When do for-profit corporations pursue both purpose and profits and when do they prioritize one over the other? This study explores this question, measuring the strength of purpose based on the perceptions of nearly 1 million employees across 635 U.S. public companies within 14 industry categories. Two main findings emerge. First, the relationship between purpose and profits varies widely across companies and industries. Second, companies with higher levels of innovation intensity, intangible capital, or long-term investors tend to pursue both purpose and profits, whereas companies with lower levels of these factors tend to prioritize one over the other. This evidence suggests that purpose and profits are compatible in settings that rely on innovation and long temporal horizons for value creation and opposed in settings that do not. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose. Funding: C. Gartenberg acknowledges financial support from the Govil Family and the Wharton School.
{"title":"The Contingent Relationship Between Purpose and Profits","authors":"Claudine Gartenberg","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0194","url":null,"abstract":"When do for-profit corporations pursue both purpose and profits and when do they prioritize one over the other? This study explores this question, measuring the strength of purpose based on the perceptions of nearly 1 million employees across 635 U.S. public companies within 14 industry categories. Two main findings emerge. First, the relationship between purpose and profits varies widely across companies and industries. Second, companies with higher levels of innovation intensity, intangible capital, or long-term investors tend to pursue both purpose and profits, whereas companies with lower levels of these factors tend to prioritize one over the other. This evidence suggests that purpose and profits are compatible in settings that rely on innovation and long temporal horizons for value creation and opposed in settings that do not. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose. Funding: C. Gartenberg acknowledges financial support from the Govil Family and the Wharton School.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46049934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Acceleration allows firms to lock in early success upon entering a nascent market, but whether it enables firms to sustain competitive advantage after the entry is unclear. Using a granular data set on the U.S. LED lightbulb market 2010–2017, we apply an abductive approach to examine the relationship between postentry product acceleration and market acceptance. We find that, although acceleration is slightly more beneficial for firms that have accumulated greater pioneering experience, incumbents with more recognizable brands are able to achieve even greater market acceptance by slowing down their product iterations. Meanwhile, deceleration seems to be a better strategy among firms striving to build legitimacy via regulatory engagement, whereas acceleration could be more beneficial for firms competing in subproduct markets with greater technological uncertainties. We contribute to the nascent market literature by showing that the extent to which firms gain market acceptance through postentry product acceleration hinges on their abilities to assess, learn from, and shape both market and nonmarket stakeholders. Funding: This research is supported by grants from the Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technology Research Grant provided by Cornell University’s Johnson College of Business and Daigle Labs at the University of Connecticut, School of Business. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0192 .
{"title":"Move Fast and Break Things? The Contingent Nature of Product Acceleration in Nascent Markets","authors":"X. Lu, Hyeonsuh Lee, R. Coles","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0192","url":null,"abstract":"Acceleration allows firms to lock in early success upon entering a nascent market, but whether it enables firms to sustain competitive advantage after the entry is unclear. Using a granular data set on the U.S. LED lightbulb market 2010–2017, we apply an abductive approach to examine the relationship between postentry product acceleration and market acceptance. We find that, although acceleration is slightly more beneficial for firms that have accumulated greater pioneering experience, incumbents with more recognizable brands are able to achieve even greater market acceptance by slowing down their product iterations. Meanwhile, deceleration seems to be a better strategy among firms striving to build legitimacy via regulatory engagement, whereas acceleration could be more beneficial for firms competing in subproduct markets with greater technological uncertainties. We contribute to the nascent market literature by showing that the extent to which firms gain market acceptance through postentry product acceleration hinges on their abilities to assess, learn from, and shape both market and nonmarket stakeholders. Funding: This research is supported by grants from the Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technology Research Grant provided by Cornell University’s Johnson College of Business and Daigle Labs at the University of Connecticut, School of Business. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0192 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46686767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As part of institutional changes toward more responsible capitalism, firms increasingly articulate a purpose beyond simply profit as a central tenet of their governance. Management scholarship has noted the potential advantages of such purpose-focus for stakeholder trust. However, some consumers, employees, and shareholders have expressed skepticism about the veracity of firms’ purpose claims and raised concerns about purpose-washing. We propose two distinct influence pathways—one cognitive, one affect-based—by which corporate purpose can influence stakeholder trust. First, purpose constitutes a signal of firm intent and quality that expresses a firm’s public, enduring commitments. It fosters cognitive trust by providing clarity and assurance regarding the firm’s future conduct, allowing stakeholders to better calculate relational and reputational risk and the instrumental value of exchange—even when they do not share the firm’s prosocial mission, principles for stakeholder relations, or its conception of virtues. Second, purpose presents a moral appeal to stakeholders. This appeal can stimulate positive affective responses, activate stakeholders’ hedonic and eudaemonic motives tied to their moral identity, and thus provide intuitive cues to trust the firm. By sharply delineating the pathways by which purpose can shape interorganizational trust, we not only illuminate how purpose can yield trust benefits but also when it is ineffectual and causes stakeholder backlash. This clarifies the role of purpose in shaping relational governance and multistakeholder cooperation and contributes to research on strategic and moral commitments as foundations of interorganizational trust. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Can Purpose Foster Stakeholder Trust in Corporations?","authors":"R. Gulati, Franz Wohlgezogen","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0196","url":null,"abstract":"As part of institutional changes toward more responsible capitalism, firms increasingly articulate a purpose beyond simply profit as a central tenet of their governance. Management scholarship has noted the potential advantages of such purpose-focus for stakeholder trust. However, some consumers, employees, and shareholders have expressed skepticism about the veracity of firms’ purpose claims and raised concerns about purpose-washing. We propose two distinct influence pathways—one cognitive, one affect-based—by which corporate purpose can influence stakeholder trust. First, purpose constitutes a signal of firm intent and quality that expresses a firm’s public, enduring commitments. It fosters cognitive trust by providing clarity and assurance regarding the firm’s future conduct, allowing stakeholders to better calculate relational and reputational risk and the instrumental value of exchange—even when they do not share the firm’s prosocial mission, principles for stakeholder relations, or its conception of virtues. Second, purpose presents a moral appeal to stakeholders. This appeal can stimulate positive affective responses, activate stakeholders’ hedonic and eudaemonic motives tied to their moral identity, and thus provide intuitive cues to trust the firm. By sharply delineating the pathways by which purpose can shape interorganizational trust, we not only illuminate how purpose can yield trust benefits but also when it is ineffectual and causes stakeholder backlash. This clarifies the role of purpose in shaping relational governance and multistakeholder cooperation and contributes to research on strategic and moral commitments as foundations of interorganizational trust. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44499905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I describe the multilevel and systemic nature of symbolic management and decoupling as it applies to corporate social responsibility (CSR), and consider the implications for the corporate purpose movement. I explain how and why the symbolic management system, including the various forms of decoupling that have compromised CSR, could be readily extended to corporate purpose. I further suggest why (i) the symbolic management of purpose would extend a historical pattern of decoupling that has penetrated into ever more fundamental arenas of corporate governance, and (ii) at least some characteristics of corporate purpose may render it even more vulnerable to symbolic management and decoupling than CSR. I conclude that although the corporate purpose movement carries a substantial, downside risk of symbolic management and decoupling, it nonetheless has upside potential to improve corporate social performance, and that academic researchers have a key role to play in realizing that potential. I suggest several research strategies for detecting the presence and extent of symbolic decoupling of corporate purpose. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Systemic Symbolic Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Purpose: A Cautionary Tale","authors":"James D. Westphal","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0188","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I describe the multilevel and systemic nature of symbolic management and decoupling as it applies to corporate social responsibility (CSR), and consider the implications for the corporate purpose movement. I explain how and why the symbolic management system, including the various forms of decoupling that have compromised CSR, could be readily extended to corporate purpose. I further suggest why (i) the symbolic management of purpose would extend a historical pattern of decoupling that has penetrated into ever more fundamental arenas of corporate governance, and (ii) at least some characteristics of corporate purpose may render it even more vulnerable to symbolic management and decoupling than CSR. I conclude that although the corporate purpose movement carries a substantial, downside risk of symbolic management and decoupling, it nonetheless has upside potential to improve corporate social performance, and that academic researchers have a key role to play in realizing that potential. I suggest several research strategies for detecting the presence and extent of symbolic decoupling of corporate purpose. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49530860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As firms increasingly adopt a corporate purpose, there is substantial variation in what this turn to purpose actually entails and divergent views about whether and how firms can realize their purpose aspirations. To capture this variation and analyze its implications for enacting purpose, we leverage three existing bodies of research in organization and management theory: Early organization theory illuminates uses of purpose to convey an organization’s overarching reason for being, organizational hybridity sheds light on purpose as an alternative organizational objective to profit maximization, and systems perspectives offer tools for explaining purpose as a catalyst of systemic change beyond the boundaries of the firm. The typology that we develop based on these three bodies of research provides analytical clarity about distinct facets of the corporate purpose phenomenon and surfaces complementary insights into challenges and opportunities associated with purpose enactment. In doing so, it illuminates the value of drawing on existing organization and management theories for advancing corporate purpose scholarship and provides a springboard for future research. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology","authors":"","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0186","url":null,"abstract":"As firms increasingly adopt a corporate purpose, there is substantial variation in what this turn to purpose actually entails and divergent views about whether and how firms can realize their purpose aspirations. To capture this variation and analyze its implications for enacting purpose, we leverage three existing bodies of research in organization and management theory: Early organization theory illuminates uses of purpose to convey an organization’s overarching reason for being, organizational hybridity sheds light on purpose as an alternative organizational objective to profit maximization, and systems perspectives offer tools for explaining purpose as a catalyst of systemic change beyond the boundaries of the firm. The typology that we develop based on these three bodies of research provides analytical clarity about distinct facets of the corporate purpose phenomenon and surfaces complementary insights into challenges and opportunities associated with purpose enactment. In doing so, it illuminates the value of drawing on existing organization and management theories for advancing corporate purpose scholarship and provides a springboard for future research. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42727090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We apply the lens of social judgement theory to understand the causes and consequences of the growing debate about the purpose of the corporation. Our historical analysis suggests that the debate about corporate purpose is not new and that it tends to arise during periods of growing economic inequality. Our analysis also suggests that the discursive shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism will trigger a new standard of social evaluation of corporations in which we no longer judge corporate behavior based on standards of legitimacy but rather on standards of authenticity. We explore what this change in social evaluation will mean for corporate competition.
{"title":"Corporate Purpose: A Social Judgement Perspective","authors":"R. Suddaby, Luca Manelli, Ziyun Fan","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0185","url":null,"abstract":"We apply the lens of social judgement theory to understand the causes and consequences of the growing debate about the purpose of the corporation. Our historical analysis suggests that the debate about corporate purpose is not new and that it tends to arise during periods of growing economic inequality. Our analysis also suggests that the discursive shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism will trigger a new standard of social evaluation of corporations in which we no longer judge corporate behavior based on standards of legitimacy but rather on standards of authenticity. We explore what this change in social evaluation will mean for corporate competition.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44091521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers the complex process of economic value creation in joint production in which a corporation is viewed as more than a nexus of contracts for four reasons related to the interdependent functions of the corporate personhood concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Corporate personhood facilitates stewardship and stakeholder management, which can encourage firm-specific investments, reduce shirking, and attenuate rent seeking to provide economic value. The corporate personhood approach illuminates multidimensional constructs for the governance of a corporation at the board level to embody fiduciary duties and corporate purpose, which is much richer than the nexus of contract view. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Corporate Personhood and Fiduciary Duties as Critical Constructs in Developing Stakeholder Management Theory and Corporate Purpose","authors":"Joseph T. Mahoney","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0191","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the complex process of economic value creation in joint production in which a corporation is viewed as more than a nexus of contracts for four reasons related to the interdependent functions of the corporate personhood concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Corporate personhood facilitates stewardship and stakeholder management, which can encourage firm-specific investments, reduce shirking, and attenuate rent seeking to provide economic value. The corporate personhood approach illuminates multidimensional constructs for the governance of a corporation at the board level to embody fiduciary duties and corporate purpose, which is much richer than the nexus of contract view. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42887250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recent rediscovery of corporate purpose has illuminated how much more we still need to understand about purpose and its role in organizations. After tracing the historical roots of purpose and conceptualizing its unique value in bridging the mundane and the moral in organizational life, we propose links among purpose and organizational identity, image and reputation, as well as with meaningful work. These linkages suggest two core functions of purpose: a vehicle for accountability (internal and external) and a source of accounts and justifications. These functions serve as mechanisms connecting purpose to different levels of analysis both within and outside of the organization. We also highlight potential impediments to maximizing the benefits of purpose: stakeholder cynicism and employee disillusionment. We conclude by suggesting new areas of research to overcome these impediments and to better establish purpose as a root construct in organizational scholarship.
{"title":"Accounts and Accountability: On Organizational Purpose, Organizational Identity, and Meaningful Work","authors":"M. Pratt, Luke N. Hedden","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0189","url":null,"abstract":"The recent rediscovery of corporate purpose has illuminated how much more we still need to understand about purpose and its role in organizations. After tracing the historical roots of purpose and conceptualizing its unique value in bridging the mundane and the moral in organizational life, we propose links among purpose and organizational identity, image and reputation, as well as with meaningful work. These linkages suggest two core functions of purpose: a vehicle for accountability (internal and external) and a source of accounts and justifications. These functions serve as mechanisms connecting purpose to different levels of analysis both within and outside of the organization. We also highlight potential impediments to maximizing the benefits of purpose: stakeholder cynicism and employee disillusionment. We conclude by suggesting new areas of research to overcome these impediments and to better establish purpose as a root construct in organizational scholarship.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43167415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In contrast to the prevalent outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose as a response to competing normative demands of stakeholders, we introduce an inside-out perspective on purpose as based in firm-specific, agentic commitments to specific values, ideals, and societal goals. Drawing on moral philosophy, we propose how strategists can develop a strategic purpose through moral imagination that involves developing shaping intentions based in values and ideals, empathetic relating, and imaginativeness in stakeholder contexts. These processes support the generation of an emergent theory of value, which we term “the collective desirable.” This theory of value—a creative synthesis of the shaping intentions of the firm, and the interests and perspectives of stakeholders—provides the foundation of purpose, which is strategic, dynamic, and generative for the firm and its stakeholders. Such a strategic purpose becomes an organizational logic of action enacted through designated processes for articulation, maintenance, and evolvability, and through blueprints for credible commitments and resource allocations. By theorizing the microfoundations of an agentic, inside-out view of purpose, our theoretical framework articulates a set of mechanisms through which strategists can develop a strategic purpose that is tightly linked to the firm’s future-oriented strategy and the exercise of moral leadership. Our conception of moral imagination as a form of prosocial prospective cognition contributes a novel perspective to the socio-cognitive and subjectivist perspectives on strategy and extends the microfoundations of strategy.
{"title":"Moral Imagination, the Collective Desirable, and Strategic Purpose","authors":"V. Rindova, L. Martins","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0190","url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the prevalent outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose as a response to competing normative demands of stakeholders, we introduce an inside-out perspective on purpose as based in firm-specific, agentic commitments to specific values, ideals, and societal goals. Drawing on moral philosophy, we propose how strategists can develop a strategic purpose through moral imagination that involves developing shaping intentions based in values and ideals, empathetic relating, and imaginativeness in stakeholder contexts. These processes support the generation of an emergent theory of value, which we term “the collective desirable.” This theory of value—a creative synthesis of the shaping intentions of the firm, and the interests and perspectives of stakeholders—provides the foundation of purpose, which is strategic, dynamic, and generative for the firm and its stakeholders. Such a strategic purpose becomes an organizational logic of action enacted through designated processes for articulation, maintenance, and evolvability, and through blueprints for credible commitments and resource allocations. By theorizing the microfoundations of an agentic, inside-out view of purpose, our theoretical framework articulates a set of mechanisms through which strategists can develop a strategic purpose that is tightly linked to the firm’s future-oriented strategy and the exercise of moral leadership. Our conception of moral imagination as a form of prosocial prospective cognition contributes a novel perspective to the socio-cognitive and subjectivist perspectives on strategy and extends the microfoundations of strategy.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43494063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue: Strategy Science’s Contributions to Doctoral Reading Lists","authors":"Daniel A. Levinthal, Gwendolyn K. Lee","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0181","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46171727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：