Next Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Potential Yields of Highland Barley in Relation to Climate Change in Three Rivers Region of the Tibetan Plateau from 1961 to 2020
Previous Article in Journal
A Normalized Rich-Club Connectivity-Based Strategy for Keyword Selection in Social Media Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Factors for Korea’s Export Companies to Respond to Trade Remedies: Mediation Effect of Fairness Perception

1
Department of Business School, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 03063, Korea
2
Department of Global Business Administration, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 03063, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7725; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137725
Submission received: 22 April 2022 / Revised: 8 June 2022 / Accepted: 13 June 2022 / Published: 24 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship)

Abstract

:
This study analyzes the factors that enable Korea’s export companies, governments, and associations to effectively respond to the trade remedies represented by unilateral trade negotiation strategies. For this purpose, a research model was established through a deductive theoretical extension of organizational behavior theory, which can be applied directly by enterprises and related organizations. According to the results, factors that are both internal and external to a firm have a positive influence in reinforcing its capacity to respond to trade remedies. As a result, it was concluded that the reinforcement of response capacity leads to the qualitative and quantitative development of companies. This direct causal path confirmed the validity of the hypothesis that a manager’s fairness perception in trade remedies would represent leadership in organizational behavior theory. Thus, leadership was found to have a partial mediating effect between the two factors, thereby enhancing the causal relationship’s explanatory power and statistical significance.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Purpose of the Study

Free trade requires a normative practice based on the principles agreed upon by two or more parties, and the likelihood of fair trade is promoted by realization of free trade. However, if only fair trade, excluding free trade, were to be emphasized, the fundamental nature of free trade would be distorted, to expedite the expansion of protectionism. This will also lead to the abuse of indiscrete trade remedies based on political forces and the aggressive principle of reciprocity, causing a considerable negative impact on the global economic order. In other words, despite the boundaries between free trade and fair trade becoming more ambiguous and their fundamental roles more similar since the establishment of World Trade Organization (WTO), and although the principles of free trade tend to lead to adherence to the principles of fair trade, aspects of free trade could lead to unwanted consequences if only the principles of fair trade were emphasized. Thus, fair trade must be based on free trade, to sustain the international trade order.
While it may be rash to criticize the trade remedy system, it is mostly characterized by unfair trade practices and protectionism. Consistent institutions, from the perspective of multilateral principles, are in fact important factors in developing free and fair trade. However, in recent years multiple nations, including the United States, have implemented trade remedy measures in response to other nations, by interpreting fair trade with their own logic, and according to the principle of unilateral trade negotiation strategies and other consequential standards, such as the imbalance in trade. In the current economy, in which the global value chain has become accepted, such consequentialist regulatory measures and market closure, based on a reciprocity impacted by politics, lack a basis in international norms. The spread of protectionism is causing tremendous stress to Korean companies, especially small and medium companies, in addition to a global economic recession.
With this in mind, this study hopes to carry out research designed to provide companies and the government with fundamental countermeasures. From the perspective of organizational behavior, the factors of the research model set through the deduction method were “internal environment”, “external environment”, “change management”, “leadership”, and “organizational effectiveness”. Then, the variables of each factor were selected based on an operational definition, based on prior research. “Internal environment” and “external environment” were decided as exogenous variables, and analysis was conducted to see how change management (an endogenous dependent variable) was impacted. Additionally, by setting “leadership” as an endogenic explanatory variable in the given regression model, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to verify the indirect cause and effect relationship, to identify the mediator role it performs. Last, whether such “change management” affect “organizational effectiveness” significantly was analyzed, and the analysis results were summarized to deduce conclusions, implications, limitations of the study, and areas of future study.

1.2. Literature Review and Aim of the Study

There has been a significant amount of research on fair trade and trade remedies.
Park and Song (2017) argued that since the standards of fair trade adopted by the United States are ambiguous, they could not be applied as a multilateral standard [1]. METI (2019) argued that the normative direction based on international agreements is fair and serves as the principal rule that world trade must adhere to [2]. Hilf (2001) claimed that the WTO system has evolved stepwise, and strongly asserted that it is, in principle, the basis for multilateral trade [3].
Lee (2017) analyzed recent trends and characteristics, to establish mid- to long-term trade policies and trade remedy measures for the Republic of Korea [4]. Meyer (2018) claimed that international organizations could enhance their circumstances by increasing the number of trade-related laws, he also considered the possibility of enhancing the WTO’s enforcement ordinance procedures and laws related to investigations of trade remedy measures [5]. Jung and Kim (2018) argued that Korea needed to overhaul the system in response to the easing of Japan’s anti-dumping request requirements, and that research should be conducted on revising laws and regulations, so that new suppliers can change or abolish anti-dumping tariffs [6].
Kanfer and Chen (2016) reviewed studies focusing on organizational members’ motivation to set and achieve organizational goals. By synthesizing macroscopic research trends related to motivation and theories constructed through new approaches, the microscopic moderating effects of setting and achieving organizational goals were investigated [7]. Judge and Robbins (2017) defined organizational behavior theory as the study of improving organizational efficiency by using knowledge obtained from investigations on the effects of individuals, groups, and structures on organizational behavior [8]. Hashimoto (2017) argued that, despite a lack of knowledge, experience, and skills in some areas, new leaders with problem-solving skills have leadership that is of value within a developing organization, and different from the existing leadership exercised within an established organization. It was argued that a leader who can solve problems is a leader with a creative network-type leadership, which induces cooperation and sharing between customers and members of the organization [9].
This study aimed to study strategic countermeasures to actively cope with external turbulence, such as that caused by the trade remedy measures frequently used for protectionism. The quantitative research related to trade remedy measures carried out using different analytical methods, such as analyzing the economic ripple effect, is unlikely to make further progress. Therefore, to ensure new research progress, a new theoretical basis, based on prior qualitative research and practical and convincing countermeasures, must be proposed to the Korean government and companies, to help them cope with unfair trade remedy measures that are the key means of aggressive trade strategies. To that end, this study established a research model based on the theory of organizational behavior—a practical field of study that organizations can directly apply and implement—to deduce the behavior variables constituting organizational behavior. The variables were determined through their operational definitions in prior research. Furthermore, leadership, as a key factor in organizational behavior, was deduced as the managers’ fairness regarding the trade remedy measures of counterpart nations, to measure the causal relationship model between the internal and external factors of a company and the strengthening of the coping mechanism.

2. Theoretical Background on Fair Trade and Trade Remedies

2.1. Theoretical Study on Fair Trade

This study conducted a literature review based on three conceptual frameworks: norm-oriented standards, result-oriented standards, and reciprocity, to acknowledge and judge the fairness of trade actions conducted by state in their entirety.
Norm-oriented standards signify that the trade policies and systems of a nation are based on international laws and agreements: the WTO agreement, other international agreements, fundamental principles of international law, and other customary internal laws.
Result-oriented standards refer to the standards of condemning the policies and measures of counterpart nations as unfair to home nations, once trading results are considered unfair. Result-oriented standards consider a situation problematic and unfair, even if the fairness of trade has not been unilaterally judged or suggested by a specific nation or when problematic policies or measures have been implemented and led to unwanted trade results. It is a strong form of government-managed trade, in which specific trade indices, such as the market share of specific products or the number of imports must be achieved.
Last, reciprocity in trade refers to a nation providing treatment and concessions equal to what counterpart nations provide, to “equalize the opportunity for competition”. This does not mean that the “results of trade are made equal”, and it is a concept somewhat equivalent to the result-oriented standards mentioned above.
Two types of reciprocity exist. The first is open or passive reciprocity, permitted under the multilateral and indiscriminate trade system under the GATT and WTO, in which the general and unconditional most-favored-nation treatment principle is reciprocally granted to all member nations. The next concept to be explained, restrictive reciprocity or aggressive reciprocity, refers to the state of bilateral balance, in which one party must open to the other as much as the other opens up to it. The parties also close trade equivalently, forming a balance.
Reciprocity is the exchange of equivalents. The action of a party is contingent on the action of the counterpart, resulting in good-to-good bad causal relationships. Fair trade based on reciprocity is likely to lead to trade managed by governments through the logic of power, rather than free trade [10], with reciprocity causing a chain of retaliations and politicization of the economy [11]. Free trade is trade based on market opening and trade liberalization, and fair trade is trade based on norms. Fair trade must be based on free trade, to make it result in good-for-good reciprocity (see Figure 1).

2.2. Overview of Trade Remedies

2.2.1. Anti-Dumping Duty

Duties to prevent dumping, or anti-dumping duties, refer to the levying of an additional charge on the difference between the normal and dumping price of a specific product. The main assumption is that once foreign products have been dumped into the domestic market, fundamental harm has already been done or is likely to be done.

2.2.2. Countervailing Duty

Countervailing duty is levied when fundamental harm occurs due to the import of products directly or indirectly subsidized or incentivized, in the case of manufacturing or production abroad or export. When substantial damages occur, or are likely to occur, or when substantial delays in the domestic industry have been verified through investigations, a duty equivalent to, or less than, the subsidy could be levied for a specific product, or for the exporter, or exporting nation.

2.2.3. Emergency Duty

Emergency duty is an additional tariff levied for the increased import of a specific product, due to lower prices abroad or other unexpected circumstances. The levying nations assumes that the increased import of the product gravely damages or is likely to gravely damage the local industry, and has to protect the economy based on domestic law and WTO agreement [12].

3. Research Design

3.1. Theoretical Basis of Research

3.1.1. Organizational Behavior

An organization is a group dedicated to achieving a common set of goals through the interaction of its members, and it has an open system to adapt to the changing environment and regulate its internal relationships [13]. Companies seek to improve organizational performance through goal-oriented, specific changes among their members and within the organizational structure [14]. An organization and an individual are in a relation that can be explained by the theory of inducements–contributions balance [15]. Therefore, the relationship between inducement by the organization and contributions by individuals can be interpreted as a system of exchanges, in which the organization and the individual make autonomous decisions through the organization’s communication process.
The exchanges must involve an open system. The organizational environment must be able to further develop the reciprocal relationship between the organization and the individual. The organization must also cope with organizational changes by modifying the organizational structure and tasks, and striving for the simultaneous optimization of social and technological systems. The organization–individual relationship changes depending on the stability or instability of the system. In addition, an organic system must be adopted in line with environmental conditions, as methods of inducement and models of motivation change according to the organization’s technological development.
Since the relevant past studies have thoroughly examined organizational behavior, a methodology of applying behavioral science knowledge to the establishment of an organization [16], this study uses it to analyze organizational level responses to trade remedies.

3.1.2. Conceptual Framework

Organizational behavior has been examined at the individual, group, and organizational levels [17]. The model applied to this study is the organizational level model, and this aspect was partially adapted to the subject of this research. The organizational behavior included in this model is largely impacted by the management; leadership plays a key role in forming the behavior and responses of the organization (see Figure 2).

3.1.3. Conceptual Definition of Variables

The following conceptual variables are extensively used in this study:
An organization’s internal environment refers to factors regarding the behavior and perception of the organization itself and its members (individuals). It is the internal mechanism of an organization that copes with external changes [18]. The external environment refers to how the network structure of individual organizations is built, and how the organization is linked to external organizations in carrying out different business activities.
Management of change refers to the responses from within and outside the organization to change and crisis. It is imperative for an organization to have competencies to cope with different changes, circumstances, and shocks [19].
Leadership refers to the process of influencing the members of the organization to achieve organizational aims, and also refers to the act of changing and renewing its members by empowering and motivating them [20].
Organizational effectiveness is the efficiency in carrying out change management in line with internal and external factors. It generally refers to the results or products of organizational behavior [21].

3.2. Research Variables and Model Settings

3.2.1. Operational Definition of Research Variables

The internal factors or corporate activities meant to cope with trade remedy measures by counterpart nations can reinforce the coping competencies of domestic exporter companies and contribute to corporate management, enhance judgment on remedy measure compliance with international norms, and ultimately increase exports.
To efficiently cope with the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations, external factors such as government assistance and public institutions are also needed. External factors, directly or indirectly, support exporting companies in strengthening their coping competencies against foreign trade regulations. When combined, the internal activities and the external factors, through cooperation with public institutions, strengthen the overall coping measures of the company against trade remedies. In essence, firms do not initially decide to export; such expanded activities are an outgrowth of innovation at the firm level [22]. Strengthening such coping competencies ultimately leads to increased exports and export flexibility (see Table 1).
The research variables were selected to determine the mediating effects of management’s determination of partner nations’ trade regulation fairness and compliance with internal norms on the coping mechanisms of the company.
This study seeks to identify the impacts of corporate management’s perception of trade remedy measures of trade partner nations, as either norm-oriented or results-oriented and their awareness of whether political factors, in addition to purely economic factors, are intervening in trade on regulation coping competencies .

3.2.2. Outline of Research Model

This study categorized the factors that strengthen the coping competencies of exporting companies faced with trading partner nations’ trade remedy measures into external and internal factors. Furthermore, it seeks to analyze how these internal and external factors impact the perception of fairness by the exporting companies’ management, and hopes to verify that perception’s impact on strengthening coping competencies. Moreover, it also investigates how strengthened coping competencies impact performance and increase exports. This entire structure can be represented as Figure 3 and was achieved through the operational definition of the conceptual framework, Figure 2.

3.2.3. Deductive Theory Building

Deductive theory building is a method of deduction, in which a specific conclusion is deduced from an existing theory or general principle. It is based on the principle that facts that are true about the whole are also true in partial form. When the existing theories and universal principles comply with a hypothesis reflecting empirical facts, the hypothesis develops into a principle or a theory.
The company’s internal and external factors impact organizational change. The following are the company’s internal factors: “a perception toward trade remedy policy”, “nurturing experts”, “cooperation with partner companies”, and “building of systems”. The external factors of a company are as follows: “information provision by the government and institutions”, “monetary support by the government and institutions”, “human resource support by the government and institutions”, and “reinforced diplomacy by the government and institutions”.
“Perception toward trade remedy policies” could be interpreted as the perception referred to in organizational behavior theory. “Nurturing experts”, “cooperation with partner companies”, “establishment of administrative systems”, and external factors of a company all belong to the systematization and cooperative relationship building of the components of an organization. Organic cooperation among its members could be promoted to maximize organizational efficiency and performance, to form an optimal organizational structure and enhance effectiveness.
“The perception of fairness by the management” was also assumed to impact change management by the company, to strengthen coping competencies. This variable was assumed to represent “leadership”. International businesses must be innovative, especially during periods of uncertainty. However, there is seldom a consideration of precisely how innovation can be triggered, at either the management or employee level [23]. This means that managers making critical decisions are aware of the trading partner nation’s trade remedy measure’s compliance with international norms, whether the measures are based on the arbitrary judgment and logic of the nation, and whether political factors, in addition to purely economic factors, are intervening.
Leadership is defined from a social and political perspective as the role of politicians and managers, with the competency to promote stability within an organization by adapting to the external environment [24]. Theories related to leadership assert that the organization members are more motivated when the leader accepts more challenging roles for its members and takes more enthusiastic action to strive toward achieving the given goals [25,26].
The leader’s resilience is the dynamic capacity of an organization to develop and grow over time [27]. Organizational resilience is the source of the response of an organization in the face of crisis and change. Leaders with such resilience are able to identify and utilize opportunities to develop new techniques and coping abilities, even amidst a crisis, and to cope effectively with a crisis [28].
Furthermore, “strengthening of coping competencies” comprises “strengthening of proactive monitoring against relief policies”, “strengthening of coping competencies when facing investigations”, and “actively applying for investigations”. Pursuing effective coping measures by the company against changes in the external environment in the form of trade remedy measures could be interpreted as an organization’s attempt to adapt to the environment.
“Enhanced performance” would be a form of “organizational effectiveness” achieved by the above factors. This study measured enhanced performance quantitatively and qualitatively.

3.2.4. Hypothesis Setting

Statistical hypotheses were established before the empirical testing of this study. The six hypotheses based on prior research are as follows: H1 and H2 can be represented as in Figure 4.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The internal factors of a company will have positive (+) effects on strengtheningtheir coping competencies against trade remedy measures.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The internal factors have positive (+) effects on managers’ perceptions of fairness.
Based on the above research, the hypothesis that the four internal factors of a company (perception, nurturing experts, cooperation with partner companies, and establishment of an administrative system) will have a positive impact on strengthening coping competencies in the case of lawsuits against exporting companies and the perception of fairness by managers was established (refer to Table 1. comparison of the conceptual definition and operational definition of variables).
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The company’s external factors will have a positive (+) impact on strengthening coping competencies against trade remedy measures.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The company’s external factors have a positive (+) impact on the perception of fairness by the manager.
H3 and H4 can be represented as Figure 5.
Based on prior research, the external factors of the company comprising four variables (information provision by the government and institutions, financial support, human resource support, and strengthening of diplomacy) will have a positive impact on strengthening coping competencies in case of lawsuits against exporting companies and a manager’s perception of fairness.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
A manager’s perception of fairness will havea positive (+) impact on strengtheningthe company’s coping competencies against trade remedy measures.
H5 can be represented as Figure 6.
Based on prior research, a hypothesis positing that coping competencies against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations would be reinforced through the judgment of the manager on whether trade management by the government is based on the logic of normative orientation, results orientation, and reciprocity as the criteria of fair trade was developed.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Strengthening coping competencies against trade remedy measures will have a positive (+) impact on enhancing the company’s performance.
H5 can be represented as Figure 7.
The hypothesis that strengthening coping competencies against trade remedy measures would have a positive impact on enhancing the performance of the company was formulated. Performance enhancement was categorized into qualitative performance-enhanced flexibility [29], and quantitative performance-increased exports [30].
This means that the unfair trade remedy measures of the trading partner nation will be removed, and a legal knowledge base will be established to prevent repeated unfair trade remedy measures; saving various resources needed for export, and increasing trade volume.

3.3. Research Method

3.3.1. Data Collection

Data research was conducted with a focus on companies currently exporting. A random sampling method was adopted to remove bias from the sample. The sample included not only exporters home and abroad (domestic local corporations and branches), but also research institutions, public institutions, and associations related to trade and international business management. The samples had the same score, and samples with multiple missing variables, regardless of the contents of the survey, were regarded as unfaithful responses, and six samples were excluded, resulting in 221 samples being used for the analysis, as shown Table 2.

3.3.2. Composition of Survey Questions

The survey comprised five sections. The first section was about the general information of survey subjects, including demographic data, and comprised questions assessing the subject’s type of business, and the export items, size, sales, and proportion of exports.
The second section consisted of questions on the company’s internal factors. The survey questions of Huszagh and Greene (1985); Zhang, Lee, Zhang, and Banerjee (2003); and others were referred to [30,31].
The third section consisted of questions on the external factors of the company, and the prior research of Koga (2019), Kubo and Harada (2014), and other was referred to and modified according to the intentions of the researcher [32,33].
The fourth section consisted of questions on the perceptions of fairness in trade remedy measures of trading partner nations by the company manager, and was designed for research purposes based on Zhang, Lee, Zhang, and Banerjee (2003), and Yoshida (2019), and others [31,34].
The fifth section comprised questions on how efficient countermeasures by the company against the measures of trading partner nations could impact the quantitative and qualitative performance of the company, based on survey questions from the prior research by of Yeoh (2005) and Hur (2013) [35,36]. The details are presented in Table 3.

3.3.3. Analysis Process and Methods

The achievement of the aims of this study required the validation of research hypotheses after verifying the reliability and validity of the measurement tool, and SPSS software (version 22.0) was utilized for this process.
The reliability of a measurement tool refers to the ability to stably and consistently assess subjects during measurement. This study utilized internal consistency measurement using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the most widely used method in social science, to validate the measurement reliability.
Validity refers to how well the measurement tool developed to measure the subject in consideration reflects the traits. In this study, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to measure the construct validity of the factor structure, regarding which factor the questions were categorized as and the measured constructs.
Finally, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to validate the research hypotheses deduced through the deductive method. The causal indirect effects caused by the perception of the organization manager on external change were also analyzed.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Sample Characteristics

4.1.1. Demographical Characteristics

The general information of the respondents was analyzed, to identify the demographic characteristics of the collected data. The collected survey respondents’ information showed that the companies were largely categorized into companies involved in manufacturing, processing, and trading of products; and companies involved only in trade (see Table 4).

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistics Analysis

The descriptive statistics used to validate research hypotheses and other statistical methods are shown in Table 5.

4.2. Testing the Reliability and Validity of Measurement Tool

4.2.1. Correlation Analysis

The corrected item-to-total correlation, which measures the correlation between a specific question and the rest of the questions based on the domain sampling model, was validated (see Table 6).
As a criterion for interpreting a correlation coefficient, it can be said that there is a clear correlation in the case of ±0.30–±0.70, and that there is a considerably high correlation in the case of ±0.70–±1.00. All of the given factors showed an overall high correlation, validating the reliability of the measurement tool. Therefore, no items were excluded from further analysis.

4.2.2. Measurement of Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is generally used to measure reliability and confirm internal consistency. The results of the reliability measurements based on the data collected in this study are shown in Table 7.
As a result of the statistical testing on reliability, it was found that there were five items and that Cronbach’s alpha was 0.923. A coefficient of 0.6 and higher is generally considered to have high reliability generally, and a coefficient of 0.7 and higher is considered to have high reliability according to rigorous standards.
The correlation of totals refers to the correlation coefficient between a single item and all remaining items. According to Table 8, all five items showed stable correlations. When some items were excluded, the Cronbach’s alpha was lower than the alpha coefficient when all items were included (0.923), emphasizing the importance of each item in the reliability statistics. Although the performance (enhancement of performance) was slightly above the alpha coefficient, the increase was not notable, and it was applied in the further analysis.

4.2.3. Construct Validity Test

The construct validity test is the most frequently used and significant validity test. It is a statistical analysis that enables the researcher to assess whether the subject has been appropriately measured using the measurement tools applied by the researcher; an exploratory factor analysis is generally used.
Bartlett’s spherical test is a test to see whether the conducted factor analysis is appropriate, and an analysis with 0.5 or higher Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measurement is interpreted as the questions having sufficient correlation. According to Table 9, in the case of Bartlett’s unit matrix testing, the approximate chi-square value was 9129.795, being statistically significant at the level of 0.01, and satisfying the assumptions of factor analysis (see Table 9).
As the general criteria for factor analysis when the factor loading and commonality are 0.4 or higher, the construct validity of the items comprising each factor was tested as a general criterion for factor analysis. As shown in Table 10, most of the 50 items satisfied the condition. However, seven items, InfoMoni, InfoCounter, DiploCounter, DiploIni, ManRule, ManPower, and ManReci were verified to be less than 0.4 for factor weight; these items were excluded before validating the research hypotheses (see Table 10).

4.3. Hypotheses Validation and Analysis Results

4.3.1. Hypothesis Validation

A hierarchical regression analysis could be carried out in addition to the path analysis, to consider mediated effects. To test the research hypotheses 1, 2, and 5 of this study, a regression analysis of the following research model was carried out.
Three-step regression analysis was conducted according to the hierarchical regression model shown in Figure 8. The steps of the analysis were as follows:
  • Step 1; Regression analysis for Model 1, to validate whether the independent variables significantly impact the mediating variables.
  • Step 2; Regression analysis for Model 2, to validate whether independent variables significantly impact the dependent variables.
  • Step 3; Multiple regression analysis on Model 3, to validate whether the dependent and mediating variables significantly impact the dependent variables.
The analysis results for Model 1 were as follows (Table 11).
The value of R2 is the goodness-of-fit, and shows the causal relationship model between the independent variables and dependent variables set by the researcher, or how the estimated regression straight line explains the total variation in the data. According to Table 11, the model shows that the company’s internal factors explain 48.1% of the changes in managers’ perceptions of fairness.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that the regression formula and model, estimated using the F-value and Sig. (level of significance) were statistically significant. According to the ANOVA (Table 12), the F-value was 202.994, with the regression formula being statistically significant at a significance level of 0.01.
The statistical significance of the dependent variables comprising the regression formula estimated is shown in the table of regression coefficients (Table 13). According to the analysis results, the company’s internal factors impacted the regression coefficient, 0.785, and are significant at the 0.01 level. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was accepted.
Next, the analysis results of Models 2 and 3 are as follows (Table 14).
First, in the multiple regression analysis of Model 3, in the diagnosis of multicollinearity of two independent variables, the internal factors of the company and the perception of fairness by the manager, the coefficient of correlation was 0.694, and less than 0.80, indicating that there would be no issues from the high correlation between the independent variables (see Table 14).
According to the goodness-of-fit analysis, the company’s internal factors explain 76.6% of the changes in strengthened coping competencies; together with the perception of fairness, they explained 90.9% of the changes in strengthened coping competencies. Furthermore, as the mediating variable of perception of fairness by managers was added to Model 2 in Model 3, the value of R2 increased to 0.909, increasing the explanation for dependent variables as much as the amount of change in ΔR2 (0.143) (see Table 15).
The F-value of Model 2 was equal to 715.462, as shown in the summary of Models 2 and 3 in Table 16. The F-value of Model 3 with the mediating variable added was 1089.974, and the amount of change (ΔF) was 343.982; significant at the level of 0.01. In other words, there were statistically significant differences between Model 3, considering the perception of fairness by the manager as the mediating variable, and Model 2, which did not consider the mediating variable.
In the coefficient analysis, the regression coefficient of the company’s internal factors was 0.832, significant at a 0.01 level. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was adopted. Furthermore, the regression coefficient value of the company’s internal factors declined to 0.485 in Model 3, where the manager’s perception of the fairness mediating variable was added. The coefficient value for the manager’s perception of fairness was 0.442. This is the partial mediating effect of the perception of fairness by the manager variable on the impact of internal factors on the coping competencies of the company. Both the dependent and mediating variables were significant at the level of 0.01. In other words, as hypothesized, it was verified that the perception of fairness by managers positively impacted the strengthening of coping competencies, in the form of a mediating effect. Hypothesis 5 was also adopted (see Table 17).
Next, the same processes and methods were applied to validate Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5, according to the following research model (Figure 9): a summary of the results is presented in Table 18. The results of each hierarchical regression analysis of Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 are in the Appendix A (Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5, Table A6 and Table A7).
According to the results, the company’s external factors explain 56.8% of the changes in the manager’s perception of fairness, with the regression result of Model 1 being significant at a 0.01 level. Furthermore, the company’s external factors had an impact on the regression coefficient, 0.842; significant at the 0.01 level. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
In Model 2, the coefficients between independent and dependent variables and R2 and F values were all significant at the level of 0.01; thus, Hypothesis 3 was adopted. In addition, in the case of Model 3, F-values were all significant at the level of 0.01. ΔR2 increased with the addition of the mediating variable by 0.111 (0.880–0.769) compared with Model 2, and there was a significant difference for ΔF, 200.705, with Model 2, not including mediating variables. Furthermore, the power of explanation for the mediating variable could be predicted, with the regression coefficient of the independent variable decreasing from 0.823 to 0.465. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was validated with the indirect causal relationship from the mediating effect of 0.426.
Last, a simple regression analysis was conducted to validate Hypothesis 6 (see Table 19).
The value of R2 was 0.362, indicating that the goodness of fit for the causal model or the estimated regression formula explained 36.2% of the total change in the data (see Table 20).
According to the ANOVA results, the F-value was 124.397, and significant at a 0.01 level; it was verified that the estimated regression formula and model were statistically significant (Table 21).
Analysis of the regression coefficient showed a coefficient value of 0.858, significant at a 0.01 level. Therefore, Hypothesis 6, that the strengthening of coping competencies by the company positively impacts the performance enhancement of the company, was accepted (see Table 22).

4.3.2. Analysis Results

The results of the testing analysis of this study were as follows:
The company’s internal factors had a positive impact on strengthening coping competencies against trade remedy policies. The goodness of fit for the correlation model was considerably high (76.5%) and statistically significant. Furthermore, the power of the explanation for the independent variable was 83.2%, which also had a significant impact.
Second, the impact of internal factors of the company on the manager’s perception of fairness showed a goodness of fit of 48.1%. The independent variables had a statistically significant impact of 78.5%. Furthermore, validation of the mediating effect between the company’s internal factors and strengthening of coping competencies; the goodness of fit of the model (ΔR2: 0.143); changes in the statistical significance (ΔF: 343.982); decreased regression coefficient of independent variables (from 0.832 to 0.485); and regression coefficient of mediating variables (0.442) were found to be significant. In conclusion, the perception of fairness by the manager was found to strengthen and increase the correlation, by serving as a partial mediator between the internal factors of the company and strengthening coping competencies.
Third, the impact of external factors of the company on the strengthening of coping competencies was 82.3%, and the goodness of fit was 76.9%, with a statistically significant regression formula and model. However, since the construct validity of strengthened diplomacy with trading partner nations was not tested before the hypothesis validation, this variable was excluded from the regression model. In addition, the impact of the variable on the strengthened coping competencies of the company was not verified. Furthermore, the significant impact (84.2%), power of explanation (56.8%), and statistical significance of the model were verified in the correlation model of the company’s external factors. The manager’s perception of fairness supported the positive impact hypothesis. However, because it was found that there was a lack of construct validity for the human resource support variable in the given regression model, the variable was excluded from the hypothesis validation process. Thus, the impact of the given variable could not be verified.
Fourth, an analysis of the perception of fairness by the manager was conducted as the mediating effect between external factors and strengthened coping competencies, as well as internal factors. As a result, increased goodness of fit (ΔR2: 0.111), change in statistical significance (ΔF: 200.7050, and impact of independent variables (from 0.823 to 0.465) were partially replaced by the mediating effect (0.426) when the mediating variable was added. As a result, the impact of the manager’s perception of fairness also mediated the impact of external factors of the company on the strengthening of coping competencies, ultimately strengthening the correlation.
Fifth, the impact of the strengthened coping competencies of the company against trade remedies on the enhanced performance, increased trade, and enhanced export flexibility of the company was analyzed. The estimated regression formula explained 36.2% of the total change in the data; it was confirmed that the regression formula and model had statistical significance. Furthermore, as the strengthening of coping competencies of the company had a significant impact of 85.8% on performance enhancement, the conclusion that strengthening coping competencies against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations had a positive impact on enhancing export performance was deduced.

5. Conclusions and Implications

Empirical testing was conducted, to analyze the factors for countermeasures and strengthening of competencies when companies fundamentally face trade remedy measures by trading partner nations. The results showed the internal and external factors of the company have positive impacts on the strengthening of coping competencies, and that the perception of fairness by the manager, which is leadership in organizational behavior theory, has mediating effects that enhance the power of explanation and the certainty of correlation. It was also concluded that such strengthening of coping competencies increases companies’ exports, by resolving the burden of exports through solving disputes with trading partner nations. The academic and practical implications and contributions of this study are as follows.

5.1. Implication for Theory Development

First, it evaluated empirical phenomena in trade and commerce based on the principles of organizational behavior and investigated the linkages and correlations between international business and policies related to trade and commerce. It expands the field of research by applying organizational behavior in trade and commerce.

5.2. Implication for Business and Management Practice

Second, company business strategies to promote competencies to cope with the rising risks of rapid globalization were deduced. The necessity for reciprocity among members, due to limited bounded rationality [37] in decision-making within the organization, applies not only to employees, but also to middle and top managers. Although knowledge serves as the key component for business management, whether employees of a company have the required knowledge is vague and difficult to judge. According to Li’s (2014) analysis, relatively more knowledge related to a specific situation gathered by the manager leads to stronger tendencies to communicate with employees [38]. In other words, if an understanding of given circumstances is promoted by the management with decision-making authority and the perception of fairness of trade remedy measures by the trading partner nation through communicating organically with employees, there will be additional potential problem-solving capabilities [39]. An example of such an interaction is empowering leadership [40], in which the manager has the capability to accurately perceive fairness and attribute authority and decision-making power to employees. Moreover, relational leadership is process-based leadership that emphasizes the social dynamism between leaders and subordinates, to increase performance [41]. If such leadership is based on the trust between the manager and members of the company, the internal and external factors of the company will be activated, to maximize the strengthening of coping competencies against trade remedy measures.
In conclusion, managers must monitor the overall circumstances of trade and commerce, and accumulate relevant knowledge. Furthermore, strengthening competencies by combining information within and outside the organization and relevant action must be achieved through the leadership, by continuously exchanging information with, and motivating, lower-rank employees.

5.3. Implication for Readers and Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study are as follows.
First, this study’s countermeasures for trade remedies presuppose the rational thinking and moral implementation of participating countries. However, in reality, the logic of power is overflowing, and there are many cases in which countries disagree with judgments based on norms and refuse to implement them. If institutional mechanisms and measures were sought to enforce the implementation of the outcome of the dispute, it is expected that there would have been an opportunity to narrow the gap between theory and reality.
Second, causal relationships between the factors in the research model were identified. However, it is believed that more practical implications would have been provided if practical implementation measures of the government and corporation had been proposed to strengthen the ability to respond to trade remedies; this study did not reach the relevant area.
The search for a more practical and contextual response strategy that can compensate for these shortcomings is left for future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.; methodology, M.K.; software, M.K.; validation, M.K.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, M.K. and M.P.; resource, M.K. and M.P.; data curation, M.K. and M.P.; writing-original draft preparation, M.K. and M.P.; writing-review and editing, M.P.; visualization, M.K. and M.P.; supervision, M.P.; project administration, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Validation Results of Hypothesis 3, 4, and 5

Table A1. Summary of Model 1.
Table A1. Summary of Model 1.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Standard Error of Estimate
10.754 a0.5680.5660.64458
a Predictor variables: (constant), external.
Table A2. ANOVA for Model 1.
Table A2. ANOVA for Model 1.
ModelSum of SquaresdfAverage SquareFSignificance Level
1Regression Analysis119.7911119.791288.3170.000 a
Residual90.9912190.415
Total210.782220
Dependent variable: fairness. a Predictor variable: (constant), external.
Table A3. Constant for Model 1.
Table A3. Constant for Model 1.
ModelNonstandard CoefficientStandard CoefficienttSignificance Level
BSDBeta
1(Constant)0.8960.271 3.3020.001
External0.8420.0500.75416.9800.000
Dependent variable: fairness.
Table A4. Diagnosis of Multicollinearity.
Table A4. Diagnosis of Multicollinearity.
CategoryConfrontInternalFairness
Pearsons’s coefficientConfront1.0000.8770.880
External0.8771.0000.754
Fairness0.8800.7541.000
Significance level(one side)Confront 0.0000.000
External0.000 0.000
Fairness0.0000.000
Table A5. Summary of Models 2 and 3.
Table A5. Summary of Models 2 and 3.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Standard Error of EstimateStatistical Change
Change of R2Change of Fdf1df2Change of Sig. F
20.877 a0.7690.7680.396190.769728.67812190.000
30.938 b0.8800.8790.286530.111200.70512180.000
a Predictor variable: (constant), external. b Predictor variable: (constant), external, fairness.
Table A6. ANOVA for Models 2 and 3.
Table A6. ANOVA for Models 2 and 3.
ModelSum of SquaresdfAverage SquareFSignificance Level
2Regression Analysis114.3781114.378728.6780.000 b
Residual34.3762190.157
Total148.754220
3Regression Analysis130.856265.42796.9300.000 c
Residual17.8982180.082
Residual148.754220
Dependent variable: confront. b Predictor variable: (constant), external. c Predictor variable: (constant), external, fairness.
Table A7. Coefficient for Models 2 and 3.
Table A7. Coefficient for Models 2 and 3.
ModelNonstandard CoefficientStandard CoefficienttSignificance Level
BSDBeta
2(Constant)0.1.0120.167 6.0720.000
External0.8230.0300.87726.9940.000
3(Constant)0.6310.124 5.1100.000
External0.4650.0340.49513.8430.000
Fairness0.4260.0300.50714.1670.000
Dependent variable: confront.

References

  1. Park, J.; Song, Y. An exploratory study on the United States commercial public policy for fair trade & unfair trade. Chonbuk Law Rev. 2017, 53, 269–296. [Google Scholar]
  2. METI. 2018 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements-WTO, EPA/FTA and IIA-/METI Priorities Based on the 2018 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements; METI: Tokyo, Japan, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hilf, M. Power, rules and principles-which orientation for WTO/GATT LAW? J. Int. Econ. Law 2001, 4, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, K.; Cho, M.; Kang, J.; Park, H.; Um, J. Trade Remedy and Its Economic Impact in the Model with World Input-Output Linkage; KIEP: Sejong, Korea, 2017; pp. 161–162. [Google Scholar]
  5. Meyer, T. Free Trade, fair Trade, and selective enforcement. Columbia Law Rev. 2018, 118, 491–566. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371824 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  6. Jung, J.; Kim, H. A comparative study on the trade remedies in Korea and Japan. J. Korea Res. Soc. Cust. 2018, 19, 89–106. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kanfer, R.; Chen, G. Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 136, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Judge, T.A.; Robbins, S.P. Essentials of Organizational Behavior; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hashimoto, H. Leadership of social entrepreneurs: Exploring the possibilities for senior citizens. J. Assist. Dialogue 2017, 4, 39–52. Available online: http://id.ndl.go.jp/bib/028735200 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  10. Keohane, R.O. Reciprocity in international relations. Int. Organ. 1986, 40, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arakawa, H. Fair trade and reciprocity. Seijo Univ. Econ. Pap. 1989, 105, 1–26. Available online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1109/00002047/ (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  12. Kim, S. A study on the elastic tariff system for the unfair international trade. Tax Law 2012, 5, 39–64. [Google Scholar]
  13. Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ha, J.-C. Capturing emerging business opportunities through entrepreneurial orientation and innovation behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubrin, A.J. Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: An Applied Perspective; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  17. Milton, C.R. Human Behavior in Organization, Three Levels of Behavior; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goto, M. Sensitivity to external legitimacy as a key factor for institutional isomorphism: Case studies of 7 Japanese companies on their decision making of adopting global talent management. Int. Bus. Stud. 2016, 8, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Härtel, C.E.; O’Connor, J.M. Contextualizing research: Putting context back into organizational behavior research. J. Manag. Organ. 2014, 20, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, Y. A Study on the Effect of Leadership Style on Organizational Citizenship Behavoir: Focused on the Mediating Effect of Organizational Committment; Mokpo National University: Mokpo, Korea, 2014; pp. 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kalafsky, R.V.; Gress, D.R. Go big or stay home? Korean machinery firms, trade fair dynamics and export performance. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2014, 20, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rowley, C.; Oh, I.; Jang, W. Leadership, performance and socialist reforms: How did reform leadership emerge and create change? Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2021, 27, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation; Quid Pro Books: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2011; pp. 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kotter, J.P. What leaders really do. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2001, 79, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhao, S.; Liu, M.; Zhu, C.J.; Liu, H. The role of leadership in human resource management: Perspectives and evidence from Asia pacific. Asian Pac. Bus. Rev. 2020, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Makitani, M. Driving factors of organizational transformation: Approach from the organizational capability, organizational learning, inter-organizational relationships, and organizational culture. J. Bus. Adm. Inf. 2016, 23, 17–36. Available online: http://id.nii.ac.jp/1213/00000875/ (accessed on 3 December 2021).
  27. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E. Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: How organizations respond to environmental change. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 738–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stock, G.N.; Greis, N.P.; Kasarda, J.D. Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure: The role of fit. J. Oper. Manag. 2000, 18, 531–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Anderson, D.L.; Britt, F.F.; Favre, D.J. The 7 principles of supply chain management. Supply Chain. Manag. Rev. 2007, 11, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  30. Huszagh, S.M.; Greene, M.R. How exporters view credit risk and FCIA insurance the Georgia experience. J. Risk Insur. 1985, 52, 131–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, L.; Lee, M.; Zhang, Z.; Banerjee, P. Critical Success Factors of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Implementation Success in China. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koga, K. The results of questionnaire surveys regarding the position of tax laws in corporate activities (2017/2018). J. Osaka Univ. Econ. 2019, 69, 93–111. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kubo, T.; Harada, Y. Study of information security governance in the supply chain of Japanese companies. Electron. Intellect. Prop. 2014-EIP-63 2014, 12, 510–535. Available online: http://www.i-repository.net/il/meta_pub/G0000031Repository_01004011 (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  34. Yoshida, Y. A study on notes for contract note of international traders in Tokushima & Kagawa prefecture: The questionnaire survey in 2014. Bus. Rev. Kansai Univ. 2019, 63, 51–69. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10112/16588 (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  35. Yeoh, P.L. A conceptual framework of antecedents of information search in exporting: Importance of ability and motivation. Int. Mark. Rev. 2005, 22, 165–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hur, Y. A Study of How Supply Chain Risk Management and Its Orientation under Strengthened International Logistics Security Influence on Performance of International Trade Companies; Sungkyunkwan University: Seoul, Korea, 2013; p. 143. [Google Scholar]
  37. Baba, S. Human resources and the functions of human resources management. Mita Bus. Rev. 1995, 37, 17–36. [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, F.; Minnis, M.; Nagar, V.; Rajan, M. Knowledge, compensation, and firm value: An empirical analysis of firm communication. J. Account. Econ. 2014, 58, 96–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Benjamin, L.; Flynn, F.J. Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 100, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Zhou, J. Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2014, 124, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, K. Supervisor leadership and subordinates’ innovative work behaviors: Creating a relational context for organizational sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Two natures of reciprocity.
Figure 1. Two natures of reciprocity.
Sustainability 14 07725 g001
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Research.
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Research.
Sustainability 14 07725 g002
Figure 3. Research Model.
Figure 3. Research Model.
Sustainability 14 07725 g003
Figure 4. Regression model of Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Figure 4. Regression model of Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Sustainability 14 07725 g004
Figure 5. Regression model of hypotheses 3 and 4.
Figure 5. Regression model of hypotheses 3 and 4.
Sustainability 14 07725 g005
Figure 6. Regression model of hypotheses 5.
Figure 6. Regression model of hypotheses 5.
Sustainability 14 07725 g006
Figure 7. Regression model of hypotheses 6.
Figure 7. Regression model of hypotheses 6.
Sustainability 14 07725 g007
Figure 8. Validation Model of Hypotheses 1, 2, and 5.
Figure 8. Validation Model of Hypotheses 1, 2, and 5.
Sustainability 14 07725 g008
Figure 9. Validation Model of Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5.
Figure 9. Validation Model of Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5.
Sustainability 14 07725 g009
Table 1. Comparison of the Conceptual Definition and Operational Definition of Variables.
Table 1. Comparison of the Conceptual Definition and Operational Definition of Variables.
Conceptual DefinitionOperational Definition
CategoryDefinitionCategoryDefinitionPrior Research
International EnvironmentInternal mechanism of an organization to cope with change and crisisInternal Factors of a CompanyThe internal factors of a company to cope effectively against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nationsKim (2012)
External EnvironmentThe form of links with external organizations to cope with different business activitiesExternal Factors of a CompanyThe external factors of a company to cope effectively against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations; cooperation with the government and public institutionsYeoh (2005)
Kim (2012)
LeadershipThe human influence formed during the process of communication, to achieve organizational aimsPerception of fairness by managementThe coping competencies of the company are enhanced by the company management perceiving the normative consistency of the trade remedy measures implemented by trading partner nationsLengnick-Hall and Beck (2005)
Change ManagementResponses from the internal and external environments of the organization against organizational change and crisisStrengthening of coping competenciesStrengthening of the overall coping competencies of a company against the trade remedy policies of trading partner nations from the internal factors and external factors, such as cooperation with the government and public institutionsShibayama (1996)
Organization EffectivenessThe results and products of organizational behavior achieved by efficient change management, according to internal and external factorsEnhanced PerformanceThe qualitative performance of the company is categorized as increased export, and qualitative performance is categorized as increased flexibilityAnderson, Britt, and Farve (2007)
Stock, Greis, and Kasarda (2000)
Table 2. Survey Response Results.
Table 2. Survey Response Results.
CategoryOnlineOfflineTotal
DistributionResponsesDistributionResponsesDistributionResponsesResponse Rate
Numbers of Survey Subjects700169805878022729.1%
Table 3. Composition of Survey Questions.
Table 3. Composition of Survey Questions.
CategoryFactorsQuestion NumberNumber of QuestionsRating Scale
General InformatonDemographic characteristicsSection I11-
Exogenous VariablesInternal factors of the companySection II177-point Likert Scale
Section III18
Endogenous explanatory variablesPerception of fairness by the managerSection IV97-point Likert Scale
Strengthening of coping competencies
Endogenous dependent variablesEnhancement of performanceSection V67-point Likert Scale
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
CategoryItemFrequencyPercentage
Company TypeManufacture and trade13661.5
Purely trade8036.2
Others52.3
Electricity and electronics3315.3
Steel and metal188.0
Key Export ItemsAutomobile and automobile parts209.0
Food2913.1
Textile and clothing2511.3
Petroleum and chemistry209.0
Others7634.3
Key Export Trading Partner NationUSA3415.4
China9040.7
Japan3515.9
Europe188.2
Southeast Asia3415.3
others104.5
GenderMale15570.1
Female6629.9
Age20–30 s11552.1
40–50 s10145.8
60 s or older52.1
Levels of EducationHigh school graduate73.1
Bachelor’s graduate10246.1
Masters9241.6
Ph.D.209.2
PositionEmployee, manager, deputy section chief8839.6
Section chief, deputy department head, department head 8839.4
Director, representative director3617.2
Others93.8
Number of Employees1—Not exceeding 200 employees9342.1
200—Not exceeding 400 employees4118.5
400 or more employees8739.4
Annual Average Sales10 billion—Not exceeding 30 billion9643.4
30 billion—Not exceeding 50 billion3515.9
50 billion—Not exceeding 100 billion2310.4
100 billion or more6730.3
Duration of Export10 years—Not exceeding 30 years14766.5
30 years—Not exceeding 50 years5826.3
50 years—Not exceeding 60 years167.2
Proportion of Export20%—Not exceeding 40%8839.8
40%—Not exceeding 60%7533.9
60% or more5826.3
Table 5. Descriptive statistics analysis of variables.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics analysis of variables.
VariablesMinimumMaximumAverageStandard DeviationVariance
PerMoni1.07.05.2851.15021.323
PerCounter2.07.05.5791.04851.099
PerIni2.07.05.2811.21841.485
EduConter1.07.05.5971.24161.542
EduIni2.07.05.4391.19551.429
CooperCounter1.07.05.4411.20921.462
SysCounter1.07.05.6381.13021.277
SysIni1.07.05.3851.21791.483
PerRule1.07.05.4891.08551.178
PerPower1.07.05.2581.40181.965
PerReci1.07.05.2941.30011.690
EduRule2.07.05.6291.06081.125
EduPower1.07.05.5021.20841.460
EduReci1.07.05.5071.25271.569
CooperRule1.07.05.2621.21131.467
CooperPower1.07.05.1041.32561.757
CooperReci1.07.05.3121.28181.643
InfoMoni1.07.05.3761.39451.945
InfoCounter1.07.05.5481.24451.549
InfoIni1.07.05.4571.29481.677
CostCounter2.07.05.5051.23681.530
CostIni1.07.05.4251.24681.555
ManCounter3.07.05.5251.12641.269
ManIni1.07.05.4801.21951.487
DiploCounter1.07.05.4841.16621.360
DiploIni1.07.05.0811.27301.621
InfoRule2.07.05.4891.15051.324
InfoPower1.07.05.4161.27511.626
InfoReci2.07.05.4301.18351.401
ManRule2.07.05.5231.09561.200
ManPower1.07.05.3531.30121.693
ManReci2.07.05.4891.11441.242
