Federico Cosenz

Despite recent efforts to bridge the circular economy and entrepreneurship, and to explore resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems, the ways in which startups' circularity orientations influence how they build resilience in times of crisis remain unclear. Drawing on the adaptive cycle model from complexity and panarchy theories, this study employs qualitative case research on four circular and four linear startups operating within the built environment sector and belonging to the same entrepreneurial ecosystem to investigate how they responded to the raw material crisis. The study examines startups' positions within the exploitation, conservation, release, and reorganization phases of the adaptive cycle in order to uncover distinct resilience trajectories. The findings suggest that circular startups nurtured and leveraged their ecosystems more actively than linear startups did, capitalizing on ecosystem relationships to strengthen innovation, adaptability, and system‐wide resilience. In contrast, linear startups tended to withhold contributions and withdraw from ecosystem interactions, limiting collaboration and reducing their capacity to adapt and respond to crises. These findings advance understanding of how business model orientation shapes resilience trajectories within entrepreneurial ecosystems by identifying nurturing and leveraging as distinct mechanisms through which circular startups build firm‐ and ecosystem‐level resilience during crises.

Ports are critical nodes in global trade and economic development, yet they generate substantial environmental and social externalities—including greenhouse gas emissions, air, noise, and water pollution, and adverse impacts on host communities—that demand integrated and forward‐looking governance. Despite growing policy attention and the diffusion of green technologies, the systematic integration of sustainability into port strategic planning, governance, and performance management remains limited and fragmented. Existing tools—environmental indicator dashboards, Balanced Scorecard adaptations, and stand‐alone System Dynamics applications—capture either the multidimensional nature of sustainability or its temporal dynamics, but rarely both within a coherent business‐model architecture. This study addresses that gap by adopting and adapting the Dynamic Business Model for Sustainability (DBMfS) to the port context. The framework combines a sustainability‐oriented Business Model Canvas with System Dynamics to map causal relationships among strategic resources, processes, performance drivers, outputs, and Triple Bottom Line outcomes. The framework is illustrated through an in‐depth case study of the Western Sicily Port Authority. The analysis shows how the DBMfS can support port managers in revealing interdependencies, anticipating feedback effects, monitoring performance through hierarchically organized key performance indicators (KPIs), and aligning strategies with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Purpose: This paper develops a systemic framework for investment decision-making in pharmaceutical and biotech companies, addressing growing complexity driven by regulatory uncertainty, technological disruption, and evolving market needs. It seeks to move beyond traditional, fragmented approaches toward more integrated and viable innovation strategies. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a systemic perspective that combines risk management, strategic partnerships and technological enablers such as artificial intelligence and predictive analytics. Drawing on case studies from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, as well as on notable failures such as Pfizer's torcetrapib and repeated setbacks in Alzheimer's research, the analysis illustrates how systemic approaches enhance portfolio resilience and decision quality through cross-functional governance. Findings: The findings demonstrate that a systemic model built around four interrelated pillars – scientific merit, regulatory feasibility, commercial viability and competitive positioning – supports better risk-adjusted decisions and stronger alignment between R&D, financial, and strategic functions. By integrating these dimensions, organizations can improve the robustness of their investment portfolios and foster long-term innovation capability. Originality/value: This study contributes a novel conceptual and practical framework that links strategic intelligence, technological tools and governance mechanisms in the investment decision-making process. It offers actionable insights for managers, investors, and policymakers seeking to align capital allocation with sustainable innovation. By adopting systemic approaches, pharmaceutical and biotech firms can transition from reactive, fragmented decision-making toward proactive, evidence-based strategies that optimize risk-adjusted returns and accelerate the delivery of transformative therapies.

Purpose: This paper explores how Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) – a goal-setting and performance management framework widely used in technology firms – can be adapted and applied to healthcare organizations. It aims to investigate their potential to enhance strategic alignment, patient-centered outcomes, and organizational agility while addressing the unique complexities of European healthcare systems. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a conceptual research design, integrating insights from performance management, healthcare management, and organizational behavior literature. A multi-stage process of literature review, comparative analysis, contextual adaptation, and synthesis is employed to develop a framework tailored to the healthcare sector, highlighting principles for the design, implementation, and use of OKRs in clinical and organizational settings. Findings: The paper demonstrates that OKRs can bridge the gap between strategic aspirations and operational realities in healthcare. When properly designed, objectives capture mission-driven goals, while key results provide measurable and patient-centered indicators of progress. OKRs foster alignment across multidisciplinary teams, improve accountability, and introduce agility through iterative review cycles. However, risks such as staff resistance, over-quantification, and misalignment with existing performance systems must be addressed through participatory approaches, integration, and cultural sensitivity. Research limitations/implications: The paper makes important theoretical contributions to performance management research by conceptualizing OKRs as hybrid control mechanisms that bridge diagnostic and interactive systems, advancing understanding of strategic alignment in professional service organizations, and developing prescriptive theory that connects management control scholarship with organizational behavior insights. Originality/value: This paper is among the first to conceptualize OKRs as a hybrid governance and performance management mechanism in healthcare. By positioning OKRs as both technical tools and cultural levers, this approach contributes to the management control literature and provides actionable insights for practitioners. The proposed framework highlights the potential of OKRs to transform European healthcare organizations from compliance-driven to commitment-driven systems, focusing on measurable, patient-centric outcomes.

The One Health paradigm recognises the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, calling for collaborative and cross‐sectoral responses to increasingly complex health threats. However, operationalising this vision requires more than biomedical or ecological knowledge. It requires systems thinking, structured decision‐making, performance evaluation, and governance mechanisms. Management science—including decision analysis, operations research, systems modelling, and digital innovation—can play a pivotal role in transforming the One Health framework from aspirational policy to effective practice. We build upon recent interdisciplinary literature to demonstrate how Management Science is inherently transversal to One Health research fields. Drawing from examples involving artificial intelligence, data governance, and collaborative networks, we propose a revised roadmap for embedding Management Science capacity across One Health platforms, underlining the need for a human‐centred, ethically grounded, and digitally enabled ecosystem for action.

Purpose: In a world marked by systemic challenges, innovative performance management approaches are needed to enhance the detection of organizational dysfunctions and provide proactive support for undertaking timely strategy reversals. This paper explores how artificial intelligence (AI) can support the development of resilience in healthcare organizations facing increasing environmental, demographic and financial challenges. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts the Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) to develop the Resilient AI Performance Optimization Framework (RAIPOF). An illustrative application supports the framework's validation. Findings: The RAIPOF offers new insights into the use of AI in advancing healthcare resilience by providing a structured approach to integrating AI-driven tools with organizational processes. The framework embeds AI-enhanced smart key performance indicators (KPIs) – descriptive, predictive and prescriptive – into performance systems to align strategic planning with real-time operational data and resilience indicators. Practical implications: RAIPOF equips healthcare managers with a structured approach for anticipatory decision-making, proactive resource allocation and continuous improvement, particularly in volatile and high-risk settings. Originality/value: This study advances the literature on organizational resilience by positioning AI not merely as a technological enhancement but as a strategic enabler of adaptive governance. By bridging the gap between operational metrics and strategic foresight, the framework challenges traditional static and siloed approaches to performance management and contributes to the interdisciplinary integration of AI, health informatics and organizational theory.

Purpose: This paper explores the use of Dynamic Business Modeling for Sustainability (DBMfS) in healthcare management settings as a holistic approach to integrating economic, social, and environmental dimensions into the business formula of these complex organizations.Design/methodology/approach: After framing sustainable value in healthcare in terms of organizational complexity, wicked problems, and emerging managerial challenges, the paper proposes and illustrates the DBMfS approach that adopts a systemic view of sustainable value in healthcare. According to a qualitative perspective, a single-case study of a maternity-related healthcare treatment is also described to explore the implications and limitations of using this approach to sustainable business modeling in healthcare organizations.Findings: Findings show that, by embracing sustainability through DBMfS, healthcare organizations can improve operational efficiency, reduce waste (like energy, water, and medical supplies), and enhance cost-effectiveness, thus contributing significantly to societal well-being.Originality/value: In recent years, the healthcare sector has faced numerous challenges and wicked problems, including escalating costs, resource constraints, and growing environmental concerns. As a result, the concept of sustainability has gained significant attention, thus calling scholars and practitioners to develop methods and tools able to integrate it into strategic management systems of healthcare organizations. By proposing the adoption of DBMfS in the healthcare sector, this paper contributes to feeding up the current debate.

Despite the progress made by scholars, empirically investigating entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) remains problematic because of the inherent complexities and nonlinearities of interactions among EE actors. The research to date has shown a tendency to focus on macrolevel ecosystem dynamics while neglecting the microfoundations of EEs. We contend that this negligence is due to a lack of appropriate methodologies that can capture EE microfoundations through a systemic value-based perspective. To fill this gap, in this article, we propose a novel methodological approach, the value system method, which enables framing EEs through critical causal interdependences between key actors’ business models that foster value-exchange processes. Finally, the study provides a set of research and policy implications for fostering the understanding of EE microfoundations toward a value-based method and theory.