Survey study observes how justice dimensions foster trust in cooperatives, highlighting the importance of trust for loyalty.
Purpose This study examines how distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice are associated with organizational trust in Brazilian agro-industrial cooperatives. It also tests whether trust mediates structural and relational justice pathways linking justice perceptions to relational loyalty, measured by intention to stay and positive word-of-mouth. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from 262 members of eight Brazilian agro-industrial cooperatives. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling grounded in social exchange theory. Findings All four justice dimensions are positively associated with organizational trust. Organizational trust is positively associated with both intention to stay and positive word-of-mouth. The results support selective mediation. Trust mediates the links between distributive and procedural justice and both outcomes. The indirect paths involving interpersonal and informational justice are not statistically supported in this model. Research limitations/implications The cross-sectional design restricts temporal and causal inference. The non-probability sample, although adequate for an organizational field study with restricted access to a complete sampling frame, may reflect cooperative access and member availability. Future studies should adopt longitudinal, multi-source and probability-oriented designs and replicate the model across cooperative types and regions. Originality/value The study integrates organizational justice and social exchange theory in Brazilian agro-industrial cooperatives. It clarifies selective mediation as a dimension-specific pattern in which trust carries the structural justice pathways linked to relational loyalty. This evidence refines the understanding of how fairness perceptions are associated with member retention and advocacy in cooperative governance arrangements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schierholt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: