The hegemony of the neoclassical model as a conceptual and analytical framework to explain the operating logics of capitalism has made the ethics that this model carries implicit – the criteria, behaviours of the actors, etc., which are considered better or more appropriate due to the supposed good functioning of the system – have also occurred hegemonically. One of these “ethical” criteria or behaviors is the so-called stockholder theory, whereby a company’s sole responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders. In this article, we question the compatibility between this theory’s validity – as the empirical analysis indicates – with the social demand for companies to act with other ethics, and also how it is more plausible to move towards this change of values.

Universities can be considered a key element in promoting sustainable development through education, research, innovation and social leadership. In this educational-focused article, we discuss the need to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to understand and address sustainability challenges. To do this, it will be very important to introduce sustainability – and also other related concepts – in university curriculums and, in particular, in Economic and Business courses, where future business leaders are currently being formed. For this reason, the article presented has a double objective, on the one hand, to answer this question: what are we teaching about this topic in universities and, in particular, in Economics and Business courses; and on the other hand: how are we integrating it into curriculum. The article reviews over time the main subjects that have covered this topic – from business ethics to ESG criteria, to CSR – and proposes different strategies to integrate this content into the curriculum.

The social responsibility of companies and organizations towards their stakeholders and towards the planet has been evolving and changing, as has geopolitics and the global economy based on the globalization of markets and capital. This article takes a prospective approach and presents the main challenges that companies and society currently face and the trends that companies and international think tanks are developing to face these challenges. Similarly, the European Union, with its taxonomy, requires companies a greater comply with the premises of the Green Deal. Civil society is also a key element when it comes to demanding more committed companies that can generate sustainable responses to global and local challenges. This involves having an education system that produces more aware and empowered citizens, capable of demanding companies to align their activities with sustainable development.

The confluence of different factors is creating a closer approach of enterprises to society. On the one hand, the business’s need to establish permanent channels with consumers requires companies to become open systems and, with that, the assumption of civic obligations towards society. On the other hand, the Earth’s crazy situation is generating a general danger alarm that urgently appeals to social agents’ collaboration and commitment, especially productive organizations.

To achieve this, powerful approaches such as social responsibility and sustainability are being implemented, created to generate a productive transition that is beneficial for everyone, society, companies and the environment. The action plan is already in place, with a pact approved by the UN General Assembly (2030 Agenda), with a consistent business governance pattern (ESG) and with realistic objectives (SDGs). This orderly and firm tour allows us to match the conservation of the planet, with the quality of life and social well-being of its people.

As States point out in the resolution of the 2030 Agenda, “we are determined to end poverty and hunger around the world by 2030, to combat inequalities within and among countries, to build peaceful, fair and inclusive societies, to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, and to ensure a lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources”.

The main objective is to implement a new sustainable society that solves the serious problems that industrial society has brought us to. A fair and supportive community society that considers the health and concordance of humanity and its living environment. Ultimately, a society that uses freedom for people’s growth, equality to recognize each other as peers, and fraternity to care for each other.

The acceleration of climate change we are seeing is triggering one of the deepest and most threatening global crises to ensure a fair and livable planet for the more than 8 billion inhabitants and for the biosphere. The climate crisis is so significant and severe that climate emergency is already being discussed. We are in a global context in which the trespassing of planetary boundaries, particularly those related to climate emergency, has clear effects on our daily lives, especially in an uneven and unfair manner. Organizations, across their diversity, cannot circumvent the necessary debate on how they must adapt to the new climate emergency context and how they can contribute effectively to mitigation and adaptation, without falling into greenwashing. New metrics, beyond current green certifications, that can capture and incentivize the decarbonization and ecological transition of organizations will need to be found. Obviously, this requires a profound change in the continuous economic growth logic that transcends the individual wills of organizations and requires profound social, cultural and political-economic change in the priorities we have as a society.

We start with the Brundtland Report’s (1988) definition of the concept of sustainability to analyze key aspects and look at the essence of human nature. We realize that the way to meet people’s needs is key to optimizing their quality of life, integrating us back into nature and achieving the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The strategy that must be followed is the cooperation between the interested parties by bringing the places of residence, work and consumption closer to being able to have meeting spaces in the proximity of neighborhoods, but also within companies, public administrations and non-profit entities. Given that the purpose is to meet basic human needs in the consumer society we have built, we identify the quality of life indicators that allow us to analyze the sustainability of organizations and products throughout their lifecycle. The application of the quality of life indicators can be essential in our individual and collective decisions of everyday purchasing, both public and private, to raise awareness and to build a strong path towards sustainability. It will also help us design sustainable public policies, including public procurement.

Diversity and inclusion remain issues in the agendas of today’s organizations. Despite significant advances in managing workforce differences, there are still challenges to face in order to truly achieve fully inclusive organizations. Diversity management is set up as the key success factor in recognizing and integrating employee differences, so it is particularly relevant for companies to become aware of the need to improve their management capability in this area. This article provides a literature review of the terms diversity and inclusion, the analysis of the main effects they have and their management and the specific case study of functional diversity. A conclusion section is provided in the last section of the article.

Oikonomics magazine edited by the UOC Economics and Business Studies is in its 20th edition. For this reason, an infographic is published in this edition that includes the highlights of the magazine’s impact and visibility during this period, as well as information on its articles’ thematic orientation.

Digitization (action by which analogue processes, procedures, and objects are converted to digital format) can lead to the internal transformation of companies’ business models, strategies, processes, and procedures, which we generally call digital transformation.

This digital transformation, or the ability to carry it out, could be seen as a competitive advantage. If we take the banking sector as an example and, within it, we differentiate purely digital players and compare them to traditional players, we could conclude that the competitive advantage is not just about digitization and digital transformation of the former, but a much broader positioning that encompasses the company’s attitude towards innovation – called innovation orientation –, of which one of its results would be, for example, digitization and subsequent digital transformation.

This article aims to identify the key characteristics of purely digital players when compared to their traditional competitors in relation to innovation orientation and what differential characteristics have helped them achieve that level of digitization and digital transformation – understood as a result of such innovation orientation – successfully.