Validating the impact of technical application ethics on enterprise transformation based on structural equation model: The moderating effect of digital transformation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2025
Validating the impact of technical application ethics on enterprise transformation based on structural equation model: The moderating effect of digital transformation
Digital technology needs to be constrained by corporate social responsibility while effectively empowering practical activities of enterprises. Corporate digital responsibility focuses on the social responsibility that businesses should fulfill when using digital technology, which can promote sustainable development of the enterprise. Therefore, based on the theoretical framework of dynamic capability theory and sensemaking theory, this article constructs a research model between corporate digital responsibility and responsible entrepreneurship. Based on 391 data collected from China through a questionnaire survey method, after preliminary analysis using SPSS 26.0, the structural equation model (SEM) was tested using Mplus 8.7, and we have confirmed that high-quality digital transformation is beneficial for enterprises to better stimulate responsible entrepreneurial spirit through organizational meaning shaping when fulfilling digital responsibilities. The unique contribution of this article lies in combining it with responsible entrepreneurship from the perspective of technological ethics, broadening the research perspective of corporate technological ethics, establishing and verifying the inherent connection between corporate digital responsibility and responsible entrepreneurship, and providing new ideas for the application of corporate technological ethics in practice.
DörrS. AI Demands Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) aligning the moral compass for workers in AI-Enabled workplaces. In: In SaskiaDörr, (Eds.), Work and AI 2030: challenges and strategies for tomorrow’s work. Berlin: Springer, 2023, pp. 37–45.
2.
LiyanaarachchiGDeshpandeSWeavenS. Market-oriented corporate digital responsibility to manage data vulnerability in online banking. Int J Bank Market2021; 39(4): 571–591. DOI: 10.1108/ijbm-06-2020-0313.
3.
MullinsMHollandCPCunneenM. Creating ethics guidelines for artificial intelligence and big data analytics customers: the case of the consumer European insurance market. Patterns (New York, NY)2021; 2(10): 100362. DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100362.
4.
Ed-DafaliSAl-AzadMSMohiuddinM, et al.Strategic orientations, 4 organizational ambidexterity, and sustainable competitive advantage: mediating role of industry 4.0 readiness in emerging markets. J Clean Prod2023; 401: 136765. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136765.
5.
FullerTTianYM. Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: an empirical investigation of SME narratives. J Bus Ethics2006; 67(3): 287–304. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9185-3.
6.
AdomakoSTranMD. Doing well and being responsible: the impact of corporate social responsibility legitimacy on responsible entrepreneurship. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2023; 30(4): 1794–1804. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2455.
7.
ElliottKCopilah-AliJ. Implementing Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR): tackling wicked problems for the digital era: pilot study insights. Organ Dynam2024; 53(2): 101040. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101040.
8.
BeckerSJNematATLucasS, et al.A Code of Digital Ethics: laying the foundation for digital ethics in a science and technology company. AI Soc2023; 38(6): 2629–2639.
ChengCZhangMX. Conceptualizing corporate digital responsibility: a digital technology development perspective. Sustainability2023; 15(3): 2319. DOI: 10.3390/su15032319.
11.
YangXLianZ. Corporate digital responsibility, digital trust and high-quality development of enterprises. China Soft Science2023; 1: 145–155, (In Chinese).
12.
ScarpiDPantanoE. “With great power comes great responsibility”: exploring the role of Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) for Artificial Intelligence Responsibility in Retail Service Automation (AIRRSA). Organ Dynam2024; 53(2): 101030. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101030.
13.
Al-OmoushKRibeiro-NavarreteBMcDowellWC. The impact of digital corporate social responsibility on social entrepreneurship and organizational resilience. Manag Decis2024; 62(8): 2621–2640. DOI: 10.1108/md-11-2022-1613.
14.
TeeceDJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strat Manag J2007; 28(13): 1319–1350.
15.
AldrichHE. Organizations evolving. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, 1999.
16.
ShanSQLuoYTZhouY, et al.Big data analysis adaptation and enterprises’ competitive advantages: the perspective of dynamic capability and resource-based theories. Technol Anal Strat Manag2019; 31(4): 406–420. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2018.1516866.
17.
TeeceDJ. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Plan2018; 51(1): 40–49.
18.
BarneyJB. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J Manag2001; 27(6): 643–650.
19.
El HanchiSKerzaziL. Startup innovation capability from a dynamic capability-based view: a literature review and conceptual framework. J Small Bus Strategy (Archive Only)2020; 30(2): 72–92.
ShengML. A dynamic capabilities-based framework of organizational sensemaking through combinative capabilities towards exploratory and exploitative product innovation in turbulent environments. Ind Market Manag2017; 65: 28–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.06.001.
22.
GreenWCluleyR. The field of radical innovation: making sense of organizational cultures and radical innovation. Ind Market Manag2014; 43(8): 1343–1350.
23.
HennebergSCNaudéPMouzasS. Sense-making and management in business networks - some observations, considerations, and a research agenda. Ind Market Manag2010; 39(3): 355–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.03.011.
24.
WeickK. Sensemaking in organizations. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, 1995.
25.
WeickKE. The social psychology of organizing. M@n@gement2015; 18(2): 189.
26.
NaumerCFisherKDervinB. Sense-Making: a methodological perspective. Sensemaking Workshop, CHI2008; 8: 506–513.
27.
GioiaDAChittipeddiK. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strat Manag J1991; 12(6): 433–448.
BridouxFStofbergNDen HartogD. Stakeholders’ responses to CSR tradeoffs: when other-orientation and trust trump material self-interest. Front Psychol2016; 6: 1992.
30.
AguinisHGlavasA. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J Manag2019; 45(3): 1057–1086.
31.
HerdenCJAlliuECakiciA, et al.“Corporate Digital Responsibility” New corporate responsibilities in the digital age. In ChristinaJ.HerdenErvinAlluAndréCakici, et al. (Eds.), Sustainability management forum. NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum. Berlin: Springer, 2021, 29, pp. 13–29.
DörrS. Corporate digital responsibility. Berlin: Springer, 2021.
34.
MuellerB. Corporate digital responsibility. Bus Inf Syst Eng2022; 64(5): 689–700.
35.
LobschatLMuellerBEggersF, et al.Corporate digital responsibility. J Bus Res2021; 122: 875–888.
36.
Mihale-WilsonCHinzOvan der AalstW, et al.Corporate digital responsibility: relevance and opportunities for business and information systems engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng2022; 64(2): 127–132.
37.
HübeiC. Entrepreneurship-driven organizational transformation for sustainability: a sensemaking lens. J Organ Change Manag2022; 35(1): 240–256. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-03-2021-0067.
38.
van der HeijdenADriessenPPJCramerJM. Making sense of corporate social responsibility: exploring organizational processes and strategies. J Clean Prod2010; 18(18): 1787–1796. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.024.
39.
AguinisHGlavasA. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. J Manag2012; 38(4): 932–968. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311436079.
40.
MattinglyJEBermanSL. Measurement of corporate social action: discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Bus Soc2006; 45(1): 20–46.
41.
JohnsonJLSohiRSGrewalR. The role of relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering. J Market2004; 68(3): 21–36.
42.
ZhangJLinXYangL, et al.The impact mechanism of organizational sensemaking on enterprise digital transformation: the medium role of organizational ability. Science of Science and Manag of S & T2023; 44(9): 47–66, (In Chinese).
43.
BernerthJBAguinisH. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Person Psychol2016; 69(1): 229–283. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12103.
