Organizational Commitment and Societal Influence on Cooperative Member Engagement in Bukidnon

Organizational Commitment and Societal Influence on Cooperative Member Engagement in Bukidnon

Ruth S. Galamiton¹, Daryl Jane A. Caballero²

¹Graduate Student, College of Business and Management, Central Mindanao University, Philippines

²Professor, College of Business and Management, Central Mindanao University, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.914MG00122

Received: 02 July 2025; Accepted: 05 July 2025; Published: 04 August 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the effect of organizational commitment and societal influence on the level of cooperative member engagement. Utilizing a quantitative correlational design and a validated survey questionnaire to three hundred eighty-five (385) cooperative members. Data were gathered and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson r correlation coefficient, and linear regression. The result implied a marginal commitment in terms of organizational commitment, and a moderate level of social influence. The level of member engagement resulted in slightly engaged respondents. It revealed that there is no significance in terms of age, educational attainment, and years of membership. As to sex, there is a significant difference, though the effect size is small. Marital status and monthly income showed a statistically significant difference. There is a moderate positive correlation between member engagement and organizational commitment, as well as a strong positive correlation between societal influence and member engagement. The regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant model. Decision-making involvement and laws and regulations are substantial contributors to member engagement. Government support and managerial ability are marginally significant predictors. The study concludes that member engagement within cooperatives is influenced more by organizational commitment and societal influence than by demographic characteristics. The researcher recommends further research in the academic area for future researchers.

Keywords– organizational commitment, societal influence, member engagement, cooperative members

INTRODUCTION

In a generation where collaboration is increasingly recognized as a vital component of cooperative sustainability, engagement is a powerful vehicle for fostering community resilience and empowerment. It is considered a prerequisite in cooperatives as the organization’s driving force drives its mission and values. According to the Cooperative Development Authority (2021), the value of experiences a member perceives is anchored in how cooperatives provide for social, cultural, and economic needs through equitable contributions and services that benefit its members and the community.

Collaboration in cooperatives is founded on the active participation of their members, which remarkably improves the success and sustainability of these organizations. Studies have shown that higher levels of member engagement led to enhanced decision-making and well-built community ties within cooperatives. However, challenges continue due to obstacles such as time constraints and a lack of awareness (Qi et al., 2022). This data highlights the importance of fostering an inclusive community where members feel valued and empowered to contribute

A survey of MCI association services to more than 12,700 members and customers from 51 associations worldwide showed that 67% engage their membership only moderately, 20% are intensely engaged, and 13% exhibit a weak membership fashion. Carey (2023) stated that the average engagement score of members and customers’ associations was only 88 out of 150.

In the Philippines, most cooperative members (94.4%) believe that their membership has a positive impact on their economic position, which indirectly reflects their level of engagement. Additionally, members often feel informed about cooperative activities, but actual meeting participation can be lower than expected, with some studies reporting attendance rates of around 50% (Overseas Cooperative Development Council, 2021).

Member engagement can be influenced by several factors that may impact the effectiveness and sustainability of cooperatives. The US Federation of Worker Cooperatives stated that their involvement relies not solely on managerial activities but more on member activities. In a study by Feyisa (2022), engagement is hindered by several significant factors, including a lack of understanding of cooperative principles, limited access to training, poor leadership skills, inability to participate in decision-making, conflicts, limited market access, and inadequate financial support.

The need for this study stems from the lack of active participation in cooperatives, which is crucial for several reasons outlined above. Recognizing how engaged members are, is crucial for identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of cooperatives. By closely examining the level of involvement among members, cooperatives can identify any obstacles that may hinder members from participating more actively. Understanding the factors that influence members’ participation in cooperative activities is the reason for conducting this study. Considering these factors, the cooperatives may enhance their programs and services to meet better the needs of members, which in turn will increase the level of engagement. With this approach, members can increase their satisfaction, which will help the cooperative grow and achieve sustainability.

The study focuses on studying member engagement in cooperatives in acknowledging the factors influencing member engagement, particularly in local cooperatives, given the increasing demand for information on the subject. Additionally, this examines the diverse demographic profile of cooperative members, the dimensions of organizational commitment, and the societal impact of member engagement on cooperatives in Bukidnon.

Fig 1. The research paradigm shows the significant relationship between organizational commitment and societal influence on employee engagement.

Framework of the Study

The study is based on a comprehensive model that brings together several key factors to explain how engagement happens and what results from it. Such a framework is widely used in organizational research because it takes into account the many different elements that influence how people behave and get involved. In particular, this study draws on four main theories: stakeholder theory, organizational commitment theory, institutional theory, and member engagement theory.

Stakeholder Theory was established by Edward Freeman in 1984. This theory posits that business ethics and organizational management consider the interests of all groups impacted by the business’s operations. This theory draws the importance of including employees, customers, suppliers, and society in decision-making processes. The stakeholder theory focuses on the interaction and commitment between the cooperative and its members and customers.

This theory effectively integrates key factors, including understanding, managerial abilities, perceived value, and participation in decision-making. Stakeholder Theory has helped investigate the importance of organizational commitment, including administrative and communication approaches, which directly influence how members perceive their involvement and the usefulness of their contributions within the organization. Moreover, it helped acknowledge the aspect of societal influence that shapes members’ behavior and participation levels, including social conventions and financial position.

Additionally, this study is founded on the organizational commitment theory introduced by Meyer and Allen in 1991. This theory proposes three specific areas of commitment that determine involvement: affective, continuance, and normative. Emotional attachments often drive these types of obligations and are frequently uncovered within the organization. It also addresses the perceived drawbacks of leaving and the advantages of staying.  Lastly, it also implies a commitment to abide by the norms and maintain loyalty to the organization (Ballesteros & Rosas, 2021).

This study was also guided by the institutional theory introduced by John Meyer and Rowan in the late 1970s. This theory examines how institutions, such as governments and cooperatives, wield the authority to shape and direct people’s decisions and behaviors by establishing rules, norms, and standards that individuals often follow or adapt to within the community. This framework helped illustrate how organizational structures, norms, and regulations influence the involvement and participation of people within the organization. This encompasses the determinants of socio-cultural beliefs, economic factors, government support, and laws and regulations.

Lastly, it is rooted in the engagement theory of Kahn (1990). This theory describes the degree to which a person invests an effort and displays enthusiasm that contributes to positive outcomes in the organization. This also serves as the basis for how an individual think, feels, and physically responds in various forms of engagement.

These frameworks guided the assessment of the relationship between member engagement and other variables. It featured an awareness of how the cooperative decisions, performance, and interactions affect its members and the engagement. These theories also provided a foundation for examining the multifaceted influences of organizational commitment and societal influence in shaping the experiences and perceptions of cooperative members.

Statement of the Problem

The study aimed to determine the effect of organizational commitment and societal influence on cooperative member engagement. Specifically, it provided answers to the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the cooperative members in terms of:
   1. age;
   2. sex;
   3. marital status;
   4. educational attainment;
   5. monthly income, and
   6. years of membership
2. What is the level of organizational commitment in terms of:
   1. understanding;
   2. managerial ability;
   3. pereived value, and decision-making involvement?
3. What is the level of societal influence in terms of
   1. socio-cultural beliefs;
   2. economic features;
   3. government support, and Laws and regulations?
4. What is the respondent’s level of member engagement?
   1. Is there a significant difference in the level of member engagement when respondents are grouped according to demographic profile?
   2. Is there a significant relationship between organizational commitment and member engagement, and societal influence and member engagement?
5. Which among the factors of the independent variables best predicts member engagement?

METHODOLOGY

This study employed quantitative research under the descriptive-correlational design, and multiple regression to determine the relationship and the level of effect between organizational commitment and societal influence on the level of member engagement among cooperative members. It used a survey research design to assess factors affecting cooperative member engagement in Bukidnon.

The study was conducted in the cities of Bukidnon, particularly in Valencia City and Malaybalay City. The province of Bukidnon is located in the center of Mindanao. It has the most significant agricultural areas and is considered the “Fruit Basket” in the region. Both cities serve as economic and cultural hubs in the province.

The respondents are the members of different cooperatives in Bukidnon. They are selected following these criteria: (1) must be a regular cooperative member, (2) must be an active member for more than a year, and (3) must be a member with good standing as confirmed by the respective cooperatives. There were three hundred eighty-five (385) respondents in this study identified using stratified random sampling.

The study employed a structured questionnaire, which was validated by three experts in the field of research and management. It also underwent reliability testing using Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha is one of the most commonly applied statistics to evaluate the reliability of research tools. In this study, the index scores were 0.965 for Organizational Commitment, 0.957 for Societal Influence, and 0.950 for Member Engagement, as measured by the questionnaires. It was personally handed out by the researcher after securing ethical approval from the institution and respective cooperative managers. Respondents answered the survey for 10 to 15 minutes.

Several statistical methods were employed in this study, including frequency, mean, standard deviation, Pearson r correlation, and multiple regression to interpret the results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results, analysis, and interpretation of data gathered from the survey questionnaires

distributed to the respondents. It consists of the data findings and their interpretation to answer the research questions of this study.

Frequency distribution of the demographic profile of the respondents

Table 1 presents the proportion of the population according to the demographic profile. In terms of age, the survey results showed that 35.33% of respondents are aged 35-44, 27.53% are aged 25-34, and 16.10% are aged 45-54. This signifies that the respondents are mostly middle-aged individuals.

The results of this study align with previous studies, which have shown higher engagement among older individuals compared to younger ones. Studies have revealed that age affects cooperative engagement. A survey by Malabarbas (2022) highlighted that cooperative membership is appealing to adults, noting that younger individuals can be engaged only on certain occasions, but their engagement can be limited (Ouyang, 2022). This result can also be attributed to the cooperative members’ level of socialization and recreation (Beriales, 2022) and/or their level of satisfaction and experience (Huang et al., 2015). These studies revealed that older individuals joined cooperatives for social benefits, while younger individuals participated due to economic and personal growth.

For the distribution of sex among the respondents, there is little difference in terms of sex, with 51.17% female and 48.83% male. This result can be explained by the study of Ali et al. (2024), which found that women tend to engage in cooperatives more often than men. In contrast, Sujith and Sumalthy (2021) stated that men are more participatory than women. Considering these results, both men and women exhibit a level of engagement that, if not equal, is at least comparable to that of cooperative membership.

As presented in the data, the states with the highest percentage of married individuals are 66.23%, followed by single individuals at 31.43%. This result suggests that a higher proportion of married individuals are involved in cooperatives. This is supported by a study by Beriales (2022), which found that married individuals are more active in cooperative activities, and a study by Malabarbas (2022) that showed married people are more engaged. Financial obligations to their families’ drive married individuals’ engagement in cooperative activities (Ubandona et al., 2021). Moreover, Akinola et al. (2015) also noted that cooperative membership originated from married individuals with large households.  Moreover, single or unmarried individuals may have higher participation rates than married individuals due to fewer social constraints (Ali et al., 2024). Therefore, considering the results, married or unmarried individuals tend to have a closer level of participation in cooperative engagement.

In terms of educational attainment, it indicates that high school graduates have the highest percentage of 31.69%. Next is the college graduate with 30.39%. College-level education comes third with a rate of 28.31%. This result indicates that the respondents in the study are those with higher academic levels. It is posited that individuals with a higher educational background are aware of the benefits of cooperatives (Voung et al., 2021; Manansala & Mendiola, 2022). Additionally, these individuals have a higher level of participation and patronage (Beriales, 2022). This means that being knowledgeable can positively influence member participation in cooperatives.

In terms of monthly income, most respondents have a monthly income of below 10,000, accounting for 57.66%. It is followed by a monthly income of 10,000-20,000 with a rate of 29.35%. This means that a higher proportion of respondents are low-income earners. This result contradicts the study by Oluyombo (2016), which stated that people with higher incomes tend to participate in cooperatives. It is also reported that low-income earners may be less likely to participate (Lilian, 2024). Furthermore, it is revealed that being financially able can influence participation (Beriales, 2022) and may affect their engagement level (Malabarbas et al., 2022).

Regarding the years of membership, the majority of respondents (75.33%) came from those with 1-3 years of membership, followed by those with 4-6 years of membership, with a distribution of 13.25%. This suggests that more respondents are members with shorter membership durations. This result is explained by Autry’s (2019) study, which suggests that individuals who stay longer tend to have higher engagement and are more likely to continue participating. Rossell (n. d.) also revealed that there is a tendency for new members to cancel participation within three (3) months of membership. Additionally, membership assurance can be renewed periodically over the years. This is because they will form emotional attachments and experience higher satisfaction levels, which will positively impact engagement (Beriales, 2022).

Table 1. Frequency distribution of the demographic profile

Summary of Organizational Commitment

As presented in Table 2, the variable organizational commitment is rated “mostly committed” with an overall mean of (M = 4.14). Among the aspects of organizational commitment, the highest is managerial ability, rated as mostly committed through the overall mean of (M = 4.23). This is followed by understanding with a mean (M = 4.17). This result means that respondents trusted the management for their skills, resources, and processes. It is believed to be consistent and has a strong evaluation. It also demonstrates that members possess a profound understanding of the roles and responsibilities within a cooperative environment.

According to Alshaar et al. (2024), managerial ability has a positive influence on cooperative performance. This means that outstanding managerial skills and leadership can significantly impact the success of cooperatives, as they entail increased member engagement (Githinji, 2022). Moreover, the management’s ability to innovate can influence the cooperative. As stated by Muryani et al. (2021), it is becoming satisfactory through cooperative innovation in management.

In addition, the primary factor in member engagement is the level of understanding of cooperative goals and objectives (Anania, 2021). In contrast, if members feel distrust and lack information about cooperatives, this will result in a lack of willingness to participate (Avila et al., 2025). It demonstrates that members possess a profound understanding of the roles and responsibilities within a cooperative environment.

Among the lowest means are the perceived value, with a mean of (M = 4.15), and decision-making involvement, with a mean of (M = 4.01).  This result indicates that respondents display reservations about evaluation. This might relate to the respondent’s perception of the less valued contributions. On the other hand, decision-making involvement as the lowest means that, although there is some commitment, member participation in decision-making processes is limited. This also means that members’ choices are sometimes questioned or seen as ineffective in strategic decisions. Members’ satisfaction with cooperatives is attributed to the perceived value of the benefits (Figuereido & Franco, 2018). In contrast, perceiving little value will disengage members, who will utilize cooperatives only for the sake of opportunity and not as active members (Lilian, 2024).

Additionally, the effectiveness of decision-making is crucial for a cooperative. As stated by Guarin (2019), members’ involvement in decision-making affects the level of member engagement. It is believed that cooperatives are for their members; therefore, cooperatives should consider that members hold their institution in high regard (Rwekaza & Anania, 2018). Therefore, being involved means higher engagement. In contrast, members will have lower participation and engagement in decision-making if they have lower commitment and less social involvement (Bunders, 2023).

Table 2. Summary of Organizational Commitment

Summary of Societal Influence

As presented in Table 3, the variable societal influence is rated “mostly influenced” with an overall mean of (M = 4.14). Among the aspects of societal influence, the highest is economic features, rated as mostly influenced through the overall mean of (M = 4.12). This is followed by socio-cultural beliefs with a mean (M = 4.02). This result suggests that economic factors can have a substantial impact on the societal influence of cooperative members.

According to Aju and Ajeosun (2021), an individual’s engagement can be influenced by social, legal, economic, and cultural factors. Additionally, having social connections and economic activities means increased engagement (Boadu et al., 2024). Moreover, it is the economic impacts within the cooperative that will contribute to the economic development of a cooperative member as most influential factor in shaping cooperative engagement Velmonte, 2020).

On the other hand, government support, with a mean of (M=3.94), comes as the lowest, and next is laws and regulations with a mean of (M = 4.01). This result shows that respondents perceive support from the government policies and programs. In addition, although somewhat influenced, the cooperative has an impact on the level of influence regarding laws and regulations. This result is supported by Micovic (2017), who states that the legal framework for cooperatives, covering membership, decision-making, and distribution, directs their operations. If there are legal frameworks that are acceptable, then there is likely more engagement in cooperatives (Lilian, 2024).

Table 3. Summary of Societal Influence

Member Engagement

Table 4 presents the level of member engagement in cooperative, and it is rated as “mostly engaged” with a mean of (M = 3.68). Among the indicators of member engagement, the highest is the statement “I am satisfied with the communication between the cooperative and its members,” rated as mainly engaged through the mean of (M = 3.91). The statement follows it, “I believe that my involvement positively impacts the success of the cooperative,” with a mean of (M = 3.87). This result suggests that engagement is a key factor in the success of a cooperative, driven by active involvement and the visibility of positive communication within the cooperative.

On the other hand, the statement “I actively seek opportunities to volunteer or help within the cooperative” with a mean of (M = 3.41) comes in as the lowest, indicating “engaged.” Next to it is the indicator “I take part in the decision-making process within the cooperative,” with a mean of (M = 3.45). It means that respondents’ level of engagement is mainly affected by their participation in decision-making and the opportunity to volunteer in cooperatives. This is supported by the study of Do (2020), which revealed that member engagement can arise from cooperative programs, especially those that require attendance. This means that members are satisfied with the communication channels and perceive their involvement as having a positive impact on the cooperatives. In a study by Adnan et al. (2024), it was mentioned that engagement is connected to satisfaction, participation, and patronage.

Moreover, engagement involves an understanding of the cooperative responsibilities (Beriales, 2022). Additionally, being involved and open about the reason for involvement, as well as the perception of acceptance (Byrne, 2023), and having awareness and understanding of the core principles and cooperative service leads to engagement (Muryani et al., 2022). The results of these studies support the findings of this research, specifically about being proactive in seeking opportunities to help and participating in decision-making.  This is supported by the study of Hao et al. (2024), which suggests that building trust, having good leaders who welcome input, and considering social pressures can all affect commitment.

Table 4. Member Engagement

Significant difference on member engagement when respondents are grouped according to profile

The table shows that there is no significant difference in member engagement when respondents are grouped by age, as indicated by a p-value greater than 0.05 (P = 0.570).  This result indicates that there is no significant variation in member engagement across age groups. It means that age does not influence how members participate within the cooperatives.  As presented in the study of Manansala and Mendiola (2024), the effect of age on engagement showed no difference. Study findings have shown that age alone cannot determine member engagement; rather, it may depend on factors such as communication, knowledge, and governance.

It also shows a significant difference in member engagement when respondents are grouped by sex, as indicated by the p-value (P = 0.050). It shows a statistically significant difference in member engagement, although significant, it is considered small in terms of the effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.201). This result can be unlikely due to random chance. It also presents a magnitude aligning with Cohen’s guideline of a “small” effect (≥0.2) (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012).

Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference in member engagement when respondents are grouped by marital status, as indicated by the p-value (P = 0.024). This suggests that the engagement level varies by marital status.  According to Ali et al. (2024), despite some results showing the statistical significance of marital status, it is believed to have a minimal impact on an individual’s ability to engage in cooperatives. Tak (2017) also revealed evidence suggesting that the effect size and practical importance of marital status are not always strong and are not consistently considered a driver of engagement.

In terms of educational attainment, there is no significant difference in member engagement, as indicated by a p-value greater than 0.05 (P = 0.238). This result suggests that the observed differences in education levels may be due to chance and not an actual effect on member engagement. This also suggests that education alone may not be a strong differentiator or predictor of engagement among cooperative members (Manansala & Mendiola, 2024).

There is a significant difference in member engagement is observed when respondents are grouped by monthly income, as indicated by a p-value of greater than 0.05 (P = 0.047). Monthly income influences member engagement in cooperatives, with statistically significant differences in participation levels observed between high- and low-income groups. According to the Cooperative Development Authority in the Philippines, cooperative members reported higher incomes, which enhanced their involvement in decision-making and fostered a deeper engagement with the cooperatives. However, there is also evidence that low-income earners prioritize immediate financial benefits over long-term engagement. Thus, it was revealed that higher-income members tend to invest more in participation (Wu et al., 2023).

Lastly, there is no significant difference in member engagement when respondents are grouped according to years of membership, as indicated by a p-value greater than 0.05 P = 0.172). This result signifies that while years of membership may slightly increase engagement, it is not strong enough to reach significance (Malik et al., 2025). Moreover, a study by Parvizi (2016) found that although membership duration may have a positive relationship with participation, indicating that more extended membership may increase engagement, it is not strong enough to reach a point of significance.

Table 5. Significant difference on member engagement according to demographic

Correlation Analysis between Organizational Commitment, Societal Influence and Member engagement

The correlation between organizational commitment and member engagement showed a moderate, positive, and highly statistically significant relationship. This means that if one variable increases, the other variable also increases in proportion. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected.

A correlation coefficient of 0.469 means that a higher organizational commitment is moderately associated with higher member engagement. This signifies that when a member feels more loyal, emotionally attached, and dedicated to the cooperative, they are more likely to participate actively in cooperative activities. The p-value of (P = 0.000) showed that the relationship is statistically robust and provides strong support for the connection between organizational commitment and member engagement.

This is supported by a study in Davao Oriental, which found that a high level of organizational commitment reflects members’ emotional attachment and willingness to exert effort in the success of cooperatives. This is attributed to the member’s active involvement and participation in engaging more in cooperative activities (Lantayona et al., 2023). Additionally, Beriales (2022) revealed in a study that members’ involvement fosters organizational commitment, which in turn increases their engagement and motivation. It means that a stronger attachment developed through participation leads to a more substantial commitment.

Moreover, the correlation between societal influence and member engagement revealed a strong, positive, and highly statistically significant relationship. This means that greater societal influence is firmly attributed to stronger member engagement in cooperatives. This means that as societal influences, such as norms, networks, and expectations, increase, so does member engagement.

A correlation coefficient of 0.550 shows that a higher societal influence is strongly associated with higher member engagement. The p-value of (P = 0.000) which is extremely small, indicates that the relationship is statistically robust and provides strong support for the connection between societal influence and member engagement.

The results of this study are underpinned by the study of Beriales (2022), which showed that members whose family, peers, and traditions have more influence are more participatory in active cooperative involvement and governance. Moreover, Tak (2017) stated that associations with norms are linked to engagement and affiliation with cooperative communities. Additionally, Beriales (2022) revealed that trust in cooperative leadership and a sense of belonging, often shaped by societal influence, motivate individuals to engage more actively in cooperatives.

Furthermore, Manansala and Mendiola (2024) suggested that awareness of cooperatives through social connections significantly contributes to higher membership and engagement. This indicates a stronger connection between societal influence and cooperative participation.

Table 6. Correlation analysis of Organizational Commitment, Societal Influence, and member engagement

Dependent variable: Member Engagement

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Regression analysis of Organizational Commitment, Societal Influence, and Member Engagement

Table 21 shows a high F-value of 23.245, indicating that the regression model explains a significant amount of variance in member engagement. This means that the predictors collectively have a substantial effect on the outcome. In addition, the p-value (P 0.000) is extremely small, indicating that the probability of the observations is practically zero. This means that the regression model is highly statistically significant. The predictors in the model significantly explain the variation in member engagement. Thus, the null hypothesis that no predictor fits the data is rejected.

According to Muryani et al. (2022), there is a significant effect of member engagement and participation on performance, which explains the outcome of member engagement. Additionally, there is significance in social capital, member participation, and service, all of which affect cooperatives. The result showed a highly significant explanation of the regression model’s predictive power (Mas’uda et al., 2023).

Moreover, a study on North Sumatra reported a strong model fit with a significant F-test. This indicates that indicators such as motivation, quality of service, and education have a significant impact on member participation, demonstrating that multiple predictors collectively explain the variance in participation (Ernita et al., 2014). Furthermore, Beriales (2022) resulted in a moderate positive correlation between member engagement, participation, and satisfaction. This means that the regression analysis supported that participation and satisfaction significantly predict the engagement level among cooperatives.

Among the independent variables, two factors are significant predictors of member engagement: decision-making involvement and laws and regulations. Additionally, two variables are marginally significant, suggesting potential importance in larger samples. The remaining variables —understanding, perceived value, socio-cultural beliefs, and economic features — were not statistically significant in this model.

The positive beta coefficient for decision-making involvement (β = 0.236) indicates that greater member involvement in the decision-making process significantly increases member engagement. The p-value of (P = 0.001) confirms that this effect is statistically significant. This means that when members have a strong voice and participate actively, their engagement level will rise.

As presented in the study by Manansala and Mendiola (2024), cooperative groups demonstrated democratic member control, which means that their participation in decision-making is key to perceived engagement and ownership. Another study by Beriales (2022) also highlighted that members’ participation in governance and decision-making fosters a sense of belonging and responsibility that enhances a member’s engagement and loyalty. In addition, Faustin et al. (2024) revealed that cooperative member engagement improves when members feel that their input influences cooperative policies and activities.

The coefficient (β = 0.198) indicates that awareness and adherence to cooperative rules have a positive relationship with member engagement.  The p-value (P = 0.003) indicates that the relationship is statistically significant. This implies that when members understand and trust the legal framework governing cooperative practices, they are more likely to engage.

This is supported by the study by Kharel (2024), which attests that legal frameworks provide legitimacy and structure for cooperatives, thereby building member confidence and encouraging participation. Additionally, Manansala and Mendiola (2024) highlighted that awareness of cooperative rights and regulations increases member trust and knowledge, which can be linked to higher engagement and a greater likelihood of membership. Moreover, Sotor (2025) emphasized that clear laws and regulations help protect members’ interests and foster a cooperative environment conducive to active engagement.

The aspect of government support (β = 0.119) suggests that this variable tends to increase member engagement; however, the p-value (P = 0.061) is slightly above the conventional 0.05, indicating that this effect is not statistically significant, although it is marginally close. This suggests that government support may have a positive impact on engagement; however, the evidence in the model is insufficient to confirm this.

This is supported by the study of Byrne et al. (2023), which mentions that government support in cooperative play plays a role in growth and member participation. However, its direct effect on engagement may vary.

The variable managerial ability has a (β = -0.137), indicating a higher tendency for higher managerial ability to be associated with lower member engagement. However, with a p-value of (P = 0.077), this effect is considered not statistically significant. This negative sign may suggest a strong managerial control or sense of professionalism, which can reduce members’ participation when they feel less involved or overshadowed by management. Member engagement can be influenced by managerial ability, depending on the leadership style and inclusiveness, with studies noting the possible adverse effect when management overshadows member control (Tak, 2017).

The remaining independent variables, including understanding (β = 0.041, P = 0.525), perceived value (β = 0.072, P = 0.389), socio-cultural beliefs (β = 0.044, P = 0.524), and economic features (β = 0.109, P = 0.126), are considered non-significant predictors. The non-significant p-values, which are higher than 0.05, indicate that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that these variables significantly predict member engagement. The beta coefficients also showed a non-significant direction, which means their impact is uncertain or negligible.

The results showed that changes in these variables are not associated with member engagement. According to Beriales (2022), a key factor in member engagement is commitment rather than financial or perceived value. Moreover, Olaoye et al. (2024) stated that socio-demographic and cultural factors have a weak effect on cooperative participation, indicating that these variables may not always be strong predictors of engagement. Furthermore, Kharel (2024) found that variables such as participation, legitimacy, and transparency have a positive effect on cooperative behavior, although the effect is not statistically significant. This can explain the study’s result, indicating that the factors of understanding, perceived value, socio-cultural beliefs, and economic features may not translate into measurable impacts. To sum up, these variables do not strongly predict engagement in all contexts.

Table 7. Multiple Linear Regression analysis showing the level of effect of organizational commitment and societal influence on member engagement

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that member engagement within the organization is influenced more by organizational and societal factors than by demographic characteristics. Its findings suggest that some demographic characteristics have a limited influence. The targeted strategies, which consider sex, marital status, and monthly income, may be effective in enhancing member engagement within cooperatives.

The significance of the results indicates that most demographic factors, including age, educational attainment, and years of membership, do not have a significant impact on member engagement. This means that member engagement is consistent across all age groups, educational levels, and membership lengths. Furthermore, demographic characteristics are not generally strong determinants of member engagement. Other factors must be considered when evaluating the level of member engagement.

The correlation analysis provides insight into the dynamics of the independent and dependent variables. The relationships are highly statistically significant, indicating that as organizational commitment and societal influence increase, so does member engagement. Organizational commitment can also be measured by societal influence. Therefore, the variables in this study emphasize collinearity.

Regression analysis further clarifies the predictors of member engagement. Among the predictors, decision-making involvement and laws and regulations emerge as significant factors. Government support and managerial ability are marginally substantial, suggesting a contribution to member engagement; however, the effects were not strong enough to reach statistical significance.

Based on the conclusions, it is recommended that cooperative officers may involve organizing cultural awareness, and foster an inclusive cooperative community.  The policymakers may strengthen the relationship between the cooperative and government agencies as it is crucial for securing more consistent support, such as funding, training, or policy advocacy. The cooperative members are encouraged to increase understanding to improved value of their involvement. Furthermore, for future researchers to delve deeper into the area for a more comprehensive understanding of the topics not addressed in this research.  They may investigate another variable or factor that influences organizational commitment and engagement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher would like to express sincere appreciation to the all the individuals who contributed and offered their invaluable assistance to complete the thesis writing. Above all, to God, for the strength and wisdom.

REFERENCES

1. 10 key findings about cooperatives and their members in the Philippines. (2022). US Overseas Cooperative Development Council. https://ocdc.coop/news/10-key-findings-about-cooperatives-and-their-members-in-philippines
2. Young people and cooperatives: a new report seek to improve engagement between young people and cooperative movement. (2021). https://ica.coop/en/newsroom/news/young-people-and-cooperatives-new-report-seeks-improve-engagement-between-young
3. Adnan, M., Arman, N., Zanani, w. & Abdullah, Z. (2024). The impact of member participation on cooperative performance: a systematic literature review. Malaysian Journal of Co-operative Studies. https://mcjs-ikMa.com/papers/volume-20/issue-1/the-impact-of-member-participation-on-cooperative-performance-a-systematic-review
4. Aju, S. & Adeosun, T. (2021). Constraints to participation in the management of cooperative societies: insights for women in Awka community. Journal of Enterprising Communities, People, and Places in the Global Economy. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jecpps/jec-08-2020-0146.html
5. Akinola, A., Hehinde, A., Tijani, A., Ayanwale, A., Adesiyan, A., Tanimonure, V., Ogunleye, A. & Ojo, T. (2023). Impact of membership in agricultural cooperatives on yield of smallholder tomato farmers in Nigeris. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 10.1016/j.indic.2023.100313
6. Ali, M., Qianjian, G. & Wenguang, G. (2024). Measuring the impact of cooperative membership on household income: a case study in Zansibar. https://sajems.org/index.php/sajems/article/view/5329/2927
7. Al Shaar, I., Zalloum, N., Khattab, S. & Fayezalfalah, T. (2022). Managerial ability, earnings quality, and future performance. Jordan Journal of Economic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.35516/lles.v9i2.220Autry, A. (2019). What is member engagement (and why your membership growth depends on it). Access Development.
8. Anania, P. (2021). Co-operative Education and Training for Enhanced Good Governance in Co-operatives in Tanzania
9. Avila, EC., Del Rosario, MC., Maleniza, J., Mora, NA., Ogarte, N., Rodriguez, J. & Velasco, CR. (2025). Enhancing farmer engagement in cooperatives: implication of awareness and interest. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.14617242
10. Beriales, MR. (2022). Member engagement and level of satisfaction in a revitalized cooperative enterprise in Iloilo province, Philippines. Journal of Economics, Management & Agricultural Development, 8(1). DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.342301
11. Boadu, C., Koomson, F. & Ntiri, R. (2024). Social and solidarity economy and social inclusion of cooperatives in the Assin Fosu Municipality, Ghana. ScienceDirect. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27094
12. Bunders, D. (July 2024). Silicon law of oligarchy: patterns of member participation in the decision-making of platform cooperatives. Socio-Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwad058
13. Carey, R. (2023). Big association survey reveals member-engagement trends. MeetingsNet. https://speednetworking.com/big-association-survey-reveals-member-engagement-trends/
14. Do, E. (2020). The effect of co-operative member programs on membership engagement and participation: a case study of a Japanese local multipurpose agricultural co-operative with two member types. Journal of Rural Community Studies. https://portail.coop.hec.ca/notice?id=h%3A%3A6fcda7ab-fea7-44b9-86a3-67ed94d8b91e&locale=fr
15. Ernita, F. & Martial T. (2020). Entrepreneurship attitude of managers, member participation, and cooperative performance: evidence from Indonesia. Management Science Letters. Figueiredo, V. & Franco, M. (2018). Factors influencing cooperator satisfaction: a study applied to wine cooperatives in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.177
16. Faustin, M., Ngaruko, D. & Awinia, C. (2024). Influence of cooperative member engagement in improving farm household welfare in tea cooperatives in western province of Rwanda. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.29-Issue6/Ser-1/F2906013239.pdf
17. Feyisa, M. (2022). The role of members’ participation in cooperative success in Ethiopia. International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Sciences. http://www.ijlrhss.com/paper/volume-5-issue-11/9-HSS-1535.pdf
18. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
19. Githinji, S. (2022). Effect of managerial skills on the development of dairy cooperatives in Kiambu county. African Journal of Empirical Research. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajempr/article
20. Huang, C., Zazale, S., Othman, R. & Abdul Aris, N. (2015). The influence of cooperative member’s participation and gender on performance. Journal of Southeast Asian Research. DOI:10.5171/2015.610199
21. Hao, J., Bijiman, J., Hejiman, w. & Gao, M. (2024). The effect of trust and social pressure on member commitment in agricultural cooperatives-evidence from China. Annals of Public and Cooperative economics. 10.1111/apce.12467
22. Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal.
23. Kharel, T. (2024). Impact of key cooperative variables on performance of cooperatives in Nepal. Journal of Research in Education. 10.3126/jore.v1i1.78728
24. Lantayona, J., Managkis, R. & Pingot, L. (2023). The organizational commitment and performance of cooperatives. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education. https://ijariie.com/AdminUploadPdf/THE_ORGANIZATIONAL_COMMITMENT_AND_PERFORMANCE_OFCOOPERATIVES_ijariie21349.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqhBJ7S_trriMN2aMwnBBOcVZYXcBK6w9WJJSYnQYbRFVYbv4cB
25. Lilian, I. (2024). Member engagement and governance practices in credit cooperatives: an investigation of their impact on financial performance in south-south Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Business Management. 10.56201/ijebm.v10.no2.2024.pg193.210
26. Malabarbas, G., Labro, R., Francisco, E., Gallo, N., Bomitivo, J. & Vista, E. (2022). Impact and Satisfaction Levels Among Members of Women Cooperative. International Journal of Applied Business and International Management. 10.32525/ijabim.v7i3.1379
27. Malik, A., Yacob, Y. & Ali, J. (2025). The effects of cooperative brand experience, length of membership and members’ loyalty: a proposed value co-creation behavior conceptual framework. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. DOI: 10.47772/IJIRSS.2025.9010292
28. Manansala LD, Mendiola EB. (2024). Effect of knowledge and awareness on cooperative membership: role of socio-demographic profile in Cavite, Philippines. Jurnal Manajemen & Agribisnis 21(3): 360–373. https://doi.org/10.17358/jma.21.3.360
29. Mas’uda, A., Maghfiroh, F., Yuliana, S. & Azizah, N. (2025). The influence of social capital, member participation and services on the performance of employee cooperatives of the Republic of Indonesia. Entrepreneurship, Economics, and Business International Conference. https://seminar.uad.ac.id/index.php/EEBIC/article/view/12571
30. Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
31. Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organization: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. https://jstor.org/stable/2778293
32. Micovic, M. (January 2017). The legal nature and the framework of cooperative activities. Ekonomika Poljoprivide. 10.5937/ekoPolj1703205M
33. Muryani, E., Gunawan, A. & Yustiyawan, R. (2022). The impact of member participation and innovation ability on the performance of the cooperatives of women’s Kartini in the district of Driyorejo, Gresik regency. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. https://www.jotmi.org/index.php/GT/article/view/3624/1469
34. Qi, F., Wang, W., Wang, M. & Liu, Y. (2022). Effects of positive and negative experience in cooperative behavior: the role of sharedness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9819688/
35. Olaoye, O., Ojebiyi, W. & Adenika, O. (2024). Assessment of socio-demographic predictors of fish farmers’ access to formal credit sources in Ogun west senatorial district, Nigeria. The Philippine Journal of Fisheries. 10.31398/tpjf/31.1.2021-0029
36. Parvizi, M. (2016). Factors affecting member participation in cooperatives of the city of Bushehr. International Journal of Management, Accounting, and Finance. https://www.ijmae.com/article_115285_a36c1e12520f00eda5dc347a9ca57b1c.pdf
37. Rossell, T. (n.d). The psychology of membership engagement. Marketing General Incorporated
38. Rwekaza, G. & Anania, P. (2018). Cooperative decision making structure and its effectiveness in promoting sustainable cooperative otganizations in Tanzania: a case of selected agricultural cooperatives in Shinyanga region. Arts and Social Science Journal. 10.4172/2151-6200.1000320
39. Sotor, E. (2025). Determinants of investment and participation of members in cooperative activities. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability and Excellence. 10.5281/zenodo.15482296
40. Tak, S. (2017). Cooperative membership and community engagement: findings from a Latin American survey. Sociological Forum. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1777&context=hc_pubs
41. Ubandona, G., Umar, N., Abubakar, B., Yusuf, A., Malabe, K. & Adamu, A. (2021). Role of rural cooperatives on agricultural development in Zaria local government area of Kaduna state. Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Environment. https://ajol-file-journals_685_articles_235380_submission_proof_235380-8080-569267-1-10-20221103.pdf
42. Velmonte, G. (2020). Contribution of cooperatives to the economic development. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344382300
43. Vuong, QD, Tran, VTT, Dang, QV & Mai, V. (2021). The impact of access to cooperatives on households’ income. An empirical study in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance. 10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no12.0051
44. Wu, L., Gao, Y., Niu, Z., Fahad, S., Chen, R. & Thi-Lan, H. (2023). A study assessing the impact of income relative deprivation and cooperative membership on rural residents’. PubMed Central. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352771423000149