Search results

This paper aims to propose and assess a framework to analyse the institutionalization of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) through a framing analysis.

The framework was developed by combining the institutional approach with orders of worth, drawing insights from a comprehensive literature review. To assess it, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of annual reports from companies with the largest market capitalization over a six-year period and interviewed union representatives in Spain and Sweden.

The framework comprises five dimensions (industrial, market, civic, green and connectionist). The empirical results reveal that companies consistently frame I4.0 with an emphasis on industrial and market perspectives. In contrast, unions place a stronger emphasis on civic issues, with Spanish unions holding a more negative view of I4.0, expressing concerns about working conditions and unemployment.

The proposed framework brings interesting insights into the dispute over the meaning of I4.0. Although this empirical study was limited to companies and unions in Sweden and Spain, the framework can be expanded for broader investigations, involving additional stakeholders in one or more countries. The discussion outlined using the varieties of capitalism approach is relevant for understanding the connection between the meso and macro levels of this phenomenon.

In navigating the landscape of I4.0, managers should remain flexible, and ready to tailor their strategies and operations to align with the distinct demands and expectations of stakeholders and their specific institutional environments. Similarly, policymakers are urged to acknowledge these contextual intricacies when crafting strategies for implementing I4.0 initiatives across national settings.

Based on the empirical findings, this study underscores the importance of fostering social dialogue and involving stakeholders in the implementation of I4.0. Policymakers and other stakeholders should take proactive measures, tailored to each country’s context, to mitigate potential adverse effects on labour and workers.

The study presents a novel framework that facilitates the systematic comparison of I4.0 framing by different actors. This contribution is significant because the way actors frame I4.0 affects its interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the aggregate analysis of results enables cross-country comparisons, enhancing our understanding of regional disparities.

Previous research has explored the link between sustainability disclosure and reputation but produced contradictory results. This study aims to clarify the sustainability disclosure–reputation relationship through a quantitative analysis of the correlations between these variables reported in empirical research papers. The second objective was to determine how various moderators affect the sustainability disclosure–reputation link.

The meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of the literature covering empirical research on the corporate sustainability disclosure and reputation relationship. A total of 92 articles were meta-analyzed to compile their findings on four extrinsic moderators: company size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

The findings confirm that a significant positive correlation exists between corporate sustainability disclosure and reputation. The moderator analysis also revealed that companies’ different characteristics can explain researchers’ divergent results.

The results have considerable practical relevance for organizational management. First, they can motivate managers to improve and disclose their company’s social and environmental impacts to strengthen their reputation, which in turn will help accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Second, the findings can ensure organizations develop disclosure and reputation management strategies adapted for each firm’s size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

The results have considerable practical relevance for organizational management. First, they can motivate managers to improve and disclose their company’s social and environmental impacts to strengthen their reputation, which in turn will help accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Second, the findings can ensure organizations develop disclosure and reputation management strategies adapted for each firm’s size, ownership, stock listing status and activity sector.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to clarify the link between disclosure and reputation, which makes a unique contribution to the field of social and environmental accounting. A larger sample of primary research was collected, and key extrinsic moderators were examined to explain prior studies’ contradictory findings.