Page 74 - SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES & COVID-19
P. 74

Table 6 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions – Countries comparison
                          Country            Power Distance      Uncertainty Avoidance    Individualism
                          Indonesia               78                    48                    14
                          Malaysia                100                   36                    26

                           Filipina               94                    44                    32
                          Singapura               74                    8                     20
                          Thailand                64                    64                    20

                  Power distance’s dimension shows the hierarchy in the social system, the higher the value, the more centralized the
                  leadership system. Malaysia and the Philippines have very high scores, even reaching one hundred, and Thailand
                  occupies the lowest position. Even so, this value is still considered relatively high, even higher than in Japan and South
                  Korea. Singapore is a country with the lowest uncertainty avoidance dimension, meaning that the country is very
                  open to uncertainty and flexibility is the main key in dealing with uncertainty. Thailand, which has the lowest power
                  distance value, has the highest uncertainty avoidance value. The relationship between power distance and uncertainty
                  avoidance reflects the attitudes towards risk. The stronger the centralized system in an organization, the greater the
                  exposure to overconfidence attitudes. The differences in characters of every country in this study might affect the result
                  for the effect of corporate strategies to its capital structure. It might also affect the role of CEO overconfidence as the
                  moderated variables to strengthen or weaken the corporate strategies’ effect on capital structure. Hopefully, for the
                  next study, the alternative explanation could be fully elaborated and could give a wider perspective.

                  The asset structure variable has a significant negative effect on capital structure, in contrast to the initial hypothesis.
                  Joveer (2013) explains that for countries undergoing a transition, the correlation between the two tends to be negative.
                  The profitability variable has a positive influence on capital structure, in contrast to the initial hypothesis. In the theory
                  of trade-off companies that have high profitability tend to increase their debt, the results of research conducted by
                  Khémiri & Noubbigh (2018).


                  6.   CONCLUSION

                  The results of the Philippines sample regression show that the company’s strategy that shows management preferences
                  also  affects  its  capital  structure.  Preventive  strategies  such  as  vertical  interpretation  tend  to  have  lower  leverage,
                  while companies that implement risk seeker strategies such as diversification and internationalization will increase
                  their leverage. CEO overconfidence with a perception bias makes the company with a high tolerance for risk and
                  implementing aggressive strategies such as diversification and internationalization, will be more aggressive on using
                  debt as their external financial resource. The result could vary in every country, the cultural aspect as explained before
                  might explain why the result could be different from one to another.

                  In  this  study,  there  are  still  some  limitations  related  to  the  specification  of  sample  determination  including  the
                  industrial sector and the ownership status of the company where it can make the association of independent variables
                  on leverage not in accordance with the hypothesis.























                                                                                 International Conference on Sustainability  73
                                                                                 (5  Sustainability Practitioner Conference)
                                                                                  Th
   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79