| ST | Área temática / Thematic theme | Special Track | Presidentes de Sesión / Session Chairs |
|---|---|---|---|
| ST01 | Business, Society and Sustainability | From Servitization Strategy to Transformative Services in the Digital Era | Isabel Soriano Pinar (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos), Sara Bermejo Olivas (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos) |
| ST02 | Business, Society and Sustainability | How Do We See the Health Management Model Today | Francisco Reyes Santías (Universidad de Vigo) |
| ST03 | Business, Society and Sustainability | Responsible Governance for Sustainable Polycentric Tourism | María Carmen Pardo López (Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo), María Montserrat Cruz Gonzalez (Universidad de Vigo) |
| ST04 | Business, Society and Sustainability | Advancing gender diversity in corporate governance: mechanisms, contexts and outcomes | Silvia Gómez Ansón (Universidad de Oviedo), Inma Martínez García (Universidad de Oviedo) |
| ST05 | Business, Society and Sustainability | Climate change and its implications for corporate sustainability and business decision-making | María Cantero Saiz (Universidad de Cantabria) |
| ST06 | Entrepreneurship | The Multilevel Foundations of Entrepreneurial Activity | Adriana Perez-Encinas (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Vanessa Campos (Universitat de València) |
| ST07 | Entrepreneurship | The influence of entrepreneurial support organizations on startup performance | Vesna Vlaisavljevic (Universidad de Barcelona), Elena Maria Gimenez Fernandez (Universitat Pablo de Olavide), Antonio Carmona Lavado (Universidad Pablo de Olavide), Carmen Cabello Medina (Universidad Pablo de Olavide) |
| ST08 | Entrepreneurship | Family, Education and Entrepreneurship: The Role of Family Businesses in Shaping Entrepreneurial Intention and Action | Juan José Nájera Sánchez (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos), Cristina Pérez Pérez (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos), Thais González Torres (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos) |
| ST09 | Family Business | Gender Diversity in Family Firms. Social and Economic Performance | Patricia Almeida Cabrera (ULPGC), Domingo Javier Santana Martín (ULPGC) |
| ST10 | Innovation Management | Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Responsible Governance in Public Management | Teresa Martínez Fernández (Universitat Jaume I), Edurne Zubiria Ferriols (Universitat de Valencia) |
| ST11 | International Management | GVCs in an Era of Deglobalization: Building Resilience and Sustainable Competitiveness | Andrea Pallás-Rocafull (Universidad de Valencia), Fariza Achcaoucaou Iallouchen (Universitat de Barcelona), Lorena Ruiz Fernández (Universidad de Alicante), José Pla-Barber (Universidad de Valencia) |
| ST12 | Marketing | Innovations aimed at improving business-customer closeness | Manuel Sánchez Pérez (Universidad de Almería), María Eugenia Ruiz Molina (Universitat de València), Eduardo Terán Yépez (Universidad de Almería) |
| ST13 | BRQ / ECN-ACEDE idea development workshop | Ana Perez-Luño (Universidad Pablo de Olavide), Victor Martin-Sanchez (University of Southern Denmark), Sofía Martínez Martínez (Universidad de Málaga) |
Business, Society, and Sustainability.
Business transformation is increasingly characterized by a transition from product-centered models toward service ecosystems, where servitization acts as a lever for structural and cultural change (Minaya, Avella & Trespalacios, 2024; Paiola et al., 2024). This process, supported by digital technologies such as IoT, big data, or artificial intelligence, enables organizations to reconfigure their business models and generate new forms of value creation and capture (Martín-Peña et al., 2020; Facco et al., 2024; Vendrell-Herrero, 2024).
Simultaneously, Transformative Service Research (TSR) has emerged as an approach focused on the well-being of individuals, organizations, and communities, highlighting the role of services as engines of positive social change (Anderson et al., 2013; Ostrom et al., 2015; Landry & Furrer, 2023). From this perspective, services not only transform the customer experience but also contribute to well-being, sustainable development, and shared prosperity (Sönnichsen et al., 2024).
This track aims to link servitization strategy with the principles of TSR, integrating the technological dimension with the human and social one. Digitalization enables new forms of interaction, personalization, and co-creation, but its transformative potential depends on designing services that generate inclusive and sustainable value (Chen et al., 2023; Tabacco, Chiarvesio & Romanello, 2024).
Researchers are invited to submit papers addressing, among others, the following questions:
The added value of this proposal lies in its interdisciplinary vision, which brings together advances in digital servitization and the TSR research agenda, aligning fully with the conference theme by placing responsible business transformation at the center of the academic and managerial debate.
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., & et al. (2013). Transformative Service Research: An Agenda for the Future. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1203-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013
Boenigk, S., Kreimer, A. A., Becker, A., & Fisk, R. (2021). Transformative Service Initiatives: Enabling Access and Overcoming Barriers for People Experiencing Vulnerability. Journal of Service Research, 24(4), 542-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211013386
Chen, J., Li, T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). A Sustainable Digital Ecosystem: Digital Servitization and Financial & Environmental Performance. Sustainability, 15(2), 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021530
Facco, S., Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., & Zommer, M. (2024). Digital Transformation in Servitization: Analysis of Technologies and Dominant Themes. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 35(7), 1015-1032. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e11524
Landry, M., & Furrer, O. (2023). Well-being co-creation in service ecosystems: A systematic literature review. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(7), 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-12-2022-0388
Martín-Peña, M. L., Sánchez-López, J. M., & Díaz-Garrido, E. (2020). Servitization and digitalization in manufacturing: the influence on firm performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(3), 564-574. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2018-0400
Minaya, P. E., Avella, L., & Trespalacios, J. A. (2024). Synthesizing three decades of digital servitization: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework proposal. Service Business, 18(2), 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-024-00559-x
Ostrom, A. L., Field, J. M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., Gustafsson, A., Lemon, K. N., Huang, M.-H., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2021). Service research priorities: Managing and delivering service in turbulent times. Journal of Service Research, 24(3), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211021915
Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015). Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515576315
Paiola, M., Grandinetti, R., Kowalkowski, C., & Rapaccini, M. (2024). Digital servitization strategies and business model innovation: The role of knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 74, 101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2024.101846
Sönnichsen, S., de Jong, A., Clement, J., Maull, R., & Voss, C. (2024). The circular economy: A transformative service perspective. Journal of Service Research, 28(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705241229423
Tabacco, R., Chiarvesio, M., & Romanello, R. (2024). Exploring the crossroads between digital servitization and sustainability from a business marketing perspective. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2024(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-024-00091-w
Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2024). The Order of the Factors Matters: How Digital Transformation and Servitization Interplay. International Journal of Production Economics, 272, 109050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109228
Business, Society, and Sustainability.
Health management models are undergoing a profound transformation, driven by digitalization, demographic shifts, financial sustainability challenges, and the pursuit of better health outcomes. This Special Track aims to provide a space for discussion and reflection on how health management models are evolving, focusing on organizational, technological, and strategic innovations shaping the healthcare sector.
Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:
Contemporary healthcare management is shifting from efficiency-oriented paradigms toward value-based, patient-centered, and sustainability-driven models. This paradigm change demands a rethinking of organizational structures, information systems, and talent management practices in health institutions (Porter & Teisberg, 2020; Berwick, 2023).
Recent literature highlights that healthcare organizations must be understood as complex adaptive systems, where innovation, leadership, and interprofessional collaboration are essential to achieving resilience and quality (Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001; Begun & Thygeson, 2015). Moreover, the integration of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is reshaping management and decision-making processes, creating new opportunities but also introducing ethical and organizational challenges (Topol, 2019; Mesko et al., 2023).
The added value of this Special Track lies in its interdisciplinary approach, integrating perspectives from innovation management, knowledge management, information systems, and human resource strategies applied to healthcare contexts. It seeks to foster a dialogue between scholars and practitioners exploring, from both theoretical and applied standpoints, how health management models are evolving and what key factors determine their success in a context of accelerated change.
The viability of this Special Track is supported by the growing academic interest in healthcare management across leading international journals such as Health Policy, BMC Health Services Research, Journal of Health Organization and Management, and The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. Its cross-disciplinary and socially relevant focus ensures a high potential to attract contributions from both management and healthcare researchers.
The added value of this proposal lies in its interdisciplinary vision, which brings together advances in digital servitization and the TSR research agenda, aligning fully with the conference theme by placing responsible business transformation at the center of the academic and managerial debate.
