Valentina Marano · Northeastern University · PhdFit
Resume-aware faculty matching
Find professors who actually fit you
Upload your resume. PhdFit's six research agents compare your background with faculty profiles, recent publications, lab focus, and outreach opportunities, then rank professors with evidence you can review.
Resume-aware matchingEvidence from recent researchOutreach drafts included
Advisor Match Brief Resume uploaded
Resume signals5 found
NLPHCIFairnessGraph MLPyTorch
Six-agent analysisRunning
Axel · Candidate AnalystResume parsed
Nova · Professor ResearcherRecent papers
Echo · Match ExplainerEvidence linked
Atlas · Strategy AdvisorFit ranked
Lyra · Outreach WriterDraft queued
Juno · Meeting Prep CompilerNext step ready
SC
Dr. Sarah Chen
Stanford · NLP & interpretability
91
fit
Fairness + NLP projects overlap with her recent work.
Strong methods fit: model evaluation and interpretability.
Clear outreach angle for current trustworthy AI research.
Outreach angle
Ask how her lab is extending interpretability methods into fairness audits for real-world AI systems.
Valentina Marano is an Associate Professor in the International Business & Strategy Group at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, and an Associate Fellow for the Center for Emerging Markets. She received her PhD in International Business from the Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina. Her research explores the practice adoption, organizational legitimacy, and performance of multinational corporations from emerging and advanced economies, as well as broader issues of comparative corporate governance and corporate sustainability. She regularly reviews for leading academic journals and sits on the reviewing boards of several prominent publications. Her teaching interests include global strategy, international business, and corporate sustainability, and she delivers courses on these subjects to both undergraduate and MBA students.
Abstract Research Summary We contribute to extant research on subunit sustainability governance by introducing the concept of sustainability‐specific strategic alignment, that is, the pre‐implementation degree of similarity in importance assigned by headquarters (HQ) and subunits to sustainability issues. We theorize and find that subunit‐perceived divergence between HQ's and local stakeholders' priorities undermines alignment, clarifying why early attention alignment can stall sustainability diffusion even without implementation frictions. We furthermore examine the moderating effect of three HQ's control mechanisms (i.e., monitoring, direct management, and resource control), and find that direct management attenuates alignment loss even in high divergence contexts, whereas monitoring and resource control often fall short or backfire. Findings show that control mechanisms are not uniformly effective and must be tailored to subunits' agency problems and local contexts. Managerial Summary We argue that effective sustainability governance requires headquarters (HQ) and subunits to similarly prioritize sustainability issues. Our research shows that this sustainability‐specific alignment depends, in part, on the extent to which HQs' sustainability priorities reflect those of local stakeholders. When this perceived divergence is high, alignment suffers. We examine how HQ can respond through three control mechanisms: monitoring, direct management, and resource control. We find that only direct management supports alignment under high divergence. These findings highlight that not all control tools are equally effective and that multinational companies need to carefully manage sustainability goals across borders to ensure coherent and credible sustainability efforts across their subunits' networks.
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2026-01-19
articleOpen access
Summary In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the insertion site of internal tandem duplications (ITDs) within the FLT3 gene critically determines the sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Despite recent advances, patients harboring ITDs in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) still lack effective therapeutic options. To elucidate the molecular basis underlying the differential TKI sensitivity of FLT3-ITD cells, we integrated high-resolution mass spectrometry–based (phospho)proteomics with subcellular fractionation. Our analysis revealed that midostaurin induces the subcellular redistribution of approximately 2500 proteins involved in crucial biological processes, including cell cycle control, autophagy, and metabolism. Functional analyses further demonstrated that the ITD insertion site determines the autophagy response to midostaurin and modulates mitochondrial metabolism, influencing organelle architecture and ATP production, even at steady state. Importantly, by integrating subcellular proteomic dataset with functional metabolic assays, we uncovered a lipid-dependent vulnerability of FLT3-ITD cells: lipid restriction enhances FLT3 trafficking to the plasma membrane, and markedly reduces cell viability, restoring midostaurin sensitivity of resistant FLT3-ITD cells. Together, our findings reveal that the FLT3-ITD insertion site orchestrates a coordinated remodeling of subcellular protein organization, autophagy, and metabolism, and identify lipid-mediated control of FLT3 compartmentalization as a therapeutically actionable mechanism to overcome TKI resistance in FLT3-ITD AML.
OVERVIEW OF SYMPOSIUM As firms face increasing pressures from various stakeholders to integrate sustainability into their core strategy, exploring the interplay between profit-driven goals and the broader purpose of sustainable business practices is a crucial discussion. The primary drivers for adopting sustainable practices vary across organizations, including evolving legislation, investor pressure, stakeholder demands, and reactive measures following adverse events. Companies that proactively respond to these drivers often develop a competitive advantage by preempting regulatory changes and aligning with investor expectations (Eccles et al., 2014). Studies show that companies with strong purpose-driven cultures tend to outperform their peers financially, as they align their business models with the expectations of diverse stakeholders (Gartenberg et al., 2019). Boards of directors and top managers (including Sustainability and HR managers) play a crucial role in promoting sustainability. In fact, they are often cited as champions driving the adoption of sustainable practices and influencing corporate culture and strategic direction (Kolk and Pinkse, 2010). This highlights the impact of top management commitment on corporate sustainability performance. The involvement of these leaders is instrumental in setting the tone at the top and integrating sustainability into the organizational culture. Companies with diverse and knowledgeable boards are better equipped to navigate complex sustainability challenges and make informed decisions (Walls and Berrone, 2017). Moreover, the presence of dedicated CSR managers and board committees has been identified as a best practice in coordinating and overseeing sustainability efforts. These roles are crucial in ensuring that sustainability initiatives are not siloed but integrated across departments and aligned with corporate strategy. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of these committees depends on their direct access to top executives and their ability to influence decision-making processes (Crifo et al., 2019). Therefore, the main actors for sustainability, and those taken into consideration in the present symposium, are the boards of directors - and their CSR committees - and the top management teams (including Sustainability and HR directors). Although the interplay between corporate governance and sustainability has received increasing scholarly attention, our understanding of the dynamics is far from perfect. This symposium aims to address this void in the literature and generate insights for future research at this intersection. Presentations: The first paper, by Zattoni, Arkoh, Arduino and Dello Russo, sets the stage for the symposium by presenting a systematic and intradisciplinary review of the literature exploring the mutual influence between corporate governance and sustainability. For several decades, mainstream governance literature has largely ignored social and environmental sustainability, based on the idea that shareholders are the residual claimants and companies should maximize profits or shareholder value. However, an increasing number of studies have started to challenge the shareholder value ideology to promote corporate sustainability and responsibility, stakeholder value and corporate purpose. Building on this alternative perspective, this work aims at to take stock of what we know, identify current gaps, and highlight future avenues of research. The second paper, by Vanessa Burbano, and Edythe Moulton-Tetlock, applies these ideas at multiple levels of analysis, by developing theory on the substitutability of two key microfoundations of CSR: future orientation (FO) and female leadership (FL). Recognizing endogeneity issues involved in this relationship, the paper conducts analysis at three levels. Study 1 confirms that FO increases perceptions of the importance of CSR in men but not in women (individual level). Study 2 confirms that all-male groups invest less in CSR and take a shorter-term view on this decision (group level). Study 3 confirms the substitution effect in practice using a cross-national sample of 1,710 firms with country-level FO and CEO and board gender diversity as key independent variables (firm level). The core implication is that while both FL and FO have been independently linked to increased CSR, a strong FO may compensate for the effects of FL, and vice versa. Given the paucity of women in leadership positions as well as the overwhelming tendency toward short-termism in the corporate world, identifying a substitution effect of these two antecedents on CSR has important theoretical and practical implications. Building on research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and institutional theory, the third paper, by Igor Filatotchev and Gunther Stahl explores firms’ perspectives on and approaches to the “S” (the social responsibility) dimension of the ESG framework in different institutional and organizational contexts. In particular, the authors argue that the scope and effectiveness of S strategies may differ depending on the legal system and institutional characteristics in a specific country. Therefore, scholars need to develop more holistic, institutionally embedded research frameworks to analyze organizational approaches to ESG. Researchers and practitioners increasingly recognize that social responsibility is more nebulous and difficult to gauge than the other two dimensions [i.e., E and G). That is because assessing various aspects of social equity, diversity and inclusion and evaluating the company’s social impact without adequate data and accepted methodologies appears to be challenging. More importantly, E, S, and G policies are not orthogonal - they are inter-related: decarbonization strategies may have to recognize the need for a “just transition” that takes into account the interests of those affected. Further, a formal recognition of stakeholder interests by corporate boards increases complexity in accountability, a core principle of “good governance”. This paper offers a multi-level theoretical framework that combines institutional theory and ESG perspective by focusing on a complex interplay between actions of corporate leaders and external institutional pressures to engage in ethically responsible corporate behavior (Filatotchev & Stahl, 2015). Consequently, it seeks to answer the following research questions: where do the pressures come from? How do they drive legitimization process, including changes in the firm’s management approaches? And how do these changes, in turn, impact board members’ approach to ESG? Finally, the fourth paper, by Giovanni Radaelli and Toloue Miandar investigates how CSR specialists and functional managers respond to an executive call for decentralizing CSR strategies from the CSR department to the business units. CSR managers can support this decentralization, as they are more likely to succeed with their organizational mandate if functional managers lead CSR programs. Likewise, functional managers can support CSR decentralization, as it would increase their autonomy, authority and influence in the organization. Through ethnography (set in a large-scale utility company and using a combination of observations, interviews and secondary data), the authors show that instead both CSR managers and functional managers interpreted the implementation of the new strategy as a negative occasion for their occupations. Independently from each other, they enacted complementary forms of ‘structuring work’ that undermined the moral and cognitive foundations of decentralized CSR; disassociated CSR managers from functional managers’ network to prevent their takeover; and promoted new structures to re-centralize CSR. Theoretically, the authors argue that CSR managers and functional managers interpret decentralized CSR as politically astute actors, protecting their occupation from perceived risks that a successful CSR decentralization could lea A Systematic Literature Review on Corporate Governance and Sustainability Author: Alessandro Zattoni; Author: Paul Arkoh; Luiss university Author: Francesca Romana Arduino; European University of Rome Author: Silvia Dello Russo; Luiss Guido Carli University The Substitution Effect of Future Orientation and Female Leadership on CSR Author: Vanessa Burbano; Columbia Business School Author: Edythe Elizabeth Moulton-Tetlock; Manhattan University Bringing the “S” Back in ESG: The Roles of Organizational Context and Institutions Author: Igor Filatotchev; Author: Günter K. Stahl; Vienna University of Economics and Business We fail if we succeed: CSR managers’ and functional managers’ structuring work to avoid CSR pitfalls Author: Giovanni Radaelli; Author: Toloue Miandar; University of Bologna
We integrate stakeholder agency and institutional theory to assess how home-country institutions shape the effectiveness of CSR contracting, which links executive pay to achieving certain CSR targets. Based on 22,588 observations representing 3,799 public firms and 26 countries from 2007 to 2019, our multilevel analysis shows that both pro-shareholder and pro-stakeholder institutions weaken the impact of CSR contracting on Corporate Social Performance (CSP). This suggests that strong institutions, regardless of their orientation, can act as substitutes for CSR contracting and alter executive discretion in prioritizing CSR commitments. These insights deepen our understanding of CSR contracting within diverse institutional frameworks.
Organizations worldwide are increasingly pressured to act more responsibly. A key strategy they are using to address these pressures is disclosing their efforts and impacts in the environmental and social arenas. Firms’ efforts to communicate their environmental and social performance and practices have increased in recent years, but so have instances of greenwashing. The United Nations identified greenwashing as a major barrier to achieving a sustainable future because it misleads stakeholders and detracts from genuine, impactful action in this realm. In response to the growing issue of greenwashing, governments and supranational organizations worldwide have started to implement legislation to curb this practice. These regulatory changes pose both challenges and opportunities for companies. Our panel symposium brings together leading scholars on this topic to engage in a dynamic discussion on management theory and practice related to greenwashing and corporate miscommunication issues more broadly. The purpose of this panel symposium is to explore existing research on greenwashing and to stimulate further investigation into this critical global issue.
Positive-sense single-stranded RNA (+ssRNA) viruses exert a profound influence on cellular organelles and metabolic pathway by usurping host processes to promote their replication. In this review, we present a portrait of selected cellular pathways perturbed in SARS-CoV-2 infection: the effect of viral translation, replication and assembly on the morphology and function of the ER, the remodelling of degradative pathways with a focus on the autophagic processes, and the alterations affecting cellular membranes and lipid metabolism. For each of these cellular processes, we highlight the specific viral and host factors involved and their interplay in this microscopic tug-of-war between pro-viral and anti-viral effects that ultimately tip the scale toward the propagation or the resolution of the infection.
Scholars and practitioners recognize the central importance of corporate governance mechanisms and the nature of the institutional contexts in which firms and their suppliers operate as important drivers for understanding how firms respond to rising societal expectations. Accordingly, the symposium proposes to bring together a panel of scholars to examine a series of interrelated research on the role of corporate governance vis-à-vis firms’ involvement with sustainability practices: How do governance mechanisms promote sustainability practices? Do different owners exhibit diverging degrees of compliance with societal norms contingent on the expected legitimacy derived from different institutional logics? What firm- level and institutional factors facilitate firms’ voluntary regulation of their environmental and social conduct? How does the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability change across countries? Drawing on the panelists’ rich expertise in this vast topic area, the proposed symposium would create an opportunity to develop a multilevel picture of the governance systems that guide the management of sustainability issues within firms. In doing so, it would contribute to shedding light on the governance settings that can likely encourage the adoption of sustainability solutions within firms and ensure more sustainable outcomes.
We meta-analyze 103 studies of 23 voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) to assess how their governance quality, or the rigor of their internal institutional mechanisms, drives their ability to improve their participants corporate environmental and financial performance. The goal of VEPs is to incentivize firms to reduce firms’ environmental impacts by bolstering their reputations and helping them learn practices that improve their financial performance. Research on VEP effectiveness, however, is inconclusive, in part, because most studies sampled individual programs, and were unable to analyze how difference in program characteristics drive their effectiveness. We draw on institutional theory to argue that VEP governance quality determines whether they improve participants’ environmental performance, and the natural resource-based view to argue that they improve their financial performance. Results confirm our predictions, and in doing so, help to establish a business case for VEPs with high-quality governance.
