Figure 5
The diagram shows the two panels arranged in a vertical series. The top panel is titled “Panel 1: Standardized coefficients when testing H 10,” and the bottom panel is titled “Panel 2: p-values of the coefficients when testing H10.” Both the panels consists of eight latent variables that are represented by a circular node with the following labels: “Farmer Training (F T),” “Financial Support (F S),” “Evaluation and Feedback on Farmer’s Quality Performance (E F F Q P),” “Farmer Capability (F C),” “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R),” “Economic Sustainability (E S),” “Social Sustainability (S S),” and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S).” In “Panel 1: Standardized coefficients when testing H10,” “Farmer Training (F T)” is positioned at the upper left. Five leftward arrows connect it to five vertically aligned rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: “F T 1” with 0.942, “F T 2” with 0.943, “F T 3” with 0.964, “F T 4” with 0.967, and “F T 5” without a value label. Below “F T,” the circular node “Financial Support (F S)” is placed. Eight rightward arrows from eight rectangles point to “Financial Support (F S)” arranged in a vertical series on the left and labeled from top to bottom as follows: “F S 1” with 0.211, “F S 2” with 0.199, “F S 3” with 0.124, “F S 4” with 0.208, “F S 5” with 0.367, “F S 6” with 0.167, “F S 7” with 0.161, and “F S 8” with 0.211. At the bottom left is “Evaluation and Feedback on Farmer’s Quality Performance (E F F Q P).” Three leftward arrows connect it to three vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: “E F 3” with 0.895, “E F 2” with 0.884, and “E F 1” with 0.892. In the center top, the circular node “Farmer Capability (F C)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.760. Four upward arrows extend from it to four rectangles positioned horizontally at the top and labeled from left to right: “F C 1” with 0.625, “F C 2” with 0.882, “F C 3” with 0.882, and “F C 4” with 0.862. Below “F C,” “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” is placed, with an inner value of 0.631. Three downward arrows connect it to three horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as “Trust” with 0.909, “Satisfaction” with 0.870, and “Commitment” with 0.679. On the right, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” is located at the top right, with an inner value of 0.470. Two rectangles positioned above connect downward to “E S”: “E c n S 1” with 0.726 and “E c n S 2” with 0.413. Below it, “Social Sustainability (S S)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.399. Three rectangles connect to it from above: “S o c S 1” with 0.588, “S o c S 2” with 0.460, and “S o c S 3” with 0.326. At the bottom right, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.469. Three rectangles above it connect downward, labeled from left to right as: “E n v S 1” with 0.271, “E n v S 2” with 0.546, and “E n v S 3” with 0.612. The interconnections among the latent variables are represented with red and gray arrows labeled with standardized path coefficients. Rightward arrows from “Farmer Training (F T)” point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.105, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.006, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with negative 0.097, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with negative 0.119, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with negative 0.090. From “Financial Support (F S),” rightward arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.176, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.417, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.006, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with negative 0.166, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.060. From “Evaluation and Feedback on Farmer’s Quality Performance (E F F Q P),” arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.080, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.314, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.003, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with negative 0.022, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with negative 0.018. From “Farmer Capability (F C),” arrows point to “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.295, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.328, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.166, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.121. From “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R),” arrows point to “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.418, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.565, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.182. Three control variables are labeled “I P,” “H,” and “R” near the center. Dashed arrows extend from “I P” to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.328, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.044, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.240, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.270. From “H,” dashed arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.050, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.054, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.021, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.021, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with negative 0.060. From “R,” dashed arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 1.256, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with negative 0,292, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with negative 0.323, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.757, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.156. In “Panel 2: p-values of the coefficients when testing H 10,” “Farmer Training (F T)” is positioned at the upper left. Five leftward arrows connect it to five vertically aligned rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: “F T 1” with 0.000, “F T 2” with 0.000, “F T 3” with 0.000, “F T 4” with 0.000, and “F T 5” with 0.000. Below “F T,” the circular node “Financial Support (F S)” is placed. Eight rightward arrows from eight rectangles point to “Financial Support (F S)” arranged in a vertical series on the left and labeled from top to bottom as follows: “F S 1” with 0.002, “F S 2” with 0.001, “F S 3” with 0.059, “F S 4” with 0.002, “F S 5” with 0.000, “F S 6” with 0.001, “F S 7” with 0.024, and “F S 8” with 0.000. At the bottom left is “Evaluation and Feedback on Farmer’s Quality Performance (E F F Q P).” Three leftward arrows connect it to three vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: “E F 3” with 0.000, “E F 2” with 0.000, and “E F 1” with 0.821. In the center top, the circular node “Farmer Capability (F C)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.760. Four upward arrows extend from it to four rectangles positioned horizontally at the top and labeled from left to right: “F C 1” with 0.000, “F C 2” with 0.000, “F C 3” with 0.000, and “F C 4” with 0.000. Below “F C,” “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” is placed, with an inner value of 0.631. Three downward arrows connect it to three horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as “Trust” with 0.000, “Satisfaction” with 0.000, and “Commitment” with 0.000. On the right, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” is located at the top right, with an inner value of 0.470. Two rectangles positioned above connect downward to “E S”: “E c n S 1” with 0.000 and “E c n S 2” with 0.000. Below it, “Social Sustainability (S S)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.399. Three rectangles connect to it from above: “S o c S 1” with 0.000, “S o c S 2” with 0.000, and “S o c S 3” with 0.000. At the bottom right, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” is positioned with an inner value of 0.469. Three rectangles above it connect downward, labeled from left to right as: “E n v S 1” with 0.001, “E n v S 2” with 0.000, and “E n v S 3” with 0.000. The interconnections among the latent variables are represented with red and gray arrows labeled with p-values as follows: Rightward arrows from “Farmer Training (F T)” point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.005, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.903, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.005, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.077, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.092. From “Financial Support (F S),” rightward arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.001, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.099, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.018, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.452 and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.513. From “Evaluation and Feedback on Farmer’s Quality Performance (E F F Q P),” arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.099, “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.000, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.965, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.819, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.821. From “Farmer Capability (F C),” arrows point to “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.001, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.002, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.146, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.181. From “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R),” arrows point to “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.000, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.000, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.012. Three control variables are labeled “I P,” “H,” and “R” near the center. Dashed arrows extend from “I P” to “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.678, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.035, and “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.008. From “H,” dashed arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.098, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.197, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.533, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.545, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.333. From “R,” dashed arrows point to “Farmer Capability (F C)” with 0.000, “Economic Sustainability (E S)” with 0.077, “Social Sustainability (S S)” with 0.126, “Environmental Sustainability (E n v S)” with 0.000, and “Processor–Farmer Relationship (P F R)” with 0.292.”SmartPLS output of the statistical model for testing H10. Source: Authors’ own work