Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socially Driven Stakeholder Networks of German Family-Owned Companies as Enablers of Economic Success: A Theoretical and Empirical Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Management and Corporate Social Responsibility

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

In Germany in many industries like machine building, chemical or automotive family-owned companies stand for above average R&D activities, high quality products, close ties with their customers and outstanding agility. Many of those companies are also well-known for long-lasting and valuable activities in corporate citizenship, mainly focused on their direct neighborhoods and particular stakeholders. The financial success of those companies is often grounded on their networks, as it is typical for the German automotive industry with their close ties to OEMs (see Schäfer and Baumann 2013, pp. 1–2). Since the economic role of such networks for the success of companies in general is well understood, the study of the relevance of stakeholder networks embedded in firm-specific understanding and practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the role of in such a way created social capital and especially the links to family-owned companies are just at the beginning and only few empirical studies on that issue exist.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Definitions and understandings of CSR vary enormous (see Dahlsrud 2008). A common denominator is the understanding of CSR as an attempt to cause a fair internalization of negative external effects of an enterprise’s activities. This is highly relevant for stakeholders on the one hand side (see Carroll 1999). On the other hand side stakeholders can also be receiver of positive external effects of an enterprise’s operations (see Eells and Walton 1974). Practically seen, CSR is understood beyond legal obligations (‘the law to operate’) as it is determined by voluntarily undertaken business activities. They enable or ensure that stakeholders facilitate a firm’s operations or refrain to threaten them. This describes CSR according to the license to operate paradigm (see Gunningham et al. 2004). With the concept of the Sustainable Development as first offered by the Brundtland-Commission in 1987 and worked out on the UN-level, the anthropogenic form of the sustainability concept has been crystallized at the firm level as ‘Corporate Sustainability’. With a Corporate Sustainability approach, the complete entrepreneurial behaviour becomes explicitly collimated in the triad of economic, social and ecological dimensions (see WCED 1987).

References

  • Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (1987). Innovation, market structure, and firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 567–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amram, M., & Kulatilaka, N. (1999). Real opetions: Managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Boston: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, P., & Petrova, M. (2010). Corporate social performance, resource dependence and firm performance. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 80(Special issue 1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J., Klein, S., & Smyrnios, K. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augier, M., & Teece, D. (2009). Resources, capabilities, and Penrose effects. In D. Teece (Ed.), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management – Organizing for innovation and growth (pp. 113–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BDI/Deutsche Bank. (2016). Die größten Familienunternehmen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Frühjahrsbefragung 2016 – Chartbook I: Innovation und Investition. Bonn: Durchgeführt vom Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2009). Where do good innovation ideas come from? Exploring the influence of network connectivity on innovation idea quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 662–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H., & Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the option lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 760–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M., & Rodrigues, L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organisation Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility – Evolution of a definition construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. (2005). Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance – The key mediating roles of organizational learning and supplier performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(3), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J., Chrisman, J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Union (Ed.). (2002). European SMEs and social and environmental responsibility. Observatory of European SMEs, 2002, No. 4, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Union (Ed.). (2009). Overview of family-business-related issues – Research, networks, policy measures and existing studies. Final report of the expert group. Commission of the European Union, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K., & Prahalad, C. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, J. (2005). Company learning about corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(4), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined – An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmastro, M. (2002). The determinants of the management hierarchy – Evidence from Italian plants. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(1), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth – The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, G., Jr., & Whetten, D. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility – Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eells, R., & Walton, C. (1974). Conceptual foundations of business. Homewood: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elahuge, E. (2005). Corporate managers’ operational discretion to sacrifice profits in the public interest. In B. Hay, R. Stavins, & R. Vietor (Eds.), Environmental protection and the social responsibility of firms – Perspectives from law, economics, and business (pp. 13–76). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eweje, G., & Bentley, T. (2006). CSR and staff retention in New Zealand companies – A literature review (Working paper series 2006, no. 6). Auckland: Department of Management and International Business Research, Massey University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flören, R. H. (2002). Crown princes in the clay – An empirical study on the tackling of succession challenges in Dutch family farms. Dissertation, University of Nyenrode.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. (1998). Firms and the coordination of knowledge: Some Austrian insights (DRUID working papers 98–19). DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T. D., & Regan, D. T. (1996). Do economists make bad citizens? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(1), 187–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management – A stakeholder approach. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gächter, S., Krogh, G., & von Haefliger, S. (2010). Initiating private collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing. Research Policy, 39(7), 893–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter the most to firm success – An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25(9), 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J., Van de Ven, B., & Stoffele, N. (2003). Strategies and instruments for organizing CSR by small and large businesses in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., Kagan, R., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection – Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T., & Williams, M. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halal, W. E. (2001). The collaborative enterprise: A stakeholder model uniting profitability and responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2, 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hankinson, A., Bartlett, D., & Ducheneaut, B. (1997). The key factors in the small profiles of small-medium enterprise owner-managers that influence business performance – The UK (Rennes) SME survey 1995–1997. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 3(3), 168–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IfM Bonn (Hrsg.). (2007). Die Bedeutung der außenwirtschaftlichen Aktivitäten für den deutschen Mittelstand, Studie. IfM-Materialien No. 171. Bonn: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jácome, R., Lisboa, J., & Yasin, M. (2002). Time-based differentiation: An old strategic hat or an effective strategic choice – An empirical investigation. European Business Review, 14(3), 184–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory – An SME perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations – An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keese, D., Tänzler, J.-K., & Hauer, A. (2010). Die Wahrnehmung gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung in Familien- und Nicht-Familienunternehmen. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 58(3), 197–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KfW Bankengruppe (Ed.). (2006). Die Globalisierung des Mittelstands – Chancen und Risiken, Studie. Frankfurt a.M: Kreditinstitut für Wiederaufbau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. (2008). Internationale Familienunternehmen – Definition und Selbstbild. In: C. Rödel (Hrsg.), Internationale Familienunternehmen – Recht, Steuern, Bilanzierung, Finanzierung, Nachfolge, Strategien (pp. 1–14) München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. (2010). Familienunternehmen – Theoretische und empirische Grundlagen, 3. Aufl., Lohmar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., & Maklan, S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility – Moving beyond investment towards measuring outcomes. European Management Journal, 22(5), 508–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (2001). Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12(6), 744–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyläheiko, K., & Sandström, J. (2007). Strategic options-based framework for management of dynamic capabilities in manufacturing firms. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18(8), 966–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyläheiko, K., Sandström, J., & Virkkunen, V. (2002). Dynamic capability view in terms of real options. International Journal of Production Economics, 80(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattemann, C., Schneider, A., Kupke, P. P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and the capabilities based view: A case study of a multinational enterprise (MNE). Working paper, Chair for Corporate Governance and E-Commerce, University of Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete-governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepoutre, J., & Heene, A. (2006). Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility – A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. (2003). Imprinting and the evolution of firm capabilities. In C. Helfat (Ed.), The SMS Blackwell handbook of organizational capabilities. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litz, R. (1995). The family business – Toward definitional clarity. Family Business Review, 8(2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2000). Dynamic capabilities in international expansion. Journal of World Business, 35(4), 355–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, J., & Harvey, R. (2006). An analysis of the factor structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 381–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility – A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. (2006). Corporate social responsibility – Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstaedt, J., Harben, G., & Ward, W. (2003). How small is too small – Firm size as a barrier to exporting from the United States. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, A., Block, J. H., & Heinz, A. (2015). Financing patterns of European SMEs: An empirical taxonomy (Working paper 2015/30). Luxembourg: EIF Research & Market Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D., & Tilton, J. (1969). Research and development costs as a barrier to entry. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 2(4), 570–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 162–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsomer, A., Calantone, R., & Bonetto, A. (1997). What makes firms more innovative – A look at organizational and environmental factors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 12(6), 400–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory – Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., & Minoja, M. (2008). Strategizing corporate social responsibility – Evidence from an Italian medium-sized, family-owned company. Business Ethics – A European Review, 17(1), 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations – A resource dependence perspective. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D., & Sohal, A. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance – An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H. (2009). Corporate social responsibility rating. In G. Aras & D. Crowther (Eds.), A handbook of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (pp. 449–465). Surrey: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H. (2010). Gesellschaftliches Engagement des deutschen Mittelstands – Eine empirische Vergleichsanalyse (Working paper). Betriebswirtschaftliches Institut Abteilung III – Finanzwirtschaft, University of Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H. (2012). Sustainable finance. A conceptual outline. (Working paper series, No. 03/2012). University of Stuttgart, BWI/Abt. III. http://ssrn.com/author=432903

  • Schäfer, H., & Baumann, S. (2013). Managing behavioural risks in logistics-based networks – A project finance approach. The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, XI(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2352812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H., & Goldschmidt, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility of large family-owned companies in Germany. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 11(3), 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Sharma, J., & Devi, A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility – The key role of human resources management. Business Intelligence Journal, 2(1), 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegfried, J., & Evans, L. (1994). Empirical studies of entry and exit – A survey of the evidence. Review of Industrial Organization, 9(2), 121–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy context – The five “C”s of CSR and small business research agenda 2007. Business & Society Review, 112(4), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the essence of the multinational enterprise. In D. Teece (Ed.), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management – Organizing for innovation and growth (pp. 137–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thieme, R. J., Song, M., & Shin, G.-C. (2003). Project management characteristics and new product survival. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen, M., Hendriks, P., & Essers, C. (2007). Research and development knowledge transfer across national cultures. In D. Pauleen (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management (pp. 219–244). Westport: Greenwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner, L., Van Goor-Balk, H., & Masurel, E. (2004). Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, B., & Graafland, J. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vives, A. (2010). Responsible practices in small and medium enterprises. In G. Aras & D. Crowther (Eds.), A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility (pp. 107–130). Farnham: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility – Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 37, 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance – Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility – A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wölfer, K. (2010). Are family-owned businesses better innovators. In A. Gerybadze, H. Ulrich, H. Reiners, & D. Thomaschewski (Eds.), Innovation and international corporate growth (pp. 293–415). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoeteman, K. (2012). Sustainable development drivers – The role of leadership in government, business and NGO performance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Business Administration, Dept. III (Corporate Finance), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Henry Schaefer & Friedrich Voelker

Authors
  1. Henry Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friedrich Voelker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Schaefer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department Business, IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, Krems, Austria

    Reinhard Altenburger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schaefer, H., Voelker, F. (2018). Socially Driven Stakeholder Networks of German Family-Owned Companies as Enablers of Economic Success: A Theoretical and Empirical Study. In: Altenburger, R. (eds) Innovation Management and Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93629-1_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation