Search results

The purpose of this paper is to inspire a different way of thinking about digitalization and organizational change by theorizing simultaneity as an alternative to the otherwise dominant root metaphor of sequence in the literature on digitalization and organizational change.

The theoretical argument is based on a reading of central contributions to the literature on digital technology and organizational change, and particularly inspired by the work positing a constitutive entanglement of technology and organization. We argue for an extension of this line of thinking with a reading of Latour’s notion tonalities. The relevance of the theoretical argument is demonstrated through an illustrative empirical example of the phenomenon digital-ready legislation.

The paper identifies sequence as a root metaphor in the organization and digital change literature. It develops a simultaneity view and illustrates its relevance through the example of digital-ready legislation, pinpointing how technological, organizational and legal elements are attuned to one another at the same time rather than in sequence.

The sequentiality view has dominated the change management research, which has travelled from research into practice. The simultaneity view has the potential to offer a new approach to planning change, with a focus on the simultaneous alignment of, e.g. legal, organizational and technological elements.

The paper offers an alternative to dominant views on digitalization and organizational change, drawing on an overlooked notion in Latour’s scholarship, namely tonalities. This has potential to qualify the entanglement thesis and develop simultaneity as a new metaphor for understanding digital change.

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.

This paper aims to investigate the role of field-configuring events (FCEs) and situational context in the institutionalisation of sustainability reporting (SR) in Pakistan.

This paper uses insights from the institutional logics perspective and qualitative research design to analyse the interplay of the institutional logics, FCEs, situational context and social actors’ agency for the institutionalisation of SR among leading corporations in Pakistan. A total of 28 semi-structured interviews were carried out and were supplemented by analysis of secondary data including reports, newspaper articles and books.

The emerging field of SR in Pakistan is shaped by societal institutions, where key social actors (regulators, enablers and reporters) were involved in the institutionalisation of SR through FCEs. FCEs provided space for agency and were intentionally designed by key social actors to promote SR in Pakistan. The situational context connected the case organisations with FCEs and field-level institutional logics that shaped their decision to initiate SR. Overall, intricate interplay of institutional logics, FCEs, situational context and social actors’ agency has contributed to the institutionalisation of SR in Pakistan. Corporate managers navigated institutional logics based on situational context and initiated SR that is aligned with corporate goals and stakeholder expectations.

For corporate managers, this paper highlights the role of active agency in navigating and integrating institutional logics and stakeholders’ expectations in their decision-making process. For practitioners and policymakers, this paper highlights the importance of FCEs and situational context in the emergence and institutionalisation of SR in developing countries. From a societal point of view, dominance of business actors in FCEs highlights the need for non-business actors to participate in FCEs to shape logics and practice of SR for wider societal benefits.

From a societal point of view, dominance of business actors in FCEs highlights the need for non-business actors to participate in FCEs to shape logics and practice of SR for wider societal benefits.

This paper focuses on the role of FCEs and situational context as key social mechanisms for explaining the institutionalisation of SR.