Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions

Copyright © Author(s) 2025. All Rights Reserved. Published by GLOBAL PUBLICATION HOUSE. | Int. J. Applied Management Science GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science (e-ISSN 3050-9688 | Open Access | Peer-Reviewed) Article ID: gph/ijams/2025/2192 Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions Murillo Dias * Rennes School of Business -------------------------------------------------------- Volume: 05 | Issue: 09 | September 2025 | Pages: 155–169 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17926894 | www.gphjournal.org -------------------------------------------------------- How to cite: Dias, M. (2025). Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions. GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science, 5(9), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926894 Abstract The research article presents a new assessment scale which evaluates institutional stakeholder relationships through stakeholder relationship assessment. The researcher define the model as a unified construct which includes four separate components: Communication, Trust and Cooperation, and Satisfaction. Organizations which practice open communication and build trust through collaborative actions and deliver stakeholder satisfaction will achieve superior relational results according to the research. The multi-item scales demonstrate reliability and they show * Page 155 of 169 Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions Volume 05 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/ams evidence of convergent validity and discriminant validity and nomological validity in a study involving institutional stakeholders. The research data shows that stakeholder relationship acts as a positive factor which connects stakeholder participation to organizational institutional success. The research presents findings which lead to theoretical and practical implications and establish guidelines for upcoming studies. Keywords Stakeholder relationships; trust; communications, scale validation. 1. Introduction Organizations now focus their main stakeholder relationship management efforts on this practice which both academic studies and business operations support. The work of Freeman (1984) established stakeholder theory which scholars since then have used to demonstrate organizations need to manage multiple stakeholder groups for achieving legitimacy and sustainability and enduring business success. Stakeholder relationship management (SRM) at institutions needs institutions to establish trust relationships while delivering clear information and working with partners and achieving stakeholder contentment. The existing research about SRM has not produced any proven measurement tools which combine its different elements into one assessment tool. The research fills this knowledge gap through its development of a new scale which measures Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction between institutions and their stakeholders. Stakeholder Relationshipdepends on communication which has been established as a fundamental element for many years. The authors Mohr and Nevin (1990) explain that marketing channels need proper communication systems because channel member communication breakdowns lead to channel conflicts which negatively affect customer experiences. Anderson and Narus (1990) show that distributor–manufacturer partnerships strengthen when organizations use direct and continuous communication approaches. Studies conducted during the previous few years have advanced our comprehension through evidence which demonstrates organizations that reveal information and maintain openness will establish stronger relationships with their stakeholders (Notteboom et al., 2015). Stakeholder relationships need trust as their fundamental base to establish trust for their development. Nielsen (2015) explains trust operates as a multi-faceted system which requires three core components to function properly: reliability and transparency and confidentiality. Bakalo and Bogale (2024) show that supply chain management depends on trust and collaboration because these elements exist in a mutual relationship. Bosse Phillips and Harrison (2009) show that organizations build trust through stakeholder benefit delivery which produces improved organizational performance. The core principle of cooperation emerges from stakeholder engagement which uses collaborative approaches for engagement. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) developed a behavioral theory which demonstrates organizations succeed by working together to create value while making a positive impact on society. Bourne and Walker (2008) show how project management teams work together through their Stakeholder Circle™ approach and Bourne (2009, 2010) develops models which help organizations develop stakeholder cooperation methods. Dias, M. (2025). Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions. GPHInternational Journal of Applied Management Science, 5(9), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926894 © GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science | www.gphjournal.org Satisfaction represents stakeholders’ overall evaluation of the relationship. Anderson and Narus (1990) established satisfaction as their method to evaluate Stakeholder Relationshipbetween distributors and manufacturers. Perez and del Bosque (2014) demonstrated that stakeholder satisfaction depends on organizations achieving their sustainability reporting goals according to their research. The research by Dimitropoulos and his colleagues (2020) shows that SMEs achieve viability through positive stakeholder relationship satisfaction. The research by Ali and his colleagues (2022) shows that healthcare process satisfaction depends on the way stakeholders interact with each other through their networks. Research on stakeholder relationship management has moved past the four established dimensions which scholars have defined. Bourne (2008, 2009, 2010) created the Stakeholder Relationship Management Maturity (SRMM®) model which helps organizations build stakeholder practices through a defined methodology. Belyaeva Shams together with their co-authors (2020) analyzed SRM implementation between public and private organizations to determine how public and private organizations build trust and communicate with each other. Meintjes and Grobler (2014) investigated how public relations specialists assist organizations to create governance frameworks which manage their interactions with various stakeholders. Smyth (2008) showed that stakeholders encounter moral conflicts because their work with organizations leads to trust-related problems. The authors Mitchell and Mitchell and Hunt and Townsend and Lee (2022) analyzed proper stakeholder involvement methods which organizations need to address knowledge-based problems and ethical dilemmas. Research has delivered extensive knowledge about communication and trust and cooperation and satisfaction but these variables remain separate from each other. There exists no validated scale which combines these elements into a single assessment tool for institutional stakeholder relationship. The research establishes a new instrument which measures these four aspects through its development and validation process. The model provides both academic researchers with an effective empirical analysis tool and business organizations with a relationship assessment system for their stakeholder connections. 2. Scale development and validation The development process of the Communication–Trust–Cooperation–Satisfaction scale followed established procedures which marketing and organizational research fields have established. Churchill (1995) states that measurement instruments need suitable methodological frameworks to develop assessment tools which prove both valid and reliable. The research follows a systematic approach to develop test items which then undergo development and verification procedures. Reliability and Internal Consistency. Cronbach (1951) created coefficient alpha to measure reliability of multi-item scales which remains the main tool for assessing internal consistency. The scale contains four dimensions which include Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction because Churchill (1995) advised to use multiple items for each dimension to achieve reliability and minimize measurement errors. Construct Validity .Gerbing and Anderson (1988) developed the scale development paradigm through their study which showed researchers how to test one-dimensionality by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The research uses CFA to verify that items measure their 157 Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions Volume 05 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/ams designated constructs through significant loading which proves the four dimensions remain separate from each other. Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) established the LISREL framework which we employ to perform structural equation model estimation and measurement property evaluation. Convergent and Discriminant Validity. The research methods developed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) enable scientists to assess the extent which structural equation models demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity. The measurement of convergent validity occurs when average variance extracted (AVE) reaches values above 0.50 and discriminant validity is proven through shared variance between constructs that remains below the AVE value. The evaluation process uses these criteria to demonstrate that Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction function as separate yet connected elements. Nomological Validity. Bejou Wray and Ingram (1996) explain that Stakeholder Relationshipconsists of multiple elements which develop through trust-based communication. Bialaszewski and Giallourakis (1985) demonstrate through their research that distribution channel trust formation depends on how well customers perceive the communication abilities of their channel members. The research findings confirm that our scale measures the essential factors which affect stakeholder participation and organizational operational performance. MacKenzie Podsakoff and Rich (1999) showed that scales need to show predictive relationships with constructs which share theoretical connections which we assess through Stakeholder Relationshipevaluations against stakeholder satisfaction and performance data. Cross-Cultural Validation. The authors Cadogan and Diamantopoulos and de Mortanges (1999) stress that researchers need to verify measurement scales between different settings because this step enables scale applicability in various contexts. The scale design lets organizations pick implementation approaches which fit their current situation for delivering services to different groups of stakeholders. Matsuno Mentzer and Rentz (2000) validated the MARKOR scale through their research which followed the same method we use to develop our scale. Statistical Rigor. The researchers Cross and Chaffin (1982) warn scientists to handle multiple test results with care because they suggest scientists should set their significance levels to low values. Our validation process includes suitable statistical corrections which we use to achieve reliable results. Armstrong and Overton (1977) developed nonresponse bias calculation methods which we apply to check if survey participants between different time periods demonstrate significant differences which reduces survey data bias. The research uses established methodological literature to develop the Communication–Trust–Cooperation–Satisfaction scale which will achieve maximum reliability and validity and broad applicability. The research unites Cronbach (1951) and Churchill (1995) and Fornell and Larcker (1981) traditional studies with contemporary methods for implementing their findings (Bejou et al.,1996), The research findings from (2000) form the base evidence which guides the creation of this assessment tool. Dias, M. (2025). Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions. GPHInternational Journal of Applied Management Science, 5(9), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926894 © GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science | www.gphjournal.org 3. The Institutional Stakeholder Relationship scale Communication. Stakeholder Relationshipdepends heavily on the fundamental element which is communication. Mohr and Nevin (1990) state that marketing channels require effective communication systems because insufficient communication between channel members results in channel conflicts which create poor customer experiences. Anderson and Narus (1990) similarly highlight that clear and continuous communication strengthens distributor–manufacturer partnerships. Bialaszewski and Giallourakis (1985) show that people decide to trust others through their observations of how well others communicate because effective communication enables relationship growth. The scale development process includes communication items which evaluate institutional communication effectiveness by measuring their ability to provide exact information that stakeholders can access. Trust. Research shows that trust stands as the essential factor which determines how well relationship’s function. Bejou Wray and Ingram (1996) show that trust working together with communication methods produces the best possible results in relationships. Nielsen (2015) defines trust as a complex system which includes reliability and transparency and confidentiality elements. The authors Bosse, Phillips and Harrison (2009) demonstrate that stakeholder relationship reciprocity creates trust which leads to better organizational results. The research findings validate that trust-related items need to be part of the scale because they assess institutional reliability and promise-keeping and transparency and respect for confidentiality. Cooperation. Stakeholder engagement operates through a collaborative method which defines what it means to work together. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) created a behavioral theory which shows that organizations achieve success through cooperative value creation because it benefits both their operations and society as a whole. Bakalo and Bogale (2024) demonstrate that supply chain management depends on trust and collaboration because these elements exist in a mutual relationship. Bourne and Walker (2008) show how project management teams work together through their Stakeholder Circle™ framework and Bourne (2009, 2010) developed models which help organizations build cooperative systems at their institutional level. The research findings support the inclusion of cooperation items which assess partnership development and resource sharing and collective goal accomplishment. Satisfaction. Stakeholders evaluate their relationship connection through satisfaction which experts use to determine relationship. Anderson and Narus (1990) establish that distributor–manufacturer partnership success depends on achieving satisfaction as one of its main results. Perez and del Bosque (2014) demonstrated that stakeholder satisfaction depends on organizations achieving their sustainability reporting goals according to their research. The research by Dimitropoulos and his team (2020) shows that SMEs achieve sustainability because they successfully satisfy their stakeholders. The research by Ali and his team (2022) shows that healthcare process satisfaction develops from the way stakeholders interact with each other through their network connections. The research data shows that institutions must measure stakeholder satisfaction by asking questions which determine their satisfaction level and their ability to meet requirements and their commitment to support the institution. In addition to performance, system latency was reduced by 159 Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions Volume 05 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/ams 15%, and feedback-based learning modules allowed continuous improvement without retraining the full model. 4. Survey Instrument Development The instrument development process followed Churchill's (1979) established method for scale development which included exploratory qualitative interviews and literature review of stakeholder relationship management and multiple pretests. The literature review together with initial research results led to the definition of Stakeholder Relationshipdomain which contains four distinct categories: Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction. A set of items was designed to measure each of these dimensions. The text received minimal adjustments to achieve better understanding of the institutional–stakeholder environment. Churchill (1979) proposed that interview-based research with managers and professionals who have experience in stakeholder engagement activities should be used to improve the current measurement methods. The team used their feedback to develop content which demonstrated the actual functioning of institutions. Two academic judges who specialized in scale development methodology and stakeholder relationship management conducted a content and face validity assessment of the final set of items. The evaluation process focused on three main aspects which included the extent of theoretical information in each item and the uniformity of items within each factor and the ease of understanding the item statements (Matsuno, Mentzer, & Rentz, 2000). A full listing of the items and their scale reliabilities is presented in Table 1. The internal reliability of the instrument reached above 0.70 which fulfills the recommended standard for instrument reliability. 5. Data Collection Procedure The research took place in institutional–stakeholder relationships which exist between higher education institutions and their stakeholders. The research focuses on this sector because universities together with their equivalent institutions need stakeholders to maintain their institutional trust and work together for achieving success and upholding their reputation and operational sustainability. The researchers selected institutions through random selection from a national database which contained all accredited higher education organizations. The cover letter included an incentive which motivated participants to join the study because they would obtain research results after finishing the investigation. Confidentiality was assured. The survey package included a cover letter which accompanied the questionnaire and detailed instructions for participants to complete the survey. The research participants included stakeholders who directly handled stakeholder engagement because they worked as directors of communication and governance officers and public relations managers. The researchers obtained their data throughout the entire academic year. The distributed questionnaires generated an adequate number of responses which produced a response rate that matched other surveys involving top management and stakeholders (cf. Armstrong & Overton, Dias, M. (2025). Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions. GPHInternational Journal of Applied Management Science, 5(9), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926894 © GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science | www.gphjournal.org 1977). The research analyzed nonresponse bias through an early versus late survey response analysis which produced no significant differences to prevent data collection biases. Table 1 shows the scale constructs, items, and reliabilities. Table 1 scale constructs, scale items and reliabilities Note: all items are five-point Likert scales anchored by ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘strongly agree’’. 6. Assessment of Nonresponse Bias and Data Profile The researcher studied nonresponse bias through their analysis of survey participant differences between early and late responders for all survey questions (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). The research established early respondents as those who submitted their questionnaires during the initial 75% of total responses while the last 25% of participants received classification as late responders. The data shows the actual pattern of questionnaire returns which participants followed. The study results showed no important variations between participants who answered the survey at the beginning and those who answered at the end which indicates that response bias did not affect the research findings. Moreover, because anonymity was guaranteed, bias associated with those who did not wish to respond for confidentiality reasons was also reduced (Bialaszewski & Giallourakis, 1985). Construct Items Reliability (α) Composite Reliability (CR) Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Communication com1_ The institution communicates clearly with stakeholders com_2. The institution provides accurate and up-to-date information. com_3. The institution responds promptly to stakeholders’ requests. com_4. The institution uses effective communication channels. com_5. The institution promotes open dialogue. .85 .88 .58 Trust tru_1 The institution is trustworthy. tru_2 The institution keeps its promises. tru_3. The institution is transparent. tru_4. The institution respects confidentiality. .83 .86 .56 Cooperation cop_1 The institution works in partnership with stakeholders. cop_2. The institution shares resources. cop_3. The institution collaborates to achieve common goals. .81 .84 .54 Statisfaction sts_1. Stakeholders are satisfied. sts_2. The institution meets stakeholders’ needs. sts_3. Stakeholders recommend the institution. .82 .85 .57 161 Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions Volume 05 Issue No 09 (2025) Open Access: https://gphjournal.org/index.php/ams The survey targeted people who lead stakeholder engagement and relationship management activities at their institutions. The research participants consisted of directors who handled communication and governance officers and public relations managers and senior administrators. The participants needed to rate their stakeholder management experience from 1 (none) to 5 (substantial). The mean response was 3.9 (S.D. = 0.91, range = 1–5). The participants showed their understanding of institutional stakeholder work through their various job roles which they applied to their relationship management experience. The research included organizations of different sizes because it sought to understand stakeholder relations across various types of institutions. 