IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1798-d742237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mediator Acceptability for Sustainable Trading Management: Scale Development and Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Chunzi Yang

    (Department of International Trade, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Korea)

  • Hong-Youl Ha

    (Department of International Trade, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Korea)

Abstract

This study develops and empirically validates a multidimensional scale for measuring mediator acceptability (MEDACCEPT) from a sustainable trading perspective. Moreover, it examines the developed scales’ ability to evaluate the impact of mediator selection. Data are collected from a professional research firm using 265 respondents who have mediation experience in export or import industrial areas. Although we initially identify seven dimensions, the research findings empirically identify the following five primary dimensions that drive mediator acceptability: status, legal expertise, procedural justice, restorative justice, and perceived confidentiality. Interestingly, while traditional mediation literature highlights the importance of a mediator’s skill and cultural expertise, our scales exclude these two constructs. The MEDACCEPT scales are salient only to firms that trade physical products, suggesting further research directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunzi Yang & Hong-Youl Ha, 2022. "Mediator Acceptability for Sustainable Trading Management: Scale Development and Validation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1798-:d:742237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1798/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1798/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mária Srebalová & František Vojtech, 2021. "SME Development in the Visegrad Area," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir (ed.), Eurasian Business and Economics Perspectives, pages 269-281, Springer.
    2. Goltsman, Maria & Hörner, Johannes & Pavlov, Gregory & Squintani, Francesco, 2009. "Mediation, arbitration and negotiation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1397-1420, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Münster, Johannes, 2011. "A strategic mediator who is biased into the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-012, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    2. Maximilian J. L. Schormair & Lara M. Gerlach, 2020. "Corporate Remediation of Human Rights Violations: A Restorative Justice Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 475-493, December.
    3. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2019. "Lies and consequences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1203-1240, December.
    4. Lai, Ernest K., 2014. "Expert advice for amateurs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-16.
    5. Golosov, Mikhail & Skreta, Vasiliki & Tsyvinski, Aleh & Wilson, Andrea, 2014. "Dynamic strategic information transmission," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 304-341.
    6. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Münster, Johannes, 2012. "A strategic mediator who is biased in the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 490-492.
    7. Hagenbach, Jeanne & Koessler, Frédéric, 2020. "Cheap talk with coarse understanding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 105-121.
    8. Rantakari, Heikki, 2014. "A simple model of project selection with strategic communication and uncertain motives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 14-42.
    9. Johanna Hertel & John Smith, 2013. "Not so cheap talk: costly and discrete communication," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 267-291, August.
    10. Gottardi, Piero & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2020. "Mediation Design," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1248, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    11. Martin Pollrich, 2017. "Mediated audits," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(1), pages 44-68, March.
    12. Li, Zhuozheng & Rantakari, Heikki & Yang, Huanxing, 2016. "Competitive cheap talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 65-89.
    13. Ying Chen & Sidartha Gordon, 2015. "Information transmission in nested sender–receiver games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(3), pages 543-569, April.
    14. Szalay, Dezső & Deimen, Inga, 2015. "Information, authority, and smooth communication in organizations," CEPR Discussion Papers 10969, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Ivanov, Maxim, 2010. "Informational control and organizational design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 721-751, March.
    16. Jeanne Hagenbach & Frédéric Koessler, 2019. "Partial Language Competence," Working Papers hal-03393108, HAL.
    17. Goltsman, Maria & Pavlov, Gregory, 2014. "Communication in Cournot oligopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 152-176.
    18. Vincent Anesi & Daniel J. Seidmann, 2009. "Optimal Delegation with a Finite Number of States," Discussion Papers 2009-20, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Chirantan Ganguly & Indrajit Ray, 2009. "Simple Mediation in a Cheap-Talk Game," Discussion Papers 05-08r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    20. Emir Kamenica & Matthew Gentzkow, 2011. "Bayesian Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2590-2615, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1798-:d:742237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.