Skip to main content
Log in

The Drivers of Voluntary Transparency in Nonprofits: Professionalization and Partnerships with Firms as Determinants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research analyzes the drivers of voluntary transparency in nonprofit organizations (NPOs). Particularly, we assess the influence of key internal and external resource providers—paid staff and business partners—on the extent to which NPOs make accessible relevant information about themselves for public scrutiny on a voluntary basis. First, we conceptualize transparency as one of the critical dimensions of accountability and explain how it has become a key issue for NPOs. Second, we discuss professionalization and business–nonprofit partnerships as business-oriented strategies directly connected to the main challenges (and controversies) NPOs face. Third, following institutional theory as core theoretical framework, we propose a set of hypotheses linking those strategies to transparency. Their influence will be measured through an empirical research based on a survey to a representative sample of 325 NPOs. Regression analysis and probit models will be used to test the hypotheses. The results confirm the positive effects of both professionalization and partnerships, although each strategy influences different dimensions of transparency.

Résumé

La présente recherche analyse les facteurs qui favorisent la transparence volontaire au sein des organismes sans but lucratif. Nous évaluons plus particulièrement l’influence des principaux fournisseurs de ressources internes et externes, soit le personnel rémunéré et les partenaires d’affaires, sur la mesure dans laquelle lesdits organismes mettent de l’information les concernant à la disposition du public sur une base volontaire. Nous conceptualisons d’abord la transparence en tant qu’une des dimensions critiques de la reddition de comptes, et décrivons comment elle est devenue un enjeu clé des organismes sans but lucratif. Nous traitons ensuite de la professionnalisation et des partenariats d’affaire sans but lucratif comme stratégies professionnelles directement associées aux principaux défis (et controverses) des mêmes organismes. En utilisant la théorie institutionnelle comme cadre de travail théorique fondamental, nous proposons en troisième lieu un groupe d’hypothèses qui lient lesdites stratégies à la transparence. Leur influence est mesurée dans le cadre d’une recherche empirique fondée sur une enquête menée auprès de représentants de 325 organismes sans but lucratif. Les hypothèses sont mises à l’essai à l’aide d’une analyse régressive et de modèles des probits. Les résultats confirment les effets positifs de la professionnalisation et des partenariats, même si chaque stratégie influence diverses dimensions de la transparence.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht die Einflusskräfte für eine freiwillige Transparenz in Non-Profit-Organisationen. Insbesondere betrachten wir, wie wichtige interne und externe Ressourcenanbieter - bezahlte Mitarbeiter und Geschäftspartner - Einfluss darauf nehmen, inwieweit die Non-Profit-Organisationen freiwillig relevante Informationen über sich zwecks öffentlicher Prüfung bereitstellen. Als erstes konzeptualisieren wir Transparenz als einen der wichtigen Bereiche der Rechenschaftslegung und erklären, wie sie zu einem wichtigen Aspekt für Non-Profit-Organisationen geworden ist. Zweitens diskutieren wir die Professionalisierung und Partnerschaften zwischen Unternehmen und Non-Profit-Organisationen als geschäftsorientierte Strategien, die im direkten Zusammenhang mit den großen Herausforderungen (und Kontroversen) dieser Organisationen stehen. Drittens legen wir die institutionelle Theorie als wesentlichen Theorierahmen zugrunde und schlagen eine Reihe von Hypothesen vor, die diese Strategien mit der Transparenz verbinden. Ihren Einfluss messen wir mittels einer empirischen Studie beruhend auf einer Befragung einer repräsentativen Stichprobe von 325 Non-Profit-Organisationen. Die Hypothesen werden anhand der Regressionsanalyse und mithilfe von Probitmodellen getestet. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen die positiven Effekte einer Professionalisierung und der Unterhaltung von Partnerschaften, wobei sich jedoch jede Strategie auf verschiedene Transparenzbereiche auswirkt.

Resumen

La presente investigación analiza los impulsores de la transparencia voluntaria en las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro (NPO, por sus siglas en inglés). En particular, evaluamos la influencia de los proveedores de recursos externos e internos claves - personal pagado y colaboradores empresariales - sobre la medida en que las NPO hacen accesible información relevante sobre sí mismas para su escrutinio público de manera voluntaria. En primer lugar, conceptualizamos la transparencia como una de las dimensiones críticas de la rendición de cuentas y explicamos cómo se ha convertido en una cuestión clave para las NPO. En segundo lugar, tratamos la profesionalización y los partenariados de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro-empresas (BNPP, por sus siglas en inglés) como estrategias orientadas a la empresa conectadas directamente a los desafíos principales (y controvertidos) a los que se enfrentan las NPO. En tercer lugar, siguiendo la teoría institucional como marco teórico fundamental, proponemos un conjunto de hipótesis que vinculan dichas estrategias a la transparencia. Se medirá su influencia mediante una investigación empírica basada en una encuesta a una muestra representativa de 325 NPO. Se utilizarán modelos probit y análisis de regresión para poner a prueba las hipótesis. Los resultados confirman los efectos positivos tanto de la profesionalización como de los partnerariados con empresas, aunque cada estrategia influye en diferentes dimensiones de la transparencia.

Chinese

本研究分析了非盈利组织 (NPO) 志愿透明度的驱动因素。尤其是,我们评估了关键内部和外部资源提供者的影响-有薪员工和业务合作伙伴-对NPO自愿为公众监督提供相关可访问信息的范围。首先,我们概念化了透明度作为可说明性的关键维度之一,同时解释这如何成为NPO的关键问题。其次,我们讨论了直接与NPO面临的主要挑战(争议)相关的以业务为主策略的专业化和业务-非盈利伙伴关系 (BNPP)。第三,将机构理论作为核心理论框架后,我们建议了一组将这些战略与透明度关联的假设。基于对325个NPO的代表性样本调查,以经验研究测量了它们的影响。将使用回归分析和概率单位模式来测试这些假设。结果确认了专业化和伙伴关系的积极影响,尽管每个战略都会影响不同的透明度维度。

Arabic

مقدمي خدمات الموارد الداخلية والخارجية الرئيسيين- الموظفين الذين يتقاضون رواتبهم وشركائهم التجاريين - حول مدى قدرة المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) على توفير المعلومات عن أنفسهم التي يمكن الوصول إليها من أجل التدقيق العام على أساس تطوعي.أولا”، نحن نفهم الشفافية بإعتبارها أحد الأبعاد الحاسمة للمساءلة وشرح كيف أصبحت مسألة رئيسية بالنسبة للمنظمات الغير ربحية(NPOs). ثانيا”، نحن نناقش المهنية والشراكات التجارية الغير ربحية(BNPPs) كإستراتيجيات موجهة للأعمال مباشرة إلى التحديات الرئيسية (والخلافات) التي تواجه المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs). ثالثا”، إتباع النظرية المؤسسية بإعتبارها الإطار النظري الأساسي، نقترح مجموعة من الفرضيات التي تربط تلك الإستراتيجيات بالشفافية. سوف يتم قياس نفوذهم من خلال بحث تجريبي يستند إلى دراسة إستقصائية لعينة تمثيلية تضم 325 موظفا” من المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs).سوف يتم إستخدام تحليل الإنحدار ونماذج تحليل بروبيت الذي فيه المتغير التابع يمكن أن يأخذ فقط قيمتين لإختبار الفرضيات. تؤكد النتائج التأثيرات الإيجابية لكل من الإحتراف والشراكات، على الرغم من أن كل إستراتيجية تؤثر على أبعاد مختلفة للشفافية.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2016). A measurement framework for assessing the contribution of social media to public engagement: An empirical analysis on Facebook. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1289–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albu, O. B. (2014). Transparency in organizing: A performative approach. Copenhagen Business School, Doctoral School in Organisation and Management Studies, PhD Series. http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8916/Oana_Albu.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 28 June 2016.

  • Anheier, H. K. (2016). Foundations in Germany. Summary and policy recommendations. Hertie School of Governance & Centre for Social Investment. https://www.hertie-school.org/fileadmin/images/Downloads/research_projects/HSoG_Policy_Paper_Foundations_2016.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2016.

  • Anheier, H. K. et al. (2009). Feasibility study on a European Foundation Statute. Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/eufoundation/feasibilitystudy_en.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2016.

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arshad, R., Abu Bakar, N., Yusoff Thani, N., & Omar, N. (2013). Board composition and accountability of non-profit organizations. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(4), 1021–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L. M. (2010). Performance measurement in philanthropic relationships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(4), 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, T., & Walters, G. (2013). Financial sustainability within UK charities: Community sports trusts and corporate social responsibility partnerships. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 606–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Simsa, R. (2016). Editor’s notes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 1021–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, A., Buteau, E., & Gopal, R. (2013). Foundation transparency. What nonprofits want. The Center for Effective Philanthropy. http://research.effectivephilanthropy.org/foundation-transparency-what-nonprofits-want. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  • Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2010). Promoting transparency in the NGO sector: Examining the availability and reliability of self-reported data. World Development, 38(9), 1263–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buteau, E., Chaffin, M., & Gopal, R. (2014). Transparency, performance assessment, and awareness of nonprofits’ challenges: Are foundations and nonprofits seeing eye to eye? The Foundation Review, 2, 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Communicating corporate responsibility through corporate web sites in Spain. Corporate Communications, 12(3), 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, D. C., Fishman, N. W., & Pickell, S. G. (2011). Achieving foundation accountability and transparency: Lessons from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Scorecard. The Foundation Review, 3(1), 70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E., Ramus, T., & Andreaus, M. (2011). Accountability as a managerial tool in non-profit organizations: Evidence from Italian CSVs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 470–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespy, C. T., & Miller, V. V. (2011). Sustainability reporting: A comparative study of NGOs and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dainelli, F., Manetti, G., & Sibilio, B. (2013). Web-based accountability practices in non-profit organizations: The case of national museums. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 649–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisation fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organisational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R., Ritchie, J., & Siwale, J. (2006). Microfinance: Accountability from the grassroots. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3), 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGO’s. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. Working Paper 10-069, Harvard Business School. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-069.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  • Eckerd, A., & Moulton, S. (2011). Heterogeneous roles and practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of nonprofit evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2002a). Beyond the magic bullet? Lessons and conclusions. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), NGO Management. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2002b). NGO performance and accountability: Introduction and overview. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), NGO Management. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Foundation Centre (EFC) & Donors and Foundations Networks in Europe (DAFNE) (2011). Exploring transparency and accountability regulation of public-benefit foundations in Europe, Brussels.

  • Fernandez, J. J. (2008). Causes of dissolutions among Spanish nonprofit associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(1), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, J. L. (2007). The foundation: A great American secret; how private wealth is changing the world. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fresno-García, J. M. (2015). El Tercer Sector de Acción Social en 2015: Impacto de la crisis. Madrid: Plataforma del Tercer Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froelich, K. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gálvez, M. M., Caba, M. C., & Godoy, M. L. (2012). Determining factors in online transparency of NGOs: A Spanish case study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(3), 661–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandía, J. L. (2011). Internet disclosure by nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence of nongubernamental organizations for development in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giloth, R., & Gewirtz, S. (2009). Philanthropy and mistakes: An untapped resource. The Foundation Review, 1(1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. B. (2002). Guest editorial. Corporate communications, 7(4), 204–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurrell, S. A., Warhurst, C., & Nickson, D. (2011). Giving Miss Marple a makeover: Graduate recruitment, systems failure, and the Scottish voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Independent Sector (2007) Principles for good governance and ethical practice: A guide for charities and foundations. https://www.independentsector.org/principles. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  • Jäger, U., & Beyes, T. (2010). Strategizing in NPOs: A case study on the practice of organizational change between social mission and economic rationale. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. R., & Mucha, L. (2014). Sustainability assessment and reporting for nonprofit organizations: Accountability “for the Public Good”. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1465–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, W. L., & Brower, R. S. (2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 588–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, K., & Jäger, U. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefroy, K., & Tsarenko, Y. (2014). Dependence and effectiveness in the nonprofit-corporate alliance: The mediating effect of objectives achievement. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1959–1966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., Bellucci, M., & Bagnoli, L. (2016). Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: A study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, doi:10.1177/0275074016649260.

  • Marano, V., & Tashman, P. (2012). MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the firm. International Business Review, 2(6), 1122–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín Cavanna, J. (2011). 36 principios de transparencia y buen gobierno. Fundación Compromiso Empresarial. http://www.compromisoempresarial.com/wp-content/uploads/Guia10-sumario.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2016.

  • McKeever, B. S. (2015). The nonprofit sector in brief 2015. Public charities, giving, and volunteering. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000497-The-Nonprofit-Sector-in-Brief-2015-Public-Charities-Giving-and-Volunteering.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2016.

  • New York Foundation Center (2009). Foundation growth and giving estimates, current outlook, New York.

  • Nie, L., Liu, H. K., & Cheng, W. (2016). Exploring factors that influence voluntary disclosure by Chinese foundations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(5), 2374–2400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 801–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othman, R., & Ali, N. (2014). NPO, internal controls, and supervision mechanisms in a developing country. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfitzer, M., & Stamp, M. (2010). Multiplying impact through philanthropic collaboration. European Foundation Centre & FSG Social Impact Advisors. http://efc.issuelab.org/resource/multiplying_impact_through_philanthropic_collaboration. Accessed 4 July 2016.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prewitt, K. (2006). Foundations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector. A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Garcia, M., & Álvarez-González, L. I. (2011). Foundations and social economy: Conceptual approaches and socio-economic relevance. CIRIEC-España Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 73, 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Garcia, M., Martin Cavanna, J., & Álvarez-González, L. I. (2012). Assessing and advancing foundation transparency: Corporate foundations as a case study. The Foundation Review, 4(3), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., Koufopoulos, D., & Palmer, P. (2010). Partnership formation for change: Indicators for transformative potential in cross sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1441–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szper, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(1), 112–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2003). Indicators of effectiveness. Understanding and improving foundation performance. http://research.effectivephilanthropy.org/indicators-of-effectiveness. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  • Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Accountability.org: Online disclosures by U.S. nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 693–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro, A. (2012). To pay or not to pay? Dynamic transparency and the fight against the Mafia’s extortionists. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tulder, R., & Fortanier, F. (2009). Business and sustainable development: From passive involvement to active partnerships. In M. Kremer, P. van Lieshout & R. Went (Eds.), Doing good or doing better: Development policies in a globalizing world (pp. 211–235). Amsterdam: Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), Amsterdam University Press.

  • Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding provided by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, as part of its R&D Plan (2009–2011), for the project entitled “Foundations as a key factor of Spanish firms’ corporate social responsibility strategy. Bidirectional analysis of the foundation-firm relationship following a marketing approach” (MICINN-09-ECO2009-11377). The authors also acknowledge the Spanish Association of Foundations (AEF) for endorsing that research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Rey-Garcia.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 3 Transparency indicators

Appendix 2

Table 4 Independent and control variables

Appendix 3

Table 5 Strategic nature of the partnership

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanzo-Pérez, M.J., Rey-Garcia, M. & Álvarez-González, L.I. The Drivers of Voluntary Transparency in Nonprofits: Professionalization and Partnerships with Firms as Determinants. Voluntas 28, 1595–1621 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9882-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9882-9

Keywords

Navigation