The contemporary global landscape is characterized by systemic volatility, where concurrent or sequential crises, ranging from pandemics (like COVID-19) to geopolitical conflicts, cyberattacks, natural disasters, and economic instability, pose profound challenges to the very survival and sustainability of entire social-ecological systems (Liu & Renn, 2025; Tsvetkova & Gammelgaard, 2024). In this context, traditional resilience, defined as merely containing shock and “bouncing back”, is insufficient (Hynes, Trump, Love, & Linkov, 2020). These “polycrisis” events, often originating from unpredictable causes, namely black swan, expose a systemic fragility that traditional risk management practices are unable to contain (Grandori, 2020). The need to provide timely and coordinated responses is fundamental to mitigating damage and protecting vital resources, people, and the environment. The focus must shift from temporary containment to developing proactive and adaptive strategies that build durable and resilient horizons (Wieland, 2021; Moşteanu, 2024; Spitz & Desbiey, 2025). Within this context regeneration emerges as the crucial approach for restoring stressed systems and ensuring their future durability (Buckton et al., 2023). The regenerative paradigm dictates transcending mere sustainability to actively create net-positive value, fundamentally rebuilding the system’s capacity to thrive. This proactive process is essential because it tackles the underlying vulnerabilities that initially allowed the crisis to cause severe disruption, thereby enabling ecosystems to “bounce forward” into a state of renewal and enhanced robustness (Holden, Robinson, & Sheppard, 2016). Consequently, such dynamic approach to regeneration offers a pathway toward durable social-ecological resilience (Bag, Gupta, Galera‐Zarco, & Laguir, 2025; Yadav & Yadav, 2024). Nonetheless, this transition from reactive survival to systemic renewal hides a coordination challenge (Walton, 2017). Implementing protective and adaptive strategies that go beyond temporary fixes requires navigating the intense relational complexity and conflicting interests among stakeholders – a challenge that becomes exponentially greater when global systems are simultaneously stressed by interconnected risks (Liu & Renn, 2025). We posit thatDigital Architectures are not merely tangible technological infrastructures, but could act as socio-technical infrastructures of refraction, as conceived by Mikkel Flyverbom (Flyverbom, 2022). Indeed, these architectures – especially those powered by disruptive technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLM)s, and integrated digital infrastructures – collected and organize data in aggregate form, highlight patterns of similarity and difference, enable the transfer of knowledge across domains, shape human actions and identities in novel ways, and, fundamentally influence what we notice and act upon. They transform disparate actors into a cohesive, highly adaptive force, accelerating systemic recovery and proactively creating durable, resilient futures by fostering a self-sustaining Innovation Ecosystem (Van Looy, 2021). More critically, Digital Architectures act as a decisive driver for systemic coordination, enabling the essential stakeholder connection and alignment required to implement effective regenerative practices. Therefore, they are the pathway to resolving intense relational complexity and conflicting interests among actors (Zoppelletto, 2024). While numerous studies (e.g., Argyroudis et al., 2022; Boh, Constantinides, Padmanabhan, & Viswanathan, 2023; Chen, Cai, Bogatyreva, & Quansah, 2025; Giliyana, Bengtsson, & Salonen, 2025) recognized the implementation of Digital Architectures as helpful tools to enhance systemic resilience by developing dynamic capabilities and inter-organizational collaboration in crisis contexts, yet there is insufficient knowledge to effectively describe how these infrastructures solve the profound relational complexity and conflicts of interest among stakeholders in regenerative approaches implementation (Allan, Rajabifard, & Foliente, 2024; De Wolf & Bocken, 2024).

Downline this evidence, this track explores how Digital Architectures, especially those powered by disruptive technologies, facilitates the effective stakeholder connection and coordination, necessary to implement regenerative practices in times of crises, thus ensuring durable resilient horizons.

Relevant topics for submission

We welcome submissions exploring the intersection of crisis, coordinated action, stakeholder theory, regenerative approaches and disruptive technologies:

• Digital Architectures for Inclusive Regeneration: Examining the social dimension of regeneration, focusing on how technology ensures fair value distribution, preserves local knowledge, and establishes transparent engagement processes essential for the long-term social sustainability of regenerative practices.
• Digital Governance for Crisis Regeneration: Investigating governance mechanics, analyzing how Digital Architectures enable effective emergent governance, manage conflicting stakeholder interests, and accelerate restorative outcomes, particularly in the face of fragmented institutional responses and regulatory inertia.
• Coordinated Action and Resilience: Case studies showcasing how tightly coordinated stakeholder groups, supported by technology, successfully implement regenerative practices to overcome severe crises (e.g., phytosanitary emergencies, critical raw material management).
• AI for Relational Sensemaking: Exploring how AI and LLMs analyze and mediate relational knowledge among actors to achieve real-time consensus and coordinated response in high-pressure scenarios.
• Digital Dynamic Capabilities in Crisis: Investigating how technology enhances ecosystem’s abilities to sense, seize, and reconfigure resources and relationships collectively for sustained systemic recovery.
• Constructing Resilient Horizons: Theoretical or empirical models demonstrating how strategic coordination of actors via technology fosters net-positive resilience—systems that emerge from a crisis stronger, more adaptive, and more sustainable.

While these proposed routes serve as a guiding framework, all research methodologies are welcome. Submissions exploring additional topics that align with the investigative scope and objectives of this track are equally encouraged and will be highly valued.