2023 EQUIS Process Manual Annexes

PROCESS MANUAL
2023
ANNEXES
EFMD accreditation
for international
business schools
e f m dg l obal.org COMMUNITY l EXCELLENCE l IMPACT l PURPOSE

CONTENTS
Page
ANNEX 1 APPLICATION FORM TO EQUIS 3
ANNEX 2 EQUIS DATASHEET 6
ANNEX 3 EQUIS FEE SCHEDULE 19
ANNEX 4 BRIEFING REPORT FORM 22
ANNEX 5 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION FORM 25
ANNEX 6 ASSESSMENT EVALUATION FORM 28
ANNEX 7 EQUIS PEER REVIEW VISIT SCHEDULE – TEMPLATES 31
ANNEX 8 SUPPORTING INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE SELF-
ASSESSMENT REPORT OR SAR ANNEXES 36
ANNEX 9 DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE ONLINE DOCUMENT REPOSITORY 40
ANNEX 10 TEMPLATE FOR THE STUDENT REPORT 46
ANNEX 11 EQUIS QUALITY PROFILE SHEET 53
ANNEX 12 EQUIS CRITERIA EVALUATION FORM 58
ANNEX 13 EQUIS MID-TERM PROGRESS REPORT FORM 84
ANNEX 14 EQUIS ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FORM 89
ANNEX 15 POLICY ON ACCREDITATION OF MULTI-CAMPUS OPERATIONS 96
ANNEX 16 POLICY ON ACCREDITATION OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION 100
ANNEX 17 CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 103
ANNEX 18 CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY 105
ANNEX 19 POLICY AND PUBLICITY GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF THE “EQUIS” BRAND 108
ANNEX 20 APPEALS PROCEDURE 114
ANNEX 21 EQUIS POLICY ON INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND RESTRUCTURING 117
ANNEX 22 SPECIAL RE-ACCREDITATION 122
ANNEX 23 EQUIS POLICY ON RE-ACCREDITATION OF SCHOOLS WITH EFMD PROGRAMME
ACCREDITATION 128
Document Version 2023

Important Notes
1. Privacy
By participating in the EQUIS process, all individuals involved respect the confidentiality of the
information available to them and agree to declare any potential conflict of interest in accordance
with the “Policy on Potential Conflicts of Interest for EFMD Peer Reviewers and Advisors” (see
Annex 18). The only information in the public domain is the list of EQUIS accredited schools
along with the period of accreditation.
All members of the EQUIS decision-making bodies, Peer Reviewers and Advisors are required
to sign a Confidentiality Agreement (see Annex 17) and confirm that there is no conflict of interest
with the School concerned. The School should inform the EQUIS Office when it is aware of any
conflict of interest for any of the proposed Advisors or Peer Review Team members.
EQUIS ensures the confidentiality of data provided to EFMD and processed in the framework of
the EQUIS accreditation system. In comparative benchmarking tools, Schools’ data is only
reported in aggregate, such that no individual schools’ data is identifiable.
Learn more about EFMD privacy policy at https://efmdglobal.org/privacy-policy/.
2. Standards and Criteria Revisions

The EQUIS documents are revised periodically, and it is the responsibility of the School to always
use the latest version of the document. Older versions of the EQUIS document set are only an
acceptable reference with the prior approval from the EQUIS Office. EQUIS documents are
updated annually at the beginning of each calendar year.
3. Peer Reviews
Between May 2020 and December 2022, all Peer Reviews for EQUIS have taken place online.
Schools and Peer Review Teams, together with the EQUIS Office, have developed protocols
and practices such that there is a strong emulation of the in-person efficacy of the Peer Review
Visit.
Peer to peer review is at its core a social process and the EQUIS team at EFMD recognises the
value of in-person meetings.
Scheduling Peer Reviews requires significant lead times to secure the participation of the senior
reviewers required by the EQUIS standard, and as the pandemic severely and differentially
affected travel regulations and parameters worldwide, it was decided that for clarity, security and
safety, all Peer Reviews remained online in 2022.
At the time of writing, Peer Reviews are being scheduled as face to face events again in 2023.
If, however, new variants and outbreaks of the Corona virus affect nations’ and schools’ laws
and restrictions are re-imposed, any face to face meetings can be re-cast as online within a short
notice period.
4. The Online Document Repository (ODR)

Taking best practice from the Online Peer Review Visits, there is now a requirement for all
supplementary data and information to be included in an ‘Online Document Repository’
Previously, such information would have been lodged in the Base Room, where the Peer Review
Teams meet to discuss their work privately. Although a Base Room is still required for the team
when visiting the School, the extra data should be provided electronically and made available to
the Peer Review Team members two weeks before the date of the start of the visit.
The EQUIS Process Manual – Annexes 2

ANNEX 1
Application Form to EQUIS
Application Form to EQUIS 3

The EQUIS Process Manual – Annexes
Application Form
for Entry into EQUIS
EFMD Quality Improvement System
I, the undersigned ___________________________________________________________________ (name)
________________________________________________________________________________ (position)
representative of _________________________________________________________ (name of organisation)
confirm the application of my organisation to go through the EFMD EQUIS process – EFMD Quality
Improvement System.
I confirm the accuracy of the information supplied to EQUIS and agree that my School will pay the EQUIS fees
as specified below. We also confirm that we will accept the accreditation process, the results of this process
and the decisions of EFMD aisbl in respect of the accreditation. EFMD aisbl, its directors, employees and
consultants, dependent or independent, voluntary or not, shall not be liable on a tortious or contractual basis
for any direct or indirect, foreseeable or unforeseeable damages resulting from the accreditation process, the
conception and implementation of the standards, systems or procedures, nor for the accreditation decision.
The afore-mentioned shall also not be liable for the use by the School of the recommendations nor for any
delay in the accreditation process.
I fully understand and agree with EFMD’s general terms and conditions below.
General Terms and Conditions
1. The signatory of this Application Form certifies being a representative who is authorised to commit their
organisation to go through the EQUIS Process.
2. The fees payable for the EQUIS process are defined in the EQUIS Fee Schedule effective at the date of
the submission of this Application Form.
3. The reviewed School will be charged directly by the visiting experts for their travel, accommodation and
other direct expenses for the advisor’s visits, as well as the Peer Review Visit.
4. Invoices and expenses claims shall be paid preferably by bank transfer, free of any bank charges, within
30 days from the end of the month in which the invoice was issued.
5. The fees are exempted from Belgian VAT according to art. 196 Directive 2006/112/CE if the member is
liable to VAT in another country of the European Union (reverse charge), or if the member is established
in a country outside the European Union.
6. In case the School decides unilaterally to stop the process, cancellation must be confirmed in writing.
7. The Belgian law shall apply to any and all disputes arising out of the process. In case of dispute, only the
French-speaking courts of Brussels are competent.
Signature: ___________________________________________________
Date: ________/_______/__________
Stamp of the organisation:

Organisation: .…………………………………………………………………………………….………………………
Department: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Address including Post/Zip Code: …………….……………………………………………..…………………………
…………………………………………...………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
City and Country: ..…………………………………………………………….…………………………………………
Telephone: ……………………………... Fax: ….…………………….….…
VAT Identification Number (please provide for invoicing purposes): ………………………………………….....................

(see art. 5 of General Terms and Conditions on previous page)

ANNEX 2
EQUIS Datasheet
EQUIS Datasheet 6
During their accreditation and re-accreditation processes, Schools submit a multitude of Datasheets,
e.g., Draft Datasheet, Eligibility Datasheet, SAR Datasheet, etc. The following sample Datasheet shows
which information and data is to be provided. Datasheets are submitted via OX, EFMD’s online platform
for data entry. Login data can be obtained via the EQUIS Office or from the School’s Key Account
Manager.
EQUIS Datasheet
Dated:
Updated:
The Datasheet is intended to provide succinct factual information about the School that allows it to be assessed against
the Eligibility criteria. Data about the University, when applicable, should be limited to that strictly necessary to understand
the School. Descriptions should be clear, concrete, concise and compelling. There should be many more facts and data
than opinions. EQUIS will trust the data provided at this stage since it will be checked at a later stage, if applicable. The
document will be limited to sixteen pages. Appendices on multi-campus operations and collaborative provision should only
be included if applicable. Tables 4 and 5 as well as Appendices 1 to 3 do not count against the page limit.
For schools applying to EQUIS for the first time, it should be noted that no additional information provided by the School
besides that contained in the Datasheet will be conveyed to the EQUIS Committee. Once eligible, the School should submit
an updated Datasheet together with the Self-Assessment Report.
For schools applying to EQUIS for re-accreditation, this Datasheet should be completed when starting the re-accreditation
cycle; an updated Datasheet should be submitted together with the Self-Assessment Report.
School and Contact Information

The term “School” is used in the EQUIS process to designate the entity that is applying for EQUIS accreditation, whether
it is a free-standing business school or a faculty, school or department within a university.
Name:
Address:
Website:
EFMD membership status of the applicant School:

• Full:
• Affiliate:
Date of EFMD membership application:
Name of parent Institution (if any):
Contact Information:
Head of School EQUIS Project Leader (if different)
Name:
Job Title:
Tel:
Email:
General Description of the School
Institutional Aspects: Indicate whether it is a public or private institution, whether it is a free-standing business school
or a faculty, school or department within a university.
Year of founding and most significant historical events up to date: Not more than twenty lines.
Non-core Activities: Please list any non-core activities of the School and indicate if and how they complement and
support the School’s core activities. Provide tangible information – see EQUIS Process Manual, Section 3, Stage 5,
Eligibility Criterion 1.d.
EQUIS Datasheet 7
Campus Locations: Please list all the School’s campus locations (see Process Manual Annex 15) and mark the
headquarter campus (if any) by checking the box. If you list two or more campus locations, then you need to fill out Appendix
2 (Multi-Campus Operations) as well.
• Name, City, Country
• Name, City, Country
Management Education Activities not managed by the applicant School: Please describe any activities
related to management education organised under the umbrella of the parent institution which are not managed by the
applicant institution itself.
Organisation and Internal Management System of the School

Describe current internal organisation (divisions, centres, institutes, etc.) including main committees, key academic and
administrative positions – often best expressed diagrammatically. Also, explain the main decision-making processes.
Institutional Autonomy and External Governance System
Strategic and Operational Autonomy: Describe the extent of the autonomy of the School and limits imposed by
legislation, regulations, parent institution or resource availability, with particular reference to financial control, academic
authority for programmes, quality assurance and authority for appointing, promoting and rewarding faculty. Indicate
whether limits represent just theoretical or practical restrictions.
External Governance: Explain how external governance is organised and how external governance bodies (e.g.,
Governing Board, University-Level Executive Committee) are exercising authority over the School.
The Degree Programme Portfolio

Using the Table 4 at the end of this Datasheet, describe the School’s portfolio of degree programmes within the principal
segments: Bachelor, Generalist Master, Specialised Master, Doctoral Programmes, other postgraduate programmes such
as MBAs.
Total number of full-time degree students in the School:

Total number of part-time degree students in the School:
Total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students in the School:
(School should specify the methodology for calculating the FTE student number for their PT students. For FT students,
EQUIS uses 1 FT student = 1 FTE student)
MBA Programmes
For MBA programmes, provide the following additional information about participants:
Programme Name Average years of experience Number of participants with less

than 2 years of experience
Name of the Selected Programme: (not applicable for Schools going through Special Re-accreditation)
The EQUIS process not only takes an overview of the programme portfolio and the management thereof, but it also reviews
one sample programme in depth as a check on the effectiveness of the overall programme portfolio management. The
School should name three of its major programmes as listed in the Table of Degree Programmes from its programme
portfolio (but no programmes abroad) such that there is a variety of programme types, e.g., an undergraduate (Bachelor),
a pre-experience postgraduate (e.g., specialist Master), a post-experience postgraduate (e.g., MBA) programme and a
doctoral (PhD) programme. The proposition will be sent to the EQUIS Office for agreement. One of these programmes will
be chosen as the selected programme by the EQUIS Committee. In case of re-accreditation, the previously selected
programme should normally not be suggested. For schools that hold an EFMD Programme accreditation see Annex 23 of
the Process Manual.
EQUIS Datasheet 8
1.
2.
3.
Faculty
The term «faculty» designates the academic staff. Provide a readily understandable picture of the quality and quantity of
the academic staff available to the School. If you believe that it is extremely difficult to fit your faculty into the typology
below, use your own classification and typology preceded by a clear description of the qualifications, experience and
dedication that apply to each type. Occasional speakers are not considered faculty, even if academically qualified.
Definitions are given below.
Table 1: Faculty (unless specified – FTE – numbers relate to headcount)

Indicator for the Indicator
School for the
School
Core faculty Female Total Number of core faculty with
foreign professional or study
experience
Number of academic staff members Ratio FTE students / FTE core
faculty
Full professors Core faculty hired in last 3
years (FTE)
Associate professors Core faculty departed in last 3
years (FTE)
Assistant professors Adjunct faculty
Other Total number of adjunct faculty
Full-time equivalent (FTE) Full-time equivalent (FTE)
Number holding a doctoral degree Visiting professors in current
year
Number teaching in executive Number from foreign
education courses institutions
Number of non-nationals Number from domestic
institutions
Number of nationalities Teaching and research
assistants
- on short-term contracts
Notes:
1. Core faculty: Qualified academic staff employed on a permanent basis and for whom the institution is the sole or
principal employer. Permanence is indicated by an open-ended contract or by a fixed-term contract of a minimum
of 2 years.
2. Number of non-nationals: Double passport holders should always be counted as nationals, if one of the passports
is the domestic one.
3. Number of core faculty with foreign experience: Number of core faculty (excluding foreign only passport holders)
with significant professional/work experience or study abroad (e.g., a complete degree) which entailed living
abroad for at least one full year (i.e., not made up of part years).
4. Adjunct faculty: Teaching staff for whom the School is not the primary employer or who work for the School on a
part-time basis under a permanent or an occasional contract.
5. Visiting professors in current year: Academic staff that are core faculty at another academic institution and visit
the School to teach for a consecutive period of not less than 2 weeks.
6. In describing the size of the faculty, the “full-time equivalent” (FTE) is the total of faculty contract days divided by
5, assuming that 5 is 100% employment. For example, 5 faculty members with 3-day contracts would be the
equivalent of 3 faculty members with 100% contracts. In this case, the headcount is 5 but the FTE is 3. The FTE
is a useful indicator when a substantial percentage of the faculty have less than full-time contracts. The
percentage of full-time employment refers to the number of contract days in the case of faculty members who are
employed on a part-time basis. A four-day contract is thus the equivalent of 80%.
7. The ratio FTE students / FTE core faculty is calculated by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students by
the number of full-time equivalent core faculty. Calculating the full-time equivalent for students is obviously a
question of reasonable estimation. For instance, the total number of part-time students on a two-year executive
MBA programme can be divided by two to approximate the full-time equivalent. The resulting ratio has, of course,
to be interpreted in the light of other variables such as the contribution of a well-structured non-core faculty.
However, the ratio is useful as one indicator to measure faculty sufficiency.
EQUIS Datasheet 9
Subject or Teaching Areas or Departments
Explain in tabular form how academic staff are organised into departments or areas. Indicate the number of core and
adjunct faculty allocated to each department/area.
Table 2: Departments/Areas and Faculty Allocation
Department/Area Core Faculty Adjunct Faculty

Headcount FTE Headcount FTE
Department/Area 1
Department/Area 2
Department/Area 3
…
Total
Non-Academic Staff
• Staff working in academic programmes or academic departments (FTE):

• Staff working in non-academic support areas (FTE):
Overview of the School’s Research Activities

Provide compelling factual data on the quantity and quality of your School’s research as viewed by EQUIS (see EQUIS
Standards and Criteria). In the following table, please show the numbers of different outputs produced by core faculty
over the past 5 years. Also, please complete Appendix 1.
Table 3: Research Output
Research Type Year t-4 Year t-3 Year t-2 Year t-1 Year t
Academic Research Articles (peer-reviewed)
Practice-Oriented Research Articles
Articles on Pedagogic Development and
Innovation
Papers in academic conferences (peer-reviewed)
Papers in professional conferences
Published Case Studies
Other R&D Publications (peer-reviewed)
Notes:
1. last t represents the latest completed year for which data is available.
2. The items above are a sub-set of the items listed in Table 2 on Research Output of the core faculty in the EQUIS
Standards & Criteria document – Chapter 5.
3. Only include authors who are core faculty members at the time of production.
Faculty Workload: Please provide the average teaching load (on-load teaching only) per capita and year of core faculty
and specify what percentage of their workload is allocated to research, learning and teaching, and service, respectively.
You can specify up to five different workload models and what the criteria for assignment to each category are.
Workload model % allocated % allocated to % allocated to No. of core faculty

to research learning & teaching service
Executive Education
EQUIS does not require schools to have Executive Education activities. If the School does not run Executive Education
activities, simply indicate why and give an indication if you have plans in this respect. If many members of your core faculty
are independently involved in Executive Education while your School is not institutionally involved, it would be helpful to
give a brief idea of the extent of this involvement. EQUIS includes degree programmes (e.g., Executive MBAs) in the
School Degree Programme Portfolio rather than under Executive Education.
EQUIS Datasheet 10
ExecEd excluded by EQUIS Committee