7. Data Analysis Churchill (1979) suggests using multiple-scale measurements instead of individual scale items because this method produces more reliable results which reduce the impact of measurement errors. Churchill (1979) developed his scale development method which Gerbing and Anderson (1988) later enhanced through their application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). CFA was performed to assess the measurement properties of the scale, using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures in LISREL 8.3 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The CFA method generates more accurate reliability measurements than coefficient alpha according to Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1991). The calculation of coefficient alpha depends on equal factor loadings and error variances between items but CFA models the distinct characteristics of each indicator (Styles, 1998). 8. Confirmatory Factor Analysis The model contained restrictions which forced each item to connect only with its designated factor while the four first-order factors of Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction maintained complete freedom to correlate with each other. The chi-square for this model was significant (χ² = 128.45, df = 72, p < .05). The chi-square statistic shows sensitivity to sample size so the researcher used three additional fit indices which included the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). The CFI, IFI, and TLI of this model were .93, .92, and .91, respectively. Hence, despite the significant chi-square, the fit indices reveal that the final structural model is fairly good in reproducing the population covariance structure, with an acceptable discrepancy between observed and predicted covariance matrices. One-dimensionality was evidenced by the large and significant standardized loadings of each item on its intended construct (average loading size = .76). As shown in Table 1, all constructs present desirable levels of composite reliability (cf. Bagozzi (1980) Table 1 also shows that Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) index of variance extracted was above the recommended level of .50 for all four constructs. Dias, M. (2025). Developing and Testing a Scale for Institutional Stakeholder Relationship Across Four Dimensions. GPHInternational Journal of Applied Management Science, 5(9), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17926894 © GPH-International Journal of Applied Management Science | www.gphjournal.org 9. Results and Interpretation Evidence of discriminant validity was revealed by the fact that all construct intercorrelations were significantly different from 1, and the shared variance among any two constructs (i.e., the square of their intercorrelation) was less than the average variance explained in the items by the construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 1999). To further test discriminant validity, we included in our model an established construct from the stakeholder literature— “degree of agreement/conflict”—adapted from Ganesan (1994). The construct measured how much institutional stakeholders shared common perspectives about particular matters which included funding decisions and messaging approaches and teamwork projects. All items used to assess this scale were five-point Likert scales anchored by “Intense Disagreement” and “No Disagreement. “Discriminant validity was confirmed by nonsignificant correlations among the four first-order constructs and the new construct. The scale we developed measures specific elements of institutional–stakeholder Stakeholder Relationshipwhich other constructs in the field do not measure. Satisfaction stands as the most powerful and reliable factor which exists in the model. The standardized coefficients for satisfaction show both strong and significant results which prove that stakeholders need to assess their complete relationship partnership to measure relationship. The research supports previous studies which established satisfaction as the primary outcome factor in relational studies (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Perez & del Bosque, 2014). Communication also demonstrates strong and significant effects, particularly in its association with trust and satisfaction. Research shows that people develop trust through precise communication which fulfills their requirements which leads to better Stakeholder Relationship(Mohr & Nevin, 1990; Bialaszewski & Giallourakis, 1985). Trust stands as a vital element which creates a direct connection between cooperation and satisfaction levels. Organizations which demonstrate reliability and maintain transparency and protect confidentiality data will establish long-term business relationships. Research shows that partner trust enables better mutual exchange which produces successful long-term relationships (Bosse, Phillips, & Harrison, 2009; Nielsen, 2015). Cooperation creates a positive impact on the construct which strengthens the collaborative approach of stakeholder participation. The results indicate that institutions that share resources and work toward common goals foster stronger satisfaction and trust among stakeholders. The research findings confirm the behavioral theory of joint value creation which Bridoux & Stoelhorst (2016) described and the project-based cooperation models which Bourne & Walker (2008) developed. The research results validate the scale's nomological validity because Communication and Trust and Cooperation and Satisfaction exist as separate yet connected elements which together form the quality of institutional–stakeholder relationships. Satisfaction stands as the strongest indicator which relationships need to build their foundation while communication and trust and cooperation serve as structural elements for relationship development and maintenance. The research findings 163