List of Tracks

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Angelo Presenza, Department of Economic, University of Molise, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Myung Ja Kim, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, South Korea

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Luna Leoni, Faculty of Economics, University of Tor Vergata, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Maria Della Lucia, Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Italy

Contacts
presenza@unimol.it

Abstract
The relationship between biodiversity and the tourism and hospitality industry (T&HI) is paradoxical, while biodiversity attracts tourists, tourism activities often degrade ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss. This paradox challenges the T&HI to strike a balance between promoting and supporting biodiversity conservation and meeting tourism demands and economic purposes, especially as the T&HI undergoes significant structural changes. These changes are reshaping traditional business models and introducing sustainable practices to enhance resilience through careful planning and management. Thus, this special track focuses on exploring innovative strategies and business models that promote sustainable tourism development capable of protecting natural ecosystems, thus increasing resilience of both tourism firms and destinations. This track encourages submissions that investigate the modernization of business models for regenerative practices, analyse strategic challenges, and examine the potential role of smart technologies in pursuing these goals. The aim is to foster resilience and long-term growth within the T&HI while addressing biodiversity concerns.

Long description of the track
Biodiversity plays a crucial role for the T&HI, yet there is a paradox at the heart of their relationship. While biodiversity is a key attraction that fuels tourism, tourism activities often contribute to the degradation and loss of biodiversity; from deforestation for infrastructure to the disruption of delicate ecosystems, tourism can have lasting detrimental effects on biodiversity. At the same time, the T&HI has the potential to significantly contribute to biodiversity conservation, but this demands thoughtful and sensitive planning and management to prevent negative impacts on ecosystems. However, these conservation-focused strategies often conflict with the pressures of commercial tourism development and economic purposes of the wide range of sectors and activities that compose the T&HI. In an era marked by the urgency to protect natural habitats while enhancing sector resilience, the T&HI is undergoing profound structural changes that have prompted a fundamental transformation in how the T&HI operates, adapts, and innovates. These shifts are reshaping approaches to how to manage the business until completely rethinking traditional business models and designing new ones. This special track intends to seek a deeper understanding of the management challenges of biodiversity concerns and ecosystem services within sustainable tourism development. The track centres its attention on the crucial role that innovation plays in protecting natural habitats by introducing sustainable practices and technologies, while simultaneously enhancing the resilience of the T&HI by fostering adaptability and long-term growth. The core objective of this special track is to explore innovative strategies, transformative approaches, and dynamic business models that can propel the transition towards a more sustainable development within this industry. Authors are encouraged to submit papers that: 1) Investigate how business models can be modernized to accelerate the adoption of regenerative innovation practices, 2) Analyse strategic factors, potential challenges, and barriers that different T&HI stakeholders can encounter in exploring regenerative innovation practices, 3) Examine how smart and digital technologies are revolutionizing the development, accessibility, and business models to protect natural habitats while enhancing T&HI resilience. We look forward to receiving submissions of empirical studies, case analyses, conceptual papers, and interdisciplinary research that address the multifaceted challenges and opportunities within this domain. Topics of interest for this track include, but are not limited to: • Open innovation platforms: strategies for enhancing regenerative innovation practices for T&HI; • Collaborative models and partnerships: assessing the role of cross-industry collaborations in driving regenerative innovation practices; • T&HI SMEs and family businesses: strategic factors, best practices, and potential challenges in navigating the dynamic landscape of regenerative innovation practices; Luxury T&HI and Hospitality Chain: • The orchestration of T&HI ecosystems: foster innovation for biodiversity preservation and sustainable development; • Emergent innovative framework in constrained contexts: exploring unconventional paradigms in innovation for biodiversity preservation and sustainable tourism development; • Emerging digital technologies: their role for advancing T&HI sustainability; • T&HI as a mix of sectors and activities: empirical studies and case analyses of regenerative innovation practices in T&HI’s sectors and activities; • Community engagement in natural resource management: co-creation of sustainable innovative tourism products.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Julián D. Cortés – School of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia; Engineering School, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Claudia González Brambila, Division of Business, Department of Business Administration, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), México

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Astrid Jaime, School of Engineering, Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios, Uniminuto, Colombia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Aglaya Batz Lineiro, School of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia

Contacts
julian.cortess@urosario.edu.co

Abstract
The relationship between innovation ecosystems and biodiversity presents both opportunities and challenges, as these systems are fundamentally intertwined. Achieving synergies between these domains requires complex, multifaceted strategies, including adaptive governance, supportive economic policies, and intellectual property frameworks that align technological advancements with ecological preservation. These models are essential for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) particularly as they enable the alignment of ecological and economic objectives. This track aims to facilitate meaningful dialogue between scholars, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. Key areas of focus include the influence of innovation ecosystems on biodiversity, the importance of biodiversity in driving innovation, and the creation of adaptive governance and policy frameworks. Discussions will also explore how innovation can contribute to achieving the SDGs through conservation efforts and sustainable business practices.

Long description of the track
Numerous opportunities and challenges emerge from the intricate relationship between innovation ecosystems and biodiversity (Cortés et al., 2021). An innovation ecosystem is a dynamic collection of actors, activities, artifacts, institutions, and relationships that foster and drive innovation (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). Biodiversity, on the other hand, encompasses the vast array of living organisms, originating from diverse sources such as terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, as well as the intricate ecological complexes they form (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006). While these two systems—human-driven innovation and natural biodiversity—might appear distinct, they are fundamentally intertwined. Their co-evolution is shaped by interactions that span both ecological and cultural boundaries, highlighting the need for integrated approaches to innovation that consider biodiversity as a foundational element. Several authors (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009; Nambisan and Baron, 2013; Still et al., 2014; Guerrrero et al., 2016; Fransman,2018) have made significant contribution to the literature on innovation ecosystems by analyzing the interplay between actors and their impact on technological advancements. Through real-world examples from major tech companies and general use technologies, they have illustrated how innovative ecosystems are shaped and the relations/coordination of their actors. Further studies emphasize the role of economic policies, intellectual property frameworks, and adaptive processes in fostering innovation ecosystems that protect biodiversity, support sustainable development startups, and promote new business models aligned with sustainability goals (Csedő, 2023; Ingram, 2015; Ingram et al., 2015; Kirschten, 2005; Miri-Lavassani, 2017; Ryan, 2010; van Rijnsoever, 2022). In addition, the bioeconomy, focused on the sustainable use of biological resources, promotes bio-based alternatives to replace fossil industries, fostering biodiversity conservation and economic growth through new business models that balance ecological and economic priorities, with sustainable innovation emerging as a competitive advantage (Oksanen & Hautamäki, 2015; Philp & Winickoff, 2019). The strategies needed to foster these synergies are complex and multifaceted in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), presenting significant challenges in aligning ecological conservation with economic growth. With these advancements in mind, the aim of the “Sustainable Synergies: Innovation Ecosystems and Biodiversity for a Sustainable Future” track is to facilitate meaningful conversations between scholars, policymakers, and industry stakeholders on the intersection between innovation ecosystems and biodiversity across the globe. The main topics of discussion include the influence of innovation ecosystems on biodiversity, the significance of biodiversity in driving innovation, adaptive governance and policy frameworks, conservation of diversity, innovation towards reaching SDGs, and new business models. Contributions of the following types are encouraged, though we also welcome other relevant contributions aligned with the track’s focus: • Case Studies: In-depth examinations of specific innovation-ecosystems, their interactions with biodiversity, sustainable entrepreneurship, and good practices in achieving and developing bio-inspired products and services. • Policy Analysis: Evaluations of existing policies and regulations related to innovation, biodiversity, and the SDGs. • Theoretical Frameworks: Development of new theoretical frameworks to better understand the relationship between innovation ecosystems and biodiversity. • Empirical Research: Quantitative and qualitative studies that provide empirical evidence that describes the forms of coordination to prioritize innovation and biodiversity, and the mutual influence of innovation ecosystems on biodiversity.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Miehé Lucas, ETH Zurich Switzerland

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Kaipainen Jenni, ETH Zurich Switzerland

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Führer Sophie, ETH Zurich Switzerland

Contacts
lmiehe@ethz.ch

Abstract
This track explores how innovation across industry boundaries can support achieving sustainability goals, such as decarbonization and the circular economy. In energy transition literature, cross-industry innovation may occur in integrating multiple industries to optimize energy production and distribution with sector coupling. Meanwhile, ecosystem theory leverages interdependent relationships among actors for industry-crossing value propositions and reveals broad innovation implications for cross-industrial transformation. As a step forward, this track aims to extend the concept of sector coupling beyond energy solely and invites submissions that investigate ecosystem innovation across industry boundaries through strategies such as sector coupling. We welcome submissions that represent diverse methods and cases beyond the traditional energy context and offer insights on cross-industry eco-innovation opportunities.

Long description of the track
With the Paris agreement, countries committed to net-zero emission by 2050. The decarbonization requires tremendous changes in behavior and technology in different industries (IPPC, 2018). One pathway to net-zero is to foster the concept of sector coupling. Sector coupling, a concept derived from the energy literature, focuses on the connection and interaction of at least two sectors to optimize the consumption and allocation of energy distribution (Fridgen et al., 2020; IRENA, 2019). Ultimately, sector coupling aims to accelerate the transition towards renewable energies and consequently leads to decarbonization of various industry sectors (Ramsebner et al., 2021). Examples of sector coupling include vehicle-to-grid systems, district heating systems, and positive energy districts. From a managerial perspective, sector coupling requires firms to innovate not only beyond their firm boundaries, but also industry boundaries. Ecosystem theory offers a promising lens to investigate sector coupling. Ecosystems focus on independent but interdependently linked actors whose activities, links, and positioning are key to achieving a joint value proposition (Adner, 2017; Jacobides et al., 2018), such as energy optimization efforts. While literature has already investigated use-cases of sector coupling like electric vehicles (Kapoor, 2018), photovoltaic systems (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018), and the energy sector (Nylund et al., 2022), literature could expand towards a more holistic scope of sector coupling. In doing so, the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of cognitive, economic, and technical co-alignment (Thomas & Autio, 2020) for sector coupling can be advanced, while gaining new insights into how (and why) existing ecosystems transform (e.g., by the inclusion or exclusion of actors; and adopting, enhancing, or rejecting [use of] technologies). By adopting the principle of sector coupling in other domains beyond energy, we can advance our understanding of further eco-innovation pathways like circular economy. As the phenomena of sector coupling takes places between at least two sectors, such investigations would also lead to refreshing insights on industry architectures. While industry architecture concerns the questions of ‘who makes what’ and ‘who takes what’ along vertical integration (Jacobides et al., 2006), the ecosystem lens on sector coupling would extend our understanding of industry architecture and reshaping across established industries through the inclusion of adjacent industries and resulting cross-industry innovation opportunities. While the context should focus on improving sustainability efforts, potential research questions include but are not limited to: • How and why does technological change (i.e., new paradigms and/or new routines and procedures) occur when actors pursue sector coupling innovations? • How and why do firms change their practices and routines by adopting sector coupling innovations? • How and why do established ecosystems transform due to sector coupling innovations? • How and why do industries convergence by adopting sector coupling as a concept? • How and why is the industry architecture transforming when (adjacent or distjunct) industries converge?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Ciro Troise, University of Turin, Department of Management “Valter Cantino”, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Nicholas O’ Regan, Aston University, Aston Business School, UK

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Gabriella Esposito, University of Turin, Department of Management “Valter Cantino”, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Abby Ghobadian, University of Reading, Henley Business School, UK

Contacts
ciro.troise@unito.it

Abstract
This track explores the critical role of entrepreneurship in fostering biodiversity and promoting sustainable economic growth. As biodiversity faces increasing threats from human activities, entrepreneurs and companies must adopt innovative strategies focused on ecological protection and ecosystem regeneration. Participants will examine the evolving relationship between entrepreneurship and biodiversity, discussing diverse models such as sustainable and green entrepreneurship. The track will highlight how startups and entrepreneurial ventures can leverage digital tools, systemic innovation, and nature-based solutions to create positive outcomes for biodiversity. By facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue and showcasing pioneering case studies, this track aims to equip participants with the knowledge and networks necessary to drive entrepreneurial actions that align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ultimately, it will underscore the vital role of entrepreneurs in fostering a sustainable future for ecosystems and communities.

Long description of the track
Biodiversity is essential for the future, as well as for the sustainability and stability of ecosystems. Yet it is increasingly under threat due to human activities such as habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. In this scenario, entrepreneurs and companies are called to adopt new strategies with a clear focus on the biodiversity and protection of natural habitats. This track explores how entrepreneurship can be a key driver of sustainable economic growth while leveraging innovation, specific strategies and new technologies in order to regenerate ecosystems. This track provides a forum for academics and practitioners to examine the developing relationship between entrepreneurship and biodiversity. The track aims to develop an ongoing and constructive dialogue among entrepreneurship scholars to conduct research relevant to both entrepreneurship theory and practice in the contemporary world. It is designed to capture new and emerging research areas alongside classical areas of study in entrepreneurship, emphasizing methodological, theoretical, and empirical pluralism in entrepreneurship research. Modern entrepreneurship is rapidly evolving towards a multitude of diverse models with different orientations. Examples include sustainable entrepreneurship, green entrepreneurship, digital entrepreneurship and collective entrepreneurship. While entrepreneurship is known to be a social force for change, scholars understand little about how it can be applied to the field of biodiversity, particularly in addressing emerging challenges in this area. Hence, this track tries to shed some light on the “next frontier” of entrepreneurship research and contribute to its emerging debate. Participants will address a broad range of interrelated topics, including design for change, digital transformation, and the entrepreneurial mindset. Attendees will explore how startups, systemic innovation, new technologies and new business models can contribute to biodiversity-positive outcomes. By designing for resilience and ecosystem restoration, companies can align their innovation strategies with nature, leading to products and services that reduce harm and actively regenerate natural systems. Case studies are encouraged to showcase pioneering businesses that successfully integrate biodiversity into their core operations, demonstrating the viability of entrepreneurial solutions for environmental challenges. At the heart of our discussions will be the identification of current and emerging concepts and actions that can help entrepreneurs create new value while preserving biodiversity. The track will highlight the role of startups and entrepreneurial ventures, exploring how these innovative companies contribute to nature-based solutions and digital tools for monitoring and managing ecosystems. The dialogue will also focus on how entrepreneurial initiatives can contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by aligning innovation efforts with biodiversity conservation and sustainability initiatives. Innovative startups and local entrepreneurship offer significant potential to protect biodiversity through creative, bottom-up approaches that involve communities in managing their natural environments. These entrepreneurial initiatives can serve as powerful examples of how local actions contribute to global biodiversity goals. By facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, showcasing pioneering solutions, and promoting collaboration, this track aims to equip participants with the knowledge, tools, and networks necessary to drive positive innovation and entrepreneurial actions for biodiversity in organizations and ecosystems. It will highlight the vital role of entrepreneurs and their ecosystems in fostering a sustainable future.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Francesco Testa, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Rajat Panwar, Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Natalia Marzia Gusmerotti, Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Duccio Tosi, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Contacts
francesco.testa@santannapisa.it
rajat.panwar@oregonstate.edu
duccio.tosi@santannapisa.it

Abstract
Scholars are paying increasing attention to biodiversity and natural ecosystems, as they are necessary conditions for business continuity and human well-being. Organizations significantly shape ecological outcomes, while being affected by them, due to their dual relationship of impact and dependence on natural capital. With one million species on the brink of extinction (UN, 2019) and six planetary boundaries surpassed (Richardson et al., 2023), urgent transformation is needed in production and consumption patterns. This track invites research that examines how organizations and value chains can adopt a systems perspective to manage biodiversity, moving beyond profit-driven approaches toward strategies that integrate ecological resilience and regenerative practices. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions addressing business model innovation, technology and measurement tools, internal organizational dynamics, supply chain practices, public policies, and community engagement to foster sustainable socio-ecological systems. This track seeks to advance the integration of biodiversity considerations into core organizational strategies and practices.

Long description of the track
The United Nations’ prediction of the imminent loss of one million species (UN, 2019) represents a serious threat to the resilience of natural ecosystems and their ability to provide the essential services required by human activities. Such biodiversity decline not only exacerbates other environmental crises, like climate change, but has also harmful effects on the socio-economic system. Moreover, the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s recent update on planetary boundaries shows that six out of nine boundaries have been crossed, indicating that the safety parameters for human habitability on Earth have been exceeded (Richardson et al., 2023). It is clear, then, that current production and consumption patterns require a radical shift (Panwar et al., 2024). Urgent action from businesses and scholars is needed (Folke et al., 2019) The starting point is to understand and internalize the interdependencies underlying the impact-dependence relationship between economic activity and biodiversity (Small et al., 2022). This understanding can shape companies’ strategic responses to the challenges posed by the decline in natural capital (Winn & Pogutz, 2013). Specifically, it provides the foundation to recognize the interconnectedness between business and nature and move away from logics based solely on the exploitation of ecological systems or the adoption of instrumental solutions that hide a mere profit-centered ambition. In a logic of linearity, more or less unconsciously, the need for a balance between the various and different components of a system is ignored. The failure to internalize the environmental and social costs of production and consumption patterns keeps alive a bias in the interpretation of the role of business in society. This bias makes visible in the eyes of most managers -as in the Plato’s Cave Myth- the sole need to maximize short-term profit. This precludes the possibility of seeking, through innovation, the generation of holistic value, which, necessarily, would require extending the view of time. And it frustrates the efforts of multiple social responsibility initiatives to minimize impacts, making the business an inherently irresponsible organism. It also leads to risks on business fundamental assets such as key resources and reputation. Biodiversity management strategies that view organizational activities as inextricably linked to the development and health of nature are rooted in a systems perspective and a regenerative ambition. However, how these strategies can be implemented and diffused within individual organizations or value/supply chains remains an underdeveloped area in the literature. This track aims to promote discussion on how organizations and supply chains, through consideration of biodiversity and ecosystems, can adopt a systems perspective, achieve positive innovation and be regenerative. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions exploring how innovations in business models, new technologies and measurement tools, internal organizational dynamics, supply chain management practices, public policies, or relationships with local communities can lead organizations to adopt strategies aimed at safeguarding or enhancing social-ecological systems. The most promising contributions will be encouraged to submit to the Special Issue of Organization & Environment on “Biodiversity Conservation and Restoration as a New Research Frontier for Business Scholars” although they will not receive any preferential treatment.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Mario Benassi, University of Milan

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Riccardo Rialti, University of Siena

Contacts
mario.benassi@unimi.it

Abstract
It is fundamental to understand why some legacy SMEs are more adept to adaptation whether facing new environmental challenges. Literature points out that it may depend either on the network they are part of or on internal capabilities. Yet, no consensus exists. The goal of this track is accordingly to attract researches discussing such a phenomenon. Submissions related to the topic are deeply encouraged regardless of the selected research approach. Theoretical, review, qualitative, and quantitative papers are welcomed.

Long description of the track
The goal of the track is to stimulate discussion about processes and mechanisms by which legacy SMEs with moderate endowments explore new product and market solutions. We are mainly interested in discussing how incumbent SMEs leave previous business models and achieve a better fit with the current rapidly evolving digital environment. A legacy company can be identified by its historical repository of knowledge and practices that survived the proof-of-time (Ding, 2023). These companies adopt basic and long-term routines that might develop new capabilities, but also make adaptation to change difficult. While history of represents a pivotal resource upon which a company can construct its own identity, it may also correspond to an overall increased inertia (Suddaby et al., 2020). After all, why should managers attempt to change a business model that created value for decades? So far, management literature has focused on reasons that make a possible fit between companies and their environments difficult or even impossible, such as misperceptions of upcoming technologies, resistance to change, managerial myopia, and so on (Cowling et al., 2024). Paradoxically, inability to get a better fit is not necessarily dependent upon available resources and competences, as in the case of companies fumbling to determine their future (Coco et al., 2024). Consistently, we know little about how SMEs with moderate resources successfully explore new alternatives, leaving segments and activities at the risk of becoming obsolete (Wilmes et al., 2023). For these companies, new product and process development by means of long-term internal investment in R&D is not feasible. Moreover, these companies might be bound by routines and mechanisms that make change difficult and even impossible. Yet, adaptation is not impossible, as recent researches point out how legacy companies (including SMEs) successfully adopted digital platforms (Kopalle et al. 2020) or explored The Metaverse (Benassi & Rialti, 2024) Existing research offers some insights about how legacy SMEs might explore amidst impendent change. In particular, two streams of research seem promising. The first adopt a network perspective. Scholars argued that the organization of specific national systems makes innovation and adaptation at company level possible (Helfat et al. 2007). Network of strictly interdependent firms in low-medium technology industries can be quite active in the innovation process. However, the micro structure of this evolving pattern is still largely unknown (Snihur & Zott, 2020): How does the process of changes begin? Is this due to specific, clearly identifiable actors or is it largely diffused? What is the role of large, international companies in promoting change in local economies? The second one, instead, focus on the observation of SMEs’ internal existing competencies. I.e., these researches adopt a dynamic capabilities micro-foundational approach to observe how legacy SMEs can thrive in turbulent environments. In particular, it was observed how through many small incremental cumulative steps old capabilities become suitable to address modern problems (Suddaby et al., 2020). This is the case of SMEs successfully integrating social media to cope with COVID-19 pandemic and achieve a better fit with customers’ requests (Hu et al., 2023)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Francesco Fasano, University of Calabria

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Francesco Cappa, Campus Biomedico University, Rome

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Chiara Bartoli, Luiss Guido Carli University, Rome

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Paolo Boccardelli, Luiss Guido Carli University, Rome

Contacts
francesco.fasano@unical.it

Abstract
Web 3.0 represents the next stage in the digital world’s evolution, marked by technologies like blockchain, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), cryptocurrencies, metaverse and artificial intelligence. These technologies, offer vast potential for organizations to achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability. The synergy between Web 3.0 and sustainability is crucial for building a future that is both efficient and protective of environmental resources. This track aims to nurture studies analyzing the several facets of the relationship between Web 3.0 technologies and economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The objective is to highlight benefits and drawbacks for organizations associated to Web 3.0 technologies, as well as identify future opportunities and challenges that they may face.

Long description of the track
Web 3.0 represents the next evolution in the digital world (Bergami et al., 2023). It includes the development, in the coming years, of a series of technologies that are already, to some extent, transforming the way we live and work and will continue to do so in the future like blockchain, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), cryptocurrencies, metaverse and artificial intelligence (Murray et al., 2023; Bartoli et al., 2024). As Web 3.0 technologies become more prominent, there is increasing attention from the community on the role these new technologies can play in creating a more sustainable world. Web 3.0, with its characteristics such as decentralization of information, interoperability, cybersecurity, blockchain, metaverse, crypto-token, smart contracts, and especially the remarkable development of artificial intelligence, has an impressive potential to advance progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and address the grand challenges facing society in this critical historical moment (D’Angelo et al., 2023). The current benefits and drawbacks, as well as potential future opportunities and challenges connected to Web 3.0 and sustainable development still need to be clarified. In this context, this track aims to bring together two crucial aspects that characterize the future of society and business management. On one side, Web 3.0 with its various defining features, and on the other, sustainability in all its facets. The synergies between these two hot topics are such that the impact of one on the other can be fundamental in ensuring that both move towards a future that is more efficient for organizations and for the whole society. Below are some examples, though not exhaustive, of potential contributions on the topic: • Web 3.0 technologies benefits and drawbacks in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability for organizations and for the whole society • Web 3.0 technologies future opportunities and challenges in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability for organizations and for the whole society • Web 3.0 and emerging sustainable practices like Circular Economy • Web 3.0 and intellectual property rights • Web 3.0 and business model innovation • Web 3.0 and supply chain management

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Alessia Zoppelletto, University of Verona

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Erica Santini, University of Trento

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Ludovico Bullini Orlandi, University of Bologna

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Claudia Vecciolini, King’s College London

Contacts
alessia.zoppelletto@univr.it

Abstract
Sustainability-related challenges, such as climate change, inequality, and biodiversity loss, require urgent and coordinated global responses. These “grand challenges” impact multiple societal levels and demand systemic transformations. The European Recovery Plan prioritizes a greener and more inclusive economic system, to address socio-environmental issues. The digital transition plays a key role in enabling these sustainability efforts, fostering innovations and cooperation across political, social, and economic systems. Organizations by redesigning their strategies, business models, and organizational architectures, must leverage digital tools to embark in just and twin transitions. At a meso-level, collaborative organizational structures, whether formal or informal, should exploit the opportunities open up by digital tools to enable long-term resilience and inclusion. Research is needed to explore these transitions across various levels, addressing the multifaceted opportunities and challenges. This track welcomes both empirical and theoretical work-in-progress, as well as full research papers, using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods to investigate the multilevel challenge of organizing for just and twin transitions.

Long description of the track
The world today is confronted with numerous sustainability-related challenges in a variety of different domains (Gümüsay and Reinecke, 2022; Augustine et al., 2019; George et al., 2016; Markard et al., 2012). Policy makers are forcing the economic landscape to shape their habits and structures by setting strategies creating a greener and more resilient Europe (European Commission, 2020). Over the last decades, digital technologies seem to be opportunities for reaching green goals and a more inclusive society (Guandalini, 2022). Scholars underlined that digital transformation is not a single step undertaken for upgrading specific functions of an organization, but it is a process that triggers fundamental changes for individuals, organizations, and society in general, and results in creating additional opportunities for improvement (Vial, 2019; Ha et al., 2022). The business sector is tasked both with opportunities and responsibilities in solving world sustainability-related challenges due to its capacity to contribute to the solution of both societal and environmental issues in the service of the “common good” (Dyllick and Muff, 2016). In this scenario, some established organizations, e.g. firms but also value chains and clusters are pressured by the need to reconsider their established structures, strategies and business models, by entering a transition (Addo, 2022; Klein et al., 2021; Bansal and Roth, 2000; Cowling, 2017; Geels, 2018). The concepts of the Twin Transition (TT) and Just Transitions (JT) have been introduced in this debate to analyse processes addressing socio and environmental challenges by leveraging on the digital technologies (Ghisetti et al., 2015; European Commission, 2020; Montresor and Vezzani, 2023; Stevis, 2023). While TT refers to the green and digital transition, JT is “broadly defined as ensuring that no one is left behind or pushed behind in the transition to low-carbon and environmentally sustainable economies and societies” (UN, 2023). Due to their large impact in society, grand challenges extend beyond the boundaries of a single organization or community (Gimenez and Rodon, 2012; Ferraro et al., 2015). For this reason, grand challenges call for sustainability transitions at multiple levels (e.g., Safarzynska et al., 2022; Weber and Rohracher, 2012; Sharma and Henriques, 2005; Aguilera et al., 2007; Geels, 2004), affecting socio-technical systems from the macro (societal) level toward inter-organizational, organizational, and individual levels (Geels et al., 2018). Indeed, a sustainability transition is not an organization-centric process but rather, a global phenomenon that calls for a wider stakeholder collaboration, triggering changes in the industry and society as a whole (Markard et al., 2012). Consequently, this track calls for papers that will investigate topics such as (but not limited to): – Factors triggering the Twin and-or Just transitions toward sustainable business models (e.g., technology, innovation, policy, individual behaviors, collective action, etc.). – Challenges and benefits connected with the design of sustainable strategies and/or business models; – Inter-organizational dynamics boosting collaborative Twin and-or Just transitions (e.g. sustainable digital platform ecosystems, sustainable business networks, etc.); – Examining multi-level interactions: network, geography and governance structures – Formal and informal practices for boosting Twin and-or Just transitions (e.g., the creation of resilient architectures); – The individual, team, and organizational-level antecedents, or benefits, of a Twin and-or Just transitions More generally, this track welcomes contributions that investigate Twin and-or Just transitions at different levels, thus addressing challenges and opportunities taking place at organizational, inter-organizational or ecosystem, and societal levels.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Jie Hong, University of Sheffield

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Silvia Massini, Alliance Manchester Business School

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Dhruba Borah, University of Bristol

Contacts
jie.hong@sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract
As businesses navigate the grand challenges of the 21st century, the simultaneous pressures of digitalization and sustainability (or dual transition) are reshaping industries. Companies are increasingly adopting digital technologies to drive innovation while addressing rising demands for addressing sustainability from external stakeholders, including governments and customers. This dual transition presents both unprecedented opportunities and challenges. On one hand, digital technologies can facilitate sustainability by enabling smarter resource management, waste reduction and promoting circular economy. On the other hand, digitalisation can exacerbate environmental and social issues such as increased energy consumption and the risk of digital divides. The track aims to explore how businesses can strategically manage this dual transition to create sustainable competitive advantages in the global context. We invite empirical, conceptual and methodological research contributions that examine the intersection of digital innovation and sustainability from diverse perspectives, including strategy, innovation management, organizational change and international business.

Long description of the track
In recent years, digitalization and sustainability have significantly transformed businesses across industries. Advancements in digital technology such as artificial intelligence, social media, IoT and big data are reshaping industries and providing businesses with new ways to create and deliver value to global customers (Nambisan & Luo, 2022). Simultaneously, there is growing pressure from governments, consumers and civil society for businesses to adopt sustainable practices that minimize environmental impact, promote social responsibility, and ensure long-term economic viability (Montiel et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2023). This dual transition poses both opportunities and challenges, particularly for firms embedded in global value chains (GVCs) and those facing complex geopolitical environments. Digitalisation is revolutionising business operations across industries, regions and countries, driving innovation and enabling firms to enhance their competitiveness while aligning their operations with environmental and social expectations (George & Schillebeeckx, 2022). However, achieving both innovation and sustainability requires a capabilities to balance and possibly combine the two objectives, as firms must address the complexities of implementing digital technologies in a way that supports sustainable outcomes. This track focuses on how businesses can effectively manage the dual transition toward digitalization and sustainability, which is a critical challenge for maintaining competitive advantage in today’s globalized world. While the topics of digitalisation and sustainability in business have received significant academic attention in recent years, much of the existing research tends to treat these transitions as isolated phenomena. To address this research lacuna, we encourage contributions that analyse how businesses can effectively manage the integration of digitalisation and sustainability. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): 1. Leveraging digital technologies for innovation and sustainability: How do firms integrate digital technologies into their R&D to support sustainable business practices? How do firms balance technological innovation with the need for sustainable practices across industries, countries and regions? 2. Strategic integration of digitalization and sustainability: How can companies align their digital transformation and sustainability strategies for long-term success? 3. Challenges and opportunities in the dual transition: What tensions arise when trying to meet both digitalisation and sustainability demands? How are firms resolving these tensions to remain competitive, especially in international markets? 4. Organizational capabilities for managing dual transitions: What business models, leadership, skills and culture are needed to successfully navigate the dual transition? 5. External stakeholders’ influence: How do institutions, governments, NGOs and other stakeholders. shape the strategic decisions of firms undergoing this dual transition across industries, countries and regions? 6. Addressing sustainability requirements in global markets: How do firms integrate varying global sustainability regulations into their operations using digital technologies? How can digital transformation aid companies in complying with ESG frameworks across different markets? What strategies can firms use to harmonize global sustainability efforts with local regulatory requirements? 7. Innovation Strategies for Global Competitiveness: How can MNEs create innovation strategies that align with sustainability goals? What role does R&D internationalisation play in balancing technological advancements with environmental objectives? How can firms sustain their competitive edge while adhering to the environmental expectations of diverse stakeholders?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Domenica Barile, University LUM Giuseppe Degennaro (Italy)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Maria Chiara De Lorenzi – University of Salento, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Giustina Secundo, University LUM Giuseppe Degennaro, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Maria Elena Latino, University of Salento, Italy

Contacts
barile@lum.it

Abstract
In the fifth revolution scenario the paradigm of Innovation 5.0, representing a significant shift in our socio-technical systems towards a transformative phase. Innovation 5.0 integrates technological progress with sustainability point of view in order to create value and knowledge within Society 5.0. In this context, innovation ecosystems (IE) support economic development and respond to social needs. Advanced technology like AI, blockchain, and big data analytics, is transforming IE, which are complex systems of individuals, businesses, governments and institutions. The need for collaboration between humans and intelligent technology is pivotal in the Innovation 5.0 scenario that redefines the role of technology, introducing greater collaboration among IE actors and enables the commercialization of novel ideas. Moving from this premises, this thematic track encourages scholars to reflect on the role of advanced technologies in the Innovation 5.0 scenario as ecosystem enablers, welcomes empirical and conceptual study.

Long description of the track
With the gradual overcoming of the technocentric vision typical of Industry 4.0, the emergence of the Industry 5.0 (I5.0) paradigm highlights the importance of a broader integration of human, environmental, and social factors into technology, progress, and innovation (Troisi et al., 2023). The emergence of I5.0 opens the paradigm of Innovation 5.0, representing a significant shift in our socio-technical systems towards a transformative phase (Carayannis et al., 2023). It combines technological progress with social equity, ecological responsibility, and a deep understanding of human involvement in innovation (Latino, Menegoli, et al., 2024). Innovation 5.0 can be conceptualized as the complex and multi-level process resulting from the implementation of a technological ecosystem that should be effectively activated by skilled and empowered human resources for the creation of new value and knowledge (Latino, De Lorenzi, et al., 2024). All this in a scenario where innovation ecosystems are protagonists in the development of innovation without neglecting the social well-being (Troisi et al., 2023). The rapid growth of advanced technology is transforming innovation ecosystems (IE). These ecosystems are complex systems of individuals, businesses, governments and institutions in which Society 5.0 strives to foster innovation, generate opportunities for new businesses and stimulate economic development (Oh et al., 2016). Advanced digital technologies like AI, blockchain, and big data analytics are revolutionizing business ecosystems by enabling efficient development, cost reduction, and improved decision-making processes (Kim & You, 2020). These technologies, along with blockchain and big data analytics, foster innovation and collaboration among stakeholders (Secundo et al., 2020). Among digital technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), is experiencing rapid development that has the potential to disrupt and revolutionise many IE (Barile et al., 2024). AI and other Advanced digital technologies, such as Blockchain and Big Data Analytics, are crucial for encouraging collaboration by enabling the commercialisation of novel ideas. The need of collaboration between humans and intelligent technology realizes a pivotal advancement within IEs within Innovation 5.0 scenario (Basyuk et al., 2023). Furthermore, the emergence of I5.0 redefines the role of technology, introducing greater collaboration among government, universities, industry, civil society and the environment (Carayannis et al., 2023). Although this demonstrates the growing global attention on the topic of IE in the context of I5.0, the field of research on the link between IE and advanced technologies is still in its infancy and there is a lack of understanding of the meanings, purposes and opportunities thus paving the way for an interesting and unexplored research path. For this evidence, this thematic track invites scholars to reflect on the role of Advanced Technologies in Innovation 5.0 scenario as enabler of Ecosystems. Therefore, we welcome empirical, methodological or conceptual papers related to (but not necessarily limited to) the following research questions: 1. What role do Innovation 5.0 intermediaries play in accelerating the development and adoption of advanced technologies in ecosystems? 2. Which strategies and actions leverage advanced technologies (e.g., AI, blockchain, big data) to foster collaboration, knowledge exchange, and Innovation 5.0 in ecosystems? 3. How can I5.0 technologies reshape the relationship between humans and machines in ecosystems toward sustainability and a resilient paradigm? 4. How do digital and advanced technologies impact the development of Innovation 5.0 in ecosystems?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Einav Perez-Andersson, Jönköping International Business School, Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering, Sweden.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Professor Patrick Mikalef, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Sabrina Tabares, School of Business, EAFIT University, Medellín, Colombia

Contacts
einav.peretz.andersson@ju.se, satabaresa@eafit.edu.co

Abstract
This track explores digital and green transitions in businesses using AI technologies to advance regenerative and biodiversity management goals. With AI-driven solutions like automated species monitoring and environmental assessments, industries can orchestrate innovation ecosystems into core operations, addressing Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) commitments and driving sustainable innovation. From urban landscapes to agriculture, this track discusses transformative AI applications that foster biodiversity resilience and create sustainable value for businesses. Participants will share management strategies that leverage AI in sustainable innovation, promoting industry-led biodiversity outcomes, environmental stewardship, and sustainable economic growth.

Long description of the track
In this track, AI will be examined as a key element of sustainable innovation as it brings together digital and ecological elements in research and practical contexts. Today’s ecosystems are increasingly understood by AI technologies, enabling rigorous ecological monitoring, which aligns biodiversity with the SDGs and contributes to economic and environmental resilience. This track invites papers on AI-driven regenerative solutions, with an emphasis on applications like computer vision, IoT, and machine learning to advance ecosystem monitoring. Researchers and practitioners are leveraging AI to achieve biodiversity goals through innovative methods across fields such as urban planning, agriculture, and green space management. For example, technologies like image recognition and robotic sensors support continuous monitoring of plant and animal health, habitat diversity, and resource allocation, generating critical data for biodiversity indices. These initiatives position biodiversity as a measurable asset, integrating it within organizational goals and environmental impact strategies. A primary research challenge in this area is adapting/using AI to interpret complex natural ecosystems and accurately differentiate species within real-world environmental datasets. To tackle this, the track will explore best practices in AI model design, data precision in ecological data gathering, and user-focused approaches through human-machine interfaces. Discussions will emphasise user-centric AI applications that foster biodiversity awareness and collaborative engagement among stakeholders, supported by accessible tools and platforms. This track invites research that showcases how organisations are pioneering innovative biodiversity initiatives using AI technologies, navigating regulatory complexities, and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. Submissions should examine how research-driven approaches can support sustainable business models that view biodiversity as integral to resilience and long-term success. Participants are encouraged to explore cutting-edge advancements in biodiversity-oriented AI tools, focusing on innovative directions in data integration, environmental impact analysis, and organizational strategies. Researchers and practitioners are invited to investigate how organizations leverage technology to engage with diverse ecosystems, adopting regenerative innovation practices that protect natural habitats while enhancing their adaptive capacity and fostering a culture of sustainability. Leading questions: For R&D management 2025, we want to explore how businesses implement AI solutions that promote regenerative practices and lead to sustainable innovations. We welcome both empirical as well as theoretical / conceptual contributions. Regarding practice, we are interested in contributions addressing this question where we may find examples of this in practices among so-called Twin Transitions. Concerning theoretical contributions, we are looking for ways in which organizational theories and ecosystem management theories can be useful to explore regenerative strategies and biodiversity management through digital technologies. Themes: • Sustainable innovation and technological change • AI-driven solutions for regeneration and biodiversity management • Digitalization, AI, and its Implications in sustainability innovation • Sustainability transitions, the environment and digitalization • Organizational Twin Transitions for regeneration and the environment • Industry-based solutions for biodiversity management • Environmental ethics and digital transformation • Green technologies for regeneration • AI-driven sustainable/circular business models • Bioethics and digitalization for sustainability • Rebound effects of technology in biodiversity management

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Gianluca Biggi, Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Andrea Mina, Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy & Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Federico Tamagni, Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

Contacts
gianluca.biggi@santannapisa.it

Abstract
The term “twin” transition refers to the combined advancement of sustainability (green) and digital transformations, which are both expected to have significant economic impacts. Digital technologies such are reshaping business operations, fostering growth and productivity. However, the environmental footprint of digital infrastructure—such as increased energy consumption and electronic waste—poses serious sustainability challenges. Green investments are crucial for shifting towards a low-carbon economy by fostering pollution reduction. Although the digital and green transitions are often considered separately, firms are increasingly recognizing their interconnected nature. The proposed track aims to collect contributions that provide empirical evidence on the factors enabling or hindering the twin transition at the firm level. Firm-level analyses, though still scarce, are growing as data availability expands due to the emerging relevance of this topic and increased academic interest. Contributions will address the theoretical, empirical, and policy implications of this dual transition, emphasizing their intersection.

Long description of the track
The term “twin” transition refers to the combined advancement of sustainability (green) and digital transformations, which are both expected to have significant economic impacts (European Commission, 2022). Digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Industry 4.0 solutions, are transforming business operations and driving growth and productivity (Heyman, Norbäck, and Persson, 2021). Notwithstanding this, the environmental footprint of digital infrastructure, such as energy consumption and electronic waste, presents serious sustainability challenges. Green investments are crucial for transitioning to a low-carbon economy and involve developing and deploying technologies that reduce pollution and promote environmental sustainability. Although digital and green transitions are often considered separately, firms increasingly recognize their interconnectedness (Veugelers, 2023). Digital technologies can support environmental sustainability through smarter resource management, predictive analytics for emission reductions, and sustainable production processes (Horbach, 2024). The proposed track aims to gather contributions that provide empirical evidence on the conditions enabling or hindering the implementation of the twin transition at the firm level. While firm-level analyses are still relatively scarce, they are on the rise, supported by the growing availability of data on this key dimension of firm activities. This trend is driven by the emergent nature and relevance of the twin transition, as well as the increasing academic interest in its implications (see Diodato et al., 2023). The track will focus on the drivers of firm investments in green and digital technologies, including regulatory pressures, consumer demand, cost-saving potential, market access, and government funding. At the same time, it will address the obstacles firms encounter in this process, including high upfront costs, technological uncertainty, financial constraints, and trade-offs between short-term gains and long-term environmental and financial sustainability. The track will explore how firms navigate these trade-offs and harness synergies between the two transitions. Possible questions that can be addressed in this track are: How can firms harness the benefits of digital and green investments to drive economic performance and environmental sustainability? What are the combinations of green and digital investments impacting on firms’ economic performance? What role do regulatory frameworks and government incentives play in facilitating or hindering the twin transition? How do firms respond to these external pressures in terms of innovation and investment strategies? While digitalization holds the potential to foster sustainability, it also raises concerns about increased energy use, resource consumption, and electronic waste. How do firms face these trade-offs? What choices do they make? What are the environmental impacts of digital innovation, and how can they be mitigated? What are the main barriers to the adoption of green and digital technologies, and how do they vary across different sectors and firm size? How can firms overcome these challenges to ensure a balanced and effective twin transition? This track will welcome contributions from scholars and practitioners interested in the theoretical, empirical and policy implications of the two sides of the twin transition, —digital and green— with a special focus on their intersection. Diodato, D., Huergo, E., Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Rentocchini, F., & Timmermans, B. (2023). Introduction to the special issue on “the twin (digital and green) transition: handling the economic and social challenges”. Industry and Innovation, 30(7), 755-765. European Commission. 2022. “2022 Strategic Foresight Report. Twinning the Green and Digital Transitions in the New Geopolitical Context”. Bruxelles, 29.6.2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0289&qid=1658824364827. Heyman, F., P. J. Norbäck, and L. Persson. 2021. “Digitalisation, Productivity and Jobs: A European Perspective.” In The European Union and the Technology Shift, edited by. A. B. Engelbrekt, K. Leijon, A. Michalski, and L. Oxelheim, 135–159. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63672-2_6. Horbach, J. (2024). Digitalisation and sustainability measures at the firm level. Digital economy and sustainable development, 2(1), 1-13. Veugelers, R., Faivre, C., Rückert, D., and Weiss, C. (2023). The green and digital twin transition: EU vs US firms. Intereconomics, 58(1), 56-62.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Mariarosalba Angrisani, Parthenope University of Naples, Department of Management and Quantitative Studies (DISAQ)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Lorella Cannavacciuolo, Federico II University of Naples, Department of Industrial Engineering

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Annarita Sorrentino, Parthenope University of Naples, Department of Management and Quantitative Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Ivana Quinto, Parthenope University of Naples, Department of Engineering

Contacts
mariarosalba.angrisani@uniparthenope.it

Abstract
The pursuit of sustainability performance is becoming an essential objective for supply chain management (SCM). In line with the Circular Economy (CE) paradigm, this shift reflects the growing recognition of supply chains’ pivotal role in addressing environmental and socio-economic concerns. However, the advent of Industry 5.0 brings both opportunities and challenges in achieving sustainable supply chain systems, particularly as it introduces a human-centric, resilient, and technologically advanced framework. Following these premises, the present track explores the complex landscape of sustainable supply chains in the context of Industry 5.0, which goes beyond efficiency-focused goals to incorporate human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience aspects. Contributions should focus on the following topics: – Circular Supply Chain Models: Closed-Loop and Open-Loop Configurations – Trends in Circular Supply Chain Management (CSCM) – Digital Technologies in Sustainable Supply Chains – Industry 5.0 and its Contribution to Sustainable Development.

Long description of the track
The circular economy (CE) model is widely accepted as a sustainable alternative to the traditional linear economy, where resources are continuously reused, and waste is minimised (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). A critical discussion in this area revolves around Closed-Loop Supply Chains (CLSCs), which allow original equipment manufacturers to recover and remarket products, playing a significant role in fostering sustainability. Notwithstanding the fact that CLSCs have been extensively studied in the transition towards CE, a more inclusive approach is necessary, as recently proposed by Berlin, Feldmann, and Nuur (2022) to broaden the focus from CLSCs to Open-Loop Supply Chains (OLSCs). Such a perspective underscores the complementary role of OLSCs in sustainable Supply Chain (SC) configurations, as well as the need for an integrated approach that leverages both closed and open-loop systems to fully harness the potential of the CE paradigm. However, the challenge remains in optimising the interplay between these models, requiring innovative strategies for collaboration across the SC ecosystem. Hence, the increasing emphasis on circular economy principles has led to the development of the Circular Supply Chain Management (CSCM) research stream, which integrates CE concepts into the broader framework of SCM. In this context, Farooque et al. (2019) have highlighted the fragmented nature of research in CSCM, pointing out the absence of a comprehensive and unified view. These trends reflect a growing research interest in the operationalisation of CSCM, yet the field still requires more empirical studies to refine these concepts and address practical implementation challenges. The interplay between the resort to sustainable business models and digital technologies enhances the evolution of SCM by enabling more sustainable practices and improving the triple bottom line (3BL) of sustainability, incorporating economic, environmental, and social factors. Latest literary contributions (e.g. Varriale et al., 2023) explore the role of various technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), and 3D printing in promoting sustainable practices, analysing the ways in which these technologies contribute to sustainable SCM, offering valuable insights for both academia and industry. Within such an evolving framework, the strategic role of Industry 5.0 has been investigated (Ghobakhloo et al., 2022) to provide a strategic roadmap that integrates said paradigm with sustainable SCs, identifying functions including circular intelligent products, SC adaptability, and intelligent automation. Indeed, the interconnection and integration of these functions can drive significant progress toward sustainable development goals (SDGs) to explore the full potential of Industry 5.0 in SCs while optimising synergies and promoting sustainability. The proposed track welcomes both conceptual and empirical contributions analysing how and to what extent business models in diverse sectors and industries can integrate SC strategies, innovative technologies, and strategic frameworks to ensure that SCs contribute to the broader goals of sustainability in the Industry 5.0 era. This track also encourages the presentation of studies highlighting the need for coordinated efforts among industry leaders, policymakers, and higher education institutions to promote sustainability practices and efforts in developing sustainability-driven SC strategies aligned with the Industry 5.0 paradigm.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Petra Nylund, University of Stuttgart

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Henry Lopez-Vega, Umeå University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Justyna Dąbrowska, RMIT University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Paavo Ritala, LUT University

Contacts
petra.nylund@eni.uni-stuttgart.de

Abstract
While we jump at all the opportunities that AI brings for innovation, we’d also like to take a moment to address the potential downsides. In this track, we will analyze potential misuse as well as unintended consequences of these powerful tools e.g., due to black box processes or low AI literacy. We’ll try to better understand which type of innovation risks really increase with AI, and how they can be attenuated. As an enabling technology, AI impacts innovations in many fields e.g., health, education, and manufacturing, as well as interdisciplinary innovation processes. This requires research to include ecosystemic technology trajectories and the systemic risks inherent in much open innovation. Some of the uncertainty around AI comes from the lack of transparency in terms of data sources for algorithm training. We will hence also discuss how data strategy can be leveraged to ensure positive outcomes of AI in innovation.

Long description of the track
AI is increasingly driving digital transformation (Dąbrowska et al., 2022; Lopez-Vega & Moodysson, 2023). While the impact of AI on innovation processes and outcomes is unprecedented (Ferràs et al., 2024), this impact is not altogether positive. The potential misuse of AI technology poses significant risks to society (Hagtvedt et al., 2024), as do unintended consequences of applying a technology which limits we do not yet comprehend. This precarious situation has led AI developers to collectively call for a pause on AI applications until we can better understand the associated societal risks (Future of Life, 2023). Predicting which innovations will yield successful applications is inherently challenging. Although the risks of failed innovations are not necessarily higher with AI, they are more difficult to quantify (Townsend et al., 2024). Supervised and explainable AI reduce opacity and risk somewhat (Moser et al., 2024). Still, AI exposure incurs a market penalty, although this can be mitigated by spreading AI applications across different sectors (Hudson & Morgan, 2024). The adoption of AI applications can also be cumbersome, and depends on integrating AI and innovation management competencies. Workers may refuse AI automation based on well-founded fears of being replaced (Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2020). Malleable leadership may then be needed to balance the automating and enhancing features of AI (Dąbrowska et al., 2022). AI serves as an enabling technology, influencing the trajectories of future innovations (Teece, 2018). Entire innovation ecosystems can then evolve from technological innovations (Basalla, 1998). However, speed of innovation with AI reduces our ability to exploit these innovations and generate growth (Aghion et al., 2017). We therefore need more research into the factors that limit AI-driven growth, with data being a primary concern (Ferràs-Hernández et al., 2023). Data is vital for socioeconomic transformation (Alaimo & Kallinikos, 2024). It’s role in innovation processes will be central to future discussions of R&D Management (Ferrigno et al., 2023). The data strategy is essential for the reliability of AI systems (Nylund et al., 2023). This includes sourcing not only accurate data, but also ensuring that the data reflects the target market (Lundvall & Rikap, 2022). For this track, we hence invite both conceptual and empirical papers, contributing to one or more of the following topics: • Avoiding societal harm from AI-driven innovation • Managing uncertainty and opacity of AI in innovation • Leadership for responsible AI implementation • The impact of AI on innovation ecosystems and technology trajectories • Data strategy to increase the reliability of AI References: Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(1), 25-35. Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., & Jones, C. I. (2017). Artificial intelligence and economic growth (Vol. 23928). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data rules: Reinventing the market economy. MIT Press. Basalla, G., 1988. The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A, Giones, F., Hakala, H., Marullo, C., Mention, A.-L., Mortara, L., Nørskov, S., Nylund, P. A., Oddo, C. M., Radziwon, A., & Ritala, P. 2022. Digital transformation, for better or worse: A critical multi‐level research agenda. R&D Management, 52(5), 930-954. Ferràs-Hernández, X., Nylund, P. A., & Brem, A. (2023). The emergence of dominant designs in artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 65(3), 73-91. Ferràs, X., Nylund, P., & Brem, A. (2024). Connecting the (invisible) dots: When artificial intelligence meets open innovation. In H. Chesbrough, A. Radziwon, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of open innovation (pp. 519-532). Oxford Academic. Ferrigno, G., Crupi, A., Di Minin, A., & Ritala, P. (2023). 50+ years of R&D Management: a retrospective synthesis and new research trajectories. R&D Management, 53(5), 900-926. Future of Life. 2023. Pause Giant AI Experiments. Accessed at: https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/. Hagtvedt, L. P., Harvey, S., Demir-Caliskan, O., & Hagtvedt, H. (2024). Bright and Dark Imagining: How Creators Navigate Moral Consequences of Developing Ideas for Artificial Intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, in press. Hudson, K., & Morgan, R. E. (2024). Industry exposure to artificial intelligence, board network heterogeneity, and firm idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Management Studies, in press. Moser, C., Glaser, V. L., & Lindebaum, D. (2024). Taking situatedness seriously in theorizing about competitive advantage through artificial intelligence: A response to Kemp’s “Competitive advantages through artificial intelligence”. Academy of Management Review, 49(3), 683-685. Lopez-Vega, H., & Moodysson, J. (2023). Digital transformation of the automotive industry: an integrating framework to analyse technological novelty and breadth. Industry and Innovation, 30(1), 67-102. Lundvall, B. Å., & Rikap, C. (2022). China’s catching-up in artificial intelligence seen as a co-evolution of corporate and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 51(1), 104395. Nylund, P. A., Ferràs-Hernández, X., & Brem, A. (2023). A trust paradox may limit the application of Al-generated knowledge. Research-Technology Management, 66(5), 44-52. Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367-1387. Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., Rady, J., Manocha, P., & Jin, J. H. (2023). Are the futures computable? Knightian uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence. Academy of Management Review, in press.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Filippo Chiarello, University of Pisa

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Costanze Leeb, University of Cambridge

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Jan Auernhammer, Stanford University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Giacomo Marzi, IMT Lucca

Contacts
filippo.chiarello@unipi.it

Abstract
The rapid growth of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has revolutionized management, presenting unique opportunities and risks. While GenAI’s potential to enhance productivity and foster innovation is widely acknowledged, its integration raises complex ethical, operational, and regulatory challenges. Recent studies highlight GenAI’s ability to streamline internal processes, support data-driven decision-making, and advance ideation, extending the problem and solution space in product innovation. However, GenAI’s adoption can fragment innovation processes, disrupt work identity, and amplify ethical concerns such as bias and loss of agency. The rise of “AI washing” further complicates these issues by eroding trust. Additionally, regulatory challenges surrounding data privacy and transparency require organizations to approach GenAI responsibly. This research track invites case studies and theoretical work on managing GenAI within organizations, emphasizing frameworks for responsible AI, human-AI collaboration, and design strategies that balance GenAI’s benefits with ethical stewardship for sustainable innovation practices.

Long description of the track
The rapid emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has transformed management, introducing both opportunities and risks. GenAI has the potential to increase efficiency (Noy and Zhang, 2023) and to outperform humans in specific tasks (Gilardi et al., 2023). It can drive internal integration and streamline operational processes, enabling organisations to make data-driven decisions and optimise their resources efficiently (Liu & Wang, 2024). Additionally, GenAI extends beyond traditional problem-solving capabilities by automating and enhancing ideation processes. It has the potential to expand solution (and eventually the problem) space in product innovation (Bouschery et al. 2023), and the incorporation of GenAI in early innovation phases can result in higher quality solutions than crowd-generated results (Boussioux et al. 2024). It facilitates new forms of idea generation, enabling a more granular approach to innovation (Verganti et al., 2020). However, GenAI can only enhance artificial creativity (Runco, 2023). Despite these created values in organisations, GenAI introduces complex risks that organisations navigate. Ethical concerns arise, including algorithmic discrimination, biases, and the risk of diminishing human agency (Spanjol, 2023), affecting the feeling of ownership and control or even challenging work identity. The first effects on higher-income tasks (Eloundou et al. 2023) and tasks that require cognitive work, such as knowledge work, have been observed. Additionally, Gama & Magistretti (2023) suggest that GenAI’s adoption can lead to fragmentation in innovation processes, potentially replacing human cognitive functions and creating resistance among managers. The evolving regulatory landscape around AI also presents challenges concerning data privacy, AI accountability, and transparency. Even more, many harmful applications of GenAI are emerging, such as the creation and spread of fake news, deepfakes, frauds, privacy invasion, and the manipulation of public opinion. Mitigating these risks requires understanding the interrelations between individuals and society (Auernhammer, 2020). Additionally, “AI washing”—the misleading use of AI claims—further exacerbates ethical concerns, as companies may overstate AI’s capabilities to gain a competitive edge, thereby increasing distrust and the potential for misuse. Organisations must balance harnessing GenAI’s benefits while mitigating its risks in a rapidly changing environment (Spanjol et al., 2024). To produce value for organisations and mitigate the risks associated with GenAI, it is necessary to understand and explain GenAI developments and inform managers of the introduction, design, and development of these technologies (Chiarello et al., 2024). Also, we see promising advances in the literature. Understanding the full spectrum of GenAI’s impact on innovation remains an ongoing challenge, requiring theoretical, empirical, and practical explorations. This track seeks case studies, design science, and conceptual papers that explore strategies for managing GenAI and its use and guide present and future innovation managers in properly introducing GenAI in organisations. We are particularly interested in frameworks for human-AI collaboration, strategies for explainable and responsible AI, the interplay between machine capabilities and human creativity, and design research and practices that drive responsible AI developments in organisations. The aim is to provide comprehensive insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers engaged with this transformative technological landscape of GenAI.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Pasquale Del Vecchio, Department of Engineering of University LUM

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Raffaele Filieri, Audencia Business School

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Gioconda Mele, Department of Engineering for Innovation of University of Salento

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Andrea Urbinati, School of Industrial Engineering of LIUC Università Cattaneo

Contacts
delvecchio@lum.it

Abstract
The twin transition (digital and green) arises as a challenging issue for scholars and practitioners in the fields of innovation and business management. As a result of a socio-technical transition, the multifaced challenges associated with the twin transition rely on the combination of technological know-how (digital technologies and green technologies), managerial issues, and social challenges. Its implementation by firms, SMEs and big corporations, is based on the exploitation of digital technologies for achieving sustainable production processes and models (Montresor & Vezzani 2023). Framed in the above premises, this special track aims to explore the relationship between digital transformation and sustainability by focusing on the challenges and opportunities emerging from SMEs and big corporations in terms of product and process innovation, business model, strategic and organizational issues.

Long description of the track
The Twin Transition is associated with the simultaneous achievement of the objectives of digital transformation and green transition by firms and organizations. The Twin Transition relies on the ambitious goals of creating a sustainable future through the digital technologies as drivers for the growth and competitiveness (EC, 2020). This means demonstrating how beyond the benefits of efficiency and accuracy, digital technologies support the solution of societal challenges for generating a positive impact on society and stakeholders (Dal Mas et al., 2023). As intertwines revolution (Rehman, et al., 2023, pg.1), the Twin Transition impacts firms by requiring strategic and organizational changes. In affording the challenges associated with such a “digitally-enabled sustainable transition” (Spaltini et al., 2024), firms are involved in a process of radical transformation of their value chains and business models to achieve efficiency and flexibility (Myshko et al., 2024; Montresor & Vezzani, 2023) as well as in facing barriers and obstacles (Spaltini et al., 2024). In the actual debate on digital transformation and more recently on the artificial intelligence, a further challenging issue arises to make them sustainable in their environmental and social implications and opportunities (Mäkitie, et al., 2023). In the same direction, the larger attention reserved by institutions and businesses to the ONU Agenda for 2023 with its Sustainable Development Goals highlights the need to embrace green models of production, distribution, and consumption. In persecuting a Twin Transition, SMEs and big corporations are called to embrace innovation strategies able to promote sustainability-oriented innovation by mixing economic, environmental, and social goals (Urbinati, et al., 2022; Cillo et al., 2019). This requires intentional changes impacting on firm’s philosophy and values, as well as to its products, processes, business, and organizational model, and leading the creation of social and environmental value in addition to economic returns (Adams, et al., 2016). Accordingly, the conception and implementation of a Twin Transition is associated to different patterns and challenges (Spaltini, et al., 2024). The comprehension of the implications and opportunities of Twin Transition is still far from full comprehension and remains limited to the connection between digitalization and sustainability (Ferreira et al., 2022) by highlighting the need for further investigations and works of contextualization of their deeper linkage and mutual implications (Mäkitie, et al., 2023). Framed in the above premises, this special track calls for contributions at the intersection of the grand challenges of digital transformation and green transition, with a specific focus on common and distinctive patterns in SMEs and big corporations. Conceptual, empirical, and review papers addressed the comprehension of the challenges, contextual features, and strategies implemented for affording the Twin Transition are welcome.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Patrick Spieth, University of Kassel, Germany

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Joan Enric Ricart, IESE Business School, Spain

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Kristel Miller, Ulster University, Northern Ireland

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Dirk Schneckenberg, ESC Rennes School of Business, France

Contacts
spieth@uni-kassel.de

Abstract
The business model topic attracts continued interest in business research and practice, spanning the fields of strategy (Leppänen et al., 2023; Casadesus-­Masanell and Ricart, 2010), innovation (Spieth et al., 2023; Foss & Saebi, 2017) and entrepreneurship (Snihur and Zott, 2020). While business models are conceptualized as boundary-spanning activity systems encompassing value creation, value capture, and value delivery activities (Teece 2018; Snihur and Zott 2020), business model innovation describes “designed, novel, nontrivial changes to the key elements of a firm’s business model and/or the architecture linking these elements” (Foss and Saebi 2017). Despite the conceptualization of business models and business model innovation and its constituting elements (Schneckenberg et al., 2022), researchers engaged in identifying the antecedents and consequences of business model configurations (Leppänen et al., 2023) and business model innovation (Spieth et al., 2023), covering multiple theoretical perspectives and research phenomena like sustainability (Klein et al., 2021) and digital transformation (Bohnsack et al., 2021).

Long description of the track
Recent developments (e.g., review articles) in the research field of business models helped to consolidate the literature about constituting elements and business model conceptualizations (Spieth et al., 2023; Snihur and Markman, 2023; Foss and Saebi, 2017), while empirical work increased the understandings of the complex link between business model configurations and firm performance (Leppänen et al., 2023). However, scholars still face persistent questions about business model configurations, antecedents, and outcomes (Spieth et al., 2023). Different conceptual perspectives emerged to explain the development of business models and business model innovation. Business model (innovation) research spans various research phenomena like digital platforms, competition, and sustainability (Snihur and Markman, 2023). The research fields need further understanding of how business models evolve in certain competitive settings to outperform other business models, but also how to design a business that allows for superior value creation and capture beyond purely economic values. Recent phenomena like circularity, digitalization, and artificial intelligence, among others, jointly allow for a wide range of avenues for further investigations. Questions/topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following: • Unveiling the complex relationship between various antecedents of business model innovation • How can theoretical insights from other research domains explain business models and business model innovation (e.g., from social sciences)? • How do various actors’ cognitive processes influence value creation and capture in business model design? • Managing the complexity of business models and business model portfolios • Understanding the role of interdependencies between business model activities, strategies, and the competitive environment • Understanding the linkages between BMs and digital ecosystems • Understanding of designing effective value propositions in new ecosystems (e.g., biodiversity) • Unfolding business model innovation in the context of digital transformation and artificial intelligence • Competitive implications of business model configurations in (digital platform) ecosystems • Design of innovative business models for novel economic approaches (e.g., system-level transformation) • Specifying the role of business models in bringing about system-level change in ecosystems (e.g., biodiversity) • How can stakeholders successfully be integrated to develop novel business models? Recommended readings (selected): – Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation. Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927 – Klein, S. P., Spieth, P., & Heidenreich, S. (2021). Facilitating Business Model Innovation: The Influence of Sustainability and the Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12563 – Leppänen, P., George, G., & Alexy, O. (2023). When Do Novel Business Models Lead to High Performance? A Configurational Approach to Value Drivers, Competitive Strategy, and Firm Environment. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 164–194. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0969 – Schneckenberg, D., Matzler, K., & Spieth, P. (2022). Theorizing business model innovation: an organizing framework of research dimensions and future perspectives. R&D Management, 52(3), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12506 – Snihur, Y., & Markman, G. D. (2023). Business Model Research : Past , Present , and Future. Journal of Management Studies, 60(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12928 – Spieth, P., Breitenmoser, P., & Röth, T. (2023). Business model innovation: Integrative review, framework, and agenda for future innovation management research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12704

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Lüttgens Dirk, RWTH Aachen University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Marcel Hülsbeck, University of applied Sciences Munich

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Thomas Clauß, Witten/Herdecke University

Contacts
luettgens@time.rwth-aachen.de

Abstract
The sharing economy has fundamentally transformed traditional business landscapes, presenting both opportunities and challenges for incumbents and entrepreneurs. This track explores business model innovation within the sharing economy, focusing on market dynamics, the integration of advanced digital technologies, and sustainability implications. We invite research that examines how established firms can reconfigure their business models to align with sharing and circular economy principles, and how new entrants navigate competitive and regulatory landscapes. Additionally, the role of digital platforms, blockchain, and AI in enhancing sharing economy models will be a key focus. The track also seeks to understand the social and environmental sustainability of sharing-based business models, considering their long-term impacts and ethical dimensions. By addressing these multifaceted aspects, the track aims to contribute to the development of innovative, resilient, and responsible business models in the evolving sharing economy.

Long description of the track
The rise of the sharing economy has led to a paradigm shift in the way businesses operate. Traditional business models are being challenged and new forms of economic collaboration are being fostered. This track aims to explore the intricate mechanisms of business model innovation in this dynamic landscape.Market Dynamics and Business Model Reconfiguration. For incumbents, adaptation to the sharing economy requires strategic reconfiguration of existing business models to better align with sharing and circular economy principles. This will require an understanding of how incremental or substantial changes can improve the alignment with new market demands and sustainability goals. On the other hand, entrepreneurs face the challenge of establishing sharing-based business models in the midst of established players and complex regulatory environments. Research in this area should explore the strategies used by entrepreneurs to overcome barriers to entry, leverage enablers and compete effectively in a market dominated by incumbents. • Digital Technologies as Catalysts for Innovation Digital technologies, including digital platforms, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT), play a pivotal role in shaping and scaling sharing economy business models. This track invites studies that investigate how these technologies facilitate better matching of idle assets, enhance operational efficiencies, and create new value propositions. The evolving landscape of data-driven and AI-based business models offers fertile ground for research on how these technologies can further scale and optimize sharing economy initiatives. • Regulatory Frameworks and Policy Implications Policymakers are tasked with balancing innovation with consumer protection, ensuring a level playing field within the sharing economy. Research should examine the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks, the impact of regulatory changes on market dynamics, and the role of self-regulation and industry standards. Understanding these elements is crucial for designing evidence-based policies that promote innovation, competition, and consumer welfare while mitigating risks associated with the sharing economy. • Sustainability and Ethical Considerations As sharing economy business models evolve, their implications for social and environmental sustainability become increasingly significant. This track encourages research that assesses the environmental footprint of sharing platforms, explores the social dynamics of peer-to-peer interactions, and examines the cultural sustainability of collaborative consumption. Additionally, the ethical dimensions, including equity, labor rights, and social responsibility, are critical areas for exploration. Issues such as worker classification, income inequality, and access to essential services within sharing economy models warrant thorough investigation to ensure these business models contribute positively to society. • Impact of Global Crises on Sharing Economy Models The ongoing global crises in regions such as Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia present both challenges and opportunities for the sharing economy. Effective asset sharing can play a crucial role in crisis management and resource optimization. Research should explore how sharing economy models can be leveraged to address and mitigate the impacts of these crises, fostering resilience and facilitating recovery efforts. Key Topics to be Addressed in the Track Submissions are invited to contribute to one or more of the following topics: • Reconfiguration of Business Models for Incumbents and Entrepreneurs: Strategies for aligning with sharing and circular economy principles. • Role of Digital Technologies in Sharing Economy: Impact of platforms, blockchain, AI, and IoT on business model scalability and efficiency. • Regulatory Frameworks and Policy Design: Balancing innovation, consumer protection, and competitive fairness in the sharing economy. • Social and Environmental Sustainability: Long-term impacts of sharing-based business models on society and the environment. • Sharing Economy in Crisis Management: Leveraging asset sharing for resilience and recovery in global crises.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Francesco Cappa, Rome Tre University, Rome, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Stefano Franco, Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Mats Magnusson, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli, Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

Contacts
fcappa@luiss.it

Abstract
Open Innovation (OI) has emerged as a driver for sustainable innovation for organizations. OI has the potential to boost development and performance while also benefiting society at large by incorporating outside partners in the innovation process. Few studies have examined the link between OI, sustainability, and digitization and their joint consideration, despite their relevance for companies. This particular track therefore attempts to synthesize knowledge from different domains in order to illuminate how OI may promote sustainable development in the digital era. In fact, there is a rising realization that OI can help addressing Grand Challenges, and benefit social and environmental sustainability. Although terms like “sustainable open innovation,” “open sustainable innovation,” and “open social innovation” have recently emerged to attempt to link openness with sustainability, a more comprehensive and all-encompassing understanding of this field of study is still needed.

Long description of the track
In recent years, Open Innovation (OI) has gained significant attention as a driver for innovation and growth in organizations. OI refers to the practice of involving external partners in the innovation process, such as other companies, universities, crowds external to organizational boundaries (e.g. crowdsourcing, citizen science, user innovation and crowdfunding) to exchange knowledge flows (Bogers et al., 2017; Bogers, Chesbrough, & Moedas, 2018; Cappa, 2022; Cappa, Oriani, Pinelli, & De Massis, 2019; H. Chesbrough, Lettl, & Ritter, 2018; Messeni Petruzzelli, Murgia, & Parmentola, 2022; Radziwon, Bogers, Chesbrough, & Minssen, 2022). In the digital age, OI has emerged as a crucial driver of sustainable innovation for organizations. By involving external partners in the innovation process, OI can lead to increased performance and growth, as well as benefit the whole society (Franco, Presenza, & Petruzzelli, 2021; Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach, & Baumgartner, 2019). Digitalization can further enhance firm’s efforts towards innovation and sustainability (Lopes, Scavarda, Hofmeister, Thomé, & Vaccaro, 2017). Despite the importance of OI, sustainability, and digitalization for firms, few studies have explored the relationship among these elements and their joint consideration (Cillo, Petruzzelli, Ardito, & Giudice, 2019). Therefore, this special track aims to bring together insights from these areas to shed light on how OI in the digital age can drive sustainable development. Despite the recent emergence of concepts that try to connect openness to sustainability, such as ‘sustainable open innovation’ (Bogers, Chesbrough, & Strand, 2020), ‘open sustainable innovation’ (Collevecchio, Cappa, Peruffo, & Oriani, 2024) and ‘open social innovation’ (H. W. Chesbrough & Di Minin, 2014), a broader and more general understanding of this area of research has been overlooked so far. In conclusion, OI in the digital age can drive sustainable innovation and bring numerous benefits to the organizations and their stakeholders also in terms of addressing Grand Challenged (McGahan, Bogers, Chesbrough, & Holgersson, 2020; Urbinati, Shams Esfandabadi, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2023). Consequently this topic is of great interest for a wide audience of scholars, managers, practitioners and policymakers. We encourage submissions of interdisciplinary scholarly contributions from a wide variety of viewpoints, fields of study, and communities. These contributions should investigate both theoretical and empirical papers, and their topics or areas of interest should include but are not limited to the following suggested research questions: • How can OI practices be leveraged to address Grand Challenges stainable development, and what are the potential benefits and drawbacks of doing so? • How can organizations effectively manage OI to pursue Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? • What are the key challenges that organizations face when implementing OI practices for sustainable development in the digital age, and how can these challenges be overcome? • How can organizations effectively manage OI to improve their strategies aimed at increasing their sustainable and economic performance? • Do crowd involvement for OI, i.e. crowdsourcing, citizen science, user innovation and crowdfunding, can help achieving sustainable development for all the stakeholders? • How does OI help companies developing or pursuing their purpose?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Francesca Capella, Department of Management Engineering, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Alberto Di Minin, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Federico Frattini, Department of Management Engineering, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Giovanni Tolin, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Contacts
francesca.capella@polimi.it

Abstract
The Open Innovation paradigm calls for a pragmatic approach, moving beyond mere hype. Traditionally defined as firms utilizing both internal and external ideas to advance technology, Open Innovation aims to create shared value through mutually beneficial relationships. Nowadays, a phenomenon-based focus on the paradigm is still needed to foster the understanding of markets, ecosystems, initiatives, strategies, organizations, and actors that recently emerged in this domain.

Long description of the track
Twenty years after the introduction of the Open Innovation paradigm, it is time to “go beyond the hype and get down the business” (Chesbrough, 2019). It is well known that Open Innovation is traditionally defined as a paradigm assuming that “firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough, 2003). An underlying premise is that Open Innovation has the potential to create shared value through mutually advantageous relationships, wherein all partners benefit from this collaboration in terms of both value creation and value appropriation (Belderbos et al., 2014; Chesbrough et al., 2018). But what happens when we take a closer look at how things work in practice? Can we speak of an actual application of the paradigm for any initiative that falls under the wide umbrella of Open Innovation? And what is the impact of the Open Innovation paradigm twenty years after its introduction? We believe that all those questions require a deep dive into what really happens in practice when we talk about Open Innovation through a phenomenon-based understanding of markets, ecosystems, initiatives, strategies, organizations, and actors that emerge in this domain. This track invites both early and senior researchers to deepen our understanding of Open Innovation by focusing on recent and real applications to understand the trends associated with the paradigm, the latest business models, and the challenges that firms and other organizational actors commonly face when implementing those initiatives. The track focuses on Open Innovation case studies and phenomenon-based research: • Drivers of success and causes of failures in Open Innovation. • Instruments to overcome the challenging nature of Open Innovation initiatives while fostering their success. • Business models to enhance value creation and value appropriation in collaboration initiatives. • The sectoral and contextual limits and boundaries of Open Innovation. • Recent trends in Open Innovation such as corporate venture clienting, venture building, and start-up studios. • How to leverage human capital in Open Innovation. • Metrics to assess the impact of Open Innovation initiatives.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Benito Mignacca, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Marco Greco, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Italy

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Paavo Ritala, LUT University, Finland

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Ioana Stefan, Mälardalen University, Sweden

Contacts
benito.mignacca@unicas.it

Abstract
This track calls for papers investigating the relationship between inter-organisational collaboration and circular economy (CE) initiatives. In particular, the papers should address how inter-organisational collaboration (e.g., open innovation initiatives, ecosystems, platforms) can influence the implementation of CE initiatives and how CE initiatives can favour or hinder inter-organisational collaborations. Understanding the dynamics underlying the link between CE and inter-organisation collaboration is crucial. Indeed, inter-organisational collaboration could be a cornerstone for implementing CE initiatives, potentially speeding up CE implementation. In addition, CE initiatives could trigger inter-organisational collaboration and open innovation projects, ultimately representing an opportunity to harness the related advantages, such as faster time-to-market, reduced development risks, and organisational learning. Remarkably, despite the growing interest in both CE initiatives and inter-organisational collaboration by policymakers, academics, and practitioners, research on their relationship is still in its early stages. Therefore, this track invites manuscripts investigating the link between inter-organisational collaborations and CE initiatives.

Long description of the track
In the last decades, economic growth has been pushed by technological innovations, yet this often neglected the constraints imposed by our planet (i.e., its finite resources) and the impact of human activities on the environment. Currently, technological and organisational trends are heading away from the so-called linear economy to a circular economy (CE). However, progress in implementing CE initiatives has been slow so far, with the global economy becoming less rather than more “circular” (Circle Economy, 2023). In the same vein, regenerative economy and regenerative business models are raising mounting interest (Konietzko, Das & Bocken, 2023). One possible reason for this slow CE progress could be linked to the fact that while CE requires a system perspective rather than organizational one (Tate et al., 2019; Trevisan et al., 2021), entailing collaborative efforts; however, collaboration presents challenges (Vivona et al., 2022). Indeed, several prior studies investigated the link between the implementation of CE initiatives and inter-organisational collaboration. For instance, Lisi et al. (2024) examined the automotive sector, highlighting how focal firms mainly leverage interorganisational collaboration with their suppliers to implement CE initiatives, mainly recycling and reducing initiatives. In another example, Cricelli et al. (2021) analysed the effect of inter-organisational collaboration on reverse logistics, which is a relevant component of a CE (Bernon et al., 2018), discussing the positive impact of horizontal and vertical collaboration, along with collaboration with research institutions, on the likelihood of introducing reverse logistics innovation. Bocken and Ritala (2022) introduced the concept of open innovation (OI) strategy in the context of circular business models, i.e. “connecting with external partners or customer and user communities to boost the circularity of the business model” (Page 5), stressing how such OI strategies could provide a rapid scale-up of the reuse initiatives. Recent research also suggested that collaborations for the CE can be scaled up using digital platforms (Blackburn et al., 2023; Ritala, 2024) and CE ecosystems (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). However, several questions regarding collaboration and CE remain open, for instance: • scalability and governance of such initiatives. It would be relevant to understand how companies can move from bilateral collaborations to networks and ultimately to platform and ecosystem models that promote circularity and are economically viable; • the dynamics underlying CE and inter-organisational collaboration, such as the temporal dimension of circular ecosystems (Phillips and Ritala, 2019); • the intertwining of circular and digital (or data-related) issues in interorganisational collaboration, such as data sharing and ownership. If collaboration and circularity attain synergies, CE initiatives could trigger inter-organisational collaboration and OI projects, ultimately representing an opportunity to harness the related advantages, such as faster time-to-market, reduced development risks, and organisational learning. Remarkably, despite the growing interest in circular economy and inter-organisational collaboration, the research about their relationship is still in its early stages. Therefore, this track invites manuscripts investigating the link between inter-organisational collaborations and circular economy, including the above-mentioned open questions, and also invites novel inquiries. The scope of this call is left open to promote comprehensive and diversified research tackling this stream of research.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Antonio Crupi, University of Messina

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Alessandra Costa, University of Messina

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Fabrizio Cesaroni, University of Messina

Contacts
crupi.antonio@unime.it

Abstract
This special track explores the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) within open innovation (OI) ecosystems, focusing on AI’s role in enabling collaboration and enhancing decision-making. AI’s capacity to process vast data volumes uniquely positions it to drive more efficient and dynamic OI processes, particularly in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and materials science. This track will address AI as a facilitator of OI ecosystems, the ethical complexities of data and IP ownership, and showcase AI-driven innovations across industries. Through a combination of theoretical insights and industry case studies, participants will gain a comprehensive view of the synergies and challenges at the AI-OI nexus, equipping them with actionable insights on navigating this evolving landscape.

Long description of the track
The interplay of artificial intelligence (AI) and open innovation (OI) presents significant opportunities for advancing collaborative frameworks and fostering value co-creation in today’s interconnected economy. As industries evolve, AI is increasingly positioned as an essential enabler within OI ecosystems, facilitating knowledge exchange, enhancing decision-making, and optimizing processes across sectors. This special track, “Open Innovation and AI: Collaborative Pathways to Enhanced Knowledge Flows and Value Creation,” provides a platform for discussing cutting-edge developments and challenges at the intersection of AI and OI. One core theme of the track is AI as an Enabler of Open Innovation Ecosystems. AI-powered tools are reshaping knowledge-sharing dynamics, streamlining the complex workflows characteristic of OI, and amplifying collaborative potential across dispersed networks. Through innovative data processing, AI is transforming traditional OI processes, supporting industries in achieving enhanced adaptability, responsiveness, and co-creation efficiency. Managing AI-Driven Knowledge Flows in OI Ecosystems will examine how AI can be leveraged to navigate vast data landscapes, allowing organizations to make more informed and timely decisions. By enhancing data management, facilitating intelligent partner selection, and supporting seamless integration, AI enables a more cohesive environment for collaborative ventures. This theme explores practical and theoretical insights into how organizations can maximize AI’s potential in managing dynamic OI ecosystems. However, with AI’s expanded role in OI, new ethical and governance challenges emerge, particularly regarding data privacy, intellectual property (IP), and data ownership. The track will engage with Ethical Considerations and Data Ownership in AI-Enhanced OI, addressing key concerns about the responsible use of data, equitable value distribution, and the ethical dimensions of IP in AI-driven collaborative models. The track also brings Industry Case Studies to the forefront, showcasing real-world examples from agriculture, healthcare, materials science, and beyond, where AI has been instrumental in driving innovation. Participants will hear about the practical applications and successes of AI in overcoming operational challenges, fostering cross-industry synergies, and achieving value co-creation goals. Lastly, The Future of AI and OI: Challenges and Opportunities will delve into emerging trends that shape the next generation of AI-enhanced OI. Topics such as dynamic capabilities, the evolving landscape of Industry 4.0, and the mechanisms for value appropriation in OI will be explored to provide a forward-looking perspective on AI-OI integration. This track aims to convene a diverse group of academics, industry practitioners, and policymakers to contribute their insights and develop actionable strategies for advancing AI-enabled open innovation. Through discussions on theory, case studies, and future trends, participants will gain a holistic understanding of the opportunities, ethical considerations, and strategic implications of AI in OI, ultimately fostering a collaborative environment conducive to knowledge exchange and value creation across sectors.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Charlotte Chappert, University of Montpellier

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Audrey ROUYRE, MBS School of Business

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Nina TELG, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
André NEMEH, Rennes School of Business

Contacts
charlotte.chappert@gmail.com
a.rouyre@mbs-education.com
andre.nemeh@rennes-sb.com
n.telg@vu.nl

Abstract
To address innovation challenges, companies must effectively use and recombine their internal resources and knowledge. Innovation often requires new strategic resources and knowledge that a single company may not have. Therefore, companies frequently open their innovation processes to collaboration, forming alliances, or engaging in coopetition with competitors within networks and ecosystems. This approach can be examined at various levels—inter-organizational, intra-organizational, and inter-individual—across diverse organizations and industries, including multinationals, small and medium-sized (SMEs) and public organizations. In recent years, there has been a growing focus on integrating sustainability into these strategies. Green innovations, that reduce environmental impact through new technologies, have become a key priority. Understanding how (green) innovation interacts with coopetition, ecosystems, networks, and alliances is crucial for ensuring corporate survival and success in innovation.

Long description of the track
Companies increasingly rely on cooperative strategies, such as collaboration and coopetition (i.e. working with competitors), to tackle innovation challenges and achieve higher levels of performance. Understanding how firms effectively implement these strategies in specific configurations, such as networks and ecosystems, is crucial. Additionally, environmental challenges are prompting companies to shift towards more sustainable business models, fostering the collaboration to develop more sustainable and greener innovations. These issues are investigated by researchers within the CENA (Coopetition, Ecosystems, Networks, Alliances) community. This track encourages research that explores the drivers, processes, management, and outcomes of alliances and coopetition strategies within network and ecosystem configurations in innovation contexts. Key questions include: ● Characteristics and features: What forms do these collaborative and coopetitive strategies take? Are they deliberate strategies? Which types of organization are involved in such strategies? What roles do third parties play? How do these strategies differ in networks and ecosystems configurations? What are the specificities associated to each configuration? ● Drivers and antecedents: Why do organizations pursue these strategies? What are the objectives pursued? What are the antecedents of these strategies? ● Difficulties, challenges and tensions: What specific challenges are organizations encountering in these strategies? What are the sources of difficulties, challenges and tensions in such strategies? What are the different types of tensions and between whom do they occur? Why do these tensions emerge, and how are they managed? Do specific tensions arise within networks or ecosystems configurations? ● Management: How can organizations effectively implement alliance and coopetition strategies? What mechanisms are employed to govern these strategies? What managerial tools have been developed to leverage alliance or coopetition strategies? How are these management strategies and tools handled in networked and/or ecosystem configurations? ● Outcomes: Are these strategies beneficial for the organizations? If so, what is the benefit gained? What is the impact of these strategies on the organization performance? Under what conditions are they most effective? Do these strategies contribute to long-term sustainability? ● Environmental challenges: How do these strategies contribute to addressing sustainability through innovation? Does the development of green innovations alter the form of these strategies? How do environmental challenges and innovations influence these strategies and the collaboration between organizations? Are these strategies particularly effective in fostering green innovations? How are coopetition for green innovations, green innovations networks and green innovation ecosystems distinct from traditional forms of innovation strategies? CENA track welcomes contributions that: ● Adopt a multidisciplinary approach, such as entrepreneurship, marketing and/or human resource management ● Explore various levels of analysis, such as inter-organizational level, intra-organizational level and/or inter-individual level ● Investigate a diverse range of industries, such as high-tech, low-tech, traditional and/or service ● Focus on different organizational types, such as large companies, associations, public enterprises, SMEs and/or start-ups ● Examine different types and degrees of innovation, such as incremental, radical, product, service and/or business model innovations ● Explore environmental challenges associated with alliance and coopetition strategies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Nadine Roijakkers, Faculty of Beta Sciences, Open Universiteit, the Netherlands

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Petra de Weerd-Nederhof, Faculty of Beta Sciences, Open Universiteit, the Netherlands

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Yvonne Kirkels, Fontys Hogescholen, Department Industrial Engineering and Entrepreneurship, the Netherlands

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Giuseppe Ceci, Faculty of Economics, la Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Contacts
nadine.roijakkers@ou.nl

Abstract
This track explores the critical role of ecosystem orchestrators in technology-driven public-private partnerships (PPS), particularly in addressing the skills gap that hampers key industrial transitions such as the energy shift. As industries evolve toward digitization and sustainability, orchestrators, as coordinators of technology-driven ecosystems, play a vital part in aligning stakeholders and fostering innovation. While orchestrators have traditionally focused on governance and stakeholder management, this track will delve into emerging research on their strategies to mitigate workforce skill shortages. Topics include effective ecosystem management, talent attraction, and the role of advanced technologies like predictive analytics and virtual training. By examining these aspects, this track aims to provide insights into how orchestrators can ensure ecosystems have the requisite skills for sustainable growth and technological advancement.

Long description of the track
The rapid pace of industrial transitions, such as the energy shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, presents both opportunities and challenges. These transitions require complex coordination across multiple stakeholders, from governments to businesses, in technology-driven ecosystems. A technology-driven ecosystem is a network of public and private parties collaborating to foster innovation and value creation across industries like energy, healthcare, agriculture, and manufacturing. Orchestrators, as key facilitators, manage and coordinate the ecosystem’s actors to drive success. Historically, ecosystem orchestrators have been tasked with managing stakeholder relationships, ensuring governance, and guiding innovation. However, as industries digitize and shift toward more sustainable practices, a new challenge has emerged—the growing skills gap. The skills gap refers to the disparity between the current workforce’s capabilities and the skills required for emerging technologies and practices. For example, the energy transition necessitates specialized knowledge in renewable technologies, energy storage, and smart grid systems. A lack of skilled workers can significantly impede technological progress and slow industrial transformation. This track will focus on the evolving role of orchestrators in addressing the skills gap within technology-driven ecosystems. It will explore how orchestrators are uniquely positioned to identify, attract, and develop talent in their ecosystems and the importance of aligning skills with the needs of future innovations. While internships and training programs have been widely recommended, this track goes further, examining more advanced approaches such as predictive analytics, personalized learning platforms, and virtual training methods that orchestrators can use to close the skills gap. Participants will discuss the current research on the roles of orchestrators, with a focus on strategies that ensure the workforce is equipped with the necessary skills to sustain and accelerate industrial transitions. The role of orchestrators in creating policies, implementing advanced training programs, and leveraging technologies like machine learning to predict skills shortages will be discussed in depth. By drawing on case studies, real-world examples, and the latest research, this track will offer participants actionable insights into how ecosystem orchestrators can adapt to this evolving challenge. It will highlight best practices in talent management and propose frameworks that orchestrators can implement to ensure that their ecosystems continue to thrive in the face of rapid technological changes. Key questions for discussion include: • How can orchestrators effectively assess current and future skills requirements in different kind of ecosystems? • What role do advanced technologies play in addressing the skills gap, and how can orchestrators integrate these into their ecosystems? • What are the best practices for orchestrators to foster long-term skills development in industries undergoing significant transitions? • How can orchestrators collaborate with educational institutions to address evolving skill needs? • What metrics can orchestrators use to measure the success of their skills development initiatives? • How can orchestrators attract and retain talent within technology-driven innovation ecosystems?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Nunzia Coco, University of Bologna

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Riccardo Maiolini, John Cabot University

Contacts
nunzia.coco@unibo.it

Abstract
This track aims to explore the transformative potential of community-led social innovation and entrepreneurial activities through participatory processes and cooperative models. As communities face complex social challenges, innovative approaches that engage citizens in decision-making and resource management are essential. This track will delve into the role of cooperatives as vehicles for social change, highlighting successful case studies and methodologies that empower local populations through innovative solutions – such as process design or business models – or application of innovative technologies. We invite researchers and practitioners to share insights on how participatory processes can enhance community engagement, foster collaboration, and drive sustainable development. Topics may include the design and implementation of participatory frameworks, the impact of cooperative enterprises on local economies, the development of community enterprises, and the integration of social innovation within community initiatives.

Long description of the track
Through the use of collaborative approaches and cooperative models, the purpose of this track is to investigate the transformative potential of community-led social innovation. Innovative strategies that actively involve residents in decision-making and resource management are necessary because communities are confronted with social, economic, and environmental concerns that are becoming increasingly complex. In this track, we will be focusing on the role that cooperatives or the cooperative model overall play as vehicles for social change. We will showcase effective case studies and techniques that empower local residents. Through the use of participatory procedures, participants will investigate the ways in which these processes might improve community participation, encourage collaboration, and contribute to sustainable development. Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to submit their perspectives on the development and implementation of participatory frameworks, the influence of cooperative companies on local economies, and the incorporation of social innovation into community-driven initiatives. Key Themes and Topics 1. Design and Implementation of Participatory Frameworks o Approaches to structuring participatory processes for effective citizen engagement. o Case studies of successful community-driven decision-making. o The role of digital platforms in enhancing participation and transparency. 2. Social Innovation for Community Development o Integrating social innovation strategies into existing community projects. o Best practices for mobilizing local resources and knowledge for collective problem-solving. o The role of research and academia in fostering community-centered innovation. o The impact of cooperative enterprises on local economic development and social welfare. o Cooperative models for managing shared resources in rural and urban settings. 3. Fostering Collaboration for community enterprises o Building partnerships between communities, governments, private sector, and academic institutions. o Cross-sector collaboration for designing inclusive and scalable solutions. o Engaging underrepresented groups in participatory and cooperative efforts. Objectives of the Track • To provide a platform for knowledge exchange between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers involved in participatory and cooperative models. • To identify successful methodologies and case studies that can be adapted and scaled in different community contexts. • To discuss the role of innovation in creating resilient and sustainable communities. • To explore new directions for research on community engagement and social innovation. Call for Papers We invite submissions that address the following questions and challenges: • What are the most effective participatory processes for fostering community-driven decision-making? • How can cooperative models be leveraged to address current social, economic, and environmental challenges? • What role do cooperatives play in promoting equitable and sustainable local development? • How can social innovation be embedded within community-led projects to drive long-term impact? • What are the key challenges and opportunities for collaboration among different stakeholders in participatory initiatives? We encourage papers that present empirical research, case studies, theoretical frameworks, or methodological innovations. Interdisciplinary approaches and collaborations between researchers and practitioners are particularly welcome. References Bhatt, P., Ahmad, A. J., & Roomi, M. A. (2016). Social innovation with open source software: User engagement and development challenges in India. Technovation, 52, 28-39. Callagher, L., Korber, S., Siedlok, F., & Elsahn, Z. (2022). Metaorganizing collaborative innovation for action on grand challenges. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Canales, R., Bradbury, M., Sheldon, A., & Cannon, C. (2024). Evidence in Practice: How Structural and Programmatic Scaffolds Enable Collaboration in International Development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 00018392241241483. Coco, N. (2024). Collaborative Responses to Grand Challenges: The Case of La Scuola Open Source. In Cooperatives in an Uncertain World: Perspectives from Switzerland and Its Neighbors (pp. 207-227). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Fayard, A. L. (2024). Making time for social innovation: How to interweave clock time and event time in open social innovation to nurture idea generation and social impact. Organization Science, 35(3), 1131-1156. Fursov, K., & Linton, J. (2022). Social innovation: Integrating product and user innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121224. Gupta, S., Kumar, V., & Karam, E. (2020). New-age technologies-driven social innovation: What, how, where, and why?. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 499-516. Hertel, C., Binder, J., & Fauchart, E. (2021). Getting more from many—A framework of community resourcefulness in new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3), 106094. Hertel, C., Bacq, S., & Belz, F. M. (2019). It takes a village to sustain a village: A social identity perspective on successful community-based enterprise creation. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4), 438-464. Howoldt, D., & Borrás, S. (2023). Innovation policy instruments for grand challenges: targeting constellations of diverse R&I actors?. Industry and Innovation, 30(8), 985-1007. Maiolini, R., Ramus, T. (2024). Opportunity Recognition and Innovative Solutions to Societal Challenges: The Case of Community Cooperatives in Italy. In: Ambühl, M., Brusoni, S., Niedworok, A., Gutmann, M. (eds) Cooperatives in an Uncertain World. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56200-6_13 Maiolini, R. Rullani F., Versari P. & M. May, Seitanidi (2023) The Role of Community Participation in Cross-Sector Social Partnerships, Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, First published online November 5, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221130696 Morrar, R., Arman, H., & Mousa, S. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): A social innovation perspective. Technology innovation management review, 7(11), 12-20. Rao-Nicholson, R., Vorley, T., & Khan, Z. (2017). Social innovation in emerging economies: A national systems of innovation based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 228-237. Wang, L., Zhang, W., White, S., & Fan, H. (2024). Digital technology‐based business model design and innovation to address grand challenges: A process model. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Giovanni Bonaccorsi, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Alessandra Migliore, Politecnico di Milano

Contacts
giovanni.bonaccorsi@polimi.it

Abstract
Proximity is a strategic element for knowledge diffusion, particularly of complex ideas, due to the costs and limits of information transfer. As a consequence, organizations benefit from being close to strategic information sources, sometimes through temporary relocation, like conferences, or through forming permanent clusters. However, recent research shows that the impact of proximity on innovation varies with spatial scale, and two additional factors—direct peer contact and shared knowledge—enhance diffusion. Hence, the spatial design of knowledge-sharing spaces can foster collaboration among similar peers. Furthermore, the effectiveness of digital technologies for remote work, especially in sharing complex ideas, remains debated post-COVID, suggesting that face-to-face interactions are still meaningful. This research track explores the role of spatial proximity at different scales in fostering collaboration and innovation, welcoming analyses on themes such as physical space design, organizational clusters, and the role of proximity in knowledge transfer.

