Search results

This study investigates the determinants of artificial intelligence (AI) acceptance in and AI-driven transformations of corporate communications. From a technology adoption perspective, the study explores the dual influence of individual and organizational factors on AI acceptance.

Employing a qualitative research design, this study conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 AI experts in large-scale companies in Germany.

The study reveals micro-level determinants of AI acceptance related to AI’s perceived usefulness and ease of use. It also identifies macro-level determinants, including organizational awareness and frameworks. Corporate communications is expected to gain relevance due to the organizational integration of AI.

The proposed model integrates crucial factors influencing AI adoption and offers a starting point for quantitative validation. The study serves as a benchmark for future research, particularly given its timing right before the extensive adoption of ChatGPT.

Organizations are encouraged to develop strategies that enhance both individual and organizational AI readiness. By reflecting both micro- and macro-level determinants of AI acceptance, a more holistic understanding of effective change management initiatives related to AI integration can be fostered.

By proposing an extension to the technology acceptance model, which incorporates both micro- and meso-level determinants, this study provides a novel framework for holistically understanding AI acceptance in corporate communications.

The development in the German-speaking countries of International Management (IM) as an academic discipline is analyzed both from a research-oriented and an institutional standpoint. This development is characterized by a relatively long run-up after early beginnings in the 1920s and a steep jump during the past 15–20 years. Business Administration and Strategic Management rather than Economics have influenced the IM field which is now an established subject in its own right. The resulting discipline is well on its way to overcoming an alleged “black hole-image” of international isolation on the part of German-speaking countries’ scholars.

On the invitation of the Editor I am publishing in the JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION a selection of lists of music publishers' numbers, with an indication of the date of issue of their publications so numbered.

Part II and last MECHETTI. Vienna FOUNDED in 1795 by Carlo Mechetti as a dealer; since 1807 in partnership with his nephew, Pietro; the publishing firm styled Carlo Mechetti & Neffe in 1809; after Carlo's death in 1811, Pietro became sole owner; he was succeeded in 1850 by his widow, Therese; c. 1855 the firm was taken over by A. Diabelli & co. (cp. Peter Cappi).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for understanding and analysing business's role as a development actor, and the distinction between development tool and development agent.

The paper presents a theoretical analysis based on secondary data and empirical research.

Business has various roles to play in the social and economic development of poorer countries, but are all of them equally important and laudable? Mainstream economics has long held that the private sector is essential to economic prosperity, and this has led policy‐makers and neoliberal thinkers to treat it as a tool for development. But under what circumstances does business go beyond acting out its assigned role as a tool of development to become what this article calls a “development agent” – something that consciously strives to deliver, and moreover be held to account for, developmental outcomes?

The article presents a framework for a more structured approach to further empirical research, but does not claim to apply that framework in empirical situations.

Despite the considerable literature advocating why business should be a development agent, much less attention has been paid to two more fundamental questions: whether and under what circumstances business will take on such a role; and what being a development agent means. These are the central questions of this article. Answering them enables business practitioners, policy‐makers and academics to predict more accurately when business engagement is likely to deliver genuine development value and be sustainable, and hence when it is a worthwhile business, advocacy or policy objective. It also enables improved decision‐making by non‐private sector partners such as development agencies and NGOs.

The article addresses the above questions in turn with reference to empirical research by the author over nearly two decades, and both the corporate responsibility and the international development literature. It discusses what being a genuine development agent means, and provides a framework for understanding the business‐poverty relationship based on business as a cause, a victim, and a solution in international development terms. It concludes with a discussion of how well business is performing as a development agent, and the future potential and limitations of this role.

Compares research and teaching of today′s business economics with its predecessor disciplines before 1890. Describes attempts to organize commercial high schools from 1890 – business economics has its roots in these institutions. Discusses the reasons for the separation of business economics, as a discipline, from political economy. Paramount among these was a quarrel about value judgements.