MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411886131 · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05184-1

Navigating ethical decision-making in digital transformation: ethical climate, digital competence, and person-organization fit in China’s banking sector

2025· article· en· W4411886131 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangyu Bian, Bin Wang, Kunxiang LI, Zhaohui Du

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersSouthwest University
KeywordsChinaCompetence (human resources)Digital transformationBusinessEthical valuesEngineering ethicsPsychologyKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the context of rapid digital transformation, Chinese commercial banks face growing pressure to uphold ethical standards while adopting advanced technologies. This study explores the factors shaping employees’ ethical decision-making intentions in this setting. Grounded in Person–Environment Fit Theory and Ethical Decision-Making Theory, it examines how ethical climate and digital competence influence ethical intentions, and how person–organization (P–O) fit mediates these relationships. Drawing on a two-wave survey of 678 bank employees, the study finds that P–O fit plays a pivotal mediating role in linking ethical climate and digital competence to three types of ethical decision-making intentions: procedural, relational, and innovative. A supportive ethical climate enhances P–O fit by aligning organizational and individual values, while higher digital competence enables employees to manage the complexities of digital work environments. Moreover, P–O fit significantly amplifies the effects of ethical climate and digital competence across all dimensions of ethical intent. Moderating analyses show that organizational digital ethical culture and employees’ educational levels further shape these dynamics. This research contributes new insights by positioning digital competence as an ethical capacity, not just a technical skill, and by proposing an integrated framework connecting digital ethics and person–organization alignment. The findings provide theoretical and practical implications for promoting ethical conduct in digitally evolving organizations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207