Long description of the track
The diffusion of knowledge is a complex process that has fostered a long-lasting research effort in all fields related to the study of organizations. Existing evidence shows that complex knowledge (technological and scientific ideas, for instance) is not fluid, with a tradeoff between transfer costs and information completeness (Sorenson et al., 2006). Thus, proximity is key for innovation, favoring organizations located near strategic information sources. The relocation proce may be temporary, as in the case of scientific conferences and exchange programs, or permanent, leading to localized clusters of firms and scientists. More recently, the literature has highlighted that the impact of geographic proximity on innovation may depend on the level of spatial scale at which the analysis is performed (Sorenson, 2023). Therefore, proximity to peers is just a necessary condition for knowledge diffusion and two other factors may interact with proximity: first, direct contact between peers must be sought, and second, a certain level of similarity between them must be present. Hence, on the one hand, the spatial arrangement is not neutral, and proper design of spaces can foster collaboration and knowledge sharing (Umut and Gray, 2008). On the other hand, a certain level of pre-existing common knowledge increases the chances of knowledge diffusion (Lane et al., 2021, Roche et al., 2022). Finally, while digital technologies were expected to facilitate effortless collaboration regardless of location, remote work’s effectiveness in supporting complex idea exchange remains debated, especially after COVID-19, suggesting a role for face-to-face interactions. In conclusion, this track aims to explore the role of space at different scales in fostering collaboration and innovation outcomes, ranging from analyses at the micro-level (dynamics of individuals and groups) to more aggregate exploration centered on organizations, networks and geographical clusters. We encourage empirical and quantitative studies but also qualitative ones. Interdisciplinary work with computational or data-driven perspectives is also welcome. Themes of Interest: • How spatial proximity fosters innovation and knowledge diffusion among organizations and communities. • How physical spaces enhance interaction, knowledge sharing, and innovation. • How proximity, peer interaction, and shared knowledge boost complex idea transfer. • Understanding the dynamics of conferences, fellowships, and industry clusters. • How firms, universities, and research institutions create environments for effective collaboration. • Evaluating the impact of remote work on knowledge sharing, innovation networks, and spatial organization post-COVID. References • Sorenson, Olav, Jan W. Rivkin, and Lee Fleming. “Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow.” Research Policy 35, no. 7 (September 1, 2006): 994–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.002. • Sorenson O. Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale. Research in Organizational Behavior, 43, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2023.100190 • Toker, Umut, and Denis O. Gray. “Innovation Spaces: Workspace Planning and Innovation in U.S. University Research Centers.” Research Policy 37, no. 2 (March 2008): 309–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.006. • Lane, Jacqueline N., Ina Ganguli, Patrick Gaule, Eva Guinan, and Karim R. Lakhani. “Engineering Serendipity: When Does Knowledge Sharing Lead to Knowledge Production?” Strategic Management Journal 42, no. 6 (2021): 1215–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3256. • Roche, Maria P, Alexander Oettl, and Christian Catalini. “(Co-)Working in Close Proximity: Knowledge Spillovers and Social Interactions”. NBER working papers (2022).

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Cristina I. Fernandes Faculty of Economics and CEF.UP – Center for Economics and Finance, Universidade do Porto & NECE Research Unit in Business Sciences Portugal

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
João J. Ferreira, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal & QUT Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, Australia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Lawrence Dooley, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Ireland

Contacts
cifernandes@fep.up.pt

Abstract
Implementing sustainable circular practice processes is a significant challenge, given their inherent complexity and the unpredictable return for companies. To achieve the greatest possible success, the involvement of all actors, from the economic to the social to the political sphere – the so-called entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE), is necessary. EE is capable of fostering sustainability and circularity and is an ignition point for the transition to a sustainable circular economy through a range of scientific, technological and digital enablers that allow exploring new sources of value and driving a change in the society- environment. Therefore, academia must investigate which factors provide the success of circular and sustainable EE. Thus, our track proposal aims to contribute to filling this gap in the literature and to capture investigations that study the importance of successful strategies for sustainable and circular EE, in the micro (company), meso (industry) and macro (national) context, so that a cumulative understanding can be achieved in terms of designing effective strategies and policies that nurture value-creation mechanisms in sustainable and circular EE.

Long description of the track
The relationship between environmental and social sustainability and the circular economy is crucial in mitigating climate change. Therefore, economic growth must be inseparable from the rational use of resources. The traditional model, dominant in many businesses and economies, of “make, use, discard” will not change unless we implement approaches that fundamentally alter traditional procedures (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The development and adoption of the circularity paradigm still face multiple barriers (Xia et al., 2019), such as financial barriers (Bhandari et al., 2019), market barriers (Agyemang et al., 2018), market knowledge and awareness (Guo et al., 2018) and political barriers (Yoshino et al., 2019). The literature shows that ecosystems emerge as drivers in the transition to circularity (DeBocken & Snihur 2020). The notion of ecosystem, widely accepted among researchers, refers to an EE as a community of multiple parties interested in coevolving and providing a favourable environment for new venture creations in a region (Spiegel, 2017). EE are the union of localised cultural perspectives, social networks, investment capital, universities and active economic policies that create favourable environments for innovation-based ventures. EE, from academic literature to politics and business, is critical for building resilient economies based on business innovation. However, research on EE is still underdeveloped and under-theorised (Spiegel, 2017). EE shows that network collaboration is fundamental to creating sustainable value, as sustainability and the circular economy create challenges and opportunities not only for individual companies (Bocken & Geradts 2020) but also for value chains, networks, ecosystems and broader institutional environments (Kanda et al. 2021). Few investigations on EE apply the circular economy paradigm (Kusumo et al., 2022). As companies move away from the traditional “make, use, dispose” model and opt for production and marketing models based on circularity, they are adopting what are known as ‘R’ circularity practices such as repair, reuse, recycle, rematerialise and reuse (Bocken and Ritala 2021). The absence of indicators, that allow understanding and characterising success in the transition to the EE circularity paradigm, is a severe deficiency to both scientific progress and successful policies. Our track proposal, therefore, aims to fill these gaps with a call for research that studies the importance of successful strategies for sustainable and circular EE in the micro (company), meso (industry), and macro (national) contexts. This will enable a cumulative understanding of designing effective strategies and policies and discovering value creation mechanisms in sustainable and circular ecosystems. We identified the following questions, which while not exclusive, are of interest for this track: • What are the most effective strategies that new and existing ventures use to connect their business models to sustainable and circular ecosystems? • What strategies do successful sustainable ecosystem leaders use? • What indicators characterise the success of sustainable and circular ecosystems? • How can circular and sustainable economy ventures leverage the competitive advantage of the EE? • How can digital platforms and other technologies (Artificial Intelligence, robotics, Internet of Things) be leveraged to facilitate the sustainability and circularity of EE? • What are the most effective practices for moving business ecosystems towards sustainability and circularity?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Niharika Garud, University of Melbourne

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Rakesh Pati, Deakin University

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Viraji Jayaweera, University of Melbourne

Contacts
niharika.garud@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
Research on understanding the roles of crowds has grown substantially in management over the past 15 years, particularly in the fields of innovation and entrepreneurship (Bartl et al. 2012; Bilgram et al. 2008; Afuah & Tucci, 2012). Specifically, crowdsourcing and crowdfunding has attracted some attention from scholars to understand how the crowds integrate into innovation, new product development, and entrepreneurial activities for larger firms as well as ventures (Ghezzi et al. 2017; Mollick, 2014 ). More research is required to explore how crowds interact with platforms, new digital technologies, and other entities in innovation ecosystem to influence innovation and entrepreneurship (Giustiziero, Kretschmer, Somaya, & Wu, 2021; Han, Zhou, Lowik, & de WeerdNederhof, 2022). This track focuses on bringing together conceptual and empirical research on crowds in innovation and R&D management from diverse theoretical perspectives. We welcome different methodological approaches – quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods and multi-disciplinary research on this topic.

Long description of the track
Crowdfunding and crowdsourcing research has received considerable attention in the streams of innovation and entrepreneurship over the past decade (Füller et al. 2006; Bartl et al. 2012; Bilgram et al. 2008; Afuah & Tucci, 2012). With significant digital technological and scientific advancements, such as large language models, platform ecosystems, artificial intelligence, among others, the roles of crowds evolved rapidly in terms of how they interact with ventures and organizations. These include becoming co-creators of ideas and ventures, investors, early users, adopters, and customers for new ventures on one hand (Chiu, Liang, & Turban, 2014; Kozinets, Hemetsberger, & Schau, 2008; Mollick, 2014; Wei et al. 2023). On the other hand, established organizations benefitted from access to the crowds and critical ecosystem participants for co-creating products and services, reshaping the fundamentals of corporate innovation (von Hippel 2005; Cui and Wu 2016; Brem et al., 2018). While the evolving roles of crowds have opened new opportunities, resources, and new forms of capital to businesses, they bring along new forms of risks and uncertainties with them (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2014; Cumming et al. 2021). Thus, it has become essential for organizations and entrepreneurs to effectively leverage crowds, especially crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, for managing their innovations and entrepreneurial activities. Mechanisms to participate, manage, and leverage interactions with crowds via platforms, especially in crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, should be systematically and thoughtfully analyzed (Giustiziero, Kretschmer, Somaya, & Wu, 2021; Han, Zhou, Lowik, & de WeerdNederhof, 2022). Research must explore aspects that stimulate the outcomes and performance on these platforms, particularly with regard to innovations, crowdfunding, and crowdsourcing. We encourage scholars to submit their conceptual and empirical works related to the following topics and questions (but not limited to) and welcome methodologically diverse research works (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches): 1. Crowdsourcing and Innovation: Exploring how organizations effectively engage with digital platforms and crowdsourcing for innovation, problem-solving, and idea generation. What strategies and platforms facilitate effective engagement with the crowd in the pursuit of novel solutions and ideas? What are the latest trends in leveraging crowds for innovations in the digital age? What is the role of AI and machine learning in managing and optimizing crowd contributions? 2. Crowds and Entrepreneurship: How crowds influence product development, market validation, and scaling of startups, shaping entrepreneurial success? How do crowdfunding platforms shape the development of startup products and services? 3. Crowd-Based Ideation, Product Development, and R&D: Exploring the roles of the crowd in ideation, product development, R&D, and breakthroughs in technology and science. How do decentralized teams and online communities impact technological advancements and breakthroughs? 4. Crowds, Technology Adoption, Governance, Ethics, and Regulatory Considerations: Exploring adoption and diffusion of emerging technologies in the context of crowds with governance, ethical and regulatory lenses. How are the crowds influencing and accelerating the process of adoption and digital transformation across industries? What are responsible governance mechanisms to ensure fair competition and user safety? 5. Diversity and Inclusion research in Crowdfunding and Crowdsourcing. Also exploring how digital platforms and crowd participation be accessible to all, including underserved, discriminated populations and developing regions? 6. Metrics and Evaluation: Exploring metrics and frameworks that assess the impact and effectiveness of crowd-driven innovation and entrepreneurial efforts. How do we quantify and compare success?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Vesna Vlaisavljevic, Universitat de Barcelona

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Antonio Carmona Lavado, Department of Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Carmen Cabello Medina, Department of Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Tzameret Rubin, Oxford Brookes Business School, Oxford Brookes University, UK

Contacts
vesna.savic@ub.edu

Abstract
This track continues the discussion of entrepreneurial support organizations, initiated in Seville and Stockholm R&D Management Conferences. The track focuses on entrepreneurial ecosystems, and the dynamics and relationships of entrepreneurs and startups in those ecosystems, with a particular interest in the entrepreneurial support organizations, such as accelerators, incubators, academic spin-offs, and other mechanisms and actors that foster startup innovation. Open Innovation 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. Despite the increasing interest and efforts on research, there are still many unanswered questions and several research streams emerge. This track welcomes contributions that will investigate, in the context of entrepreneurial ecosystems, issues related to entrepreneurship and innovation, accelerators, incubators, spin-offs, programs that influence startups outcomes, new business models, open innovation, cross-industry innovation…

Long description of the track
In order to support entrepreneurial ecosystems, policymakers should move beyond isolated policies for startups and adopt a more holistic approach to connect key institutions and infrastructures that influence outcomes (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) that boost innovation in new firms. Entrepreneurial ecosystems become 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) and entrepreneurial (Theodoraki et al., 2022) ecosystems are acting as enablers of innovation and become a remarkable actor of the modern entrepreneurial ecosystem, including accelerators, academic spin-offs programs, and the emergence of other boosting business growth models, among others. Moreover, Open Innovation literature highlights how startups integrate external expertise to thrive within ecosystems. Additionally, Cross-Industry Innovation 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). We invite to submit both theoretical and empirical papers whose topics or areas of interest include, but are not limited to: – How should an ecosystem be organized to promote innovation in startups? – Explore the relationship and dynamics between entrepreneurial ecosystems, startup innovation, OI and CII – Compare the type and differentiated role of actors involved in entrepreneurial ecosystems for startup innovation – Expand the understanding of accelerators, incubators and other mechanisms for startup innovation More generally, this track welcomes contributions that will analyze, in the context of entrepreneurial ecosystem, topics related to the startups innovation. References: Abootorabi, H., Wiklund, J., Johnson, A.R., Miller, C.D. (2021) A holistic approach to the evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem: An exploratory study of academic spin-offs. Journal of Business Venturing, 36, 106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106143 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 Gimenez-Fernandez, E.M., Sandulli, F., Bogers, M. (2020) Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms. Research Policy, 49, 104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104049 Spigel, B. (2017), “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 49-72. Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 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

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, New Jersey Institute of Technology MTSM

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Xi Zhang, New Jersey Institute of Technology MTSM

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Saleh Farazi, Sheffield University

Contacts
sgopalak@njit.edu
m.farazi@sheffield.ac.uk
xz262@njit.edu

Abstract
Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) play a pivotal role in fostering innovation, competitiveness, and firm survival through knowledge co-creation and spillover. This track explores how alliances and location within EEs facilitate knowledge exchange, enhance value creation, and drive entrepreneurial performance. While digital technologies have expanded the scope of EEs, enabling global knowledge spillovers, the role of physical location remains significant for building trust and transferring tacit knowledge. By examining the mechanisms of knowledge co-creation and the impact of both digital and physical dimensions, this track aims to provide insights into how EEs support entrepreneurial growth and sustainable competitive advantage. We invite papers that address the types of alliances that promote knowledge creation, regional variations in knowledge spillovers, and the methodological challenges in measuring these processes within EEs. This track aims to advance theoretical and empirical understanding of the role of alliances and location in the creation of EEs and their role in shaping innovation, firm competitiveness, and effective knowledge management.

Long description of the track
Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) have emerged as crucial frameworks for understanding how interdependent actors collaborate to foster innovation, competitiveness, and firm survival. Grounded in an open-systems approach (Iansiti & Levin, 2004; Adner, 2017), EEs enable independent and interdependent actors to engage in coordinated activities that drive value creation and economic exchange (Thomas & Ritala, 2022). Within this context, EEs also act as vehicles for knowledge co-creation and spillover, facilitating the flow of both tacit and explicit knowledge and capabilities among firms and other ecosystem actors (Acs et al., 2017; Cooke, 2016). The literature on ecosystems has explored various types: including business, service, and crisis ecosystems (Cobben et al., 2022; Fehrer & Bove, 2022; Kovoor-Misra et al., 2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, however, are distinguished by their focus on the entrepreneur as the central actor, supported by institutional structures, regional networks, and alliances that foster knowledge co-creation and knowledge spillover (Malecki, 2018; Qian, 2018). Knowledge spillover is a key mechanism in EEs, enabling new ventures to access external knowledge pools, which can enhance innovation and firm competitiveness. Alliances within EEs, whether formal partnerships or informal networks, are central to this spillover process, facilitating the transfer and recombination of knowledge across actors. This proposal emphasizes two central themes in entrepreneurial ecosystems: (1) the role of alliances in enabling knowledge co-creation and spillover and (2) the influence of physical and digital spaces on these knowledge dynamics. Alliances within EEs serve as conduits for knowledge exchange, leveraging co-creation processes that contribute to both firm innovation and ecosystem evolution. Digital technologies also play an increasingly vital role, expanding the capacity of EEs to facilitate cross-border knowledge spillovers and collaborations, even in the absence of physical proximity. The impact of EEs on entrepreneurial performance is closely tied to the ecosystem’s ability to generate and distribute knowledge resources. Entrepreneurs within EEs benefit from institutional support, forward and backward linkages, and regional knowledge spillovers that enhance their capacity to innovate and sustain competitive advantage (Szerb et al., 2018). However, the shift towards digital ecosystems raises questions about the continuing relevance of physical location in facilitating knowledge flows. While digital networks enable global knowledge exchange, regional proximity may still play a crucial role in trust-building, rapid collaboration, and tacit knowledge transfer. This track explores the mechanisms through which knowledge co-creation and spillover occur in EEs, examining the alliances that promote these processes, the interplay between digital and physical spaces, and the performance outcomes for entrepreneurial firms. It also addresses challenges in measuring knowledge flows within EEs, particularly in hybrid digital-physical contexts. The track invites research that addresses the following themes: 1. How do alliances within EEs facilitate knowledge co-creation and spillover? 2. Do regional variations affect the extent and impact of knowledge spillovers within EEs? 3. What is the role of physical location and digital processes in facilitating knowledge co-creation in the digital age? 4. How do EEs shape the innovation and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms through knowledge co-creation and spillover? 5. Methodological challenges in capturing and analyzing knowledge co-creation and spillover in EEs.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Andrea Ancona, Department of Social Sciences and Economics, Sapienza University of Rome

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Giuseppe Ceci, Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Dieudonnee Cobben, Department of Management, Open Universiteit

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Yvonne Kirkels, Department Industrial Engineering and Entrepreneurship, Fontys Hogescholen

Contacts
andrea.ancona@uniroma1.it

Abstract
Traditionally viewed as separate constructs, entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) and innovation ecosystems (IEs) are now increasingly seen as complementary, with recent studies highlighting their commonalities. In this vein, the concept of nestedness contributes to their understanding, as various components and actors coexist within interdependent layers. This track aims to bridge the two fields by investigating the overlapping actors, dimensions, and configurations, while exploring how different methodologies can be integrated to understand both ecosystems’ dynamics. Additionally, the debate will highlight the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurial outputs, shedding light on the nestedness between the components of both EEs and IEs. Key research areas include the interconnectedness between different ecosystem types, theoretical and methodological overlaps, cause-effect mechanisms linking innovation to entrepreneurial outcomes, and the relationships between ecosystem dynamics and performance measurement. Moreover, contributions on how to leverage digital tools, AI, and emerging technologies to shape the evolution of EEs and IEs are welcomed.

Long description of the track
In recent years, entrepreneurial and innovation processes have increasingly moved away from traditional individualistic approaches, shifting toward greater attention to social, cultural, economic, and technological factors at the ecosystem level. This has led to increasing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) and innovation ecosystems (IEs) through a mutual perspective of value creation (De Vasconcelos et al., 2018), considering them as complementary concepts (Cobben et al., 2021). Entrepreneurship and innovation are shaped by a range of industrial, technological, organizational, institutional, and policy factors, as well as social, temporal, and spatial characteristics (Autio et al., 2014). The interconnectedness of ecosystem actors and the non-linear nature of their interactions highlight the value of adopting a complex systems perspective to analyze the dynamics of both EEs and IEs (Liu et al., 2021; Ancona et al., 2023). This session welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions lying at the intersection between EEs and IEs. In particular, from a theoretical lens, while the actors, dimensions, mechanisms, and dynamics of the two types of ecosystems are mostly analyzed as separate concepts, they can share common features in relation to a series of characteristics. The contributions to this track will fill this gap, addressing how and in which contexts the two concepts overlap. Moreover, while the two streams of research present significant differences among methodologies, the track will explore how it is possible to combine and integrate different approaches to analyze both ecosystems’ dynamics. From an empirical perspective, the discussion will dive deep into the cause-effect mechanisms between innovation and entrepreneurial outputs, shedding light on the nestedness between the components of both EEs and IEs, which may coexist within overlapping, interdependent layers. In this vein, investigating the relationships between ecosystem dynamics and performance measurement is crucial (Leendertse et al., 2022) since it can affect the way different ecosystems build strategic partnerships (Ceci et al., 2024). To this aim, the application of data analytics and AI-driven approaches has significantly impacted the entrepreneurial and innovation landscape, enabling ecosystem actors to make more informed, data-driven decisions (Jacobides et al., 2021). The ability to harness these technologies effectively will play a key role in enhancing ecosystem performance and increasing robustness in the face of continuous technological changes. Key research questions for this track include: • Theoretical and methodological overlaps between EEs and IEs • Cause-effect mechanisms between innovation and entrepreneurial outputs in EEs and IEs • Relations and interactions between different ecosystem types, including transitions, hybrid models, and cross-ecosystem dynamics • New approaches to measuring impact and performance in EEs and IEs, leveraging digital tools, AI, and real-time analytics • The transformative role of digitalization, data analytics, AI, and emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, IoT) in shaping EEs and IEs • Dynamics of coopetition, collaboration, and competition within and between EEs and IEs, and their effects on innovation and entrepreneurship

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Maria Isabella Leone, Luiss University and Luiss Business School

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Alessandro Sancino, University of Milan-Bicocca

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Mariarosa Scarlata, University of Bergamo

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Irene Bengo, Politecnico di Milano

Contacts
mleone@luiss.it
alessandro.sancino@unimib.it
mariarosa.scarlata@unibg.it
irene.bengo@polimi.it

Abstract
Open Social Innovation (OSI) is increasingly relevant in the current competitive scenario to tackle complex societal problems through collaborative efforts. OSI projects require the collaboration of different actors that together work towards impact generation aiming to increase the collective welfare. The engaged actors play different roles in these initiatives and the public sector has often proved to have a crucial role in their structuring and governance. Comprehending the roles played by different impact makers is essential to facilitate collaborative dynamics and establish a place-based public governance of OSI.

Long description of the track
The proposed topic aims to examine the factors that facilitate multi-stakeholder collaborations in driving and generating social and/or environmental impact, moving beyond standard approaches (Beckman et al., 2023). Public governance is key in Open Social Innovation as it often introduces these initiatives, brings them to scale, and plays a central role in attracting many different stakeholders to address urgent, complex challenges. Additionally, we also aim to gain a deeper comprehension of the role of place as both a symbolical tool for rallying communal solidarity and as the practical environment in which citizens perceive and engage with public administration and its democratic outcomes, utilizing the concept of ‘place-based public governance’ to denote one possible field of study. As such, one of the purposes of this topic proposal is to delineate essential criteria for the establishment and systematization of place-based public governance that facilitates and supports Open Social Innovation. Possible research inquiries could include: 1. What defines open social innovation processes? Who are the key stakeholders, and what do they contribute? 2. What constitutes an effectively structured Open Social Innovation initiative? 3. What are the strategies for creating efficient place-based public governance systems? 4. What governance mechanisms can maintain ecosystems of open social innovation? 5. What impact do Open Social Innovation initiatives have, and what methods can be used to measure this impact?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Niccolò Todaro, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Amanda Williams, Center for Sustainable and Inclusive Business, IMD Business School

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Francesco Testa, Institute of Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Emilio Passetti, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Aziendali “Marco Fanno”, University of Padua

Contacts
niccolomaria.todaro@santannapisa.it

Abstract
Grand challenges – such as climate change, biodiversity loss and social inequalities – demand joint efforts between business and academia to devise innovative solutions that generate societal impact, by creating value for business, academia and society. However, the “gap” between research and practice constraints the influence of academic research on business and managerial practices, hindering scholars’ capacity to make an impact in the “real world”. This track addresses the “gap” by welcoming contributions that explore innovation processes rooted in academia-industry collaboration and aimed at tackling grand challenges, with the goal of advancing the debate on how to bridge the research-practice gap in sustainability and innovation management studies. The track welcomes empirical, methodological and conceptual studies that explore academic-practitioner collaborations in the context of responsible, social, and sustainable innovation aimed at addressing grand challenges.

Long description of the track
The magnitude and complexity of grand challenges — such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequalities — demand joint efforts between academia and business to co-develop responsible, social, and sustainable innovations that support the transition towards a more inclusive, just and sustainable economy (George et al., 2016). However, in recent years, management scholars have increasingly emphasized the gap between research and practice, especially in the fields of sustainability and innovation management studies: despite scholars aspire to innovate managerial and business practices, their work often fall short of making a meaningful impact in the “real world” (MacIntosh et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2024). While other disciplines have a more consolidated tradition of driving innovation through collaboration between academia and practice, management studies are still struggling to find viable pathways to navigate such tensions and bridging the divide (Bansal et al., 2012). In view of addressing grand challenges, academics and practitioners are increasingly called to pursue collaborative innovation: openness to contributions from other stakeholders in the system have become essential for tackling ever more complex scientific questions, as well as generating meaningful, societal impact (De Silva & Wright, 2019; Williams & Whiteman, 2021). In this view, Sharma & Bansal (2020) describe “research-practice co-creation” as the process where “researchers and managers come together to study a problem of common interest.” Co-creation represents a process-oriented approach to combining academic and practitioner perspectives, as it implies that researchers and practitioners collaborate over time across the main stages of the research process: from articulating a research problem, to designing a research protocol, and interpreting results to formulate knowledge that is both valuable for academics and useful for solving practical business problems (Bansal & Sharma, 2022). Bansal et al. (2012) examine diverse approaches to enact research-practice knowledge co-creation – such as evidence-based management, engaged scholarship and relational scholarship – that, despite the common objective, differ based on the extent and modalities of interaction between researchers and practitioners. However, despite such insights, opportunities for effective research-practice collaboration remain rare in academia, and modalities to foster long-lasting and reciprocally-beneficial co-creation processes are unclear. In light of these considerations, the track aims at advancing the debate on “bridging” the research-practice gap in the development of responsible, social, and sustainable innovations, while exploring industry-academy collaboration as a viable pathway for generating innovative solutions addressing grand challenges. To this aim, the track welcomes contributions that explore innovation processes in the context of grand challenges – from environmental to social concerns, from economic to ethical, political and cultural challenges – and rooted in academic-practitioner collaboration. The track welcomes both empirical, methodological, and conceptual studies that aim to advance knowledge on fostering co-creation in addressing pressing societal and environmental concerns, while enhancing the societal impact of academic research.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Jacopo Cricchio, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Viviana D’angelo, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Fabrizio Tuzi, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Andrea Filippetti, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)

Contacts
jacopo.cricchio@santannapisa.it
viviana.dangelo@cnr.it
fabrizio.tuzi@cnr.it
andrea.filippetti@cnr.it

Abstract
This conference track examines the pivotal role of R&D management literature in shaping Science and Technological Innovation (STI) policies to address global challenges like biodiversity loss, health security, climate change, and digital transformation. Traditionally focused on research and economic growth, STI policies now require a broader, impact-driven approach. This track explores how insights from R&D management can guide the development of sustainability-focused STI strategies, ethical governance models, and demand-side policies that drive innovation through public procurement and standards. Papers are encouraged to examine knowledge transfer dynamics and the role of R&D management in connecting research institutions with diverse stakeholders. By aligning R&D management with STI policy, this track aims to expand the scope of STI to support societal progress, integrating sustainability and ethics as core elements. The goal is to redefine STI policies to address complex societal needs and promote inclusive, sustainable growth.

Long description of the track
Science and Technological Innovation (STI) policy encompasses a range of government strategies and frameworks designed to promote research, technological advancement, and innovation (Voß, Smith, and Grin 2009). This set of actions includes incentives for research and development (R&D), technology transfer initiatives, support for startups, tax incentives, grants, and public-private partnerships. STI policy emphasizes the importance of establishing connections, fostering clusters and networks, stimulating knowledge exchange among system components, and enabling entrepreneurship to drive economic growth (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). However, recent grand challenges like biodiversity loss, health security, climate change, digital transformation, inequalities, and geopolitical tensions require a new approach toward STI policies. This conference track invites papers that examine how STI policies can drive solutions to these pressing global grand challenges. The goal is to expand beyond the traditional view of innovation incorporating both technological advancements and societal innovation to accelerate sustainable economic growth, advance technological progress, and tackle complex societal issues. Historically, the primary objectives of innovation policy were to support the production of scientific knowledge, advance and commercialize sector-specific technical knowledge, and enhance the overall innovative performance of the economy (Howoldt 2024; Filippetti and Vezzani 2022). However, the urgent need to address societal challenges requires a radical restructuring of the policymaking framework to achieve social objectives (Bergek, Hellsmark, and Karltorp 2023). In this context, the innovation policy agenda must shift from a focus on economic outcomes to societal goals, directing collective efforts toward the achievement of shared prosperity rather than mere economic growth. (Foray, Mowery, and Nelson 2012; Kattel and Mazzucato 2018). To achieve this goal, the policy literature must better align with innovation and R&D literature to effectively facilitate the sustainability transition (Edmondson, Kern, and Rogge 2019). Overcoming resistance to new technologies and systems from established stakeholders underscores the importance of managing R&D through innovation alliances and co-creation (Kemp and Never 2017). This evolving competitive landscape, driven by the rapid emergence of new technologies, necessitates a novel perspective on innovation policy—one that prioritizes addressing societal challenges while fostering the development of new ecosystems that transcend traditional path dependencies (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). This track aims to engage a multidisciplinary audience in an exploration of R&D and STI policy literatures intersection . This track therefore welcomes both conceptual and empirical papers with a qualitative and/or quantitative methodologies related with (but not limited to) the following areas of interest: 1. STI Strategies for Sustainable Development: How can STI strategies, tools, and approaches advance the sustainable moonshot agenda (i.e. biodiversity protection, digital transition, sustainable development)? What role does digital innovation, biotechnology, and data-driven approaches play in advancing these agendas? 2. Policy Frameworks and Governance Models: How can STI policy frameworks be designed to foster collaboration, ensure ethical research practices, and promote innovation to address grand challenges? 3. Demand-side Innovation Policy: How can public policies foster demand for innovation through public procurement, regulations, or standards? 4. Knowledge Transfer: How are knowledge, innovations, and technologies developed in research institutions (such as universities, laboratories, or research centers) shared, disseminated, and utilized by other stakeholders? 5. Impact Evaluation How to measure the impact of STI policies for example on knowledge transfer dynamics, SMEs performance, societal impact? How do the results eventually inform and define the policy makers’ future directions? References Bergek, Anna, Hans Hellsmark, and Kersti Karltorp. 2023. “Directionality Challenges for Transformative Innovation Policy: Lessons from Implementing Climate Goals in the Process Industry.” Industry and Innovation 30 (8): 1110–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2163882. Edmondson, Duncan L., Florian Kern, and Karoline S. Rogge. 2019. “The Co-Evolution of Policy Mixes and Socio-Technical Systems: Towards a Conceptual Framework of Policy Mix Feedback in Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 48 (10): 103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2018.03.010. Filippetti, Andrea, and Antonio Vezzani. 2022. “The Political Economy of Public Research, or Why Some Governments Commit to Research More than Others.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 176 (March): 121482. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2022.121482. Foray, D., D. Mowery, and R. Nelson. 2012. “Public R&D and Social Challenges: What Lessons from Mission R&D Programs?” Research Policy 41 (10): 1697–1792. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011. Howoldt, David. 2024. “Characterising Innovation Policy Mixes in Innovation Systems.” Research Policy 53 (2): 104902. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2023.104902. Kattel, Rainer, and Mariana Mazzucato. 2018. “Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy and Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/ICC/DTY032. Kemp, René, and Babette Never. 2017. “Green Transition, Industrial Policy, and Economic Development.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33 (1): 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXREP/GRW037. Schot, Johan, and W. Edward Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011. Voß, Jan Peter, Adrian Smith, and John Grin. 2009. “Designing Long-Term Policy: Rethinking Transition Management.” Policy Sciences 42 (4): 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11077-009-9103-5/TABLES/1.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Ana Paula Paes Leme Barbosa – Escola Politécnica, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Mario Sergio Salerno, Escola Politécnica, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Jacob Brix, Aalborg University Business School, Denmark and Norwegian University of Science & Technology

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Gina C. O’Connor, Babson College, Boston, USA

Contacts
aleme@usp.br

Abstract
Over the past six years, this track has developed into a collaborative forum for strategic innovation management, tackling themes like managing uncertainty and addressing grand challenges. This year, we center on mission-oriented innovation as a strategic response to global crises. The need for strategic renewal is intensifying across sectors due to disruptive technological advances, ecological crises, demographic shifts, and rising mental health concerns. Traditional approaches are proving inadequate, prompting organizations to innovate through inter-organizational learning and collaboration, exemplified by Horizon Europe initiatives. Mission-oriented research, a key focus, aligns scientific efforts with societal needs on issues like climate change, health, and digitalization. Prioritizing such missions drives cross-sector collaboration, yet also presents challenges, including balancing long-term research goals with immediate applications and managing diverse stakeholder expectations. This theme invites exploration into these complex dynamics, highlighting the potential and obstacles of a mission-oriented agenda in advancing strategic innovation.

Long description of the track
Over the last six years, this track has evolved into a forum for discussing key themes in strategic innovation management, building on past insights from managing innovation amid uncertainties and addressing grand challenges. Our aim is to cultivate a collaborative community dedicated to advancing knowledge in this field. This year, the focus is on mission-oriented innovation, reflecting the ongoing need for strategic responses to global challenges. The emphasis for strategic renewal is rising these years in both the public and private sector, as we are witness to new breakthrough technological development and innovation, ecological crisis, changes in demography, decreased mental health among children and youth, new escalating conflicts, and wars. Business as usual has become unusual and it is no longer certain that existing routines will enable us to succeed with innovation strategies. Organizations can still pursue their innovation efforts alone or with the help of external consultants, but we also see an increased focus on inter-organizational learning and collaboration for innovation driven by initiatives of co-strategizing among partner organizations, as e.g. in the Horizon Europe funding programs. A theme that is gaining traction is ‘Mission-oriented research and innovation’, and such missions are defined by both funding agencies and by individual organizations who seek to mobilize other stakeholders to take part in the mission(s). Here, mission-oriented research and innovation focus on solving societal challenges, such as climate change, health, and digitalization, by aligning scientific goals with public needs. Mission-orientation as part of a strategic innovation agenda is increasingly being given high priority to address urgent global issues, to drive cross-disciplinary collaboration, and to foster stronger ties between academia, industry, and government. The mission-oriented agenda is however not necessarily easy. Balancing long-term research goals with immediate practical applications can be difficult. There may also be pressure to produce quick results, which could compromise quality or depth. Furthermore, coordinating diverse stakeholders and ensuring equitable resource distribution poses a challenge, requiring effective governance and accountability mechanisms. The theme hence has more questions to be answered than answers. We invite submissions that treat the themes of the questions below or some similar: ● How can mission-oriented partnerships for research and innovation be created and managed? Which (new) roles are required to succeed? ● What are the similarities and differences for mission-oriented research and innovation compared to e.g. different types of open innovation, and which managerial implications can be identified from such analysis? ● Are collaborative dynamic capabilities a (new) strategic asset and how do such capabilities look compared to (intra-organizational) dynamic capabilities? ● How can intersectoral collaborations both lead to public and private value for stakeholders? ● How does a disruptive scenario affect team coordination for mission-oriented innovation? ● How does sensemaking shape an organization’s ability to respond effectively to disruptive scenarios and mission-oriented innovation? ● How does mission driven innovation cause us to reconsider the role of the for profit, publicly held company, in society? ● What personal characteristics, motivations or threats help develop and maintain senior leaders’ commitment to mission driven innovation?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Gianluca Gionfriddo, Sant’Anna School of Avanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Albena Björck, Zurich University of Applied Sciences

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Martina Tafuro, Sant’Anna School of Avanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Chiara Pantalena, Politecnico di Milano

Contacts
gianluca.gionfriddo@santannapisa.it

Abstract
The track aims to collect original contributions intersecting the topic of corporate purpose with innovation and strategic management. In particular, we aim to collect original contributions investigating how companies can embed purpose into their core strategies, enabling them to generate long-term prosperity and impact through a dual approach (Mayer, 2021; Almandoz, 2023). From the inside-out perspective (Ocasio et al., 2023; Almandoz, 2023), the track seeks to collect novel studies addressing the topic of purpose-driven implementation within organizations, thanks to internal operations that allows to generate positive change and innovation-driven culture for employees and managers. This approach involves integrating purpose in corporate governance frameworks and leveraging AI and data to support inside-out purpose-driven prosperity. The outside-in perspective (Almandoz, 2023; George et al., 2023) emphasizes engaging with a broader ecosystem through multi-stakeholder collaboration (Gulati & Wohlgezogen, 2023), aiming to drive architectural innovation (Henderson, 2021) and positive large-scale change. We look for contributions investigating how organizations can build purpose-driven networks that foster collective action and address systemic challenges, thus achieving a more meaningful impact (Besharov & Mitzinneck, 2023). Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for organizations to initiate and sustain transformation, both within the company and across the ecosystems in which they operate.

Long description of the track
The concept of purpose-driven companies embodies a transformative approach for organizations, redefining how they generate value and impact both internally and externally. This track aims to explore how embedding purpose within a company can drive architectural innovation, reshape organizational structures, and orchestrate systemic change across ecosystems. We invite proposals that delve into the intricate relationship between corporate purpose and innovation, emphasizing how a clear purpose informs corporate strategies, technological adoption, and positive impact for stakeholders, society, and the environment. This track addresses critical research questions, such as (but not limited to): – How does a well-defined corporate purpose shape the prioritization and execution of innovation strategies within organizations, influencing daily operations and actions? – What purpose-driven mechanisms help companies identify and integrate new and existing technologies to support multi-stakeholder engagement and positive change for society? – What transformational processes do purpose-driven companies implement to achieve architectural innovation? Through empirical research, case studies, and theoretical contributions, this track aims to collect actionable insights to help organizations internalize purpose-driven practices and cultivate cultures that prioritize meaningful impact alongside long-term prosperity. The paper track includes the following key subtopics: 1. Purpose-Driven Implementation and Strategic Innovation (Inside-Out Perspective): This subtopic explores how companies can embed purpose at the core of their innovation strategies to guide project implementation, enhance communication, and foster a culture that drives social impact and value. It considers the role of governance frameworks and purpose-aligned leadership in fostering an environment that supports continuous innovation. We seek insights on how organizations navigate incremental, systemic (Carton, 2018) and strategic innovation (Markides, 1998) in alignment with their core purpose, including leveraging AI and data to advance purpose-driven goals. 2. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement and Architectural Innovation (Outside-In Perspective): The focus here is on how companies can extend their purpose-driven approach beyond internal operations to engage with the broader ecosystem. We seek research on how multi-stakeholder collaboration can drive architectural innovation, enabling companies to tackle grand-societal challenges and orchestrated large-scale change (Henderson, 2021). Contributions that analyse the role of networks, partnerships, and shared value creation in achieving sustainable impact are encouraged. 3. Transformational Processes for Purpose-Driven Innovation (Process Perspective): This subtopic addresses the organizational changes necessary to support purpose-driven innovation. We aim to understand the structures, processes, and leadership strategies that enable companies to embed purpose into their operations (Lee et al., 2023; Aguilera, 2023). Research on overcoming barriers to transformation, identifying critical enablers and supporting governance, as well as fostering an innovation-driven culture is of particular interest. 4. Measuring and Communicating Purpose-Driven Impact Innovation is one of the key areas that fosters purpose embeddedness and demonstrates purpose impact. Measuring and articulating the positive impact generated through purpose-driven innovation is essential for fostering trust and engagement. This subtopic focuses on the development of robust metrics, adaptive frameworks, and communication strategies that enable organizations to transparently convey the benefits of their initiatives. We encourage contributions that explore diverse approaches to impact assessment, stakeholder engagement, and aligning communication with evolving societal priorities (Rajan et al., 2023; Brühl & Falkheimer, 2023).

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Fabio Iannone, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Francesco Ghezzi, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Eleonora Annunziata, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Francesco Rizzi, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Contacts
fabio.iannone@santannapisa.it

Abstract
Sustainability is essential for the Global South, where socio-economic growth faces obstacles like resource scarcity, infrastructure challenges, and environmental degradation. Issues like lack of clean energy access, deforestation, and pollution threaten GS’s ecosystems, which host abundant wildlife. Sustainable Innovation – developing eco-friendly products, services, and technologies – has gained momentum here, driven by policies supporting green practices and rapid tech adoption, including mobile tech, AI, and digital finance. This innovation helps bypass traditional development stages, enhancing sectors like agriculture, health, and education, and reaching underserved communities. Effective Sustainable Innovation integrates local knowledge, engages communities, and draws on private sector and social entrepreneurship efforts, yet debates on best practices and incentives persist. This track seeks research on Sustainable Innovation’s drivers, challenges, and the roles of policies, local communities, and partnerships in promoting sustainable growth across the Global South.

Long description of the track
Managing sustainability is no longer a choice but a necessity, particularly in the Global South (GS), where socio-economic growth is frequently constrained by limited resources, infrastructure challenges, socio-political pressures and environmental issues (UN, 2018). In Africa, as in Latin America or South-East Asia, clean energy access, hunger, deforestation, among the others, are daily challenges. GS’s ecosystems are teeming with abundant wildlife, but are adversely affected by man-made environmental degradation, caused for instance by unsustainable agricultural practices, unplanned urbanization, overfishing, mining extractive activities, pollution, etc (Arfanuzzaman & Dahiya, 2019; Omisore, 2018; Zapata-Cantu, & González, 2021). Sustainable Innovation (SI) refers to “the development of new products, processes, services and technologies that contribute to the development and well-being of human needs and institutions while respecting natural resources and regeneration capacities” (Tello and Yoon, 2008, pag. 165). Since the early 2000s, many GS countries have demonstrated increasing innovative capacities for green innovations (Herman, 2023) and developed policies to promote green practices, sustainable businesses, and responsible innovation. Rapid adoption in GS of mobile technology, AI, and digital finance – reshaping agriculture, health, and education – enables to skip certain development stages, adopt sustainable practices, and serve previously underserved populations (van Tuijl, et al., 2024). Private sector engagement and social entrepreneurship are pivotal in SI, as engines for sustainable development, creating innovative solutions to complex socio-economic issues while generating jobs and stimulating local economies (Phillips et al., 2015). SI is most effective when it incorporates local knowledge and addresses actual community needs. Communities actively contribute to sustainable development through participatory innovation approaches. (Sharma & Bhat, 2023). Although understanding of innovation drivers has improved, empirical and theoretical literature offers varied and sometimes conflicting insights on the practices, incentives, or conditions that support SI (Taalbi, 2017). A recent work has highlighted the need for further scientific evidence about how ecosystems and networks foster SI. (Cillo et al., 2019). Given this, this track invites contribution covering specific issues associated with SI in emerging economies across GS. We suggest and welcome studies addressing the following themes, e.g.: – Policy and institutional influence on promoting/hindering sustainable innovation – Social enterprises and their contribution to sustainable innovation – Private-public partnerships and their role in sustainable innovation – Role of local communities in fostering sustainable innovation – Tensions between local and non-local stakeholders’ needs in sustainable innovation practices – Frugal and sustainable innovation’s role in realizing SDGs. Reference: – Arfanuzzaman, M., & Dahiya, B. (2019). Sustainable urbanization in Southeast Asia and beyond: Challenges of population growth, land use change, and environmental health. Growth and Change, 50(2), 725-744. – Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1012-1025. – Herman, K. S. (2023). Green growth and innovation in the Global South: a systematic literature review. Innovation and Development, 13(1), 43-69. – Omisore, A. G. (2018). Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa; The need to address environmental challenges. Environmental development, 25, 138-145. – Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428-461. – Sharma, V., & Bhat, D. A. R. (2023). The role of community involvement in sustainable tourism strategies: A social and environmental innovation perspective. Business Strategy & Development, 6(2), 119-127. – Taalbi, J. (2017). What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history. Research Policy, 46(8), 1437-1453. – Tello, S.F. and Yoon, E. (2008), “Examining drivers of sustainable innovation”, International Journal of Business Strategy, Citeseer, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 164-169. – UN, 2018. Forging a Path Beyond Borders: The Global South. – van Tuijl, E., Intriago Zambrano, J. C., & Knorringa, P. (2024). Digitalization, frugal innovation, and sustainable development in the Global South: Opportunities and challenges of a frugal smart water pump. The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainable Digitalization for Business, Industry, and Society, 63-81. – Zapata-Cantu, L., & González, F. (2021). Challenges for innovation and sustainable development in Latin America: The significance of institutions and human capital. Sustainability, 13(7), 4077.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Elisa Salvador, ESSCA School of Management, France

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Giovanna Segre, Department of Economics and Statistics ‘Cognetti De Martiis’, University of Turin

Contacts
elisa.salvador@essca.fr

Abstract
This Track aims at investigating how the several CCIs are complying with sustainable development and what kinds of innovations and technologies these industries are adopting to achieve this goal. This Track is linked to the Call for Papers of the Special Issue “Innovation and technologies at the service of Sustainable Development: how are complying Cultural and Creative Industries?” of the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Guest edited by the Track proponents. On Wednesday the 21st of May 2025 a 1-day workshop will be organized by the Guest Editors at the University of Turin (Italy): it will be a pre-screening session with papers that show a good potential to submit to the Special Issue in the JET-M journal. Deadline for submission of full papers on JET-M platform: Thursday 31 July 2025. A Track at R&D Management conference could be an interesting complement of the workshop and Special Issue.

Long description of the track
Innovation and technologies adopted by Cultural and Creative industries (CCIs) are capturing an increasing interest in recent years. Yet, most of the academic literature deals with creation and talent and very little with technological and innovation perspectives. Innovation is in general considered a means to develop new creative contents. A few years ago, Benghozi and Salvador (2016) investigated the topic of R&D and technological innovations with a focus on the book publishing industry. They highlighted that CCIs are generally associated with various forms of “hidden innovation”, difficult to identify. More recently, Salvador and Benghozi (2023) in their analysis of the texts of communications of the European Commission (EC) about the CCIs, highlighted the absence of significance of the word “innovation”. Looking at the EC communications’ texts, the word “innovation” represents only 2.09% of textual units classified and it is associated to words (or roots) like “drive, educat, research, horizon, growth, inclu, competitiveness, create, technolog”. Innovation is typically present in more recent communications’ texts (ie 2012-2018). Innovation is strongly associated to creativity, but the texts’ content is mostly general. Following the recent debate about “sustainability” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015), also the CCIs are not escaping from the challenge of addressing sustainable development matters; indeed, these industries are among the pivotal actors that could provide original and unexpected solutions, thanks to their unique creativity (Amabile, 1988). Notwithstanding this urgency, to date the matter of sustainable innovations and technologies in the CCIs has not received the deserved attention. Innovative solutions and practices recently adopted, have not been investigated enough in the scientific literature. Given this context, this Track aims at investigating how the several CCIs are complying with sustainable development and what kinds of innovations and technologies these industries are adopting to achieve this goal. What technological innovations have been adopted, for example, for the environmental sustainability of heritage sites? What about the cinema industry? What kinds of green innovations have been adopted by the fashion industry for improving their image and attract consumers? How does the Design sector contribute to the adoption and diffusion of innovation in other sectors (Amitrano and Segre, 2023)? What technologies are being implemented in the digitalization of museums or in the video-games industry and in the metaverse? Generally speaking, can we still argue about “hidden (sustainable) innovation”? What are the consequences of sustainable innovations’ adoption: extensive products’ lifecycle, lower use of natural resources, less pollution…? Exemplary research questions and topics include, but are not limited to, the following: – What kinds of innovative practices CCIs are adopting for the implementation of sustainable and greener value chains? – How do technological innovations support the competitiveness of CCIs? – What impacts are produced on other sectors as a result of innovative practices in CCIs? – What practices could be considered as “smart” solutions for CCIs? The organizers of this Track invite contributions that will enlighten our understanding of sustainability matters in the CCIs regarding innovation and technologies.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Peter Robbins, Dublin City University, Ireland

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Anne Berthinier-Poncet, CNAM, Paris, France

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Daria Podmentia, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Berit Sandberg, University of Applied Sciences Berlin

Contacts
peter.robbins@dcu.ie

Abstract
The role of the arts in boosting organisational creativity for corporate innovation has long been a topic of interest to practitioners and academics alike. However, without a clear pathway or route map, embedding the arts, into their innovation process, will remain merely an elusive aspiration for managers. This Track explores ways to guide organisations from thinking about engaging with the arts through to systematically integrating them at the heart of their innovation process. Contributions should explore the types of initiatives through which the arts can be integrated into organisational innovation practices. We hope this track will attract submissions from scholars interested in the shared value created between the arts and business. We encourage papers that examine the types of initiatives or practices that are being undertaken by firms to embrace the arts. We are interested in the types of art-forms that are most often, or most successfully, deployed. We encourage theoretical or conceptual contributions that braid together insights from innovation management and the arts. We hope scholars will examine this practice from both the point of view of the artists as well as the organisation.

Long description of the track
The importance of successful innovation and NPD for long term growth and sustainable competitive advantage in organisations is well documented. Experts agree that the front end of innovation is both the most important but the least studied phase of the innovation value chain. Design Thinking was once hailed as a panacea for early stage innovation projects, but recently critics have suggested that it has reached its outer limits. Art Thinking is an emerging approach to boost originality and creativity in the front end of innovation. In this Track, we explore how applying the way artists think and achieve novelty to the front end of innovation offers a fresh perspective on the R of ‘R&D’. Art thinking is a novel innovation paradigm where organisations bring in artists to work on projects: to create artefacts (Andy Warhol and Absolut); to enhance the creative culture; to provide energy and ideas: ultimately to boost innovation output. If sustained interest in a topic is a barometer of its importance, then the value and role of the arts in business, especially in innovation management, definitely warrants a dedicated track in this innovation conference. Over the past decade, the concept of art-thinking has moved from an aspiration (Carlucci and Schiuma, 2018) to a set of practices. With their emphasis on disruption and transformation, arts-based initiatives in business organisations are often seen as running counter to the prevailing goal directed, commercial culture. Nevertheless, the adoption and application of these art based practices is on the rise (Meisiek and Barry, 2018). The arts are both a spur to and a manifestation of creativity: and creativity is the crucial spark that sets innovation alight. Creativity is widely regarded as the engine driving societal and economic progress (Henriksen and Mishra, 2019), as most of the advances that have driven society forward have been driven by creativity (Sternberg, 2006). Organisational success, therefore, increasingly depends on organisational creativity. Organisational creativity is defined as an organisation’s capacity to create tangible innovation assets from the ideas of its people (Sundgren and Styhre , 2003; Zhou and Hoever, 2014). The role of the arts in any organisation can be as a catalyst, a lever, even a trigger to increase its creative capacity and harness latent creative energy (Schiuma, 2009). Historically, researchers (An and Youn, 2018) propose that openness to aesthetics and the mere exposure and experience of art enhances individuals’ creativity by imbuing them with a sense of inspiration. Others contend that arts can actually drive the management of innovation (Ikeda and Marshal, 2016). We expect this track to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by showing how art thinking increases absorptive capability and boosts innovation capability and thus increases dynamic capabilities of organisations. We hope, through these papers, to reveal previously unreported types of innovation practices leveraging arts based initiatives.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Arianna Martinelli, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Gianluca Murgia, Università di Siena

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Andrea Urbinati, Università di Castellanza

Contacts
a.martinelli@santannapisa.it

Abstract
The relationship between failure and innovation is intricate, with innovation efforts often marked by uncertainty and the risk of failure at various stages. However, most of the scientific research primarily focuses on successful innovation projects, leaving gaps in understanding the factors and outcomes related to innovation failures. The track’s objectives are to fill this gap and examine the determinants and effects of innovation failures throughout the development process. It will feature papers that explore how failures relate to the characteristics of innovations, the innovation process, and the innovator. Additionally, the track will discuss how these failures can influence these factors over time through various feedback mechanisms, particularly focusing on “learning from failure” at both team and organizational levels.

Long description of the track
Failures and innovation are inextricably linked due to the inherent uncertainty of innovation projects. However, innovation management literature tends to focus mainly on successful projects, limiting our understanding of the determinants and consequences of failures (Magazzini et al., 2012). This conference track aims to bridge this gap by examining various forms of innovation failures, such as discontinued patents, project abandonments, new product recalls, and innovations that fail to benefit society. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive view of their determinants and consequences across the innovation process, from idea generation to commercialization. We will explore how failures are shaped by factors related to the innovation itself, the development team, and the organizational context. Breakthrough innovations may lead to either significant impact or failure, particularly when they involve novel technologies or resources (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). While this has been discussed in the literature, few studies have examined how repeated failures influence the direction of future innovation searches (Maslach, 2016). Additionally, other features of the innovation, such as its scope and field of application, deserve more attention. The composition of innovation teams and their management approaches also play a role in failure risk (Puliga et al., 2023). Further investigation into how teams influence failures should be coupled with an analysis of the learning processes triggered by unsuccessful projects. While “learning from failure” has been explored at the employee and team levels (Dahlin et al., 2018), a systematic view of measures to prevent and learn from failures is needed. Similarly, organizational strategies for managing failures remain underexplored. Firms may adopt collaborative strategies in response to repeated failures (Tyler & Caner, 2016), but the literature has yet to fully examine how strategic realignments are affected by organizational learning from failure. Topics for discussion in this track include: How can innovation failures be defined and classified? Which characteristics of the innovation process trigger failures? How do past failures influence firms’ strategies and best practices in innovation? What are the main drivers and obstacles to “learning from failure” at the team and firm levels?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Emilia Filippi, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Mariasole Bannò, University of Brescia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Letizia Lo Preiato, University of Brescia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Sandro Trento, University of Trento

Contacts
emilia.filippi@santannapisa.it

Abstract
Climate change, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss are critical challenges requiring urgent action and eco-innovation is essential for addressing these problems. Within organisations, women in various positions (e.g., directors, managers, employees, customers, shareholders, and stakeholders) can significantly influence eco-innovation initiatives. Their heightened awareness of climate issues and environmental protection drives participation in sustainable practices and eco-innovation, yet research linking women to climate action remains limited. This track aims to advance this topic by accepting contributions that analyse, for instance, women’s capacity to enhance corporate sustainability attention and efforts, women’s contributions to eco-innovation, the impact of their characteristics, barriers they face, and how their role in improving eco-innovation outcomes.

Long description of the track
Climate change, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss rank among the most pressing challenges of our time, demanding immediate and effective responses (e.g., Bazel-Shoham et al., 2023). Eco-innovation—also referred to as environmental innovation or green innovation—encompasses new processes, methods, and products designed to reduce environmental risks, pollution, and resource consumption (e.g., Kemp & Pearson, 2007; Garcia-Meca et al., 2023). This type of innovation can play a crucial role in alleviating the current ecological crisis and addressing the harm caused by the production and consumption of goods and services (e.g., Farza et al., 2022; Horbach and Jacob, 2018). In light of increasing expectations from consumers and governments alike (e.g., Horbach & Jacob, 2018), organisations are compelled to engage in eco-innovation to achieve a competitive edge and protect their reputation and legitimacy (e.g., Zaman et al., 2022). Societal expectations often lead women to be more attuned to issues of climate change and environmental protection, motivating them to actively participate in environmentally sustainable initiatives (e.g., McCright, 2010; Nadeem et al., 2020). Women can thus play a critical role in addressing climate change (OECD, 2024). Within the corporate landscape, women across various positions—e.g., directors, managers, employees, customers, shareholders, and stakeholders—can help advance and implement successful eco-innovation initiatives. However, research linking women to climate change and environmental protection remains limited and warrants further exploration (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2023) despite gender being relevant to govern the transition to a low-carbon economy (Kronsell, 2013). Based on this premise, this track aims to deepen our understanding of these dynamics. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: 1) Women’s capacity to enhance corporate sustainability attention and efforts: How women’s insights, pressures, and leadership can sustainability awareness? 2) Contributions of women in the promotion, design, and management of eco-innovation: How can women guide strategic choices towards eco-innovation projects, improve their project planning, and facilitate their implementation? 3) Impact of women’s characteristics: How traits such as education, skills, motivation, risk propensity, and access to financial resources can influence eco-innovation initiatives? 4) Barriers faced by women: Which challenges—including financial, administrative, and gender-related obstacles—can hinder women’s involvement in eco-innovation? How can these barriers be addressed? 5) Women’s influence on eco-innovation outcomes: How women’s participation improves results (e.g., in terms of performance and disclosure) in eco-innovation efforts? Eco-innovation is understood in a broad sense, encompassing all initiatives that positively impact the environment. The track is open to various positions that women can occupy (e.g., directors, managers, employees, customers, shareholders, stakeholders, etc.). We welcome both empirical and theoretical contributions, including advanced work-in-progress and full research papers utilising qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Submissions characterised by an interdisciplinary approach and those drawn from diverse industries and contexts are highly encouraged.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Mariano (Pitosh) Heyden, Monash University, Australia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Henk W. Volberda, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Ricarda B. Bouncken, University of Bayreuth, Germany

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Sarosh Asad, University of Groningen, Netherlands

Contacts
pitosh.heyden@monash.edu

Abstract
Leadership and innovation are central to contemporary business and academic discourse. However, scholarship in this area has disproportionately focused on upper echelon leaders as drivers of different types of innovation. This track proposes a more comprehensive examination of leadership-innovation nexus beyond the executive suite, co-recognizing the vital influence of other contributors across organizational cadres (e.g., middle managers, frontline supervisors, scientists, employees). This multi-echelon approach is an important new vantage point from which to theorize the fuller complexities of various innovation activities (e.g., R&D, patenting, NPD, non-technological innovations). By fostering a multi-echelons perspective, this track invites co-theorization of leaders across various (and multiple) organizational levels in driving innovation processes, types, and outcomes. Ultimately, this new approach is a necessary step to tackle some of the most complex innovation grand challenges of our age, such as biodiversity.

Long description of the track
Background Leadership and innovation are critical themes in both business practice and academic research. Traditionally, the focus has been on upper echelon leaders and their strategic influence on innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Kurzhals et al., 2020). The allied innovation processes, types, and outcomes often define the future of the firm (Ahuja et al., 2008; Ferrigno et al., 2023). However, complex innovation activities such as R&D (Mañez & Love, 2020), new product development/NPD (Greven et al., 2023), patenting (Baruffaldi & Simeth, 2020), business model innovation (Clauss et al., 2022), ingest managerial inputs from across the hierarchy. While the strategic choices made in the upper echelons are undoubtedly important, they only tell part of the story of how managers and leaders across the organization collectively shape innovation (Foss & Mazzelli, 2025). Indeed, innovation requires the coordinated efforts of managers at multiple levels, each bringing unique perspectives and capabilities to the table (Foss & Mazzelli, 2025). While the focus on upper echelons is a useful starting point, disregarding managers and leaders occupying other cadres leaves us with but a restricted understanding of how innovation activities unfold. With this track, we seek to uncover new insights at the leadership and innovation nexus, by promoting a more inclusive understanding of managers and leaders across the organizational hierarchy. While mono-echelon approaches prevail, scholars increasingly acknowledge the importance of a multi-echelon approach as the next frontier (Christie & Tippmann, 2024; Heyden et al., 2017; Van Doorn et al., 2022). Multi-echelon approaches deliberately take on the challenge of going beyond simple additive theorizing, embracing more integrative co-modelling of managers and leaders. Some promising frameworks include cascading models (Januszek et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2010), interface models (Georgakakis et al., 2022; Raes et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2022), interpretative ecology models (Burgelman, 1991; Knight & Paroutis, 2017), and relational models (Azambuja & Islam, 2024; Heyden et al., 2018). These are but examples of promising theoretical frameworks that can accommodate multi-echelon theorization, often with commensurate methodological approaches (e.g., multilevel modelling). Yet, deliberate co-theorization of multi-echelon leadership in innovation remains scarce, making the proposed track a timely addition to the R&D Management Conference 2025. Scope and objectives The scope of the track will encompass the following theoretical, empirical, and paradigmatic considerations. First, theoretically, we are primarily interested in studies that co-theorize and/or empirically examine leaders and managers across the hierarchy. This may include, for instance, top and middle managers, boards and TMT, middle managers and scientists, etc. We are particularly open to a range of innovation variables that span different aspects of innovation processes, different innovation types (e.g., technological and/or non-technological), and varied innovation outcomes. Thus, preference will be given to studies that primarily draw attention to how actors across multiple leadership echelons come together to drive different types of innovation. However, we are also open to studies that adopt a more traditional CEO-TMT approach (Georgakakis et al., 2022) or emerging views on cross-functional collaborations (e.g., at middle manager level) on innovations; as well as studies crossing boundaries to include actors from outside the organization (e.g, advisors) (Van Doorn et al., 2022). Second, methodologically, we are open to the full range of approaches customary in leading journals such as R&D Management. Such as (a) conceptual papers, (b) empirical studies drawing on primary and/or secondary sources , (c) qualitative studies drawing on single or multiple case methodologies, (d) experimental studies, and (e) mixed methods approaches. Third, paradigmatically, we encourage interdisciplinary collaborations and submissions. Innovation and leadership thrive at the intersection of diverse perspectives, where ideas from various domains converge to create groundbreaking solutions. Conclusion This track advocates for a deliberate and inclusive conversation on leadership and innovation, emphasizing the need to consider the contributions of managers at all organizational levels. By broadening the focus beyond the executive suite, we aim to uncover the nuanced dynamics that drive innovation across the entire organizational hierarchy. Ultimately, this approach is a necessary step to tackle the most complex innovation grand challenges of our age, such as biodiversity. References Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. (2008). Moving Beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 1-98. Azambuja, R., & Islam, G. (2024). Middle‐Managerial Deviance as a Response to Structural Strain: Rescoping, Reconfiguring and Replacing Norms. Journal of management studies, 61(3), 994-1035. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic management journal, 10(S1), 107-124. Baruffaldi, S. H., & Simeth, M. (2020). Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure. Research Policy, 49(4), 103927. Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239-262. Christie, A., & Tippmann, E. (2024). Intended or unintended strategy? The activities of middle managers in strategy implementation. Long range planning, 57(1), 102410. Clauss, T., Breier, M., Kraus, S., Durst, S., & Mahto, R. V. (2022). Temporary business model innovation–SMEs’ innovation response to the Covid‐19 crisis. R&D Management, 52(2), 294-312. Ferrigno, G., Crupi, A., Di Minin, A., & Ritala, P. (2023). 50+ years of R&D Management: a retrospective synthesis and new research trajectories. R&D Management, 53(5), 900-926. Foss, N. J., & Mazzelli, A. (2025). Bringing managers and management back into strategy: Interfaces and dynamic managerial capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 186, 114947. Georgakakis, D., Heyden, M. L., Oehmichen, J. D., & Ekanayake, U. I. (2022). Four decades of CEO–TMT interface research: A review inspired by role theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(3), 101354. Greven, A., Kruse, S., Vos, A., Strese, S., & Brettel, M. (2023). Achieving product ambidexterity in new product development: The role of middle managers’ dynamic managerial capabilities. Journal of management studies, n/a(n/a). Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206. Heyden, M. L., Fourné, S. P. L., Koene, B. A. S., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. (2017). Rethinking ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Bottom-Up’ Roles of Top and Middle Managers in Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Support. Journal of management studies, 54(7), 961-985. Heyden, M. L., Sidhu, J. S., & Volberda, H. W. (2018). The Conjoint Influence of Top and Middle Management Characteristics on Management Innovation. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1505–1529. Januszek, S., Netland, T. H., & Furlan, A. (2024). The role of managerial perceptions and behaviors across hierarchical levels during lean implementation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 44(1), 54-74. Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 403-432. Kurzhals, C., Graf‐Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2020). Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda. Corporate governance: an international review, 28(6), 437-464. Mañez, J., & Love, J. (2020). Quantifying sunk costs and learning effects in R&D persistence. Research Policy, 49(7), 104004. Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of management review, 36(1), 102-126. Van Doorn, S., Heyden, M. L., Reimer, M., Buyl, T., & Volberda, H. W. (2022). Internal and external interfaces of the executive suite: Advancing research on the porous bounds of strategic leadership. Long range planning, 102214. Yang, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle manager leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of management studies, 47(4), 654-678.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Stefania Manetti, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Daniela Silvestri, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano

Contacts
stefania.manetti@polimi.it

Abstract
Gender diversity within upper management and research and development (R&D) teams is crucial for fostering innovation in organisations. It is increasingly recognised as a critical factor in formulating diverse strategies, particularly in biodiversity conservation initiatives. Empirical research shows a positive correlation between gender diversity in leadership and improved innovation, entrepreneurial outcomes, and strategic transformations. Despite these advancements, significant barriers persist, such as gender biases in innovation processes, patent recognition, and funding allocation, disproportionately aHecting female inventors and entrepreneurs. Such biases underscore the need to promote human diversity within collaborative networks and ensure equitable resource distribution in R&D processes. Addressing these challenges is essential to understanding the conditions under which gender-diverse-led firms can eHectively innovate, sustain, and grow. This track aims to deepen our understanding of the role gender diversity plays in driving innovation and supporting biodiversity conservation.

Long description of the track
Gender diversity within upper management and R&D teams fosters innovation within organisations (Xie et al., 2020; Triana et al., 2019). The significance of gender diversity is increasingly acknowledged as a critical factor in formulating diverse strategies, particularly in the realm of biodiversity conservation (Issa & Zaid, 2023; Carvajal et al., 2022). Empirical research demonstrates a positive correlation between gender diversity in senior leadership roles and improved innovation, entrepreneurial outcomes, and strategic transformations (Triana et al., 2019; Lyngsie & Foss, 2016; Dezs√∂ & Ross, 2012). Recent empirical investigations even suggest a positive correlation between gender-diverse boards and the implementation of biodiversity initiatives, a vital component of sustainability performance (Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017). However, gender biases often permeate innovation processes, with empirical evidence highlighting that women face significant challenges in finding recognition and seeking patents, being underrepresented as lead inventors compared to their male counterparts (Hochberg, 2023). Existing evidence highlights the critical need to foster human diversity within collaborative networks and to ensure equitable resource distribution in patenting and overall R&D processes (Fortunato et al., 2018). Gender bias in related R&D functions, ranging from funding to evaluation, further undermines gender-diversity-led innovation. Investors frequently perceive women-led firms as riskier investments, contributing to a funding gap limiting their innovation potential (Jennings & Brush, 2013). Variations in institutional environments and business cultures significantly influence women’s access to finance and equity investments, necessitating an analysis of how these contexts shape risk distribution and innovation opportunities across regions and sectors (Belitski & Desai, 2019). Therefore, enriching the debate on this topic is crucial to better understanding the conditions that enable gender-diverse-led firms to innovate, sustain, and grow (Link & Strong, 2016). Based on these premises, this track aims to detail our understanding of how gender diversity can foster sustainable innovation and support biodiversity conservation. This track welcomes both quantitative and qualitative contributions exploring, but not limited to: • The significance of gender representation across all management levels in relation to innovation and strategic change. • An exploration of the interrelationship between gender diversity and biodiversity initiatives within corporate contexts. • The influence of institutional frameworks in facilitating access to entrepreneurship and fostering women-led innovation. • The impact of gender diversity on mitigating R&D failures that result in ineHiciencies within production systems and New Product Development. • The dual role of women as contributors to innovation (e.g., female PI, inventors, CEOs) and as consumers and investors (e.g., gender-diverse business angels). • An examination of how gender diversity addresses pressing societal challenges, with healthcare as a primary focus. • The importance of gender diversity in recognising significant innovations aimed at addressing biodiversity issues, particularly concerning inventorship attribution and disparities among patent examiners. • Case studies investigating the integration of gender diversity within biodiversity conservation eHorts in R&D management. • The contributions of women innovating within traditionally male-dominated sectors. We particularly invite quantitative contributions and comparative case studies across diverse international contexts or industrial sectors, focusing on the pharmaceutical and biomedical domains while emphasising the impact of gender diversity on health disparities and innovation through clinical trials.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro, INGENIO, CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Gregory J. Feist, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA

Contacts
jazagra@ingenio.upv.es ; greg.feist@sjsu.edu

Abstract
This track explores the emotional, personality, and creative dimensions of researcher well-being, examining how these factors shape research productivity, innovation, and societal impact. It addresses how emotional intelligence, personality traits, and work-life balance influence researchers’ happiness and overall satisfaction. Additionally, it delves into the role of creativity, highlighting how engaging in artistic practices fosters innovative thinking and aids in science communication. The track will consider challenges like job insecurity and mental health issues, emphasizing the need for supportive academic structures. By bringing together perspectives on emotional well-being and creativity, this track will offer insights for R&D managers, policymakers, and institutional leaders on how to create supportive environments that enhance both scientific excellence and researcher well-being. Discussions will provide actionable recommendations to advance innovation and societal engagement through a more holistic approach to researcher well-being.

Long description of the track
In an increasingly competitive and high-pressure R&D environment, understanding the well-being of researchers is essential to fostering long-term innovation and productivity. This track will explore the emotional, psychological, and creative dimensions of researcher well-being, focusing on how factors such as emotional intelligence, personality traits, work-life balance, and prosocial motivation influence researchers’ happiness and research output. Drawing on recent studies, the track will examine how emotional intelligence helps researchers manage the pressures of academic life, enhancing collaboration, resilience, and productivity (Tur-Porcar et al., 2024; Hernando-Jorge et al., 2024). It will also explore how specific personality traits impact researchers’ perceived social, academic, and industrial impact, particularly when navigating competitive R&D settings (Azagra-Caro & Llopis, 2018). Furthermore, the track will delve into how work-life balance and prosocial motivation can mitigate the negative effects of research pressures on personal well-being, addressing the paradox of the “unhappy productive worker” (Azagra-Caro & Tur-Porcar, 2024). Work-family conflicts, particularly among foreign-born faculty, highlight unique challenges in balancing high productivity with lower work satisfaction, underscoring the need for supportive structures tailored to diverse academic populations (Du et al., 2023). Additionally, systemic issues in academia, such as job insecurity and high expectations, contribute to mental health challenges, while peer support, mentorship, and career development opportunities can act as critical buffers (Nicholls et al., 2022). Beyond emotional and personality factors, this track uniquely explores creativity’s role in research. Researchers often engage in artistic activities—such as creative writing and performing arts—as a means of personal fulfilment and science communication (Azagra-Caro et al., 2022). Polymathic strategies observed in Nobel laureates show how diverse interests can foster innovation (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2022). Additionally, art thinking, which embraces ambiguity and aesthetics, offers a novel approach to R&D by encouraging radical creativity (Robbins & Sandberg, 2023). While creativity can enrich scientific work, it may also correlate with increased mental health challenges, even among world-class scientists (Feist et al., 2021). This track will examine how these “academic artists” contribute to science communication, connecting complex concepts to broader audiences through creative means (Azagra-Caro & Pavone, 2024). This track will bring together discussions on emotional well-being, personality, creativity, and demographic diversity, offering a comprehensive view of how to support researchers in both their scientific and personal development. It will provide actionable insights for R&D managers, policymakers, and institutional leaders, offering recommendations on how to foster environments that promote both scientific excellence and researcher well-being. The outcomes will have practical implications for research institutions aiming to create supportive, innovative environments that value both the emotional and creative dimensions of research, ultimately enhancing societal engagement and innovation.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Jeremy Klein, RADMA and Technologia

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Martin Moehrle, University of Bremen

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
moehrle@uni-bremen.de

Contacts
jeremy.klein@technologia.co.uk

Abstract
This track explores the role of technologies in the formation of R&D management practices and theories. The search for general-purpose R&D management concepts and frameworks has dominated the R&D management field. Yet, with their own characteristics and internal logics, individual technologies set the context for innovation and influence many dimensions of the innovation process, for example: timescales, research methods, skills requirements, capital intensity, IP strategy, financing requirements, risks, international topologies and information flows. The track provides an opportunity to make the connection between technologies and R&D management; we welcome papers that contribute to building this connection through case studies or theory.

Long description of the track
R&D management is often discussed in isolation from the technologies being researched or managed. But R&D management as a field has long been co-evolving with the available technologies and will continue to do so. Building on similar tracks at the last four R&D Management Conferences, the intention of the track is to promote discussion about this interdependency. Papers in this track have been diverse and we do not have a template for what should or should not be included. As a general indication, papers are encouraged that: • concentrate on one or more specific technologies, ideally identified at a granularity that their distinct characteristics can be appreciated, or • explore how the evolution of an R&D management practice has arisen from a scientific, technological or application context, or • investigate how emerging ‘deep tech’ or ‘frontier technologies’ are shaping R&D management practices, or • are co-authored between R&D management scholars and technologists, or • deepen our understanding of projects as the unit of activity in R&D. Past papers in this track have looked at such topics as the way in which AI has transformed technology foresight; convergence between science fields and science communities; incorporating data science into internet-of-things new product development; how Agile development methods transfer to complex physical product development projects; the role of co-creation in the particular case of robotics innovation; and how R&D management processes change across the technology transition of additive manufacturing. An emergent theme in this track is the central role of ‘projects’ in real-world R&D. For example, the debates around the applicability of Agile project management outside software have been covered in this track. While R&D activity is almost always conducted through projects, there is relatively little contemporary analysis at project level.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Vito Giordano, University of Pisa

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Ludovica Segneri, University of Urbino Carlo Bo

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Julian Just, University of Innsbruck

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Martin G. Moehrle, University of Bremen

Contacts
vito.giordano@unipi.it

Abstract
Innovation is a knowledge-intensive process, where much of the codified knowledge is stored in textual formats, such as patents, and papers. Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence that aims to support the extraction of innovation knowledge. In this field, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), like Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) and Llama family, has revolutionized how we analyse innovation phenomena. LLMs offer immense potential for supporting firms in leveraging their knowledge assets by both analysing existing knowledge and generating new knowledge. Their applications in innovation range from new product development processes to strategic innovation management. This conference track explores the potential applications, novel methodologies, and challenges of employing LLMs to guide knowledge extraction and generation in Innovation Management. It will also focus on traditional NLP techniques, such as topic modelling, named entity recognition, and sentiment analysis, that can still work better than LLMs in certain situations.

Long description of the track
Innovation is a knowledge-intensive process where much of the codified knowledge is stored in textual formats, such as patents or scientific papers. As businesses increasingly rely on this codified knowledge to remain competitive and continue to innovate, they face the challenge of managing and extracting value from the rapidly growing volume of textual data. With the digital transformation, this knowledge has become not only more voluminous but also more accessible, presenting both opportunities and challenges for innovation management. Natural Language Processing (NLP), a subfield of Artificial Intelligence (AI), plays a pivotal role in extracting this body of unstructured textual data (Antons et al., 2020). With the advent of transformer-based models like Google’s BERT, OpenAI’s GPT, or Meta’s Llama, a novel class of NLP tools – referred to as Large Language Models (LLMs) – has emerged. LLMs are highly advanced AI systems trained on a vast corpus of documents to “learn” the distribution of words in texts and predict probable word sequences. These models have revolutionized how we analyse and extract innovation knowledge, empowering researchers, innovators, designers, and managers to leverage a firm’s knowledge assets across a wide range of tasks (Giordano et al., 2024). NLP techniques and LLMs enhance innovation management by offering two capabilities: analysing existing knowledge and generating new knowledge (Bouschery et al., 2023). Firstly, they can process vast amounts of existing knowledge enabling firms to convert it into new knowledge that can then be applied to their innovation processes (Just, 2024). Secondly, NLP are not only limited to analysing existing data; they are also capable of generating new knowledge. For instance, in new product development, LLMs can assist in generating novel ideas for product features, suggest improvements, or simulate potential innovations by integrating different sources of information (Bilgram and Laarmann, 2023). This conference track aims to explore the vast potential applications, novel methodologies, and emerging challenges of employing LLMs to guide various stages of the innovation process. It will also focus on other NLP techniques, such as topic modelling, named entity recognition, and sentiment analysis, which are different from LLMs in how they extract knowledge. While traditional NLP methods may not be as advanced as LLMs, they can still perform effectively in specific situations and may offer advantages in terms of cost-efficiency and bias reduction. In many cases, combining LLMs with traditional NLP techniques can yield the best results. The track encourages submissions of papers that include, but are not limited to: • Propose new LLM-based NLP methods to support large-scale data analysis and assist humans across various tasks in the innovation management process; • Apply traditional NLP techniques or/and LLMs to integrate diverse innovation-related knowledge and uncover patterns that generate novel insights; • Compare “traditional” NLP methods with LLMs in the context of innovation management; • Apply NLP to tackle grand challenges in the innovation management. References Antons, D., Grünwald, E., Cichy, P., & Salge, T. O. (2020). The application of text mining methods in innovation research: current state, evolution patterns, and development priorities. R&D Management, 50(3), 329-351. Bilgram, V., & Laarmann, F. (2023). Accelerating innovation with generative AI: AI-augmented digital prototyping and innovation methods. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51(2), 18-25. Bouschery, S. G., Blazevic, V., & Piller, F. T. (2023). Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence: Exploring transformer‐based language models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 40(2), 139-153. Just, J. (2024). Natural language processing for innovation search–Reviewing an emerging non-human innovation intermediary. Technovation, 129, 102883. Giordano, V., Spada, I., Chiarello, F., & Fantoni, G. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT on human skills: A quantitative study on twitter data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 203, 123389.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Martina Panero, University of Turin, Department of Management

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Canio Forliano, University of Turin, Department of Management

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Paola De Bernardi, University of Turin, Department of Management

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Jill Atkins, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Contacts
martina.panero@unito.it

Abstract
Biodiversity is emerging as a strategic driver for transforming business models toward sustainability, given its critical role in supporting ecosystem services essential to economies and human well-being. In response to increasing demands from global frameworks, such as the COP on biodiversity, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, companies face growing institutional pressures to enhance biodiversity disclosure and sustainability reporting by embedding it within their strategy, governance, and risk management practices. Utilizing integrated thinking (a multi-capital management approach that interconnects financial, natural, social, and intellectual resources) private and public organizations can implement reporting practices that reflect a comprehensive commitment to biodiversity. However, current disclosures often lack the coherence needed for true nature-positive impact. This track invites contributions exploring transformative approaches to biodiversity disclosure and the role of integrated thinking in fostering accountability, moving beyond mere harm mitigation to genuine biodiversity regeneration and nature-positive business models.

Long description of the track
The biodiversity crisis reshapes organizational priorities, positioning biodiversity as essential for sustainable, nature-positive business models. As biodiversity supports ecosystem services critical to economies and societal well-being, it has become a strategic imperative for both the private and public sectors to embed environmental considerations within governance and operational frameworks (Panwar et al., 2023; Weir, 2019). Regulatory frameworks such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards and Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, together with emerging frameworks (e.g., Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, called the “Paris Agreement for nature”), reflect rising global and institutional pressures for organizations to embed biodiversity into their strategy, governance, and reporting processes. These frameworks foster accountability and transparency, urging organizations to re-evaluate natural resource use and prioritize ecological impacts within long-term planning (Maroun & Ecim, 2024; Small et al., 2023). Although overlooked in current studies on the topic, a promising approach for achieving these goals is integrated thinking, which structures organizational thinking around the six principles defined by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC): purpose, strategy, risks and opportunities, culture, governance, and performance. As a result, integrated reporting provides a multi-capital framework that links financial, natural, social, and intellectual capital, enhancing sustainable value creation across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons (IIRC, 2021). By operationalizing these interconnected capitals, organizations are encouraged to embed biodiversity as a strategic asset within their governance and operational frameworks, aligning business objectives with nature-positive outcomes (Feger & Mermet, 2022). Through integrated thinking, companies can thus move beyond compliance by embedding biodiversity into their purpose, culture, and performance metrics, setting the stage for measurable, nature-positive impacts. Therefore, not only governance and operational strategies would be strengthened but also a structured response to growing environmental demands could be provided, encouraging companies to act as stewards of biodiversity and actively contribute to global ecological goals (Maroun & Atkins, 2018). However, this approach is critical for the public sector as well, where biodiversity management is critical to meeting public accountability standards and broader sustainability goals (Weir, 2019). Accordingly, this track seeks contributions on how integrated thinking, aligned with established frameworks, can support advanced biodiversity disclosures, integrating metrics and multi-capital accounting to improve transparency. Case studies, empirical research, and theoretical insights are encouraged, particularly those illustrating how multi-capital approaches can support both transformational nature-positive business models and biodiversity disclosure, supporting both private and public sector actors in meeting rising environmental demands. Illustrative questions for this track include, but are not limited to: ● How can organizations effectively integrate biodiversity as a multi-capital asset to foster resilience and transparent accountability? ● In what ways do established frameworks facilitate measurable biodiversity outcomes aligned with nature-positive goals? ● How can the principles of integrated thinking and reporting be operationalized to prioritize biodiversity in corporate and public sector strategy? ● How can nature-positive business models be effectively communicated within the integrated reporting framework to demonstrate organizational commitment to biodiversity?

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Sevim Süzeroglu-Melchiors, Technical University of Applied Sciences Regensburg, Faculty of Business and Management, Regensburg, Germany

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Frank Tietze, University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Institute for Manufacturing; Cambridge, UK

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Martin A. Bader, THI Business School, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany, McGill University, School of Continuing Studies, Montréal, Canada

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Alfred Radauer, IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, Institute for Business and Innovation (IBUS), Austria

Contacts
sevim.suezeroglu-melchiors@oth-regensburg.de

Abstract
As digital technologies continue to transform industries and societies, intellectual property (IP) has also become essential for innovation in areas such as AI, blockchain and digital platforms. These rapidly evolving technologies also play a pivotal role in advancing global sustainability efforts, e.g. by reducing resource consumption, optimizing energy efficiency, and supporting more resilient and sustainable business models. However, the management of IP and associated strategic decisions remain a complex undertaking, requiring companies to balance opportunities with challenges. The objective of this track is to gather researchers in the field of innovation to discuss the important role of IP management for companies in general, but also new aspects of IP management such as tackling global challenges related to ‘Innovation and Biodiversity’, digital IP rights and non-traditional IP rights, as well as other topics of growing importance in IP management.

Long description of the track
As digital technologies continue to transform industries and societies, intellectual property (IP) has also become essential for innovation in areas such as AI, blockchain and digital platforms. These rapidly evolving technologies play a pivotal role in advancing global sustainability efforts, e.g. by reducing resource consumption, optimizing energy efficiency, and supporting more resilient and sustainable business models. The growing importance of intellectual property is not only evidenced by the increase in patent applications related to technologies such as 5G, autonomous driving and renewable energy systems. In this context, it is important to understand how companies manage their IP and how they harness opportunities and navigate challenges. Yet, the management of IP and associated strategic decisions remain a complex undertaking. This track invites researchers to explore how proactive IP management can bring a positive change, particularly in addressing global challenges related to the overarching conference theme of “Innovation and Biodiversity”, but also with regards to the importance of non-traditional IP rights and digital IP rights, which are increasingly coming into focus. Contributions are particularly sought on the following topics, but are not limited to these: – Understanding the interaction between innovation, digitalization and sustainability through the lens of intellectual property management? – What IP strategies do companies use to address the challenges and opportunities of digital and/or sustainable innovation? – How do the IP strategies and methods used for “non-traditional” IP rights differ from or align with those used in “traditional” IP rights? – How do companies manage IP to realize the benefits and mitigate the risks associated with digital and sustainable innovation? – How can effective IP management enable digital and/or sustainable innovation? – How can companies (but also governments) identify IP rights that are critical to digital transformation and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? – How can the SDG criteria be taken into account in the assessment and valuation of intellectual property rights? – Which IP management frameworks can support digital transformation and environmental and economic sustainability? – What tools and frameworks are used to manage the complexity of digital and/or sustainable IP? – What practical tools exist to navigate registered and non-registered IP while balancing protection and collaboration for sustainable benefits? – Other IP focused research questions, such as R&D for circular economy, Challenge-driven innovation, Technology and innovation policy, Technology, R&D and innovation strategies, Technology-based entrepreneurship, IP management for start-ups and corporate venturing By addressing these research areas, this track aims to improve our understanding of the evolving intersection between IP management, digital innovation, new technologies/software and sustainability.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Clio Dosi, University of Bologna

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Giacomo Marzi, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Paul Trott, University of Portsmouth

Contacts
clio.dosi@unibo.it

Abstract
New Product Development (NPD) involves navigating uncertainties in technology, market needs, and competition. This conference track will explore cutting-edge tools, methods, and frameworks to support and study NPD in uncertain environments. This session aligns with broader discussions on adaptability, emphasizing agility, resilience, and flexibility as central capabilities in the NPD process amid dynamic environments. Researchers and practitioners will examine the integration of knowledge from diverse sources, including user involvement and supplier engagement, offering new insights for enhancing the NPD process amid dynamic environments. The track aims to foster a deeper understanding of how firms can transform uncertainty into a catalyst for innovation.

Long description of the track
Themes within this track include: • Hybrid NPD Process Models: Combining structured approaches like Stage-Gate with iterative methodologies such as Agile or Design thinking allows firms to adapt quickly to shifting market conditions or emerging technologies while maintaining strategic oversight (Cocchi et al., 2023). • Flexible, Adaptable, and Iterative Tools: The emphasis on adaptable methodologies—such as Agile and Design Thinking—supports firms in real-time adaptation to unforeseen challenges, converting uncertainty into opportunities (Cocchi et al., 2021). • NPD and Relations with Uncertainty, the Unknown, and Ambiguity: Adaptability helps firms manage the challenges of uncertainty, the unknown, and ambiguity. The field has increasingly recognized adaptability as both a strategic capability and an operational necessity, particularly when dealing with rapidly changing environments (Annosi et al., 2020). • The Role of AI in NPD: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is identified as a powerful enabler for NPD, enhancing data-driven insights, predicting market trends, and optimizing design processes. The adaptability literature echoes the value of digital tools in enabling speed and flexibility across the innovation lifecycle (Nambisan et al., 2017). • Over Featuring and Its Role with Uncertainty: Over Featuring (OVF) occurs when products are developed beyond what is required by users, market demand, or the company’s resources. This phenomenon is a significant risk factor that can lead to NPD failures due to unnecessary scope creep, overspecification, and feature creep (Marzi, 2022). References Annosi, M. C., Foss, N., & Martini, A. (2020). When Agile harms learning and innovation: (And what can be done about it). California Management Review, 63(1), 61-80. Cocchi, N., Dosi, C., & Vignoli, M. (2021). The hybrid model MatrixEnhancing stage-gate with design thinking, lean Startup, and agile. Research-technology management, 64(5), 18-30. Cocchi, N., Dosi, C., & Vignoli, M. (2023). Stage-Gate Hybridization Beyond Agile: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 6435-6453. Marzi, G. (2022). On the nature, origins and outcomes of Over Featuring in the new product development process. Journal of engineering and technology management, 64, 101685. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223-238.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Linda Ponta, Università degli Studi di Genova

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Raffaella Manzini, LIUC – Università Cattaneo

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Cristina Ponsiglione, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 3
Giovanna Ferraro, Università Tor Vergata

Contacts
linda.ponta@unige.it
rmanzini@liuc.it
ponsigli@unina.it
giovanna.ferraro@uniroma2.it

Abstract
Innovation is a dynamic, complex phenomenon that evolves as a complex system. Exploring these complex aspects could be useful to better understand the mechanisms determining the role and impact of innovation and technological change at the individual (firm) and systemic (economy and society) levels. Despite the above, the use of complexity science (and of the related approaches) in the field of innovation management is still very limited. This track is aimed at presenting and discussing current research that adopts the approach of complexity science and the related methodologies to investigate innovation and technology. Two special issues on indexed journals will be associated to the topics of the proposed track.

Long description of the track
Innovation is a dynamic, complex phenomenon. Most scholars and practitioners would agree on that, and an empirical confirmation can be found in the recent dynamic reaction of innovation eco-systems to the COVID pandemic and to the transition towards circular economy, where companies are innovating their business models and supply chains. Innovation and technology development processes are actually evolving as complex systems, in which many diverse actors are leveraging their resources and capabilities and interacting with each other in a not linear way. Coevolving with the environment, these systems show the emergence of collective behaviors and patterns and self-organizational properties. Exploring these complex aspects could be useful to better understand the mechanisms determining the role and impact of innovation and technological change at the individual (firm) and systemic (economy and society) levels. Despite the above, the use of complexity science (and of the related approaches) in the field of innovation management is still very limited and, hence, it is not clear yet how studying innovation and technology development processes, such as real-world long-term technological change, with the lens of complexity science would help a better understanding of these systems overcoming the limitation of classical approaches. Researchers in the field of innovation management could explore management systems, value and supply chains, organizational structures, and economies as systems with heterogeneous and interacting entities, and thus adopting complex systems approaches. In this regard, agent-based modelling and network theory can be employed to model and analyze the system behaviors, from the bottom-up, focusing on its microelements such as the agents, their attributes, actions, goals, and the network structure (and type of relationships) that connects them. Furthermore, this modeling technique allows to build a computational laboratory where it is possible to perform experiments and the classical what-if analysis to explore the different dynamics. ABM is not without limitations. In particular, it is worth mentioning the missing of standards in the development, calibration, and validation of ABM in the scientific community. This track is aimed at presenting and discussing current research that adopts the approach of complexity science and the related methodologies to investigate innovation and technology development processes and focusing on their organization, and evolution. The objective is to understand what the potential contributions of this approach are, whether it can provide insights for academic researchers and policy makers, and how it can be integrated with traditional approaches to achieve a more comprehensive and meaningful representation of innovation systems. The track, if possible, will be organized in a workshop format, where participants will be given the time to actively comment on the presented research and the potential (added) value of complexity science for R&D and innovation management. Two special issues on indexed journals will be associated to the topics of the proposed track.

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Chair
Lino Cinquini, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 1
Giacomo Pigatto, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Name, Surname and Affiliation of the Track Co-Chair 2
Andrea Tenucci, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

Contacts
lino.cinquini@santannapisa.it
giacomo.pigatto@santannapisa.it
andrea.tenucci@santannapisa.t

Abstract
Biodiversity is emerging as a crucial component of corporate responsibility, impacting financial, environmental, and social dimensions. This track aims to explore how biodiversity considerations reshape accounting and accountability practices in business, emphasizing the need for measurement, management and reporting. As biodiversity loss presents tangible risks to business continuity, firms are prompted to incorporate biodiversity metrics into accounting frameworks, linking natural resource preservation to value creation. The track includes a range of key themes, such as biodiversity-related disclosures, integration of biodiversity metrics in management control systems, accounting for ecosystem services, and accountability mechanisms reflecting corporate biodiversity impacts. The track fosters an interdisciplinary approach to broaden the scope of accounting, accountability, and performance inspiring new approaches to the topics

Long description of the track
In recent years, biodiversity has gained recognition as a vital asset, directly influencing environmental stability, economic value, and societal welfare (Atkins et al., 2023; Costanza et al., 1997; Dasgupta, 2021). Businesses are increasingly expected to recognize both the intrinsic and instrumental value of biodiversity, and the impacts businesses have on biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. The ultimate aim is for businesses to integrate the impact-dependency relationship with biodiversity and ecosystems into their accounting and accountability practices (Atkins & Maroun, 2018; Silva et al., 2019). This track investigates the intersection of biodiversity and business measurements, accounting and accountability, highlighting the challenges and opportunities in innovating business practices with strategies of biodiversity conservation. As business faces both reputational and operational risks from biodiversity loss, incorporating biodiversity impacts and dependencies into accounting processes becomes essential (Carvalho et al., 2022). One area of focus is the development of biodiversity-related disclosures, helping stakeholders understand the extent of a firm’s impact on ecosystems and species (Corvino et al., 2021; Cuckston, 2013; Boiral, 2016; Hassan et al., 2022). Unlike traditional financial metrics, these disclosures require innovative frameworks to capture the multidimensional aspects of biodiversity, such as ecosystem services valuation, species diversity metrics, and indicators of pressure on biodiversity and ecosystems (Arjalìes & Gibassier, 2023; Ferreira, 2017). The track also examines the integration of such biodiversity metrics into management control systems, exploring how these can support decision-making processes that align business objectives with biodiversity stewardship at both management and reporting levels (Boiral et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2021; Hübel & Wenzig, 2024). Additionally, the paper addresses accountability mechanisms that encourage transparency and commitment to biodiversity preservation (Cuckston, 2019). For example, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria have become a benchmark for investors, with biodiversity gaining increasing importance within these assessments (Atkins & Macpherson, 2022). By incorporating biodiversity measures into ESG reporting, companies can provide a more holistic view of their environmental impact, appealing to an increasingly sustainability-conscious investor base (Hassan et al., 2022). Themes for exploration include but are not limited to: • The development of biodiversity-specific key performance indicators (KPIs) • The inclusion of metrics in management control systems and their functioning in the control processes • The role of regulatory frameworks in standardizing biodiversity accounting practices • The potential of technology and data (such as satellite imagery and data analytics) to enhance biodiversity monitoring and their use in management control. • The need for interdisciplinary approaches, bringing together expertise from ecology, finance, and policy to foster new insights. • The role of the financial sector in halting and reversing biodiversity loss • The development of biodiversity and nature-focused reporting and disclosure frameworks • Accounting for impacts and dependencies in the supply chain • The economic/financial valuation of biodiversity a/o ecosystem services • Performance metrics and accounting for extinctions For scholars, biodiversity accounting presents an opportunity to broaden the scope of accounting theory, while practitioners are encouraged to adopt accounting practices that reflect the growing importance of biodiversity. This exploration is relevant not only for those directly involved in environmental accounting but also for those interested in the evolving dynamics of corporate responsibility, management, and governance. By contributing to the dialogue on biodiversity in accounting and performance metrics, the conference track seeks to foster discussion on sustainable business practices and enhance corporate accountability in preserving our planet’s natural wealth. References: Arjaliès, D., Gibassier, D. (2023). Can financialization save nature? The case of endangered species. Contemporary Accounting Research, 40(1), 488-525. Atkins, J., Macpherson, M. (2022). Extinction governance, finance and accounting: implementing a species protection action plan for the financial markets. Routledge. Atkins, J., & Maroun, W. (2018). Integrated extinction accounting and accountability: building an ark. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(3), 750-786. Atkins, J., Doni, F., McBride, K., & Napier, C. (2023). Exploring the historical roots of environmental and ecological accounting from the dawn of human consciousness. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 36(6), 1473-1502. Boiral, O. (2016). Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, pp.751–768. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. & Brotherton, M.C. (2019). Improving corporate biodiversity management through employee involvement. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28. Carvalho, S. H. C., Cojoianu, T., Ascui, F. (2022). From impacts to dependencies: a first global assessment of corporate biodiversity risk exposure and responses. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1-15. Corvino, A., Bianchi Martini, S., & Doni, F. (2021). Extinction accounting and accountability: Empirical evidence from the west European tissue industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2556-2570. doi:10.1002/bse.2763 Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., …, van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. Cuckston, T. (2013). Bringing tropical forest biodiversity conservation into financial accounting calculation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(5), 688-714. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-02-2013-1231 Ferreira, C. (2017). The contested instruments of a new governance regime: Accounting for nature and building markets for biodiversity offsets. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(7), pp.1568-1591. Hassan, A., Roberts, L., & Rodger, K. (2022). Corporate accountability for biodiversity and species extinction: Evidence from organisations reporting on their impacts on nature. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), pp.326–352. Hübel, C. & Wenzig, J. (2024). Exploring management control systems for biodiversity: insights from three food companies. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, pp.1-31. Roberts, L., Hassan, A., Elamer, A., & Nandy, M. (2021). Biodiversity and extinction accounting for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 705-720. doi:10.1002/bse.2649 Silva, D., Regan, E., Pollard, E., & Addison, P. (2019). ‘The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges’. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7), pp.1481–1495.