A cross-border multi-campus business school is a single school with campuses spread across multiple countries or continents, operating within a multitude of cultures, conventions, and contexts—all of which must be coordinated, consolidated, and, above all, competently managed.

There is no shortage of examples. CEIBS and ESSEC both operate campuses across Africa, Asia, and Europe, while SKEMA extends this global reach with additional locations in North and South America. INSEAD concentrates its activities primarily between Asia and Europe, and ESCP—my alma mater and former long-term employer—maintains a distinctly European identity, with campuses in six major cities: Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Turin, and Warsaw. Lastly, my current institution, KLU, runs campuses in Hamburg (Germany) and Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), with further expansions underway in Africa and the Americas.

While a cross-border multi-campus structure offers numerous advantages—such as enabling students to move between locations during their studies under a coordinated and integrated curriculum (unlike the often non-synchronized teaching found in exchange programmes), attracting talent from around the globe, increasing brand visibility across multiple countries, and fostering networks and opportunities for both students and faculty on several continents—it also presents a significant challenge: these schools are inherently complex to manage due to their multi-campus, multi-context, and multi-cultural structure.

Apprehending contexts can be complex—sometimes out of reach

Higher education contexts can vary widely—even between neighbouring countries. Take management education in France versus Germany. In France, private schools are the norm for business careers, and tuition fees are widely accepted. In contrast, Germany still values public universities as more rigorous, and many believe education should be free. These examples already highlight the complexity involved.

Other challenges include differences in faculty salaries, admission criteria, and definitions of part-time study across countries. But the variation goes further, beyond academic systems. Understanding cultural nuances is not always easy—sometimes it feels out of reach.

I recall negotiating my first employment contract in Vietnam. We agreed on a salary, but at signing, I realised salaries there are negotiated net, not gross. I hadn’t even thought to ask. The lesson? Success depends not just on knowing the differences but on asking the right questions. For that, it’s crucial to involve people with deep experience in both cultures.

Additional contextual differences may stem from varying campus sizes within the same institution, often leading to tensions between headquarters and smaller campuses, with both sides feeling misunderstood. Headquarters may push for standardisation, often shaped by their own national norms. Smaller campuses, in contrast, tend to stress cultural specificity and demand greater flexibility. They can easily feel overwhelmed by central processes and may respond with more entrepreneurial approaches.

Campus size also influences national recognition. What counts as “critical mass” varies. French business schools often enrol several thousand students. German schools, however, may have only a few hundred to around a thousand.

To ease these tensions, cross-campus responsibilities can be assigned to local deans or directors. Country-specific projects can sit with central leadership. Open dialogue and cross-cultural training remain powerful tools to build understanding and strengthen cohesion across diverse institutional settings.

Bridging conventions calls for creativity—making the impossible possible

Throughout my multi-campus experience, I’ve often faced challenges aligning national higher education conventions and regulatory frameworks.

In France, b-schools often cap resit exam grades at a pass. This encourages students to prepare thoroughly for the first attempt. In contrast, German law prohibits such capping—grades must reflect actual performance. Similarly, UK accreditation requires external examiners to review another professor’s exams. This clashes with German regulations, which grant professors full autonomy over assessment.

In countries like China or Vietnam, universities may be legally required to include specific courses and content in their curricula, a practice that clashes with the principles of academic freedom and self-governance, which are especially valued in countries such as—yes, you guessed it—Germany.

In my experience, making the seemingly impossible possible often starts with creativity and brainstorming. Open conversations about conflicting regulations usually help. Professors often adapt once they understand the broader context.

For example, German professors eventually accepted UK-style external reviews—voluntarily—once they saw it as peer feedback, not imposed oversight. What first seemed legally impossible became manageable with flexibility. That said, creativity has limits—you must always respect national laws.

Still, when someone says, “This is impossible by law,” don’t stop there. Usually, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

The level of harmonisation required depends on how deeply you want to integrate into another national higher education system. If the goal is a locally recognised degree, stricter compliance is expected.

For example, ESCP London didn’t award a UK degree for years. It felt unusual for students to study in the UK without receiving a local qualification. We solved it through partnership—with City University London—enabling a recognised UK qualification.

Even global schools like INSEAD eventually sought French accreditation, so their PhD graduates could meet national standards to work in French public universities.

Connecting cultures counts on a common tongue—to talk and to teach

Cultural differences in higher education are significant. Grading systems, for example, vary greatly. In France, top marks are rare and exceptional. In the U.S., an A grade is relatively common. This makes academic success hard to compare across cultures.

Expectations also differ. French students may be content with passing. German students often aim for top grades, as a strong GPA is crucial for good jobs. In France, employers tend to value school reputation over individual grades. These differences often create tension in group projects, where students work toward different national goals.

A multicampus environment highlights both the strengths and limits of different cultures. As the old joke goes: in heaven, the police are British, the cooks French, the mechanics German, the lovers Italian, and everything is organised by the Swiss. In hell, the chefs are British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss, the police German, and everything is organised by the Italians.

Despite the stereotypes, the core idea holds—cultural strengths can be leveraged. Germans or Swiss may excel in scheduling questions and logistics; the French and Italians in student life; the British in interdisciplinary research, if that’s a focus. In short, assign tasks to match cultural assets.

For this to succeed, effective communication is key—making English proficiency essential. Intercultural training and staff exchanges help build mutual understanding. While easier within one continent, cross-campus collaboration is equally vital globally.

Language plays a further role: beyond a common working language, the teaching language must be considered. English fosters classroom diversity, while local languages enhance cultural immersion. A sensible compromise may be to use English as the primary teaching language, while strongly encouraging international students to take local language courses to support integration into country and culture.

Managing multiple campuses commands cultural embrace—more than mere experience

Leading a cross-border, multi-campus institution requires a constant balancing act. On one hand, leadership must foster unity and coherence across campuses—streamlining operations and presenting the school as one institution. On the other hand, each campus must retain enough autonomy to remain embedded in its national context—preserving one of the greatest benefits of such structures: authentic cultural and contextual immersion.

To strike this balance, leaders must clearly understand the purpose behind the multi-campus setup. Why does the institution operate in several countries? For example, ESCP aims to develop students’ cultural intelligence by having them rotate across campuses and countries. In contrast, KLU uses its multi-campus presence to support regional capacity building in its traditional strength of logistics leadership. While cross-campus mobility is possible, KLU’s core mission is to prepare students for regional job markets.

International experience is valuable in leading such schools. However, cultural openness is even more critical. A successful dean must embrace the diversity of each campus and manage the tension between standardisation and differentiation. They must actively leverage each location’s strengths. A dean who isn’t curious about other cultures, dislikes travel, or avoids engaging with different environments may struggle—no matter how strong their international background and résumé.

Ultimately, the degree of cultural openness required depends on the school’s vision and the purpose of its multi-campus structure. If the setup primarily serves as a recruitment tool for the main campus, cultural engagement may be secondary. But if the aim is to build a truly global institution, rooted in diverse Cultures, Conventions, and Contexts, then international experience alone is not enough. Leadership must show deep commitment to understanding and integrating all three Cs in practice.

Only then can a dean competently lead a cross-border, multi-campus business school and turn complexity into strength.

About the Author

Andreas Kaplan is a professor of digital transformation and a widely cited authority on the evolving landscape of business schools and higher education, particularly its digitalisation and potential disruption. He has developed deep expertise in the functioning of cross-border multi-campus business schools—beginning with his studies at ESCP, which took him across three countries, followed by his PhD work at INSEAD, a professorship at ESSEC, and several leadership roles at his alma mater, ESCP, most recently as Rector in Berlin and Dean in Paris (Sorbonne Alliance). As President of KLU, he continues to build on this experience by expanding the Germany-based university’s footprint in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

Further reading: Kaplan Andreas (2023) Business Schools post-Covid-19: A Blueprint for Survival, Routledge, New York.

For additional insights, announcements and perspectives about other aspects of Business Education, visit the conversation here.