Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Authenticity and Corporate Governance

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

“The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be.”—Socrates

Abstract

Although personal attributes have gained recognition as an important area of effective corporate governance, scholarship has largely overlooked the value and implications of individual virtue in governance practice. We explore how authenticity—a personal and morally significant virtue—affects the primary monitoring and strategy functions of the board of directors as well as core processes concerning director selection, cultivation, and enactment by the board. While the predominant focus in corporate governance research has been on structural factors that influence firm financial outcomes, this paper shifts attention to the role of authenticity and its relationship to individual board member qualities and collective board activities. We explore how authenticity has the potential to influence board dynamics and decision making and to enhance transparency and accountability.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper we use the term virtue to describe authenticity as a positive personal moral attribute. Virtue ethicists use this term to explain how excellence, practical wisdom, and happiness are central to the notion of living a virtuous life (Solomon 1988). We agree it is important for a board member to intend to be a good person, try to develop oneself as such, and attempt to create an organizational context that supports ethical behavior—ideas reminiscent of certain aspects of virtue ethics (Weaver 2006).

  2. It bears noting that any number of directors could be committed to shareholder value maximization at the expense of other societal goods or to a stakeholder orientation of value for society at the expense of firm owners. To these extremes, we suggest that authenticity requires a board member to question any dominant social order (Varga and Guignon 2017) and involves making a shift from viewing these two theories of the firm as dichotomous (Freeman 2008; Jensen 2008; Porter and Kramer 2011). Empirical research demonstrates that firms accept and accommodate the paradoxical tension between managing for stockholders versus balancing the interests of stakeholders (Clark et al. 2016).

  3. We thank one of our reviewers for helping us with this insight.

References

  • Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stakeholders: How do directors decide? Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1331–1355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R., Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G., & Gospel, H. (2008). An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization Science, 19, 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and international governance. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., Goodpaster, K. E., & Weaver, G. R. (2015). Past trends and future directions in business ethics and corporate responsibility scholarship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(04), v–xv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(4), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L. (2016). Are board designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 319–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Paine, L. S. (2017). The error at the heart of corporate leadership. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caza, B. B., Moss, S., & Vough, H. (2017). From synchronizing to harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217733972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Management Department Faculty Publications, 23, 227–240. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/23.

  • Clark, C., & Brown, J. (2015). Multinational corporations and governance effectiveness: Towards a more integrative board. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(3), 565–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Steckler, E., & Newell, S. (2016). Managing contradiction: Stockholder and stakeholder views of the firm as paradoxical opportunity. Business and Society Review, 121(1), 123–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Van Buren, H. J. (2013). Compound conflicts of interest in the US proxy system. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 355–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cording, M., Harrison, J., Hoskisson, R., & Jonsen, K. (2014). Walking the talk: A multi-stakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (2012). The epistemic fault line in corporate governance. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 256–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, W., & Santoro, M. (2003). The importance of value diversity in corporate life. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 433–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman (2017). 2017 Edelman trust barometer annual global report. Retrieved November 6, 2017, from https://www.edelman.com/global-results/.

  • Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 121–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filatotchev, I., & Nakajima, C. (2014). Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and corporate social responsibility: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 289–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (Eds.). (2005). Corporate governance life cycle. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Ending the so-called ‘Friedman-Freeman’ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 162–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Auster, E. (2011). Values, authenticity, and responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26(7), 983–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Misangyi, V. F., & Park, C. A. (2015). The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. V., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 382–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authentic behavior in organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16, s1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K. (2005). Towards authenticity: A Sartrean perspective on business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 307–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Non- rational behavior, value conflicts, stakeholder theory, and firm behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 167–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, W., Guldiken, O., & Clark, C. (2017). The director selection process: A field study from the candidates’ perspective. Presented at the 2017 Strategic Management Conference, Houston, TX.

  • Keasey, K., & Wright, M. (1993). Issues in corporate accountability and governance: An editorial. Accounting and Business Research, 23(sup1), 291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khurana, R., & Pick, K. (2004). The social nature of boards. Brooklyn Law Review, 70, 1259–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka, J. (2008). Strategy making and the search for authenticity. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2005). Corporate governance and accountability in multinational enterprises: Concepts and agenda. Journal of International Management, 11, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society—A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, C., Bansal, P., & Crossan, M. (2011). Creating economic value through social values: Introducing a culturally informed resource-based view. Organization Science, 22(2), 432–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, D. R., Chan, A. Y., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazutis, D. D., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Reconnecting business and society: perceptions of authenticity in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. S. (1983). Who controls who? An examination of the relation between management and boards of directors in large American corporations. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 426–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1999). Corporate moral agency: Review and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(4), 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • NACD. National Association of Corporate Directors (2017). Building an effective board. October 17, 2017.

  • Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Buckley, R., Brown, J. A., & Evans, R. (2006). Authentic leadership: A historical perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 64–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., Kahai, S. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2010). Team virtues and performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25, 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational demography: Implications for management. California Management Review, 28(1), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Crating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546–1571.

    Google Scholar 

  • PwC (2017). Annual Corporate Directors Survey. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/governance-insights-center/annual-corporate-directors-survey/assets/pwc-2017-annual-corporate--directors--survey.pdf.

  • Raelin, J. D., & Bondy, K. (2013). Putting the good back in good corporate governance: The presence and problems of double-layered agency theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 420–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rampersad, R., & Hussain, S. (2014). Authentic governance: Aligning personal governance with corporate governance. Basel: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewline, P. F., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149–170). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. (1992). Discourse on the origin of inequality (A. Donald & Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1754)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J., Stewart, P., & Hanover, J. (1997). Julie, or, the new Heloise: Letters of two lovers who live in a small town at the foot of the Alps (Trans.). Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England. (Original work published 1761)

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell Reynolds (2016). Global board culture survey: Understanding the behaviors that drive board effectiveness. Russell Reynolds Associates, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Before virtue: Biology, brain, behavior, and the “moral sense”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 351–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seierstad, C. (2016). Beyond the business case: The need for both utility and justice rationales for increasing the share of women on boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 390–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research Focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L. (2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1988). Ethics and Excellence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer Stuart (2016). Spencer Stuart Board Index 2016. Retrieved from https://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/pdf%20files/research%20and%20insight%20pdfs/spencer-stuart-us-board-index-2016_july2017.pdf?la=en.

  • Steckler, E. (2014). The social construction of organizational authenticity by stakeholders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

  • Stiles, P., & Taylor, B. (2001). Boards at Work—How Directors View their Roles and Responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. (2015). Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 233–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga, S. (2011). Authenticity as an Ethical Ideal. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga, S., & Guignon, C. (2017). “Authenticity,” stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition).

  • Walls, J. L., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Exceptional boards: Environmental experience and positive deviance from institutional norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and analysis of a multidimensional theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, N. (2003). Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success. Organization Science, 14(2), 149–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W., & Michaelsen, L. (1988). Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective task. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 495–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27(3), 341–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, A. (2009). Corporate governance convergence and moral relativism. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, A. L. (2006). The stakeholder fiduciary: CSR, governance and the future of boards. San Francisco, CA: Business for Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (2002). Truth and truthfulness. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Withers, M. C., Hillman, A. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2012). A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 243–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 693–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1339–1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 507–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zona, F., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Withers, M. C. (2015). Board interlocks and firm performance toward a combined agency–resource dependence perspective. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315579512.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Donahue Center for Business Ethics and Social Responsibility, Manning School of Business, University of Massachusetts Lowell, One University Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Erica Steckler

  2. Harold S. Geneen Institute of Corporate Governance, Bentley University, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA, 02452, USA

    Cynthia Clark

Authors
  1. Erica Steckler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica Steckler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by either of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steckler, E., Clark, C. Authenticity and Corporate Governance. J Bus Ethics 155, 951–963 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3903-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3903-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation