SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897501725> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±112 with 100 items per page.

W2897501725 endingPage "293" @default.
W2897501725 startingPage "287" @default.
W2897501725 abstract "In this special issue our aim is to showcase different types of research being conducted at the intersection between gender and governance and to highlight how each can more specifically contribute to business ethics and business–society empirical and theoretical investigations of the developing economies in the global south. To do this, we encouraged contributions from various disciplines hoping that a multidisciplinary conversation would help to: (1) unveil complex and intersecting dynamics shaping the gendered nature of diverse governance systems and forces spanning different levels of analysis and (2) expand the mainstream paradigms adopted, questions posed, and methods used in relevant research. The result is a collection of five papers that capture both organization-based quantitative investigation more common to business ethics and management research and the less widely used critical and ethnographic qualitative research methodologies. Together, the papers explore dynamics at and/or across the individual laborer/employee level, the organizational/corporate level, and in national, international, and transnational spaces. It is our hope that this multiplicity of contributions will not only encourage rich conversations but also a stretching of the parameters within which the governance–gender relationship is examined and understood. In what follows, we first describe the nature of governance broadly, and then narrow down to highlight specific geopolitical and market-economic challenges tied to issues of gender and governance in developing countries specifically. Our critique is, therefore, positioned within broader social theory about the firm and whether it is able to move beyond its economic function to support positive social change toward gender justice. Our critique questions both the ‘capabilities’ of organizations and their market position and ‘authority’ in the global political economy (see Banerjee, 2014; Levy & Kaplan, 2007). We also consider corporate social responsibilities (CSR) as business activities which embrace how governance is conceptualized and practiced in the act of governing (Haufler, 2001). In this latter consideration, the institutional forces governing CSR and the business systems from which they emerge are seen to largely follow corporate rationality arising from the ideological and political assumptions about the role of the firm in contemporary society and stages of global capitalism (see Banerjee, 2014; Özkazanç-Pan, 2018). Our hope is to stretch business ethics inquiry to consider the complexities and varied possibilities for new models of governance that are more attuned to the power dynamics related to gender and their negative ramifications. Loosely defined, governance concerns rule-based decision-making and oversight (OECD, 2012) and as such it is multilevel and multidimensional. Governance is a complex construct and has structures spanning both formal and informal arrangements, as well as global and local levels (Wieland, 2001). Although governance in the business and management literature has traditionally been tied to corporations and business enterprises in the developed economies of the global north and has been largely focused on the economic role of business in society (Jamali & Karam, 2016; Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004; Voltan, Hervieux, & Mills, 2017), there is an increasing interest in exploring the multifaceted nature of governance and how it shapes transactions beyond the organization and beyond maintenance of market economic systems. Here therefore, transactions take on different forms emerging from interactions between markets, transnational alliances, state, multinational enterprises, organizations, and other business stakeholders (World Bank, 2014). Indeed, current models of governance in business ethics and management research are increasingly adopting a more global and multilayered perspective with social, economic, and environmental aims (Grant & McGhee, 2014; Levy & Kaplan, 2007) traced between and across these stakeholders and ever expanding to include non-traditional business actors such as: non-profit organizations, NGOs, public sector entities, and other significant groups (Barkemeyer, 2009; Dentchev, Balen, & Haezendonck, 2015; Moon & Vogel, 2008; Rasche & Gilbert, 2012; Vogel, 2005; Wadham & Warren, 2013). As argued by Scherer and Palazzo (2011, p. 16), with this multistakeholder positioning and the growing influence of business generally, firms are increasingly involved themselves in complex systems of governance; that is, increasingly involved “in global business regulation and in the production of global public goods.” With a move beyond viewing governance issues as solely associated with board representation and the behaviors of boards therefore, governance today, and as seen throughout this special issue, is a dynamic term. It is a term that can have various formulations relevant to exploring the relationship between gender and governance from assessing ethical decision-making and legal frameworks that regulate in some ways the constitution and effectiveness of the board to involving activities that have traditionally been associated with state or interstate oversight (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2008). In this way, governance encapsulates the processes and/or sets of policies and practices institutionalized through standards, rules, norms, and expectations (Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012) that apply across levels, boundaries, and groups. With this broader and more complex formulation, governance involves individual firm-level governance, state-level frameworks which often include legislative provisions and state machineries, and finally global governance, which incorporates multiple stakeholders