| ST01 Collaborative Research Methodologies in Business Management |
Franciso Balbastre, Universitat de València Amaya Erro-Garcés, Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| ST02 Future of work and sustainability
|
Teresa Canet, University of Valencia Irene Campos, University Rey Juan Carlos |
| ST03 Rethinking Sustainability in Entrepreneurship: the Person of the Entrepreneur as the Missing Element in the Sustainability Triad
|
Sara Enrique Belda, Universitat de Valencia (Spain) Marjan Gorgievski, Erasmus University of Rotterdam (Netherlands) |
| ST04 The Art of Complementors: Building Value in Platfom Ecosystems |
Juan Maícas, CUNEF Universidad Eduardo Lope, Universidad de Zaragoza |
| ST05 The impact of generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Implications for learning, teaching, and knowledge creation |
Frederic Marimon, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya Ruggero Colombari, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
|
| ST06 Navigating the Complexities of Talent Management: Practical and Research Directions |
Eva Gallardo Gallardo, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya·BarcelonaTech |
| ST07 Information management and service innovation in marketing |
Manuel Sánchez Pérez, Universidad de Almería María Eugenia Ruiz Molina, Universitat de València |
| ST08 International Business for Sustainable Future: From theory to practice |
Sonia M. Suárez-Ortega, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) Paloma Miravitlles, Universitat de Barcelona (UB) |
| ST09 Looking into entrepreneurial ecosystems: The role of different mechanisms and actors for startup innovation |
Vesna Vlaisavljevic, Universidad de Barcelona Antonio Carmona Lavado, Universidad Pablo de Olavide |
| ST10 Environmental standards and practices to build sustainable business ecosystems |
Alfonso Hernandez-Vivanco, IQS-Universitat Ramon Llull Mercè Bernardo, Universitat de Barcelona |
| ST11 Business Turnaround and Crisis Management |
Francisco PUIG, Universitat de València Manuel RICO, Universitat de València |
|
ST12 Irresponsibility, ESG controversies and corporate fraud
|
Gema C. Fleitas Castillo, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Devora Peña Martel, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria |
| ST13 Circular economy: Innovation and sustainability in supply chain management |
Juan Carlos Real Fernández, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, |
| ST14 How do we see the health management model today? |
Francisco Reyes Santías, University of Vigo |
|
Nuria Viejo Fernández, Universidad de Oviedo Inna Alexeeva Alexeev, Universidad de Cantabria |
|
|
María Sacristán Navarro, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos Silvia Gómez Ansón, Universidad de Oviedo |
|
|
ST17 Artificial Intelligence in Human Resources Practices: Innovation in Talent Management |
Ana Mª Lucia Casademunt, Universidad de Málaga Laura Padilla Angulo, Universidad Loyola Andalucía |
Collaborative Research; Action Research; Open Innovation; Business Management; Organizational Problem-Solving
Contemporary organizations' need to seek effective and efficient solutions to their problems has highlighted that this search may need to extend beyond corporate boundaries, reaching other agents (e.g., other organizations, research centers, individuals with relevant knowledge) capable of making significant contributions, through some form of collaboration, to solving these problems.
Concurrently, the evolution of research in the field of business management has given rise, since the end of the last century, to methodologies based on varying degrees of action and collaboration (Coghlan et al., 2012). Methodologies such as action research or open innovation, to name a few, fall within this conglomerate of approaches. Action research emphasizes both aspects simultaneously, promoting the adoption of action and the creation of knowledge through a collaborative process (Balbastre-Benavent et al., 2024; Coughlan & Coghlan, 2024; Marin-Garcia et al. 2020; Shani & Coghlan, 2021; Zandee & Coghlan, 2024). While initially the focus of considerable criticism from academia, there is now significant interest in this methodology among academics (Erro-Garcés & Alfaro-Tanco, 2020; Marin-Garcia et al. 2022). Similarly, open innovation is today a widely used methodology in academic, business, and public policy domains (Bertello et al., 2024). Its applied nature (i.e., action-oriented), diversity, inclusivity, openness, and collaborative approach (Beck et al., 2022; Bogers et al., 2018) have made it particularly prominent in the academic sphere.
