Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility

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

Abstract

Key accomplishments of political corporate social responsibility (CSR) scholarship have been the identification of global governance gaps and a proposal how to tackle them. Political CSR scholarship assumes that the traditional roles of state and business have eroded, with states losing power and business gaining power in a globalized world. Consequently, the future of CSR lies in political CSR with new global governance forms which are organized by mainly non-state actors. The objective of the paper is to deepen our understanding of political CSR and reintegrate notions of state power into political CSR scholarship by highlighting how states (1) set the context within which business takes place, (2) regulate offshore business practices, and (3) play pivotal roles in new global governance mechanisms.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

References

  • Aaronson, S. A., & Higham, I. (2013). “Re-righting Business”: John Ruggie and the struggle to develop international human rights standards for transnational firms. Human Rights Quarterly, 35(2), 333–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2003). National regulation of multinational enterprises: An essay on comity, extraterritoriality, and harmonization. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization?. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernaz, N. (2013). Enhancing corporate accountability for human rights violations: Is extraterritoriality the magic potion? Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 493–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Editorial Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddewyn, J., & Doh, J. (2011). Global strategy and the collaboration of MNEs, NGOs, and governments for the provisioning of collective goods in emerging markets. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A. & Hönke, J. (2011). From compliance to practice. Mining companies and the voluntary principles on security and human rights in the democratic Republic of Congo. SFB Working Papers No. 25; Sonderforschungsbereich 700, Freie Universität Berlin.

  • Börzel, T. A., Hönke, J., & Thauer, C. R. (2012). Does it really take the state? Business and Politics, 14(3), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenkert, G. C. (2009). Google, human rights, and moral compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 453–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. (1998). Global cities, global states. Review of International Economy, 5(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialisation. Urban Studies, 36(3), 431–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, B., Ezickson, D., & Kocoras, J. (2010). The Bribery Act 2010: Raising the bar above the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Company Lawyer, 31(11), 144–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society. Cincinnati: South-Western College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., & Tyler, K. (2014). The UK context for business and human rights. In L. Blecher, N. K. Stafford, & G. C. Bellamy (Eds.), Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts. New expectations and paradigms (pp. 301–330). Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics—A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, A. (2011). Transnational corporations and international law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, O. (2006). Extraterritorial Jurisdiction as a tool for improving the Human Rights Accountability of Transnational Corporations,.http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Olivier-de-Schutter-report-for-SRSG-re-extraterritorial-jurisdiction-Dec-2006.pdf.

  • den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F., & Kooijmans-van Lankveld, H. (2014). Playing on two chessboards. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 790–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detomasi, D. A. (2007). The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 321–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.-L., & Etchanchu, H. (2015). Contextualizing Corporate Political Responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in Historical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2879-7.

  • Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2004). Globalization and corporate social responsibility: How non-governmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct. Management International Review, 44(2), 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drimmer, J. C., & Lamoree, S. R. (2011). Think globally, sue locally: Trends and out-of-court tactics in transnational tort actions. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29(2), 456–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1954). The responsibilities of management. Harper’s Magazine, 209(1254), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, R., & Walton, C. C. (1961). Conceptual foundations of business. Homewood, Il: Richard D. Irwin.

  • Elms, H., & Phillips, R. A. (2009). Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: Corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking, L. F. (2014). The future of foreign direct liability? Exploring the international relevance of the Dutch Shell Nigeria case. Utrecht Law Review, 10(1), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5), 1092–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, P., & Jones, M. T. (2013). The end of corporate social responsibility. Crisis and critique. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, T. L., & Schipani, C. A. (2004). The role of business in fostering peaceful societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2014). Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 483–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2011). The government of self-regulation: On the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Economy and Society, 40(4), 640–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, R., Sinha, P., Kapfudzaruwa, F., & Schild, C. (2009). Business and human rights in South Africa: An analysis of antecedents of human rights due diligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 453–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A., & Eckert, S. (2008). New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy: Self-regulation by industry in Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 28(01), 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2008). The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 28(01), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg, A. (2014). Kiobel and corporate complicity—Running with the pack. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 107, e41–e47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hönke, J. (2014). Transnational companies and security governance. Hybrid practices in a postcolonial world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudon, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). The ethical crisis in microfinance: Issues, findings, and implications. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(4), 561–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J. (2016). Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3027-8.

  • Idahosa, P. (2002). Business ethics and development in conflict (zones): The case of Talisman Oil. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(3), 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ite, U. E. (2004). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: A case study of Nigeria. Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. R. (2009, September). Alien Tort Claims Act cases keep coming. The National Law Journal.

  • Jägers, N., Jesse, K., & Verschuuren, J. (2014). The future of corporate liability for extraterritorial human rights abuses: The Dutch case against Shell. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 107, e36–e40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaeb, C., & Scheffer, D. (2013). The paradox of Kiobel in Europe. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 852–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. (2009). Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 349–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leval, P. N. (2013). The long arm of international law: Giving victims of human rights abuses their day in court. Foreign Affairs, 92, 19–21.

  • Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 657–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkinen, J., & Kasanen, E. (2014). Boundaries between business and politics: A study on the division of moral labor. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2419-x.

  • Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquoale, R. (2014). International human rights law perspectives on the UN Framework and Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights. In L. Blecher, N. K. Stafford, & G. C. Bellamy (Eds.), Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts. New expectations and paradigms (pp. 51–78). Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale, R. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and international human rights law. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale, R. (2013). Waving not drowning: Kiobel outside the United States. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 846–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(03), 527–556.

  • Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R., & Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Executive Review, 33(3), 750–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The Politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 469–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, government, and civil society. In A. Crane, et al. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 303–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski, P. (2012). Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 145–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski, P., & Rouas, V. (2014). Foreign direct-liability litigation. In L. Blecher, N. K. Stafford, & G. C. Bellamy (Eds.), Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts. New expectations and paradigms (pp. 51–78). Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. T. (2000). “Roast Starbucks” group says. Times: Seattle. D2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P., & Frynas, J. G. (2007). Beyond CSR? Business, poverty and social justice: An introduction. Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 669–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W. (2011). Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2000). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises: Statements made on the adoption of the review 2000.

  • Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasastry, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility versus business and human rights: Bridging the gap between responsibility and accountability. Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 237–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A. (2010). Collaborative governance 2.0. Corporate Governance, 10(4), 500–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). Taming Wicked Problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.12137.

  • Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E.-O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises. www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-2011.pdf.

  • Ruggie, J. G. (2013a). Kiobel and corporate social responsibility. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/KIOBEL%20AND%20CORPORATE%20SOCIAL%20RESPONSIBILITY.pdf.

  • Ruggie, J. G. (2013b). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights (Norton Global Ethics Series). New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, A. (2014). Corporations and transnational litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English courts. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 107, e23–e29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. A. (2009). China 2020: How western business can—And should—Influence social and political change in the coming decade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. A. (2015). Business and human rights in historical perspective. Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 155–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, D. H. (2010). Challenges to legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility—Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, et al. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 413–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world—A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 505–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 327–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrempf, J. (2014). A social connection approach to corporate responsibility: The case of the fast-food industry and obesity. Business and Society, 53(2), 300–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Upstream corporate social responsibility: From contract responsibility to full producer responsibility. Business and Society, 55(4), 491–527.

  • Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Wettstein, F. (2015). Beyond Guilty Verdicts: Human Rights Litigation and its Impact on Corporations’ Human Rights Policies. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2889-5.

  • Schuler, D. A. (2012). A club theory approach to voluntary social programs: Multinational companies and the extractive industries transparency initiative. Business and Politics, 14(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slager, R., Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 763–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah, M. (2001). Linking state responsibility for certain harms caused by corporate nationals abroad to civil recourse in the legal systems of home states. In C. Scott (Ed.), Torture as Tort: Comparative perspectives on the development of transnational human rights litigation (pp. 491–512). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen Knudsen, J. & Brown, D. (2012). Why governments intervene: Mixed motives for public policies on CSR. Accessed September 6, 2013, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2187054.

  • Steinhardt, R. G. (2001). Litigating corporate responsibility. Global Dimensions, 1, Accessed October 31 2009 http://www.globaldimensions.net/articles/cr/steinhardt.html, October 31 2009).

  • Steinhardt, R. G. (2013). Kiobel and the weakening of precedent: A long walk for a short drink. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 841–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, B. (2014). Human rights litigation in U.S. courts against individuals and corporations. In L. Blecher, N. K. Stafford, & G. C. Bellamy (Eds.), Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts. New expectations and paradigms (pp. 179–199). Chicago: ABA Book Publishing.

  • Stewart, D. P., & Wuerth, I. (2013). Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: The Supreme Court and the Alien Tort Statute. American Journal of International Law, 107(3), 601–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

  • United Nations Environmental Programme. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and regional trade and investment agreements. Geneva: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P., & Marques, J. C. (2010). Introduction: The intellectual crisis of CSR. In P. Utting & J. C. Marques (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and regulatory governance: Towards inclusive development? (pp. 1–49). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2008). Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 261–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct achievements and limitations. Business and Society, 49(1), 68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, J. S. (2014). Trade and investment arrangements and labor rights. In L. Blecher, N. K. Stafford, & G. C. Bellamy (Eds.), Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts. New expectations and paradigms (pp. 121–175). Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voiculescu, A. (2009). Human rights and the new corporate accountability: Learning from recent developments in corporate criminal liability. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 419–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein, F. (2009). Multinational corporations and global justice: Human rights obligations of a quasi-governmental institution. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein, F. (2012). CSR and the debate on business and human rights: Bridging the great divide. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(04), 739–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein, F. (2015). Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: A critical assessment. Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 162–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 709–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, T. (2015). Conflict minerals, black markets, and transparency: The legislative background of Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and its historical lessons. Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, O. F. (2004). The UN global compact: The challenge and the promise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(4), 755–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C., & Conley, J. (2005). Is there an emerging fiduciary duty to consider human rights? University of Cincinnati Law Review, 74(1), 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and global labor justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 365–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerk, J. A. (2006). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility. Limitations and opportunities in international law. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Schrempf-Stirling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schrempf-Stirling, J. State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 150, 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3198-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3198-3

Keywords

Navigation