Institutional Pressures and AI Adoption in Chinese SMEs: a Neo-Institutional Analysis with Propositions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70393/6a6574626d.343338ARK:
https://n2t.net/ark:/40704/JETBM.v3n3a02Disciplines:
ManagementSubjects:
Strategic ManagementReferences:
11Keywords:
Institutional Theory, Institutional Isomorphism, AI Adoption, SMEs, China, Digital Transformation, LegitimacyAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption has become a strategic imperative for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the digital economy. In China, however, SMEs frequently exhibit a pronounced gap between AI awareness and sustained adoption. This paper applies neo-institutional theory—specifically DiMaggio and Powell's model of institutional isomorphism—to examine how coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures shape AI adoption among Chinese SMEs. Adopting a conceptual theory-building approach, the paper develops an integrated framework in which institutional pressures influence AI adoption intention through legitimacy-seeking motives, while organizational capability and resource endowments moderate whether adoption becomes substantive or symbolic. The analysis identifies a legitimacy–capability paradox: institutional pressures may accelerate initial AI experimentation while simultaneously encouraging decoupled, compliance-oriented adoption. The paper contributes to institutional theory and technology adoption research by explaining not only why Chinese SMEs adopt AI but also how they adopt it. Seven propositions and five analytical tables are developed to guide future empirical research.
References
[1] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
[2] Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
[3] Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.
[4] Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
[5] Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
[6] Rodriguez Müller, A. P., Tangi, L., & Lerusse, A. (2025). Understanding the adoption of artificial intelligence in local government decision-making: The influence of institutional pressures and managerial perceptions. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70033
[7] Getzin, F., Henschel, T., Kuttner, M., & McKinney, E. (2026). Institutional pressures on AI adoption in management accounting: Evidence from SMEs and implications for education. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 1–22.
[8] Yang, Z., Hu, H., & Zhang, Z. (2026). Technological breakthroughs vs organizational change: who’s driving the digital future of SMEs? Evidence from resource orchestration. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 39(2), 387-413.
[9] Qu, C., & Kim, E. (2025). Investigating AI adoption, knowledge absorptive capacity, and open innovation in Chinese apparel MSMEs: An extended TAM-TOE model with PLS-SEM analysis. Sustainability, 17(5), 1873.
[10] Shaikh, S. M., & Birla, S. (2026). Managerial mindset and AI adoption in SMEs: A systematic review of cognitive, behavioural, and institutional foundations. European Management Studies, 24(2), 46–93. https://doi.org/10.7172/2956-7602.112.4
[11] State Council of the People's Republic of China. (2017). New generation artificial intelligence development plan. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-07/20/content_5211996.htm
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
ARK
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The author retains copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
