Corporate digital responsibility:Structural exploration, measurement development and application validation

Liu Hailong, Yan Tingting

Science Research Management ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (10) : 128-137.

PDF(1276 KB)
PDF(1276 KB)
Science Research Management ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (10) : 128-137. DOI: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2026.10.013  CSTR: 32148.14.kygl.2026.10.013

Corporate digital responsibility:Structural exploration, measurement development and application validation

Author information +
History +

Abstract

With the deep penetration of digital technologies, while pursuing efficiency and competitiveness, enterprises are also confronted with digital ethical risks such as data misuse and algorithmic discrimination. Consequently, corporate digital responsibility (CDR) has increasingly attracted scholarly attention. However, extant studies on CDR still face challenges such as ambiguous conceptual definitions, fragmented dimensional structures, and weak measurement approaches, which constrain further theoretical exploration. This study aims to construct a structural framework and measurement scheme for CDR. First, building on a review of extant conceptual research, this study develops a digitalization-centered structural framework of CDR. In this framework, corporate social responsibility serves as an overarching value anchor at the upper level, while digital elements, digital technologies, digital management, and digital value constitute the core architecture following a dynamic "starting point-process-governance-outcomes" logic, through which CDR is articulated and operationalized. Second, a measurement scheme for CDR is designed by integrating procedures and methods including the construction of a feature lexicon, natural language processing, corporate impression management correction, and data calibration. Finally, the automotive manufacturing industry is selected for empirical measurement, providing initial evidence for the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. This study contributes to enhancing the clarity and measurability of CDR concept, not only laying a foundational for variable construction and measurement in quantitative research, but also providing referential indicators and a feasible scheme for assessing CDR.

Key words

corporate digital responsibility (CDR) / digitalization / structural framework / measurement / natural language processing (NLP)

Cite this article

Download Citations
Liu Hailong , Yan Tingting. Corporate digital responsibility:Structural exploration, measurement development and application validation[J]. Science Research Management. 2026, 47(10): 128-137 https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2026.10.013

