Few figures have shaped management education in France as profoundly as Jean-Pierre Helfer.

With a career spanning leadership roles at IAE Paris-Sorbonne, Audencia Business School and Excelia Business School, he has combined academic depth with strategic vision. A marketing and strategy scholar, consultant, and prolific author, Jean-Pierre has long been an advocate for connecting institutional purpose with societal good.

In this conversation, he reflects on the evolving notion of impact, the crucial role of the BSIS framework, and the broader responsibilities of business schools in today’s society.

Can you introduce yourself and share your background in business education?

My career in management education has gone through several phases in France. I was the Dean of two public business schools, serving six years at one and thirteen at the other, before becoming Dean of a private business school for seven years. Later, I served as Director of Research at two private business schools, both now BSIS-labelled. I have conducted nearly ten BSIS visits in France on behalf of FNEGE and abroad on behalf of EFMD.

It goes without saying that this involvement, both in scope and duration, has led me to change my views on impact in particular, and on assessments of quality in general.

What were the main reasons that led the schools you have managed to undertake the BSIS assessment?

The three schools in which I have had, and still have, responsibilities underwent BSIS for several closely related reasons. The first was to raise awareness among stakeholders of the school’s roots in its specific geographical area or theme. The second was to strengthen, internally and externally, the shared understanding of impact as a virtue and a value. And finally, BSIS provided an opportunity to gain fresh perspectives on strategy and activities, which have always proved extremely valuable.

In your opinion, what makes the BSIS assessment distinctive compared to international accreditations?

BSIS is unique in comparison with other evaluations, both for institutions and for experts, because it encourages dialogue that does not end with a judgment or an award. Instead, it provides support, guidance, suggestions and recommendations to help an institution develop its strategy, positioning and everyday practices.

This distinctive feature creates exchanges marked by transparency, kindness and, quite often, a genuine sense of complicity. These qualities are not always present in other accreditation processes, and that is what makes BSIS so distinctive and rewarding.

Having conducted several BSIS assessments, what key lessons or takeaways would you highlight for institutions considering undergoing the process?

It might seem presumptuous to say that conducting BSIS visits has changed my own perception of impact, as well as that of the institutions I have visited, but there is some truth in it. BSIS encourages schools to evolve significantly and nurtures a new appetite among experts to understand the consequences of their actions — in other words, their impact.

It is important to note that there are two types of BSIS visits: the initial, when seeking the label for the first time, and the renewal of the label, after three years of the initial assessment.

The initial visit is often a moment of revelation, a kind of opening to questions that had not previously been considered. It is remarkable to see how, during these first exchanges, business schools begin to explore new dimensions of their mission and influence.

For example, we often ask:

• How do your researchers contribute to your institution’s local reputation?
• Before BSIS, did you know the financial impact your school had on its ecosystem?
• Did you measure your contribution to local businesses?

Renewal visits, on the other hand, are moments of reinforcement. The discovery phase has passed, and now it is time to consolidate progress. The first renewal marks a turning point — impact becomes deeply embedded in people’s thinking and actions.

Could you briefly describe what you find most essential in the seven BSIS dimensions?

Drawing on my academic background, I believe that intellectual contributions and research are central to developing a true culture of impact.

I recognise the financial and reputational dimensions that BSIS highlights, but the dimension on intellectual impact (Dimension 4) often brings about the most profound transformation within schools.

The shift from research output to research outcome — that is, from production to impact — is, in my view, BSIS’s most significant contribution. There is a big difference between simply observing research output and defining and measuring its effects.

The academic impact of research was the first to be recognised, even if it is not easy to measure. The educational impact followed, driven by students who push us to evolve. The managerial impact is now at the heart of today’s developments, and in the face of global challenges, it must remain at the forefront.

After all, what are we, and what will we become, if we cannot prove that our research contributes to business practice and societal progress? And societal impact, I am convinced, will soon rise to an equally prominent position.

Why do you think impact measurement is becoming increasingly crucial in business education today?

Modestly, I would suggest that BSIS, and my involvement in it, have helped move institutions from focusing solely on impact to defining their mission.

Business schools must go beyond measuring their influence; they must articulate what they truly bring to society. BSIS enables this additional step. The mission transcends impact — it represents a philosophical dimension, connecting managerial outcomes to societal purpose.

Could you share an example of an impact-related initiative that has inspired you?

I am pleased to mention an innovation introduced at the business school where I currently hold responsibilities, inspired by the idea of local and societal impact.

For many years, the school’s strategy centred on responsibility, environmental awareness and social integration. Over time, these themes became common to most institutions, so we sought to renew our approach while building on that foundation.

We chose to place the theme of water at the heart of our responsibility agenda — exploring it through questions of governance, ethics, sustainability and the idea of water as a common good.

Today, all programmes and research teams are involved in exploring this theme. Water has become a unifying concept, mobilising internal teams and offering new avenues for external recognition. It is one of the most tangible internal effects of BSIS on an institution.

Is there a final thought or message you would like to share?

If I could send a message of hope, it would be to take part in a debate that is becoming increasingly important. Some voices today question the value of education, including those from business schools, suggesting that practice and commitment might replace training.

At the same time, the values of inclusion and diversity — central to our institutions — are facing criticism. I believe BSIS could play a broader role in defending these values and in demonstrating, through evidence, what business schools contribute to their ecosystems and to society.

Why not make BSIS the standard-bearer for management education, demonstrating that business schools not only create impact but also embody responsibility, openness and purpose?

For additional insights, announcements and perspectives about Societal Impact and Business Education, visit the conversation on BSIS.