Business school faculty are asking deans to stop optimizing for Financial Times rankings and journal-only publication metrics, according to results from the 2026 Positive Impact Rating (PIR). The student-led sustainability assessment expanded its framework by collecting more faculty responses, adding a “implementation gap” dimension that measures what schools say versus what they actually do. The PIR reported 1,189 valid faculty responses in 2026, compared with 268 the prior year, and found faculty “stop-responses” overwhelmingly centered on rankings and research performance indicators that faculty say distort internal rewards. Other faculty concerns included cuts to bureaucracy, reduced top-down management, and greater alignment between sustainability commitments and core academic operations. On the start side of the framework, faculty said schools should strengthen external partnerships with industry, NGOs, government, and communities, and embed sustainability and ethics across programs rather than treating them as stand-alone add-ons. For universities, the development signals a growing governance pressure point in professional education: faculty are moving from complaining about metrics to demanding changes in incentive systems tied to institutional strategy.