Data privacy protection is stronger in the European Union (EU) compared to the U.S.: EU organisations must generally obtain a valid legal basis, often explicit consent, before collecting, storing or processing personal data from individuals who have the right to withdraw their consent at any time; conversely, in the U.S., privacy assurances in the contexts of law enforcement and national security at the federal level are industry-specific. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has a wide scope, covering areas such as data protection impact assessments, data breach notification, and privacy by design. In the U.S., data privacy protection and disclosure of breaches are delegated to the states such that there is no unified framework with definitions of a (material) data breach, reporting thresholds, enforcement responsibilities, penalties for violations, and application scope. Yet, mandatory disclosure regulation of data breaches and privacy violations are still insufficient in both Europe and the U.S. In relation to regulations in the realm of fighting cybercrime through the implementation of minimum cybersecurity levels, this paper demonstrates how complex, heterogenous, and incomplete the regulatory landscape is. Remarkably, there is no encompassing up-to-date federal law regulating cybersecurity in the U.S. as this regulation was delegated to the individual states who are responsible for standard setting and compliance. Furthermore, cybersecurity regulation has been developed for specific industries and critical infrastructure. This has resulted in a proliferation of enforcement agencies with heterogeneous standards, reporting requirements, and penalties. While publicly-traded companies must disclose material cyber events according to securities regulation, these ad-hoc disclosure requirements are even less stringent in Europe. While the EU and the U.S. agree on the importance of certification and baseline cybersecurity requirements, they have different approaches. EU member states require all organisations to follow the Directive on security of Network and Information Systems (NIS Directive) for the best safeguards, while the adoption of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity (NIST) Framework for cybersecurity crisis management is voluntary in the U.S.
In this review, we interrogate the unexplored nexus between corporate governance and environmental innovation. Based on our systematic literature review, coupled with a bibliometric analysis of 232 scholarly articles, we propose an integrative framework which explains the mechanisms that influence environmental innovation. The advanced framework centers on and connects the junctions of ownership and environmental policy with corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability, which generate outcomes relevant to business strategy, capabilities, resources, and, ultimately, environmental innovation. We uncover future research directions at the strategic actor level and for research on outcomes from corporate governance. Our suggestions for further inquiries in the field are structured by strategic actor type and specific outcome. The review cross-fertilizes management theories, including institutional theory, stakeholder theory, resource-based view, and agency theory, with innovation theories, and also provides methodological recommendations for conducting research on the intersection of corporate governance and environmental innovation. Finally, we contribute to emerging research on the purpose-driven firm by theorizing how corporate governance practices could lead to environmental innovation in conjunction with for-profit optimization. Methodologically, we advance knowledge on how to conduct an interdisciplinary systematic literature review and connect distinct fields of inquiry via bibliometric analysis and clustering.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transcended the tech sector, garnering significant attention from traditional industries, governments, and society as a whole. While AI promises substantial productivity gains, accelerated innovation, and enhanced decision-making, concerns about its environmental, societal, and governance implications have grown. This article addresses the dichotomy of AI as both a transformative opportunity and a potential threat, seeking to provide a balanced, evidence-based perspective on the benefits and costs of AI. We assess AI through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) dimensions. This approach enables a nuanced evaluation of the benefits (e.g., efficiency, drug development, disaster management) and costs (e.g., social, legal, and democratic challenges) associated with the adoption of AI. By adopting this structured approach, we aim to facilitate the responsible and sustainable deployment of AI across industries. Our objective is to support evidence-based decision-making among diverse stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, organizational leaders, and individuals. By contextualizing AI within broader economic and societal systems, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of AI's complex role in shaping the future. Ultimately, this framework promotes a rational, multifaceted examination of AI, moving beyond utopian or dystopian narratives to inform the judicious integration of AI into our global landscape.
This study rethinks the political economy of Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe through the lens of state capitalism. Tracing developments from merchant colonialism to neoliberalism, it identifies successive, distinct forms of state-capital hybrids shaped by colonial legacies, industrialisation, and state structures. Drawing on historical institutionalism, the study argues that national variations in state capitalism arise from implementation within specific political and social contexts, rather than formal policy design. By integrating African cases into broader debates, it challenges dominant Western-Eastern binaries and highlights the region's relevance for theorising state capitalism and its implications for corporate governance in diverse developmental trajectories.
