Enterprise values and enterprise policy interdependence

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Source: Own research.

Figure 2. Results of structural model analysis.^a

^aPath significance (t-values): *** p < 0.001; standardised path coefficient is written “in” the line.

Source: Own research.

Table 2. Psychometric properties of the instrument (n = 734).

Construct (Source)	Item Mean	Item S. D.	Load.	α	CR	AVE	t
V1: The values of enterprise’s key stakeholders Enterprise policy innovation is significantly impacted by the indicator…
profits for new investments.^a (V239)	4.063	2.538	0.762	0.964	0.968	0.652	40.787
risk relation.^a (V240)	4.027	2.335	0.784				42.123
sales growth.^a (V241)	4.774	2.550	0.812				46.232
quality of products/services sold.^a (V242)	4.640	2.548	0.803				41.742
geographical expansion.^a (V243)	3.575	2.339	0.745				38.414
ownership relationship.^a (V244)	3.768	2.465	0.739				35.058
innovation directions.^a (V245)	4.090	2.488	0.823				61.100
relation to government.^a (V246)	3.346	2.345	0.722				35.464
compliance with environmental  objectives.^c (V247)	4.053	2.466	0.835				56.591
social goals consideration.^a (V248)	3.959	2.429	0.857				74.050
co-workers goals consideration.^a (V249)	4.334	2.434	0.870				71.798
management (leadership)  style.^a (V250)	4.189	2.495	0.826				50.419
behaviour in the  enterprise.^c (V251)	4.496	2.548	0.842				53.845
external behaviour.^c (V252)	4.305	2.571	0.824				50.349
short-term goals.^c (V253)	4.199	2.560	0.833				63.064
long-term goals.^c (V254)	4.311	2.608	0.823				60.694
V2: Analysis of the values of enterprise’s key stakeholders
We analyse the value systems of each enterprise’s key stakeholder, mutually compare them and examine their aspirations, expectations, significant interests.^a^, b (V257)	1.661	2.055	0.952	0.906	0.955	0.914	140.550
We analyse what leads to differences of identified values of enterprise’s key stakeholders.^a^, b (V258)	1.700	2.152	0.960				154.183
V3: Extremes of the values of enterprise’s key stakeholders
We examine the good sides of some extreme definitions of the values of enterprise’s key stakeholders.^a (V259)	3.218	2.253	0.954	0.895	0.950	0.905	171.604
We examine the bad sides of some extreme definitions of the values of enterprise’s key stakeholders.^a (V260)	3.383	2.176	0.949				122.527
V4: The importance of the examination of the values of enterprise’s key stakeholders
Study and coordination of the values of the enterprise’s key stakeholders is important to us.^c (V263)	4.322	1.887	0.960	0.852	0.928	0.866	135.576
Study and coordination of the values of the enterprise’s key stakeholders has a significant impact on enterprise policy innovation.^c (V265)	4.552	2.208	0.900				57.161
EPI: Enterprise policy innovation (1) Determine the importance of individual fields of environment development for enterprise policy innovation… (2) Determine the importance of the individual strategic assessment for enterprise policy innovation…
(1)…natural environment changes.^d (V495)	4.293	2.030	0.817	0.952	0.958	0.698	56.440
(1)…socio-political and other social environment changes.^d (V496)	4.117	1.957	0.788				42.600
(1)…technical-technological environment changes.^d (V497)	4.710	2.094	0.864				73.086
(1)…economic environment changes.^d (V498)	4.790	1.920	0.782				45.174
(1)…supply markets changes.^d (V499)	4.940	2.127	0.869				75.899
(1)…sales markets changes.^d (V500)	5.298	2.194	0.868				63.548
(2)…analysis of the enterprise and the resulting changes in strengths/weaknesses.^d (V509)	5.108	2.230	0.813				36.049
(2)… changes in system of values (enterprise’s key stakeholders), culture and ethics of the enterprise.^d (V511)	4.800	2.096	0.859				54.784
(2)…current enterprise policy.^d (V512)	4.732	2.070	0.846				48.141
(2)… changes in expected behaviour of enterprise’s key stakeholders.^d (V513)	4.658	2.034	0.844				48.532

Legend:

^a Indicators were developed by Ulrich (1990, p. 53) and are included into the MER-model (Ja. Belak, 2010; Duh, 2015, p. 122–124).

^b Indicators were inverted before statistical data processing in SmartPLS.

^c Indicators were developed by Štrukelj (2015, Attachment 2, pp. 40–41).

d Indicators were proposed by Ulrich (1990, p. 90), are included into the MER-model (Ja. Belak, 2010; Duh, 2015, p. 134 ), and developed by Štrukelj (2015, Attachment 2, pp. 48–49).

Source: Own research.

Table 1. Intercorrelations of latent variables.

Factors	EPI	V1	V2	V3	V4
EPI	0.836
V1	0.373	0.807
V2	0.059	0.042	0.956
V3	0.054	0.031	0.315	0.951
V4	0.169	0.214	0.175	0.038	0.931

Source: Own research.

Table 3. Number of indicators, explained variance (R²), AVE and blindfolding results of cv-communality (H²) and cv-redundancy (F²).

Factors	Number of indicators	R^2	AVE	H^2	F^2
V1	16	0.046	0.652	0.607	0.029
V2	2	0.099	0.914	0.625	0.088
V3	2	–	0.905	0.605	–
V4	2	0.030	0.866	0.511	0.026
EPI	10	0.146	0.698	0.628	0.096
Average	/	0.080	0.807 (0.712^a)	0.595	0.060

^a Computed as a weighted average of the different AVEs with the weights being the number of manifest variables per each construct (Tenenhaus et al., 2005).

Source: Own research.

Ulrich, H. (1990). Unternehmenspolitik. Bern & Stuttgart: Paul Hampt.

 Google Scholar

Belak, Ja. (2010). Integralni management: MER model. Maribor: MER Evrocenter.

 Google Scholar

Duh, M. (2015). Upravljanje Podjetja in Strateški Management. Ljubljana: GV Založba.

 Google Scholar

Štrukelj, T. (2015). Dialektični Sistem Vidikov za Inoviranje Upravljanja in Vodenja Tranzicijskega Podjetja: Doktorska Disertacija. Maribor: University of Maribor, FEB.

 Google Scholar

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar