Abstract
Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are significant contributors to climate change, which poses a grave threat to social and economic systems. Our understanding of what might drive firms to reduce their emissions of these gases, however, is incomplete, and it is not clear that the knowledge gained from other environmental issues will readily apply to these emissions. We argue and find that indicators of environmental injustice previously shown to relate to toxic pollutants, for example, are poor predictors of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, we show that the degree of belief in and concern about climate change in a local community is a significant predictor of the facility’s rate of emission improvements. Furthermore, we find that beliefs at both the facility and headquarter communities influence emission reduction, and that those effects are substitutes for each other.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One might argue that GHG emissions are associated with emissions of other co-pollutants, which would create an instrumental or self-regarding motivation for local communities to pressure facilities to cut GHG emissions. However, recent research finds that the relationship between GHGs and other criteria pollutants is extremely noisy, with 30% of facilities having a negative relationship between GHG emissions and co-pollutants (Burtraw & Roy, 2023).
Liberalism and other demographic factors such as income (though in a complex manner—the relationship between wealth and beliefs appears to be moderated by political orientation—see, e.g. Bohr, 2014), education, and religiosity are related to climate belief (Howe et al., 2015). In our analysis, we control for a series of demographic variables in order to be more certain that our measure of belief is not simply reflecting one or more of these factors.
There is also some recent work in the U.S. domestic context that explores production-shifting across facilities in response to regulatory pressures (Gibson, 2019; Rijal & Khanna, 2020). However, these papers do not focus on beliefs in a context without federal regulation; instead, they ignore the issue of beliefs and focus on changes in the enforcement of existing federal regulations. Moreover, they focus on production shifting rather than reductions in emissions controlling for production, as we do here.
We note that Durand et al. (2019) would predict that once issue salience increases beyond a given point, firms will engage in symbolic compliance with the normative pressures. In our case, we observe only the substantive actions that firms undertake and not the more symbolic ones such as carbon offset purchases that leave core operations untouched.
To put this in perspective, the EPA estimates that a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.7 metric tons of CO2 per year. Thus, each facility in this database emits the equivalent of over 5000 passenger vehicles in CO2 per year.
Unfortunately, this question was not asked regularly. It was asked again in 2012 but not in other election years, when the sample was large enough to create county-level estimates of concern. We do not incorporate the 2012 data because it would require us to interpolate measures for 2011 and 2013–2015 in order to have a time-varying measure.
Howe et al. (2015) create a multilevel regression and post-stratification (MRP) model of the Yale-George Mason climate survey and create estimates of county-level belief in Climate Change from these data, which would make these data highly applicable for our purposes. However, in estimating the MRP, they include a measure of local emissions as a predictor of climate belief. Though their emission data are not from the GHGRP, their measure of climate belief might be endogenous to the very outcome we predict, and we therefore employ the CCES data.
One other endogeneity concern is that climate belief may itself influence facility location (for example, a firm could choose to locate GHG-intensive production where climate belief is less prevalent in order to escape stakeholder pressure. This would work against our second hypothesis, however, since if this were the case we would not find evidence that greater climate belief at the HQ is related to lower emissions at a facility.
We obtained the number of Sierra Club members in a given chapter from the Sierra Club and then linked each chapter to a given county and measured the distance from each facility to the geographic center of each county.
We recognize that there are multiple ways to measure a community’s income; we re-ran the analysis using the proportion of residents below the poverty line instead of median income and found insignificant results for that as well. We also re-ran the results using both income and race at the headquarters county, and found no effect—suggesting that companies headquartered in rich and/or white communities are not ‘dumping’ their GHG emissions on disadvantaged communities.
We use the equation provided in Clogg et al. (1995) to test the differences between the two coefficients.
Moreover, recent research in finance suggests that investors blend both prosocial and instrumental concerns in their investment allocation decisions (Hart and Zingales 2017), rendering it extremely difficult to disentangle the two when it comes to factors driving local manager behavior.
References
Akesson, J., Ashworth-Hayes, S., Hahn, R., Metcalfe, R., & Rasooly, I. (2020). Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 64(2), 147–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09375-y
Arbuckle, M. B., & Konisky, D. M. (2015). The role of religion in environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12213
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556363
Barnett, M. L., & Lee, S. (2012). Business as usual? An exploration of the determinants of success in the multinational transfer of corporate responsibility initiatives. Business and Politics, 14(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/bap-2012-0019
Berchicci, L., Dowell, G., & King, A. A. (2012). Environmental capabilities and corporate strategy: Exploring acquisitions among US manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1053–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1960
Berchicci, L., Dowell, G., & King, A. A. (2017). Environmental performance and the market for corporate assets. Strategic Management Journal, 38(12), 2444–2464.
Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2014). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 287–300.
Bithas, K. (2011). Sustainability and externalities: Is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecological Economics, 70(10), 1703–1706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.014
Blass, V., Corbett, C. J., Delmas, M. A., & Muthulingam, S. (2014). Top management and the adoption of energy efficiency practices: Evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in the US. Energy, 65, 560–571.
Bohr, J. (2014). Public views on the dangers and importance of climate change: Predicting climate change beliefs in the United States through income moderated by party identification. Climatic Change, 126(1–2), 217–227.
Bollinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Science, 31(6), 900–912.
Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2006). The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 249–269.
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.
Burbano, V. C. (2016). Social responsibility messages and worker wage requirements: Field experimental evidence from online labor marketplaces. Organization Science, 27(4), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1066
Burtraw, D., & Roy, N. (2023). How would facility-specific emissions caps affect the California carbon market? Resources for the Future Report 23-09.
Carr, W. A., Patterson, M., Yung, L., & Spencer, D. (2012). The Faithful skeptics: Evangelical religious beliefs and perceptions of climate change. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 6(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v6i3.276
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.
Chiroleu-Assouline, M., & Lyon, T. P. (2020). Merchants of doubt: Corporate political action when NGO credibility is uncertain. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 29(2), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12338
Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556358
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 91–100.
Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.826
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.409
Doshi, A. R., Dowell, G. W. S., & Toffel, M. W. (2013). How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 34(10), 1209–1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2055
Dowell, G. W. S., & Muthulingam, S. (2017). Will firms go green if it pays? The impact of disruption, cost, and external factors on the adoption of environmental initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1287–1304. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2603
Downey, L., & Hawkins, B. (2008). Race, income, and environmental inequality in the United States. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 759–781.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2019). Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 299–320.
Eberlein, B., & Matten, D. (2009). Business responses to climate change regulation in Canada and Germany: Lessons for MNCs from emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 241–255.
Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.
Figueres, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Whiteman, G., Rockström, J., Hobley, A., & Rahmstorf, S. (2017). Three years to safeguard our climate. Nature, 546(7660), 593–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/546593a
Freudenberg, N., Pastor, M., & Israel, B. (2011). Strengthening community capacity to participate in making decisions to reduce disproportionate environmental exposures. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1), S123–S130.
Gibson, M. (2019). Regulation-induced pollution substitution. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5), 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00797
Hamilton, J. T. (1995). Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the toxics release inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(1), 98–113.
Harman, G. (2014). Your Brain on Climate Change: Why the Threat Produces Apathy, not Action. The Guardian. Nov 10, 2014. Retrieved Nov 1, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychology-environment-elections
Hart, O., & Zingales, L. (2017). Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 2(2), 247–275.
Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2020). When and why do organizations respond to environmental, social, and governance issues?. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 18172). Academy of Management.
Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12(4), 414–434.
Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2018). Community social capital and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 647–665.
Howard-Grenville, J., Nash, J., & Coglianese, C. (2008). Constructing the license to operate: Internal factors and their influence on corporate environmental decisions. Law & Policy, 30(1), 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2008.00270
Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 596–603.
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54(2), 129–145.
Kalnins, A., & Dowell, G. (2017). Community characteristics and changes in toxic chemical releases: Does information disclosure affect environmental injustice? Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 277–292.
Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785799
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance: An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105–116.
King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.
King, A. A., & Shaver, J. M. (2001). Are aliens green? Assessing foreign establishments’ environmental conduct in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 22(11), 1069–1085.
Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (1997). Information as regulation: The effect of community right to know laws on toxic emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(1), 109–124.
Konisky, D. M., Hughes, L., & Kaylor, C. H. (2016). Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Climatic Change, 134(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1555-3
Lee, M. D. P., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). Filtering institutional logics: Community logic variation and differential responses to the institutional complexity of toxic waste. Organization Science, 26(3), 847–866.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Carman, J., Lee, S., Verner, M., Ballew, M., Ansah, P., Badullovich, N., Myers, T., Goldberg, M., & Marlon, J. (2023). Climate Change in the American Mind: Politics & Policy, December 2022. Yale University and George Mason University: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Levy, D. L., & Kolk, A. (2002). Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 4(3), 275–300.
Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014). Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2127
Li, J., & Wu, D. (2020). Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact? Management Science, 66(6), 2564–2588. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324
Lyon, T. P., & Yin, H. (2010). Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards? An empirical investigation. The Energy Journal, 31(3), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol31-No3-7
Maksimovic, V., & Phillips, G. (2008). The industry life cycle, acquisitions and investment: Does firm organization matter? The Journal of Finance, 63(2), 673–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01328
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. Wiley.
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275683
Marshall, G. (2014). Don’t even think about it: Why our brains are hard-wired to ignore climate change. Bloomsbury USA Press.
Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.007
Meyer, A. G. (2022). Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession. Economic Inquiry, 60(1), 64–86.
Moulton, J. G., Sanders, N. J., & Wentland, S. A. (2023). Toxic assets: How the housing market responds to environmental information shocks. Land Economics. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.100.1.102122-0089R
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Pigou, A. (2017). The economics of welfare. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351304368
Rijal, B., & Khanna, N. (2020). High priority violations and intra-firm pollution substitution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 103, 102359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102359
Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. (2006). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. MIT Press.
Roos, G. (2010, September 16). EPA Begins Phase Out of Climate Leaders Program. Environment + Energy Leader. Retrieved 9 February, 2023, from https://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/epa-begins-phase-out-of-climate-leaders-program/
Saha, S., & Mohr, R. D. (2013). Media attention and the toxics release inventory. Ecological Economics, 93, 284–291.
Schumm, W. R. (2010). Statistical requirements for properly investigating a null hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 107(3), 953–971.
Sexton, S. E., & Sexton, A. L. (2014). Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(3), 303–317.
Shapiro, M. D. (2005). Equity and information: Information regulation, environmental justice, and risks from toxic chemicals. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20094
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556361
Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123–155. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123
Solow, R. M. (1994). Perspectives on growth theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 45–54.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 549–572. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0962
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., & Farné, S. (2016). Barriers, drivers and decision-making process for industrial energy efficiency: A broad study among manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises. Applied Energy, 162, 1537–1551.
US EPA. (2017a). GHGRP reported data.
US EPA. (2017b). Greenhouse gas reporting program: Emission calculation methodologies.
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4
Wowak, A. J., Busenbark, J. R., & Hambrick, D. C. (2022). How do employees react when their CEO speaks out? Intra-and extra-firm implications of CEO sociopolitical activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(2), 553–593.
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017). An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1633–1661. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0718
Yang, L., Muller, N. Z., & Jinghong Liang, P. (2021, July). The real effects of mandatory CSR disclosure on emissions: Evidence from the greenhouse gas reporting program. Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28984
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Research Involving Human and Animal Rights
The authors confirm that no human or animal participants were involved in this study and that no informed consent was required
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Fixed-effects results
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increase in facility output | 0.070*** (0.000) | 0.071*** (0.000) | 0.070*** (0.000) | 0.070*** (0.000) | 0.070*** (0.000) | 0.070*** (0.000) | 0.035** (0.049) | 0.107*** (0.001) | 0.041* (0.060) | 0.103*** (0.000) |
Clock | − 0.021** (0.022) | − 0.023** (0.015) | − 0.020** (0.030) | − 0.025*** (0.009) | − 0.021** (0.026) | − 0.024** (0.012) | − 0.013 (0.188) | − 0.029* (0.084) | − 0.014 (0.242) | − 0.029** (0.042) |
Count of state-level energy policies | 0.004 (0.447) | 0.005 (0.325) | 0.003 (0.484) | 0.005 (0.276) | 0.004 (0.392) | 0.006 (0.256) | 0.004 (0.418) | 0.006 (0.513) | 0.003 (0.635) | 0.007 (0.370) |
Count of county-level energy policies | − 0.038 (0.175) | − 0.039 (0.165) | − 0.038 (0.178) | − 0.027 (0.328) | − 0.040 (0.150) | − 0.030 (0.273) | − 0.018 (0.561) | − 0.070 (0.155) | − 0.020 (0.419) | − 0.054 (0.205) |
Number of corporate siblings | − 0.002 (0.241) | − 0.002 (0.267) | − 0.002 (0.245) | − 0.002 (0.264) | − 0.002 (0.224) | − 0.002 (0.246) | 0.002 (0.323) | − 0.005** (0.038) | − 0.001 (0.572) | − 0.005 (0.167) |
Clock # log of median income in facility county | − 0.031 (0.180) | |||||||||
Clock # African American Pop (%) in facility county | − 0.000 (0.730) | |||||||||
Clock # facility county climate change concern | − 0.126** (0.022) | − 0.113** (0.043) | − 0.083** (0.038) | − 0.161 (0.140) | ||||||
Clock # HQ County climate change concern | − 0.119** (0.023) | − 0.101* (0.058) | − 0.155* (0.056) | − 0.072 (0.285) | ||||||
Constant | 11.835*** (0.000) | 11.774*** (0.000) | 11.849*** (0.000) | 11.754*** (0.000) | 11.814*** (0.000) | 11.744*** (0.000) | 11.977*** (0.000) | 11.608*** (0.000) | 11.965*** (0.000) | 11.615*** (0.000) |
Observations | 4046 | 4046 | 4046 | 4046 | 4046 | 4046 | 2013 | 2033 | 2061 | 1985 |
Appendix 2: Change in sample as restrictions are applied
Variable | Full GHGRP sample | Only > 25 observations on CCES survey | Production ratio available | Not co-located with HQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Log of total emissions | 11.31 | 11.43 | 11.99 | 12.06 |
Utility | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.19 | 0.18 |
Food and beverage | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Primary manufacturing | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.48 | 0.51 |
Other manufacturing | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.22 |
Transportation | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 |
Solid waste | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 |
Observations | 40,816 | 13,551 | 5310 | 4046 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dowell, G., Lyon, T. Beliefs Matter: Local Climate Concerns and Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05619-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05619-w