企业数字责任:研究综述与未来展望

贺远琼, 孟家琪

科研管理 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (9) : 1-12.

PDF(1898 KB)
PDF(1898 KB)
科研管理 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (9) : 1-12. DOI: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2025.09.001  CSTR: 32148.14.kygl.2025.09.001

企业数字责任:研究综述与未来展望

作者信息 +

Corporate digital responsibilities: A literature review and prospects

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

伴随数字时代来临,数字责任缺失与异化现象频繁出现,引发广泛的数字信任危机。目前,企业数字责任的研究正处在起步阶段,关于企业数字责任的内涵界定尚未形成统一共识,且学者更侧重算法责任等细分议题的讨论,缺乏对其研究内容、基本理论、影响因素、作用机制等方面的深入探索。基于此,本文首先综合学者定义和研究视角总结了企业数字责任的概念,并将其划分为社会、环境、经济、技术四维度的责任。其次,根据文献时间分布、共被引分析及关键词共现网络图谱明确了企业数字责任的研究进程与重点研究内容。同时,以现有研究成果为基础,分别构建了基于数字视角的利益相关者理论与权力-责任均衡理论框架,进一步探索了影响企业数字责任的外部社会环境和内部组织环境因素及其作用机制。最后,结合现有研究不足,通过挖掘研究内容、拓展研究方法、嵌入研究情境,提出企业数字责任的研究展望。本文采用文献综述法和文献计量法对现有企业数字责任的相关文献进行了系统梳理和可视化分析,以期为企业数字责任研究提供有益借鉴。

Abstract

With the advent of the digital era, the lack and alienation of digital responsibility have frequently emerged, triggering widespread digital trust crises. Current research on Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) remains in its nascent stage, with no unified consensus on its conceptual boundaries. Scholars predominantly focus on fragmented issues such as algorithmic accountability, while in-depth explorations of its research scope, foundational theories, influencing factors, and mechanisms of action remain insufficient. To address this deficiency, this study first synthesized scholars' definitions and research perspectives to conceptualize CDR, categorizing it into four dimensions: social, environmental, economic, and technological responsibilities. Second, it delineated the research trajectory and core themes of CDR through temporal distribution analysis, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence network mapping. Furthermore, drawing on existing scholarship, the paper constructed theoretical frameworks grounded in the stakeholder theory and the power-responsibility equilibrium theory from a digital perspective, systematically examining external societal environments and internal organizational factors that influence CDR, along with their operational mechanisms. Finally, by identifying current research limitations and proposing advancements in content exploration, methodological innovation, and contextual embedding, this study has outlined future directions for CDR research. In addition, employing systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis, this paper has conducted a structured synthesis and visualization of extant CDR literature, aiming to provide valuable insights for subsequent research in this field.

关键词

企业数字责任 / 数字技术 / 理论构建 / 作用机制

Key words

corporate digital responsibility / digital technology / theoretical construction / action mechanism

引用本文

导出引用
贺远琼, 孟家琪. 企业数字责任:研究综述与未来展望[J]. 科研管理. 2025, 46(9): 1-12 https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2025.09.001
He Yuanqiong, Meng Jiaqi. Corporate digital responsibilities: A literature review and prospects[J]. Science Research Management. 2025, 46(9): 1-12 https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2025.09.001
中图分类号: F270.7   

参考文献

[1]
NAMBISAN S, LYYTINEN K, MAJCHRZAK A, et al. Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2017, 41(1): 223-238.
Rapid and pervasive digitization of innovation processes and outcomes has upended extant theories on innovation management by calling into question fundamental assumptions about the definitional boundaries for innovation, agency for innovation, and the relationship between innovation processes and outcomes. There is a critical need for novel theorizing on digital innovation management that does not rely on such assumptions and draws on the rich and rapidly emerging research on digital technologies. We offer suggestions for such theorizing in the form of four new theorizing logics, or elements, that are likely to be valuable in constructing more accurate explanations of innovation processes and outcomes in an increasingly digital world. These logics can open new avenues for researchers to contribute to this important area. Our suggestions in this paper, coupled with the six research notes included in the special issue on digital innovation management, seek to offer a broader foundation for reinventing innovation management research in a digital world.
[2]
SABERI S, KOUHIZADEH M, SAEKIS J, et al. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2019, 57(7): 2117-2135.
[3]
DE GINOVANNI P. Smart supply chains with vendor managed inventory, coordination, and environmental performance[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 292(2): 515-531.
[4]
王怀勇, 刘帆. 数字时代企业社会责任的理论拓补与实现路径[J]. 西北工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2018(4): 76-83.
WANG Huaiyong, LIU Fan. The theoretical supplement and achieving methods of corporate social responsibility in the digital age[J]. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University(Social Sciences), 2018(4): 76-83.
[5]
邢小强, 汤新慧, 王珏, 等. 数字平台履责与共享价值创造:基于字节跳动扶贫的案例研究[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(12): 152-176.
XING Xiaoqiang, TANG Xinhui, WANG Yu, et al. The responsibility taking and shared value creation of digital platform enterprises: A case study on the poverty alleviation of bytedance[J]. Journal of Management World, 2021, 37(12): 152-176.
[6]
肖红军, 阳镇, 刘美玉. 企业数字化的社会责任促进效应:内外双重路径的检验[J]. 经济管理, 2021, 43(11): 52-69.
XIAO Hongjun, YANG Zhen, LIU Meiyu. The promotion effect of corporate digitalization on corporate social responsibility: A test of internal and external dual paths[J]. Business and Management Journal, 2021, 43(11): 52-69.
[7]
肖红军. 算法责任:理论证成、全景画像与治理范式[J]. 管理世界, 2022, 38(04): 200-226.
XIAO Hongjun. Algorithmic responsibility: Theoretical justification, panoramic portrait and governance paradigm[J]. Journal of Management World, 2022, 38(04): 200-226.
[8]
TREVINO L K, WEAVER G R, REYNOLDS S J. Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review[J]. Journal of Management, 2006, 32(6): 951-990.
The importance of ethical behavior to an organization has never been more apparent, and in recent years researchers have generated a great deal of knowledge about the management of individual ethical behavior in organizations. We review this literature and attempt to provide a coherent portrait of the current state of the field. We discuss individual, group, and organizational influences and consider gaps in current knowledge and obstacles that limit our understanding. We conclude by offering directions for future research on behavioral ethics in organizations.
[9]
ELLIOTT K, PRICE R, SHAW P, et al. Towards an equitable digital society: Artificial intelligence (AI) and corporate digital responsibility (CDR)[J]. Society, 2021, 58(3): 179-188.
In the digital era, we witness the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to solve problems, while improving productivity and efficiency. Yet, inevitably costs are involved with delegating power to algorithmically based systems, some of whose workings are opaque and unobservable and thus termed the “black box”. Central to understanding the “black box” is to acknowledge that the algorithm is not mendaciously undertaking this action; it is simply using the recombination afforded to scaled computable machine learning algorithms. But an algorithm with arbitrary precision can easily reconstruct those characteristics and make life-changing decisions, particularly in financial services (credit scoring, risk assessment, etc.), and it could be difficult to reconstruct, if this was done in a fair manner reflecting the values of society. If we permit AI to make life-changing decisions, what are the opportunity costs, data trade-offs, and implications for social, economic, technical, legal, and environmental systems? We find that over 160 ethical AI principles exist, advocating organisations to act responsibly to avoid causing digital societal harms. This maelstrom of guidance, none of which is compulsory, serves to confuse, as opposed to guide. We need to think carefully about how we implement these algorithms, the delegation of decisions and data usage, in the absence of human oversight and AI governance. The paper seeks to harmonise and align approaches, illustrating the opportunities and threats of AI, while raising awareness of Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) as a potential collaborative mechanism to demystify governance complexity and to establish an equitable digital society.
[10]
TRIER M, KUNDISCH D, BEVERUNGEN D, et al. Digital responsibility[J]. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2023, 65(4): 463-474.
[11]
WADE M. Corporate responsibility in the digital era[J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2020,4: 1-8.
[12]
LOBSCHAT L, MUELLER B, EGGERS F, et al. Corporate digital responsibility[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021,122: 875-888.
[13]
SUCHACKA M. Corporate digital responsibility new challenges to the social sciences[J]. International Journal of Research in E-learning, 2019, 5(1): 5-20.
[14]
HERDEN C J, ALLIU E, CAKICI A, et al. Corporate digital responsibility: New corporate responsibilities in the digital age[J]. Sustainability Management Forum, 2021, 29(2): 13-29.
[15]
SCHWARTZ M, CARROLL A B. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2003, 13(4): 503-530.
Extrapolating from Carroll’s four domains of corporate social responsibility (1979) and Pyramid of CSR (1991), an alternative approach to conceptualizing corporate social responsibility (CSR) is proposed. A three-domain approach is presented in which the three core domains of economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities are depicted in a Venn model framework. The Venn framework yields seven CSR categories resulting from the overlap of the three core domains. Corporate examples are suggested and classified according to the new model, followed by a discussion of limitations and teaching and research implications.
[16]
AGUDELO M, JOHANNSDOTTIR L, DAVIDSDOTTIR B A. A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility[J]. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2019, 4(1): 1-23.
[17]
MIHALE-WILSON C, HINZ O, VAN DER AALST W, et al. Corporate digital responsibility[J]. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 2022, 64(2): 127-132.
[18]
VAN DER AALST W M, BICHLER M, HEINAL A. Responsible data science[J]. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 2017,59: 311-313.
[19]
WIRTZ J, HARTLEY N, KUNZ W H, et al. Corporate digital responsibility at the dawn of the digital service revolution[J]. Available at SSRN, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3806235.
[20]
LIU B, DE GIOVANNI P. Green process innovation through industry 4.0 technologies and supply chain coordination[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1): 1-36.
[21]
DU S, BHATTACHARYA C B, SEN S. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2020, 12(1): 8-19.
[22]
CHOI H, PARK J, JUNG Y. The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018,81: 42-51.
[23]
YANG X H, RIVERS C. Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs' subsidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional perspective[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2009, 86(2): 155-169.
[24]
刘海建, 李纪琛, 李颖, 等. 元宇宙移动互联下企业数字责任创新[J]. 科研管理, 2024, 45(05): 65-74.
LIU Haijian, LI Jichen, LI Ying, et al. Research on the innovation of corporate digital responsibilities under the metaverse mobile internet[J]. Science Research Management, 2024, 45(5): 65-74.
[25]
KRYSCYNSKI D, COFF R, CAMPBELL B. Charting a path between firm-specific incentives and human capital-based competitive advantage[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2021, 42(2): 386-412.
[26]
DE OLIVEIRA SANTINI F, LADERIA W J, PINTO D C, et al. Customer engagement in social media: A framework and meta-analysis[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2020, 48(6): 1211-1228.
[27]
SAXTON G D, GOMEZ L, NGOH Z, et al. Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms' CSR efforts on social media[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, 155(2): 359-377.
[28]
HAN S H, LIU Z Y, DENG Z Y, et al. Exploring the effect of digital CSR communication on firm performance: A deep learning approach[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2024,176: 114047.
[29]
KORSCHUN D, DU S. How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value: A framework and propositions[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2013, 66(9): 1494-1504.
[30]
THAI H V, HUE T H H, CHEN P F, et al. Unraveling the influence of human capital and stakeholder engagement on corporate digital responsibility: Implications for firm performance in Southeast Asia enterprises[J]. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 2023, 31(3): 1934-1958.
[31]
ZWITTER A. Big data ethics[J]. Big Data and Society, 2014, 1(2): 1-6.
[32]
TOST L P. When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2015,35: 29-56.
[33]
LWIN M, WIRTZ J, WILLIAM J D. Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: A power-responsibility equilibrium perspective[J]. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 2007, 35(4): 572-585.
[34]
BANDARA R, FERNANDO M, AKTER S. Addressing privacy predicaments in the digital marketplace: A power-relations perspective[J]. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2020, 44 (5) : 423-434.
[35]
VAN DYKE T, MIDHA V, NEMATI H. The effect of consumer privacy empowerment on trust and privacy concerns in e-commerce[J]. Electronic Markets, 2007,17: 68-81.
[36]
KIM K, KIM J. Third-party privacy certification as an online advertising strategy: An investigation of the factors affecting the relationship between third-party certification and initial trust[J]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2011, 25(3): 145-158.
The purpose of this study is to assess the possibility of implementing an online advertising strategy using a well-known third-party privacy seal located on the order page of an unfamiliar online retailer. An online experiment was conducted with 223 participants using a 2 (third-party seal: present vs. absent) × 2 (purchase-decision involvement: low vs. high) × 2 (disposition to trust: low vs. high) × 2 (privacy-protection self-efficacy: low vs. high) between-subjects design. The results provide evidence of trust transference from a well-known third-party seal to an unfamiliar retailer website, indicating that seal presence raised initial trust in the website and that the effects of seal presence were mediated by perceived privacy empowerment. Results also indicate that the seal effects were moderated by the level of purchase-decision involvement, disposition to trust, and self-efficacy. Theoretical explanations and managerial implications are discussed.
[37]
GUPTA S, NAWAZ N, ALFALAH A A, et al. The relationship of CSR communication on social media with consumer purchase intention and brand admiration[J]. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2021, 16(5): 1217-1230.
With the advent of the Internet and other digital technologies, contemporary businesses from all sectors are using social media for communication with consumers to engage them meaningfully with a brand. However, the use of social media for corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication is relatively new to the existing literature. Likewise, the impact of CSR communication through social media (CSR-S) on consumer emotions and behavior is, to date, underexplored. To address this, the present research aims to test the relationship of CSR-S on brand admiration and consumer purchase intention. The study proposes a direct relationship between CSR-S and purchase intention with a mediating effect of brand admiration. The data were collected from the banking consumers of Pakistan through a self-administered questionnaire. The authors distributed 800 questionnaires and received 463 questionnaires useful for data analysis, so the present research study response rate was around 59%. The data were analyzed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique in AMOS. The results revealed that CSR-S is positively related to purchase intention (β = 0.233). The results further showed that brand admiration partially mediates this relationship (β = 0.079). The survey respondents confirmed that their bank’s CSR communication helps enhance their purchase likelihood and their feelings of admiration for their bank. These findings will help policymakers at banking institutions better understand the importance of CSR communication on different social media platforms to achieve consumer-related outcomes.
[38]
GREENAWAY K E, CHAN Y E, CROSSLER R E. Firm information privacy orientation: A conceptual framework[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2015, 25(6): 579-606.
[39]
HOPPNER J J, VADAKKEPATT G G. Examining moral authority in the marketplace: A conceptualization and framework[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2019, 95(2): 417-427.
[40]
WIRTZ J, SO K K F, MODY M, et al. Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy[J]. Journal of Service Management, 2019, 30(4): 452-483.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine peer-to-peer sharing platform business models, their sources of competitive advantage, and the roles, motivations and behaviors of key actors in their ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a conceptual approach that is rooted in the service, tourism and hospitality, and strategy literature. Findings First, this paper defines key types of platform business models in the sharing economy anddescribes their characteristics. In particular, the authors propose the differentiation between sharing platforms of capacity-constrained vs capacity-unconstrained assets and advance five core properties of the former. Second, the authors contrast platform business models with their pipeline business model counterparts to understand the fundamental differences between them. One important conclusion is that platforms cater to vastly more heterogeneous assets and consumer needs and, therefore, require liquidity and analytics for high-quality matching. Third, the authors examine the competitive position of platforms and conclude that their widely taken "winner takes it all" assumption is not valid. Primary network effects are less important once a critical level of liquidity has been reached and may even turn negative if increased listings raise friction in the form of search costs. Once a critical level of liquidity has been reached, a platform's competitive position depends on stakeholder trust and service provider and user loyalty. Fourth, the authors integrate and synthesize the literature on key platform stakeholders of platform businesses (i.e. users, service providers, and regulators) and their roles and motivations. Finally, directions for further research are advanced. Practical implications - This paper helps platform owners, service providers and users understand better the implications of sharing platform business models and how to position themselves in such ecosystems. Originality/value This paper integrates the extant literature on sharing platforms, takes a novel approach in delineating their key properties and dimensions, and provides insights into the evolving and dynamic forms of sharing platforms including converging business models.
[41]
RINK O. Reputation management and a corporate identity: Transition to digital platforms[M]// KUZNETSOV M Y, NIKUSHOVA M I. Challenges and opportunities of corporate governance transformation in the digital era. Hershey: IGI Global, 2020: 35-60.
[42]
TIAN Z, YANG W W. Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2011, 101(2): 197-212.

基金

国家自然科学基金项目:“数字服务化场景中制造商对互补者的治理机制研究:基于社会-技术的整合框架”(72272058,2023.01—2026.12)

PDF(1898 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/