Begun, J. W., & Thygeson, M. (2015). Managing complex healthcare systems. Health Care Management Review, 40(3), 167–177.
Berwick, D. M. (2023). Choices for the “New Normal.” JAMA, 329(5), 355–356.
Mesko, B., Hetényi, G., & Győrffy, Z. (2023). Will artificial intelligence solve the human resource crisis in healthcare? BMC Health Services Research, 23(1), 1–8.
Plsek, P. E., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ, 323(7313), 625–628.
Porter, M. E., & Teisberg, E. O. (2020). Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. Harvard Business Review Press.
Topol, E. (2019). Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. Basic Books.
Business, Society, and Sustainability.
Sustainable polycentric tourism, from an international perspective, represents a new model of governance dynamics in contexts characterized by the coexistence of multiple jurisdictions, institutional cultures and scales of power. This track proposes to explore the theoretical and practical foundations of responsible tourism governance that enables a polycentric approach to tourism activity, in the sense that overcrowded destinations work collaboratively so that other destinations with tourism potential can benefit from excess visitor flows—an approach that can be replicated internationally and particularly within Europe. Its implementation creates situational balance between high-demand areas and those with lower tourism demand, mobilising flows from one territory to another (Ewing, Lyons, Hassan, Hesey & Kaniewska, 2024; Yang, Shen & Derudder, 2024).
In this framework, the polycentric approach offers a valuable analytical perspective for understanding tourism governance in regions where destination management and promotion are distributed across different decision-making centres—so‑called multilevel governance (local, supramunicipal, regional, national and international). This model supports more horizontal, flexible and adaptive forms of cooperation that foster sustainability, territorial cohesion and institutional innovation (EC 2021). Sustainable polycentric tourism is, therefore, a strategic tool for territorial balance, sustainability and resilience (Clark & Nyaupane, 2024).
The track invites researchers, consultants, managers and public officials to discuss the challenges and opportunities involved in articulating responsible polycentric governance in tourism, addressing issues such as joint planning, policy coordination, social participation and the shared management of natural, cultural and digital resources.
The added value of this proposal lies in its integrative approach, linking polycentric governance theory with tourism and territorial development studies. It seeks to contribute to the academic debate on how to consolidate collaborative and responsible governance models that promote more balanced, sustainable and resilient cross-border tourism (OECD 2025).
Clark, C., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2024). Polycentricity and private governance of natural resources on the United States–Mexico border. Society & Natural Resources, 38(1), 91–112.
European Commission (2021). What are “good practices”?
https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/page/what-are-good-practices_en
OECD (2025). Building strong and resilient tourism destinations. OECD Tourism Papers, No. 2025/03, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Reid Ewing, Torrey Lyons, Seyed Hassan Ameli, John Hersey & Justyna Kaniewska (2024). Policies, practices, tools, and regional strategies for implementing polycentric development: Comparative case studies of Portland, Seattle and Denver. Land, MDPI, 13(2), 1–29.
Yang, Y., Shen, W., & Derudder, B. (2024). Environmental sustainability in polycentric urban regions: an urban resilience perspective. Taylor & Francis.
Business, Society and Sustainability.
Gender diversity in corporate governance has progressed from a moral to a crucial dimension of organizational effectiveness and legitimacy (Terjesen et al., 2009). Although the representation of women on boards and executive teams has steadily increased across industries and countries (MSCI, 2025), the persistence of gendered structures of power and decision-making continues to constrain the transformative potential of such diversity (Acker, 1990; Tienari and Meriläinen, 2016). This special track aims to deepen scholarly understanding of gender diversity as a multidimensional phenomenon that affects governance mechanisms, leadership behaviors, and corporate outcomes, and advance its theoretical and empirical integration within broader fields of corporate governance and upper echelons research.
While relevant studies have analyzed the determinants (Hillman et al., 2007; Terjesen et al., 2009; García Lara et al., 2017), characteristics (Adams and Ferreira, 2009), and implications of gender diversity in top management teams (Bear et al., 2010; Joecks et al., 2013), important gaps remain. Existing research focuses on the impact of gender diversity on firm outcomes, particularly financial performance (Post and Byron, 2015), while less attention has been paid to how and under what conditions gender diversity translates into changes in board dynamics, strategic decision- making, and non-financial outcomes. Moreover, the global diffusion of gender quotas and ESG disclosure requirements introduces new institutional and methodological challenges calling for comparative and multi-level perspectives.
