Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures and Investor Judgments in Difficult Times: The Role of Ethical Culture and Assurance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conduct an experiment with 459 nonprofessional investors to examine whether they evaluate companies differently based on management’s stated purpose for undertaking corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in the presence versus absence of a company-specific negative event. Specifically, we vary whether or not management intends to achieve financial returns from CSR activities in addition to promoting social good. We address investors’ decision processes by investigating whether their judgments are mediated by perceptions of future cash flows and/or the underlying ethical culture of the company. Results show that absent a negative event, investment judgments are stronger when CSR activities are intended to achieve financial returns, through expectations of higher future cash flows. However, when a negative event occurs, we find a moderating effect of independent assurance of CSR disclosures. When disclosures are not assured, investors prefer CSR undertaken only for societal benefit, mediated by perceptions of a stronger ethical culture. However, when disclosures are assured, ethical culture is viewed similarly regardless of management’s intention to achieve financial returns from CSR activities. This suggests that management’s willingness to obtain independent assurance on disclosures is viewed as a positive ethical signal. Thus, assurance complements disclosure of CSR activities by contributing to protection against the impact of negative events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with Godfrey et al. (2009), we define a negative event as a circumstance having a negative outcome for at least one stakeholder group.

  2. As argued by Godfrey (2005), goodwill from CSR (the mechanism which provides insurance-like protection) will likely not be generated from all activities, but only for positive acts (i.e., those that are other-regarding, not self-serving) made by genuine actors (i.e., managers in a positive ethical culture).

  3. Recent examples include foodborne illness at Chipotle, United Airlines’ forcible removal of a passenger from an oversold flight, and early reactions to Boeing’s 737 MAX airplanes when it was unclear whether natural events or company negligence led to flight crashes.

  4. Other research examines CSR reporting following a negative event (e.g., Pflugrath et al. 2011; McDonnell and King 2013). In that scenario, the company has incentive to “manage” the CSR report in order to mitigate damage from the prior negative event. In contrast, in our scenario, management makes the decision to purchase assurance in advance, voluntarily committing to expend resources to improve information credibility when a negative event has not yet occurred.

  5. In their review, Cohen & Simnett (2015) call for future research to investigate whether CSR assurance is viewed by investors as a frivolous luxury if a company is in an unfavorable financial position, since prior assurance literature mainly examines favorable financial contexts.

  6. Some negative events can be caused by acts of God, industry-wide difficulties, or simply bad luck. We consider scenarios in which a company-specific event has occurred that may either be caused by management’s purposeful actions (i.e., ill-will) or lack of skill. In such cases, investors may look to available information to judge culpability, including nonfinancial information such as CSR disclosures.

  7. Blasco and King (2017) reports that 67 percent of the top 250 companies listed in the Fortune Global 500 ranking for 2016 invest in third-party assurance compared to 46 percent in 2011, while only 45 percent of CSR reporters from the largest 100 companies in 49 countries purchase assurance compared to 38 percent in 2011.

  8. Institutional Review Board approval was received for this study prior to any data collection.

  9. Product failure is an important class of negative events faced by companies. Kim (2014) summarizes literature showing that publicized product-harm crises are frequent and have considerable impact on corporate reputation.

  10. This overall rate is comparable with prior CSR assurance studies (e.g., Brown-Liburd and Zamora 2015; Cheng et al. 2015). Failure rates are 12.3% for the negative event recall question, 12.5% for the CSR assurance recall question. On average, participants took slightly longer than eight minutes to complete the study.

  11. Because H2a and H2b propose moderation of the meditating paths, we discuss quantification of the indirect effects below, when presenting results of testing those hypotheses.

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5), 447–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. C., Hörner, C., Martin, P., & Moser, D. V. (2017). Investment Professionals’ Use of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures. Working paper, University of Bern, Indianna University and University of Pittsburgh.

  • Asay, H. S., Libby, R., & Rennekamp, K. M. (2018). Do features that associate managers with a message magnify investors’ reactions to narrative disclosures? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 68–69, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, B., Casey, R. J., Grenier, J. H., & Heitger, D. L. (2012). Exploring the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 26(2), 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc, R., Cho, C. H., Sopt, J., & Branco, M. C. (2019). Disclosure responses to a corruption scandal: The case of Siemens AG. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 545–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasco, J. L., & King, A. (2017). The road ahead: The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017. Zurich: KPMG International. Retrieved December 29, 2017 from http://www.home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/campaigns/csr/pdf/CSR_Reporting_2017.pdf.

  • Brown-Liburd, H., & Zamora, V. L. (2015). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to CSR performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(1), 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015). Understanding and contributing to the enigma of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in the United States. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(1), 97–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. C., Watson, J., & Woodliff, D. (2014). Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Srinidhi, B., Tsang, A., & Yu, W. (2016). Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 28(2), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M., Green, W. J., & Ko, J. C. W. (2015). The impact of strategic relevance and assurance of sustainability indicators on investor’s decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(1), 131–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of Total SA’s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression management in sustainability reports: An empirical investigation of the use of graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12(1), 16–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2014). CSR report assurance in the USA: an empirical investigation of determinants and effects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(2), 130–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, D. M. (2016). Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 377–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J., & Cho, C. H. (2018). Current Trends within Social and Environmental Accounting Research: A Literature Review. Accounting Perspectives, 17(2), 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2011). Retail investors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness of economic performance, governance, and corporate social responsibility disclosures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 109–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., & Zamora, V. L. (2015). Nonfinancial information preferences of professional investors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2), 127–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. J. (2006). Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 763–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 343–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, W. B., Hodge, F. D., & Sedor, L. M. (2011). Using online video to announce a restatement: Influences on investment decisions and the mediating role of trust. The Accounting Review, 87(2), 513–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Velamuri, S. R. (2006). A new approach to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility. In Corporate social responsibility (pp. 9–23). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrmann, S., Ott, C., Looks, E., & Guenther, T. W. (2017). The contents of assurance statements for sustainability reports and information asymmetry. Accounting and Business Research, 47(4), 369–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gödker, K., & Mertins, L. (2017). CSR Disclosure and Investor Behavior: A Proposed Framework and Research Agenda. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 34(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-51976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groening, C., & Kanuri, V. K. (2016). Investor reactions to concurrent positive and negative stakeholder news. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 833–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris Poll. (2017). Harris poll RQ summary report. http://www.theharrispoll.com/reputation-quotient. Accessed December 12, 2017.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 405–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, A., Koh, K., Liu, S., & Tong, Y. H. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Disclosures: An Investigation of Investors’ and Analysts’ Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 507–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014). Sustainability reporting and assurance: A historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. (2014). What’s worse in times of product-harm crisis? Negative corporate ability or negative CSR reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koonce, L., Leitter, Z., & White, B. J.(2016). The effect of a cautionary notice on investors’ reactions to more and less readable disclosures. Working paper, The University of Texas at Austin.

  • Koonce, L., Miller, J., & Winchel, J. (2015). The effects of norms on investor reactions to derivative use. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(4), 1529–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lii, Y.-S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72, 1785–1824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, M. (2015). Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 419–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. R., & Moser, D. V. (2016). Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M. (2014). A review of the literature on ethical climate and culture. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture (pp. 415–440). Oxford University Press.

  • McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 387–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of management, 37(5), 1480–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, M. (2004). How do investors assess the credibility of management disclosures? Accounting Horizons, 18(3), 185–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, D. V., & Martin, P. R. (2012). A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 797–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2011). The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(4), 1230–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2005). The accuracy of financial report projections of future environmental capital expenditures: a research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(5), 457–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflugrath, G., Roebuck, P., & Simnett, R. (2011). Impact of assurance and assurer’s professional affiliation on financial analysts’ assessment of credibility of corporate social responsibility information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimsbach, D., & Hahn, R. (2015). The effects of negative incidents in sustainability reporting on investors’ judgments–an experimental study of third-party versus self-disclosure in the realm of sustainable sevelopment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(4), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennekamp, K. (2012). Processing fluency and investors’ reactions to disclosure readability. Journal of accounting research, 50(5), 1319–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiu, Y. M., & Yang, S. L. (2017). Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance-like effects? Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 455–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is there a market for virtue?: The business case for corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahller, K., Arnold, V., & Roberts, R. W. (2015). Using CSR disclosure quality to develop social resilience to exogenous shocks: A test of investor perceptions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2), 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A prior version of this paper was the recipient of the 2018–2019 Glen McLaughlin Prize for Research in Accounting Ethics from the Steed School of Accounting (University of Oklahoma). This paper is derived from part of Andrew Stuart’s dissertation at Bentley University. Jean C. Bedard (Chair) and Cynthia Clark served on the dissertation committee, along with Wendy Green of the University of New South Wales, to whom we are grateful for her valuable and constructive feedback. We thank Bentley University Ph.D. students and faculty for piloting the experimental instrument. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of the 2018 British Accounting and Finance Association Audit & Assurance Conference, the 2018 International Symposium of Audit Research, the 2018 American Accounting Association Annual Meeting, and participants at those meetings. We thank workshop participants at the University of Oklahoma and Suffolk University for their helpful comments. Andrew Stuart acknowledges support provided by a doctoral fellowship sponsored by the Harold S. Geneen Institute of Corporate Governance at Bentley University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA

    Andrew C. Stuart

  2. Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA

    Jean C. Bedard & Cynthia E. Clark

Authors
  1. Andrew C. Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean C. Bedard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia E. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew C. Stuart.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Bentley Institutional Review Board (IRB#1: FWA00007335) exempted the proposal under NSF’s Protection of Human Research Subjects, 45 CFR Part 46.101 [b] (2).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Definitions of Variables

Appendix: Definitions of Variables

Variable name

Description

Independent variables

FIN_INTENT

= 1 if management’s CSR intent is to achieve future financial returns; = 0 if no expectation of future financial returns, holding constant the expectation of societal benefit

CSR_ASSURANCE

= 1 if CSR disclosures are independently assured; 0 otherwise

NEGATIVE_EVENT

= 1 if a company-specific negative event has occurred (a press release describing the company’s product recall due to cases of foodborne illness among customers); 0 otherwise

Dependent variables

VALUATION_1

Initial valuation judgment after receiving background information, but before receiving manipulations (101-point scale, where 0 = low, 50 = average, and 100 = high)

DESIRABILITY_1

Perception of investment desirability after receiving background information, but before receiving manipulations (101-point scale, where 0 = not at all desirable, 50 = average, and 100 = very desirable)

VALUATION_2

Valuation judgment after receiving manipulations (101-point scale, where 0 = low, 50 = average, and 100 = high)

DESIRABILITY_2

Perception of investment desirability after receiving the manipulations (101-point scale, where 0 = not at all desirable, 50 = average, and 100 = very desirable)

ΔVALUATION

= (VALUATION_2 - VALUATION_1)

ΔDESIRABILITY

= (DESIRABILITY_2 - DESIRABILITY_1)

ΔINVESTMENT_JUDGMENT

A single factor (eigenvalue = 1.385) derived from factor analysis of ΔVALUATION and ΔDESIRABILITY

Mediator variables

FCF_CONNECTION

Perceptions of the connection between the company’s CSR activities and future financial performance (11-point scale, where 1 = highly unlikely, and 11 = highly likely)

ETHICS

Perceptions of the connection between the company’s CSR activities and the ethical culture of the company (11-point scale, where 1 = definitely does not provide a signal, to 11 = definitely does provide a signal)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stuart, A.C., Bedard, J.C. & Clark, C.E. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures and Investor Judgments in Difficult Times: The Role of Ethical Culture and Assurance. J Bus Ethics 171, 565–582 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04454-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04454-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation