When companies use digital technology to seize new opportunities, they encounter the problem of insufficient cognition and new knowledge, which affects the responsibility of companies when using digital technology to carry out entrepreneurial activities and leads to some adverse consequences. The responsibility in the process of entrepreneurship mainly refers to the enterprise in the process of developing new products and services, involving digital technology, can take the initiative to assume digital responsibilities, protect the data privacy security of users and stakeholders, and comply with the operation.
Objective
Based on the different knowledge habits in organizations, this paper explores the differentiation mechanism of experience and learning attributes in knowledge inertia when enterprises achieve corporate entrepreneurship through digital responsibility guided by organizational learning from organizational learning theory.
Methods
669 middle and senior managers’ questionnaire data are analyzed.
Results
It showed that corporate digital responsibility positively affects corporate entrepreneurship and that organizational learning mediates the positive impact of corporate digital responsibility on corporate entrepreneurship. However, if organizations follow the learning inertia and actively update their knowledge, the relationship between digital responsibility and organizational learning will be positive; if organizations are confined to the inertia of experience and do not want to change, the relationship will turn from positive to negative.
Conclusions
Organizations should practice learning inertia to continuously improve their cognitive level and update their knowledge when using digital technologies for corporate entrepreneurship.
ChenYFXuJ. Digital transformation and firm cost stickiness: evidence from China. Finance Res. Lett2023; 52: 103510.
2.
CuiXPingrui Li. Digital economy, environmental expenditure, and green total factor productivity. Finance Res Lett2025; 73: 106624.
3.
YuliZXiaoFLiT. Digital innovation-driven entrepreneurship of large enterprises: practical innovation and theoretical challenges. Sci Res Manag2022; 43(5): 1.
4.
D’AngeloSCavalloAGhezziA, et al.Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda. Rev Manag Scie2024; 18: 1–56.
5.
AldrichH. Organizations evolving[M]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, 1999.
6.
VialG. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Sys2019; 28(2): 118–144.
7.
XiaoHShangH. Digital corporate social responsibility: current situation, problems and countermeasures. Rev. Ind. Econ2022; 6: 133–152.
8.
RosenblatAStarkL. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of uber's drivers. Social Science Electronic Publishing2015; 8583(4); 07.
9.
MurilloDBucklandHValE. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: unravelling the controversies. Technol Forecast Soc Change2017; 125: 66–76.
10.
BonsónEBednárováMPereaD. Disclosures about algorithmic decision making in the corporate reports of western European companied. Int J Accout Inf Sys2023; 48: 1–13.
11.
BerenteNGuBReckerJ, et al.Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Q2021; 45(3): 1433–1450.
12.
BrubakerK. Artificial Intelligence: Issues of Consumer Privacy, Industry Risks, and Ethical Concerns. Utica: Utica College2018.
13.
IraniL. “The cultural work of microwork”. New Media Soc2015; 17(5): 720–739.
14.
SleeT. “What's Yours is Mine: Against the sharing economy”. New York: Or Books, 2016.
15.
ElliottKPriceRShawP, et al.Towards an equitable digital society: artificial intelligence (AI) and corporate digital responsibility (CDR). Soc2021; 58: 179–188.
16.
BednárováMSerpeninovaY. Corporate digital responsibility: bibliometric landscape-chronological literature review. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research2023; 23: 1–18.
17.
LeeH-KParkJ-E. (2022). Digital responsibility insights from A CROSS-CULTURAL design thinking workshop for creativity. Creativity studies.
18.
AndersenN. Redesigning corporate responsibility how digitalization changes the role companies need to play for positive impacts on society. In: FeldnerD (ed). Redesigning Organizations. Cham: Springer, 2020.
19.
WadeM. Corporate Responsibility in the Digital Era. Cambridge: MIT Sloan Management Review, 2020.
20.
JonesPComfortD. Corporate digital responsibility in the hospitality industry. Athens Journal of Tourism2021; 8(1): 9–18.
21.
MuellerB. Corporate digital responsibility. Bus Inf Syst Eng2022; 64(5): 689–700.
22.
NapoliF. Corporate digital responsibility: a board of directors may encourage the environmentally responsible use of digital technology and data: empirical evidence from Italian publicly listed companies. Sustainability2023; 15(3): 2539.
23.
AldeiaSMonteiroMCondeR, et al.Corporate social responsibility dimensions and sustainable entrepreneurship. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ECIE. Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited, 2021: 1–7.
24.
AfsarBAl-GhazaliBUmraniW. Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: the joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2020; 27(3): 1264–1278.
25.
BocquetRLeBCMotheC, et al.CSR, innovation, and firm performance in sluggish growth contexts: a Firm-Level empirical analysis. J Bus Ethics2017; 146(1): 241–254.
26.
KangYZhuXLiX. Empirical study on the impact of corporate social responsibility to innovation performance of medical enterprises. Sci Technol Prog Policy2020; 37(11): 109–116.
27.
PeterafMABarneyJB. Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Manage. Decis. Econ2003; 24: 309–323.
28.
HelfatCEFinkelsteinSMitchellW, et al.Dynamic capabilities: understanding strategic change in organizations. London: Blackwell, 2007, pp. 25–68.
29.
AvenBZhangEY. Social distance and knowledge transformation: the effects of social network distance on organizational learning. Sociol Sci2016; 3: 1103–1131.
30.
LiaoSH. Problem solving and knowledge inertia. Expert Syst Appl2002; 22(1): 21–31.
31.
LiBZengJ. The influence of knowledge inertia on ambidexterity innovation. Stud Sci. Sci2019; 37: 750–759.
LiYLiuYDuanY, et al.Entrepreneurial orientation, strategic flexibilities and indigenous firm innovation in transitional China. Int J Technol Manag2008; 41(1-2): 223–246.
35.
PavlouPAEl SawyOA. Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decis Sci J2011; 42(1): 239–273.
36.
ScandeliusCCohenG. Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—the role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. J Bus Res2016; 69(9): 3487–3499.
37.
ShinHChoCHBrivotM, et al.The moral relationality of profes- sionalism discourses:The moral relationality of profes- sionalism discourses: the case of corporate social responsibility practitioners in South Korea, 2022.
38.
WaldronTLNavisCKaramEP, et al.Toward a theory of activist-driven responsible innovation: how activists pressure firms to adopt more responsible practices. J Management Studies2022; 59(1): 163–193.
39.
CovucciCConfettoMGKljučnikovA, et al.Unrevealing the nexus between digital sustainability and corporate digital responsibility: a dual-track systematic literature review towards a framework of corporate digital sustainability. Technol Soc2024; 79: 102743.
40.
GavettiGGreveHRLevinthalDA, et al.The behavioral theory of the firm: assessment and prospects. Acad Manag Ann2012; 6(1): 1–40.
41.
ZolloMWinterSG. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci2002; 13(3): 339–351.
42.
DodgsonM. Technology learning, technology strategy and competitive pressures. British J of Management1991; 2(3): 133–149.
43.
SchillingJKlugeA. Barriers to organizational learning: an integration of theory and research. Int J Management Reviews2009; 11(3): 337–360.
Atuahene-GimaKMurrayJY. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. J Int Market2007; 15(2): 1–29.
46.
LiaoSHChenCCHuDC, et al.Assessing the influence of leadership style, organizational learning and organizational innovation. Leader Organ Dev J2017; 38(5): 590–609.
KnautA. How CSR Should Understand Digitalization. Sustainability in a Digital World: New Opportunities Through New Technologies. ThomasOChristianeL (ed). Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 249–256. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54603-2_21.
49.
HerdenCAlliuECakiciA, et al.“Corporate digital responsibility”: new corporate responsibilities in the digital age. NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum2021; 29: 13–29.
50.
LobschatLMuellerBEggersF, et al.Corporate digital responsibility. J Bus Res2021; 122: 875–888.
51.
ZahraSA. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur1991; 6(4): 258–282.
52.
ZahraSA. Goverance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Acad Manag J1996; 39(6): 1713–1735.
53.
XuGHouGZhangJ. Digital Sustainable Entrepreneurship: a digital capability perspective through digital innovation orientation for social and environmental value creation. Sustainability2022; 14(18): 11222.
54.
ZahraSARandersonKFayolleA. Part I: the evolution and contributions of corporate entrepreneurship research. Management2013; 56(2): 549–572.
55.
Martin-RojasRGarcia-MoralesVJBolivar-RamosMT. Influence of technological support, skills and competencies, and learning on corporate entrepreneurship in European technology firms. Technovation2013; 33(12): 417–430.
56.
KimJJinW. Impact of digital capabilities on entrepreneurial performance in SMEs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge2024; 9(4): 100609.
57.
YangHShiXBhuttoMY, et al.Do corporate social responsibility and technological innovation get along? A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge2024; 9(1): 100462.
58.
LiLSuFZhangW, et al.Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective. Inf Syst J2018; 28(6): 1129–1157.
59.
CaiLYangYLuS, et al.Research on internal and external regulations for improving the performance of environmental R&D subsidies in new energy companies. Stud. Sci. Sci2019; 37(10): 1816–1824.
60.
NadkarniS. Reinhard Prügl. Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly2020: 1–109.
61.
SirineH. Toward Sustainable Performance: Interaction between experiential learning, strategic alignment, dynamic capabilities and corporate social responsibility implementation. In: 15th international Conference on Advances in Computing, Control, and Telecommunication technologies, ACT, 2024, 2613–2627.
62.
HamelGPrahaladCK. Competindo pelo futuro. Rio de janeiro: About Campus1995; 301: 1–41.
63.
HultGTMKetchenDJJrNicholsELJr. Organizational learning as a strategic resource in supply management. J of Ops Management2003; 21(5): 541–556.
64.
Von KroghGNonakaIRechsteinerL. Leadership in organizational knowledge creation: a review and framework. J Management Studies2012; 49(1): 240–277.
65.
ZhangXShenKNXuB. Double-edged sword of knowledge inertia: overcoming healthcare professionals’ resistance in innovation adoption. Technovation2024; 133: 103011. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103011.
66.
XieXFangLZengS, et al.How does knowledge inertia affect firms product innovation?J Bus Res2016; 69(5): 1615–1620.
67.
ZhouJZhouY. Knowledge inertia and knowledge creation behavior: the roles of organizational memory and innovative climate. Stud. Sci. Sci2021; 39: 1103–1110.
68.
MikalefPvan de WeteringRKrogstieJ. Building dynamic capabilities by leveraging big data analytics: the role of organizational inertia. Inf Manag2021; 58(6): 103412.
69.
Hsien. Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation2008; 28(4): 183–195.
70.
YangXLianZ. Corporate digital responsibility, digital trust and high-quality development of enterprises. China Soft Science2023; 1: 145–155.
71.
HusainZDayanBChaudhryIS. Roles of organizational flexibility and organizational support on service innovation via organizational learning – a moderated mediation model. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex2024; 10(3): 100367.
72.
KalmukGAcarAZ. The mediating role of organizational learning capability on the relationship between innovation and firm’s performance: a conceptual framework. Proced Soc Behav Sci2015; 210: 164–169.
73.
ZhangXShenKNXuB. Double-edged sword of knowledge inertia: overcoming healthcare professionals’ resistance in innovation adoption. Technovation2024; 133: 103011.
74.
KindströmDKowalkowskiCSandbergE. Enabling service innovation: a dynamic capabilities approach. J Bus Res2013; 66(8): 1063–1073.
75.
VogelRGuettelWH. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. Int J Manag Rev2013; 15.
76.
UrbanoDTurroAWrightM, et al.Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Small Bus Econ2022; 59: 1–25.
