On Sustainability, Scholarship and Leadership: Q&A with Alum and INFORMS President-Elect Wedad Jasmine Elmaghraby
Wedad Jasmine Elmaghraby examines how markets, incentives and human behavior intersect — from electricity and procurement auctions to retail supply chains and sustainability in the apparel industry. Her interdisciplinary approach, shaped at UC Berkeley, blends theory, data and real-world practice. A Class of 1998 alum and a leader at the University of Maryland, she was recently elected president-elect of INFORMS, beginning her term in 2026.
In the interview below, Elmaghraby reflects on her research journey, her sustainability work and the Berkeley mindset that continues to guide her.
Q: How did your time in UC Berkeley’s IEOR program shape the kind of research you pursue today?
I came to Berkeley very intentionally because I wanted an interdisciplinary experience.
As an undergraduate, I double majored in operations research and economics. I loved the systems thinking of OR, but the economics questions around behavior and incentives captured my interest. Berkeley stood out as a place where faculty moved comfortably across those boundaries.
IEOR Professor Shmuel Oren was a major reason I chose Berkeley. His work at the interface of OR, economics and energy systems aligned perfectly with the questions I hoped to pursue. He became an important advisor, and Berkeley’s openness across departments allowed me to work at the UC Energy Institute under economist Severin Borenstein, where economists, engineers, computer scientists and OR researchers examined electricity market restructuring.
That experience shaped the “flavor” of my research. I’ve always gravitated toward problems that require multiple perspectives—a mindset that began with Shmuel’s guidance and was reinforced throughout my time at Berkeley.
Q: You’ve said Berkeley shaped not just your IEOR training, but your broader approach to interdisciplinary work. In what ways?
At the Energy Institute, I was surrounded by researchers from economics, business, engineering and computer science. They weren’t theorizing in isolation—they were asking, “If we design an auction this way, what will actually happen in the California electricity market?”
During the state’s restructuring of its wholesale electricity market, academics and policymakers were in constant dialogue. Ideas moved quickly from seminars into market rules, sometimes succeeded, sometimes failed and were revised.
As a PhD student, that taught me that research requires engagement and curiosity. If the expertise you need is outside your department, you go find it. I’ve carried that approach forward ever since.
Q: After working so closely on electricity markets, why did you pivot away from energy and toward auctions and sustainability in retail and apparel?
My work in electricity markets exposed me to rich interdisciplinary questions. Over time, I realized the questions that motivated me most centered on auction design and strategic interaction, and I gravitated toward settings where I could apply game-theoretic and economic modeling more directly.
That led me from electricity to multiunit auctions in procurement and later to liquidation auctions for excess and returned retail inventory. These auctions share features with electricity markets—multiple bidders and the need for price discovery—but offer a context where the mechanisms themselves can be studied more directly.
From there, another question emerged: Why is there so much excess inventory to liquidate? That led me into supply chain design, operations management and ultimately sustainability, where I began examining how business models create waste and how alternatives might reduce it while remaining viable.
Q: Your work often combines theoretical modeling, empirical data and close collaboration with companies. What motivates you to work in that way?
A lot of it comes from Berkeley, where theory, data and practice were always intertwined.
When I began studying liquidation and procurement auctions, I didn’t start with a model—I started by asking companies what they actually did. Many calls went unanswered at first, but eventually I found partners willing to share data and walk me through the details.
That experience taught me to begin with practice. Once you understand the constraints and incentives, you can build models that capture what matters. It’s very much the Berkeley mindset: rigorous, but grounded in how stakeholders use insights.
Q: You recently co-authored the e-book, Sustainability in Apparel Industry: An Overview & Key Takeaways. What do you see as the most urgent sustainability challenge in that space?
The core challenge is that our current expectations for growth are tightly tied to environmental harm.
Retailers are expected to grow, but our production and logistics systems equate growth with more manufacturing, waste and emissions. The key question is whether we can shift consumer expectations—toward consuming less or consuming differently—without making firms unprofitable.
A more sustainable equilibrium might involve higher-quality garments, stronger repair and reuse networks and models focused on access rather than ownership. That requires rethinking the ecosystem, not just making marginal changes.
Q: Beyond business models, your work also emphasizes consumer behavior. What led you into behavioral economics and decision-making research?
That interest emerged when I briefly returned to energy.
While working with the chief economist at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, I saw that even when models were elegant, human decisions often diverged from classical rationality. Heuristics, biases and judgment errors shaped outcomes.
When I joined Maryland, I worked with an economics postdoc to design behavioral experiments. It took years to publish our first paper, but it convinced me that you can’t fully understand markets without understanding how people actually make decisions. That lens now informs all my work.
Q: How can researchers meaningfully contribute to building more sustainable ecosystems?
We need to understand current practice—constraints, incentives and “no-go” zones.
Then we must use the freedom of academia to think beyond incremental tweaks. Industry often works within established mental models; academics can step outside them. The goal is to pair deep understanding of current systems with the creativity to propose alternatives that are both insightful and feasible.
Q: Does that philosophy shape how you mentor your students?
Very much so. My students would say I’m the “why” advisor.
I ask why they frame a problem in a certain way and what information they may be overlooking. I encourage them to look to other disciplines—linguistics, communications, psychology—if those fields can strengthen their questions.
I also place students in internships where they can observe practice firsthand. Seeing real constraints reshapes how they approach their dissertations.
Q: What stands out to you most about Berkeley when you look back?
Two things.
First, Berkeley itself. Some campuses feel beautiful but sterile; Berkeley felt alive—activists, poets, people handing out flyers. It was a “kaleidoscope of life,” and I loved that energy.
Second, the encouragement of curiosity. My father, an OR professor, always said, “There are no dull subjects, only dull people.” Berkeley embodied that philosophy. Knowledge was everywhere; you just had to go seek it.
Q: What advice would you offer current students and young researchers?
Be curious. Learn who is out there and how their work connects to yours.
Don’t be discouraged by unanswered emails. If one approach doesn’t work, try another. Ask colleagues for connections. Use alumni networks.
And keep your goal steady even if your tactics change. If you want to understand a particular practice or industry, you may need to approach it from multiple angles before a door opens.
Story Source
An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified [Name] as a member of the Class of 1988. She is a member of the Class of 1999. The article has been updated to reflect this.