“Trade vs. grant dependency” and social enterprise performance: A mediating role of learning orientation

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed conceptual framework.

Table 1. Constructs’ validities and reliabilities

Dimensions and Items	SFL	AVE	CR	α
X^2 =81.788 (59), X^2/df = 1.39, RMSEA = 0.049, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.983, SRMR = 0.056
Learning Orientation		0.629	0.869	0.883
Indicator 1. The sense is that employee learning is an investment not an expense	0.850
Indicator 2. The basic values include learning as a key to improvement	0.927
Indicator 3. Once we quit learning, we endanger our firm	0.640
Indicator 4. We agree that the ability to learn is the key to improvement	0.723
Economic Performance		0.578	0.889	0.896
Indicator 1. The firm has been very profitable	0.633
Indicator 2. The firm has generated a high volume of sales	0.615
Indicator 3. The firm has achieved rapid growth	0.681
Indicator 4. The performance of this firm has been very satisfactory	0.909
Indicator 5. The firm has been very successful	0.910
Indicator 6. The firm has fully met our expectations	0.756
Social Performance		0.893	0.961	0.958
Indicator 1. Implementation of social strategy	0.877
Indicator 2. Fulfilling the social mission	0.987
Indicator 3. Fulfilling the social objectives	0.967

Note. SFL = standardized factor loading; AVE = average variance-extracted; CR = composite reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Figure 2. Results of the analysis.