the evolution of accredited members affects the diversification of accreditation members in TCIs. We also recognize the need for more mixed methods studies tracking a diversity of practical and rhetorical mechanisms to deepen our understanding of institutional actors. Finally, from a managerial perspective, this research offers a clear view of diverse techniques institutional actors can use to softly persuade organizations to adopt a new regulation or a new practice. Our study encourages institutional actors to develop a large panel of actions and discourses to sustain their influence. And more specifically, our research suggests that an organization that wants to influence a field characterized by a soft-regulation institutionalization process should consider its ability to build regulations that would convey enough trust and benefits to obtain a consensus in the targeted population and to effectively disseminate the regulations. In the case of small but creative organizations or national organizations aiming to become international, cooperation with larger and established membership organizations might be the best way to successfully impact the field.