Since the seminal report presented by Meadows et al. (1972) to the Club of Rome, which brought global attention to the limits of growth, the discussion around a systemic worldview has faced strong criticism, particularly for its alleged determinism and simplification of social dynamics (Beckerman, 1972; Mirowski, 1991).Over time, however, empirical evidence has tended to confirm many of the warnings raised in that report (Myerson, 2013), and the social sciences have increasingly turned their attention toward observing the world as it truly is – not as a collection of isolated organisms or argents, but as a complex, interrelated system (Meadows, 2008; Capra and Luisi, 2014; Sanchis i Marco, 2024; Tedesco, 2022).In recent decades, academic research has progressively shifted from the study of independent agents toward the observation of systemic environments. In the field of management and entrepreneurship, the concept of the ecosystem was introduced by Moore (1993) and later expanded by Cohen (2006), Autio and Thomas (2014) and Hoffecker (2019), who emphasized the processes of interdependence and coevolution among organizations.Evolutionary economics, for its part, has long sought to address these complexities (Veblen, 1898; Witt, 2008; Bylund, 2025), although it continues to encounter resistance within orthodox social science – particularly in economics and business – thus missing the opportunity to expand the boundaries of scientific inquiry in a more comprehensive way.Nevertheless, recent years have witnessed a significant expansion of this systemic orientation toward approaches that integrate ecological and evolutionary dynamics within complex systems frameworks (Dentoni et al., 2021; Boussange et al., 2023; Sadekar et al., 2024). Despite this progress, dominant paradigms in economics and business remain doctrinal, showing limited epistemological integration of insights from biology, physics, anthropology, psychology or the science of complexity itself (Semeshenko et al., 2008; Mirowski, 2014; Mahner, 2021; Sanchis i Marco, 2024; Helfenstein, 2025).As proposed in Tedesco and Márquez (2025), it is essential to understand the world as it truly is – not as existing models find convenient – a panarchically integrated constellation of complex ecosystems, where analytical thinking has become insufficient and calls for systemic reasoning to generate innovative solutions to the complex challenges our world presents.This Special Issue was designed and convened in that very spirit: to gather innovative perspectives emerging from Iberoamerican scholarship that advance a systemic understanding of social and economic phenomena. A total of seventeen manuscripts were received, eight of which were peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, organized into three thematic sections:This study (Lonardi, 2026) examines how the agency of actors within a technological niche promoted the adoption and consolidation of the Direct Seeding System (DSS) in Argentina as a grassroots innovation, applying the Strategic Niche Management framework developed by Hoogma et al. (2005) and the Multi-Level Perspective proposed by Geels and Schot (2007). Through documentary analysis covering the period 1968–1996 and semi-structured technical interviews, the study identifies three interdependent mechanisms: collective learning, interaction within horizontal networks and the construction of shared visions, consistent with Seyfang and Smith’s (2007) arguments on the role of community-based innovations in sustainable transitions.The research shows that producers, technicians and institutions (INTA, AAPRESID) combined local knowledge, experimental practices and normative values related to soil stewardship and technological sovereignty. Consequently, DSS emerged as a self-managed sociotechnical transition, lacking formal institutional protection but sustained by practical validation, mutual learning and symbolic legitimization. The study provides empirical evidence of how interaction among actors and distributed experimentation can drive structural transformations within an agricultural ecosystem.From a systemic perspective, the Argentine case of Direct Seeding illustrates how innovation emerges from distributed agency and social learning, challenging linear assumptions about technological adoption. This study demonstrates that horizontal coordination and coevolution among local actors could generate deep transformations in productive systems, consolidating a view of innovation as an adaptive and self-organizing process within complex systems theory.The article explores how service codesign in digital platforms drives value creation and capture within interactive ecosystems, focusing on the videogame industry (García-Magro et al., 2026). Building on the Service-Dominant Logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), the authors analyze user participation as active cocreators of value (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Trischler et al., 2018). Using a mixed-methods approach – focus groups with developers and platforms, combined with an fsQCA analysis of a user survey – the study identifies three interdependent conditions: engagement, creativity and shared knowledge (Kleinsmann and Valkenburg, 2008; Pirinen, 2016; Windasari and Visita, 2019). The results reveal that user engagement is the critical variable leading to value capture, confirming the equifinality of causal configurations (Fiss, 2011) and showing that spontaneous codesign in digital environments can generate emergent benefits without hierarchical direction.This study provides an empirical understanding of value as an emergent phenomenon resulting from multilateral interaction within digital ecosystems. The research by García-Magro et al. (2026) shows that platform-based innovation systems operate as self-organizing structures of distributed co-creation, where user participation replaces hierarchy with functional interdependence. In doing so, the study contributes to the view of digital innovation as an adaptive and relational process, a central notion within contemporary systemic thinking.The authors (Rojo Lucero et al., 2026) propose a mixed-methods approach to evaluate university entrepreneurial ecosystems, based on 11 universities across six Latin American countries. Drawing on the Triple Helix framework (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), which positions universities as central nodes in government–university–industry relationships and highlights their role in fostering entrepreneurial capacities and regional economic development (Belitski and Heron, 2017; Kantis, 2018), as well as on the broader literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems (Brown and Mason, 2017; Spigel and Harrison, 2018), the study combines interviews and structured questionnaires to analyze critical variables of university contributions to regional development. These include incentive systems, technology transfer, intellectual property management and talent mobility (Cunningham and Link, 2015; Kantis and Angelelli, 2020). The results identify three ecosystem typologies: those oriented toward applied innovation, those centered on intellectual property and those driven by interinstitutional networks. Positive correlations are found between entrepreneurial training, university–industry partnerships and the emergence of new startups, although institutional gaps persist due to rigid incentive systems and nonadaptive science and technology policies (Bathelt and Spigel, 2011).Adopting a systemic view, this study reveals how universities function as articulation nodes within adaptive ecosystems that integrate knowledge, innovation, and territorial development. The methodological framework proposed by Rojo Lucero et al. operationalizes the analysis of feedback and coevolution between academia, industry, and public policy, reinforcing the understanding of universities as structural agents of systemic equilibrium in Latin America’s innovation ecosystems.This paper proposes a systemic decision-making artifact that integrates the paradigms of open innovation (OI) and responsible innovation (RI) in complex organizational contexts (Pereira and Baião, 2026). Grounded in the Design Science Research framework (Hevner et al., 2024) and in the principles of systemic innovation (Midgley and Lindhult, 2021), the research combines conceptual mapping, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1980) and the Strategic Choice Approach (Friend and Hickling, 2005). Through expert interviews and text mining, twelve strategic nodes were structured around leadership, co-creation with customers and the development of collaborative ecosystems, validated through application in a Brazilian startup. The findings show that leadership training, a culture of experimentation and collaborative management are the most influential levers for reducing uncertainty and increasing organizational resilience. By incorporating the dimensions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Ernst and Matter, 2025), the model provides an integrative tool to align innovation with ethical and social principles of sustainability.This contribution outlines a methodological advance in decision-making for complex organizations by integrating OI and RI. The model translates the interdependence among actors, knowledge and values into a practical tool for strategic choices, demonstrating that innovation unfolds as a dynamic network of collective learning rather than a linear process. Framed within systemic thinking, the artifact connects openness and responsibility as complementary mechanisms of adaptive equilibrium. It thus supports the transition of strategic management toward a self-organizing and reflexive paradigm, providing a foundation for evidence-based policies that strengthen sustainable innovation driven ecosystems.The authors (Natera and Sampedro-Hernández, 2026) propose a knowledge mobilization framework to analyze systemic innovation in Digital Health Solutions (DHS) in Mexico, emphasizing the interdependence between knowledge production, flow, demand and application. Based on three case studies – the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases (INER), the “Mónica Pretelini Sáenz” Maternal and Perinatal Hospital and the Oaxaca Health Services – the model structures four sequential phases inspired by the literature on systemic innovation (Midgley and Lindhult, 2021; Lindhult et al., 2022) and knowledge mobilization in health systems (Rojas Rajs and Natera, 2019; Ramlogan et al., 2007). The findings reveal that interinstitutional collaboration, collective learning, and adaptive infrastructure are key determinants of DHS effectiveness. Moreover, the study shows that the application of knowledge feeds back into its production, generating coevolutionary dynamics typical of complex systems. The absence of robust regulatory frameworks in Mexico (Sampedro-Hernández, 2013) leads to fragmented governance, where innovation emerges from micro-institutional efforts and cumulative learning (Naik et al., 2022; Grindell et al., 2022).This contribution advances the understanding of how systemic innovation unfolds in public health by translating complexity-based thinking into an operational framework for knowledge mobilization. The study highlights that, processes of learning and institutional adaptation constitute the core of digital transformation in health systems. Within the Latin American context – often marked by fragmentation – the article provides empirical evidence that interdependence and coevolution can sustain effective innovation even in the absence of centralized coordination.This study (Montes et al., 2026) examines how organizational challenges during crises influence technology adoption and firms’ innovative capacity in Latin America. Based on a survey of 207 Colombian organizations in manufacturing, services, and commerce, the authors develop the empirical Calyx model, which integrates the relationships among crises, team configuration, innovation and technology adoption. Grounded in the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991) and the Technology–Organization–Environment framework (Tornatzky et al., 1990), the structural equation modeling analysis shows that challenges do not directly determine the types of innovation adopted but do condition the technologies employed. The participation of multiple functional areas – particularly production, marketing and technology – has positive and significant effects on the diversity of innovations (Ferrigno and Cucino, 2021). Likewise, the adoption of digital and automation technologies improves innovation outcomes (Giotopoulos et al., 2022). The model explains 11%–12% of the variance in innovation and technology, confirming that co-participation and shared knowledge are key determinants of business resilience under turbulent conditions.The investigators provide robust evidence of how organizational innovation emerges from the interaction among crises, resources and internal collaboration. The authors approach the firm through an interdependent logic, where cross-functional teams act as nodes of learning and response. By revealing that the coevolution between organizational areas and technologies surpasses a linear adoption logic, the study deepens our understanding of resilience and adaptability as fundamental systemic properties of Latin American organizations, particularly when external crises strain the broader system.The authors address one of the main limitations in the innovation ecosystem literature: the lack of operational tools to translate conceptual frameworks into data-driven governance (Sánchez-Domínguez and Almanza-Rueda, 2026). They develop an outcome-based measurement toolkit, designed under a Design Science Research approach (Peffers et al., 2007), which operationalizes the Outcome-Based Ecosystem Model proposed by the same authors (Sánchez-Domínguez and Almanza-Rueda, 2024). The study integrates perspectives on ecosystems as complex adaptive systems (Adner, 2017; Tedesco and Marquez, 2025) and on systemic governance and collective learning (Kania and Kramer, 2011). The resulting multilevel architecture – conceptual, indicators, data and strategic intelligence – links actors, stages of the innovation funnel and systemic outcomes. A pilot application in northern Mexico identifies measurement gaps, interoperability challenges and opportunities to strengthen reflexive, results-oriented governance in regional ecosystems.This study provides a methodological contribution by translating the complexity of innovation ecosystems into adaptive measurement structures. By conceiving indicators as mechanisms for feedback and collective learning, the authors position governance as a reflexive, distributed and evolutionary process. Their approach consolidates the transition from theory to ecosystem intelligence, reinforcing management as a data-informed and coevolutionary practice among interconnected actors.The researcher (Lopez Leonardi, 2026) applies complex systems theory (Meadows, 2008) to Argentina’s anti-money laundering (AML) system, identifying leverage points (Meadows, 1999) to strengthen its effectiveness. Based on a qualitative case study and documentary sources from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF, 2024), the article analyzes the dimensions of public policy, institutional reform and innovation in financial intelligence, employing the conceptual framework of systemic interventions proposed by Abson et al. (2017) and Fischer and Riechers (2019). The author demonstrates that deep interventions – those addressing system design and intent – are more transformative than superficial adjustments. Among these, the study highlights regulatory redesign of the nonprofit sector, transparency in beneficial ownership, international cooperation and public–private partnerships for information exchange (Hardouin, 2009). The paper concludes that sustainable reforms of the AML/CFT regime require a structural and cultural reconfiguration aligning incentives, data, and institutions around cooperation and intersectoral trust.This article expands the boundaries of AML policy through systemic thinking, introducing the notions of structural leverage and institutional coevolution. The study shows that the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks depends not only on sanctions or controls but also on feedback between system design, intent and collective learning. By translating systemic thinking into applied public policy, López Leonardi’s work demonstrates that interinstitutional cooperation and adaptive redesign can serve as key levers for transformation within contemporary financial systems.The consolidation of the systemic perspective provides an indispensable framework for rethinking social, environmental and economic challenges through science. Faced with problems characterized by interdependence, nonlinearity and uncertainty, approaches centered on the isolated analysis of variables or actors have become insufficient. This Special Issue shows how systemic thinking can be translated into theoretical, methodological and governance tools capable of articulating multiple levels, disciplines and scales of action. From productive cooperation to financial regulation, the contributions presented here propose that understanding systems as complex, adaptive and evolutionary networks enables progress toward an integrative theoretical framework and fosters the much-needed dialogue with other scientific disciplines.Looking ahead, unique opportunities arise from the integration of theoretical frameworks and transdisciplinary methodological tools that harness systemic thinking, complex systems theory and the complexity science to advance the frontiers of economics, business, and management research.
Marcelo Tedesco (Sat,) studied this question.