Given the above, within the framework of this track, we encourage researchers in the field of business management to present works that use action research, open innovation, or similar methodologies as their foundation. We also welcome studies that highlight fundamental aspects for their application (success factors, lessons learned, obstacles to overcome, etc.) and works that demonstrate the importance that digital transformation or the application of artificial intelligence may have in facilitating the implementation of these types of methodologies.
With this track, we aim to give value and visibility to the use of these methodologies by researchers in the field of business management, while simultaneously contributing to unveiling key factors for their correct implementation that can be subsequently applied by researchers with less experience in using these types of methodologies.
The future of work presents multiple challenges for managers and employees (Santana & Cobo, 2020). Technologically, we see the emergence of new forms of work, the rise of platform work (or “gig work”), the proliferation of teleworking, the adoption of electronic HR management systems (“e-HRM”), and the growing skills mismatch in the labour market. From a social perspective, issues arise related to integrating the older workforce and protecting vulnerable workers in the context of the new forms of work, maintaining job satisfaction and well-being, managing work-related stress, and the imperative for effective talent management; all this in increasingly digitalized environments and with a greater depersonalisation of labour relations. In this line, emerging approaches such as sustainable HRM are emerging strongly (Barrena-Martínez et al., 2019; Ehnert & Harry, 2012). Economically, concerns revolve around employment rates, wage disparities, labour market polarisation, and increasing job insecurity. In the political sphere, challenges arise from the dynamics of the labour market, the evolution of industrial relations and the need for adaptive educational policies.
Most of the research on the relationship between platform work or artificial intelligence (AI) and HRM, for example, is theoretical or qualitative (Chowdhury et al., 2024; Duggan et al., 2023). Likewise, more work on measurement tools for sustainable HRM is needed (Santana & Lopez-Cabrales, 2019).
This track calls for methodologically sound empirical studies on the topic, as well as theoretical work that explores ways to improve the rigor and quality of research. Possible topics include artificial intelligence, digitalisation and HRM, new forms of work, flexible work arrangements, teleworking, leadership and values for the future of work, ethics for the future of work, sustainable HRM, talent management, vulnerable workers, well-being, happiness, satisfaction and burnout in the future of work landscape.
References:
Barrena-Martínez, J., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernández, P. M. (2019). Towards a configuration of socially responsible human resource management policies and practices: Findings from an academic consensus. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(17), 2544–2580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1332669
Chowdhury, S., Budhwar, P., & Wood, G. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Business: Towards a Strategic Human Resource Management Framework. British Journal of Management, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12824
Duggan, J., Carbery, R., McDonnell, A., & Sherman, U. (2023). Algorithmic HRM control in the gig economy: The app-worker perspective. Human Resource Management, 62(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22168
Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent Developments and Future Prospects on Sustainable Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–238.
Santana, M., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis. European Management Journal, 38(6), 846–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.04.010
Santana, M., & Lopez-Cabrales, A. (2019). Sustainable development and human resource management: A science mapping approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1765
Entrepreneurship, Sustainability, Well-being, Individual Sustainability, Ecosystems, Sociocultural Factors, Diversity
Entrepreneurs operate in an uncertain and highly demanding context. Recent health, climate, and energy crises, the rising cost of living, and armed conflicts have forcefully invited us to work together toward sustainability. Sustainability, a term with uncertain theoretical origin (Purvis et al., 2019) and an evolving, imprecise definition (Alexander et al., 2021), has traditionally been grounded in the social, economic, and environmental triad. This has led to the identification of three pillars or indicators of sustainability, namely social, economic and environmental. However, when applying this concept to entrepreneurship, a broader and more nuanced approach may be required. A fourth pillar can be identified that deserves to be integrated into the sustainability concept, namely the individual pillar referring to career sustainability, characterized by happy, healthy and productive entrepreneurs or employees (de Vos et al., 2020). This approach aligns with the growing body of research on mental health, well-being, and ill-being in entrepreneurship (Stephan et al., 2023). Running a sustainable business also requires that the situation is sustainable for the entrepreneur themselves who creates, values, and manages it.
In addition, more research is needed on the drivers of entrepreneurs’ sustainability orientation on either the individual, the firm, or contextual level (Kraus et al., 2018). At the individual level, drivers of sustainability are closely tied to the entrepreneur’s personal values, skills, characteristics, belief systems, and well-being (Kraus et al., 2018; van den Groenendaal et al., 2022). Institutional cultural ideals, perpetuated by the entrepreneurial industry, can also either hinder or stimulate entrepreneurs’ sustainable choices, including personal sustainability goals (Brattström & Wennberg, 2022). Finally, interactions between factors, such as diverse personal factors (e.g., emotional intelligence, resilience, psychological capital, social capital) and institutional factors (e.g., sociocultural and contextual) that shape this dynamic need to be better understood.
By focusing on the individual pillar and its key drivers, this track aims to expand the current discourse and inspire new research directions that recognize the entrepreneur’s well-being, along with sociocultural and contextual factors, as fundamental components of sustainable entrepreneurial practices. Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:
References:
Alexander, R., Jacovidis, J., & Sturm, D. (2022). Exploring personal definitions of sustainability and their impact on perceptions of sustainability culture. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(3), 686-702. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2020-0426
Brattström, A., & Wennberg, K. (2022). The entrepreneurial story and its implications for research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 46(6), 1443-1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211053802
de Vos, A., van der Heijden, B. I., & Akkermans, J. (2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, Article 103196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011
Kraus, S., Burtscher, J., Vallaster, C., & Angerer, M. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship orientation: Reflection on status-quo research on factors facilitating responsible managerial practices. In A. Lindgreen, C. Vallaster, F. Maon, S. Yousafzai, & B. P. Florencio (Eds.), Sustainable entrepreneurship orientation (pp. 75-98). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315611495
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability science, 14, 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Stephan, U., Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2023). Happy entrepreneurs? Everywhere? A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship and wellbeing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(2), 553-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211072799
van den Groenendaal, S. M. E., Akkermans, J., Fleisher, C., Kooij, D. T., Poell, R. F., & Freese, C. (2022). A qualitative exploration of solo self-employed workers' career sustainability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 134, 103692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103692
Platforms, Complementors, Ecosystem, Digital, Network, Users
Platform businesses shape the world as we know it, with the most valuable companies worldwide being considered as such (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon…). Whether it is transaction platforms (e.g. Airbnb, Uber) innovation platforms (e.g. Nintendo, Intel CPU) or hybrid ones (e.g. Meta, Tencent), these architectures are present in our everyday life. In addition, the different characteristics of each platform sub-category (e.g. e-commerce, content-creation, on-demand service, financial, knowledge/educational, communication, travel or developer platforms) allow for unique dynamics to occur in each of them. Beyond the clear practical motivation behind the topic, there is a notorious growing research interest towards it. From the ten most cited papers for 2023 in the Strategic Management Journal, one of the leading journals in strategy research, eight of them were platform papers.
Platforms act as foundational structures that facilitate interactions between different user groups (e.g., buyers and sellers on e-commerce platforms). Researching these platforms helps in understanding how they operate, how they attract and retain users, and how they sustain engagement over time. In addition, complementors are entities that add value to the platform by offering products or services that enhance the platform’s core functionality. Studying them helps in understanding how these additional offerings contribute to the platform’s overall value proposition and user experience.
This research is crucial for understanding how platforms and their associated products, services, and complementors (partners/providers) interact to drive value and innovation. It allows us to understand aspects such as ecosystem dynamics, design, optimization of platform or complementor strategies, innovation, competitive advantage, enhancement of user and partner relationships, maximization of economic impact or even regulatory and ethical challenges that might arise. At the same time, understanding which complementors are most successful, and why, can guide platforms in forming strategic partnerships and optimizing their product offerings and thus, their competitive advantage.
Furthermore, value creation might also arise from the user perspective. Understanding user needs, preferences, and pain points allows platforms to tailor their offerings and improve user satisfaction, while analyzing how complementors meet user needs and interact with the platform helps in managing those relationships. Platforms and complementors must also navigate a complex regulatory landscape related to data privacy, competition, or content moderation. Research might also help in understanding compliance requirements and potential regulatory impacts.
This research area provides a comprehensive view that is key for achieving sustainable growth and maintaining a competitive advantage in today’s dynamic market landscape.
Key Questions:
Generative AI, Teaching Innovation, Experiential Learning, Knowledge Creation, Skill Development
The use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT by students raises fundamental questions about the learning process. Are they truly learning by using these technologies, or are they simply automating tasks? Does it foster creativity, or does it replace critical thinking? Moreover, it poses the question of whether learning only occurs when students actively participate in creating an outcome (such as a project or presentation), or if they can also learn by reviewing the “enhanced” results generated by AI, without direct involvement in the process. At the same time, educators face the need to adapt, as traditional teaching methods prove insufficient given the new capabilities offered by generative AI.
This track will focus on analyzing how generative AI is affecting both the process and outcomes of learning, especially in terms of knowledge generation and student motivation. It will explore whether these tools can enhance critical skills such as reasoning and creativity, or if, in some cases, they replace them. It will also examine the challenges and opportunities for educators in integrating AI into teaching, improving the quality of classes, activities, and exams, as well as efficiency in evaluation and daily management.
We welcome research that addresses these questions in a scientific and rigorous manner, such as qualitative and quantitative studies exploring the use of ChatGPT and its impact on learning, or experiments evaluating educational innovation and its observed effects. Submissions that offer new perspectives on the impact of generative AI in education, supported by relevant theories from the fields of learning, knowledge creation, as well as motivation and satisfaction theories applied to educational settings, will be valued. We also invite exploration into how these research findings might be extended to the organizational context, particularly in terms of organizational learning and aligning skills with business needs.
Through rigorous academic discussion, researchers and educators will have a multidisciplinary space to explore how generative AI is transforming both learning and teaching. In this track, they can share knowledge and approaches that promote effective adoption of generative AI, ensuring that it enhances teaching rather than being perceived as a threat.
Talent, Talent Management, Talent Analytics, Global Talent Management, Macro Talent Management
Talent Management (TM) is a critical management concern that plays a vital role in the success of organizations. In its more commonly practiced exclusive form, TM involves identifying, developing, and deploying talented employees in pivotal positions (cf. Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Despite being a popular and supposedly vital practice, there are several significant gaps and issues in the extant research on TM, and the concept and its practice contain significant tensions that still need to be fully addressed (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2020; Thunnissen & Gallardo-Gallardo, 2019). TM has a unitarist and managerialist orientation, with an Anglo-Saxon focus that aligns with individualistic cultures (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018; McDonnell et al., 2023; Thunnissen et al., 2013; Vaiman & Collings, 2023). Despite the growth of empirical research and the effort of some exploratory studies (e.g., Buttiens, 2016; Latukha, 2015; Valverde et al., 2013) to shed light on how TM is understood and developed in non-Anglo-Saxon countries, research still needs to be conducted about how TM is conceived and implemented in organizations, especially in Spanish organizations, from where is barely any information published.
This track, aligned with ACEDE’s main objective, is intended to provide a forum for academic debate on the rapidly growing field of TM. Specifically, it is designed to bring together researchers from various disciplines to develop theoretical and empirical work that can advance TM research and practice. Thus, we expect papers discussing cutting-edge strategies and best practices in attracting, developing, and retaining top talent nationally and globally. Also, we expect great discussions regarding the tensions, changes, and trends affecting TM, such as the impact of AI and automation on talent strategies, biases in talent selection, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and employee engagement in the future of work.
Incorporating a 'Talent Management' track into a renowned management conference like ACEDE, especially within the HR section, presents a significant opportunity to open the conference to current global debates on the latest trends and challenges around talent that practitioners and scholars face in the modern global workforce environment. This initiative marks the first time ACEDE will delve into this increasingly critical area, an opportunity to boost TM research in our region and bridge the gap between academic research and practical implementation. The addition of this track will undoubtedly enrich the conference's offerings, attracting a wider audience (e.g., the international TM scholarly community and the national TM practitioners) and reinforcing its standing at the forefront of HR thought leadership.
Information technologies and new services, Service management and new technologies, Consumer decision-making , New ways to understand consumers, Business Models, Sustainability-oriented innovations
New information technologies are transforming intensely and rapidly the environment of organisations and the consumer's relationship with them. Consumers are accessing the offerings of companies, accommodating themselves to the possibilities offered by new information technologies. In response to this, digital transformation involves designing new information gathering and response methods, thus changing the value provided to the customer. Companies need to redesign their services and create new ones supported by new technologies. In recent times, the impact of information technologies on the development and implementation of sustainability-oriented innovations is becoming especially remarkable and special attention should be paid to the contribution of information management in the current scenario.
International Business; sustainability; SDGs
General Summary
In the context of international business (IB), sustainability is no longer a peripheral consideration but a key priority for scholars and practitioners in the field. Accelerated environmental degradation, armed conflicts, humanitarian migration crises, and widespread violations of human rights and gender inequality underscore the interconnectedness of global sustainability challenges.
In response, various initiatives and frameworks, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), offer a comprehensive guide to address these global challenges with international enterprises playing a key role. Some companies are implementing alternative economic models, like circular and sharing economies to promote resource efficiency and collaborative consumption, or more responsible global value chains to reduce exploitation and ensure fair practices across borders. Also, the rise of B corporations and the increasing adoption of environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria worldwide signify a shift towards a more global sustainable future. However, corporate misconduct, unethical practices, gender inequality in the workplace, and unbalanced power dynamics exacerbate sustainability problems, making their implications for global governance and IB impossible to ignore.
Accordingly, this special track seeks to explore the multifaceted role of sustainability in IB, advancing both theoretical frameworks and applied research in international strategic management. It aims to examine how sustainability influences and is influenced by IB practices, shedding light on pathways through which international firms can positively impact society and the environment. Contributions focusing on firms' sustainability impact pathways are particularly encouraged, as they offer valuable insights into strategies for generating positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes. Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:
Accelerators; Cross-Industry Innovation; Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Incubators, Open Innovation, Other Mechanisms and Actors in Innovation Ecosystem; Startup
The policymakers should move beyond isolated policies for startups and adopt a more holistic approach to connect key institutions and infrastructures that influence outcomes (Audretsch et al., 2020; Gimenez-Fernandez et al., 2020). By doing so, it would effectively leverage both national entrepreneurship systems and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stam and van de Ven, 2019) to boost innovation in new firms. In this context entrepreneurial ecosystem represent very favorable supportive environment to promote the interaction of various mechanisms and actors in fostering startup innovation (Spigel, 2017).
Diversity of those mechanisms and actors that are presented in the innovation (Vlaisavljevic et al., 2020; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020) and entrepreneurial (Theodoraki et al., 2022) ecosystems are acting as enablers of innovation. After the first incubators established in the late 1950s, and a period of slow diffusion in the following decades, different forms of incubators become a remarkable actor of the modern entrepreneurial ecosystem (Hausberg and Korreck, 2020), including accelerators, academic spin-offs programs, and the emergence of other boosting business growth models, among others. Moreover, Open Innovation (OI) literature highlights how startups integrate external expertise to thrive within ecosystems. Additionally, Cross-Industry Innovation (CII) extends innovation opportunities by crossing industry boundaries, allowing startups and ecosystems to apply new knowledge or find solutions to innovation challenges, thereby expanding their potential for growth and development (Carmona-Lavado et al., 2023).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are conceptualized as complex systems with dynamic processes, numerous interactions among actors, and interdependencies among activities, but research still falls behind these conceptual advances because they do not consider the dynamic interactions (Abootorabi et al., 2021). Further work is required to analyze how the support of different programs of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystems in general may influence the startup innovation. We invite to submit both theoretical and empirical papers whose topics or areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
More generally, this track welcomes contributions that will analyze, in the context of entrepreneurial ecosystem, topics related to the innovation of startups.
Environmental practices; environmental standards; sustainable business ecosystems
The purpose of this track is to analyze how the implementation of environmental practices can be the antecedent or the initial step to contribute to the creation of a sustainable business ecosystem. This track is focused on environmental practices such as the implementation of standards such as ISO 14001 but also considering circular economy models, B Corp certifications, among others.
The main objective is to evidence that these practices can boost sustainable behavior in different contexts, for example at city business ecosystems, clusters, regions, countries, etc. The practices leading to sustainable ecosystems can be multiple and beyond ISO 14001 for environmental management. For example, or other environmental standards such as energy management (ISO 50001), ecodesign (ISO 14006); B Corp certification, circular economy models, standards or certifications (ISO 59000 family), among other practices. Furthermore, the focus on sustainable business ecosystems includes specific fields such as:
The analysis can be done from the business side, the regional point of view or from other stakeholders involved in the construction of the sustainable context, taking into account their perceptions and beliefs of sustainable business ecosystems.
Turnaround, Decline, Crisis, Strategies
This track aims to bring together research on business crisis management, environmental crises, and business turnaround. Although the management of decline, disasters, and business turnaround has a long academic history, recent crises such as COVID-19 and the DANA, the implementation of the new European Directives on restructuring and insolvency, along with initiatives such as the PERTE, and the integration of technological innovations and sustainable business models have renewed interest in this field.
This renewed interest is especially evident in topics related to organizational resilience, the incorporation of early warning management systems, and the restructuring of economically viable companies. However, there remains a significant research gap in areas such as the typologies of turnaround strategies and processes, the effectiveness of financial information systems, the impact of formal institutions in insolvency and resilience processes, the importance of social capital in recovery, and, in general, in disaster management.
This track invites case studies, literature reviews, empirical research, and analysis of business successes and failures that explore the applicability of various intervention measures, stakeholder management, and crisis strategies in contexts related to everyday business activities and those more specific to a proactive risk management perspective.
Furthermore, contributions that delve into topics such as organizational learning, resilience, divestment strategies, and public policies supporting business resilience during crises will be valued.
In conclusion, we invite papers that analyze how companies prepare for and respond to crises from various perspectives: administrative (e.g., bankruptcy proceedings, financial intelligence), operational (restructuring and recovery), and contingent (agility, governance, emotions), and identify mistakes in the implementation of business continuity and planning strategies.
Corporate social irresponsibility, ESG Controversies, ESG Risk, Corporate fraud, Unethical performance, Environmental damage, Greenwashing, Cost and reputational risk
In recent decades, the socially responsible behavior of firms or ESG actions have become a topic of particular concern for investors, managers and academics. Parallel to this reality, there is a dark side of corporate performance - corporate social irresponsibility. This track will explore how bad practices might damage the reputation of firms, in a context where investors and other stakeholders are increasingly concerned about to ESG risks.
It will highlight examples of bad practices in corporate governance such as Enron or Lehman Brothers, environmental damage such as BP, ExxonMobil or Volkswagen, or inadequate working conditions such as Foxconn, Primark, Nike or H&M. Beyond the anecdote, aspects linked to technological development, such as greater anonymity, lower transaction costs and less need for collateral to obtain financial resources, may drive greater use of inappropriate corporate practices. However, despite this, corporate misbehavior has not received as much attention in academic circles, with the literature related to unethical firm performance being at a lesser stage of development compared to research on socially responsible behavior. This reality may reflect the misconception that increased knowledge about the responsible actions of firms helps to understand and reduce their unethical behavior, i.e. assuming that irresponsibility is the flip side of responsibility is a mistake, as firms can be both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ at the same time.
Thus, the aim of this track is to shed light on the factors that determine inappropriate behavior in firms, both from an external or institutional perspective and at the corporate level, and to increase knowledge of the consequences of phenomena of social irresponsibility, fraud, crime, environmental damage or the dissemination of misleading information on corporate activities and their impact on the setting and society. In addition, the consequences of such performance on risk perception and long-term sustainability will be analyzed. Therefore, the main contribution of this track would be to increase knowledge about an aspect of firms' performance that is of growing concern to different stakeholders and that can have a significant impact on their long-term sustainability.
The growing interest in sustainability, driven by environmental and regulatory pressures, is profoundly transforming supply chains. In this context, the concept of the circular economy (CE) offers a unique opportunity to reinvent traditional practices, reducing environmental impact and creating added value through the reduction, reuse, and recycling of resources (Blomsma & Tennant, 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). The objective of this track is to explore how companies are integrating CE into their supply chain strategies, as well as the challenges and opportunities this entails (Genovese et al., 2017).
Circular supply chains aim to maximize the value of products throughout their life cycle and minimize waste, from the sourcing of raw materials to final disposal. The integration of technological innovations with CE principles has become a key driver in promoting CE and optimizing sustainability in supply chains (Lu et al., 2022). The use of emerging technologies, such as big data analytics and digitalization, enables better decision-making and resource optimization (Bhawna et al., 2024; Riggs et al., 2023). This track intends to analyze the potential benefits of integrating CE with a focus on the supply chain (Batista et al., 2024; Debnath & Biswajit, 2023), such as sustainable product design, waste reduction, efficient resource use, and collaboration along the value chain (Nasir et al., 2017).
The added value of this track lies in fostering an enriching debate on best practices, success stories, and innovative models in the field of circular supply chains. Attendees will gain a broad perspective on how companies can develop more sustainable and efficient supply chains, leveraging the advantages of circularity to reduce costs, comply with environmental regulations, and respond to the growing demand for responsible products and services.
NHS, Precision Healthcare, Liquid Hospitals, Green Hospitals, matrix models
The National Health System is currently facing a complex situation: on the one hand, potential funding is scarce or insufficient to maintain the current level of coverage and provision, and on the other, there is a substantial change in the healthcare ‘market’ to be served, which means that we are living longer and longer, which means that the population pyramid is inverting and there is an increasing number of elderly people and people with eminently chronic pathologies.
The health care of the future will leave behind the current organisation based on care levels and move towards a matrix organisation of all the agents involved in the system: health professionals, users of the system and Social Services, which will improve coordination between them. This will guarantee continuity of care through a single process aimed at addressing the health of the individual with a holistic vision.
The organisation of the system for health provision will be in interrelated areas of action, organised in a network and placing the person at the centre of its activity: the Single Health Space, which will encompass in a single area of action the health care and attention currently provided by Primary and Community Care and Hospital Care, Ubiquitous Health, and Precision Public Health.
The ‘Liquid Hospital’ (H2.0) trend model is a hospital that adds new working concepts to the traditional hospital (H1.0): it becomes present in the medical, family and social reality, it becomes visible and is not evanescent or ‘gaseous’; it becomes agile, interactive, collaborative, multimedia and avoids the ‘solid’ or stony aspect of IT structures that are still too anchored in the 20th century and with little regard for the 21st century.
Similarly, Lean Hospital Management has recently been making inroads in the hospital field. This methodology is a reflection of Lean Management, a working methodology aimed at boosting production efficiency in all processes of an industry.
The European Union has recognised that hospitals are among the most polluting and waste-generating buildings, which is why incorporating a large-scale corporate social responsibility approach into the healthcare organisation's strategy is, from all points of view, a matter of urgency.
Most of the studies on our NHS, published and presented at scientific congresses in Spain, belong to the field of health economics, and do not sufficiently address the problems related to healthcare management.
Digital transformation, sustainable digitalisation, SDG, sustainable consumption, omnichannel, management, customer engagement, communication on sustainability, risks of digitalisation
Unsustainable companies jeopardize their future. The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact and the 2030 Agenda, with the 17 SDGs, emphasize the need for economic, social, and environmental value alongside profitability. This implies greater adoption of digital transformation (DT), defined as a socio-economic change that affects individuals, organisations, ecosystems and societies, and determined by the adoption and use of digital technologies (Dabrowska et al., 2022). DT disrupts traditional business models, making technology the backbone of new value propositions that achieve economic goals and positively impact Society and the environment.
DT enhances business sustainability by increasing efficiency, reducing resource consumption and carbon emissions, and improving value chain traceability. From the perspective of social impact, digital solutions can improve access to education and healthcare and promote communities and cities, enhancing social inclusion and a greater adaptability to current needs (i.e. reducing time loss, pollution or overuse of resources). All this has a positive impact on people's objective and subjective well-being (Elmassah & Hassanein, 2022), financial inclusion and access to public and private services (Siampondo, 2023). Therefore, technology and digitalisation significantly contribute to achieving SDGs, like #9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and #11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), but also others, such as #6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), #7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), #1 (No Poverty), and #3 (Good Health and Well-being).
Meanwhile, consumers, increasingly aware of social and environmental impacts, seek more sustainable options. Today's consumer is characterised by an intensive use of ICT and goes beyond entertainment or shopping, showing more responsible and sustainable consumption. Therefore, the business focus should be on developing omnichannel, offering the consumer a unique and continuous experience, which improves their engagement, reducing the customer journey stages and saving resources on both sides.
Despite its benefits, sustainable digitisation faces certain challenges, such as:
Actions needed include impact measurement, empirical testing, and designing ethical solutions to ensure data privacy and human rights, with essential business involvement. We encourage submissions employing quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and also conceptual or theoretical contributions.
Corporate governance, ownership structure, sustainability, ESG, reporting
Since the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved by 2030 (the so-called 2030 Agenda) in September 2015, companies and organizations have been working towards achieving sustainability. The pursuit of sustainability in businesses is related to their fundamental goal of creating long-term value, not only for shareholders but for stakeholders in general (financial and non-financial goals) (Freeman, 1984). In this context, investors are increasingly pressuring companies to seek sustainability, also analyzing its impact on company risk and profitability. In this sense, corporate decisions on sustainability practices and strategies - which fall squarely within the remit of boards of directors - are not innocuous.
While it is true that there are relevant studies and contributions on how certain organizational factors contribute to the implementation and dissemination of sustainability in companies (e.g., Fernández-Gago et al. 2020; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Jain and Jamali, 2016; Naciti et al., 2022), the academic literature linking corporate governance characteristics and ownership structure (type of owners and identity) to sustainability is scarce (with exceptions such as Martínez-Ferrero and García-Meca, 2020; Naciti, 2019; Rivera-Franco et al., 2024). In this sense, questions such as the relationship between firm ownership structure (type of owners), board characteristics (i.e. composition, committees), executive compensation, women (i.e. on boards, in TMT), or shareholder activism and firm sustainability practices and performance are relevant.
Investors are also increasingly active in pressuring companies on sustainability, demanding information and analysing the impact of sustainability practices on corporate risk and profitability. The demand for ESG information (from asset owners, institutional investors, companies, regulators and other stakeholders) has exploded
in recent years, giving rise to standards such as the CSRD, which regulates the sustainability information that companies must communicate, and to commercially developed ESG ratings (Tayan, 2022). Investors rely on ESG ratings to make investment decisions and companies use them to obtain third-party feedback on the quality of their sustainability initiatives, but the reliability of these ratings has been questioned. In this context, it is important to examine how the 2030 Agenda, regulatory frameworks and compliance standards shape corporate governance and the role of the board of directors, as well as the reliability and comparability of ESG ratings (particularly with respect to G).
Some specific questions on this topic are the following:
SArtificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the way organizations manage both their operations and their human talent. This track will explore how AI is being used to automate tasks, enhance decision-making, and manage large volumes of information. Special emphasis will be placed on the impact this transformation has on human resources (HR), where advanced technologies are changing how organizations recruit, train, and manage employee performance. The track will analyze both the opportunities, and the ethical and practical challenges associated with adopting AI in these contexts.
Track Objectives:
