Timeline

• August 30, 2026: Submission deadline

Elizabeth Couzineau-Zegwaard, PPA Business School

Nathalie Fabbe-Costes, Aix-Marseille Université

Olivier Meier, Université Paris-Est Créteil

Globalization of trade, intensification of environmental pressures, and construction of a binding European regulatory framework in a context of successive crises are profoundly redefining expectations for supply chains. With fewer than 10% of consumer goods currently being recycled globally, resource scarcity and climate urgency are forcing companies to articulate economic competitiveness with sustainability requirements. In this context of polycrisis and permacrisis, non-financial performance, measured through environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, is emerging as a strategic lever influencing access to financing, organizational reputation and resilience to systemic risks. Continuous measurement of non-financial performance also helps develop dynamic management of supply chains subject to contradictory and evolving injunctions.

The integration of these non-financial criteria into supply chain management, however, raises considerable methodological and operational challenges, particularly in terms of impact measurement, traceability and inter-organizational coordination. This special issue aims to explore the tensions and synergies between non-financial performance and supply chain management, by crossing academic, regulatory and managerial perspectives.

Non-financial performance has become an essential complement to traditional economic evaluation, under the effect of three converging dynamics: the evolution of stakeholder expectations in favor of increased transparency, the financialization of sustainability through the growth of ESG funds and green bonds, and the rise of systemic risks revealed by recent health and geopolitical crises. Supply chain management is therefore no longer solely a tool for logistics optimization, but a vector for creating sustainable value and a factor of competitive differentiation.

In Europe, several legislative texts now structure the field of action for companies. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, 2023) extends the obligation for non-financial reporting to nearly 50,000 companies according to harmonized standards (ESRS), including Scope 3 emissions, biodiversity and social risks. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD, 2024) establishes a duty of care across the entire value chain, with sanctions. The European taxonomy (2020, revised in 2023) imposes strengthened traceability of financial and logistics flows, while the deforestation regulation (EUDR, 2023) conditions the importation of certain raw materials on evidence of compliance. Added to these measures is the regulation on ecodesign of sustainable products (ESPR, 2024), which progressively generalizes the digital product passport and strengthens traceability requirements throughout the life cycle.

These measures create an unprecedented normative framework, where compliance becomes a strategic imperative but also a source of complexity, particularly for data collection and verification. They also pave the way for international benchmarking of companies, which explains the stakes surrounding the definition and adoption of European standards versus standards from other economic blocs.

However, this regulatory expansion movement is experiencing a major inflection. The 'Omnibus' simplification package, proposed by the European Commission in early 2025, provides for raising thresholds for applicability, postponing certain deadlines and easing obligations related to Scope 3 and duty of care. This simplification dynamic (or even partial retreat) introduces unprecedented normative instability: companies engaged in costly compliance trajectories face a shifting framework, raising questions of path dependency, sunk costs and trade-offs between regulatory anticipation and wait-and-see approaches, even greenwashing versus greenhushing. The tension between stated ambitions, operational feasibility and revealed results thus constitutes a research object in its own right.

The adoption of sustainable practices generates tangible benefits. The circular economy (reuse, recycling, eco-design) reduces costs related to raw materials and waste management. Companies with strong ESG performance benefit from favorable financing conditions (green loans) and increased resilience to external shocks. However, several obstacles persist: the complexity of impact measurement, particularly for Scope 3 emissions, the risk of greenwashing when stated commitments do not translate into operational transformation, and trade-offs between sustainability and resilience, particularly regarding relocation.

Digital technologies (also called 4.0) appear to constitute a central transformation vector. Blockchain allows certification of raw material origin and data security, artificial intelligence and Big Data help optimize flows and anticipate risks, the Internet of Things (IoT) facilitates real-time monitoring of flows and activities to calculate ESG indicators. These innovations, however, raise questions about data protection, accessibility for SMEs and interoperability between actors. While they facilitate automation of reporting, they leave entirely open the strategic choice of whether or not to reveal the actual level of non-financial performance of supply chains.

Potential topics

• Sustainable regulations and supply chain management strategies: effects of CSRD, CSDDD and European taxonomy on supply chain structuring and associated logistics choices (relocation, supplier diversification), methods for integrating ESRS into non-financial reports, tools and methodologies for compliance
• Circular economy and innovation: circular business models (reuse, repair, recycling), eco-design levers, contribution of digital technologies (blockchain, AI, IoT) to the transition towards more sustainable or even regenerative supply chains
• Measurement, transparency and risks: indicators and methodologies for assessing impact (Scope 3, biodiversity, human rights), comparative uses of GRI, SASB and ESRS frameworks, identification of greenwashing signals and best practices for credibilizing ESG commitments, strategy for disclosing objectives vs results regarding non-financial performance of supply chains
• Non-financial performance measurement and supply chain management: impact of non-financial performance measurement on supply chain design, decisions and trade-offs between cost control, profitability and value creation other than financial. Does work around measuring and improving non-financial performance stimulate logistics innovations?

Timeline

• November 15, 2026: Full paper submission deadline

Diogenis Baboukardos, Audencia Business School

Begoña Giner, Universitat de València

Ronita Ram, University of Reading

Frank Schiemann, University of Bamberg

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), originally adopted by the European Union in 2022, marked a landmark shift in corporate sustainability disclosure regulation. The intended developments regarding the scope of companies affected, the reference to the future European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) covering environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics, or the adoption of third-party assurance highlight central examples of how the CSRD was aimed at enhancing transparency, comparability, and accountability in corporate sustainability disclosure practices. At the same time, these changes also created considerable challenges for companies, assurance providers, and users.

In 2025, the European Union (EU) initiated an "Omnibus" package proposing amendments to the CSRD and the related Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Carbon Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as well as a draft Taxonomy Delegated Act. These proposed amendments target, amongst others, to simplify the scope of companies affected, the reporting requirements, and the third-party assurance requirements. The Omnibus amendments aim at reducing the administrative burden for companies and maintaining their competitiveness. However, the ad hoc and short-term character of this process increased policy uncertainty and also led to criticism, not only because many companies had already started to prepare for the original CSRD and the related ESRS, but also because the planned reduction in the scope and the simplification of ESRS were perceived by some stakeholders as a threat that could undermine the leadership of the EU in sustainability practices and reporting.

This Special Issue invites manuscripts that explore various impacts of the CSRD on companies such as changes in corporate behaviour, internal processes, management systems, strategy formulation, or business models. Accordingly, the special issue welcomes original normative research that examines the original CSRD's provisions or the (expected) changes due to the Omnibus process. The issue also seeks research on the broader regulatory, institutional, and political dynamics shaping the development and adoption of the EU's sustainability disclosure regulation. Researchers are encouraged to focus on specific challenges of CSRD adoption before and after Omnibus as well as insights outside of the CSRD which have implications for its implementation.

Potential topics

• The role of CSRD/ESRS to fulfil investors and other stakeholders' needs and be a strategic mechanism to enhance Europe's competitiveness, resilience, and capacity for innovation
• Implementation challenges: Practical hurdles or burdens faced by companies in adopting CSRD/ESRS, including data collection, stakeholder engagement, and materiality assessment
• Benefits of the EU transparency disclosure framework: The economic, operational, and reputational effects of CSRD/ESRS implementation
• Interactions and alignment between ESRS and global frameworks: How ESRS aligns (or conflicts) with other frameworks, such as GRI or IFRS S1 & S2, and the implications, especially for multinational companies
• Regulatory, institutional, and political dynamics: Institutional and political forces impacting the CSRD's evolution, including the role of EFRAG and EU member states
• Sector-specific disclosure challenges: Unique hurdles and burdens faced by different sectors, such as finance, energy, manufacturing, or technology, in meeting CSRD requirements
• Implications of CSRD for audit firms and assurance providers: The evolving role of auditors, the requirements for the development of assurance standards, and the impacts of the CSRD/Omnibus on the capacity of the assurance market to meet demand
• Implications of CSRD for small and medium-sized enterprises and non-European companies: Direct and indirect effects of the CSRD/Omnibus on small and medium-sized enterprises and non-EU firms operating in or trading with the EU
• Comparative perspectives: Variations in CSRD implementation across EU member states, including differences in national enforcement
• Critical perspectives: Risks of greenwashing, standard overload, and compliance-driven reporting, as well as (threats to) the potential for the CSRD to drive meaningful sustainability outcomes
• CSRD impact beyond the EU: CSRD's influence on sustainability reporting regulation and practices in non-EU countries and its role in shaping global standards

Timeline

• September 1, 2026: Submission open date
• November 30, 2026: Manuscript deadline

Valentina Beretta, University of Pavia

Davide Calandra, University of Turin

Charles H. Cho, York University

Chiara Demartini, University of Pavia

Paolo Biancone, University of Turin

Sustainability education has become a crucial component of management studies as businesses and society increasingly recognize the need for sustainable practices in corporate strategy and operations. The shift toward sustainable business models necessitates equipping future managers with the competencies to address environmental, social, and governance (ESG) challenges, fostering long-term value creation beyond financial performance. Consequently, sustainability education in management studies has evolved beyond traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) courses, incorporating interdisciplinary approaches integrating systems thinking, ethical decision-making, and stakeholder engagement. Integrating sustainability education into management studies is increasingly recognized as essential for developing responsible leaders equipped to address global challenges, with business schools embedding sustainability principles into their curricula, aligning with frameworks like the UN's Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) to promote ethical decision-making and sustainable business practices. This shift reflects a broader commitment to preparing students to lead organizations that prioritize environmental and social responsibility. An essential part of this transformation is fostering an entrepreneurial mindset that enables individuals to develop and lead sustainable ventures, bridging the gap between management education and sustainable entrepreneurship. Thus, higher education institutions are called to promote competencies and skills that support sustainable development among their students and communities.

Although governments may mandate the reporting and auditing of corporate sustainability information, sustainability content remains limited within accounting education programs. A critical dimension of sustainability education in management studies is the development of dynamic capabilities for sustainability to foster firms' abilities to adapt, innovate, and sustain competitive advantage in a rapidly changing business environment. Management programs must prepare students to cultivate such capabilities, emphasizing agility, resilience, and sustainable value chains. Digital transformation plays a fundamental role in this process, as emerging technologies such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and blockchain can enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in corporate sustainability efforts. Business schools are, therefore, integrating digital tools into sustainability curricula to ensure that graduates possess the necessary analytical skills to navigate the complexities of sustainable business strategies. Moreover, integrating sustainability education with entrepreneurship fosters the creation of new business models that prioritize social and environmental impact alongside financial returns.

The diffusion of sustainability education across universities, business schools, and higher education institutions remains a subject of debate, particularly regarding when and how it should be introduced in academic curricula. Some argue that sustainability principles should be embedded in undergraduate programs, while others contend that postgraduate and executive education levels offer the most effective platforms for fostering deep understanding and application. Moreover, lifelong learning frameworks are increasingly being explored, emphasizing the need for continuous upskilling in sustainability competencies throughout professional careers.

Another emerging challenge is the personalization of sustainability education, ensuring that learning experiences are tailored to students' backgrounds, career trajectories, and industry specific requirements. Advances in adaptive learning technologies enable customized educational pathways, allowing students to engage with sustainability topics most relevant to their fields and through the adoption of different teaching methodologies. Additionally, the composition of faculty teams and sustainability committees within academic institutions plays a pivotal role in shaping effective sustainability education. In particular, innovative, inclusive, and constructionist pedagogies should be introduced in educating management students for addressing sustainability challenges to fundamentally reshape the education of future accounting professionals. Interdisciplinary collaboration among educators from management, environmental sciences, and social sciences enhances the depth and applicability of sustainability courses, fostering a holistic approach to responsible management education.

Sustainability education is also intrinsically linked to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in preparing business leaders to address global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and responsible consumption. Business schools increasingly embed SDG-related case studies and frameworks into their programs, bridging the gap between academic knowledge and real-world application. Furthermore, sustainability education influences broader societal impact by cultivating ethical leadership and promoting corporate practices that align with global sustainability imperatives.

The key drivers of sustainability education include institutional values, regulatory frameworks, and managerial imperatives. Many universities are aligning their strategic priorities with sustainability commitments, reflecting growing external pressures from accreditation bodies, investors, and societal expectations. As sustainability continues to gain prominence in business strategy, the role of education in shaping responsible leaders capable of balancing financial performance with social and environmental impact becomes increasingly indispensable. Research on the effectiveness of sustainability education, its pedagogical innovations, and its implications for managerial decision-making will be instrumental in shaping the future of responsible management education.

Potential topics

• How does sustainability education influence the development of sustainable, dynamic capabilities among future business leaders?
• What role do digital technologies play in enhancing sustainability education within management studies?
• How should sustainability education be structured across different academic levels to maximize its impact on students' competencies?
• What are the most effective methodologies for personalizing sustainability education for diverse student and professional profiles?
• What interdisciplinary faculty compositions contribute to successfully delivering sustainability curricula in business schools?
• How can sustainability education more effectively align with the SDGs to create a tangible societal impact?
• What institutional and regulatory drivers influence the integration of sustainability education in higher education curricula?
• How can business schools measure the long-term impact of sustainability education on managerial decision-making and corporate strategies?
• How can sustainability education foster entrepreneurial skills and mindsets to drive the creation of sustainable businesses and ventures?

Timeline

• October 1, 2026: Opening date for manuscripts submissions
• October 31, 2026: Closing date for manuscripts submission