Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digitalisierung, aber zu welchem Preis? – Unethisches Verhalten in digitalen Verhandlungen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Marketing und Innovation in disruptiven Zeiten

  • 4475 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Kommunikationsprozesse von Unternehmen, darunter auch die zwischen Einkauf und Vertrieb stattfindenden Verhandlungen, werden zunehmend in digitaler Form durchgeführt. Auch wenn sich Geschäftsbeziehungen hierdurch effizienter gestalten lassen, besteht das Risiko, dass die fehlenden nonverbalen Hinweise bei der digitalen Kommunikation zu mangelnder Empathie zwischen den Verhandelnden und damit zu einer starken Fokussierung auf Eigeninteressen führen. Der Beitrag von Markus Voeth, Nina Weinmann und Joana Roth hat zum Ziel, die Wirkung der erhöhten Distanz in digitalen Verhandlungen auf das individuelle Verhalten, insbesondere das ethische Verhandlungsverhalten, zu untersuchen. Im Rahmen einer Meta-Analyse wurden dahin gehend Studien mit Face-to-Face- und unterschiedlichen digitalen Settings, wie bspw. chat- oder videobasierte Verhandlungen, auf den Einsatz unethischer Taktiken untersucht. Die daraus gewonnenen Ergebnisse verdeutlichen die Relevanz des eingesetzten Verhandlungsmediums für den Aufbau einer stabilen Geschäftsbeziehung und damit einhergehend den langfristigen Erfolg in Geschäftsverhandlungen.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Literatur

  • Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G., & Knight, G. (2021). COVID-19 and digitalization: The great acceleration. Journal of business research, 136, 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. D., Ansfield, M. E., & DePaulo, B. M. (1999). Love’s best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In P. Philippot, R. Feldman, & E. Coats (Hrsg.), The social context of nonverbal behavior: Studies in emotion and social interaction (S. 372–409). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C. (2009). Business market management: Understanding, creating, and delivering value (3. Aufl.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton, R. J. (1990). Drawing the line: An exploratory test of ethical behavior in negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(3), 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K. (1998). The effects of ethical climate and the availability of alternatives on the use of deception during negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, A., & Besio, C. (2021). Organisierte Moral. Zur Ambivalenz von Gut und Böse in Organisationen. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual review of psychology, 51, 279–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. K. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 83(2), 235–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongers, F. M., Schumann, J. H., & Schmitz, C. (2021). How the introduction of digital sales channels affects salespeople in business-to-business contexts: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 41(2), 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, B. W., & Rose, R. L. (2004). A contextual model of negotiation orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(2), 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. (1997). Good news about competitive people. In C.K.W. De Dreu, & E. Van de Vliert (Hrsg.), Using conflict in organizations (S. 129–146). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya, T. (2005). An experimental study of credibility in e-negotiations. Psychology & Marketing, 22(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A., Fiorentino, R., & Garzella, S. (2019). From the boundaries of management to the management of boundaries. Business Process Management Journal, 25(3), 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M. M., & Dabić, M. (2021). Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field. Journal of business research, 123, 489–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., Herniter, B. C., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1993). Labor-management contract negotiations in an electronic meeting room: A case study. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(1), 27–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo, S., Premazzi, K., & Zerbini, F. (2010). The meaning(s) of trust. A content analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on business relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 657–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Leskovec, J. (2015). Antisocial behavior in online discussion communities. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 9(1), 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citera, M., Beauregard, R. & Mitsuya, T. (2009). An Experimental Study of Credibility in E-negotiations. Psychology & Marketing, 22(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20053.

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Hrsg.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (S. 127–149). American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., Boles, T., & Murnighan, J. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(2), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1983). Information Richness. Department of Management Texas A&M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornberger, R. (2018). Business information systems and technology 4.0: New trends in the age of digital change. Studies in systems, decision and control: Volume 141. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, T. (2006). Negotiation: The Chinese style. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(1), 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2003). The problems in using fixed-effects models of meta-analysis on real-world data. Understanding Statistics, 2(2), 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 63(3), 665–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, D., Volkema, R., Levy, B., Pereira, S., & Vaccari, L. (2013). Truth or consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 328–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riva, G., Davide, F. & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2003). Being there: The experience of presence in mediated environments. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312488292_%27Being_there_The_experience_of_presence_in_mediated_environments_%27. Zugegriffen: 15. Mai 2022.

  • Galin, A., Gross, M., & Gosalker, G. (2007). E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed – if anything? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 787–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1998). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Hrsg.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (S. 213–238). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaspar, J. P., Methasani, R., & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(1), 62–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaspar, J. P., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The emotion deception model: A review of deception in negotiation and the role of emotion in deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(3), 160–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, I. (2014). Media effects on the formation of negotiator satisfaction: The example of face-to-face and text based electronically mediated negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(4), 735–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2003). Games Students Play: Incorporating the Prisoner's Dilemma in Teaching Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2017). Ethical Bedrock Under a Changing Negotiation Landscape. In C. Honeyman, A. K. Schneider, & S. P. Minn (Hrsg.), The Negotiatior’s Desk Reference (S. 493–502). DRI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, J., O'Reilly, M., Taylor, H., & Dogra, N. (2007). Confidentiality and autonomy: the challenge(s) of offering research participants a choice of disclosing their identity. Qualitative health research, 17(2), 264–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gounaris, S. P., & Venetis, K. (2002). Trust in industrial service relationships: Behavioral consequences, antecedents and the moderating effect of the duration of the relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(7), 636–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. H. (1998). Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 704–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R., Hough, J., Cao, L., & Haines, D. (2014). Anonymity in computer-mediated communication: More contrarian ideas with less influence. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(4), 765–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Goorha, S. (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(4), 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1992). Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(4), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis [Nachdr.]. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, U., & Schwarz, S. (2011). How valid is negotiation research based on student sample groups? New insights into a long-standing controversy. Negotiation Journal, 27(2), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2 Aufl.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. A., Cooper, R. B., & Holowczak, R. D. (2016). The impact of media on how positive, negative, and neutral communicated affect influence unilateral concessions during negotiations. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(5), 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tactics: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519.

  • Lewicki, R.J., & Stark, N. (1996). What is ethically appropriate in Negotiations: An empirical examination of bargaining tactics. Social Justice Research, 9,(1), 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindh, C., & Nordman, E. R. (2018). New service development and digitalization: synergies of personal interaction and IT integration. Services Marketing Quarterly, 39(2), 108–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2019). Small talk, big impact – The influence of casual collegial advice on purchasing negotiations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marett, K., & George, J. F. (2013). Barriers to deceiving other group members in virtual settings. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(1), 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazei, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Trust in Electronically Mediated Negotiations. In B. Blöbaum (Hrsg.), Progress in IS. Trust and Communication in a Digitized World (S. 191–204). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2000). What Is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an Interdisciplinary Model. Proceedings of the AMCIS Americas Conference on Information Systems (S. 827–833). California: AMCIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer, P. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Personalised Learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moen, Ø., Koed Madsen, T., & Aspelund, A. (2008). The importance of the internet in international business-to-business markets. International Marketing Review, 25(5), 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales-Sánchez, R., Orta-Pérez, M., & Rodríguez-Serrano, M. Á. (2020). The benefits of auditors’ sustained ethical behavior: Increased trust and reduced costs. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 441–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J. (2004). Rapport in legal negotiation: How small talk can facilitate E-mail dealmaking. Harvard Negotiatio Law Review, 9, 223–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, M. (2009). Differences in Computer Mediated Versus Face to Face Negotiation. California Polytechnic State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns, M., Horan, C. J., & Smith, P. L. (2014). Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong: Structural and social determinants of deception in negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2009). Mutually dependent: Power, trust, affect and the use of deception in negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust and temporary virtual teams: Alternative explanations and dramaturgical relationships. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provis, C. (2000). Ethics, deception and labor negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(2), 162–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, M. R., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (2019). Bounded ethicality and ethical fading in negotiations: Understanding unintended unethical behavior. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(1), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). Digitization capability and the digitalization of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(6), 649–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2008). To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 107(2), 106–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M. E., & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharland, A. (2001). The Negotiation Process as a Predictor of Relationship Outcomes in International Buyer-Supplier Arrangements. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(7), 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, J. (1995). The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Christie, B., & Williams, E. (1997). The social psychology of telecommunications (Facs [der Ausg.] London, 1976). UMI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohs, J., & Brannick, T. (1999). Code and conduct: Predictors of Irsih managers’ ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(4), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Citera, M. (2005). Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(1), 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, T. M., Makkonen, H., Kaur, P., & Salo, J. (2022). How do ethical consumers utilize sharing economy platforms as part of their sustainable resale behavior? The role of consumers’ green consumption values. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological review, 110(3), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Toorn, Y, van der Wijst, P., & Damen, D. (2014). Trust and understanding in face-to-face and online negotiations. EWG-DSS: Euro Working Group Workshop on Decision Support Systems, 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2014). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1139–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voeth, M., Herbst, U., & Pöschl, I. (2021). Sehen Sie mein Flipchart jetzt? (Can you see my flipchart now?). Harvard Business Manager, 56–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiber, R. (2002). Handbuch electronic business (2. Aufl.). Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T., & Carville, S. E. (2008). Would I lie to you? Self-serving lies and other oriented lies told across different media. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1021–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 689–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wotruba, T., Chonko, L. B., & Loe, T. (2001). The impact of ethics code familiarity on manager behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 22, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. J., Cenfetelli, R. T., & Aquino, K. (2012). The influence of media cue multiplicity on deceivers and those who are deceived. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., Head, M., & Du, M. (2003). The Effects of Multimedia Communication on Web-Based Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023016804379.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Marketing und Business Development Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Markus Voeth, Nina Weinmann & Joana Roth

Authors
  1. Markus Voeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nina Weinmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joana Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Voeth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ehem. Inhaber der Professur für Business- und Dienstleistungsmarketing, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Michael Kleinaltenkamp

  2. Professur für Marketing, Innovation und E-Business, Universität Trier, Trier, Deutschland

    Lorenz Gabriel

  3. Professur für Marketing, Innovation und E-Business, Universität Trier, Trier, Rheinland-Pfalz, Deutschland

    Julian Morgen

  4. Professur für Marketing, Innovation & E-Business, Universität Trier, Trier, Deutschland

    Mi Nguyen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Voeth, M., Weinmann, N., Roth, J. (2023). Digitalisierung, aber zu welchem Preis? – Unethisches Verhalten in digitalen Verhandlungen. In: Kleinaltenkamp, M., Gabriel, L., Morgen, J., Nguyen, M. (eds) Marketing und Innovation in disruptiven Zeiten. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38572-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38572-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-38571-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-38572-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation