Industrial Relations JournalVolume 52, Issue 3 p. 286-287 ErratumFree Access Erratum This article corrects the following: The effect of employee share ownership on employee commitment and turnover: comparing the cases in Britain and South Korea and the role of the economy Yeongjoon Yoon, Sukanya Sengupta, Volume 50Issue 5-6Industrial Relations Journal pages: 486-516 First Published online: December 5, 2019 First published: 16 May 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12326AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat In Yoon and Sengupta, 2019, the published article contains errors in Table 4. The correct table is shown below. We apologize to the authors and readers for this error. All results and conclusions of this article remain unchanged. TABLE 4. Comparison of the Golden-Handcuff Effect (OLS). Economic Expansion. Dependent variable: Log10 Turnover Rate Variables Korea (2007) Britain (2004) Model A1 Model A2 Model A3 Model A4 Model B1 Model B2 Model B3 Model B4 Constant −1.029**** at the 0.01 level. −1.015**** at the 0.01 level. −0.968**** at the 0.01 level. −0.371**** at the 0.01 level. −1.022**** at the 0.01 level. −1.188**** at the 0.01 level. −1.184**** at the 0.01 level. −0.866** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, (0.029) (0.034) (0.043) (0.143) (0.032) (0.041) (0.370) (0.360) Presence of ESO scheme 0.044 0.052 0.058 0.032 −0.047 −0.098** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, −0.125**** at the 0.01 level. −0.093** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, (0.050) (0.050) (0.050) (0.045) (0.046) (0.045) (0.044) (0.042) Industry controls N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Occupation ratio controls N N Y Y N N Y Y Workplace/Firm characteristics controls N N N Y N N N Y R2 (F) 0.002 0.016 0.024** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, 0.271**** at the 0.01 level. 0.003 0.086**** at the 0.01 level. 0.242**** at the 0.01 level. 0.351**** at the 0.01 level. (0.750) (2.335) (2.522) (13.893) (1.072) (12.935) (10.727) (10.145) Δ R2 0.015** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, 0.007 0.247**** at the 0.01 level. 0.086**** at the 0.01 level. 0.156**** at the 0.01 level. 0.109**** at the 0.01 level. N 424 416 Economic Downturn. Dependent variable: Log10 Turnover Rate Variables Korea (2011) Britain (2011) Model C1 Model C2 Model C3 Model C4 Model D1 Model D2 Model D3 Model D4 Constant −1.056**** at the 0.01 level. −1.053**** at the 0.01 level. −1.010**** at the 0.01 level. −0.577**** at the 0.01 level. −1.209**** at the 0.01 level. −1.473**** at the 0.01 level. −0.881**** at the 0.01 level. −1.008**** at the 0.01 level. (0.028) (0.030) (0.044) (0.144) (0.034) (0.053) (0.098) (0.157) Presence of ESO scheme −0.005 0.015 0.026 0.031 −0.028 −0.051 −0.106** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, −0.056 (0.053) (0.054) (0.054) (0.046) (0.052) (0.050) (0.049) (0.047) Industry controls N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Occupation ratio controls N N Y Y N N Y Y Workplace/Firm characteristics controls N N N Y N N N Y R2 (F) 0.000 0.007 0.011 0.321**** at the 0.01 level. 0.001 0.103**** at the 0.01 level. 0.254**** at the 0.01 level. 0.369**** at the 0.01 level. (0.007) (0.954) (1.158) (17.077) (0.293) (13.074) (10.341) (9.509) Δ R2 0.007 0.004 0.310**** at the 0.01 level. 0.102**** at the 0.01 level. 0.151**** at the 0.01 level. 0.115**** at the 0.01 level. N 409 346 * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level, ** at the 0.01 level. Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. REFERENCE Yoon, Y., & Sengupta, S. (2019). The effect of employee share ownership on employee commitment and turnover: comparing the cases in Britain and South Korea and the role of the economy. Industrial Relations Journal, 50, 486– 516. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12272Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume52, Issue3May 2021Pages 286-287 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Read full abstract