Challenging the traditional view of consumption as an isolated, immediate event, Stefania Minardi of HEC Paris and Andrei Savochkin of Bocconi University’s Department of Decision Sciences explore the idea that experiences can create lasting mental imprints that affect future well-being, and that this effect is taken into account when people make current decisions about whether to go for certain experiences or puchase goods or services. In their recent paper, “Time for Memorable Consumption”, published in Games and Economic Behavior, they seek to incorporate this idea into the way economic decision-making is understood and modeled. By integrating insights from psychology with economic theory, the authors provide a new quantitative framework to capture how “memorable consumption” shapes long-term satisfaction and decision patterns.

In the digital age, personal data is hugely valuable. Companies are eager to access this data, but regulations like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) require users’ explicit consent. What GDPR doesn’t specify, however, is how firms should ask for that consent. Some lean on transparency, while others sweeten the deal with persuasive tactics, like offering discounts in exchange for personal information.

According to a recent study, "The Race for Data: Utilizing Informative or Persuasive Cues to Gain Opt-in?" by Sara Valentini of Bocconi University’s Department of Marketing, Caterina D’Assergio of Marazzi Group, Puneet Manchanda of the University of Michigan, Elisa Montaguti of the University of Bologna, purely informative messages, while compliant with GDPR, don’t necessarily increase opt-ins. However, combining informative and persuasive cues—especially monetary incentives—may consistently boost opt-ins.

d the challenges of digital transformation in a study by Greta Nasi and Edoardo Ongaro

Open Research configuration options

Open configuration options

In recent years, Italy has become a privileged observatory for analyzing the Neo-Weberian State (NWS), an administrative model combining traditional Weberian elements with new managerial approaches. Initially conceived as a response to the limitations of traditional bureaucracies, this system views hierarchy as the main coordination mechanism, along with a moderate integration of market and network elements. The NWS model is thus proposed as a balance between administrative efficiency and democratic values, centering on the role of law and democratic representation. In the Italian context, the NWS emerges as a resilient yet permeable structure, put to test by populist influences, supranational demands, and technological challenges.

In today’s interconnected professional world, employees often have affiliations outside their primary workplace. This phenomenon can be harmless—or even beneficial—until two employees find themselves representing rival entities. The article “When Colleagues Compete Outside the Firm” by Thorsten Grohsjean of Bocconi University’s Department of Management and Technology, Henning Piezunka of the Wharton School, and Maren Mickeler of ESSEC Business School published in the Strategic Management Journal offers fascinating insights into this dynamic by examining an unusual case: professional soccer players who become rivals on national teams while playing as club teammates.

The study’s focus is a critical yet understudied setting: when coworkers who typically collaborate within an organization engage in competition outside of it. Using data from the 2018 FIFA World Cup and top European soccer leagues, the researchers observed that teammates who competed against each other on opposing national teams subsequently reduced collaboration within their shared clubs, as evidenced by a significant decrease in passes exchanged during club games.

As Thorsten Grohsjean notes, “The interplay between extra-organizational affiliations and internal collaboration is complex, yet our findings demonstrate a measurable effect: after facing each other as competitors, teammates exhibited a notable reluctance to collaborate at club level.”

New research reveals public discreditation is the most common tactic used across all three sectors to intimidate researchers