Research on the decision drivers of platform corporate digital responsibility behavior

Tianqiong Li; Bixiang Zhu

doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v14i.110

Authors

Tianqiong Li
Bixiang Zhu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v14i.110

Keywords:

platform enterprise, corporate digital responsibility, decision drivers, institutional theory.

Abstract

As digital technology and related data become more and more common, the lack of user data protection and personal privacy leakage become more serious. In the era of big data, platform corporate social responsibility is facing more challenges, and platform enterprises should pay more attention to corporate digital responsibility. This paper studies the research status and development trend of platform corporate social responsibility, especially corporate digital responsibility, under the background of digital transformation. The main content covers the implications of platform corporate social responsibility and the new challenges posed by digital change, differentiates corporate digital responsibility (CDR) from corporate social responsibility (CSR) to highlight their uniqueness, while also linking the two, and identifying key stakeholders and critical phases that CDR must address. That is technology and data creation, operation, impact assessment and refinement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Xiao Hongjun, Li Ping. Ecological governance of platform corporate social responsibility [J]. Management World, 2019, 35(4): 120-144, 196.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, USA.

Yang Zhen, Xu Yingjie. Corporate Social responsibility governance under the background of platform economy [J]. Enterprise Economics, 2018, 37(5).

Yang Zhen. Platform corporate social responsibility: Boundary, governance and evaluation. Economist, 2018, 233(5): 79-88.

Li Guangqian, Tao Tao. Ecological e-commerce platform and platform governance policy [J]. Management World, 2018, 34(6): 104-109.

Xiao Hongjun, Yang Zhen. Platform corporate social responsibility governance: Theoretical differentiation and research prospects [J]. Journal of Xi 'an Jiaotong University (Social Science Edition), 2020, 40(1): 57-68.

Zhou Zucheng. Analysis and research suggestions on key issues of corporate social responsibility [J]. Journal of Management, 2017, 14(5).

Luo Min, Du Huayong. The substantial choice of platform leadership [J]. China Industrial Economics, 2018, 359(2): 82-99.

PARKER G, VAN ALSTYNE M, CHOUDARY S. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you[M]. New York: w. w. Norton, 2016.

PRAHALAD C K, RAMASW AMY V. Co-opting customer competence [J]. Harvard Business Review,2000.78(1):79-87.

Lara Lobschat, et al. Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/101016/j. jbusres.2019 .10 .006.

Schwartz, M., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.

Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8), 114–117.

Soltani, A. (2019). Abusability testing: Considering the ways your technology might be used for harm. Enigma 2019. Burlingame, CA, USA.

Hinings B, Gegenhuer T, Greenwood R. Digital innovation and ransformation: An institutional perspective [J]. Information and Organization, 2018, 28(1): 52-61.

Meyer J, Rowan B, Chirikov I S, et al. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony [J]. Economic Sociology, 2011, 12(1): 43-67.

Scott WR. 1994. Institutional analysis: variance and process theory approaches. In Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism, Scott RW, Meyer IW (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 81–99.

Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology83:340–363.

Chen Yujiao, SONG Tiebo, Huang Jianbin. Enterprise Digital Transformation: "Follow the Market" or "When in Rome, Do as the Romans do"? - based on system theory and cognitive theory of decision-making process studies [J/OL]. Science research,2021.1-15.

Heugens PP, Lander MW. 2009. Structure! Agency! (And other quarrels): a meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization Academy of Management Journal52: 6 1–85.

Schoemaker, P. J., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15–42.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30 (2), 341–361.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B. T., & Roubaud, D. (2018). Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using institutional and upper echelon theories. International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2988–3006.

DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.

Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.