The embeddedness of digital platforms in firms to improve industrial accident prevention performance remains a challenge for safety management. A pressing question exists regarding appropriate pathways to improve firm accident prevention performance by leveraging digital platforms. Prior research focuses on individual and organizational factors to prevent industrial accidents while ignoring information technology (IT) from a holistic perspective. Following a socio-technical lens, this study fills the research gap by proposing a new conceptualization of technical and institutional components and examining their combined effects in shaping individual and organizational accident prevention outcomes (i.e., employee accident prevention competence and firm accident prevention performance). Specifically, we introduce and conceptualize the concept of digital platform affordance to represent the technical component and theorize the external institutional force (government pressure) and the internal human agency (top management support) as the institutional components of digital platforms. By integrating the socio-technical lens, IT affordance theory, and institutional theory, we develop a theoretical model to examine the interaction effects between digital platform affordance, government pressure, and top management support on accident prevention performance. We conduct a multilevel modeling approach to test the proposed research model using a fine-grained matched-pair survey from multiple respondents (i.e., employees and safety executives) in 161 industrial firms in China. We find that digital platform affordance enhances firm accident prevention performance by improving employee accident prevention competence. The results also indicate that the magnitude of the moderating effect of government pressure is contingent upon top management support. This study conceptualizes and assesses the role of digital platforms in safety management and indicates that the amalgamation of their technical/institutional components is a promising means to prevent industrial accidents. We also provide a new perspective for Operations Management scholars to reinterpret the socio-technical lens in the emerging digitally enabled safety management subdiscipline.
AkaikeH (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6): 716–723.
2.
ArmstrongJSOvertonTS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research14(3): 396–402.
3.
BarnettMLKingAA (2008) Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal51(6): 1150–1170.
4.
BenitezJArenasACastilloA, et al. (2022a) Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information & Management59(2): 103590.
5.
BenitezJBraojosJPavlouP, et al. (2023) Impact of social media technologies on new product development performance: Theory and empirical evidence. European Journal of Information Systems: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2023.2270462.
6.
BenitezJHenselerJCastilloA, et al. (2020) How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management57(2): 103168.
7.
BenitezJRuizLPopovicA (2022b) Impact of mobile technology-enabled HR gamification on employee performance: An empirical investigation. Information & Management59(4): 103647.
8.
BliesePD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSW (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.
9.
BostromRPHeinenJS (1977a) MIS Problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, part II: The application of socio-technical theory. MIS Quarterly1(4): 11–28.
10.
BostromRPHeinenJS (1977b) MIS Problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly1(3): 17–32.
11.
BrownKAWillisPGPrussiaGE (2000) Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model. Journal of Operations Management18(4): 445–465.
12.
BurkeMJSalvadorROSmith-CroweK, et al. (2011) The dread factor: How hazards and safety training influence learning and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology96(1): 46–70.
13.
CenfetelliRTBassellierG (2009) Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly33(4): 689–707.
14.
ChatterjeeSMoodyGLowryPB, et al. (2015) Strategic relevance of organizational virtues enabled by information technology in organizational innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems32(3): 158–196.
15.
ChenKFanYLiaoSS (2023) Token incentives in a volatile crypto market: The effects of token price volatility on user contribution. Journal of Management Information Systems40(2): 683–711.
16.
ChenYWangXBenitezJ, et al. (2022) Does techno-invasion lead to employees’ deviant behaviors?Journal of Management Information Systems39(2): 454–482.
17.
ChengHQiSQiuL (2024) Career incentives of political leaders and corporate operational efficiency. Production and Operations Management33(9): 1931–1952.
18.
ChohanSRHuG (2022) Strengthening digital inclusion through e-government: Cohesive ICT training programs to intensify digital competency. Information Technology for Development28(1): 16–38.
19.
ChristianMSBradleyJCWallaceJC, et al. (2009) Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology94(5): 1103–1127.
20.
ClossDJJacobsMASwinkM, et al. (2008) Toward a theory of competencies for the management of product complexity: Six case studies. Journal of Operations Management26(5): 590–610.
21.
ConstantinidesPHenfridssonOParkerGG (2018) Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research29(2): 381–400.
22.
DawsonJFRichterAW (2006) Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology91(4): 917.
23.
DhillonGSmithKDissanayakaI (2021) Information systems security research agenda: Exploring the gap between research and practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems30(4): 101693.
24.
DudarevAØyvind OdlandJ (2013) Occupational health and health care in Russia and Russian Arctic: 1980–2010. International Journal of Circumpolar Health72(1): 20456.
25.
EismannKPoseggaOFischbachK (2021) Opening organizational learning in crisis management: On the affordances of social media. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems30(4): 101692.
26.
ElliottDSmithD (2006) Cultural readjustment after crisis: Regulation and learning from crisis within the UK soccer industry. Journal of Management Studies43(2): 289–317.
27.
ErgunÖGuiLHeier StammJL, et al. (2014) Improving humanitarian operations through technology-enabled collaboration. Production and Operations Management23(6): 1002–1014.
28.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
29.
GefenDStraubDBoudreauM-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems4(1): 1–79.
30.
GuptaSStarrMKFarahaniRZ, et al. (2016) Disaster management from a POM perspective: Mapping a new domain. Production and Operations Management25(10): 1611–1637.
31.
GuptaSStarrMKZanjirani FarahaniR, et al. (2020) Prevention of terrorism–an assessment of prior POM work and future potentials. Production and Operations Management29(7): 1789–1815.
32.
HartwickJBarkiH (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science40(4): 440–465.
33.
HofmannDABurkeMJZoharD (2017) 100 Years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. Journal of Applied Psychology102(3): 375–388.
34.
HofmannDAGavinMB (1998) Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management24(5): 623–641.
35.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
36.
IvanovATachevaZAlzaidanA, et al. (2023) Informational value of visual nudges during crises: Improving public health outcomes through social media engagement amid COVID-19. Production and Operations Management32(8): 2400–2419.
37.
JamesLRDemareeRGWolfG (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology69(1): 85–98.
38.
KarahannaEXuSXXuY, et al. (2018) The needs–affordances–features perspective for the use of social media. MIS Quarterly42(3): 737–756.
39.
KosterRBMStamDBalkBM (2011) Accidents happen: The influence of safety-specific transformational leadership, safety consciousness, and hazard reducing systems on warehouse accidents. Journal of Operations Management29(7–8): 753–765.
40.
KrauseRWuZBrutonGD, et al. (2019) The coercive isomorphism ripple effect: An investigation of nonprofit interlocks on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal62(1): 283–308.
41.
KrellKMatookSRohdeF (2016) The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: An institutional theory perspective. Information & Management53(6): 683–697.
42.
KuanKKYChauPYK (2001) A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Information & Management38(8): 507–521.
43.
LabibAHadleigh-DunnSMahfouzA, et al. (2019) Operationalizing learning from rare events: Framework for middle humanitarian operations managers. Production and Operations Management28(9): 2323–2337.
44.
LewisWAgarwalRSambamurthyV (2003) Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly27(4): 657–678.
45.
LiangHSarafNHuQ, et al. (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly31(1): 59–87.
46.
LinJLuoZBenitezJ, et al. (2021) Why do organizations leverage social media to create business value? An external factor-centric empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems151: 113628.
47.
LindellMKWhitneyDJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology86(1): 114–121.
48.
LyytinenKNewmanM (2008) Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems17(6): 589–613.
49.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMPodsakoffNP (2011) Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly35(2): 293–334.
50.
MadsenPM (2009) These lives will not be lost in vain: Organizational learning from disaster in US coal mining. Organization Science20(5): 861–875.
51.
MalhotraAMajchrzakALyytinenK (2021) Socio-technical affordances for large-scale collaborations: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science32(5): 1371–1390.
MarkusMLSilverMS (2008) A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems9(10): 609–632.
54.
MeswaniHR (2008) Safety and occupational health: Challenges and opportunities in emerging economies. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine12(1): 3–9.
55.
MillerBKSimmeringMJ (2022) Attitude toward the color blue: An ideal marker variable. Organizational Research Methods26(3): 409–440.
56.
MithasSRamasubbuNSambamurthyV (2011) How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly35(1): 237–256.
57.
MooreGCBenbasatI (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research2(3): 192–222.
58.
NambisanSLyytinenKMajchrzakA, et al. (2017) Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly41(1): 223–238.
PagellMJohnstonDVeltriA, et al. (2014) Is safe production an oxymoron?Production and Operations Management23(7): 1161–1175.
62.
PiccoliGPigniF (2022) Information Systems for Managers with Cases, 5th ed.Burlington, WT: Prospect Press.
63.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
64.
PoseyCRobertsTLowryPB, et al. (2014) Multiple indicators and multiple causes (MIMIC) models as a mixed-modelling technique: A tutorial and an annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems36(11): 1–32.
65.
RobeyDAndersonCRaymondB (2013) Information technology, materiality, and organizational change: A professional odyssey. Journal of the Association for Information Systems14(7): 1–21.
66.
RonkkoMYlitaloJ (2011) PLS marker variable approach to diagnosing and controlling for method variance. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems. Available from https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/researchmethods/8.
67.
SaldanhaTJVAndrade-RojasMGKathuriaA, et al. (2024) How the locus of uncertainty shapes the influence of CEO long-term compensation on IT capital investments. MIS Quarterly48(2): 459–490.
68.
SaldanhaTJVMithasSKhuntiaJ, et al. (2022) How green information technology standards and strategies influence performance: Role of environment, cost and dual focus. MIS Quarterly46(4): 2367–2386.
69.
SarkerSChatterjeeSXiaoX, et al. (2019) The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS Quarterly43(3): 695–720.
70.
ScottANyagaGN (2019) The effect of firm size, asset ownership, and market prices on regulatory violations. Journal of Operations Management65(7): 685–709.
71.
ShaoZLiXLuoY, et al. (2023) The differential impacts of top management support and transformational supervisory leadership on employees’ digital performance. European Journal of Information Systems33(3): 334–360.
72.
ShaoZLiXWangQ (2022) From ambidextrous learning to digital creativity: An integrative theoretical framework. Information Systems Journal32(3): 544–572.
73.
SpeierCWhippleJMClossDJ, et al. (2011) Global supply chain design considerations: Mitigating product safety and security risks. Journal of Operations Management29(7–8): 721–736.
74.
StarrMKVan WassenhoveLN (2014) Introduction to the special issue on humanitarian operations and crisis management. Production and Operations Management23(6): 925–937.
75.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.
76.
TimYPanSLRacthamP, et al. (2017) Digitally enabled disaster response: The emergence of social media as boundary objects in a flooding disaster. Information Systems Journal27(2): 197–232.
77.
Valero-GilJSurrocaJATriboJA, et al. (2023) Innovation vs. standardization: The conjoint effects of eco-innovation and environmental management systems on environmental performance. Research Policy52(4): 104737.
78.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
79.
VriesJDe KosterRStamD (2016) Safety does not happen by accident: Antecedents to a safer warehouse. Production and Operations Management25(8): 1377–1390.
80.
WaizeneggerLMcKennaBCaiW, et al. (2020) An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems29(4): 429–442.
81.
WentzBLazarJSteinM, et al. (2014) Danger, danger! evaluating the accessibility of web-based emergency alert sign-ups in the northeastern United States. Government Information Quarterly31(3): 488–497.
82.
WenzelMStanskeSLiebermanMB (2020) Strategic responses to crisis. Strategic Management Journal41(1): 7–18.
83.
WHO and ILO (2021) WHO/ILO joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury, 2000-2016: global monitoring report. Available from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034945 (accessed 17 September 2021).
84.
WiengartenFFanDLoCKY, et al. (2017) The differing impacts of operational and financial slack on occupational safety in varying market conditions. Journal of Operations Management52(1): 30–45.
85.
WindelerJBMarupingLVenkateshV (2017) Technical systems development risk factors: The role of empowering leadership in lowering developers’ stress. Information Systems Research28(4): 775–796.
86.
WuCWangFZouPXW, et al. (2016) How safety leadership works among owners, contractors and subcontractors in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management34(5): 789–805.
87.
WuCYaoHNingX, et al. (2021) Emergence of informal safety leadership: A social–cognitive process for accident prevention. Production and Operations Management30(11): 4288–4305.
88.
YangLSuGYuanH (2012) Design principles of integrated information platform for emergency responses: The case of 2008 Beijing Olympic games. Information Systems Research23(3): 761–786.
89.
ZacharatosABarlingJIversonRD (2005) High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology90(1): 77–93.
90.
ZhouZWanX (2022) Does the sharing economy technology disrupt incumbents? Exploring the influences of mobile digital freight matching platforms on road freight logistics firms. Production and Operations Management31(1): 117–137.
91.
ZoharDLuriaG (2004) Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology89(2): 322–333.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