We invite contributions that explore the antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of gender diversity in corporate governance within and across contexts. Some possible specific questions on this topic are the following, although these are not intended to be exhaustive:
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221.
García Lara, J. M., García Osma, B., & Mora, A. (2017). Board gender diversity and its determinants: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2), 337–358.
Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952.
Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass”? Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61–72.
Business, Society and Sustainability.
This special track aims to bring together research that specifically examines how climate change affects corporate sustainability and decision-making in companies and financial institutions. The increase in extreme climate events, the transition toward low-carbon economies, and growing regulatory demands are redefining business models and financial strategies, creating risks and opportunities that require immediate and well-founded responses (Bringas-Fernández et al., 2025).
We invite submissions addressing, among other aspects:
Studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed approaches are welcome, as well as sectoral and cross-country analyses, provided that the central focus is climate change and its effect on business and financial management.
The added value of this track lies in its specific focus on climate change—a critical challenge for organizational sustainability and competitiveness. It also provides a space for applied research in the banking sector, where the incorporation of climate risk is transforming risk assessment, capital allocation, and reporting processes. This track seeks to consolidate an academic forum dedicated to understanding and managing the impacts of climate change on business and finance.
Abdesslem, R. B., Chkir, I., & Saadi, S. (2025). Earning quality and climate risk: The case of European firms. International Review of Financial Analysis, 102, 104133.
Battiston, S., Dafermos, Y., & Monasterolo, I. (2021). Climate risks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100867.
Bringas-Fernández, V., Torre-Olmo, B., Cantero-Saiz, M. (2025). Evaluating climate risk in banking: A bibliometric analysis. International Review of Economics and Finance, 104, 104710.
Gao, Y., Saleh, N. M., & Abdullah, A. M. (2025). Corporate climate risk disclosure and financing constraints: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 85, 108184.
He, R., Luo, L., Shamsuddin, A., & Tang, Q. (2022). Corporate carbon accounting: a literature review of carbon accounting research from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. Accounting & Finance, 62(1), 261-298.
Johnson, M. P., Strobel, J., & Trencher, G. (2025). Between the lines: linking carbon management to carbon accounting actions in the pursuit of corporate decarbonization. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 38(4), 1121-1148.
Ma, F., Cao, J., Wang, Y., Vigne, S. A., & Dong, D. (2025). Dissecting climate change risk and financial market instability: Implications for ecological risk management. Risk Analysis, 45(3), 496-522.
Naseer, M. M., Guo, Y., & Zhu, X. (2025). When climate risk hits corporate value: The moderating role of financial constraints, flexibility, and innovation. Finance Research Letters, 74, 106780.
Wang, Z., Fu, H., Ren, X., & Gozgor, G. (2024). Exploring the carbon emission reduction effects of corporate climate risk disclosure: Empirical evidence based on Chinese A-share listed enterprises. International Review of Financial Analysis, 92, 103072.
Entrepreneurship.
This track investigates the multilevel nature of entrepreneurship by integrating individual, organizational, and institutional perspectives. It examines how entrepreneurial activity emerges from the dynamic interplay between individual-level attributes, such as cognition, motivation, identity, and well-being and the broader organizational and institutional contexts in which entrepreneurship is embedded (Urbano & Alvarez, 2014; North, 1990; Welter, 2011).
In particular, we emphasize the role of dynamic capabilities, the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) as a critical mechanism linking micro-level entrepreneurial agency with meso- and macro-level structures. Entrepreneurial behavior is not only shaped by individual traits but also by how organizations develop and deploy dynamic capabilities to sense opportunities, seize them, and transform their resource base in response to institutional pressures and ecosystem dynamics (Teece, 2007; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006).
We invite contributions that bridge micro-level insights such as entrepreneurial cognition, decision-making, skills, and mental health with organizational-level processes (e.g., learning, innovation, resource orchestration) and macro-level influences, including institutional arrangements, governance quality, and entrepreneurial ecosystem configurations (Acs, Autio, & Szerb, 2014; Urbano, Aparicio, & Audretsch, 2019).
We encourage submissions that draw on institutional theory, entrepreneurial ecosystems frameworks, and comparative entrepreneurship approaches to unpack how institutional quality, cultural norms, and policy interventions interact with individual and organizational capabilities. Both conceptual and empirical papers are suitable for this track, especially those employing longitudinal, multilevel, or cross-national designs. Our aim is to foster interdisciplinary dialogue, bridge the micro–meso–macro divide, and contribute to a more integrative understanding of how entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial organizations co-evolve with their institutional environments.
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7><509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Urbano, D., & Alvarez, C. (2014). Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: An international study. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9523-7
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x
Entrepreneurship
This track continues the discussion on entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems, initiated in Valencia and Pamplona ACEDE Conferences. The track focuses on the evolving interactions between entrepreneurs and startups in those ecosystems, with a particular interest in the entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs), such as accelerators, incubators, venture builders, and other mechanisms and actors that foster startup performance.
Entrepreneurial (Theodoraki et al., 2022) and innovation ecosystems (Vlaisavljevic et al., 2020; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020) represent very favorable supportive environment to promote the interaction of various mechanisms and actors in fostering startup innovation and growth (Spigel, 2017). Open Innovation literature highlights how startups integrate external expertise to thrive within ecosystems. Moreover, cross-industry innovation allows startups to apply new knowledge or find solutions from other industries to their innovation challenges, thus fostering opportunities for success (Carmona-Lavado et al., 2023).
Despite the significant efforts in both academic and policy discussions, there are still many unanswered questions and several research streams emerge. Very recently, Stam et al. (2025) opened these black boxes in six different themes (configuration of elements, social interactions, outcomes, evolution, boundaries, and measurement) but claimed that notable areas for further development and refinement still remain in the research of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The internal mechanisms and dynamics within and between ecosystems are yet not well understood. Therefore, further work is required to analyze how the ecosystems and, ESOs in particular, may influence the startup performance. Our track welcomes the contributions that delve deeper into these topics and could help policies to improve entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainable development.
Carmona-Lavado, A., Gimenez-Fernandez, E.M., Vlaisavljevic, V. and Cabello-Medina, C. (2023). Cross-industry innovation: A systematic literature review. Technovation, 124, 102743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102743
Granstrand, O. and Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90–91, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098
Spigel, B. (2017), “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167
Stam, E., Theodoraki, C., Bosma, N. et al. Opening entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes. Small Bus Econ (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01037-y
Theodoraki C., Dana L. and Caputo A. (2022). Building sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: A holistic approach. Journal of Business Research, 140, 346-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.005
Vlaisavljevic, V., Medina, C. C. and Van Looy, B. (2020). The role of policies and the contribution of cluster agency in the development of biotech open innovation ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119987
Entrepreneurship.
Family and educational environments are key pillars in shaping entrepreneurial trajectories. From the transmission of values and attitudes to the development of skills and motivations, both contexts significantly influence entrepreneurial intention and action. Family businesses, in particular, offer a unique setting to explore how intergenerational dynamics, experiential learning, and socialization processes foster or constrain entrepreneurship (Palmer et al., 2021; Renart Vicens et al., 2022).
In parallel, entrepreneurship education, especially within universities, has emerged as a critical driver for cultivating entrepreneurial competencies, intentions, and behaviors (Nabi et al., 2017; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). However, its effects are not uniform. Empirical evidence shows that family background and exposure to family businesses can significantly moderate the impact of entrepreneurship training (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Edelman et al., 2016; Campopiano et al., 2017; Maseda et al., 2022), highlighting the need to understand these interactions more deeply.
This track invites contributions that examine the multifaceted relationships between family, education, and entrepreneurship. We welcome theoretical, empirical, and methodological papers exploring how family contexts, such as business background, generational maturity, parental entrepreneurial experience, or family involvement, interact with educational experiences to shape entrepreneurial outcomes. Broader inquiries into how families act as transmitters of human, social, and emotional capital are also encouraged.
We particularly value submissions using robust quantitative methods (e.g., SEM, QCA, multilevel or longitudinal models) or rigorous qualitative approaches, grounded in frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982), Institutional Theory (North, 1990), and Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984).
The track’s added value lies in its integrative, multidisciplinary nature, fostering dialogue on how family and education jointly shape entrepreneurial mindsets and responsible action in today’s evolving landscape.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.
Aldrich, H. E., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., & Minola, T. (2021). Embedded but not asleep: Entrepreneurs and families in the family business context. Family Business Review, 34(1), 6–22.
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publications Office of the European Union.
Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Chirico, F. (2017). Firm philanthropy in small- and medium-sized family firms: The effects of family involvement in ownership and management. Family Business Review, 27(3), 244–258.
Douglas, E. J. (2020). Entrepreneurial intentions and theory of planned behaviour: The role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and situational context. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Development and Opportunities in Circular Economy (pp. 1–19). IGI Global.
Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545–565.
Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., Shirokova, G., & Tsukanova, T. (2016). The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs’ start-up activities. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 428–448.
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269.
Hahn, D., Minola, T., Van Gils, A., & Huybrechts, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial education and learning at universities: Implications for family business research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 11(3), 100338.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933.
Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., Aparicio, G., & Blanco-Mazagatos, V. (2022). Family involvement and gender diversity in family firms: Effects on financial performance. Family Business Review, 35(1), 52–74.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, C., Fasbender, U., Kraus, S., Birkner, S., & Kailer, N. (2021). A chip off the old block? The role of dominance and parental entrepreneurship for entrepreneurial intention. Review of Managerial Science, 15(2), 287–307.
Pérez-Pérez, C., González-Loureiro, M., & Sánchez-López, C. (2021). Entrepreneurial intention after entrepreneurial education: The role of family background and social norms. Education + Training, 63(7/8), 1069–1088.
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.
Renart Vicens, G., Vall-llosera Casanovas, L., Saurina Canals, C., & Serra, L. (2022). Entrepreneurship analysis in Spanish universities. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(1), 178–190.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Prentice Hall.
Steira, J., Wraae, B., & Müller, S. (2024). EntreComp in higher education: Developing entrepreneurial skills through experiential learning. European Journal of Education, 59(1), 45–61.
Family Business.
Research on gender diversity in the financial and social performance of family businesses is a field that yields divergent results. Thus, the pursuit of socio-emotional goals is presented as an argument that justifies the negative influence that family directors could exert on financial behaviour (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Sciascia et al., 2014). However, Tao- Schuchardt and Kammerlander (2024) suggest a positive effect of female family directors, as having in-depth knowledge of the company would lead to better-informed decisions that increase profitability and value. At the same time, studies focusing on social behaviour do not show a predominant relationship (Stock et al., 2024). The negative performance of social behaviour could be determined by the greater discretion of female family directors, leading to opportunistic behaviour that prioritises family interests to the detriment of the needs of other stakeholders. In contrast, the desire to preserve the family's socio- emotional wealth would justify female family directors' decision-making being oriented towards the adoption of socially responsible practices. However, there are few studies that analyse the role of non-family directors separately, an aspect that may be of particular relevance, given that female family and non-family members have different capabilities and incentives (García-Meca & Santana-Martín, 2023; Fleitas-Castillo et al., 2025).
Thus, as highlighted by Banno et al. (2024), the particularities of female directors in family businesses and the divergence of their effects constitute a field of study that could benefit from further investigation, as the debate remains open. In this sense, the completion of this track would contribute to increasing knowledge about the determinants of the heterogeneity of results and the conditions under which female directors generate economic and social value.
Fleitas-Castillo, G. C., Peña-Martel, D., Pérez-Alemán, J., & Santana-Martín, D. J. (2025). Women on boards and the cost of debt: The role of family tie. Research in International Business and Finance, 102762.
García Meca, E., & Santana Martín, D. J. (2023). Family owners and the appointment of family and non-family women directors: Where is the ownership point where preferences change? Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting. JCR Q4 Business, Finance. ABS-1.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.
Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2014). Family management and profitability in private family-owned firms: Introducing generational stage and the socioemotional wealth perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2), 131–137.
Stock, C., Pütz, L., Schell, S., & Werner, A. (2024). Corporate social responsibility in family firms: Status and future directions of a research field. Journal of Business Ethics, 190(1), 199–259.
Tao-Schuchardt, M., & Kammerlander, N. (2024). Board diversity in family firms across cultures: A contingency analysis on the effects of gender and tenure diversity on firm performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 15(2), 100554.
Innovation Management.
The theme of the ACEDE 2026 Conference “Responsible Governance and Business Transformation in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” finds a natural translation within the field of public management, where the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) is redefining governance processes, policy design, and service delivery.
This track offers both an academic and practical forum for analysing how AI drives public innovation, enhances institutional efficiency, and generates meaningful social impact, while simultaneously posing new ethical, organisational, and democratic legitimacy challenges.
The proposal seeks to foster interdisciplinary dialogue among researchers, practitioners, and public officials, combining perspectives from management, administration, and public policy. Its added value lies in the emphasis on the transfer of knowledge and research outcomes into administrative practice, strengthened through collaboration with the Women in the Public Sector Association (https://mujeresenelsectorpublico.com/), which promotes the responsible adoption of AI within public administrations, and the Innpulso Network (https://redinnpulso.es), which brings together the Cities of Science and Innovation committed to modernising the public sector through technological and sustainable tools.
These partnerships will help bridge academic research and real-world innovation experiences, attracting both national and international contributions that examine the impacts of AI from the perspectives of responsible governance, equity, sustainability, and institutional transformation.
The track aims to generate relevant and applicable knowledge on how artificial intelligence can contribute to a more transparent, ethical, and common good-oriented public management.
Butcher, J., & Beridze, I. (2019). What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally? The RUSI Journal, 164(5–6), 88–96.
Corvalán, J. G. (2018). Digital and intelligent public administration: Transformations in the era of artificial intelligence. A&C–Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, 18(71), 55–87.
Henman, P. (2020). Improving public services using artificial intelligence: Possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221.
Millard, J. (2023). Impact of digital transformation on public governance. European Union.
Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2), 101885.
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Sturm, B. J. (2020). The dark sides of artificial intelligence: An integrated AI governance framework for public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(9), 818–829.
Yigitcanlar, T., Agdas, D., & Degirmenci, K. (2023). Artificial intelligence in local governments: Perceptions of city managers on prospects, constraints and choices. AI & Society, 38(3), 1135–1150.
Yigitcanlar, T., David, A., Li, W., Fookes, C., Bibri, S. E., & Ye, X. (2024). Unlocking artificial intelligence adoption in local governments: Best practice lessons from real-world implementations. Smart Cities, 7(4), 1576–1625.
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y. C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577.
International Management.
Current factors such as increasing social decay, environmental degradation, and global economic and geopolitical conflicts expose the limitations of internationally shared development approaches (Van Zanten, & Van Tulder, 2021; Bashir, Shahbaz, Malik, Ma, & Wang, 2023). In addition, the fast-paced progress of digitalization, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation is revolutionizing how industries operate. These changes demand a stronger, more decisive commitment from the business sector to operate in a more responsible, sustainable way (Nielsen, Wechtler, & Zheng, 2023).
Furthermore, most firms internationalize by participating in Global Value Chains (GVCs), which have become the dominant architecture of global production (Gereffi, Humphrey, & Sturgeon, 2005). They connect geographically dispersed agents and so their worldwide reach can disseminate sustainable practices and technologies across markets. However, even if GVCs have driven economic growth and competitiveness, they have contributed to intensifying social and environmental challenges too by extending irresponsible behaviors like unethical practices or power imbalances (DeBerge, 2024). In turn, GVCs’ connectivity has exposed the vulnerabilities of internationally fragmented production systems: overlapping disruptions have reignited the debate on a possible deglobalization trend, fueled by protectionist policies, regionalization, and reshoring initiatives as a response. This underscores the need to redesign GVCs to remain efficient and competitive while becoming more sustainable, both socially and environmentally. Here, resilience emerges as a vital strategic capability enabling firms and chains to withstand and adapt to an increasingly volatile context.
The added value of this track lies in connecting different research domains (International Business, Sustainability, GVC analysis and Organizational Resilience) to better understand how firms and stakeholders (e.g., institutions) can transform disruptions into opportunities for renewal and sustainable, long-term competitiveness. Therefore, the track seeks to foster a multidimensional dialogue that integrates theoretical, empirical, and policy-oriented perspectives. Submissions that provide actionable management insights to foster sustainable and inclusive business strategies across borders are highly encouraged.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
Bashir, M. F., Shahbaz, M., Malik, M. N., Ma, B., & Wang, J. (2023). Energy transition, natural resource consumption and environmental degradation: the role of geopolitical risk in sustainable development. Resources Policy, 85, 103985.
DeBerge, T. (2024). Responsibility boundaries and the governance of global value chains: The interplay of efficiency, ethical, and institutional pressures in global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 14(1), 196-222.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of international political economy, 12(1), 78-104.
Nielsen, B. B., Wechtler, H., & Zheng, L. G. (2023). Disasters and international business: Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 58(4), 101458.
Van Zanten, J. A., & Van Tulder, R. (2021). Improving companies' impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business strategy and the environment, 30(8), 3703-3720.
Marketing.
Physical or emotional closeness to customers is critical to the success of a company or brand, and significant innovations are being identified in both business models and the development of company-customer relationships. In terms of physical proximity, beyond conventional location models, hybrid distribution models are being developed that optimise costs and generate convenience. At the same time, information technology (IT) acts as a catalyst for relational and emotional proximity, transcending geographical and temporal limitations. This ability to offer relevant and empathetic interactions in real time, through digital platforms and omnichannel approaches, is fundamental to designing strategies and managing customer relationships. Thus, IT not only optimises operational proximity, but also actively cultivates emotional proximity, transforming transactional efficiency into emotional bonds and loyalty.
This track aims to be a forum for discussion of papers focused on changes in innovations related to strategies for closeness, both physical and emotional.
Aguiléra, A., Lethiais, V., & Rallet, A. (2012). Spatial and non-spatial proximities in inter-firm relations: An empirical analysis. Industry and Innovation, 19(3), 187-202.
Blichfeldt, H., & Faullant, R. (2021). Performance effects of digital technology adoption and product & service innovation–A process-industry perspective. Technovation, 105, 102275.
Gil‐Saura, I., Ruiz‐Molina, M. E., Berenguer‐Contrí, G., & Marín‐García, A. (2024). Sustainability‐oriented innovation in retailing. Psychology & Marketing, 41(2), 240-253.
Gillani, A., Kutaula, S., Leonidou, L. C., & Christodoulides, P. (2021). The impact of proximity on consumer fair trade engagement and purchasing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 557-577.
Holz, H. F., Becker, M., Blut, M., & Paluch, S. (2024). Eliminating customer experience pain points in complex customer journeys through smart service solutions. Psychology & Marketing, 41(3), 592-609.
Hung, S. W., Cheng, M. J., Hou, C. E., & Chen, N. R. (2021). Inclusion in global virtual teams: Exploring non-spatial proximity and knowledge sharing on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 128, 599-610.
Leung, X. Y., & Wen, H. (2021). How emotions affect restaurant digital ordering experiences: a comparison of three ordering methods. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 12(3), 439-453.
Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: Innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099.
Nguyen, M., Casper Ferm, L. E., Quach, S., Pontes, N., & Thaichon, P. (2023). Chatbots in frontline services and customer experience: An anthropomorphism perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 40(11), 2201-2225.
Vargo, S. L., Fehrer, J. A., Wieland, H., & Nariswari, A. (2024). The nature and fundamental elements of digital service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 35(2), 227-252.
Zahra, S. A., Liu, W., & Si, S. (2023). How digital technology promotes entrepreneurship in ecosystems. Technovation, 119, 102457.
Zhou, X., Lu, H., & Kumar Mangla, S. (2024). The impact of digital traceability on sustainability performance: investigating the roles of sustainability-oriented innovation and supply chain learning. Supply Chain Management, 29(3), 497-522.
This special track is designed to help early-career scholars increase their chances of success in publishing their research.
The track coordinators will begin with a short introduction highlighting the most common mistakes they have identified in over 95% of the papers received by Business Research Quarterly (BRQ). These basic mistakes typically relate to:
Concrete examples will be provided before moving on to the participants’ presentations.
In this case, the submission process consists of a single slide (one transparency) summarizing:
During the conference, participants will present their slide in an “academic pitch” format — very short, focused presentations — and will receive specific feedback from the track coordinators. It is essential that all slides are submitted in advance (as part of the proposal submission) so that the organizers can prepare the session properly and ensure that presentations run smoothly without interruptions between participants.