Analysis of Factors for Korea’s Export Companies to Respond to Trade Remedies: Mediation Effect of Fairness Perception
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Purpose of the Study
1.2. Literature Review and Aim of the Study
2. Theoretical Background on Fair Trade and Trade Remedies
2.1. Theoretical Study on Fair Trade
2.2. Overview of Trade Remedies
2.2.1. Anti-Dumping Duty
2.2.2. Countervailing Duty
2.2.3. Emergency Duty
3. Research Design
3.1. Theoretical Basis of Research
3.1.1. Organizational Behavior
3.1.2. Conceptual Framework
3.1.3. Conceptual Definition of Variables
3.2. Research Variables and Model Settings
3.2.1. Operational Definition of Research Variables
3.2.2. Outline of Research Model
3.2.3. Deductive Theory Building
3.2.4. Hypothesis Setting
3.3. Research Method
3.3.1. Data Collection
3.3.2. Composition of Survey Questions
3.3.3. Analysis Process and Methods
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Sample Characteristics
4.1.1. Demographical Characteristics
4.1.2. Descriptive Statistics Analysis
4.2. Testing the Reliability and Validity of Measurement Tool
4.2.1. Correlation Analysis
4.2.2. Measurement of Internal Consistency
4.2.3. Construct Validity Test
4.3. Hypotheses Validation and Analysis Results
4.3.1. Hypothesis Validation
- 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.
4.3.2. Analysis Results
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Implication for Theory Development
5.2. Implication for Business and Management Practice
5.3. Implication for Readers and Limitations of the Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Validation Results of Hypothesis 3, 4, and 5
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Standard Error of Estimate |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.754 a | 0.568 | 0.566 | 0.64458 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Average Square | F | Significance Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Regression Analysis | 119.791 | 1 | 119.791 | 288.317 | 0.000 a |
Residual | 90.991 | 219 | 0.415 | |||
Total | 210.782 | 220 |
Model | Nonstandard Coefficient | Standard Coefficient | t | Significance Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | 0.896 | 0.271 | 3.302 | 0.001 | |
External | 0.842 | 0.050 | 0.754 | 16.980 | 0.000 |
Category | Confront | Internal | Fairness | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pearsons’s coefficient | Confront | 1.000 | 0.877 | 0.880 |
External | 0.877 | 1.000 | 0.754 | |
Fairness | 0.880 | 0.754 | 1.000 | |
Significance level(one side) | Confront | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
External | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Fairness | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Standard Error of Estimate | Statistical Change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Change of R2 | Change of F | df1 | df2 | Change of Sig. F | |||||
2 | 0.877 a | 0.769 | 0.768 | 0.39619 | 0.769 | 728.678 | 1 | 219 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.938 b | 0.880 | 0.879 | 0.28653 | 0.111 | 200.705 | 1 | 218 | 0.000 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Average Square | F | Significance Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Regression Analysis | 114.378 | 1 | 114.378 | 728.678 | 0.000 b |
Residual | 34.376 | 219 | 0.157 | |||
Total | 148.754 | 220 | ||||
3 | Regression Analysis | 130.856 | 2 | 65.42 | 796.930 | 0.000 c |
Residual | 17.898 | 218 | 0.082 | |||
Residual | 148.754 | 220 |
Model | Nonstandard Coefficient | Standard Coefficient | t | Significance Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | Beta | ||||
2 | (Constant) | 0.1.012 | 0.167 | 6.072 | 0.000 | |
External | 0.823 | 0.030 | 0.877 | 26.994 | 0.000 | |
3 | (Constant) | 0.631 | 0.124 | 5.110 | 0.000 | |
External | 0.465 | 0.034 | 0.495 | 13.843 | 0.000 | |
Fairness | 0.426 | 0.030 | 0.507 | 14.167 | 0.000 |
References
- 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]
- 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]
- Hilf, M. Power, rules and principles-which orientation for WTO/GATT LAW? J. Int. Econ. Law 2001, 4, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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]
- Kanfer, R.; Chen, G. Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 136, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judge, T.A.; Robbins, S.P. Essentials of Organizational Behavior; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 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).
- Keohane, R.O. Reciprocity in international relations. Int. Organ. 1986, 40, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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).
- Kim, S. A study on the elastic tariff system for the unfair international trade. Tax Law 2012, 5, 39–64. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Dubrin, A.J. Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: An Applied Perspective; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Milton, C.R. Human Behavior in Organization, Three Levels of Behavior; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation; Quid Pro Books: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2011; pp. 22–24. [Google Scholar]
- Kotter, J.P. What leaders really do. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2001, 79, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- Baba, S. Human resources and the functions of human resources management. Mita Bus. Rev. 1995, 37, 17–36. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kim, K. Supervisor leadership and subordinates’ innovative work behaviors: Creating a relational context for organizational sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conceptual Definition | Operational Definition | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Definition | Category | Definition | Prior Research |
International Environment | Internal mechanism of an organization to cope with change and crisis | Internal Factors of a Company | The internal factors of a company to cope effectively against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations | Kim (2012) |
External Environment | The form of links with external organizations to cope with different business activities | External Factors of a Company | The external factors of a company to cope effectively against the trade remedy measures of trading partner nations; cooperation with the government and public institutions | Yeoh (2005) Kim (2012) |
Leadership | The human influence formed during the process of communication, to achieve organizational aims | Perception of fairness by management | The coping competencies of the company are enhanced by the company management perceiving the normative consistency of the trade remedy measures implemented by trading partner nations | Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005) |
Change Management | Responses from the internal and external environments of the organization against organizational change and crisis | Strengthening of coping competencies | Strengthening 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 institutions | Shibayama (1996) |
Organization Effectiveness | The results and products of organizational behavior achieved by efficient change management, according to internal and external factors | Enhanced Performance | The qualitative performance of the company is categorized as increased export, and qualitative performance is categorized as increased flexibility | Anderson, Britt, and Farve (2007) Stock, Greis, and Kasarda (2000) |
Category | Online | Offline | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distribution | Responses | Distribution | Responses | Distribution | Responses | Response Rate | |
Numbers of Survey Subjects | 700 | 169 | 80 | 58 | 780 | 227 | 29.1% |
Category | Factors | Question Number | Number of Questions | Rating Scale |
---|---|---|---|---|
General Informaton | Demographic characteristics | Section I | 11 | - |
Exogenous Variables | Internal factors of the company | Section II | 17 | 7-point Likert Scale |
Section III | 18 | |||
Endogenous explanatory variables | Perception of fairness by the manager | Section IV | 9 | 7-point Likert Scale |
Strengthening of coping competencies | ||||
Endogenous dependent variables | Enhancement of performance | Section V | 6 | 7-point Likert Scale |
Category | Item | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Company Type | Manufacture and trade | 136 | 61.5 |
Purely trade | 80 | 36.2 | |
Others | 5 | 2.3 | |
Electricity and electronics | 33 | 15.3 | |
Steel and metal | 18 | 8.0 | |
Key Export Items | Automobile and automobile parts | 20 | 9.0 |
Food | 29 | 13.1 | |
Textile and clothing | 25 | 11.3 | |
Petroleum and chemistry | 20 | 9.0 | |
Others | 76 | 34.3 | |
Key Export Trading Partner Nation | USA | 34 | 15.4 |
China | 90 | 40.7 | |
Japan | 35 | 15.9 | |
Europe | 18 | 8.2 | |
Southeast Asia | 34 | 15.3 | |
others | 10 | 4.5 | |
Gender | Male | 155 | 70.1 |
Female | 66 | 29.9 | |
Age | 20–30 s | 115 | 52.1 |
40–50 s | 101 | 45.8 | |
60 s or older | 5 | 2.1 | |
Levels of Education | High school graduate | 7 | 3.1 |
Bachelor’s graduate | 102 | 46.1 | |
Masters | 92 | 41.6 | |
Ph.D. | 20 | 9.2 | |
Position | Employee, manager, deputy section chief | 88 | 39.6 |
Section chief, deputy department head, department head | 88 | 39.4 | |
Director, representative director | 36 | 17.2 | |
Others | 9 | 3.8 | |
Number of Employees | 1—Not exceeding 200 employees | 93 | 42.1 |
200—Not exceeding 400 employees | 41 | 18.5 | |
400 or more employees | 87 | 39.4 | |
Annual Average Sales | 10 billion—Not exceeding 30 billion | 96 | 43.4 |
30 billion—Not exceeding 50 billion | 35 | 15.9 | |
50 billion—Not exceeding 100 billion | 23 | 10.4 | |
100 billion or more | 67 | 30.3 | |
Duration of Export | 10 years—Not exceeding 30 years | 147 | 66.5 |
30 years—Not exceeding 50 years | 58 | 26.3 | |
50 years—Not exceeding 60 years | 16 | 7.2 | |
Proportion of Export | 20%—Not exceeding 40% | 88 | 39.8 |
40%—Not exceeding 60% | 75 | 33.9 | |
60% or more | 58 | 26.3 |
Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Average | Standard Deviation | Variance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PerMoni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.285 | 1.1502 | 1.323 |
PerCounter | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.579 | 1.0485 | 1.099 |
PerIni | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.281 | 1.2184 | 1.485 |
EduConter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.597 | 1.2416 | 1.542 |
EduIni | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.439 | 1.1955 | 1.429 |
CooperCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.441 | 1.2092 | 1.462 |
SysCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.638 | 1.1302 | 1.277 |
SysIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.385 | 1.2179 | 1.483 |
PerRule | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.489 | 1.0855 | 1.178 |
PerPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.258 | 1.4018 | 1.965 |
PerReci | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.294 | 1.3001 | 1.690 |
EduRule | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.629 | 1.0608 | 1.125 |
EduPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.502 | 1.2084 | 1.460 |
EduReci | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.507 | 1.2527 | 1.569 |
CooperRule | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.262 | 1.2113 | 1.467 |
CooperPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.104 | 1.3256 | 1.757 |
CooperReci | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.312 | 1.2818 | 1.643 |
InfoMoni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.376 | 1.3945 | 1.945 |
InfoCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.548 | 1.2445 | 1.549 |
InfoIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.457 | 1.2948 | 1.677 |
CostCounter | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.505 | 1.2368 | 1.530 |
CostIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.425 | 1.2468 | 1.555 |
ManCounter | 3.0 | 7.0 | 5.525 | 1.1264 | 1.269 |
ManIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.480 | 1.2195 | 1.487 |
DiploCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.484 | 1.1662 | 1.360 |
DiploIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.081 | 1.2730 | 1.621 |
InfoRule | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.489 | 1.1505 | 1.324 |
InfoPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.416 | 1.2751 | 1.626 |
InfoReci | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.430 | 1.1835 | 1.401 |
ManRule | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.523 | 1.0956 | 1.200 |
ManPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.353 | 1.3012 | 1.693 |
ManReci | 2.0 | 7.0 | 5.489 | 1.1144 | 1.242 |
DiploRule | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.326 | 1.1727 | 1.375 |
DiploPower | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.168 | 1.3255 | 1.757 |
DiploReci | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.168 | 1.2906 | 1.666 |
RuleMoni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.385 | 1.3388 | 1.792 |
RuleCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.405 | 1.3328 | 1.776 |
RuleIni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.330 | 1.3499 | 1.822 |
PowerMoni | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.416 | 1.2893 | 1.662 |
PowerCounter | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.597 | 1.1969 | 1.433 |
PowerIni | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.665 | 1.1466 | 1.315 |
ReciMoni | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.376 | 1.3413 | 1.799 |
ReciCounter | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.367 | 1.2886 | 1.661 |
ReciIni | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.443 | 1.2183 | 1.484 |
MoniExp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.459 | 1.2797 | 1.638 |
MoniResil | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.367 | 1.3506 | 1.824 |
CounterExp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.448 | 1.3662 | 1.867 |
CounterResil | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.462 | 1.3733 | 1.886 |
IniExp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.204 | 1.4489 | 2.099 |
IniExp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 5.290 | 1.4357 | 2.061 |
Category | Internal | External | Fairness | Confront | Performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internal | 1 | ||||
External | 0.807 | 1 | |||
Fairness | 0.694 | 0.774 | 1 | ||
Confront | 0.882 | 0.911 | 0.869 | 1 | |
Performance | 0.612 | 0.587 | 0.632 | 0.608 | 1 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Number of Items |
---|---|
0.923 | 5 |
Category | Scale Average in Item Deletion | Scale Variance in Item Deletion | Correlation of Revised Item-Total | Cronbach’s Alpha in Item Deletion |
Internal | 21.6590 | 11.551 | 0.829 | 0.901 |
External | 21.6687 | 11.488 | 0.855 | 0.896 |
Fairness | 21.6284 | 10.887 | 0.825 | 0.900 |
Confront | 21.6283 | 11.340 | 0.922 | 0.885 |
Performance | 21.6995 | 10.753 | 0.657 | 0.946 |
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test | 0.932 | |
Bartlett’s unit matrix testing | Approximate chi-squre | 9129.795 |
Df | 1225 | |
Level of significance | 0.000 |
Variables | Factor Loading | Commonality | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H-1 | H-2 | H-3 | H-4 | H-5 | H-6 | ||
PerMoni | 0.658 | 0.571 | |||||
PerCounter | 0.751 | 0.681 | |||||
PerIni | 0.667 | 0.693 | |||||
EduConter | 0.716 | 0.651 | |||||
EduIni | 0.656 | 0.573 | |||||
CooperCounter | 0.702 | 0.600 | |||||
SysCounter | 0.707 | 0.591 | |||||
SysIni | 0.585 | 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 | 0.672 | 0.660 | |||||
MoniResil | 0.788 | 0.765 | |||||
CounterExp | 0.769 | 0.754 | |||||
CounterResil | 0.806 | 0.779 | |||||
IniExp | 0.761 | 0.771 | |||||
IniResil | 0.785 | 0.744 |
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Standard Error of Estimate |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.694 a | 0.481 | 0.479 | 0.70675 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Average Square | F | Significance Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Regression Analysis | 101.393 | 1 | 101.393 | 202.994 | 0.000 a |
Residual | 109.388 | 219 | 0.499 | |||
Total | 210.782 | 220 |
Model | Nonstandard Coefficient | Standard Coefficient | t | Significance Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | 1.196 | 0.302 | 3.960 | 0.000 | |
Internal | 0.785 | 0.055 | 0.694 | 14.248 | 0.000 |
Category | Confront | Internal | Fairness | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pearsons’s coefficient | Confront | 1.000 | 0.875 | 0.880 |
Internal | 0.875 | 1.000 | 0.694 | |
Fairness | 0.880 | 0.694 | 1.000 | |
Significance level (one side) | Confront | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Internal | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Fairness | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Standard Error of Estimate | Statistical Change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Change of R2 | Change of F | df1 | df2 | Change of Sig. F | |||||
2 | 0.875 a | 0.766 | 0.765 | 0.39898 | 0.766 | 715.462 | 1 | 219 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.953 b | 0.909 | 0.908 | 0.24907 | 0.143 | 343.982 | 1 | 218 | 0.000 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Average Square | F | Significance Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Regression Analysis | 113.892 | 1 | 113.892 | 715.462 | 0.000 b |
Residual | 34.862 | 219 | 0.159 | |||
Total | 148.754 | 220 | ||||
3 | Regression Analysis | 135.230 | 2 | 67.615 | 1089.974 | 0.000 c |
Residual | 13.523 | 218 | 0.062 | |||
Residual | 148.754 | 220 |
Model | Nonstandard Coefficient | Standard Coefficient | t | Significance Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | Beta | ||||
2 | (Constant) | 0.954 | 0.170 | 5.600 | 0.000 | |
Internal | 0.832 | 0.031 | 0.875 | 26.748 | 0.000 | |
3 | (Constant) | 0.426 | 0.110 | 3.870 | 0.000 | |
Internal | 0.485 | 0.027 | 0.510 | 18.004 | 0.000 | |
Fairness | 0.442 | 0.024 | 0.526 | 18.547 | 0.000 |
Category | Fairness | Confront | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Internal | 0.785 * | 0.832 * | 0.485 * |
Fairness | - | - | 0.442 * |
R2 | 0.481 | 0.766 | 0.909 |
F | 202.994 * | 715.462 * | 1089.974 * |
ΔR2 | - | - | 0.143 |
ΔF | - | - | 343.982 * |
Category | Fairness | Confront | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
External | 0.842 * | 0.823 * | 0.465 * |
Fairness | - | - | 0.426 * |
R2 | 0.568 | 0.769 | 0.880 |
F | 288.317 * | 728.678 * | 796.930 * |
ΔR2 | - | - | 0.111 |
ΔF | - | - | 200.705 * |
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Standard Error of Estimate |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.602 a | 0.362 | 0.359 | 0.93805 |
Model | Sum of Squares | df | Average Square | F | Significance Level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Regression analysis | 109.461 | 1 | 109.461 | 124.397 | 0.000 a |
Residual | 192.705 | 219 | 0.880 | |||
Total | 302.166 | 220 |
Model | Nonstandard Coefficient | Standard Coefficient | t | Level of Significance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | Beta | ||||
1 | (Constant) | 0.692 | 0.424 | 1.630 | 0.000 | |
Internal | 0.858 | 0.077 | 0.602 | 11.153 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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
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 StyleKim, 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