No ExecEd Activity
Number of participant days % delivered by core faculty

Open Programmes
Tailored Programmes
Notes:
1. Please provide figures of the latest year for which data is available.
2. Number of participant days is calculated by adding up for all programmes: (Number of participants x Duration in
days) + (Number of participants x Duration in days) + ….
Example: You have two programmes, one with 100 participants and a duration of 3 days, the other with 2 participants
and a duration of 50 days. Then, the result is 100*3 + 2*50 = 400 and NOT (100 + 2)*(3 + 50) = 5406.
Organisation and Management of Executive Education within the School: Indicate how the Executive
Education unit reports to and interacts with other units of the School. Describe briefly its internal management structure.
Programme Portfolio of Executive Education: Provide a brief idea of the weight of different programmes and
activities: longer vs shorter term, online vs on-site vs blended, etc. Mention some of your most successful non-degree
programmes. If non-degree programmes are delivered in collaboration with other institutions, then you need to provide
further detail in Appendix 3 (Collaborative Provision).
Five principal national clients:
Five principal international clients: in each case, add a few keywords in brackets explaining the international
dimension of the relationship:
Online Learning
Describe how the School employs digital elements to enhance student learning (programmes, target group, learning
platform, technology and tools, learning analytics). Illustrate the different formats in place (e.g., blended learning, hybrid
learning).
Overview of the School’s Financial Management and Performance

Using Table 5 at the end of this Datasheet, provide summary information on the School’s financial situation for the past
five accounting years as well as projections for the following three years. Financial data should be expressed in EUR
(please provide the currency rate used for conversion from local currency). Explain the financial relationship with the parent
institution or university, if applicable.
Financial Risks: Discuss the principal financial risks facing the School (incl. those emanating from the parent institution
or university).
Describe the School’s risk management processes and activities:
National Standing
Describe the School’s positioning in the national environment, including its main competitors and the strategic group to
which it belongs. Indicate at least two clearly defined areas of activity for which the School enjoys significant recognition
for excellence.
Area of Recognition 1:
Area of Recognition 2:
Accreditation or Recognition by National and International Agencies

National:
International:
EQUIS Datasheet 11
International Reputation
Provide factual evidence that the School is known and respected by institutions outside its home country.
Internationalisation
Provide factual evidence on the principal aspects of the School’s international dimension (faculty, student body,
programmes, strategic alliances, international partners, etc.) that has not already been provided.
Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability

Provide factual evidence on the School’s activities in areas of ethics, responsibility and sustainability (strategy, faculty,
programmes, research, infrastructure, operations & administration, community outreach, etc.) that has not already been
provided.
Overview of the Principal Links with the World of Practice

Provide factual evidence on the School’s interaction with the business community (including governance, relevance and
impact, international scope) that has not already been provided.
Partners from the World of Practice: List the School’s most important non-academic partners and describe their
involvement in the School activities. A partner may be listed several times for multiple interactions.
Partner Type of Organisation Interaction Group Type of Interaction
Facilities
Describe the dimension and quality of your campus(es) including residential facilities, library, databases, computer
facilities, etc.
For initial accreditations, the EQUIS Datasheet should be submitted via OX, EFMD’s online platform for data entry. The
official Datasheet at any time will be the last submitted Datasheet.
Non-EFMD members should have started the EFMD membership procedure before submitting a Formal Application for
Entry into the EQUIS process.
For re-accreditations, the EQUIS Datasheet should be submitted via OX, EFMD’s online platform for data entry, at the
latest one year in advance of the expiry date of the School’s current accreditation.
An updated Datasheet should be submitted via OX eight weeks before the start of the Peer Review Visit.
EQUIS Datasheet 12
Table 4: Degree Programme Portfolio

% of programme Duration in months Year in which Collaborative Delivery of Online Does the Primary No. of currently No. of applicants No. offered a place No. of students No. of non-national No. of incoming No. of outgoing
delivered by core programme started provision 1 Learning programme language(s) of enrolled students in this year this year enrolled this year students enrolled exchange students exchange students
faculty require instruction all years of the (new entrants) this year (new this year this year
previous work programme entrants) - not
experience? FT / PT including exchange
Yes/No students
Bachelors
Total
Pre-Experience Masters
Total
Post-Experience Masters
Total
MBAs
Total
Doctoral Programmes
Total
Others
Total
GRAND TOTAL
1 Leave blank if non-collaborative delivery - If the School is engaged in collaborative provision, then Appendix 3 (Collaborative Provision) needs to be filled out as well.
EQUIS Datasheet 13
Table 4a: Distribution of non-national students enrolled this year (new entrants) – not including exchange students:
For Bachelor, Pre and Post Experience Master programme segments, provide numbers for the top 3 most frequent home countries of non-national students.
Segment No. of students %

Bachelor
1.
2.
3.
Other home countries
Total
Pre-Experience Master
1.
2.
3.
Total
Post-Experience Master
1.
2.
3.
Total
EQUIS Datasheet 14
Table 5: Summary Information on the School’s Financial Situation
(All figures in 1000€) Year t-4 Year t-3 Year t-2 Year t-1 Year t Year t+1 Year t+2 Year t+3
Resources / Revenues, of which
- Bachelor / Undergraduate Programmes
- Pre-Experience Master Programmes
- Post-Experience Master Programmes
- MBA Programmes
- Doctoral Programmes
- Executive Education
- Research Income
- Other Earned Income
- Endowment and Investment Income
- Subsidies (e.g., from government or parent
organisation)
- Knowledge Exchange (e.g., Consultancy)
TOTAL INCOME (in 1000€) €- €- €- €- €- €- €- €-
Expenses, of which
- Staff Cost
- External Teaching and Teaching Support
- Marketing and Promotion
- Infrastructure-Related Expenses
- Interest Payable and Debt Servicing
- Contribution to Parent Institution
- Other Expenses
TOTAL EXPENSES (in 1000€) €- €- €- €- €- €- €- €-
Annual Surplus (in 1000€) €- €- €- €- €- €- €- €-
Currency rate used for conversion:

(The last year for which complete data is available = “Year t”) If you want to provide data for academic years rather than calendar years, then t is the year the academic session starts.
EQUIS Datasheet 15
Appendix 1: Research Output (two last completed years)
Academic Research: List the names of academic journals and numbers of publications of the core faculty for the two
last completed years. Journals should be ranked according to their relevance for the School (starting with 1 as the highest
category). The same ranking number may be assigned repeatedly to create categories, either decided independently by
the School or using an established national system.
Table 6: Academic Research Output Ranking
Rank Journal Name No. of Pubs. Comment

1
1
1
…
Ranks can be assigned to individual journals or journal groupings; publication numbers need to be provided for individual
journals. Add rows, as necessary. Use the Comment column to define rank categories further (optional).
Practice-Oriented Research: Provide summary statistics describing the practice-oriented research of the core
faculty for the two last completed years and that also reflect how the School evaluates its quality.
Table 7: Practice-Oriented Research Output Classification
Category No. of Comment

Pubs.
Categories represent ranked and unranked publication types as used by the School (e.g., books, case studies, newspaper
articles, etc.) when recording practice-oriented research activity. Add rows, as necessary. Use the Comment column to
describe quality within each category; add additional text below this table to discuss quality across the entire portfolio of
practice-oriented research.
EQUIS Datasheet 16
Appendix 2: Multi-Campus Operations (delete if not applicable)

A campus is defined as a geographical location used for the regular and on-going delivery of degree or non-degree
education even if the delivery itself takes place in temporary premises. Please refer to Annex 15 of the EQUIS Process
Manual Annexes for further details on Multi-Campus Operations.
Not applicable
Management and Oversight: Describe management systems as well as governance and quality assurance
mechanisms established to manage the campus network (incl. coordination and resource sharing across campus
locations).
Campus Activities: For each campus location, fill out the table below by adding figures available for the last completed
academic or calendar year (add tables 8b, 8c etc as needed).
Table 8a: <Name of location> (founded in: <Year>)*
1. Programmes
1.1. Degree Programmes
Degree Designation Student FTE Student FTE Non-Nationals FTE Mobility
(total) (last intake) Incoming/Outgoing
… … … … …
1.2. Executive Education

Programme Type Number of Participant Days
Programmes
Open Enrolment
Tailored
2. Personnel
2.1. Faculty
Core Faculty FTE Non-nationals FTE
With foreign professional or study experience FTE
Adjunct Faculty FTE
Visiting Faculty FTE
Teaching/Research Assistants FTE
2.2. Staff Support
Academic Areas FTE
Non-Academic Areas FTE
3. Host Organisation (if applicable) **
Institution Nature of Legal/Contractual Relationship
4. Campus Development
Briefly describe activities of further developing the campus location (if any):
* The campus infrastructure should be described in the section Facilities in the main part of the document.
** If the institutional partnership involves collaborative provision, then describe this relationship also in Appendix 3.
Establishment of New Campus Locations, if any: Describe current activities of establishing new campus
locations.
EQUIS Datasheet 17
Appendix 3: Collaborative Provision (delete if not applicable)

Describe the collaborative provision of degree and non-degree education by filling out the table below for each partner
(add tables 9b, 9c etc. as needed) (including partner institutions and the nature of the contractual/legal relationships). Note
that collaborative provision refers to activities carried out in cooperation with other organisations (e.g., dual or joint degree
awards, joint executive education offerings); partnership agreement for international student exchange do not have to be
reported here. Please refer to Annex 16 of the EQUIS Process Manual Annexes for further details on Collaborative
Provision.
Not applicable
Table 9a: Collaboration for <Name of Programme>

Name of Partner Organisation: <Name>
Duration: Start: Expected End:

Legal/Contractual Nature of the
Agreement:
Nature of Collaboration:
Number of students/participants that Total:

have successfully completed the
programme since the start of the
partnership:
Incoming: Outgoing:
Partner’s National Standing:
Partner’s International Reputation:
Partner’s Accreditation Status (if

applicable):
Development Objectives for Next 5
Years:
Further information on Collaborative Provision if this is deemed useful:
EQUIS Datasheet 18
ANNEX 3
EQUIS Fee Schedule
EQUIS Fee Schedule 19

EQUIS FEE SCHEDULE

(2023)
The total fee for the EQUIS process is 64.000 € (5-year accreditation); 56.000 € (3-year
accreditation) or 44.000 € (non-accreditation) for new applications submitted between 1
January 2023 and 31 December 2023. For accredited schools starting the re-accreditation
process between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023, no eligibility fee will be due. The
fee schedule at the time of the (re-)application remains valid throughout that cycle of the
School’s accreditation process.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Application Fee: 12.000 €

Invoiced upon receipt of the Application Form for Entry to EQUIS and Datasheet. This fee
is also payable by Schools entering a re-accreditation cycle.
Eligibility Fee: 12.000 €

Invoiced only upon a positive eligibility decision by the EQUIS Committee.
This fee is charged only to Schools in the initial accreditation cycle, not to those starting a
re-accreditation cycle.
Review Fee: 20.000 €

Invoiced two weeks in advance of the Peer Review Visit.
Accreditation Fee
Invoiced only upon a positive accreditation decision by the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
Ø If (re-) accreditation for 5 years: 20.000 €
Ø If (re-) accreditation for 3 years: 12.000 €
Ø If non-accreditation: 0 €
The accredited schools have 2 options regarding the final payment:
Option 1: The above amount can be paid in annual instalments of 4.000 €.

Option 2: The above amount can be paid at once.

EXPENSES
Travel, lodging and other direct expenses as incurred by EQUIS experts and Peer
Reviewers are to be paid without delay by the institution, on submission of receipts.
Peer Reviewers are advised to book their flights at the earliest opportunity to minimise the
costs to the School. Peer Reviewers should ask approval from the School before ticket
purchase, copying the EQUIS Office, and should endeavour to keep the costs as low as
possible (a maximum of 6000 € is envisaged but cannot be considered as the norm).
CANCELLATION, POSTPONEMENTS, LATE PAYMENTS
Should the School decide to cancel or postpone the Peer Review Visit, the School will be
liable for any non-refundable costs incurred by the Peer Reviewers at that time.
Any postponement, re-scheduling or cancellation of the Peer Review Visit will require the
payment of an administration fee of 1.500 € should this occur more than 6 months in
advance of the planned PRV date. A fee of 5.000 € will be charged should this occur within
6 months of the scheduled PRV date.
To advance in the accreditation process, a School must be up to date in all its payments to
EFMD.

ANNEX 4
Briefing Report Form
Briefing Report Form 22

EQUIS BRIEFING REPORT FORM
BRIEFING REPORT
Name of the School
Name of the EQUIS Expert
Date of the Briefing: DD.MM.YYYY
A. Meeting Schedule for the Online Briefing.

Please include the names and titles of the participants
B. Remarks concerning the School that may complete or facilitate the

comprehension of the Datasheet.
C. Are there any apparent problems of governance?
D. Describe your assessment of satisfaction of the Eligibility Criteria:
1. Institutional Scope
(The report should also include information on non-core activities, if any, and the extent to which
the School engages in these and how they support the School’s core activities)
2. Excellent National Standing
3. International Reputation
4. Breadth of Activities
5. Core Faculty
6. EQUIS Standards and Criteria

The perceived ability to meet the EQUIS Standards & Criteria is the key factor for the EQUIS
Committee in making the decision for eligibility. Has the School a reasonable prospect of
satisfying the EQUIS criteria within the two years of being declared eligible?

E. Developmental Objectives that the School should address:
F. Pre-eligibility with Advisory Service is optional: (please select the School’s choice)
o The School will proceed with the Application for EQUIS Eligibility without the
support of an Advisor.
o The School will take advantage of the EQUIS Advisory Service with a minimum
duration of 1 year.
Recommendations of the briefing expert: (to be completed when no Advisory Service)

• Should eligibility be granted?
• Should Executive Education be included in or excluded from the accreditation?
• Selected Programme (based upon the School’s list of proposed programmes in

the Datasheet)?
Please explain your recommendations
Concluding Remarks:

ANNEX 5
Eligibility Evaluation Form
Eligibility Evaluation Form 25

ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION FORM

EQUIS ADVISORY
ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION
Name of the School
Name of the EQUIS Advisor
Date: DD.MM.YYYY
A. Background information (to be filled out by the EQUIS Office)
Application for Entry: DD.MM.YYYY

Online Briefing: DD.MM.YYYY
Appointment of Advisor: DD.MM.YYYY
B. Describe your interactions with the School

Timing and length of on-site visit(s), other forms of interactions
C. Comment on the effectiveness of external and internal governance
D. Describe your assessment of the satisfaction of EQUIS Eligibility Criteria
1. Institutional Scope
2. Excellent National Standing
3. International Reputation
4. Breadth of Activities
5. Core Faculty
6. EQUIS Standards and Criteria
E. Discuss tangible developments since the School’s entry into the EQUIS process

F. Recommendations
1. Should Eligibility be granted?
2. What are the principal risks?
3. Should Executive Education be included in or excluded from the accreditation?
4. Selected Programme (based on the School’s list of proposed programmes in the

Datasheet)? Please explain your recommendation.

ANNEX 6
Assessment Evaluation Form
Assessment Evaluation Form 28

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION FORM
EQUIS ADVISORY
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION
Name of the School
Name of the EQUIS Advisor
Date: DD.MM.YYYY
A. Background information (to be filled out by the EQUIS Office)
Eligibility Decision: DD.MM.YYYY

Appointment of Advisor: DD.MM.YYYY
Reservations of the EQUIS Committee (if any):

• Reservation 1:
• Reservation 2:
• Reservation 3:
Inclusion or Exclusion of Executive Education in / from the EQUIS accreditation.
Committee’s recommendation on the timing of the Peer Review Visit (if any)
B. Describe your interactions with the School

Timing and length of on-site visit(s), other forms of interactions
C. Describe your assessment of the continued satisfaction of EQUIS Eligibility

Criteria 1-5

D. Comment on the progress re. the reservations identified by the EQUIS Committee
1.
2.
3.
F. Comment on the School’s strengths and weaknesses re. the EQUIS Standards &
Criteria
The advisor should highlight issues that warrant the Peer Review Team’s attention, ideally in a bullet point
format and with only very brief explanations added. If appropriate, two lists for strengths and weaknesses,
respectively, should be provided.
1. Context, Governance & Strategy
2. Programmes
3. Students
4. Faculty
5. Research & Development
6. Executive Education
7. Resources & Administration
8. Internationalisation
9. Ethics, Responsibility & Sustainability
10. Connections with Practice

ANNEX 7
EQUIS Peer Review Visit Schedule – Templates
EQUIS Peer Review Visit Schedule - Templates 31

EQUIS Peer Review Visit Schedule

Template for Initial Peer Review Visits
Please refer to the EQUIS Process Manual (Section 6, items 3-4-5) for detailed guidance on the
setting up of the Peer Review Visit Schedule and focus of the meetings.
Day 0:
19:30 Dinner at hotel in private room for the Peer Review Team
alone to set the visit agenda
Day 1:
09:00-10:30 Initial meeting with the School’s Executive Committee 1½ hours

– see item 5.2 in Section 6 of the EQUIS Process Manual
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:45 External Governance – Representatives of the School’s 1 hour
Governing Body, including for example members of the
University leadership or Board of Trustees
N.B. These should not be the same people as for the initial
meeting
11:45-13:00 The Overall Programme Portfolio 1¼ hours
Associate Dean(s) responsible for overall portfolio and
Programme Directors
13:00-14:00 Lunch – Peer Review Team alone for discussions

14:00-15:00 Executive Education – Director of Executive Education 1 hour
programmes and support staff
15:00-16:00 Faculty Management – Dean, Deputy Dean or Associate 1 hour
Dean of Faculty, Department or Subject Area Heads
16:00-16:15 Break
16:15-17:15 Research – Associate Dean / Director for Research, 1 hour
members of the Research Committee
17:30-18:30 Optional reception and buffet
Day 2:
09:00-10:30 Selected Programme – Programme Director(s) and 1½ hours

Administrators responsible for the programme
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-12:15 Review of Programme Materials 1½ hours
Reading time for the PRT

12:15-13:15 *Students: 2 groups in parallel – From different 1 hour

programmes, to be scheduled in related programme -2 groups of 10-
groups. These groups should include students from the 15 students
Selected Programme and students who contributed to the
Student Report
14:15-15:15 *Faculty: 2 groups in parallel – Randomly selected 1 hour
faculty members: one group of senior faculty and one -2 groups of 8-10
group of junior faculty. These should be different from the faculty members
staff already met
15:15-16:00 Financial Management, Resources and Control – ¾ hour
Managers responsible for budgeting, investments, funding,
risk management and those responsible for other
professional resources in the School (Administration,
Marketing, Facilities)
16:00-16:15 Break
16:15-17:15 *Support services: 2 groups in parallel 1 hour
Group 1: Representatives of student support services – -2 groups in parallel
admissions, marketing, internships, international office,
careers etc.
Group 2: Other support services – Management of non-
academic staff, ICT, facilities, etc.
17:15-18:15 *Connections with Practice and Alumni: 2 groups in 1 hour
parallel -2 groups in parallel
Group 1: Connections with Practice – Representatives of
key partners and clients from the world of practice,
advisory boards, etc.
Group 2: Alumni – Representatives of the Alumni network
In some cases, the School may also invite representatives
from the world of practice and Alumni to the optional
reception and buffet at the end of Day 1
19:30 Dinner at hotel in private room (when the PRT meets
separately to formulate its overall assessment)
Day 3:
09:00-09:45 Site visit: Lecture halls, working group rooms, libraries ¾ hour
etc.
09:45-12:00 Peer Review Team meets separately 2¼ hours
Some of this time may be used for additional meetings at
the request of the PRT
12:00-12:45 Debriefing and feedback to the School by the PRT ¾ hour
12:45-13:30 Optional buffet lunch ¾ hour
* Peer Review Team can be split into 2 sub-teams

EQUIS Peer Review Visit Schedule

Template for Re-accreditation Peer Review Visits
Please refer to the EQUIS Process Manual (Section 6, items 3-4-5) for detailed guidance on the
setting up of the Peer Review Visit Schedule and focus of the meetings.
Day 0:
19:30 Dinner at hotel in private room for the Peer Review Team
alone to set the visit agenda
Day 1:
09:00-10:30 Initial meeting with the School’s Executive Committee 1½ hours

– see item 5.2 in Section 6 of the EQUIS Process Manual
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:45 Development Objectives – with the School’s Executive 1 hour
Committee.
For Schools previously granted 5-year accreditation: Review
of the Development Objectives
For Schools previously granted 3-year accreditation: Review
of progress made in relation to the Areas of Required
Improvement
11:45-12:30 External Governance – Representatives of the School’s ¾ hours
Governing Body, including for example members of the
University leadership or Board of Trustees
N.B. These should not be the same people as for the initial
meeting
13:30-14:45 The Overall Programme Portfolio 1 ¼ hours
Associate Dean(s) responsible for overall portfolio and
Programme Directors
14:45-15:45 Executive Education – Director of Executive Education 1 hour
programmes and support staff
15:45-16:00 Break
16:00-17:00 Faculty Management – Dean of the Faculty or those 1 hour
responsible for faculty management
17:00-18:00 Research – Associate Dean / Director for Research, 1 hour
members of the Research Committee
18:30-19:30 Optional reception and buffet
Day 2:
09:00-10:30 Selected Programme – Programme Director(s) and 1½ hours

Administrators responsible for the programme

This meeting is not required for schools that hold an EFMD

Programme Accreditation, see Annex 23.
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-12:15 Review of Programme Materials 1½ hours
Reading time for the PRT
13:15-14:15 *Students: 2 groups in parallel – From different 1 hour
programmes, to be scheduled in related programme groups. -2 groups of
These groups should include students from the Selected 10-15 students
Programme and students who contributed to the Student
Report
14:15-15:15 *Faculty: 2 groups in parallel – Randomly selected faculty 1 hour
members: one group of senior faculty and one group of junior -2 groups of 8-
faculty members. These should be different from the staff 10 faculty
already met members
15:15-15:45 Break
15:45-16:45 Financial Management, Resources and Control – 1 hour
Managers responsible for budgeting, investments, funding,
risk management and those responsible for other professional
resources in the School (Administration, Marketing, Facilities)
16:45-17:45 Connections with Practice – Representatives of key 1 hour
partners and clients from the world of practice, advisory
boards, etc.
In some cases, the School may prefer to organise this
meeting during the optional reception and buffet at the end of
Day 1
Optional parallel session with Representatives of the Alumni
Network
19:30 Dinner at hotel in private room (when the Peer Review
Team meets separately to formulate its overall
assessment)
Day 3:
09:00-09:45 Site visit: Lecture halls, working group rooms, libraries ¾ hour
etc.
This visit is optional and could be replaced by an
alternative meeting at the discretion of the PRT
09:45-12:00 Peer Review Team meets separately 2 ¼ hours
Some of this time may be used for additional meetings at
the request of the PRT
12:00-12:45 Debriefing and feedback to the School by the PRT ¾ hour
12:45-13:30 Optional buffet lunch ¾ hour
* Peer Review Team can be split into 2 sub-teams

ANNEX 8
Supporting Information & Documents to be provided in

the Self-Assessment Report or SAR Annexes
Supporting Information & Documents to be provided in the Self-Assessment Report 36

SUPPORTING INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS

TO BE PROVIDED IN THE SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT or SAR ANNEXES
(also refer to the EQUIS Standards & Criteria, 2023)
Chapter 1: Context, Governance and Strategy
• History of the School (1-page summary table)
• Organisation Chart showing reporting lines
• Chart showing the Committee structure
Chapter 2: Programmes
• A list of international academic or non-academic partners with an indication of the type

of cooperation (joint degree, student exchange, research collaboration, faculty
exchange, course or programme delivery)
• A table indicating international student enrolment in the School’s various programmes

over the past three years. If appropriate, cross-reference to Chapter 3 “Students”
• A table indicating student exchange flows in the School’s various programmes. If

appropriate, cross-reference to Chapter 3 “Students”
Chapter 3: Students
• A table providing for each programme the numerical data about the selection and
admissions process (applications, offers, enrolment, full-time equivalent in the case of
part-time students)
Note: If the School has filled out Table 4 in the accompanying Datasheet completely, it
is sufficient to insert a reference here: “Please, see Table 4 in the Datasheet for this
information”
• A list of major employers over the past 5 years
• A table describing the outward and inward flows of international exchange students, with
a breakdown by programme, by country of destination or by country of origin, by partner
School, by length of stay
Chapter 4: Faculty
• A summary list of the core faculty indicating academic rank, highest degree, where
degree obtained, nationality, subject area, date of appointment, percentage of full time
engagement in the case of contracts that are less than full time (i.e., 75%, 50%, etc.)

• A table showing faculty staffing levels over the past five years, including the number of
new appointments and the number of departures for each year, with a breakdown by
category or rank
• Distribution of the core faculty by academic department when appropriate
Note: If the School has filled out Table 2 in the accompanying Datasheet completely, it
information”
• A table setting out for the current year the key statistics for the faculty (gender
distribution, age distribution, nationality mix, number of PhDs, etc.)
Chapter 5: Research and Development
• Numerical data on output using the format in Table 2 of the EQUIS Standards and
Criteria document. Explain how research production numbers are placed into a
particular category
• A table listing funds received from research grants, commissioned research or company
sponsorship over the past five years
Chapter 6: Executive Education

• Budgetary information with the breakdown of revenues by open and customised
programmes for the past three years
• Data concerning the number and type of programmes offered, the number of
participants, the number of training days, etc. This information should be presented in
the form of a table
• A list of the School’s key clients in the field of executive education in the past three years
• A list of academic and non-academic partners with an indication of the type of

cooperation (course or programme delivery, digital tool provision, skills development)
Chapter 7: Resources and Administration
• The School’s financial accounts (income statements, statement of financial assets and
liabilities) for the last five years broken down by main activity area as well as the financial
plan for the next three years. Financial data should be expressed in Euro (please provide
the currency rate used for conversion from local currency)
Note: If your School has filled out Table 5 in the accompanying Datasheet completely, it
information”

Chapter 8: Internationalisation
• List of international academic or non-academic partners showing the nature of

relationship such as student exchanges, research collaboration, joint programmes,
course or programme delivery
• The Chapter on Internationalisation should include cross-references to tables included

in other chapters, notably as regards students, faculty and research
Chapter 9: Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability
• Brief description of policies and institutional projects in these areas
• Brief description of student-led projects in these areas
• Approaches to the assessment of ERS
• Examples of community outreach and public service activities
Chapter 10: Connections with Practice

• List of the School’s principal partners and clients from the world of practice indicating the
nature of their relationships (the information must be presented in a sufficiently detailed
form so that the strength and quality of interactions can be evaluated)
Note: If you have listed the School’s most important partners from the world of practice
– together with their type of organisation, their interaction groups and their types of
interaction in the accompanying Datasheet, it is sufficient to insert a reference here:
“Please, see section ‘Partners from the World of Practice’ in the Datasheet for this
information”
• Details of funding when applicable

ANNEX 9
Documents to be provided in the

Online Document Repository
Information and Documents to be provided in the Online Document Repository 40

DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE

ONLINE DOCUMENT REPOSITORY (ODR)
(also refer to the EQUIS Standards & Criteria, 2023)
Basic rules to consider when setting up the repository are the following:
Ø All documents listed below should be made available in the Repository. In addition,
lengthy documents and less essential material may be stored in the ODR instead of
being inserted into the SAR or the SAR Annexes.
Ø The School, remaining the sole owner of the data, should provide easy access to the
ODR (single access point, one login, one password). Access should be possible from
outside the School and its home country.
Ø It should not be necessary to install any software.
Ø The documents should be structured and organised according to the ten Chapters of the
EQUIS Standards & Criteria (see below). A user interface that allows easy navigation of
the documents should be provided.
Ø The ODR should be accessible to the PRT and the EQUIS Office 2 weeks prior to the
start of the review and until the EQUIS Accreditation Board have taken their decision.
Ø Schools are not allowed to track PRT members’ access to the Repository.
Underlined documents should be available in English
Chapter 1: Context, Governance and Strategy

• Documents describing the School’s strategic plans and related policies
• List of members in the School’s Governing Body or Advisory Board (indicating name,
position, organisation, nationality, year of appointment)
Double passport holders should always be counted as nationals, if one of the passports
is the domestic one.
• Cyber Security Policy
• Risk Register
Chapter 2: Programmes
General Programme Portfolio
• Learning and Teaching strategy (provide any available formal documents)
• List of programmes

• For each of the programmes:

- Aims and objectives
- Programme Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
- Curriculum structure and rationale
- List of component courses
• Descriptions of the overall assessment regime and grading system and their relation to
the programme ILOs (provide any available formal documents)
• Teaching evaluation questionnaires for completion by students
• Description or reports of regular programme reviews
• Code of Ethical Conduct or similar document
Note that the word “Programme” refers to the overall degree, e.g., Masters in Marketing, and a programme
normally consists of “courses” (sometimes known as classes or modules), e.g., International Marketing or
Market Research. A programme set is a suite of degree titles which have a common structure and a common
set of core courses and then blocks of specialist courses relating to the specific degree title.
Selected Programme
The term ‘Selected Programme’ refers to the programme chosen for more intensive
assessment during the Self-Assessment and Peer Review. For this programme, the
documents listed below should be made available.
• Programme structure document including:
- Programme objectives and overall ILOs
- Rationale for the programme structure with a table or diagram showing how the
component courses develop academic progression and lead to the attainment of the
programme ILOs
- Methods for measuring and evaluating results vs goals in relation to ILOs
- Quality assurance
• List of component courses including for each:
- ILOs
- Syllabus
- Rubrics
• Descriptions of the assessment regime and grading system
• Access to online material regarding course organisation and delivery
• Teaching evaluations (summary) by students for each course
• Teaching materials and student work: Six courses, three core (mandatory) and three
electives should be selected for sampling and a folder for each course should be
provided. Where possible, at least half the courses should be in English. For
programmes without electives, electives should be replaced by more core courses.
o Teaching materials should be provided for each of the six selected courses to
include the course notes or handouts, case studies, textbooks, journal
readings, videos, projects, other online material.
o Student work should be sampled based on mark or grade schedules or
distributions (list of student names with marks or grades) within the six
selected courses. Note that mark schedules must be provided for each of the
six selected courses. For each of the same six courses selected above, the
following student work should be provided:
• the assignments/exams set
• 6 graded samples of the major assignment (exam, dissertation, project
report, etc.) for each course matching those assignments/exams and
illustrating the range of achievement on the part of the students. The PRT
needs to see the quality of the students’ work and of the
assessment/feedback provided. These 6 scripts should include the highest
mark, the lowest mark and 4 from close to the pass mark for the course
(i.e., marginal scripts). If there are no failed papers, the sample should
consist of the 2 highest and the 4 lowest marks or grades.
• A sample of 12 graded final dissertations or internship reports (as appropriate, e.g.,
Masters theses, undergraduate dissertations or internship reports) should also be
provided, with 3 each with the highest and lowest marks/grades and 6 with mid-level
marks. Doctoral programmes as selected programmes should be supported with a
broader sample of 18 final dissertations and a supplementary sample of publications
documenting the doctoral students’ ability to get their doctoral research published.
Chapter 3: Students
• Documents relating to the selection process: information packs, application forms,
sample of selection interview template, if appropriate, interview reports, test material,
process documents, etc.
• Documents for incoming international students
• A description of the School's Alumni Association, e.g., members, chapters, services,

activities, events, donations, etc. in the past five years. Alumni Directory, if available
• A table showing the profile of each student cohort within the School’s degree
programmes (previous study, age, gender, percentage of international students, etc.).
Also, indicate the average number of years of professional experience for MBAs
• A table for each programme detailing the job placement record of students graduating
in the previous academic year
Chapter 4: Faculty
• Strategic plan for faculty management, development and promotion
• Copies of the Faculty Handbook or other documents setting out the missions, rights
and responsibilities of the faculty
• CVs in English for all the core faculty members including publications over the past five
years (recommended format: 2 pages of CV plus publications list)

Chapter 5: Research and Development
• Materials published during the past year as reported in Table 2 (Articles, Books,
Theses, Reports, Case Studies, Educational materials, etc.)
• Any documents regarding research strategy, policy and processes
• Materials describing research centres or institutes
• Membership of the Research Committee
Chapter 6: Executive Education
• Documents on Executive Education strategy, policy and processes
• Materials describing the various programmes on offer
• The catalogue of public, open courses offered
• Examples of customised programme syllabi
• Examples of course material delivered to participants
Chapter 7: Resources and Administration
• Information distributed to students explaining the documentation facilities and services

available
• Strategy and policies for management and development of staff, e.g., faculty/staff
handbook, new employees’ induction pack, promotion process and criteria
• The School’s risk management guidelines, if available
• Marketing strategy/plan
Chapter 8: Internationalisation
• International strategy and policy documents
• Documents relating to provisions abroad and multi-campus operations
• Documents relating to online provision that specifically targets foreign markets, if

applicable

Chapter 9: Ethics, Sustainability and Responsibility
• Representative selection of educational materials (syllabi, teaching materials,

assessments, etc.)
• Representative selection of research outcomes (published articles, research project

reports, etc.)
• School policies and reports relating to ERS
• Minutes of committee meetings dealing with ERS issues
Chapter 10: Connections with Practice
• Strategy and policy documents relating to the School’s connections with practice
• Evidence, if appropriate, of outputs from the School’s work with its major connections

ANNEX 10
Template for the Student Report
Template for Student Report 46

EQUIS - EFMD Quality Improvement System
Student Report
This report is intended to gather input from students of EQUIS applicant Schools on issues of key
interest in the EQUIS accreditation process. A further description of each criterion listed below can
be found in the document entitled EQUIS Standards and Criteria.
The following questions should be discussed by a sufficiently large and representative group of
students (rather than by a group of student representatives), minimum 15 to maximum 25 students,
ideally coming from a selection of the School’s main programmes and, where appropriate, including
some exchange students.
Students should compile the report without any direct involvement of the School or its
employees. Note that the School should only initiate the process. Then, students should work
on their own without detailed guidance or monitoring by the School or involvement of any
other source of external support (i.e., no selection of students, no conducting of interviews
or editing of the Student Report by the School). During the subsequent meetings with the
Peer Review Team, the students should be prepared to attest to the independence of the
process of producing the Student Report not having been infringed.
The answers should be entered into the boxes below, which can be expanded if necessary.
However, please ensure that the overall report length does not exceed 20 pages.
Participants
Please list the students who participated in the compilation of this report, including their year and
programme of study, as well as whether they hold some student representative position. Briefly
describe the process to select these students.

1. THE SCHOOL AND ITS GOVERNANCE

How is your School perceived by prospective and current students? In your answer, please consider
the following:
o The reputation of the School – both at a national and international level
o Perceived factors that attract students, both national and international, to this School rather
than to its main competitors
o Match between these perceived factors and reality – perceived factors that are not real and
real factors that are not perceived
o The choice of the School’s marketing tools and initiatives towards prospective students, and
its effectiveness
o The key disciplines for which the School is particularly renowned
What formal and informal mechanisms exist for students to participate in the governance of the
School and the quality assurance of its activities?
o Participation of students in governing and advisory committees
o Formal mechanisms for regularly providing feedback
o Channels for providing spontaneous feedback
o Effectiveness of student feedback and involvement in governance
o Extent and frequency of information on School objectives, activities and achievements
2. PROGRAMMES
Make a brief assessment of the programmes offered by the School in terms of:
o The coherence of the programme portfolio: is it clear why the School has selected the
programmes it currently offers and not selected others?
o Clarity of intended learning outcomes and extent of achievement
o Learning methodologies commonly used: their appropriateness and effectiveness
o Managerial and leadership skills as well as future (digital) skills development
o Practical work, project-based work, internships, online/digital learning and teaching

What opportunities exist for students to evaluate the programmes they are taking and to provide
constructive input into programme design or programme updating? How can they signal
o Repetitions in content in different subjects?
o Poor sequencing of subjects?
o Disproportion in relative length of subjects?
o Inadequate prerequisites for specific subjects?
3. STUDENTS
How well are students selected? Please consider
o Clarity and adequacy of selection criteria
o Effectiveness of selection process with respect to intended targets
o Average and dispersion of student quality
o Perceived consequences of student selection at the School
How well are students supported throughout their studies? Please consider
o Access to operational information: schedule, syllabus, pedagogic materials, last minute
changes, etc.
o Counselling services
o Individual learning support (tutorials, coaching)
o Personal development
o Careers advice
o Number of students in classroom
o Accessibility of professors

4. FACULTY
What is the student perception of the quality of the School’s teaching faculty (strengths and
weaknesses)?
o Are they well prepared for class?
o Are they motivated?
o Do they show competence for teaching in online learning environments?
o Do they show actual concern for your learning?
o Does their research or consulting have any impact on your learning?
o Do they convey support for the School and its activities in the classroom?
Process and impact of student assessment of the quality of the faculty:

o What teaching evaluations take place, are they well designed and what impact do they have?
o How and how well are complaints dealt with?
o What is the quality and speed of the feedback that students receive from their assessments?
5. RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION

How well do the School’s facilities support students throughout their studies?
o Campus layout, accessibility in the city, parking, public transportation
o Cafeteria/restaurant, common rooms
o Auditoriums, classrooms, breakout rooms
o Virtual learning environments and digital tools used for teaching
o Residential facilities’ functionality and appearance
o Information and documentation facilities, e.g., libraries, databases, etc.
o Computer facilities and support
o Administrative staff

6. INTERNATIONALISATION
Assess the extent to which the overall student experience is international in focus, for example:
o International content of the programmes
o International experience of faculty
o Foreign visiting faculty (on-campus or virtual)
o Availability of courses in different languages

o Student exchange programmes (on-campus or virtual), opportunities to study abroad
o Mix of national and international students
Support of an International Office

o Orientation to incoming international students and help with overall integration
o Help with housing
o Help with bureaucratic requirements: residence permits, etc.
o Orientation and help to outgoing domestic students
7. ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Describe the opportunities that exist for students to participate in extra-curricular activities and
community outreach programmes with a focus on Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability. What is the
consequent uptake of these activities by students?

To what extent does the School communicate the value of ethical, socially responsible and sustainable
behaviour in the management profession? Does the School show practical concern for this behaviour
on the part of students, faculty and staff while they are at the School?
8. CONNECTIONS WITH PRACTICE

How well connected is the School to the world of practice? How is this brought into the learning
experience for students?
9. Other
In this section, students are free to address other issues that were not covered in the previous
sections.

ANNEX 11
EQUIS Quality Profile Sheet
EQUIS Quality Profile Sheet 53

EQUIS QUALITY PROFILE
Name of the Institution: …………………………………….………….………….
Date of the evaluation: …………………………………………………..………..
The items listed in this Quality Profile are abbreviated versions of those set out in the Criteria
Evaluation Form. The numbering is identical in the two documents. For a full understanding of what
is covered by each criterion, please refer to the document entitled EQUIS Standards and Criteria.
Meets Standard
The School satisfies the EQUIS standard in this area as defined in the Criteria Framework. Most
positive assessments are expected to fall in this broad category. It is not to be interpreted as meaning
that the School is mediocre or that it barely qualifies at a minimum level.
Above Standard
The School demonstrates outstanding quality, well above the level required to satisfy the EQUIS
standard in this area, where it can be considered as example of “best practice.”
Below Standard
The School is judged to be below the threshold of the EQUIS standard in this area.
N/A:
Not considered applicable or relevant to the School concerned.
Note
Decisions on accreditation by the EQUIS Accreditation Board (AB) are not based on counting the
number of Above and Below ticks in the Quality Profile (QP) but on the arguments made within the
Peer Review Report text particularly noting the key EQUIS Standards. While the QP covers all the
EQUIS standards, the key standards are more important to the AB than others. Therefore, it should
not be expected that all the ticks in the QP carry equal weight in the AB’s discussions.

Overall Quality Evaluation

ABOVE MEETS BELOW N/A
standard standard standard
Chap 1 Context, Governance and Strategy
1.1 Environment
1.2 Institutional status
1.3 External governance
1.4 Internal governance
1.5 Autonomy
1.6 Mission, vision and values
1.7 Current strategic positioning
1.8 Strategic direction and objectives
1.9 Strategic process
1.10 Quality assurance
1.11 Internationalisation
1.12 Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability
1.13 Connections with practice
1.14 Digitalisation
Chap 2 Programmes
OVERALL PROGRAMME PORTFOLIO

2.1 Coherence of the School’s portfolio of programmes
2.2 Quality of the programme management systems
2.3 Programme design
2.4 Higher Education skills
2.5 Acquisition of managerial skills
2.6 Programme delivery
2.7 Student assessment
2.8 Quality assurance systems
2.9 International attractiveness
2.10 International outreach
2.12 Relevance of connections with practice
SELECTED SAMPLE PROGRAMME
2.14 Quality of students
2.17 International relevance
2.20 Quality assurance processes
Chap 3 Students
3.1 Target profiles, selection criteria and processes

3.3 Preparation for programme entry
3.4 Support and counselling services
3.5 Personal and professional development
3.6 Career support
3.7 Career placement
3.8 Alumni relations

Chap 4 Faculty
4.1 Core faculty sufficiency

4.2 Quality of core faculty
4.3 Overall faculty mix
4.4 Faculty management systems
4.5 Faculty recruitment and induction
4.6 Faculty appraisal, review and promotion
4.7 Faculty workload management
4.8 Faculty development
Chap 5 Research & Development
5.1 Positioning of research within the School

5.2 Portfolio of research and development activities
5.3 Management of research activities
5.4 Integration of research into faculty workload
5.5 Research output
5.6 Impact of research
5.7 Distinctive expertise
5.8 Development and innovation
5.9 International features of R&D
5.11 Integrity of R&D
5.12 Connections between R&D and the world of practice
Chap 6 Executive Education
6.1 Positioning within the School

6.2 Product portfolio
6.3 Programme Design
6.4 Marketing, Sales and Corporate Relations
6.5 Digital integration
6.6 Participant management
6.7 Quality of open programmes
6.8 Quality of customised programmes
6.9 Measurement of impact
6.10 Faculty
6.11 Research and Development
Chap 7 Resources and Administration
7.1 On-Campus facilities and the learning environment

7.2 Financial performance
7.3 Financial management
7.4 Risk management
7.5 Information and documentation facilities
7.6 Computing facilities
7.7 Marketing and Public Relations
7.8 Administrative services and staff
Chap 8 Internationalisation
8.1 International strategy

8.2 International positioning
8.3 International dimension in the School’s governance
8.4 Resources allocated to internationalisation
8.5 Level of internationalisation on the home campus
8.6 Level of internationalisation outside the home country
8.7 International alliances and partnerships
8.8 International connections with practice
REPEATS OF ASSESSMENTS FROM OTHER CHAPTERS
1.11 Context, governance and strategy
2.9 Programme Portfolio – international attractiveness
2.10 Programme Portfolio – international outreach
2.17 Selected programme – international relevance
3.9 Students – internationalisation
4.9 Faculty – internationalisation
6.10 Executive Education – internationalisation
Chap 9 Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability
9.1 Strategy re. ethics, responsibility and sustainability

9.2 Internal management systems
9.3 Contributions to the wider community
9.4 Community outreach activities (local and global)
9.5 Contribution to and from the world of practice
2.11 Overall programme portfolio
2.18 Selected sample programme
3.10 Students
4.10 Faculty
5.10 Research & Development
6.11 Executive Education
7.9 Resources and Administration
Chap 10 Connections with Practice
10.1 Strategy relating to connections with practice

10.2 Customer orientation
10.3 National links to the world of practice
10.5 International links to the world of practice
10.6 Impact of connections to the world of practice
2.12 Programme Portfolio – relevance
2.19 Selected programme – relevance
3.11 Students
4.11 Faculty
5.12 R&D and the world of practice
The shaded boxes in chapters 8, 9 and 10 are a repeat from other chapters.

ANNEX 12
EQUIS Criteria Evaluation Form
EQUIS Criteria Evaluation Form 58

EQUIS CRITERIA EVALUATION FORM
This Evaluation Form is intended to be a working document for Peer Reviewers to help them
build up their assessment of the School during the review. It will also serve as a basis for
the drafting of the Peer Review Report following the visit.
A fuller description of each criterion listed below can be found in the document entitled
EQUIS Standards and Criteria, which should be read in conjunction with this checklist.
1. CONTEXT, GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY
COMMENTS
1.1 Environment
• Understanding by the School of the
environment in which it operates
• Legitimacy within the national

environment
• Response of the School to an education

market being reshaped by digital
technologies
1.2 Institutional status

• Clarity of the School’s legal and
institutional status
1.3 External governance

• Effectiveness of the School’s external
governance system
• Quality of the School’s relationship with

its parent organisation or tutelary body
• Input from external stakeholders into the

governance system
e.g., Does the School have external

Advisory Committees?

1.4 Internal governance

• Effectiveness of the School’s internal
organisational structures and decision-
making processes
• Internal stakeholder involvement in the

governance system (e.g., students,
faculty, staff)
• Coherence between external governance

and internal decision making structures
1.5 Autonomy
• Degree of independence from parent
body
o Does the School have reasonable
control over its own destiny?
1.6 Mission, vision and values

• Appropriateness of the mission statement
• Coherent vision of the School’s future
• Strength of the School’s values and

culture
• Shared sense of mission and vision

throughout the School
1.7 Current strategic positioning

• Credibility of the School’s present
positioning
• Understanding of the School’s

competitive positioning in the market
(e.g., strategic group)
• Realistic SWOT analysis
• Strategic and tactical role of online or

blended forms of teaching

1.8 Strategic direction and objectives

• Clarity of the strategic direction for the
future (e.g., long term goals)
• Definition of medium-term strategic

objectives
• Match between strategic objectives and

resources/constraints
o Is this credible?
1.9 Strategic process

• Inclusive strategic planning process
• Explicit strategic plan for achievement of

the strategic objectives
o Are there appropriate metrics and
timeframes within the plan?
• Recognition of strategic risks (including

the challenges of digitalisation)
1.10 Quality assurance

• Effective quality assurance mechanisms
to monitor overall School performance
• Involvement of students in quality

assurance processes
• Integration of the international dimension
into the School’s governance, strategy
and culture
• Role of digitalisation in the School’s

internationalisation strategy

• Role of ERS in mission and vision
• Explicit strategy in place, which is broadly

communicated
• Adequate resources allocated in support

of strategy
• Role of digitalisation in the School’s ERS

strategy

• Integration of the corporate dimension
into the School’s governance, strategy
and culture
• Participation of practitioners from outside

the School (business leaders,
entrepreneurs, business-government
policy developers) in its governance
structures
• Existence of an explicit policy for

managing its interface with the world of
practice relevant to the School’s mission
• Role of digitalisation in the School’s

connections with practice
1.14 Digitalisation
• The use of digitalisation as an integral,
enabling factor
• Digitalisation strategy
• Cyber security protection
2. PROGRAMMES
OVERALL PROGRAMME PORTFOLIO

2.1 Coherence of the School’s portfolio of programmes
• Fit with overall strategic objectives
• Balance of programme offerings at

different degree levels
• Role of online and distance learning
• Balance of programme offerings with

different delivery modes

2.2 Quality of the programme management systems

• Quality of programme management
and administrative teams
• Clear division of responsibilities
• Processes for allocating faculty to

programmes

• Programme design and revision
processes
• Appropriateness of objectives and

intended learning outcomes (ILOs)
• Programme content and coverage

(incl. knowledge, skills and
competencies required in a digitalised
world)
• Programme innovation (incl.

opportunities to experience
technologies to prepare for the future
workplace, e.g., artificial intelligence)
2.4 Higher Education skills

• Integration of general education
objectives
o Conceptualisation
o Data analysis
o Critical thinking
o … etc.
2.5 Acquisition of managerial skills

• Opportunities to develop managerial
skills
o Teamwork
o Presentation skills
o … etc.
• Opportunities for practical work,

project-based work and internships
within the programmes


• Nature and quality of delivery methods
• Focus on learning in addition to

teaching
• Use of modern learning technologies
• Quality of course information

• Clarity of assessment methods and
their links to ILOs
• Rigour of the assessment regime

(including online assessment)
• Pass rates and completion rates

appropriate to the degree levels
2.8 Quality assurance systems

• Committee structures
• Approval processes for new

programmes and programme revisions
• Monitoring teaching quality
• Monitoring of assessment processes
• Operational and periodic review
2.9 International attractiveness

• Positioning of the programmes in
international markets
• Compatibility with other international

systems, e.g., the Bologna reforms
• International content of the

programmes
• Availability of courses in other

international languages, e.g., English,
Spanish
• Opportunities and acceptance of study

abroad, e.g., through student
exchange programmes or internships

2.10 International outreach

• Quality of international partners
• Joint programmes delivered with

international partners
• Quality (assurance) of operations

abroad, joint or franchised operations
(where appropriate)

• Adequacy of coverage in programmes’
design processes, curricular contents
and assessments

• Inclusion of perspectives from practice
in the definition of learning objectives
and into curriculum design
• Practitioner input into the programmes

(learning objectives, curriculum design,
etc.)
• Satisfaction of practitioners with

School’s programmes and graduates
• Extent of practitioner input into the

delivery of the School’s programmes
• Existence of joint programmes with

practitioners (taught, online)
SELECTED SAMPLE PROGRAMME

• Definition of objectives and learning
outcomes
• Programme content linked to ILOs
• Programme innovation
• Balance of academic and practical

skills


• Quality of admission processes
• Quality of student intake

• Quality of teaching
• Use of modern learning technologies

• Clarity of assessment methods and
their links to ILOs
• Match of the academic depth and
rigour of the assessment process with
the level of degree being reviewed
• Quality of student work in:

o Assignments and exams
o Theses or project reports
• Pass rates and completion rates

2.17 International relevance
• International perspective (international
mix of students, international mix of
faculty, international content, study or
work abroad opportunities/acceptance)

• Adequacy of coverage in programme
design, delivery and outcomes
• Appropriateness of ILOs and adequacy

of coverage in assessments

• Inclusion of perspectives from practice
in the definition of learning objectives
and into curriculum design
• Practitioner input into the programmes

(learning objectives, curriculum design)

• Satisfaction of practitioners with

School’s programmes and graduates
• Extent of practitioner input into the

delivery of the School’s programmes
• Existence of joint programmes with

practitioners (taught, online)
2.20 Quality assurance processes

• Approval processes for programme
revisions
• Monitoring teaching quality
• Monitoring assessment processes
• Operational and periodic review
3. STUDENTS
3.1 Target profiles, selection criteria and processes

• Appropriateness of target profiles
• Student admission and selection processes

o How appropriate are the selection
criteria?
o How selective is the School?
o What is the quality of the Admission
processes?
• Match between intake profiles and the target

profile for graduating students
3.2 Quality of Students
• Quality of incoming students
o Motivation and commitment
o Preparedness for the study programme
o Diversity of backgrounds
o Access for socially disadvantaged
students
3.3 Preparation for programme entry

• Processes used to prepare students in
advance of their entry into their programme of
study

3.4 Support and counselling services

• Counselling services for students as they
progress through their programme
• Individualised learning support for students

o Tutorials
o Coaching
3.5 Personal and professional development

• Support for the personal development of
students
o Do the School’s programmes and
processes encourage personal
development?
o Does the School help students to
develop professionally?
o Does the School have staff
experienced in providing this type of
support?
3.6 Career support

• Quality of the Careers office
o What is the level of support provided to
students to help define their career
objectives and in their search for
employment?
• Availability of detailed records concerning the

placement of students in the job market
3.7 Career placement

• Appropriate level of entry into the job market for
graduating students
o Do employment opportunities meet
students’ expectations?
3.8 Alumni relations

• Quality of the School’s relations with its Alumni
o Does the School use the potential of its
alumni base adequately?
• Internationalisation of the student body
• Readiness of students to manage in an

international context
o How well does the School develop
individuals as future international
managers?

§ Managerial skills
§ Language skills
§ Inter-cultural skills
• Service provided to international students

o Does the School have an international
office?

• Policies to ensure and support a growing
inclusive and diverse student body
• Integration into personal development
• School and faculty support for student

engagement, including extra curricular activities

• Influence of connections from the world of
practice on student selection
• Extent of practitioners’ assistance with student

related activities (monitoring, shadowing,
company visits, organised events, etc.)
• Level of input from practitioners in advising

students in career aspirations (corporate life,
start-up advice, etc.)
• Extent to which student and graduate

satisfaction with the input they receive from the
world of practice is captured
4. FACULTY
4.1 Core faculty sufficiency
• Size of the core faculty
o Is the current size of the core
faculty adequate for the number of
students and the range of
programmes?
o Ratio of core faculty members to
full-time students
• Profile of the core faculty

o coverage of the principal
management disciplines
o adequate range of educational
competences (including
competences to teach online)

o adequate range of research

competences
o gender mix
4.2 Quality of core faculty

• Qualification of the faculty
o Doctoral qualification
o Relevant business/professional
experience
o Research activity
4.3 Overall faculty mix

• Quality of the non-core faculty (part-time,
adjunct, practitioners, etc.)
• Adequacy of total available resources

including non-core faculty and practitioners
• Is there an appropriate balance in the

distribution of teaching loads between core
and non-core faculty?
4.4 Faculty management systems

• Faculty management systems
o Are there formal processes for the
management of the faculty?
4.5 Faculty recruitment and induction

• Recruitment policies and processes
• Induction processes
4.6 Faculty appraisal, review and promotion

• Appraisal and review policies and
processes
• Clear promotion criteria

4.7 Faculty workload management

• Processes for workload allocation
• Appropriate balance between teaching,

research and service to School
4.8 Faculty development

• Opportunities to develop nationally and
internationally
• Conference attendance
• Sabbatical leave
• Internationalisation of the faculty
• International visiting faculty
• International standing of the faculty

o Is the faculty of a sufficient quality
to meet the international standards
of management education?

• Integration into faculty development
• Adequacy of recognition and support

provided by the School for faculty’s
community and public engagement

• Connections between the faculty and the
world of practice (through consulting,
executive education, Board membership,
etc.)
• Sufficiency of faculty exposure to the world

of practice as it relates to their subject to
ensure the professional relevance of the
School’s programmes
• Engagement of practising managers as

part of the faculty complement

• Extent of support in School’s policies with

respect to consulting by individual faculty
• Level of faculty engagement in consulting
5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Positioning of research within the School
• Clearly stated policy regarding research,
development and innovation
• Alignment of research and development

with School strategy
• Existence of a research culture within the

School
Is research a shared value?
5.2 Portfolio of research and development activities

• Relative emphasis on
o Academic output
o Practice-oriented production
o Pedagogical development
o Other
5.3 Management of research activities

• Effective organisation and management of
the School’s research activities
• Adequacy of support processes and

resources
o Funding
o Research director
o Research committee
o etc.
• Effective processes for evaluating research

activity and output

5.4 Integration of research into faculty workload

• Sufficient time allocated to research within
faculty workloads
• Research incentives
5.5 Research output

• Nature, quality and quantity of the research
output (see Research Table in EQUIS
Standards & Criteria p. 45)
• Proportion of research-active core faculty
5.6 Impact of research

• Contribution of research to the relevance
and quality of the School’s programmes
• External impact measures
• Impact on world of practice
5.7 Distinctive expertise

• Areas of expertise
5.8 Development and innovation

• Explicit policy regarding development
(innovation, modern technologies, new
delivery modes)
• Achievements regarding innovation and

creative development

• International scope and recognition of R&D

5.10 Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability and R&D

• Contributions to research and development
and their impact on the School’s
constituencies
• Sufficient funding for research themes

related to ERS
• Evidence of research policies
5.11 Integrity of R&D

• Fundamental principles of research
integrity
• Mechanisms in place to provide assurance

of good practices
5.12 Connections between R&D and the world of practice

• Relevance of School’s R&D to its
practitioner markets
• R&D activities that are sponsored by
companies, policy organisations, not for
profit organisations, entrepreneurs
• R&D activities (research projects, cases,
etc.) initiatives run in collaboration with the
above
• Contribution to thought leadership about

the increasingly digital nature of business
and society
• Pedagogic research and innovations in

teaching and learning methods, and the
use of digital technologies (e.g., research
on or use of analytics, artificial intelligence
and online teaching methods to improve
student experience and learning)
• Extent of direct input into the work of
research centres/projects
• Existence of any joint research centres
• Extent of consultancy missions that involve
a R&D dimension
• Existence of practitioner-involved
deliverables (joint articles, artifacts, reports,
seminars, webinars, new taught/online
programmes, commercialisations, start-
ups, incubators & accelerators)

6. EXECUTIVE EDUCATION
6.1 Positioning within the School
• Integration of Executive Education into the
School’s overall strategy and programme
portfolio
• Integration of the Executive Education

activity within the School’s organisation
chart and management systems
• Resources dedicated exclusively to

Executive Education
o Teaching and admin. staff
o On site facilities and digital tools
6.2 Product portfolio

• Coherence of the Executive Education
portfolio
• Market positioning of the Executive

Education offer
o Understanding of market needs
• Underpinning key expertise

• Design process for open and customised
programmes
• Programme delivery methods
6.4 Marketing, Sales and Customer Relations

• Key areas of expertise
• Quality of the customer relationship

management
• Distinction between customers as

organisations and customers as individual
participants
• Marketing
• Sales

6.5 Digital integration

• Digital integration in the portfolio of
programmes and services
6.6 Participant management

• Quality of participant management
o Selection
o Preparation
o Individualised support
• Understanding of the adult learning

process
6.7 Quality of open programmes

• Quality of open programmes
o Design
o Delivery
o Evaluation and review
o Innovation
o Use of modern technologies
o Responsiveness to corporate needs
6.8 Quality of customised programmes

• Ability to design and deliver programmes in
collaboration with companies and
organisations
6.9 Measurement of impact

• Measurement of the impact of learning on
individuals and organisations
6.10 Faculty
• Adequacy of faculty resources (including
both core and non-core faculty) available
for Executive Education
• Nature and extent of core faculty

involvement in Executive Education
• Effective management of faculty resources

deployed in Executive Education

6.11 Research and Development

• Impact of the School’s R&D potential on
Executive Education
• International development of Executive
Education

• Integration into Executive Education
offerings
• Evidence of impact of EE in relation to ERS
7. RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION

7.1 On-Campus facilities and the learning environment
• Quality of the learning environment
o Campus and buildings
o Cafeteria and restaurant facilities
o Student common room facilities
o Adequacy of the auditoriums,
classrooms, breakout rooms, etc.
o Virtual learning environment and
digital tools used for learning
7.2 Financial performance

• Adequacy of the School’s financial
resources to achieve strategic objectives
• Financial viability of the School
o Are there any major risks in the
near future?

7.3 Financial management

• Effectiveness of the School’s financial
management systems
7.4 Risk management

• Effectiveness of the School’s risk
management activities
• Major risks threatening the School’s

viability in financial or academic terms
7.5 Information and documentation facilities

• Adequacy of the information and
documentation facilities (library, data
bases, research support systems, inter-
library loan services, etc.)
7.6 Computing facilities

• Adequacy of the computer facilities and
services, including availability of electronic
learning platforms
7.7 Marketing Strategy

• Effectiveness of the School’s Marketing
Strategy
7.8 Administrative services and staff

• Administrative staff
o Overall quality
o Human Resource policy
o Management

• Integration into infrastructure planning and
management
• Integration into operations and

administration

• Demonstration of the School’s advancing

inclusion, respect for diversity and the well-
being of all in its management policies
• School engagement in related staff training

and development

• Nature and extent of staff (academic and
professional) support for the School’s
strategy for connections with practice
• Extent of non-staff budgets to support the

School’s strategy for connections with
practice
8. INTERNATIONALISATION
8.1 International strategy
• Well-defined strategy and policies for
internationalisation
8.2 International positioning

• Level of competitiveness and recognition of
the School in international markets
8.3 International dimension in the School’s governance

• Presence of an international dimension in
the School’s governance system
o Governing Body
o International Advisory Boards
8.4 Resources allocated to internationalisation

• Funding
• International office/staff
• Director of international affairs

8.5 Level of internationalisation on the home campus

• Intercultural mix of students/exchanges
• Intercultural mix of faculty/visiting
• International perspective in its programmes
and learning resources (incl. virtual student
exchanges, online classes)
• International dimension in the School’s
research and development activity
8.6 Level of internationalisation outside the home country

• Level of internationalisation outside the
home country (exchange students abroad,
faculty mobility, joint programmes, off-
campus operations – both face-to-face
and/or virtual)
8.7 International alliances and partnerships

• Quality of the School’s international
academic partners
• International strategic alliances (e.g., joint
programmes)
• Exchange programme network
• Participation in international networks
8.8 International connections with practice

• Existence of explicit strategy for
connections with practice that are based
outside the primary geographic location of
the School
• Extent and nature of international

connections with practice
• Contribution of digitalisation to connections

with practice outside the home country
9. ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

9.1 Strategy re. ethics, responsibility and sustainability
Strategy for development of ERS
• Incorporation of ERS into the overall
strategy of the School
• Integration of ERS into core activities

9.2 Internal management systems

• Management policies to support the
implementation of sustainability practices
• Evidence of progress in sustainable

operations via metrics and appropriate
control systems
9.3 Contributions to the wider community

• Integration of ERS into contributions to
academic community, business community
and wider society
• Services related to ERS for the

management profession
9.4 Community outreach activities (local and global)

• Adequacy of School’s community outreach
and public engagement activities
• Level of engagement of the School’s

faculty, staff, students and alumni in
outreach activities
• Coverage in School communications
• The School’s commitment to the global

environmental protection agenda
9.5 Contribution to ERS to and from the world of practice

• The role that connections with the world of
practice play in the ERS agenda of the
School
• The extent to which the School engages

with ERS-related policy and practitioner
bodies to support and progress its ERS
agenda
• The extent to which the School embraces

and open eco-system and participates in
co-creation of knowledge taking
advantages of possibilities offered by
digitalised work environments in academia
and business

10. CONNECTIONS WITH PRACTICE

10.1 Strategy relating to connections with practice
• Existence of strategies, policies and
processes for the effective management of
the School’s connections to the world of
practice
• Strategic developments in the work and

activities of the School that deliver
increased connections to the world of
practice
10.2 Customer orientation

• Systematic management of connections to
the world of practice (systems, processes,
people)
• The extent to which the School’s work and

activities develop student understanding of
the practice and impact of business and
management through interaction with a
range of organisational and societal
stakeholders
10.3 National links to the world of practice

• Nature and quality of the connections at
local and national level
• Extent to which national connections

influence the work of the School (Faculty,
students)
• Extent to which national connections are

influenced by the work of the School
10.4 Ethics, responsibility and sustainability

• The role of connections to the world of
practice in enhancing the Schools’ efforts
to internationalise and take forward its ERS
agenda
• Application of ERS based standards in the

assessment of the practice-related
activities and relationships
10.5 International links to the world of practice

• Nature and quality of the connections at
local and international level
• Extent to which international connections

influence the work of the School (faculty,
students, programme content and delivery)

• Extent to which international connections

are influenced by the work of the School
10.6 Impact of Connections with world of practice to and from the School
• The level of impact of the School’s work
and activities on organisational and societal
stakeholders
• Extent to which the world of practice

impacts on the School’s academic
activities, in both education and research
11. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Recommendation for EQUIS accreditation: 5-year accreditation:
Please mark the recommendation with an X 3-year accreditation:
Non-accreditation:
Areas of Required Improvement in case of 3-

year accreditation
Strengths Weaknesses

ANNEX 13
EQUIS Mid-Term Progress Report Form
EQUIS Mid-Term Progress Report Form 84

EQUIS MID-TERM PROGRESS REPORT FORM
Name of the School:
Date of Accreditation Decision:
Development Objectives:
Mid-Term Progress Report:
Due Date: Day/Month/Year
Submitted: Day/Month/Year
Feedback Provided: Day/Month/Year
Overall Assessment of Progress:
Above Expectations Meets Expectations Below Expectations Not Acceptable

(Information above added by EFMD Quality Services)
Guidelines:
• The School should be aware that the achievement of progress is a particularly important dimension in re-
accreditation decisions of the EQUIS Accreditation Board. The Accreditation Board may deny re-
accreditation if the School has shown insufficient effort in addressing the Development Objectives and no
tangible progress has been achieved.
• The EQUIS Mid-Term Progress Report Form represents a living document enabling business schools to
record any relevant changes and initiatives relating to the Development Objectives within the EQUIS
system. This report, including the feedback, is an important part of the documentation received by the
Peer Review Team for re-accreditation.
• The School will receive a customised Progress Report Form as soon as the Development Objectives have
been agreed with the EQUIS Office following the EQUIS Accreditation Board decision. Only this
customised form may be used for progress reporting by adding text in the appropriate boxes. When
completing the form, please do not delete any sections and do not change the formatting of this template.
• The School is expected to address the headings of each text box with a succinct but informative summary
of developments. It is essential that all arguments are supported by factual evidence and that the
effectiveness of developmental initiatives is described based on their tangible impact. The length of the
report should not exceed 15 pages.
• The School may support its arguments with internal documents, which can be added as appendices. This
option should however be used very selectively. The School should be aware that the next Peer Review
Team will receive past Progress Reports without any appendices.
• A formal overall rating for each Development Objective of the Progress Report will be given. The rating
categories are:
o Above Expectations: The School is making significant progress. At the present state and given the
evidence presented, the School is expected to meet the Development Objective to the full satisfaction
of the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
o Meets Expectations: The report is sufficiently detailed and demonstrates that the School is making
sufficient progress. At the present state and given the evidence presented, there is a reasonable
chance that the School will be able to meet the Development Objective to the full satisfaction of the
EQUIS Accreditation Board.
o Below Expectations: The report shows that the School is making insufficient progress in addressing
the Development Objective. At the present state and given the evidence presented, the School is
unlikely to satisfy the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
• In addition, a formal overall rating of the whole report is provided.
o Above Expectations: Overall progress exceeds the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board
o Meets Expectations: Overall progress meets the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board
o Below Expectations: Overall progress fails to meet the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation
Board
o The report may be deemed Not Acceptable if it is excessively vague and lacks factual support in key
areas. In this case, the School is asked to revise and resubmit the Progress Report within 4 weeks
after receiving the initial feedback.

