Modeling the impact of macroenvironmental forces on investment in Renewable Energy Technologies in Ghana: the moderating role of Entrepreneurship orientation dimensions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework.

Figure 2. Showing the factor loadings.

Table 1. EFA on macroenvironmental Forces (MF)

	Factor loading	Mean ± SD
Political Factors
PF1	.931	4.25 ± 0.58
PF2	.921	4.44 ± 0.63
PF3	.848	4.21 ± 0.56
PF4	.917	4.35 ± 0.61
PF5	.859	4.32 ± 0.54
Composite Score		4.31 ± 0.59
Eigenvalue	4.011
% of Variance	80.223
Cronbach Alpha	0.938
KMO = 0.770; χ^2 = 1530.809; df = 10; p-value = 0.000
Economic Factors
EF1	.848	4.60 ± 0.49
EF2	.919	4.63 ± 0.48
EF3	.856	4.44 ± 0.49
EF4	.955	4.60 ± 0.49
EF5	.800	4.39 ± 0.48
Composite Score		4.53 ± 0.49
Eigenvalue	3.849
% of Variance	76.976
Cronbach Alpha	0.924
KMO = 0.799; χ^2 = 1503.888; df = 10; p-value = 0.000
Environmental Factors
EF1	.870	4.59 ± 0.49
EF2	.873	4.55 ± 0.63
EF3	.849	4.47 ± 0.64
EF4	.870	4.55 ± 0.57
EF5	.854	4.37 ± 0.56
Composite Score		4.50 ± 0.58
Eigenvalue	3.726
% of Variance	74.527
Cronbach Alpha	0.911
KMO = 0.811; χ^2 = 1086.969; df = 10; p-value = 0.000
Socio-Cultural Factors
SCF1	.849	4.56 ± 0.49
SCF2	.922	4.49 ± 0.50
SFC3	.954	4.41 ± 0.49
SCF4	.912	4.38 ± 0.48
SFC	.814	4.34 ± 0.47
Composite Score		4.43 ± 0.49
Eigenvalue	3.977
% of Variance	79.533
Cronbach Alpha	0.935
KMO = 0.848; χ^2 = 1508.930; df = 10; p-value = 0.000

Table 2. EFA on Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)

	Factor loading	Mean ± SD
Proactiveness
P1	.926	4.25 ± 0.52
P2	.961	4.32 ± 0.55
P3	.886	4.29 ± 0.54
Composite Score		4.28 ± 0.54
Eigenvalue	2.567
% of Variance	85.558
Cronbach Alpha	0.915
KMO = 0.690; χ^2 = 716.636; df = 3; p-value = 0.000
Risk Taking
RT1	.979	4.39 ± 0.68
RT2	.979	4.39 ± 0.63
RT3	.993	4.36 ± 0.67
Composite Score		4.38 ± 0.66
Eigenvalue	2.904
% of Variance	96.788
Cronbach Alpha	0.983
KMO = 0.722; χ^2 = 1590.281; df = 3; p-value = 0.000
Competitiveness
COM1	.947	4.38 ± 0.74
COM2	.983	4.42 ± 0.74
COM3	.957	4.43 ± 0.69
Composite Score		4.41 ± 0.72
Eigenvalue	2.778
% of Variance	92.613
Cronbach Alpha	0.960
KMO = 0.700; χ^2 = 1114.575; df = 3; p-value = 0.000
Innovativeness
INNO1	.947	4.44 ± 0.49
INNO2	.941	4.37 ± 0.48
INNO3	.915	4.33 ± 0.47
Composite Score		4.38 ± 0.48
Eigenvalue	2.620
% of Variance	87.333
Cronbach Alpha	0.927
KMO = 0.753; χ^2 = 722.064; df = 3; p-value = 0.000

Table 3. EFA on Investment Intention in RETs

	Factor loading	Mean ± SD
II1	.791	4.59 ± 0.49
II2	.918	4.70 ± 0.45
II3	.940	4.62 ± 0.48
II4	.912	4.66 ± 0.47
II5	.883	4.59 ± 0.49
II6	.859	4.55 ± 0.49
Composite Score		4.62 ± 0.48
Eigenvalue	4.703
% of Variance	78.387
Cronbach Alpha	0.943
KMO = 0.721; χ^2 = 2415.001; df = 15; p-value = 0.000

Table 4. Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity Fornell-Larcker Criterion

	α	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 Com	0.960	0.971	0.917	0.958
2 Econ	0.924	0.943	0.77	0.11	0.877
3 Innov	0.927	0.946	0.854	0.043	−0.043	0.924
4 Int. Inv	0.943	0.956	0.784	0.182	0.201	0.127	0.885
5 Env. fac	0.911	0.936	0.745	−0.172	0.357	−0.014	0.108	0.863
6 Macro	0.929	0.927	0.698	−0.05	0.78	0.054	0.258	0.739	0.835
7 Pol Fac	0.938	0.953	0.802	−0.01	0.516	−0.081	0.303	0.496	0.819	0.896
8 Pro	0.915	0.944	0.85	0.037	0.127	−0.1	0.113	−0.048	0.108	0.192	0.922
9 Risk	0.983	0.988	0.966	0.089	−0.143	−0.297	−0.165	−0.165	−0.196	−0.068	−0.102	0.983
10 Socio	0.935	0.951	0.794	−0.133	0.281	0.482	0.062	0.267	0.49	0.156	−0.025	−0.253	0.891

Note: Square Root of Average Variance Extraction (AVE) shown on diagonal in italic; CR = Composite Reliability; Com = Competitiveness; Econ = Economic Force; Innov = Innovativeness; Int. Inv = Investment Intention; Legal = Legal Environment; Macro = Macro Environment Forces; Po Fac = Political Force; Pro = Proactiveness; Risk = Risk—Taken; Socio = Socio-Cultural Force

Table 5. Correlation matrix (descriptive statistics and multicollinearity assessment)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Mean	4.31	4.53	4.50	4.43	4.28	4.38	4.41	4.38	4.62
Standard Dev	0.52	0.42	0.50	0.43	0.49	0.65	0.70	0.45	0.42
Political Environmental Factors	1	.510**	.493**	.137*	.176**	−.082	−.007	−.139*	.299**
Economic Environmental Factors		1	.347**	.267**	.111	−.132*	.135*	−.099	.203**
Legal Environment Factors			1	.252**	−.046	−.169**	−.191**	−.040	.092
Socio-cultural				1	−.041	−.245**	−.149**	.450**	.046
Proactive					1	−.093	.013	−.070	.091
Risk Taking						1	.113	−.327**	−.154**
Competitiveness							1	−.007	.156**
Innovativeness								1	.094
Investment Intention									1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6. Partial least squares results and hypothesis testing

Hypothesized Relationship	Path Coefficient (β)	T-Statistics	R^2 (Adj. R^2)	Decisions
Direct Effect
H1: Macro -> Investment Intention	0.190	3.42*		Supported
H2: Pro -> Investment Intention	0.213	2.985*	0.78(0.764)	Supported
H3: Com -> Investment Intention	0.176	3.475*		Supported
H4: Risk -> Investment Intention	0.008	0.210		Not Supported
H5: Innov -> Investment Intention	0.136	1.964**		Supported
Moderating Effect
H6: Macro x Pro-> Investment Intention	0.010	0.109		Not Supported
H7: Macro x Com -> Investment Intention	0.369	2.819*	0.82(0.814)	Supported
H8: Macro x Risk -> Investment Intention	−0.659	15.361*		Supported
H9: Macro x Innov -> Investment Intention	0.194	3.238*		Supported

Figure 3. Final research framework.