References

[1]
Shin H H, Lee M, Lee S A, et al. The impacts of corporate digital irresponsibility (CDiR) and corporate digital responsibility (CDR) communications on consumers' brand perceptions[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2025, 129:104184.
[2]
杨萍, 彭正银, 纪春礼. 基于消费者感知视角的企业数字责任:结构维度、量表开发与检验[J]. 管理评论, 2025, 37(5):145-156.
Yang Ping, Peng Zhengyin, Ji Chunli. Corporate digital responsibility based on consumer perception perspective:Construct dimensions,scale development and validation[J]. Management Review, 2025, 37(5):145-156.
[3]
Wirtz J, Kunz W H, Hartley N, et al. Corporate digital responsibility in service firms and their ecosystems[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2023, 26(2):173-190.
Digitization, artificial intelligence, and service robots carry serious ethical, privacy, and fairness risks. Using the lens of corporate digital responsibility (CDR), we examine these risks and their mitigation in service firms and make five contributions. First, we show that CDR is critical in service contexts because of the vast streams of customer data involved and digital service technology’s omnipresence, opacity, and complexity. Second, we synthesize the ethics, privacy, and fairness literature using the CDR data and technology life-cycle perspective to understand better the nature of these risks in a service context. Third, to provide insights on the origins of these risks, we examine the digital service ecosystem and the related flows of money, service, data, insights, and technologies. Fourth, we deduct that the underlying causes of CDR issues are trade-offs between good CDR practices and organizational objectives (e.g., profit opportunities versus CDR risks) and introduce the CDR calculus to capture this. We also conclude that regulation will need to step in when a firm’s CDR calculus becomes so negative that good CDR is unlikely. Finally, we advance a set of strategies, tools, and practices service firms can use to manage these trade-offs and build a strong CDR culture.
[4]
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.
Jiang Yufeng, Huang Siqi, Pan Chulin, et al. Corporate digital responsibility:Theoretical development and value implication of corporate social responsibility in the digital Age[J]. Nankai Business Review, 2024, 27(3):245-258.
[5]
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.
[6]
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.
Xiao Hongjun. Total corporate digital responsibility management:A new upgraded implementation paradigm of corporate digital responsibility[J]. Business and Management Journal, 2023, 45(9):5-27.
[7]
杨栩, 连志凤. 伪数字信任对企业创新的影响研究[J]. 科研管理, 2026, 47(4):54-64.
Yang Xu, Lian Zhifeng. Research on the impact of pseudo-digital trust on corporate innovation[J]. Science Research Management, 2026, 47(4):54-64.
[8]
柯健, 余安帝. 企业数字责任对企业价值的影响:基于互联网平台企业的组态分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2024, 56(5):145-159+174.
Ke Jian, Yu Andi. The impact of corporate digital responsibility on enterprise value:A configuration analysis based on internet platform enterprises[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2024, 56(5):145-159+174.
[9]
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.
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.
[10]
Cooper T, Siu J, Wei K. Corporate digital responsibility:Doing well by doing good[EB/OL]. Accenture Outlook, 2015. https://www.criticaleye.com/inspiring/insights-servfile.cfm?id=4431.
[11]
Trier M, Kundisch D, Beverungen D, et al. Digital responsibility:A multilevel framework for responsible digitalization[J]. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2023, 65(4):463-474.
[12]
Andersen N. Redesigning corporate responsibility:How digitalization changes the role companies need to play for positive impacts on society[M]// Redesigning organizations:Concepts for the connected society. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019:137-147.
[13]
Lobschat L, Mueller B, Eggers F, et al. Corporate digital responsibility[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 122:875-888.
[14]
Weißenberger B E, Marrocco A. Corporate digital responsibility und ihre integration in die unternehmensführung[J]. Handbuch Digitalisierung, 2022:41-58.
[15]
Schneider G. Framing accountability in business-to-government data sharing:The gap filling role of businesses' corporate digital responsibility[J]. European Business Law Review, 2022, 33(6):957-990.
This study questions the accountability gap in business-to-government data sharing: if most European policy efforts are being devoted to the objective of unlocking private datasets for the “public good” under the EU Strategy for data, less attention has been given to the subsequent moment of the performance and execution of business-togovernment data sharing agreements in a transparent and accountable manner to the public that should benefit from these. Given the accountability gaps left open by both public and the data protection regulations in the context of business-to-government data sharing, the analysis focuses on the notion of corporate digital responsibility as a gap-filler between public law-based and data protection-law based accountability models. The consideration of the specific problem of businesses’ accountability in B2G data sharing enables to contextualise the debate on the possible contribution of corporations to welfare objectives in the digital economy.
[16]
Cheng C, Zhang M. Conceptualizing corporate digital responsibility:A digital technology development perspective[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(3):2319.
[17]
罗喜英, 谢任依, 郭伟. 企业数字责任制度推进算法向善:内在逻辑和实现路径[J]. 财会月刊, 2023, 44(23):104-110.
Luo Xiying, Xie Renyi, Guo Wei. Promoting algorithmic good through the institutional advancement of corporate digital responsibility:Internal logic and implementation pathways[J]. Finance and Accounting Monthly, 2023, 44(23):104-110.
[18]
Trittin-Ulbrich H, Böckel A. Institutional entrepreneurship for responsible digital innovation:The case of corporate digital responsibility[J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2022, 31(3):447-459.
[19]
林欣, 杜国梓, 林素絮. 数字化转型能够改善企业社会责任履行吗:基于资源获取与公司治理视角的分析[J]. 金融经济学研究, 2023, 38(6):114-127.
Lin Xin, Du Guozi, Lin Suxu. Can digital transformation improve corporate social responsibility performance? An analysis from the perspectives of resource acquisition and corporate governance[J]. Financial Economics Research, 2023, 38(6):114-127.
[20]
Mueller B. Corporate digital responsibility[J]. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2022, 64(5):689-700.
[21]
申渊源, 朱宏博, 乔志林. 数字经济、数字化转型与企业核心竞争力[J]. 西安财经大学学报, 2024, 37(2):72-84.
Shen Yuanyuan, Zhu Hongbo, Qiao Zhilin. Digital economy,digital transformation and enterprise core competitiveness[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Finance and Economics, 2024, 37(2):72-84.
[22]
Stahl B C. From corporate digital responsibility to responsible digital ecosystems[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16(12):4972.
[23]
Van Der Merwe J, Achkar Z A. Data responsibility,corporate social responsibility,and corporate digital responsibility[J]. Data & Policy, 2022, 4:e12.
[24]
Girrbach P. Corporate responsibility in the context of digitalization[J]. Technical Journal, 2021, 15(3):422-428.
[25]
Pelters E. Corporate digital responsibility:Understanding and applying[M]// Digitalization,digital transformation and sustainability in the global economy:Risks and opportunities. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021:71-84.
[26]
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.
[27]
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.
He Yuanqiong, Meng Jiaqi. Corporate digital responsibilities:A literature review and prospects[J]. Science Research Management, 2025, 46(9):1-12.
[28]
Dorr S. Corporate digital responsibility:Managing corporate responsibility and sustainability in the digital age[M]. Berlin,Heidelberg:Springer, 2021.
[29]
Mihale-Wilson C, Hinz O, Van Der Aalst W, et al. Corporate digital responsibility:Relevance and opportunities for business and information systems engineering[J]. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2022, 64(2):127-132.
[30]
Carroll A B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders[J]. Business Horizons, 1991, 34(4):39-48.
[31]
刘海建, 李纪琛. 制造业企业如何实现高质量平台化转型?:基于企业数字责任研究视角[J]. 科学学研究, 2026, 44(2):386-396.
Liu Haijian, Li Jichen. How can manufacturing enterprises achieve high-quality platform transformation? Evidence from the perspective of corporate digital responsibility[J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2026, 44(2):386-396.
[32]
Papyshev G, Chan K J D. Corporate digital responsibility for AI:Towards a disclosure framework[M]// Artificial intelligence,finance,and sustainability:Economic,ecological,and ethical implications.. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024:265-285.
[33]
Dorr S, Lautermann C. Beyond direct stakeholders:The extensive scope of societal corporate digital responsibility (CDR)[J]. Organizational Dynamics, 2024, 53(2):101057.
[34]
肖红军. 共享价值式企业社会责任范式的反思与超越[J]. 管理世界, 2020, 36(5):87-115+133+13.
Xiao Hongjun. The reflection and transcendence of the creating shared value as a corporate social responsibility paradigm[J]. Journal of Management World, 2020, 36(5):87-115+133+13.
[35]
冉戎, 董迪, 胡轩, 等. 抑制或促进:企业社会责任与绿色创新绩效[J]. 科研管理, 2023, 44(6):95-106.
Ran Rong, Dong Di, Hu Xuan, et al. Inhibited or promoted:Corporate social responsibility and green technology innovation performance of enterprises[J]. Science Research Management, 2023, 44(6):95-106.
[36]
肖红军. ESG发展20年:回溯与瞻望[J]. 西安交通大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 45(1):1-12.
Xiao Hongjun. 20 Years of ESG development:Backtrack and prospect[J]. Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University (Social Sciences), 2025, 45(1):1-12.
[37]
Paul J, Ueno A, Dennis C, et al. Digital transformation:A multidisciplinary perspective and future research agenda[J]. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2024, 48(2):e13015.
[38]
Lin Q. The theoretical framework of enterprise digital innovation:Insights from a qualitative meta-analysis[J]. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2024, 27(6):2149-2172.
This study aims to excavate the external and internal driving factors of enterprise digital innovation and further condense the function mechanisms and response actions of the innovation process as well as the final innovation outcomes to propose the theoretical framework of enterprise digital innovation with the logic thread of “innovation motivation–innovation process–innovation result”.
[39]
张京唐, 邓明磊, 殷旺来. “附近”的再生产:技术赋能与社区治理共同体建构:以杭州市L社区为例[J]. 电子政务, 2025(12):21-31.
Zhang Jingtang, Deng Minglei, Yin Wanglai. Reproducing "nearby":Technology-empowered community governance and collective construction:A case study of Hangzhou's L community[J]. E-Government, 2025(12):21-31.
[40]
吴非, 胡慧芷, 林慧妍, 等. 企业数字化转型与资本市场表现:来自股票流动性的经验证据[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(7):130-144+10.
Wu Fei, Hu Huizhi, Lin Huiyan, et al. Enterprise digital transformation and capital market performance:Empirical evidence from stock liquidity[J]. Journal of Management World, 2021, 37(7):130-144+10.
[41]
Gursoy D, Baser G, Chi C G. Corporate digital responsibility:Navigating ethical,societal,and environmental challenges in the digital age and exploring future research directions[J]. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 2025, 34(3):305-324.
[42]
Merbecks U. Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) in Germany:Background and first empirical evidence from DAX 30 companies in 2020[J]. Journal of Business Economics, 2024, 94(7):1025-1049.
Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) is a recently developing new management concept in response to the increasing challenges caused by digital transformation. In Germany, this self-governance approach influenced the political discussions and led to a more integrative and collaborative multi-policy strategy beyond pure regulatory regimes. The launch of the German CDR-code by the German action group in June 2021 is a milestone to capture ethical problems in digitalised firms by voluntary commitments from signatories. However, little empirical evidence on the current state of CDR-initiatives at German corporations is available up-to now. This article addresses the identified research gap by performing a qualitative analysis of the disclosed information on CDR in nonfinancial reports of the DAX 30 companies from 2020. After a brief introduction, a literature review on CDR-related research activities is presented in Sect. 2, and the context and background of the study are specified. Section 3 presents the results of the empirical study on disclosed CDR-related information by German DAX 30 companies. Section 4 concludes with a discussion and discovers future research avenues on CDR. Corporate responsibility in the digital economy is a field of research that is open for different disciplines and especially theoretical normative research on CDR should be accelerated.
[43]
Chen J, Henry E, Jiang X. Is cybersecurity risk factor disclosure informative? Evidence from disclosures following a data breach[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2023, 187(1):199-224.
By examining managers’ decisions about disclosing updated assessments of firms’ risks, we present evidence that the risk factor disclosures are informative. We use the setting of cybersecurity risk factor disclosures after a data breach because data breaches, especially severe breaches, serve as a natural experiment where an exogenous shock to managers’ assessment of their firm’s cybersecurity risks occurs. We analyze the topic from the perspective of two different theoretical lenses: the economic lens of optimal risk exposure and the ethical lens of stakeholder theory. Using a sample of firms experiencing data breaches, we find that firms experiencing a data breach increase the amount of cybersecurity risk factor disclosures compared to matched firms with no data breach. Further investigation reveals that the severity of data breaches affects the results; cybersecurity risk factor disclosures increase only after severe data breaches. While there is no significant market reaction if breached firms’ subsequent annual reports include increased cybersecurity risk factor disclosures, a significant negative market reaction occurs if breached firms decrease cybersecurity risk factor disclosures, regardless of the severity of the breach, implying that the market anticipates increased disclosures after data breaches.
[44]
李鑫, 余典范, 王超. 数字化披露:“多言寡行”还是“言出必行”?:基于上市公司年报文本的研究[J]. 财经研究, 2024, 50(11):19-33.
Li Xin, Yu Dianfan, Wang Chao. Digital disclosure:Cheap talk or walking the talk? A study based on annual reports of listed companies[J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2024, 50(11):19-33.
[45]
Bernini F, Ferretti P, Gonnella C, et al. Measuring machinewashing under the corporate digital responsibility theory:A proposal for a methodological path[J]. Business Ethics,the Environment & Responsibility, 2025, 34(2):328-346.
PDF(1276 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