DiploRule1.07.05.3261.17271.375
DiploPower1.07.05.1681.32551.757
DiploReci1.07.05.1681.29061.666
RuleMoni1.07.05.3851.33881.792
RuleCounter1.07.05.4051.33281.776
RuleIni1.07.05.3301.34991.822
PowerMoni1.07.05.4161.28931.662
PowerCounter1.07.05.5971.19691.433
PowerIni2.02.05.6651.14661.315
ReciMoni1.01.05.3761.34131.799
ReciCounter1.01.05.3671.28861.661
ReciIni2.02.05.4431.21831.484
MoniExp1.07.05.4591.27971.638
MoniResil1.07.05.3671.35061.824
CounterExp1.07.05.4481.36621.867
CounterResil1.07.05.4621.37331.886
IniExp1.07.05.2041.44892.099
IniExp1.07.05.2901.43572.061
Table 6. Correlation Analysis of the Factors.
Table 6. Correlation Analysis of the Factors.
CategoryInternalExternalFairnessConfrontPerformance
Internal1
External0.8071
Fairness0.6940.7741
Confront0.8820.9110.8691
Performance0.6120.5870.6320.6081
Note: Correlation significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 7. Reliability Statistics.
Table 7. Reliability Statistics.
Cronbach’s AlphaNumber of Items
0.9235
Table 8. Statistics on Item Total.
Table 8. Statistics on Item Total.
CategoryScale Average in Item DeletionScale Variance in Item DeletionCorrelation of Revised Item-TotalCronbach’s Alpha in Item Deletion
Internal21.659011.5510.8290.901
External21.668711.4880.8550.896
Fairness21.628410.8870.8250.900
Confront21.628311.3400.9220.885
Performance21.699510.7530.6570.946
Table 9. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Table 9. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test0.932
Bartlett’s unit matrix testingApproximate chi-squre9129.795
Df1225
Level of significance0.000
Table 10. Rotation Component Matrix.
Table 10. Rotation Component Matrix.
VariablesFactor LoadingCommonality
H-1H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6
PerMoni0.658 0.571
PerCounter0.751 0.681
PerIni0.667 0.693
EduConter0.716 0.651
EduIni0.656 0.573
CooperCounter0.702 0.600
SysCounter0.707 0.591
SysIni0.585 0.597
PerRule 0.624 0.665
PerPower 0.629 0.693
PerReci 0.730 0.743
EduRule 0.545 0.589
EduPower 0.488 0.532
EduReci 0.649 0.627
CooperRule 0.659 0.598
CooperPower 0.590 0.598
CooperReci 0.665 0.689
InfoMoni 0.340 0.590
InfoCounter 0.399 0.626
InfoIni 0.628 0.654
CostCounter 0.565 0.620
CostIni 0.727 0.699
ManCounter 0.684 0.613
ManIni 0.735 0.673
DiploCounter 0.115 0.611
DiploIni 0.119 0.623
InfoRule 0.474 0.608
InfoPower 0.454 0.639
InfoReci 0.460 0.620
ManRule 0.398 0.681
ManPower 0.351 0.702
ManReci 0.376 0.577
DiploRule 0.629 0.680
DiploPower 0.698 0.773
DiploReci 0.631 0.738
RuleMoni 0.737 0.726
RuleCounter 0.734 0.680
RuleIni 0.691 0.677
PowerMoni 0.537 0.656
PowerCounter 0.493 0.582
PowerIni 0.449 0.569
ReciMoni 0.542 0.630
ReciCounter 0.579 0.686
ReciIni 0.517 0.609
MoniExp 0.6720.660
MoniResil 0.7880.765
CounterExp 0.7690.754
CounterResil 0.8060.779
IniExp 0.7610.771
IniResil 0.7850.744
Table 11. Summary of Model 1.
Table 11. Summary of Model 1.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Standard Error of Estimate
10.694 a0.4810.4790.70675
a Predictor variables: (constant), internal.
Table 12. ANOVA for Model 1.
Table 12. ANOVA for Model 1.
ModelSum of SquaresdfAverage SquareFSignificance Level
1Regression Analysis101.3931101.393202.9940.000 a
Residual109.3882190.499
Total210.782220
Dependent variable: fairness. a Predictor variable: (constant), internal.
Table 13. Constant for Model 1.
Table 13. Constant for Model 1.
ModelNonstandard CoefficientStandard CoefficienttSignificance Level
BSDBeta
1(Constant)1.1960.302 3.9600.000
Internal0.7850.0550.69414.2480.000
Dependent variable: fairness.
Table 14. Diagnosis of Multicollinearity.
Table 14. Diagnosis of Multicollinearity.
CategoryConfrontInternalFairness
Pearsons’s coefficientConfront1.0000.8750.880
Internal0.8751.0000.694
Fairness0.8800.6941.000
Significance level (one side)Confront 0.0000.000
Internal0.000 0.000
Fairness0.0000.000
Table 15. Summary of Models 2 and 3.
Table 15. Summary of Models 2 and 3.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Standard Error of EstimateStatistical Change
Change of R2Change of Fdf1df2Change of Sig. F
20.875 a0.7660.7650.398980.766715.46212190.000
30.953 b0.9090.9080.249070.143343.98212180.000
a Predictor variable: (constant), internal. b Predictor variable: (constant), internal, and fairness.
Table 16. ANOVA of Models 2 and 3.
Table 16. ANOVA of Models 2 and 3.
ModelSum of SquaresdfAverage SquareFSignificance Level
2Regression Analysis113.8921113.892715.4620.000 b
Residual34.8622190.159
Total148.754220
3Regression Analysis135.230267.6151089.9740.000 c
Residual13.5232180.062
Residual148.754220
Dependent variable: confront. b Predictor variable: (constant), internal. c Predictor variable: (constant), internal, fairness.
Table 17. Coefficient for Models 2 and 3.
Table 17. Coefficient for Models 2 and 3.
ModelNonstandard CoefficientStandard CoefficienttSignificance Level
BSDBeta
2(Constant)0.9540.170 5.6000.000
Internal0.8320.0310.87526.7480.000
3(Constant)0.4260.110 3.8700.000
Internal0.4850.0270.51018.0040.000
Fairness0.4420.0240.52618.5470.000
Dependent variable: confront.
Table 18. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results (1).
Table 18. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results (1).
CategoryFairnessConfront
Model 1Model 2Model 3
Internal0.785 *0.832 *0.485 *
Fairness--0.442 *
R20.4810.7660.909
F202.994 *715.462 *1089.974 *
ΔR2--0.143
ΔF--343.982 *
* p < 0.01.
Table 19. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results (2).
Table 19. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results (2).
CategoryFairnessConfront
Model 1Model 2Model 3
External0.842 *0.823 *0.465 *
Fairness--0.426 *
R20.5680.7690.880
F288.317 *728.678 *796.930 *
ΔR2--0.111
ΔF--200.705 *
* p < 0.01.
Table 20. Model Summary.
Table 20. Model Summary.
ModelRR2Adjusted R2Standard Error of Estimate
10.602 a0.3620.3590.93805
a Predictor variable: (constant), confront.
Table 21. ANOVA a.
Table 21. ANOVA a.
ModelSum of SquaresdfAverage SquareFSignificance Level
1Regression analysis109.4611109.461124.3970.000 a
Residual192.7052190.880
Total302.166220
Dependent variable: performance. a: predictor variable: (constant) confront.
Table 22. Coefficient a.
Table 22. Coefficient a.
ModelNonstandard CoefficientStandard CoefficienttLevel of Significance
BSDBeta
1(Constant)0.6920.424 1.6300.000
Internal0.8580.0770.60211.1530.000
a Dependent Variable: Performance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, M.; Pak, M. Analysis of Factors for Korea’s Export Companies to Respond to Trade Remedies: Mediation Effect of Fairness Perception. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137725

AMA Style

Kim M, Pak M. Analysis of Factors for Korea’s Export Companies to Respond to Trade Remedies: Mediation Effect of Fairness Perception. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137725

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Minjae, and Myongsop Pak. 2022. "Analysis of Factors for Korea’s Export Companies to Respond to Trade Remedies: Mediation Effect of Fairness Perception" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137725

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop