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.

Quantum computers are receiving more and more attention in the media, with the promise of becoming a revolution in computing and digital communications. Nowadays, we cannot know for sure whether this promise will be fulfilled, but it is possible to get an idea of where things could go. The objective of this article is to give a brief overview of quantum information technologies and their future possibilities. After a concise summary of the fundamentals of quantum computing and the current state of the technology, we make a review of the main areas in which the technology can lead to innovations that substantially improve the performance of the current technology. Finally, we point out some possible effects of the development of quantum computing in today’s economy and society.

The development of electronics, telecommunications, and computing during the 20th century is one of the fastest and most transformative revolutions in human history. Compared to the successive revolutions in society’s progress since prehistoric history, it creates a new paradigm of progress that continues to be difficult to assimilate. The times between scientific findings, their realization in products or services, and their understanding by society, are becoming shorter and more demanding. Understanding how innovation, not only technological but also global, translates into a real transformation of society, its processes and how people approach it, requires the coordination of all social actors to achieve equitable and sustainable economic and social progress.

This article contextualizes and explores the keys to the relationship between innovation – understood as a complex process –, transformation – which is now digital –, and the transfer of knowledge necessary for the former to really become a transformative element of society.

In the last twenty-five years – from 1996 to 2021 – a series of actions have marked the evolution of the economy: from transformations linked to new information and communication technologies to the Covid-19 pandemic, among other things, through to the financial and economic crisis of the second half of the first decade of the 21st century. In this article, we look at the impact of events in the last twenty-five years on economics teaching, whether this is evolving alongside the economic reality or not, what has given rise to a mismatch between economics and the social and economic reality. To analyze this, in the first section, we will tackle the social mission of the “economist” in the sense of being teachers of highly diverse collectives, and in the second section, we will reflect on the evolution of economics teaching at University. The analysis leads us to conclude that, although economics teaching has varied over time, it has not undergone substantial change in recent decades. The lack of diversity of thinking in economics curricula joins forces with a lack of diversity among prominent thinkers and professionals to often translate into an incomplete view explaining the complex economic reality and an interaction with other disciplines, particularly social sciences.

All forms of social organization that have existed throughout human history have satisfied human needs in diferent ways. That is, they have given different answers to the three basic questions considered by Economics: "what to produce?", "how to produce it?" and "for whom to produce it?" The only trait that all forms of social organization have in common is their consideration of enterprises as the basic unit of production for goods and services.

Therefore, the way decisions are made in firms – the power game forever determining which interests are given priority over others – is key to understanding how the three above-mentioned questions are resolved. As such, faced with various proposals calling for an enconomy that prioritizes people over capital, we need to consider alternative ways in which business can operate.

In light of the above, this paper reviews the wide range of business models that criticize or question the principal of investor-owned firms, ie organizations whose main goal is not to make a profit whatever the cost. The paper provides an overview and comparison detailing the origins of such business models, which include co-operatives, labour-managed firms, B Corps, and Economy for the common good.