PDF(1662 KB)
The paradox of corporate digital responsibility: Manifestations, causes and coping strategies
Wang Chao, Guo Dong, Guo Hai
Science Research Management ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (5) : 1-11.
PDF(1662 KB)
PDF(1662 KB)
The paradox of corporate digital responsibility: Manifestations, causes and coping strategies
How to construct a responsible digital strategy system in the era of digital economy is a critical issue for enterprises' sustainable development and the health of digital ecosystem. However, enterprises are confronted with multiple tensions and management challenges in the process of fulfilling digital responsibilities. Based on a systematic review of the literature on corporate digital responsibility (CDR), this paper explicitly proposed the core issue of the "corporate digital responsibility paradox", and constructed an analytical framework centered on the logical progression of "paradox manifestations - paradox causes - coping strategies" for CDR. This study found that: (1) The multi-dimensional manifestations of CDR paradoxes include the rule-following paradox, the attribution paradox, the content paradox, and the efficacy paradox; (2) The main causes of CDR paradoxes include technical roots, economic motivations, conditions for intensifying contradictions and multi-dimensional influencing factors; (3) To deal with CDR paradoxes, a two-dimensional analysis matrix of "time-structure" can be adopted. Based on the bottom-line thinking and integrative thinking, differentiated strategies such as situational synergy, dynamic complementarity and structural balance can be used to promote CDR paradox management. This study has introduced the paradox theory into the field of CDR research, revealing the inherent complexity of CDR strategic management. The research conclusions will deepen the theoretical research on CDR and provide useful references for enterprises to implement digital responsibility strategies and effectively respond to digital responsibility paradoxes.
corporate digital responsibility / paradox / digital ethics / digital value
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
肖红军. 全面数字责任管理: 企业数字责任实施范式的新进阶[J]. 经济管理, 2023, 45(9): 5-27.
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
罗喜英, 谢任依, 刘伟. 组态视域下基于扎根理论的平台企业数字责任异化的诱发路径分析[J]. 软科学, 2025, 39(2): 16-24.
|
| [8] |
杨栩, 连志凤. 企业数字责任、数字信任与企业高质量发展[J]. 中国软科学, 2023(1): 145-155.
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
姜雨峰, 黄斯琦, 潘楚林, 等. 企业数字责任: 数字时代企业社会责任的理论拓展与价值意蕴[J]. 南开管理评论, 2024, 27(3): 245-258.
|
| [12] |
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(5): 65-74.
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
Ethical, social and human rights aspects of computing technologies have been discussed since the inception of these technologies. In the 1980s, this led to the development of a discourse often referred to as computer ethics. More recently, since the middle of the 2010s, a highly visible discourse on the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) has developed. This paper discusses the relationship between these two discourses and compares their scopes, the topics and issues they cover, their theoretical basis and reference disciplines, the solutions and mitigations options they propose and their societal impact. The paper argues that an understanding of the similarities and differences of the discourses can benefit the respective discourses individually. More importantly, by reviewing them, one can draw conclusions about relevant features of the next discourse, the one we can reasonably expect to follow after the ethics of AI. The paper suggests that instead of focusing on a technical artefact such as computers or AI, one should focus on the fact that ethical and related issues arise in the context of socio-technical systems. Drawing on the metaphor of ecosystems which is widely applied to digital technologies, it suggests preparing for a discussion of the ethics of digital ecosystems. Such a discussion can build on and benefit from a more detailed understanding of its predecessors in computer ethics and the ethics of AI.
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
隋婷婷. 无人驾驶的“有人”困境[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 2023, 45(5): 112-118.
|
| [19] |
肖红军, 张丽丽, 阳镇. 欧盟数字科技伦理监管: 进展及启示[J]. 改革, 2023(7): 73-89.
|
| [20] |
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(4): 200-226.
|
| [21] |
戚聿东, 肖旭. 数字经济时代的企业管理变革[J]. 管理世界, 2020(6): 135-152+250.
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
王超, 郭海. 开放悖论视角下战略信息披露对数字企业绩效的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2024, 21(6): 821-830.
基于开放悖论视角，考察数字企业战略信息披露引致的合法性与竞争之间的张力及其绩效结果。利用中国数字化上市公司2012~2020年的非平衡面板数据，研究发现：战略信息披露与数字企业绩效呈U形关系，企业创新水平、市场集中度和行业透明度使该U形关系趋于平缓，并使其翻转为倒U形。基于数字情境异质性视角的对比分析发现，在数字企业、数字经济水平较高的地区和数字经济核心产业中，战略信息披露与绩效的U形关系更显著。
Based on the open paradox perspective, this study investigates the tension between organizational legitimacy and competition caused by strategic information disclosure of digital firms, and examines its performance implications. Using unbalanced panel data of Chinese digital listed companies from 2012 to 2020, we find that strategic information disclosure has a U-shaped relationship with digital firm performance. The level of firm innovation, market concentration and industry transparency flatten the U-shaped relationship and invert it into an inverted U-shaped relationship. Comparative analysis based on the perspective of digital context heterogeneity found that, the U-shaped relationship between strategic information disclosure and performance is magnified in digital firms, regions with higher level of digital economy and core industries of digital economy.
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
焦豪, 杨季枫. 数字技术开源社区的治理机制: 基于悖论视角的双案例研究[J]. 管理世界, 2022, 38(11): 207-232.
|
| [26] |
The complexity of current social and environmental grand challenges generates many conflicts and tensions at the individual, organization and/or systems levels. Paradox theory has emerged as a promising way to approach such a complexity of corporate sustainability going beyond the instrumental business-case perspective and achieving superior sustainability performance. However, the fuzziness in the empirical use of the concept of “paradox” and the absence of a systems perspective limits its potential. In this paper, we perform a systematic review and content analysis of the empirical literature related to paradox and sustainability, offering a useful guide for researchers who intend to adopt the concept of “paradox” empirically. Our analysis provides a comprehensive account of the uses of the construct - which allows the categorization of the literature into three distinct research streams: 1) paradoxical tensions, 2) paradoxical frame/thinking, and 3) paradoxical actions/strategies - and a comprehensive overview of the findings that emerge in each of the three. Further, by adopting a system perspective, we propose a theoretical framework that considers possible interconnections across the identified paradoxical meanings and different levels of analysis (individual, organizational, systems) and discuss key research gaps emerging. Finally, we reflect on the role a clear notion of paradox can have in supporting business ethics scholars in developing a more “immanent” evaluation of corporate sustainability, overcoming the current instrumental view.
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
Building on recent developments in optimal distinctiveness (OD) research, we identify two dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices – CSR scope conformity and CSR emphasis differentiation – and examine the antecedents of both. We theorize that private ownership and enhanced media coverage may increase scope conformity and emphasis differentiation, while such effects may be contingent on industrial context. In socially contested industries, the impact of private ownership on scope conformity will be mitigated, and the impact of media coverage on scope conformity will be amplified. Meanwhile, in highly competitive industries, the impact of private ownership and media coverage on emphasis differentiation will be mitigated. We test our predictions using a database of 942 Chinese publicly listed firms between 2008 and 2016. Our findings imply that the choice of optimal CSR strategy has to be made in accordance with the embedding context. The multidimensionality view of OD enables firms to better orchestrate firms’ strategic positioning along different dimensions of complex practices, which leads to better customization of societal expectations and the industrial competitive landscape.
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
Managing artificial intelligence (AI) marks the dawn of a new age of information technology management. Managing AI involves communicating, leading, coordinating, and controlling an ever-evolving frontier of computational advancements that references human intelligence in addressing ever more complex decisionmaking problems. It means making decisions about three related, interdependent facets of AI—autonomy, learning, and inscrutability—in the ongoing quest to push the frontiers of performance and scope of AI. We demonstrate how the frontiers of AI have shifted with time, and explain how the seven exemplar studies included in this special issue are helping us learn about management at the frontiers of AI. We close by speculating about future frontiers in managing AI and what role information systems scholarship has in exploring and shaping this future.
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
肖红军, 张哲, 王欣. 数字平台企业社会价值共创的实现机制:基于美团“青山计划”的纵向案例研究[J]. 管理世界, 2024, 40(10): 146-171.
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
郭海, 李永慧, 赵雁飞. 求同还是存异?最优区分研究回顾与展望[J]. 南开管理评论, 2020, 23(6): 214-224.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