MID-TERM PROGRESS REPORT Year XXXX
Strategic Developments within the School

Description of strategic developments within the School
Add text here…
Feedback from the EQUIS Office
Development Objective 1 <Description added by EQUIS Office>

Description of progress towards the Development Objective
Please mention general developments relevant for the development objective as well as specific
initiatives and developments (milestones and achievements)
Add text here…
Feedback from the EQUIS Office:
Above expectations Meets expectations Below expectations

Add text here…

Add text here…

Other Developments
Description of Other (Relevant) Developments
Add text here…
Overall Feedback: Conclusions and Recommendations year XXXX

EFMD Feedback
Feedback added by EFMD Quality Services…

ANNEX 14
EQUIS Annual Progress Report Form
EQUIS Annual Progress Report Form 89

EQUIS ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FORM
Name of the School:
Date of Accreditation Decision:
Areas of Required Improvement:
Progress Report 1:
Progress Report 2:

(Information above added by EFMD Quality Services)
Guidelines:
• The School should be aware that the achievement of progress is a particularly important dimension in re-
accreditation decisions of the EQUIS Accreditation Board. The Accreditation Board may deny re-
accreditation if the School has shown insufficient effort in addressing the Areas of Required Improvement
and no tangible progress has been achieved.
• The EQUIS Annual Progress Report Form represents a living document enabling business schools to
record any relevant changes and initiatives relating to the Areas of Required Improvement within the
EQUIS system. These reports, including the feedback, are an important part of the documentation
received by the Peer Review Team for re-accreditation. In the first year, plans for action should be stated
at minimum and, in the second year, tangible progress must be reported and backed by factual evidence.
• The School will receive a customised Progress Report Form at least 9 months prior to the submission
deadline. Only this customised form may be used for progress reporting by adding text in the appropriate

boxes. When completing the form, please do not delete any sections and do not change the formatting of
this template.
• The School is expected to address the headings of each text box with a succinct but informative summary
of developments. It is essential that all arguments are supported by factual evidence and that the
effectiveness of developmental initiatives is evaluated based on their tangible impact. the length of each
report should not exceed 10 pages.
• The School may support its arguments with internal documents, which can be added as appendices. This
option should however be used very selectively. The School should be aware that the next Peer Review
Team will receive past Progress Reports without any appendices.
• A formal overall rating for each Area of Required Improvement of the Progress Report will be given. The
rating categories are:
o Above Expectations: The School is making significant progress. At the present state and given the
evidence presented, the School is expected to meet the Area Required of Improvement to the full
satisfaction of the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
o Meets Expectations: The report is sufficiently detailed and demonstrates that the School is making
sufficient progress. At the present state and given the evidence presented, there is a reasonable
chance that the School will be able to meet the Area of Required Improvement to the full satisfaction
of the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
o Below Expectations: The report shows that the School is making insufficient progress in addressing
the Area of Required Improvement. At the present state and given the evidence presented, the
School is unlikely to satisfy the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board.
• In addition, a formal overall rating of the whole report is provided.
o Above Expectations: Overall progress exceeds the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board
o Meets Expectations: Overall progress meets the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation Board
o Below Expectations: Overall progress fails to meet the expectations of the EQUIS Accreditation
Board
o The report may be deemed Not Acceptable if it is excessively vague and lacks factual support in key
areas. In this case, the School is asked to revise and resubmit the Progress Report within 4 weeks
after receiving the initial feedback.

FIRST PROGRESS REPORT Year XXXX

Add text here…
Area of Required Improvement 1 <Description added by EQUIS Office>

Description of progress towards the Area of Required Improvement
Please mention general developments relevant for the area of required improvement as well as
specific initiatives and developments (milestones and achievements)
Add text here…

Add text here…

Add text here…

Other Developments
Add text here…
Overall Feedback, Conclusions and Recommendations year XXXX

EFMD Feedback

SECOND PROGRESS REPORT Year XXXX

Add text here…

Add text here…

Add text here…

Add text here…

Other Developments
Add text here…
Overall Feedback, Conclusions and REcommendations year XXXX

EFMD Feedback

ANNEX 15
Policy on Accreditation of Multi-Campus Operations
Policy on Accreditation of Multi-Campus Operations 96

Policy on Accreditation of Multi-Campus Operations
An increasing number of business schools maintain more than one physical campus
location. It is also foreseeable that situations may be encountered where it becomes
increasingly difficult to assess what the “home campus” is or whether there actually is one.
Multi-campus operations imply that business school resources and activities are spread
across a network of different campus locations, thereby adding an additional layer of
complexity to the provision of management education.
Business schools apply different management approaches to the oversight of satellite

campuses ranging from tight control exercised by headquarters to some form of arm’s length
relationship. The operations found at a satellite campus may therefore closely mirror the
situation found on the home campus or, at the other extreme, may resemble a parent-
controlled but distinct business school.
Given that quality may differ within a business school’s campus network, the EQUIS process
must include a review of the School’s activities at different campus locations, the linkages
between them, the degree of managerial and operational independence granted to them,
and the form of control exercised by headquarters.
Policy for the EQUIS process
The EQUIS process evaluates the whole School and its overall provision and not particular
campus locations or activities. Wholly or majority-owned satellite campuses will be included
in the accreditation process and therefore cannot be excluded by the School. Campuses
embedded in joint ventures based on an equal partnership with another institution can be
considered majority-owned for the purpose of this policy, if the School can document that it
effectively controls the campus operation.
Conversely, campuses for which the School is not the majority owner cannot be included in
the accreditation and are not covered by this policy. The School nevertheless needs to
supply sufficiently detailed information on minority-owned campuses so that the Peer
Review Team can understand and evaluate the potential quality implications of these
activities for the part of the School covered by the accreditation.
For the purposes of this policy, a campus is defined as a physical location used for the
regular and on-going production of academic output. This will for instance exclude
administrative offices in foreign countries staffed by administrative personnel, which are
used for liaison with local stakeholders or recruitment of students. It will however include
any permanent operation used for the delivery of degree and non-degree education even if
the delivery itself takes place in temporary premises such as hotel conference facilities.

The Accreditation Board may, in exceptional circumstances, limit accreditation to specified

campuses. This is only feasible if the brand of these campuses can be completely
differentiated from the accredited part of the School. It must be noted that the inclusion of a
satellite campus will increase the risk of non-accreditation if the quality of its resources and
activities do not meet EQUIS standards.
Accredited schools should note that the addition of a new campus may represent a major
institutional change (see Annex 21: EQUIS Policy on Institutional Change and
Restructuring).
Policy on multi-campus operations

1. A school that is requesting accreditation must include all its campuses as defined by this
policy.
2. The School must describe all campus operations (including minority partners) in full as
an appendix to the Self-Assessment Report. An informative summary must also be
provided in addition to the Datasheet. The description must include:
a. Description of activities conducted at each campus location (e.g., degree

programmes and non-degree education delivered at each location). This
includes a description of how the satellite campus contributes to the strategic
objectives of the School.
b. Local resource support (e.g., faculty, academic/non-academic support
personnel) for each campus location as well as resource sharing policies and
practices within the School’s campus network.
c. Policies, management processes and governance mechanisms in place to
control campus activities and to ensure formal coordination of activities within
the campus network, evidence of their effectiveness.
d. Policies, management processes and governance mechanisms in place to
ensure the provision of proper academic quality and to encourage a
commonality of academic culture within the School’s campus network,
evidence of their effectiveness.
e. Financial performance of campus satellites and potential risks emanating from
different campus locations.
f. Development objectives, strategies and milestones for the School’s campus
network (e.g., plans of opening new campus locations, plans of expanding
educational offerings at different campuses, local faculty development plans).
The Online Document Repository must include policy documents, minutes, data and
further evidence to substantiate the coverage of points a. – f. in the Self-Assessment
Report.
3. All data regularly requested for the Datasheet, Self-Assessment Report and Online
Document Repository must be presented in aggregated form as well as for each campus
location separately.
4. If the School operates several campuses with major activity (in terms of faculty and staff
assigned to the campus, student/participant numbers in degree and non-degree
provision, or income generated), then the main location of the Peer Review Visit can vary
across accreditation cycles. The decision about where the Peer Review Visit will take
place will be taken by the EQUIS Office after consultation with the School.
5. The Peer Review Visit may involve additional campuses at the discretion of the EQUIS
Office, which may request further information.
a. Additional campus visits may for example be required if:

i. a School going through initial accreditation operates several campuses;
ii. a School going through re-accreditation has added a campus since the last
Peer Review Visit;
iii. on-site resourcing (e.g., faculty, academic and non-academic staff, physical
infrastructure) varies within the School’s campus network.
b. Peer Review Visits will normally be limited to a maximum of three locations with e.g.,
the full team conducting the major part of the review at the main campus and sub-
teams of two reviewers visiting the other campuses.
c. Separate schedules for the additional visits need to be agreed in advance.
d. Visits to any additional campuses must take place prior to the visit to the main
campus.
6. When deemed appropriate, a Peer Review Visit may include online sessions with
participants located at other campuses, to enhance the Peer Review Team’s
understanding whether standards and criteria are met.
7. Once the Accreditation Board has confirmed accreditation, the use of the EQUIS label
and logo will only be permitted for activities conducted out on campuses included in the
accreditation. Non-compliance may lead to the loss of accreditation. The EQUIS Office
may conduct periodic checks, which may potentially involve campus visits by one of the
Quality Services Directors. The School will be informed of such visits in advance and will
not bear any of the costs.

ANNEX 16
Policy on Accreditation of Collaborative Provision
Policy on Accreditation of Collaborative Provision 100

Policy on Accreditation of
Collaborative Provision
One feature of the increasing excellence in business and management education worldwide
is the delivery of degree programmes in collaboration with partner institutions. The partners
may be in the same country or abroad; they may be academic or non-academic institutions;
they may collaborate in terms of face-to-face, online or blended learning. Research and
programmes of knowledge exchange are also increasingly collaborative. EQUIS
accreditation, as a system that promotes management across borders, welcomes such
developments, which should be embedded and resourced to achieve the delivery of the
School’s strategy in pedagogy and student experience.
In the case of educational programmes, degrees may be awarded solely by one of the
partners, jointly by several partners (joint degrees) or individually by several (typically not
more than two) partners (dual degrees). Collaborative provision is normally regulated by
bilateral agreements. Consortium structures can be set up with a portfolio of bilateral
contracts or may be formally operated as a joint venture.
The form of collaboration can vary ranging from traditional face-to-face learning and
teaching at home or at the partner institution to pure distance delivery. Collaborative
provision may assign the teaching role solely to one of the partners (e.g., the franchisee for
fully franchised programmes) or may be limited to the monitoring of quality assurance
(validation arrangements). In practice, there are often blurred boundaries between delivery
mechanisms.
Collaborative provision implies that the business school requesting EQUIS accreditation is
likely not to fully control the design, delivery and management of the respective degree
programmes. It is therefore necessary to assess during an EQUIS review how collaboration
is impacting quality and therefore indirectly the EQUIS brand.
Policy for the EQUIS process
The EQUIS process evaluates the whole School and not the provision of degree
programmes. The review will include an evaluation of outside contributions to a School’s
programmes, but EQUIS accreditation will not extend to any of the partner institutions
making such a contribution.
Where a School is engaged in collaborative provision, i.e., in programmes where it does not
have complete control over design, content, delivery or assessment, it must nonetheless
demonstrate that there are no detrimental effects on quality compared to fully owned and
controlled activities, e.g., in terms of resourcing, expertise, delivery, student intake quality
and managerial oversight. It is further expected that the School applies the same quality
assurance principles and processes as it does for fully owned and controlled provision.
This policy is particularly concerned with collaborative activities leading to a degree award
by the School requesting EQUIS accreditation or its parent institution. In other words, if a
programme delivered through collaboration is to be awarded accredited status, as part of
the portfolio of an EQUIS School, it cannot be significantly different from the programmes
delivered by the EQUIS accredited School solely. Such differences will affect the
accreditation status of the applicant School. Some forms of collaborative provision (e.g.,
dual degree offerings in support of student outward mobility for the School’s main degree
programmes) have become a mainstay in management education and are therefore unlikely
to warrant special attention under this policy. In contrast, off-campus delivery in cooperation
with a lesser reputed or non-academic partner institution will. It is important, therefore, that
schools seeking to maintain or gain EQUIS accreditation provide evidence of equivalence
of resource and students’ experience.
The Accreditation Board may, in exceptional circumstances, exclude certain parts or all the
School’s collaborative provision if these activities can be completely differentiated from the
accredited part in terms of branding and market reputation. It should be noted that
collaborative provision involving partner institutions of lesser market standing will increase
the risk of non-accreditation. The same applies to arrangements that assign most or all the
academic production to the partner institution, while still leading to a degree award by the
School requesting EQUIS accreditation or its parent.
Policy for accreditation processes which include collaborative provision

1. A School requesting EQUIS accreditation must include all its collaborative activities
as defined by this policy.
2. The School must describe all collaborative activities (including partner institutions) in
full as an appendix to the Self-Assessment Report. It is important to specify the nature
of the activity and any award resulting from collaborative provision, including whether
the award is from either institution or both, or several. Equally important is the
specification of how the collaboration delivers the overall school strategy. An
informative summary of the programmes, their target markets and pedagogic
methods must also be provided in addition to the Datasheet. The Online Document
Repository must include partnership agreements, policy documents, minutes,
(financial) data and any further evidence needed to understand the School’s
collaborative activities.
3. Where collaborative activity is extensive, it may be necessary to extend the period of
the Peer Review to visit a partner institution, interview those responsible for
collaborative activities or interview representatives of partner institutions. The focus
of such reviews will mirror those undertaken at the ‘home’ campus or institution. The
EQUIS Office may request additional information when the Peer Review Visit is
planned. Any extension of the Peer Review Visit schedule needs to be agreed in
advance of the visit to reflect the specific situation of the applicant School.
4. Where the collaborative arrangements for a programme contain a large online
component, a full description of how this reflects the applicant School’s policies and
procedures, learning objectives and learning outcomes, and the monitoring of these
is essential.
5. Once the Accreditation Board has confirmed accreditation, the use of the EQUIS label
and logo will only be permitted on the accredited School’s publicity materials. It will
not be permitted on the partner’s materials or on joint brochures and advertisements,
except where the partner is also EQUIS accredited.
6. Periodically the Quality Services Directors may conduct checks on partner institutions
for collaborative provision. The School will be informed of such visits in advance and
will not bear any of the costs.

ANNEX 17
Confidentiality Agreement
Confidentiality Agreement 103

EFMD - CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

IN RELATION TO:
EQUIS – EFMD QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM
Name of the School under Review:
Date of the Visit:

(delete if not relevant)
I hereby agree to respect the confidentiality of all information provided to me in the context of my
role as a EQUIS Peer Reviewer / Advisor / Expert (delete as appropriate) or as a member of the EQUIS
Accreditation Board / EQUIS Committee (delete as appropriate).
I also agree to declare any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the Policy on Potential
Conflicts of Interest for EFMD Peer Reviewers or the applicable Statutes of EQUIS (delete as
appropriate).
Signature: Date:
NAME
TITLE
ORGANISATION
ADDRESS
Confidentiality Agreement 104

ANNEX 18
Conflict of Interest Policy
Conflict of Interest Policy 105

Policy on Potential Conflicts of Interest

for EFMD Peer Reviewers and Advisors
The credibility and value of EFMD’s quality improvement and accreditation systems depend, inter
alia, on ensuring that there is no bias (real or perceived) in favour of or against a school or
Programme being assessed. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in
the appointment of Peer Reviewers, Advisors, Experts or the work of the Accreditation Board or
Committee members. Since EFMD cannot be aware of all possible causes of potential conflicts of
interest, it must be the responsibility of those volunteering or being invited to be part of the Peer
Review Team for a given School, that work with the School as Experts or Advisors, or that participate
in meetings of the Accreditation Board or Committee to declare any actual or potential conflict of
interest as soon as possible to the EFMD Quality Services (QS) Department or the Chair of the
Accreditation Board or Committee, respectively.
Some sources of potential conflicts of interest may include:
1. The following types of relationships, current or past, with the School or with one of its closest
competitors or collaborators:
• Graduate
• Employee
• Member of the part-time or visiting faculty
• Consultant, advisor or member of an Advisory Board
• Peer Reviewer (in case of an Accreditation Board or Committee Member)
2. A current or past personal conflict with the School or any of its current or recent leaders.
3. Reciprocity: one of the members of the School to be reviewed has in the recent past
assessed the Reviewer’s own home institution either in an EFMD review or in some other
capacity (in case of a Peer Reviewer).
4. Hidden agendas: having been approached by the School to encourage them to volunteer to
be a Peer Reviewer of the School.
5. Any other reason that could be perceived by others to bias the judgement of the Reviewer,
Briefing Expert, Advisor, Accreditation Board or Committee Member, even if they are
confident that this will not be the case.
The extent of the potential conflict of interest depends on the specific circumstances (duration and
intensity of the relationship, time since occurrence, degree of competition or collaboration between
School assessed and the reviewer’s own School, etc.) surrounding the situations described above.
For example, working for one of the several partners of the School to be assessed will not be usually
considered as a source of conflict of interest.
Once the conflict of interest is declared, in case of a Peer Reviewer, the EFMD Quality Services
Department will proceed as follows:
a) When the Peer Reviewer declares a conflict of interest that may be perceived as a potential
source of bias against the School, the Quality Services Department will ask the School to be
assessed for approval, as is done for the local Peer Reviewer.

b) When the Peer Reviewer declares a conflict of interest that may be perceived as a potential
source of bias in favour of the School, the Quality Services Department will determine
whether the Peer Reviewer should be excluded from the specific team.
In case of an Accreditation Board or Committee Member, the respective Chair may ask the member
not to contribute to the discussion of the School or Programme.
Judgement is necessary to find the balance between declaring negligible conflicts of interest and
ensuring that true potential conflicts of interests are declared. Conflicts of interest should be declared
as soon as possible to the member of EFMD making the invitation to participate in the Peer Review
Team for a given School or at the beginning of the meeting of the Accreditation Board or Committee,
respectively. When the source of the conflict of interest needs to be kept confidential, this should
also be made explicit.
The EFMD Quality Services Department will also maintain and regularly update an open register of
the additional external interests of all Quality Services Directors. As these individuals work with
EFMD as part-time consultants, they are likely to be involved in other business school activities.
When these conflict with their QS responsibilities, they will declare the conflict of interest and not
take part in any stage of the accreditation process of the School concerned.

ANNEX 19
Policy and Publicity Guidelines

for the Use of the “EQUIS” Brand
Policy and publicity guidelines for the use of the EQUIS brand 108
POLICY AND PUBLICITY GUIDELINES

FOR THE USE OF THE “EQUIS” BRAND
The EQUIS label is the leading mark of international quality recognition for business schools, and it
allows you to differentiate your school in an increasingly competitive management education market.
It also signifies that your school is part of a global community of peers who continue to grow and
strive towards excellence.
Your achievement deserves acknowledgement across the management development network

worldwide.
In this document, you will learn how best to promote your accomplishment among your stakeholders
and communicate your status in line with the EFMD Global policy.
PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES
The guidelines help ensure that
• publicity about EQUIS is as broad and informative as possible, benefiting your school as well as
the rest of the community of EQUIS-accredited schools;
• you can leverage the value and the recognition of the EQUIS label among your stakeholders;
• the EQUIS label and logo are applied only to schools that are accredited;
• the logo is not applied to partner institutions, except where the partner is also EQUIS accredited;
• all accredited schools apply the EQUIS brand in a consistent way.
PROMOTION OF EQUIS ACCREDITATION
Active promotion of EQUIS accreditation by the member school will help reinforce the positive
reputation of EQUIS.
Schools may start publicising their EQUIS (re-)accreditation as soon as they receive an official notice
(orally or in writing) from the EQUIS office and are contacted by the EFMD Marketing and
Communications department with appropriate guidelines.
The active collaboration of members like yourself in promoting the EQUIS label helps all EQUIS
accredited schools gain the recognition they deserve, enabling them to have a long-lasting and
positive impact. The following are examples of how a school might promote EQUIS accreditation to
its stakeholders:
• Include the “EQUIS Accredited” logo on the accredited school’s homepage with a description of
what EQUIS stands for and a direct link to the EQUIS section of the EFMD website.
• Include the “EQUIS Accredited” logo on all printed and digital material where the accredited
school is mentioned, including brochures, digital banners and stationery, following the below
regulations. The EFMD Marketing & Communications department will provide your School with
a custom-made digital banner that may be used for this purpose.
• Arrange interviews with journalists for your Dean to discuss the accreditation and explain the
value it brings to your School. Highlight the unique added value offered by EQUIS and explain
its key standards and criteria and how this process could bring lasting benefits to the School and
your stakeholders.
• Announce the news to local, national and international media and internet news service
providers.
• Place an advertisement in EFMD’s Global Focus magazine to announce the accreditation.
• Within the School, share the news in the internal mail service with a message addressed to
academic and administrative staff. Moreover, send a message to your key stakeholders,
including students, alumni, recruiters, and business contacts, informing them about the
accreditation and its meaning for the School; include it in internal communication, student and
alumni magazines, distributed in printed or in electronic form.
• Post announcements on the School’s active social media platforms. You may wish to include an
interview with your Dean or the accreditation manager.
• Arrange an announcement for distribution across the School’s network in the form of a special
message from the Dean to institutional partners, recruiters, executive programmes' participants,
and other key contacts. Due to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, EFMD is not able
to provide you with personal contacts of the EFMD member schools’ representatives.
• Use EQUIS accreditation to generate maximum impact for students, ensuring international
recognition of their study programme and qualifications. To this end, it is also important to
develop collective pride, for example, by placing posters or banners around the School or by
having the Dean communicate the news to students verbally. The EQUIS community includes
some of the best schools globally, and students need to understand that it is a significant
achievement for their School to gain this accreditation.
• Mention the value of EQUIS accreditation as a key achievement of the School in external
communications (addressed to applicants, recruiters, media, corporate contacts, etc.).
POLICY FOR PUBLICITY
Public reference to EQUIS accreditation
When making public reference to EQUIS, the School should, where possible, either provide a brief
overview of EQUIS accreditation or provide a reference or link to the EQUIS section on the EFMD
website. EFMD makes a distinction between 5-year and 3-year accreditations. EFMD will provide
this information on its website for all schools that have been accredited or re-accredited.
Use of comments from the Accreditation Board letter
Use of comments from the Accreditation Board's letter is permitted in general terms when the School
is communicating their (re-)accreditation in their internal and external publicity materials. However,
the School may not use explicit extracts from the Accreditation Board letter or attribute comments
made to any individual.
Use of comments from the Peer Review Report
The Peer Review Report may not be published, and no explicit extracts or other data from it may be
quoted in the School’s publicity materials. If the School wishes to share excerpts of the report (e.g.,
for a national accreditation body), it must first receive an agreement from the EQUIS office.
The Peer Review Report may be distributed internally. The Dean or Director of the accredited school
decides who should receive a copy of the report per the School’s approval procedures. This policy
extends to parent institutions (if applicable) and members of any committees or advisory bodies
established by or for the School.
Information contained in the report should never be taken out of context. EFMD requires that the
report should always be distributed as a complete report rather than in summary or extract form.
All recipients should be informed that the report is confidential and that any further distribution of all
or part of the report is not allowed.
USE OF THE EQUIS LOGO – GUIDELINES
Reference to EQUIS accreditation and the EQUIS Accredited logo may feature on any publicity
produced in the name of the accredited School alone. The logo may not be used on co-branded
materials (e.g., programme specification) produced in cooperation with partner institutions abroad or
for off-campus provision. However, such materials may mention EQUIS accreditation within the body
of the text, if it is clearly indicated that the accreditation applies only to one partner school.
Subject to certain restrictions as outlined below, the EQUIS Accredited logo can be used for various
purposes, including marketing materials, presentations, promotional items, event materials, and to
reinforce the School’s corporate identity. It is recommended that when using any of the logos on your
website, a corresponding link should be made to the EFMD homepage (www.efmdglobal.org). EFMD
strongly advises all its members to review the guidelines set out below regarding the terms and
conditions for using the EQUIS Accredited logo.
EQUIS Accredited trademarks consist of the following:
• EQUIS Accredited logo

These trademarks hereinafter referred to as the "EQUIS Accredited logo" represent EFMD Global's
corporate brand identity, and their usage must be strictly managed in a consistent manner to
preserve the quality and integrity of the brand.
The following formats of EQUIS Accredited logo are available on the EFMD website:
• .jpg: High resolution (white background)

• .png: High resolution (transparent background)
• .eps: Please contact the EFMD Communication and Marketing department
EQUIS Accredited logo colours
- The EQUIS Accredited logo can only be used in the original colours or in its off-white version
as represented below. Any other variation of the EQUIS Accredited logo will be at the
discretion of the EFMD Communications and Marketing department.
Primary Colour Secondary Colours
EQUIS Accredited logo, size, protection zone and composition
- If the EQUIS Accredited logo is being used with other company logos or identities, it should be
equal in size to the other logos and placed equally prominently.
- When using the EQUIS accredited logo in communications, there should always be a clear
space between the logo and other elements such as other logos, text or images. Please
respect a 0.5 cm border all around the logo.
- To maintain legibility and consistency when printing, the minimum height of the EQUIS
accredited logo should be 18 mm.
- Do not place the EQUIS Accredited logo over any other graphics or distort the logo in any way.
- Do not use the EQUIS Accredited logo with or as part of another logo or symbol to create a
unique symbol. The EQUIS Accredited logo is distinct and should always stand alone.
- Do not remove any part of the EQUIS Accredited logo.
- Do not add any words or graphics to the EQUIS Accredited logo.
- Do not add any effects or drop shadows to the EQUIS Accredited logo.
If you are not sure which logo to download, please contact the Marketing and
Communications department at [email protected]
ANNEX 20
Appeals Procedure
Appeals Procedure 114

APPEALS PROCEDURE
Against decisions on eligibility,
accreditation and certification
1. A School can present an appeal against decisions on eligibility, accreditation and

certification. The School should notify its intention to appeal by means of a letter
addressed to the President of EFMD not later than one month after the date of the
meeting of the relevant body at which the decision being appealed was made.1
Otherwise, the School will be deemed to have accepted the decision, thereby giving
up any possibility of appeal at a later stage.
2. As soon as the letter notifying the intention to appeal is received, the decision being
appealed will be suspended and the School will return to the status it had before this
decision was made until the appeals process ends.
3. The Institution making an appeal must substantiate its claim that there are grounds
for review beyond a mere expression of disagreement with the decision. It should
submit a detailed statement of its reasons for believing that the decision should be
reversed. This full appeal should be submitted in writing to the President of EFMD
not later than two months after the date of the meeting of the relevant body at which
the decision being appealed was made. The President of EFMD will immediately
forward the appeal to the Chairman of the Board of EFMD.
4. A school failing to proceed as indicated above will be considered to have definitively

renounced its intention to appeal. The suspension of the decision will then be
cancelled, and the decision will be enacted.
5. The Chairman of the Board of EFMD then appoints three members of the EFMD
Board, one of whom will be the Chair, to serve as a special Appeals Committee
mandated to examine the appeal.
6. The Appeals Committee will study the arguments and the supporting material
provided by the Institution and consult as appropriate orally or in writing.
7. The Appeals Committee will first seek to establish whether there are substantive
grounds for reviewing the decision being appealed. Substantive grounds for review
of a decision may be of two kinds:
a) Matters of procedure where it can be demonstrated that the documented

process may not have been respected.
b) Substantiated evidence that the decision was unjustified in the light of the
information made available at the time of the assessment.
1
Decisions to remove the accreditation of a school or programme will not be reflected in the list of accredited schools or
programmes until this one-month period ends.
8. The Appeals Committee does not take a position on the appropriateness of the
decision. It may conclude that there are grounds for review, in which case it requests
that the decision-making body re-examines the case during its next meeting, or that
there were failures in the process and that the process should be repeated from the
stage where the failure occurred. Otherwise, it may conclude that the appeal should
be rejected.
9. The Appeals Committee will communicate its conclusions in writing to the EFMD
Chairman of the Board and to the EFMD President who will inform the School and
the EFMD Quality Services Department not later than 3 months after receipt of the
full, substantiated appeal.
10. When the appeals process ends, the decision reached will become final.
11. If the outcome of the appeals process is that the School is invited to undergo another
Peer Review, the review must take place within 12 months of the appeals decision
and a review fee will be charged at the rate pertaining on the date of that appeals
decision.
12. A deposit of 15.000 € is required when submitting the substantiated appeal. Once the
substantiated appeal document is received, the invoice will be issued. The deposit
will be refunded if the appeal is upheld. If the appeal is rejected, the deposit will be
donated to a charity proposed by the School and agreed by EFMD Quality Services.

ANNEX 21
EQUIS Policy on Institutional Change and Restructuring
EQUIS Policy on Institutional Change and Restructuring 117

EQUIS POLICY
ON INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND RESTRUCTURING
An EQUIS-accredited school or a school declared eligible for EQUIS accreditation may

experience some form of major institutional change. This may be the result of
internal/organic growth (e.g., opening a campus at a foreign location) or external growth
(e.g., acquisition of another school). Institutional change may also be triggered by the School
being absorbed by another organisation (e.g., loss of autonomy from the parent faculty
within the same university) or by an institutional crisis (e.g., financial distress). While
institutional change is in most cases a deliberate process, the latter example illustrates that
it can also be brought upon a school by unforeseen developments.
Institutional change will normally be followed by some form of restructuring, i.e., the
reorganisation of the School’s governance or activities to adjust to the new circumstances.
Again, this may be a deliberate effort (e.g., post-merger integration of an acquired school)
or not (e.g., faculty departing in a distress situation and the School lacking the financial
means to refill these positions).
Institutional change may affect the quality or extent of the School’s activities. Consequently,
the School is advised to inform the EQUIS Office without undue delay if any of the above
instances apply. Notification should be submitted when it can be assumed that institutional
change will occur (rather than when the consequences of institutional change begin to
materialise). The purpose is to provide an opportunity for assessing how to act prudently
with respect to the EQUIS accreditation or eligibility of the School. Failure to submit
notification in a timely manner may lead to the suspension of the School’s EQUIS
accreditation or eligibility at the discretion of the EQUIS Accreditation Board or EQUIS
Committee, respectively. The same applies to cases where the true situation of the School
is misrepresented in the notification or in later communication. If the EQUIS Office receives
information suggesting the presence of institutional change while no notification has been
received from the School, then EQUIS has the responsibility to initiate the review processes
specified in this annex.
This document establishes the policies and procedures related to an institutional change:
• As soon as institutional change can be assumed to lead to a tangible impact on the

School, the Dean or Director writes a letter to the EQUIS Office describing the School’s
situation and future plans.
• An Ad-Hoc Committee involving the EQUIS Director and two additional members of the
Quality Services Leadership will preliminarily determine whether the reported institutional
change is major or minor. For this purpose, the reported development is minor if
a) it is unlikely to affect the quality of the School to require changing its accreditation
status (5-year or 3-year) or its eligibility status, or
b) it alters the institutional scope so moderately that a new accreditation or eligibility
process is clearly not required.
A virtual or a personal meeting with the Dean/Director may be required to clarify or

amplify the information provided.
• If the Ad-Hoc Committee members unanimously agree that the institutional change is
minor, the School will be informed and its next EQUIS re-accreditation or its initial
accreditation will take place as originally contemplated.
• If the Ad-Hoc Committee members do not unanimously agree that the institutional
change is minor, it will be considered major, and the School will be informed that the
process described below will be applied.
• No later than three months after the date on which the major institutional change is
formally implemented, the School must submit an updated Datasheet, via the online
platform, OX, reflecting the new structure and send a brief report (20-25 pages
maximum) to the EQUIS Office, describing the differences between the old and the new
structure of the School as well as the resulting ability of the School to satisfy the EQUIS
Standards & Criteria.
• Within three months of receiving this information, an EQUIS expert will meet online with
the School’s Management Team to assess the situation. This expert will submit a report
to the EQUIS Office. The report should include a recommendation as to whether the new
School still satisfies the EQUIS eligibility criteria.
• The Datasheet, the School’s report on major differences, and the expert’s assessment
report will then be submitted to the EQUIS Accreditation Board or EQUIS Committee
respectively at its next meeting to decide on the accreditation or eligibility status of the
changed School. The decision, made by a simple majority vote of the Accreditation Board
or Committee members attending, can be:
In case of an EQUIS accredited school:

a) Temporary suspension of the School’s EQUIS Accreditation until it undergoes a new
accreditation process.
This decision will be based on one or more of the following reasons:
• The new School is substantially different from the one originally accredited.
• The new School no longer satisfies the EQUIS Eligibility criteria.
• The quality of the new School is perceived to be affected in one or several of the
10 EQUIS quality dimensions.
The School will continue to appear in the list of EQUIS accredited schools with the
label “Accreditation under review due to major institutional change.”
b) Maintenance of the School’s EQUIS Accreditation until its original period of validity
expires; i.e., the Accreditation Board does not accept the Ad-Hoc Committee’s
recommendation that this represents a major institutional change.

In case of an EQUIS eligible school:

a) Loss of the School’s EQUIS Eligibility.
This decision will be based on one or more of the following reasons:
• The new School is substantially different from the one originally declared eligible.
• The new School no longer satisfies the EQUIS Eligibility criteria.
• The quality of the new School is perceived to be affected in one or more of the 10
EQUIS quality dimensions.
b) Maintenance of the School’s EQUIS Eligibility until its original period of validity
expires; i.e., the EQUIS Committee does not accept the Ad-Hoc Committee’s
recommendation that this represents a major institutional change.
• When a School has had its EQUIS Accreditation temporarily suspended by the EQUIS
Accreditation Board, it must go through a new accreditation process as if it had just been
declared eligible, i.e., it will need to go through the Self-Assessment and Peer Review
phases within two years. The EQUIS Accreditation Board may limit this 2-year period to
a period not shorter than 9 months, if it concludes that there is no reason to unnecessarily
delay a re-accreditation that otherwise would have taken place earlier. Successful
accreditation requires that the School fully satisfies all Eligibility criteria at the time of the
Peer Review Visit.
• The EQUIS Accreditation Board will, at the appropriate time, not only decide what
duration of accreditation will be granted but also whether the EQUIS records should show
it as an initial accreditation or as another re-accreditation.
• When a School has lost its EQUIS Eligibility by decision of the EQUIS Committee, it can
restart Stage 3 of the EQUIS process as detailed in the Process Manual. However, it
cannot reapply for Eligibility within 2 years after the Committee decision.
• The procedure described above does not apply to a situation where an accredited School
is forced to officially declare bankruptcy/insolvency or loses its official license for granting
academic degrees. In this case, EQUIS Accreditation or Eligibility is automatically and
permanently suspended.
• If a School in the EQUIS accreditation process reports a Major Institutional Change

between the Peer Review Visit and the corresponding meeting of the EQUIS
Accreditation Board, the following procedure will be put into practice:
1. The Accreditation Board will deal with the case based on the existing Peer Review
Report and the information supplied by the School on re-structuring.
2. If the Accreditation Board’s decision is Accreditation, an Ad-Hoc Committee will
be formed, and the process detailed above will be carried through.
The process described above may accelerate or delay the planned re-accreditation of a
School. For example, a school that was accredited one year ago for 5 years and that is
experiencing a major institutional change in the next 6 months may have to go through a re-
accreditation before the time its last accreditation expires. On the other hand, a School that
was accredited 2 years ago for 3 years and that is experiencing a major institutional change
in the next 6 months may be entitled to postpone its originally planned re-accreditation for
up to one year. The justification for a delay in the latter case is that it may require some time
for the School to appear as a consolidated unit.
Once the Accreditation Board has made the decision to temporarily suspend a School’s
EQUIS accreditation due to a major institutional change, the annual Accreditation Fee for
any remaining period of the previous accreditation will no longer be due. Thus, if paid
annually, no further payments will be due and, if paid in advance, monies paid for the
remaining period will be credited towards any new fees due. Full fees will be charged for the
new cycle, i.e., the Application Fees, the Review Fee and new annual Accreditation Fees
as appropriate.

ANNEX 22
Special Re-accreditation
SPECIAL RE-ACCREDITATION (SR)
1. Preamble
It is assumed that readers of this document are familiar with the EQUIS Process Manual for
regular re-accreditations.
Special Re-accreditation (SR) is an alternative to regular re-accreditation which is available

only to schools that have been EQUIS Accredited for at least three consecutive periods of
5 years.
SR has been developed because of three circumstances:
1. EFMD’s desire to ensure that the value added by EQUIS to its members and the
effort sustained by them is balanced, not only in the initial cycle but also in all
subsequent re-accreditation cycles.
2. The view of a group of Deans of leading schools in Europe, that schools that have
proven three consecutive times to have the highest quality according to EQUIS,
should be entitled to a less “exhaustive” and time-consuming process.
3. EFMD’s view that EQUIS should not be any less demanding on the quality of or grant
unjustified privileges to any school, while remaining able to add value to schools in
different circumstances.
However, it is recognised that, in five years, the quality of a very good school could
deteriorate because, for example, key environmental features could change significantly, a
new Dean could have been appointed, or the School could have suffered unforeseen
internal problems. The role of EQUIS is to assess quality and therefore enhance reputation,
rather than simply assuming that reputation is always based on high quality. Consequently,
regular re-accreditation may be considered desirable under such circumstances and thus
SR is presented as an option. Schools that, for example, have undergone a major
restructuring or have recently appointed a new Dean, may benefit more from the regular re-
accreditation process. While SR incorporates differences in focus and process, it should be
noted that it is not a new category or “rating.”
In summary, SR pursues the following objectives:
• Continue to evaluate the essential quality aspects.

• Analyse progress in development objectives and degree of improvement in quality.
• Continue to add value in a more focused way.
• Make the process more focused and less onerous.
• Continue to provide challenges for continued quality improvement.
• Contribute learning to the community by analysing good practices of those EQUIS
accredited schools that show a longer record of satisfaction of standards.
This is achieved by means of:

• A process that is shorter and less demanding in terms of the quantity of information
required and the length of the visit to the School.
• A process that requires more structured and concise information about the essential
aspects of the School, its progress and its future development.
• A Peer Review Team involving only two experienced Peer Reviewers.
• A process that is less costly for schools from many perspectives.
2. Beginning of the process
Any school that has obtained EQUIS Accreditation for 5 years for at least three consecutive
times will be entitled to opt for SR instead of regular re-accreditation, if its last re-
accreditation was a regular one.
Therefore, any school that has gone through SR must necessarily go through a regular re-
accreditation in the next re-accreditation cycle. This will make sure that every school goes
through a regular re-accreditation at least once every ten years. After this regular re-
accreditation, a school can, again, opt for SR when holding 5-year accreditation.
Any school candidate for SR will be contacted by the EQUIS Office as soon as possible in
the last year before its accreditation expires. This communication will:
• Formally remind the School that its accreditation expires in less than one year,
providing the specific expiration date.
• Inform the School that it is entitled to go through SR, if it chooses to do so.
• Highlight that, if the School opts for SR this time, the next re-accreditation will
necessarily be a regular re-accreditation.
• Inform the School, that if SR is chosen, it will be given the opportunity to suggest
some areas of strategic development that it would like to be the focus of the
assessment during the Peer Review Visit.
• Name, provide links to or enclose EQUIS documents and forms that are relevant to
the School for the SR process in addition to those relevant for a regular re-
accreditation.
• Suggest dates for the Peer Review Visit (ideally 3-4 months – and minimum 10
weeks- before the applicable EQUIS Accreditation Board meeting date).
• Request a response from the School as indicated below, within the next two months.
The response of the School should include:
• Its preference for an SR (including topic(s) of assessment focus) or for a regular re-
accreditation. In the latter case, the School should follow the guidance of the EQUIS
Process Manual for regular re-accreditations and therefore the rest of this document
is not applicable.
• Two dates for the PRV among those suggested, indicating the preferred option.
• A list of the names and positions of all members of the Senior Management or
Executive Team of the School.
The EQUIS Office will inform the School of the selected date for the PRV after consultation
with potential Peer Reviewers.
3. Self-Assessment Report
As soon as the School has sent the response indicated above, it is ready to start its self-
assessment process. The internal organisation of this stage of the process will benefit from
the guidance offered in the EQUIS Process Manual for regular re-accreditations.
The Self-Assessment Report will include:
1. The submission of an updated EQUIS Datasheet via the online platform, OX
and the production of the following two documents:
2. A Report on Major Developments, organised by EQUIS Chapters (10-20 pages).

This will provide information about the major changes and developments in the
School since the last EQUIS accreditation affecting each of the ten EQUIS
dimensions.
In particular, progress on the specific Development Objectives chosen by the School
following its previous re-accreditation should be reported in the corresponding
Chapter(s).
3. A SWOT Analysis and Executive Summary of the School’s 3-5-year Strategic Plan
(10-20 pages).
This should convey a succinct strategic analysis of the School organised as
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, followed by a summary of its
strategy, objectives and time horizons.
Datasheet, Report, and SWOT Analysis and Executive Summary will be considered the Self-
Assessment Report (SAR) in the case of SR. It is expected that the length of the SAR will
not exceed fifty pages.
A Student Report and information on a “Selected Programme” are not required for SR.
Appendices to the SAR should also be limited in line with its more focused and restricted
content. Additional information may be requested by the Peer Review Team after their
preparatory Online Briefing (see item 4 below).
The SAR should be delivered to the EQUIS Office (electronically) and to the members of the
PRT (electronically, and in hard upon their request) eight weeks in advance of the PRV.
4. The PRT and the PRV
The PRT for an SR is composed of two experienced EQUIS Peer Reviewers from different
nationalities, avoiding those corresponding to the country where the main campus of the
School is located. Consequently, the PRT will not include a local or a practitioner Peer
Reviewer. The two members of the PRT will be appointed by EQUIS, one of them acting as
Chair.
The Peer Review Team will work in two phases: the PRT Online Briefing and the Peer
Review Visit (PRV).
The PRT Online Briefing (for the members of the PRT only) will take place after the SR SAR
has been received by the members of the PRT, as soon as the two Peer Reviewers have
had sufficient time to read and analyse it, and not later than 4 weeks before the PRV begins.
It will take place by videoconference, organised by and with the involvement of the EQUIS
Office only.
The purpose of this dialogue will be to discuss the SR SAR provided by the School with the
following specific objectives:
1. Identify any areas of concern detected in any section of the SAR.

2. Decide if more information on any of these areas is needed. This will only be done
when strictly necessary for the PRT.
3. Decide whether such information should be provided in writing before the PRV or
conveyed orally during the PRV.
4. Based on points 2 and 3, list any additional documents to be requested from the
School and prepare the schedule of the PRV, indicating the people to be interviewed,
by name, position or area of responsibility.
If, in rare circumstances, the PRT believes there are indications that the School quality may
have deteriorated to such an extent that it puts its accreditation at risk, the PRT will focus
their visit and the additional documents requested on the areas where significant problems
have been detected.
The Chair will then send a letter to the School, through the EQUIS Office, with a summary
of the conclusions reached, as soon as possible and not later than 3 weeks before the PRV.
This letter will specify:
1. The list of documents or sets of data, if any, to be available in the Online Document
Repository - the PRT will inform the School if the if the additional documents should
be available two weeks in advance of the Review or at the start of the Review.
2. A schedule of the PRV specifying the people to be interviewed during the third half
day of the PRV.
The PRV itself will involve one and a half days at the School. The first half-day will be spent
by the PRT alone while preparing the visit and examining the materials in the Online
Document Repository. The second half-day will be spent interviewing the Dean and the
Executive Team. The third and last half-day will be devoted to interviewing the people that
the schedule of the PRV specifies, if any, who may include again specific members of the
Executive Team. Otherwise, this time will be devoted to discussion between the Peer
Reviewers to agree their conclusions. The PRT will meet the Dean again (or the full
Executive Team at the Dean’s discretion) at the end of the third half-day for a preliminary
oral debriefing. Thereafter, the PRT leaves the School.
The Dean is encouraged, but not required, to join the two Peer Reviewers for lunch or dinner
(depending on the timing of the proposed visit schedule) as it provides an opportunity for
the Dean to discuss their issues of interest. Therefore, delegating attendance if the Dean is
not available, is not expected.
5. Peer Review Report
The Peer Review Report (PRR) will contain:
• A summary general assessment of the School that considers each of the ten EQUIS
quality dimensions.
• The recommendation to the EQUIS Accreditation Board about the re-accreditation of
the School. This recommendation can only be:
a. A justified proposal for re-accreditation for another five years, or
b. A justified request that the School’s current accreditation be extended
temporarily for one year and that the School undergoes as soon as possible a
full regular re-accreditation to be concluded within 12 months.
• An appendix with the Datasheet provided in the SR SAR.
The EQUIS Quality Profile may be used by the Peer Review Team as a working document
to assist in the general assessment of the School but will not form part of the PRR.
The PRR will go through the same process of revision by the School and approval for
presentation as in a regular re-accreditation before it is submitted to the EQUIS Accreditation
Board.
6. Decision on Accreditation
The EQUIS Accreditation Board will decide on the EQUIS accreditation of the School
following the normal process, requiring approval by a simple majority, and using the same
criteria as in any regular re-accreditation. However, under either of the two possible
recommendations by the PRT described above, the decision can only be:
• Re-accreditation for another five years, or

• Temporary extension of the current accreditation for one year, with the requirement
that the School undergoes a full regular re-accreditation to be concluded within 12
months.
7. Fees
If a school opts for SR, it will pay the same Application and (final) Accreditation fees as in a
regular re-accreditation. However, the (main) Review fee will be only 50% of that in a regular
re-accreditation to consider the relative simplicity of the SR process. In those cases, where
the School is not re-accredited for another five years, its (final) Accreditation fee will be just
20%, thus covering the one-year temporary extension of its accreditation.
If a school, by decision of the EQUIS Accreditation Board in a SR, is required to undergo

regular re-accreditation in less than one year, then the Application fee for this regular re-
accreditation will be waived. However, the (main) Review Fee and the (final) Accreditation
fee will be payable in full.
For all parts of the process that are not described here in detail, the process and rules of a
regular Re-accreditation will apply.
ANNEX 23
EQUIS Policy on Re-accreditation of schools

with EFMD Programme Accreditation
EQUIS POLICY ON RE-ACCREDITATION OF
SCHOOLS WITH EFMD PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION
The following regulations only concern schools in the EQUIS re-accreditation process.
Where an EQUIS accredited school already has an EFMD accredited programme, there is
no need for a “Selected Programme” during the EQUIS re-accreditation process to be
determined or assessed. The requirement is that the EFMD accreditation for that specific
programme is still valid within its stated duration at the time of the EQUIS review. Further
process details are described below.
The EQUIS accredited school may, however, opt to have a “Selected Programme” assessed
in the regular way. See process details in the relevant section of the EQUIS Datasheet
(Annex 2).
The School should indicate its preference in the EQUIS datasheet when starting its re-
accreditation process.
If the School makes use of the option, this means in detail that:
• A Selected Programme will not be described in the Self-Assessment Report

• The Peer Review schedule will not contain a session on a Selected Programme (Day 2)
• The Peer Review Report will not contain an assessment of a Selected Programme
• Items 2.13-2.20 of the QP will not be evaluated (ditto in the repeats)
• Criteria 2.13-2.20 of the CEF will not be commented on
• The Online Document Repository will not contain the documents requested for the
assessment of a Selected Programme
• The School, however, will make available the report of the Peer Review of the
programme currently holding EFMD programme accreditation. It is at the discretion of
the EQUIS Peer Review Team to study this report. In case of several accredited
programmes, the EQUIS Office will choose the report.
This process will be replaced in the following re-accreditation cycle by a regular re-
accreditation process that includes a “Selected Programme” unless the cycle is a Special
Re-accreditation (see Annex 22).
Further Information and Contacts
If you have any questions concerning the EQUIS accreditation process, or would like to
receive more information, please consult the EFMD website where all documentation is
available for download:
https://efmdglobal.org/accreditations/business-schools/equis/
Alternatively, you can contact the EFMD Quality Services Office:

[email protected]
For questions regarding OX, contact:

[email protected].
EFMD Global
88 Rue Gachard box 3
1050 Brussels, BELGIUM
P +32 2 629 08 10
F +32 2 629 08 11
VAT BE 411 610 491
efmdglobal.org
[email protected]
EFMD is an international
not-for-profit association (aisbl)

2023 EQUIS Process Manual Annexes

Uploaded by

2023 EQUIS Process Manual Annexes

Uploaded by

PROCESS MANUAL

e f m dg l obal.org COMMUNITY l EXCELLENCE l IMPACT l PURPOSE

Document Version 2023

Learn more about EFMD privacy policy at https://efmdglobal.org/privacy-policy/.

2. Standards and Criteria Revisions

4. The Online Document Repository (ODR)

The EQUIS Process Manual – Annexes 2

Application Form to EQUIS

Application Form to EQUIS 3

EFMD Quality Improvement System

I, the undersigned ___________________________________________________________________ (name)

representative of _________________________________________________________ (name of organisation)

General Terms and Conditions

Stamp of the organisation:

Application Form to EQUIS 4

VAT Identification Number (please provide for invoicing purposes): ………………………………………….....................

Application Form to EQUIS 5

School and Contact Information

EFMD membership status of the applicant School:

Name of parent Institution (if any):

General Description of the School

Organisation and Internal Management System of the School

Institutional Autonomy and External Governance System

The Degree Programme Portfolio

Total number of full-time degree students in the School:

Programme Name Average years of experience Number of participants with less

Table 1: Faculty (unless specified – FTE – numbers relate to headcount)

Table 2: Departments/Areas and Faculty Allocation

Department/Area Core Faculty Adjunct Faculty

• Staff working in academic programmes or academic departments (FTE):

Overview of the School’s Research Activities

Table 3: Research Output

Workload model % allocated % allocated to % allocated to No. of core faculty

ExecEd excluded by EQUIS Committee

Number of participant days % delivered by core faculty

Five principal national clients:

Overview of the School’s Financial Management and Performance

Describe the School’s risk management processes and activities:

Accreditation or Recognition by National and International Agencies

Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability

Overview of the Principal Links with the World of Practice

Partner Type of Organisation Interaction Group Type of Interaction

Table 4: Degree Programme Portfolio

Segment No. of students %

Table 5: Summary Information on the School’s Financial Situation

Currency rate used for conversion:

Appendix 1: Research Output (two last completed years)

Table 6: Academic Research Output Ranking

Rank Journal Name No. of Pubs. Comment

Table 7: Practice-Oriented Research Output Classification

Category No. of Comment

Appendix 2: Multi-Campus Operations (delete if not applicable)

Table 8a: <Name of location> (founded in: <Year>)*

1.2. Executive Education

Appendix 3: Collaborative Provision (delete if not applicable)

Table 9a: Collaboration for <Name of Programme>

Duration: Start: Expected End:

Number of students/participants that Total:

Partner’s National Standing:

Partner’s International Reputation:

Partner’s Accreditation Status (if

Further information on Collaborative Provision if this is deemed useful:

EQUIS Fee Schedule

EQUIS Fee Schedule 19

EQUIS FEE SCHEDULE

Application Fee: 12.000 €

Eligibility Fee: 12.000 €

Review Fee: 20.000 €

The accredited schools have 2 options regarding the final payment:

Option 1: The above amount can be paid in annual instalments of 4.000 €.

EQUIS Fee Schedule 20

CANCELLATION, POSTPONEMENTS, LATE PAYMENTS

EQUIS Fee Schedule 21

Briefing Report Form

Briefing Report Form 22

EQUIS BRIEFING REPORT FORM