Satisfaction of private interest associations’ members: a study with sugarcane producers in Brazil

Castro, Luciano Thomé e; Machado, Priscilla Mendes; Neves, Marcos Fava; Scare, Roberto Fava

doi:10.1016/j.rausp.2016.06.001

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração (São Paulo)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Strategy & Business Economics • Rev. Adm. (São Paulo) 51 (3) • Jul-Sep 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.06.001 copy

Satisfaction of private interest associations’ members: a study with sugarcane producers in Brazil

Satisfação em associações de interesse privado: uma aplicação com produtores de cana-de-açúcar no Brasil

Satisfacción en asociaciones de interés particular: una aplicación con productores de caña de azúcar en Brasil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study aimed to identify satisfaction antecedents presented by sugar cane producers with the associations they belong to. It was developed a model composed of seven dimensions which were grouped into two types: individual aspects (economic, networking and honor) and collective aspects (perception of services, representation, trust and relevance of the association). It was performed one quantitative and descriptive study, conducted through questionnaires applied directly to producers. 550 questionnaires were completed and 411 of these were valid. For the data analysis, correlation and multiple linear regression between the variables were used. The results showed that all seven variables were positively correlated with satisfaction, however, only five of them comprised the final model after multiple linear regression: perception of services offered, representation, trust, economical aspect and honor. Surprisingly, the results also showed that collective aspects affected more the satisfaction than individual aspects.

Keywords:
Associativism; Satisfaction; Predecessors of satisfaction; Collective action

Dimensions	Scales	Authors
Economic aspects	I feel economically satisfied with the association.	Olson (1971)Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective: Public goods and the theory of groups. pp. 186. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. and Bennett and Robson (2001)Bennett, R. J., & Robson, P. J. A. (2001). Exploring the market potential andbundling of business association services. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(3), 222-239.
Contacts	To take part in the association allows me to make important contacts/relationship.	Hákansson and Snehota (1997)Hákansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1997). Analyzing business relationships. In D. Ford (Ed.), Understanding business markets. London: The Dryden Press., Barra et al. (2007)Barra, G.M.J., Oliveira, V.C.S., & Machado, R.T.M. (2007). O papel das associações de interesse privado no mercado cafeeiro brasileiro. Revista de Gestão USP, 14(2), 17-31., and Bennett and Ramsden (2007)Bennett, R. J., & Ramsden, M. (2007). The contribution of business associationsto SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 49..
Honor	For me it is an honor to be part of the association.	Van Zomeren, Spears, and Leach (2008)Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372..
Perception of service offerings	The services offered by the association meet the needs of producers.	Bennett and Robson (2001)Bennett, R. J., & Robson, P. J. A. (2001). Exploring the market potential andbundling of business association services. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(3), 222-239., Bennett (2010), and Newbery et al. (2013)Newbery, R., Sauer, J., Gorton, M., Phillipson, J., & Atterton, J. (2013). Determinants of the performance of business associations in rural settlements in the United Kingdom: An analysis of members’ satisfaction and willingness-to-pay for association survival. Environment and Planning A, 45(4), 967-985..
Representation	I feel fully represented by the association.	Mello and Paulillo (2005)Mello, L. F., & Paulillo, F. O. T. (2005). Metamorfoses da rede de poder sucroalcooleira paulista e desafios da autogestão setorial. Agric, 52, 41-62., Perry (2012)Perry, M. (2012). Trade associations in Ireland and New Zealand: Does insti-tutional context matter for collective action? Irish Journal of Management, 31(2), 19–44., and North (1994)North, D. C. (1994). Economic Performance trough time. American Economic Review, 359-368..
Trust	I trust the association as good executor of his role.	Bennett (2000)Bennett, R. J., & Ramsden, M. (2000). The logic of membership of sectorialbusiness associations. Review of Social Economy, 58(1), 17-42., Koutsou et al. (2014)Koutsou, S., Partalidou, M., & Ragkos, A. (2014). Young farmers’ social capitalin Greece: Trust levels and collective actions. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 204-211., and Putnam (2005)Putnam, R. (2005). Comunidade e Democracia: A experiência da Itália moderna. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora Fundação Getúlio Vargas..
Relevance	If the association ceased to exist there would be losses for producers and the sector.	Rao et al. (2000)Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social move-ments and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237–281. and Zylbersztajn and Farina (1999)Zylbersztajn, D., & Farina, E. M. M. Q. (1999). Strictly coordinated food-systems: Exploring the limits of the Coasian firm. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(2), 249–265.
Overall satisfaction indicator	Overall, I am satisfied regarding the association.	Bennett (2000)Bennett, R. J., & Ramsden, M. (2000). The logic of membership of sectorialbusiness associations. Review of Social Economy, 58(1), 17-42., Cafferata (1979)Cafferata, G. L. (1979). Member and leader satisfaction with a professional association: An exchange perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 472-483., and Oliver (1996)Oliver, R. L. (1996). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on consumer. New York, NY: Prince.

	Economic aspect	Contacts	Honor	Perception of services	Representation	Trust	Relevance
Pearson Correlation	0.646^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.567^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.604^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.606^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.698^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.717^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.	0.407^ Correlation is significant for α = 0.01.
Significance	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Relevance	411	411	411	411	411	411	411

Model	Non-standardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	T	Significance
	B	Standard deviation	Beta
(Constant)	0.277	0.156		1.775	0.077
Economic aspect	0.096	0.044	0.107	2.185	0.029^* * Significant for α = 0.05.
Contacts	-0.018	0.043	-0.019	-0.416	0.678
Honor	0.092	0.046	0.094	2.008	0.045^* * Significant for α = 0.05.
Perception of services	0.231	0.040	0.221	5.840	0.000^ Significant for α = 0.01.
Representation	0.176	0.049	0.198	3.616	0.000^ Significant for α = 0.01.
Trust	0.354	0.045	0.362	7.791	0.000^ Significant for α = 0.01.
Relevance	-0.286	0.395	-0.013	-0.683	0.223

Departamento de Administração da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala F184, 05508-900 São Paulo / SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 3818-4002 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rausp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] ∗ Corresponding author at: Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto, Avenida dos Bandeirantes, 3900, 14040-905 Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. E-mail:ltcastro@usp.br (L. Thomé e Castro).

Hypothesis 1	Individual benefits provided to producers through the association influence the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_1a - The monetary returns available to producers through the association influence the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_1b - The possibility of building contacts and important relationships for producers through association influence the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_1c - The sense of honor provided by membership in the association influences the satisfaction perceived by the members.

Hypothesis 2	Collective benefits provided to producers through the association influence in the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_2a - Perception of the service offerings available to producers influences the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_2b - The representative nature of the association influences the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_2c - The trust felt by members regarding the association influences the satisfaction perceived by the members.
	H_2d - The importance given to the association by producers influence the satisfaction perceived by them.

Hypothesis 3	The individual benefits perceived by members influence more the satisfaction felt by them than the collective benefits.