across scales. Furthermore, and associated with this complex formulation, research on governance and the gender–governance relationship requires multilevel, multiactor public frameworks with room for language and investigation that acknowledges and explores varied difference signifiers (e.g., race, class, ability, other), their intersection, and related power dynamics stretching across borders and boundaries, both within and outside of a single business entity. Although inviting greater and greater complexity, such views of governance allow for a genuine concern with not only board composition and financial performance but also with democratic control, protecting the weak from the strong (Wolff, 2006), and with establishing and maintaining mechanisms through which “collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated” (Weiss & Thakur, 2006, p. 4 in Banerjee, 2014, p. 6). Conceptualizing governance in this way brings forward such concerns and drives us to ponder possibilities for both more just forms of rule-based decision-making and oversight, and for what Wolff (2006) refers to as “metagovernance” or the “governance of governance.” Furthermore, pondering different forms unveils their interdependencies and, therefore, highlights the expansive spaces within which a gendered analysis of governance is relevant and important. These sociocultural and geopolitical dimensions, we would argue, need to be understood in relation to gender and spatial frames. Indeed, as will be further fleshed out next and in the papers of this special issue, greater efforts are needed toward a more robust understanding of the relationships between gender and governance, and the implications of these for more responsible and ethical business and management practice in varied spaces across the globe. Emerging debates concerning the relationship between gender and governance in developing economies often highlight the compounded nature of layers of governance with complex power dynamics perpetuated by the interdependencies of markets, institutions, and ideologies as played out within the context of increasingly widening developed/developing country inequalities (Özkazanç-Pan, 2018; Rai, 2008). These gendered power dynamics are often relational and encapsulate not only the intricacies of diverse geopolitical subtleties of expanding neoliberal capitalism (Metcalfe, 2011; Pollack & Hafner-Burton, 2000) but also the organizing processes for what is conceptualized as good governance (see Bexell, 2012), who can participate, and whose concerns are heard and prioritized (Banerjee, 2008; Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Grosser, McCarthy, & Kilgour, 2016). Such relational analysis has been the hallmark of feminist scholarship with the focus on agency, power, and the systems of inequality (e.g., Metcalfe, 2011; Nussbaum, 2003). Through this research, inequalities are often demonstrated to be relational and tied to the gendered nature of negative externalities of the modern market capitalist system (e.g., Grosser, Moon, & Nelson, 2017; Karam & Jamali, 2017). For example, increasingly we see important research attempting to unpack how business efforts toward fair and gender-positive practices may inadvertently result in further disempowering women lower on the corporate value chain (e.g., McCarthy, 2017; Özkazanç-Pan, 2018). Highlighting the mechanisms for maintaining inequalities is a first step in conducting gendered analysis of governance and therefore to devising better governance models with more fair policies, strategies, and standards (e.g., Grosser & Moon, 2005; Grosser et al., 2016; Karam & Jamali, 2013; Prieto-Carrón, 2008). In conducting such analyses researchers could move toward an exploration of the mechanisms that produce intentional and unintentional gendered outcomes in not only organizational structures and leadership roles but also extending throughout the global value chains where low-wage, low-status women's labor is foundational to global production networks and systems (Grosser et al., 2016). Such an analysis involves picking apart the rules of recognition, the sets of economic structures, and the governance arrangements that maintain and perpetuate globalized capitalism (Özkazanç-Pan, 2018). This is no simple task because when one considers gender in relation to governance and global governance, one is faced, as noted earlier, by complex multiple bodies operating at different scales. For example, at the transnational scale, research has highlighted the role of international organizations such as the United Nations and World Economic Forum in promoting gender-equitable governance programs and gender empowerment initiatives (Bergeron, 2001; Moghadam, 1999). However, growing feminist critiques of these efforts assert that they do nothing more than to privilege market and trade growth to the detriment of the most vulnerable communities and individuals (Acker, 2004; Eisenstein, 2005; Pyle & Ward, 2003). Indeed, some management scholars argue that foundational to these efforts is the harnessing of healthier markets and greater economic development on the back of “women's predominantly unpaid and largely ‘voluntaristic’ contributions” (Chant, 2013, p. 98). This, in effect, creates gendered hierarchies where a masculinist ethic of the “Davos Man” (see Metcalfe, 2011; Syed & Metcalfe, 2017), coupled with market and trade growth, is given top priority, and pursuing “women's rights for their own sake” is treated as less important and secondary (Chant, 2003, p. 97). At the national scale, researchers have highlighted state governance machineries set up to regulate corporate “misbehavior” and to monitor a whole range of inequalities between men and women (Chant & Sweetman, 2012; Council of Europe, 1998; Nussbaum, 2003). Here gender and governance initiatives often involve public administration systems and institutional frameworks that attempt to regulate private sector and employment settings of a single nation or set of nations. Any effort to summarize the existing types of systems and frameworks will suggest that these are highly variable. In the context of such national-level developments, Rittenhofer and Gatrell (2012) highlight the surprising lack of attention paid to gender mainstreaming within management and organization studies except for a handful of studies (e.g., Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998; Grosser, 2009; Grosser & Moon, 2005; Metcalfe & Afanassieva, 2005; Metcalfe & Woodhams, 2008). They further continue that while the adoption of gender mainstreaming promised to offer transformative potential with regard to achieving gender equality in employment, progress has been slow (Rittenhofer & Gatrell, 2012). At the level of organizations, gender mainstreaming has become a random collection of diverse strategies and activities, all concerned with moving forward a gender equality agenda, but often not delivering on its promise (Rao & Kelleher, 2005). Furthermore, moving beyond insular views of single levels, the division between transnational, national, and organizational levels is not, of course, clean cut. There is a multitude of ways that the transnational intersects and intertwines with the national to influence organizational practices. Feminist scholarship engaged in analyzing these occurrences are often focused on tracing and unpacking these bidirectional influences and have explored the relationships between transnational trade and local corporate initiatives in opening possibilities for new models of gendered governance (Metcalfe, 2008; Özkazanç-Pan, 2018). For example, Barrientos and coauthor's work asserts that while ethical trade initiatives do not directly address gender inequalities arising from poor labor standards endemic in global production networks and systems (Barrientos & Smith, 2007), some women's organizations have developed novel and potentially promising opportunities for engagement with CSR initiatives (Barrientos & Evers, 2014). How and what types of feminist agency or barriers these nurture is unclear and needs further exploration. Taken together, or separately, the elements relating to gender and governance described repeatedly point to complex formulations. With this complexity the gendered assumptions and dynamics become particularly important to examine in order to trace the intricacies of intersecting governance policies, practices, and systems that perpetuate gendered power dynamics and the gender status quo (Rai, 2004). Indeed, highlighting the elements relating to gender and governance in this way helps to uncover and speak to the realities of the different gender orders and gender regimes (Connell, 1987) and the institutionalization of particular governance frameworks that exist (Young, 2003). Uncovering some of these gendered realities of governance and linking them to business ethics is the key aim of the current special issue as will be further detailed below through our description of the manuscripts included. Following the tradition of much of the gender mainstreaming and gender quota scholarship in the business and management literature, Li and Chen (this issue) explore the relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance of A-share-listed non-financial firms in China. Arguing for a more contingency-based approach, the authors find that the two are related and further moderated by firm size. They identify a critical firm size value under which the gender board diversity has a positive impact on firm performance, and over which this relationship is undermined. With the increasing number of national-level gender action plans in developing countries, this paper provides a Chinese example of specific dynamics surrounding government regulations regarding promoting women's participation in decision-making and management. Providing a contextualized framing the authors highlight the historical and regulatory complexity and interconnection between board gender diversity, corporate governance, and organizational contexts in China which adds to the paucity of research on boards in developing economies and also helps advance our understanding of the relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance in this regard. The remainder of the special issue contributions veer away from this quantitative approach exemplified by Li and Chen's paper (this issue), and instead adopt more critical approaches to examining the gender–governance relationship. Kang and Parpart (this issue), for example, explore the discursive construction of masculinities in CSR reporting. These authors focus on the ways in which inequality is perpetuated through social relations in family-owned multinational enterprises (i.e., Chaebols) in South Korea. Using discourse analysis, the premise is that meanings and the social construction of masculinist themes can be inferred from text and also from what is not represented in text. Here these authors explore how masculinism is sustained and privileged, focusing on the construction of masculinist frames that influence work–life balance, gender pay differentials, and career development. The authors show the effects of the silencing of feminine subjectivities and their construction as lesser than male subjectivities and how male voices and male symbolism associated with leadership and the overall patterns of national business groups are embedded within the CSR reports analyzed. The authors further argue that these hidden and naturalized assumptions work to increasingly silence and disadvantage women and part-time male employees. Ultimately, the paper questions the structural masculinist barriers in this context and suggests new forms of CSR reporting that is more attuned with a hegemonic masculinity critique. In the three remaining manuscripts we turn our attention beyond internal organizational perspectives to examine broader and more systemic questions about gender and governance. Here we see a gendered analysis that provides opportunities for voices across the global value chain. As such, we see that the literature reviews, analyses, and discussions are more reflective of the relational politics and dynamics surrounding power versus powerlessness, privilege versus vulnerability, and thriving versus barely surviving/decaying inherently embedded in the working lives and social circumstances of employees. Together, these manuscripts bring readers to more closely consider the work of critical scholars such as Spivak (1988), and feminist political economists such as Elson (2009), Hoskyns and Rai (2007), and Beneria (1999). Grounded in this work we see greater attention and a broader reading of global governance systems and the implications of these for citizens in developing economies (Rai, 2008). The contributions of these papers highlight the need for a closer examination of business–society relations that better acknowledge and trace the intimate multilayers, multistakeholder dynamics tied to gender and governance, and the interrelationships with the politics and trends of markets, institutions, and ideologies. In the first of these three papers, Ahmed (this issue) explores the multilayered power dynamics surrounding the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and proposes a central principle for feminist governance in global value chains which she asserts is giving voice to the subordinated strata. Ahmed's (this issue) selection of quotes in her introduction captures the multilayered complexities of these and other voices, where together they present a cacophony of fear and powerlessness of individuals in the global garment industry. She asserts further that: “These Southern voices reveal the matrix of fear that reflects the Northern matrix of power in GVC” (i.e., the Global Value Chain), one that could be detected in other industries across the globe. Exploring the relationships between buyer–state, state–factory, buyer–factory, and intra-factory relations, Ahmed does an elegant job capturing the matrices of power and carefully traces how management and business scholars can better centralize such considerations in their research at the inter- and intra-factory levels. Providing three principles for gendered governance models, the article is a solid basis for teasing apart the intricacies of related research on gender and governance in global markets. McCarthy (this issue) explores further the power dynamics experienced in the day-to-day lived experiences of employees at the end of global value chain. She focuses on the dimensions and dynamics surrounding unpaid care work and highlights the potential of connecting this invisible form of work to models of business responsibility so as to advance more sustainable models of development. Presented as a gendered CSR case study from Ghana, McCarthy asks the crucial question “to what extent can CSR in the global south ‘recognize, reduce, and redistribute’ unpaid care work?” thereby helping businesses to better acknowledge the essential and foundational need for this form of work. McCarthy calls for business ethics and business–society researchers to more explicitly incorporate unpaid care work into CSR theory and practice thereby ultimately making women's voices part of CSR design and practice. The final paper of Campbell and Kim (this issue) also delves into the day-to-day lives of women, focusing in particular on local experiences in a development site in Uzbekistan. Adopting a feminist approach, these authors demonstrate how governance of a business–society development program focusing on women works to organize what we understand as the gendered power relations of development. The authors assert that the organization of development knowledge shapes the implementation of such programs. Indeed, the authors demonstrate that such knowledge organization caters more to organizing institutions than it does to the target beneficiaries. Employing a critical lens to interrogate organizing from the sole standpoint of the institution, Campbell and Kim (this issue) encourage an uncovering of hidden biases. The paper leads us to further reflect on our own research methods in order to better uncover the biases that organize our knowledge of the “others” that we study, and ultimately the way we understand and perpetuate gender and governance systems in local settings. Taken together, the five papers included in this special issue have furthered our understanding of gendered governance dynamics and structures in China, Korea, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Uzbekistan. The collective contribution of these papers lies in showing the benefits of embracing a more multilevel, multistakeholder, and critical approach to researching the relationship between gender and governance in developing economies. Building on the directions for future research highlighted in the discussion of each of the papers individually, in what follows we highlight the promise of future research that focuses specifically on uncovering embedded power relations and the link of these relations to the generation of knowledge about gender and governance generally. Across the special issue papers, embedded power relations were of key importance whether manifested as gendered hierarchies or as positional authority on boards. Power relations are multiple and fluid, and are shaped by nuanced sociocultural and geopolitical dynamics. Without acknowledging these relational dynamics, structural and process-related inequities remain hidden and ultimately underrepresented in research. This underrepresentation has historically been exacerbated in business ethics research due to the preoccupation with internal organizing of governance, as opposed to an examination of the more complex, external, and multilayered relations relevant across the levels of business–society interfaces. In this special issue, we have captured a move beyond insular management perspectives alone and toward the questioning of mainstream understanding and know-how. In this way, we align ourselves with increasing critical calls to question: the use of Western-dominated epistemological and methodological approaches to generate management knowledge (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006; Özkazanç-Pan, 2008), the restrictions on organizational theorizing employing alternate assumptions (Calas & Smircich, 2003; Ibarra-Colado, 2006), and the effacement of non-Western knowledge generated by the “other” or from elsewhere (Banerjee & Linstead, 2001). Indeed, we agree that future research could better explore embedded power relations and its implications for gendering business ethics and management scholarship. Aligned with this, and likely to be of use to future work in this area, are broader feminist sociological accounts of how gender regimes and gender hierarchies position certain groups as having power: power over, power to, and power with (e.g., Allen, 2009; Connell, 1987; Pitkin, 1972; Young, 1992). Adopting such concepts is useful to further unpack the complexity of power in organizing governance relations and structures both within and outside the firm and within and outside the nation. Recent work by Karam and Jamali (2017) adopts just such an approach to unpack the latent power dynamics surrounding CSR in developing economies and demonstrates the utility of feminist theoretical lenses. Furthermore, Metcalfe and Woodhams (2012) attempt to unravel the relationality of knowledge between accounts of women in the global north and those in the global south. They argue that this is significant in that it loosens the implicit association between “best organization policies,” “best gender policies,” “best HR strategies,” and the practices of Western multinational corporations. They argue further for the need to focus on researching dynamics beyond the firm to highlight key themes necessary to take a broader critique of the political economy of development and its association with the embedded power relations of gender regimes. Overall, this special issue suggests a need for broader critiques that integrally highlight epistemological issues in theory formulation embracing “the Rest” (Özkazanç-Pan, 2008). Critical feminist lenses and postcolonial feminist frameworks, for example, would be useful here in that they attend to a political epistemology and engage with the possibility of recognizing agency in the making of governance arrangements that speak for and about the subaltern (see Spivak, 1988) and the identities of “the other” (see Bhabha, 1994; Said, 1978). Such frames incorporate a concern with power that explicitly raises questions about inclusion and notions of social justice and requires a detailing of the gendered construction of governance as socially constituted and therefore as experienced and understood differently in geographic regions. With further dissection of power relations and its link to knowledge generation, an additional area for focus in future research could focus on the notion of “relationality” specifically. That is, we believe that a focus on the psycho-cognitive, historical, and sociopolitical connectedness of individuals and communities will help to further advance investigations of gender and governance in business ethics and business–society research. Such a focus can lead to many potential directions for exploration such as a focus on relational binaries or dichotomous constructions. For example, future research could explore male–female binaries and/or developing–developed hierarchical dichotomy. This work could help to unpack the ways in which both are intimately linked to each other and to equality discourses that serve to shape the broader organizing principles of governance and gender roles, and the associated assumptions about what is of value. Furthermore, future work on gender and governance could benefit from scholarly frames which undo such assumed relationality by better situating these dichotomies as they relate to inequality and discrimination in the context of history and social institutions across the global economy. It is equally important to link the research on power relations and relationality to studying regulatory standards and their effectiveness including measures for broader social justice and equality goals and the institutional frameworks that exist in government to undertake gender planning (e.g., sustainable development goals, national action plans). Future research therefore is needed to further examine such regulatory standards against the backdrop of the more developed status of corporate codes measuring women's participation and representation (Klettner, 2016). Much more rooms exist to explore and shape research on such frameworks and codes and to explore how institutions, local sociopolitical and cultural norms, and their interaction with regulatory processes may shape their impact on the gender–governance relationship. The objective of this special issue was to shed light on possibilities for interdisciplinary research conducted at the intersection between gender and governance in the developing economies of the global south. We believe this focus is of increasing interest for the business ethics community of scholars, and BEER's readership more specifically, because it encourages an unpacking of the complex and intersecting dynamics shaping the gendered nature of diverse governance systems and forces. The five papers showcased in this special issue provide rich empirical insights, from a variety of countries, shedding light on the complex power dynamics underlying governance, spanning across stakeholders and levels of analysis. Each of these five papers addresses pertinent topics such as board gender diversity at the organizational level (Li & Chen), male hegemony in CSR reporting (Kang & Parpart), gendered governance in global value chains (Ahmad), the need to integrate unpaid care work in CSR theory and practice (McCarthy), and epistemological intricacies of studying gendered governance of a business–society development program (Campbell & Kim). Taken together, these papers present various ways in which power relations are manifested, encouraging a more critical understanding of the complexity of gendered governance and gendering governance in developing economies. While each of these papers has advanced our knowledge in particular ways, many questions, as noted in the previous section, remain unaddressed and deserve further scholarly attention. We therefore call for more concerted critical and interdisciplinary efforts to further unpack the embedded power relations underlying governance and gender issues, to further investigate the relationality of individuals and communities and their implications on governance planning in the global political economy, and to further adopt variant epistemological and methodological approaches that can enhance theorizing, deconstruct existing assumptions, and include alternative voices from the global south in mainstream discourses on gender and governance in business ethics research and knowledge generation." @default.
W2897501725 created "2018-10-26" @default.
W2897501725 creator A5011697069 @default.
W2897501725 creator A5017282743 @default.
W2897501725 creator A5055759206 @default.
W2897501725 date "2018-10-01" @default.
W2897501725 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
W2897501725 title "Gender and governance in developing economies" @default.
W2897501725 cites W1005986184 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1500917078 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1640306349 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1943612618 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1967843459 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1967936274 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1968192349 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1969704952 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1973698436 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1985721027 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1986869426 @default.
W2897501725 cites W1996416585 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2010229782 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2013384855 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2014922020 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2021949956 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2037977638 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2039702062 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2053734305 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2056403702 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2063536526 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2068337395 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2072711856 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2074802505 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2084531521 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2087701144 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2093175445 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2098372179 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2104801244 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2105601395 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2107218029 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2109947524 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2113308566 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2114596136 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2120062417 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2122155259 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2122387224 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2144279059 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2145684034 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2152843213 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2153087808 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2157294598 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2157651863 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2158393892 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2158692470 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2159562210 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2517573087 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2617206368 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2751081136 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2751638609 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2763734542 @default.
W2897501725 cites W3124595382 @default.
W2897501725 cites W319371015 @default.
W2897501725 cites W4231316904 @default.
W2897501725 cites W4376595417 @default.
W2897501725 cites W628733655 @default.
W2897501725 cites W2624060588 @default.
W2897501725 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12193" @default.
W2897501725 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
W2897501725 type Work @default.
W2897501725 sameAs 2897501725 @default.
W2897501725 citedByCount "1" @default.
W2897501725 countsByYear W28975017252023 @default.
W2897501725 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2897501725 hasAuthorship W2897501725A5011697069 @default.
W2897501725 hasAuthorship W2897501725A5017282743 @default.
W2897501725 hasAuthorship W2897501725A5055759206 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C74363100 @default.
W2897501725 hasConcept C83864248 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C10138342 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C144133560 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C162324750 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C17744445 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C39389867 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C50522688 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C74363100 @default.
W2897501725 hasConceptScore W2897501725C83864248 @default.
W2897501725 hasIssue "4" @default.
W2897501725 hasLocation W28975017251 @default.
W2897501725 hasOpenAccess W2897501725 @default.
W2897501725 hasPrimaryLocation W28975017251 @default.
W2897501725 hasRelatedWork W1550308580 @default.
W2897501725 hasRelatedWork W1605519360 @default.
W2897501725 hasRelatedWork W2092340116 @default.