SERVER_OS: Linux ojs 3.10.0-1127.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Mar 31 23:36:51 UTC 2020 x86_64
SERVER_SOFTWARE: nginx/1.16.1
PHP_VERSION: 7.3.33
DISABLE_FUNCTION: exec, passthru, shell_exec, system, proc_open, popen, curl_exec, curl_multi_exec, parse_ini_file, show_source
PATH:
STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION, ORGANISATIONAL TRUST, DIGITAL-GREEN CAPABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL IMPACT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE COLLABORATION | International Journal of Advances in Business and Management Research (IJABMR)
Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
IJABMR
Articles
DOI: 10.62674/ijabmr.2026.v4i01.003
Published: 2026-09-12

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION, ORGANISATIONAL TRUST, DIGITAL-GREEN CAPABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL IMPACT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE COLLABORATION

Dr. Nitte Shankara Adyanthaya Memorial (NSAM), Udupi 574110 Karnataka, India
Alva’s College, Moodbidri, 574227 Karnataka, India
Alva’s College, Moodbidri, 574227 Karnataka, India
Alva’s College, Moodbidri, 574227 Karnataka, India
Digital-Green Capability India Organisational Trust Responsible Collaboration Stakeholder Collaboration Sustainable Social Impact

Abstract

Responsible sustainability programmes in India increasingly depend on collaboration among firms, public agencies, civil-society organisations, technology providers and communities, yet collaboration alone may not ensure sustainable outcomes. This conceptual paper develops a framework integrating stakeholder collaboration, organisational trust, digital-green capability and sustainable social impact to explain how collaborative efforts are converted into meaningful and lasting outcomes. Drawing on stakeholder, organisational trust, digital transformation and sustainability literature, the paper develops six propositions and advances a dual-conversion explanation in which stakeholder collaboration influences sustainable social impact directly and indirectly through two complementary parallel pathways. Organisational trust represents the relational conversion pathway by supporting credibility, acceptance and continued cooperation, while digital-green capability represents the operational conversion pathway by enabling collaborative intentions to be translated into responsible digital and environmentally sustainable action. The framework is critically compared with alternative explanations, and relevant contextual boundary conditions are identified. A future empirical design is proposed using validated measurement bases, power-oriented sampling, PLS-SEM, construct reliability and validity assessment, common-method safeguards and endogeneity checks. The framework provides a theoretically grounded and empirically testable explanation of how responsible collaboration can contribute to sustainable social impact in the Indian context.

References

  1. Awa HO, Etim W, Ogbonda E. Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility. 2024;9:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y
  2. Fobbe L, Niss C, Hilletofth P. Continuous and changing stakeholder engagement for organisational sustainability: proposing the stakeholder engagement flow model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2024;31(6):6061-6074. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2908
  3. Nonet GAH, Goessling T, Van Tulder R, Bryson JM. Multi-stakeholder engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022;180:945-957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05192-0?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
  4. Rathobei KE, Ranangen H, Lindman A. Stakeholder integration in sustainable business models to enhance value delivery for a broader range of stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2024;33(4):3687-3706. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3651
  5. Zaheer A, McEvily B, Perrone V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science. 1998;9(2):141-159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
  6. de Vries JR, Turner JA, Finlay-Smits S, Ryan A, Klerkx L. Trust in agri-food value chains: a systematic review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2023;26(2):175-198. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2022.0032?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
  7. Grohmann P, Dietze V, Kraemer C, Feindt PH. Governance and trust in sustainability-based agri-food value chains: a comparative analysis of five cases in Germany. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7:1130895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1130895
  8. Tumpa RJ, Naeni L. Improving decision-making and stakeholder engagement at project governance using digital technology for sustainable infrastructure projects. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. 2025;14(4):1292-1329. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2024-0451
  9. Sheethal K. Exploring the synergies between digital transformation, environmental proactivity, and green innovation for sustainable business practices. Asian Journal of Managerial Science. 2024;13(2):31-37. https://doi.org/10.70112/ajms-2024.13.2.4248
  10. Suvarni S, Deeksha D. Adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies by agripreneurs: an integrated DOI and TAM approach. International Journal of Advances in Business and Management Research (IJABMR). 2025;3(1):46-66. https://doi.org/10.62674/ijabmr.2025.v3i01.005
  11. Khin S, Ho TCF. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: a mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science. 2019;11(2):177-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
  12. Sun Z, Wang W, Wang W, Sun X. How does digital transformation affect corporate social responsibility performance? From the dual perspective of internal drive and external governance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2024;31:1156-1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2615
  13. Zhu S, Lv K, Cheng Y. The impact of digital technology innovation on firm performance: based on the corporate digital responsibility perspective. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility. 2026;35:177-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12785
  14. Laskar MH. Examining the emergence of digital society and the digital divide in India: a comparative evaluation between urban and rural areas. Frontiers in Sociology. 2023;8:1145221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1145221
  15. NITI Aayog. SDG India Index 2023-24. Government of India; 2024.
  16. Aparna K. Factors influencing Unified Payments Interface adoption among hawkers in Mangaluru: an extended technology acceptance model approach. Asian Journal of Managerial Science. 2024;13(2):45-51. https://doi.org/10.70112/ajms-2024.13.2.4250
  17. M S, Raghavendra R, J Rao S. Determinants of solar PV adoption among micro-entrepreneurs in India: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Advances in Business and Management Research (IJABMR). 2026;3(4):12-22. https://doi.org/10.62674/ijabmr.2026.v3i04.002
  18. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023). Government of India; 2023.
  19. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. Government of India; 2025.
  20. Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman; 1984. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
  21. Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar B, de Colle S. Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press; 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.495581
  22. Thomson AM, Perry JL, Miller TK. Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2009;19(1):23-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum036
  23. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(3):709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
  24. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. 1998;23(3):393-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
  25. Raghavendra R, Mg E. Integrating advanced technologies in retail: a conceptual framework for enhancing consumer experience and trust. International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research. 2024;11(10). https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v11.i10.2024.1506
  26. Raghavendra R, Kumar R. Beyond rating accuracy: organisational justice and the social context of performance appraisal in banking. Interdisciplinary International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (IIJASSAH). 2026;2(2):104-116. https://doi.org/10.62674/iijassah.2026.v2i2.008
  27. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 1997;18(7):509-533. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812834478_0002
  28. Dangelico RM, Pujari D, Pontrandolfo P. Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: a sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2017;26:490-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932
  29. Chow WS, Chen Y. Corporate sustainable development: testing a new scale based on the mainland Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012;105(4):519-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0983-x
  30. Diddimani M. Determinants of green consumer behavior: psychological, social, economic, and contextual factors. Asian Review of Social Sciences. 2025;14(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.70112/arss-2025.14.1.4286
  31. Agrawal S, Ray A, Rana NP. Effectiveness of sustainability communication on stakeholder engagement: a multi-method qualitative assessment of sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2025;32(1):820-834. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2992?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
  32. Netti A, Intenza M, Favino C, Sarao CP. How stakeholder engagement drives environmental innovation to mitigate climate change: evidence from European small caps. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2025;34(8):10185-10206. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70101
  33. Chen L, Qalati SA, Fan M. Effects of sustainable innovation on stakeholder engagement and societal impacts: the mediating role of stakeholder engagement and the moderating role of anticipatory governance. Sustainable Development. 2025;33:2406-2428. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3247?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
  34. Kock N, Hadaya P. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal. 2018;28(1):227-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
  35. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Sage; 2022.
  36. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43(1):115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  37. Hair JF, Alamer A. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. 2022;1(3):100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027
  38. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
  39. Hult GTM, Hair JF, Proksch D, Sarstedt M, Pinkwart A, Ringle CM. Addressing endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling. Journal of International Marketing. 2018;26(3):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.17.0151

How to Cite

Bhat N. H., S., K. G., A., H. R, M., & Naik, K. (2026). STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION, ORGANISATIONAL TRUST, DIGITAL-GREEN CAPABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL IMPACT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE COLLABORATION . International Journal of Advances in Business and Management Research (IJABMR), 4(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.62674/ijabmr.2026.v4i01.003

Metrics

Article Contents

Indexed In

 

Journal title

International Journal of Advances in Business and Management Research (IJABMR)

ISSN (online)

2584-1718

Publisher's name

Swami Vivekananda Global Academy, India

Established Since

2023

Email Id

info@ijabmresearch.org

DOI Prefix

10.62674/ijabmr

Peer Review

Double Anonymous Peer Review

Licensing

CC BY-NC-ND

Open Access

Yes

 

Indexed In








Score: 6.038









Tools

Flag Counter