The Mediating and Combined Effects of Trust and Satisfaction in the Relationship between Collaboration and the Performance of Innovation in Industry—Public Research Institute Partnerships
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Collaborative Activity
2.2. Trust
2.3. Satisfaction
2.4. Mediating Effects
2.4.1. The Mediating Role of Trust
2.4.2. The Mediating Role of Satisfaction
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Measurement
3.3. Method of Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
Constructs | Items | Loadings | t-Value | p-Value | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collaboration | CA1 | 0.895 | 38.052 | 0.000 | 0.924 | 0.752 | 0.890 |
CA2 | 0.898 | 53.310 | 0.000 | ||||
CA3 | 0.846 | 23.678 | 0.000 | ||||
CA4 | 0.827 | 21.901 | 0.000 | ||||
Trust | TR1 | 0.863 | 28.637 | 0.000 | 0.951 | 0.764 | 0.938 |
TR2 | 0.887 | 45.790 | 0.000 | ||||
TR3 | 0.865 | 27.971 | 0.000 | ||||
TR4 | 0.906 | 38.787 | 0.000 | ||||
TR5 | 0.884 | 38.798 | 0.000 | ||||
TR6 | 0.838 | 29.551 | 0.000 | ||||
Satisfaction | SA1 | 0.812 | 9.056 | 0.000 | 0.907 | 0.766 | 0.848 |
SA2 | 0.909 | 61.802 | 0.000 | ||||
SA3 | 0.901 | 46.333 | 0.000 | ||||
Performance of innovation | IN1 | 0.905 | 43.605 | 0.000 | 0.919 | 0.791 | 0.868 |
IN2 | 0.898 | 39.285 | 0.000 | ||||
IN3 | 0.864 | 21.895 | 0.000 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Collaboration | 0.867 | |||
2. Trust | 0.584 | 0.874 | ||
3. Satisfaction | 0.610 | 0.606 | 0.875 | |
4. Performance of innovation | 0.436 | 0.291 | 0.463 | 0.889 |
4.2. Structural Model Results
4.3. Results of the Analysis of Data Using fsQCA
Configuration | Solution | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Collaboration | ● | |
Trust | • | • |
Satisfaction | ● | |
Raw coverage | 0.9105 | 0.9159 |
Unique coverage | 0.0271 | 0.0325 |
Consistency | 0.8744 | 0.8682 |
Overall solution coverage: | 0.9430 | |
Overall solution consistency: | 0.8471 | |
Frequency cutoff—1; Consistency cutoff—0.8983 |
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Managerial Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Enkel, E.; Gassman, O.; Chesbrough, H.W. Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. RD Manag. 2009, 39, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trippl, M. Regional innovation systems and knowledge-sourcing activities in traditional industries—Evidence from the Vienna food sector. Environ. Plan A 2011, 43, 1599–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellini, E.; Piroli, G.; Pennacchio, L. Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: Empirical evidence from ICT firms. J. Technol. Transf. 2019, 44, 1939–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakeel, M.J.S.; Kannan, V.R.; Brah, S.A.; Hassan, S.Z. Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product innovation, and business performance: Insights from resource dependence theory. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 1054–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bellucci, A.; Pennacchio, L. University knowledge and firm innovation: Evidence from European countries. J. Technol. Transf. 2016, 41, 730–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raza-Ullah, T.; Kostis, A. Do trust and distrust in coopetition matter to performance? Eur. Manag. J. 2020, 38, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, J.L. Trust as a mediator of workplace spirituality and job performance. J. Bus. Behav. Sci. 2019, 31, 80–103. Available online: http://asbbs.org/files/2019/JBBS_Vol_31.2_Fall_2019.pdf#page=80 (accessed on 13 April 2021).
- Kraus, S.; Klimas, P.; Gast, J.; Stephan, T. Sleeping with competitors: Forms, antecedents and outcomes of coopetition of small and medium-sized craft beer breweries. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latusek, D.; Vlaar, P.W. Uncertainty in interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics of trust: A qualitative study. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, B.J.; Rutner, S.M.; Keller, S.B. Shipper-carrier partnership issues, rankings and satisfaction. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2002, 32, 669–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuncoro, W.; Suriani, W.O. Achieving sustainable competitive advantage through product innovation and market driving. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2018, 23, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Zhao, X.; Lyles, M. Effects of absorptive capacity, trust and information systems on product innovation. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 493–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, B.B. The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic alliances. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 1194–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Zheng, R.; Deng, H.; Zhou, Y. Green supply chain collaborative innovation, absorptive capacity and the performance of innovation: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolova, N.; Mollering, G.; Reihlen, M. Trusting as a ‘leap of faith’: Trust-building practices in client-consultant relationships. Scand. J. Manag. 2015, 31, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, U.A.; Narayana, S.A. Impact of relational communication on buyer–supplier satisfaction: Role of trust and commitment. Benchmarking Int. J. 2020, 27, 2459–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mungra, Y.; Yadav, P.K. The mediating effect of satisfaction on trust-commitment and relational outcomes in manufacturer–supplier relationship. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2020, 35, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, A.; Zhou, L. Determinants and outcomes of relationship quality. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2006, 18, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apa, R.; De Marchi, V.; Grandinetti, R.; Sedita, S.R. University-SME collaboration and the performance of innovation: The role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46, 961–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niranjan, S.; Spulick, S.R.; Savitskie, K. Mediating and moderating influencers of firm performance: Supply chain managers perspective. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2018, 31, 38–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for Research Practice in Information Systems and Marketing. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradabwong, J.; Braziotis, C.; Tannock, J.D.T.; Pawar, K.S. Business process management and supply chain collaboration: Effects on performance and competitiveness. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 22, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; Zahra, S.A.; Wood, D.R. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 577–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galán-Muros, V.; Plewa, C. What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessment. RD Manag. 2016, 46, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, R.; Brush, T.H. Supplier performance in vertical alliances: The effects of self-enforcing agreements and enforceable contracts. Organ. Sci. 2006, 17, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faraj, S.; Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Majchrzak, A. Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1224–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baah, C.; Acquah, I.S.K.; Ofori, D. Exploring the influence of supply chain collaboration on supply chain visibility, stakeholder trust, environmental and financial performances: A partial least square approach. Benchmarking: Int. J. 2021, 29, 172–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, W.U.; Naveed, F. Coopetition-based open-innovation and the performance of innovation: Role of trust and dependency evidence from Malaysian high-tech SMEs. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2019, 13, 209–230. [Google Scholar]
- Frazier, G.L.; James, D.G.; Sudhir, H.K. Dealer dependence levels and reciprocal actions in a channel of distribution in a developing country. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selnes, F. Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships. Eur. J. Mark. 1998, 32, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dash, S.; Bruning, E.D.; Guin, K.K. Antecedents of long-term buyer-seller relationships: A cross cultural integration. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2007, 11, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenherr, T.; Swink, M. Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross-validations and extensions. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, W.U.; Nisar, Q.A.; Wu, H.C. Relationships between external knowledge, internal innovation, firms’ open the performance of innovation, service innovation and business performance in the Pakistani hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todeva, E.; Knoke, D. Strategic Alliances and Models of Collaboration. Manag. Decis. 2005, 43, 123–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brettel, M.; Cleven, N.J. Innovation Culture, Collaboration with External Partners and NPD Performance. Creativity Innov. Manag. 2011, 20, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Narus, J.A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturing firm working partnership. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, T.K.; Teng, B.S. Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organ. Stud. 2001, 22, 251–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hausman, A. Variations in relationship strength and its impact on performance and satisfaction in business relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2001, 6, 600–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.G.; Carroll, S.J.; Ashford, S.J. Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Chen, W.; Hao, Y. Supply chain partnership, inter-organizational knowledge trading and enterprise the performance of innovation: The theoretical and empirical research in project-based supply chain. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 6433–6444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ping, R.A. Antecedents of satisfaction in a marketing channel. J. Retail. 2003, 79, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghantous, N.; Das, S.S. International franchising and performance: A resource-based perspective. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 46, 744–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Sabi, S.M.; Al-Ababneh, M.M.; Masadeh, M. The Role of Job Satisfaction on Employees’ The performance of innovation in the Jordanian Hospitality Industry. J. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 7, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gopalakrishnan, S.; Zhang, H. Client dependence: A boon or bane for vendor innovation? A competitive mediation framework in IT outsourcing. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 103, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veugelers, R.; Cassiman, B. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2005, 23, 355–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Link, A.N.; Siegel, D.S.; Bozeman, D. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind. Corp. Change 2007, 16, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’Este, P.; Perkmann, M. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Technol. Transf. 2011, 36, 316–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, S.; Davies, J.; Grimes, C. Collaborative research programmes: Building trust from difference. Technovation 1999, 19, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awan, U.; Nauman, S.; Sroufe, R. Exploring the effect of buyer engagement on green product innovation: Empirical evidence from manufacturers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Wei, S. University—Industry Collaboration, Knowledge Management and Enterprise The performance of innovation: An Empirical Study. Ind. High. Educ. 2008, 22, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, W.; Jacobs, M.A.; Salisbury, W.D.; Enns, H. The effects of supply chain integration on customer satisfaction and financial performance: An organizational learning perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilke, E.P.; Costa, B.K.; Freire, O.B.D.L.; Ferreira, M.P. Interorganizational Cooperation in Tourist Destination: Building Performance in the Hotel Industry. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, D.M.; De Faria, A.C.; Prearo, L.C.; Arruda, A.G.S. The Level of Influence of Trust, Commitment, Cooperation, and Power in the Inter-organizational Relationships of Brazilian Credit Cooperatives. Rev. Adm. 2017, 52, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, J.R.; Crosno, J.L.; Tong, P.Y. Is the Theory of Trust and Commitment in Marketing Relationships Incomplete? Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 77, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Y.; Feng, B.; Lai, F.; Collins, B.J. The Role of Trust, Commitment, and Learning Orientation on Logistic Service Effectiveness. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 93, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Høgevold, N.; Svensson, G.; Otero-Neira, C. Trust and Commitment as Mediators Between Economic and Non-Economic Satisfaction in Business Relationships: A Sales Perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2020, 35, 1685–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andaleeb, S.S. An Experimental Investigation of Satisfaction and Commitment in Marketing Channels: The Role of Trust and Dependence. J. Retail. 1996, 72, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prajogo, D.I.; Ahmed, P.K. Relationships between Innovation Stimulus, Innovation Capacity, and the performance of innovation. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunday, G.; Ulusoy, G.; Kilic, K.; Alpkan, L. Effects of Innovation Types on Firm Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 133, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Latan, H.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; De Camargo Fiorini, P.; Foropon, C. Innovative Efforts of ISO 9001-certified Manufacturing Firms: Evidence of Links between Determinants of Innovation, Continuous Innovation and Firm Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 223, 107526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ragin, C.C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Skarmeas, D.; Lisboa, A.; Saridakis, C. Export performance as a function of market learning capabilities and intrapreneurship: SEM and FsQCA findings. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5342–5347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3, Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. 2015. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.-H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modeling; The University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Ros, S.; Guerrero-Sánchez, D.L.; Miquel-Romero, M.J. Absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation and performance: Findings from SEM and fsQCA. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C.C. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Woodside, A.G. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rindfleisch, A. Organizational trust and interfirm cooperation: An examination of horizontal versus vertical alliances. Mark. Lett. 2000, 11, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susanty, A.; Sirait, N.M.; Bakhtiar, A. The relationship between information sharing, informal contracts and trust on performance of supply chain management in the SMEs of batik. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2018, 22, 292–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charterina, J.; Landeta, J.; Basterretxea, I. Mediation effects of trust and contracts on knowledge-sharing and product innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 45, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Tajvidi, M.; Lin, X.; Hajli, J. Towards an Ethical and Trustworthy Social Commerce Community for Brand Value Co-creation: A trust-Commitment Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlf, H.; Horak, S.; Klein, A.; Yoon, S.-W. Demographic homophily, communication and trust in intra-organizational business relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019, 34, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, F.C.; Huang, M.H.; Chen, D.Z. Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting university the performance of innovation. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 45, 560–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joint Ministries and Local Governments. Performance of Implementation Plan for 2020 of Industrial Education and Industry-University-Research Cooperation, and Implementation Plan for 2021; Draft; Ministry of Education: Seoul, Korea, 2021. Available online: https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=337&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe&m=0303&opType=N&boardSeq=84351 (accessed on 30 December 2021).
Structural Path | Path Coefficients | t-Values | p-Values | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Collaboration → Trust | 0.584 *** | 7.742 | 0.000 | Supported |
H2: Collaboration → Satisfaction | 0.389 *** | 4.810 | 0.000 | Supported |
H3: Collaboration → Performance of innovation | 0.270 *** | 2.737 | 0.006 | Supported |
H4: Trust → Satisfaction | 0.378 *** | 4.805 | 0.000 | Supported |
H5: Trust → Performance of innovation | −0.075 ns | 0.623 | 0.534 | Unsupported |
H6: Satisfaction → Performance of innovation | 0.344 *** | 3.434 | 0.001 | Supported |
R2 (Trust) = 0.342 R2 (Satisfaction) = 0.466 R2 (Performance of innovation) = 0.255 |
Effect | Total Effect | Indirect Effect | VAF % | Mediation Strengths | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constructs | Path Coefficient | t-Values | p-Values | Path Coefficient | t-Values | p-Values | ||
H7: Collaboration→ Satisfaction (via Trust) | 0.610 | 11.648 | 0.000 | 0.221 | 4.537 | 0.000 | 36.3% | Partial mediation |
Collaboration → Performance of innovation (Total) | 0.436 | 5.756 | 0.000 | 0.166 | 2.257 | 0.024 | 38.1% | Partial mediation |
Collaboration → Performance of innovation (via Trust) | −0.044 | 0.613 | 0.540 | -10.1% | No mediation | |||
H8: Collaboration → Performance of innovation (via Satisfaction) | 0.134 | 2.731 | 0.007 | 30.7% | Partial mediation | |||
Collaboration → Performance of innovation (via Trust + Satisfaction) | 0.076 | 2.588 | 0.010 | 17.5% | No mediation | |||
H9: Trust → Performance of innovation (via Satisfaction) | 0.055 | 0.479 | 0.632 | 0.130 | 2.768 | 0.006 | 235.6% | Full mediation |
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
Hwang, K.Y.; Sung, E.H.; Shenkoya, T. The Mediating and Combined Effects of Trust and Satisfaction in the Relationship between Collaboration and the Performance of Innovation in Industry—Public Research Institute Partnerships. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042128
Hwang KY, Sung EH, Shenkoya T. The Mediating and Combined Effects of Trust and Satisfaction in the Relationship between Collaboration and the Performance of Innovation in Industry—Public Research Institute Partnerships. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042128
Chicago/Turabian StyleHwang, Kyung Yun, Eul Hyun Sung, and Temitayo Shenkoya. 2022. "The Mediating and Combined Effects of Trust and Satisfaction in the Relationship between Collaboration and the Performance of Innovation in Industry—Public Research Institute Partnerships" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042128