Value Management: Enterprises’ Interest in Stakeholders and Its Impact on Creating Sustainable Relationships with Suppliers and Buyers

Abstract

The paper aims to identify the connection between the enterprise’s interest in the stakeholders and their mutual relationship. It examines whether stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, needs, and goals influence the enterprise’s decisions in managing sustainable relationships with buyers and suppliers. Additionally, it explores whether the knowledge regarding the stakeholders (such as their needs, opinions, etc.) affects the relationship between the enterprise and the stakeholders. Establishing a good, mutual, long-lasting, and sustainable relationship with stakeholders is an integral part of the value creation process and value management. The study first determines whether enterprises implement value management and then assesses the impact of buyers’ and suppliers’ opinions, priorities, and goals on the decision-making process in building these relationships. It also evaluates the strength of these relationships, where a stronger relationship indicates greater sustainability. The focus is on relationships with suppliers and buyers, with responses collected from 385 Slovak manufacturing enterprises. The analysis of how knowledge of stakeholders’ needs, priorities, and goals impacts relationships with suppliers and buyers was conducted separately using the Shapiro–Wilk test, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and ANOVA.

1. Introduction

The mutual, sustainable relationship between enterprises and their stakeholders is a significant factor in the value-creation process. As part of the research, the paper presents the first phase of the value creation process: fostering interest in stakeholders and encouraging collaboration. A survey conducted in 2023 revealed that approximately 73% of enterprises reported improved trust in more collaborative relationships [1], while 19% of respondents indicated collaboration on sustainability goals and objectives. When building a sustainable relationship with stakeholders, enterprises must make every decision effectively and wisely, considering varying circumstances and possessing adequate knowledge about alternatives and consequences [2]. Flexibility is essential in the decision-making process to respond to market demands. Therefore, managers and owners need a flexible approach, grounded in selected valuable information, to ensure and secure sustainable relationships between enterprises, their buyers, and suppliers. This approach should lead to efficient and sustainable businesses where all stakeholders involved can achieve maximum results with minimal investments [3].

The research aims to demonstrate that an enterprise’s interest in stakeholders (including their opinions, goals, frustrations, and needs) impacts the mutual interactions between the enterprise and its stakeholders (buyers and suppliers).

The main parts of the research are:

• Determining the mutual relationships between the enterprises and their buyers and suppliers.
• Examining an enterprise’s interest in its stakeholders.
• Investing knowledge and usage of value management in managing mutual relationships between the enterprise and its stakeholders.

Understanding stakeholders’ needs, frustrations, and opinions is crucial in the value-creation process. Therefore, knowing and understanding the stakeholders is critical when building long-lasting, mutual, and sustainable relationships. This understanding should positively impact the mutual relationship between businesses (enterprises and their stakeholders).

The research focuses on the following issues:

• Lack of awareness of value management among enterprises.
• Insufficient use of knowledge related to stakeholders (needs, goals, opinions) in the process of managing mutual, sustainable relationships.
• Unidentified connection between the enterprises’ interest in the stakeholders and their mutual relationship level (strength).

The paper is divided into several chapters; the first is an introduction, including a defined research hypothesis. The second chapter provides the theoretical background, while the third chapter describes the methodology and methods used in the paper. The fourth chapter presents research results as a basis for verifying the established hypothesis. This chapter is divided into four sections. The fifth chapter discusses the research issue, and the final chapter presents a conclusion summarizing the findings and outlining future directions.

The research aims to explore the awareness and application of value management (VM) among Slovak enterprises and its impact on building sustainable relationships with suppliers and buyers. Based on these objectives, the study addresses the following research questions:

Q1: Do enterprises in Slovakia have an awareness of value management?

Q2: Do enterprises in Slovakia use value management to manage the process of building mutual, sustainable relationships between enterprises and their stakeholders?

Q3: Do the opinions, needs, priorities, and goals of buyers and suppliers impact the enterprises’ decisions that concern given stakeholders?

Q4: Are enterprises generally satisfied with their relationships with their suppliers and buyers?

Based on these research questions the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis: 

Interest in the stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, and goals (suppliers and buyers) improves the enterprise’s relationship with these stakeholders.

By addressing these questions and testing the hypothesis, the paper aims to provide valuable insights into the role of VM in enhancing stakeholder relationships and offer practical recommendations for enterprises to improve their stakeholder engagement strategies.

The research explores the extent to which Slovak enterprises in the manufacturing sector are aware of and use value management (VM) in managing stakeholder relationships. By examining a diverse sample of enterprises within this sector, the study seeks to identify gaps in VM awareness and application and provide practical insights for enhancing stakeholder relationships.

The paper also addresses a gap in the literature that has not sufficiently focused on the initial stages of building long-lasting, good, mutual, and sustainable relationships between enterprises and their stakeholders. The first step in building any relationship is to show interest in the other party and then to collaborate.

2. Literature Review

Value can generally be defined as the ability to satisfy a need or provide a benefit to another party. The topic of value management is currently a significant area in business management and can be classified as one of the new areas of general management. It is an evolving paradigm that aims to continuously increase value for all stakeholders [4,5]. It involves organizing a set of interrelated activities that create value by producing products or providing services. The use of the value chain in the enterprise is oriented towards integrating communication and improving cooperation among various members, with an emphasis on achieving higher goals such as reducing lead times, reducing inventory, and enhancing customer satisfaction [6,7,8].

Most of the literature sources associate value management with project management, particularly in the construction sector. Authors in this field define value management as a tool for improving project quality, maximizing projects’ functional value, and reducing costs [9]. Other authors add that it enhances cost-effectiveness while maintaining the required level of performance [10,11,12,13].

From the perspective of value management, Besliu defined enterprise value management as a method involving a cyclical and continuous process of strategic and operational decisions across all management levels. He describes value management as a set of actions and decisions aimed at altering the current value of the enterprise. Authors’ interpretations of enterprise value vary; some emphasize financial indicators, highlighting clear financial value [10,14,15]. Conversely, enterprise value can be understood in non-financial terms, particularly when building sustainable relationships with various stakeholders, which can generate synergies in the future. Concerning stakeholders, Haksever divided value creation for buyers and suppliers into three primary directions: the financial direction, which generates benefits with short-term impact; the non-financial direction, which has no immediate impact but the potential for future benefits; and the time dimension, which relates to the speed of access to benefits and time savings [16].

Hassan notes that businesses often do not understand the characteristics of stakeholder value, which can be defined at four basic levels:

-

Stakeholder interdependence, where one stakeholder’s value increases depending on another. For instance, customer satisfaction can impact employees, as sales revenue can fund employee training.

-

Mixed tangibility of value, which can be tangible or intangible. The tangible nature of value can be described as the possibility of easy measurability through concrete indicators. Most often, this is financial value (e.g., dividends). Intangible value is more difficult to measure and involves other stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc.

-

The time dimension of value may change over a given period, e.g., in terms of customer preferences, employee satisfaction, and supply chain.

-

The intensity of commitment is primarily concerned with strategic management. When setting strategic objectives, the interests of all stakeholders should be considered, aiming for a win–win for all [17,18].

Freeman defines a stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the success of an enterprise [19]. He also outlined several fundamental principles for stakeholder functioning. These include:

• Temporal dependence of stakeholders.
• Real personal behind stakeholders.
• Addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders simultaneously when solving problems.
• Intense communication with stakeholders.
• Voluntary management of stakeholders without the involvement of third parties.
• Generalization of the marketing approach.
• Focus on supporting individual stakeholders.
• Engaging in dialogue with primary and secondary stakeholders.
• Monitoring and adjusting processes to support relationships with stakeholders.
• Enterprises actions oriented towards fulfilling commitments to individual stakeholders.

The stakeholder theory itself can be seen as both a managerial approach and a corporate governance technique [20]. Within stakeholder management theory, stakeholders can be categorized from various perspectives. This includes a view of voluntary and involuntary stakeholders, or primary and secondary stakeholders, which might distinguish between owners, employees, and customers [19]. Bridoux notes that new models of collaboration in stakeholder management also alter strategic management models themselves [21]. In the recommendations of new strategic models, there is an emphasis on the continuous involvement of stakeholders, which improves the understanding of the external environment as well as communication [22,23,24]. Khojastehpour adds that the relationship between stakeholder management and value creation also includes social responsibility. He points out that enterprises must create value for stakeholders such as employees, financiers, customers, and suppliers, while also considering environmental issues [25,26,27,28]. Adomako, in his publication on stakeholder management in relation to social responsibility, explained that the relationship between value creation, stakeholder management, and social responsibility needs to be developed to ensure the creation of added value. Sustainability is therefore an important element in value creation, even for two stakeholders, such as customers and suppliers [29].

The relationship between supply chain and value management involves a detailed examination of suppliers’ processes and overall outputs [30]. Proper identification of process areas can create scope for value enhancement, such as renegotiation of contracts, using alternative materials or services, and exploring additional collaboration opportunities. Several different benefits can be identified within this chain, including [31,32,33]:

-

Opportunities for process optimization, especially with the ability to detect inefficiencies. This part may include adjusting logistics parameters, optimizing inventory levels, and enhancing the supply and customer chain.

-

Improving risk management, which contributes to stability and continuity of supply. Identifying weaknesses or bottlenecks is crucial, especially in collaborative enterprises.

-

Promoting social responsibility and sustainability, which includes identifying further opportunities beyond basic cooperation parameters. Corporate social responsibility (CSR), based on three pillars, allows businesses to address social and environmental impacts alongside economic considerations. CSR within the supply and buyer chain is a vital aspect of value creation, enhancing the sustainability of relationships and reputation among partners.

The format of cooperation at the supplier and buyer level influences the strategic decisions within the enterprise. Therefore, establishing a strong relationship at this level is crucial for strategic management [30,34]. Breuer emphasized that value creation among all stakeholders (such as buyers and suppliers), not just shareholders, is important. This perspective allows enterprises to focus on ecological and sustainable development, highlighting stakeholder value management as essential for business success [35,36].

Strack described value management from human resources, customer, and supplier perspectives. In the concept of supplynomics, he emphasized assessing and benchmarking the value generated by individual suppliers or products. Value can thus be created by enhancing the added value per supplier, such as by reducing average costs (e.g., logistics and warehousing), or by expanding the supplier base. Stack demonstrated that value could be quantified financially through selected indicators [37]. Defining value at the level of supplier–customer relationships can only be generated through the formation of partnerships. In addition to controlling expression through added value, it is also possible to point to other benefits of partnerships in general, which can be described as “soft” value. These are, for example, other benefits such as improved business performance, access to better technology, improved product quality, reduced shipments, and overall greater flexibility in the markets. Thus, investing in value creation within supplier–customer relationships is essential, as these benefits lead to competitive advantages and a stronger market position [38,39,40].

Focusing on value-creation processes is crucial for enterprises to build and maintain sustainable relationships [41,42,43]. The value-creation process and relationship building are closely linked. While some studies emphasize the importance of these topics, they often do not highlight the connection between them. The research aims to determine whether enterprises are interested in their stakeholders and whether the information obtained impacts the process of managing mutual, sustainable relationships between the enterprise and its buyers and suppliers.

Value management and sustainability are closely related concepts, often seen as interconnected. Sustainability can be explained through various definitions. One of the earliest perspectives on sustainability focuses on the ability to produce goods and offer services without using irreplaceable resources and without harming the environment [44]. However, the term quickly expanded in the business sphere to include other meanings, such as sustainable finance, sustainable society, and sustainable business, among others. The foundation is formed by the so-called pillars of sustainability, which are classified into three categories: environmental, social, and economic. The term “sustainable development” is also commonly associated with sustainability. The European Commission defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This concept encompasses environmental considerations but extends much further. A broader interpretation of the term can be defined through established sustainability goals. The Commission’s Agenda 2030 outlines 17 sustainability goals divided into 6 groups: green deal, economy that works for people, Europe fit for the digital age, European way of life, stronger Europe in the world, and European democracy. This indicates not only environmental goals but also other areas such as gender equality, education, and partnership creation [45]. In this context, sustainability can be delineated at the level of supplier–buyer relationships, primarily focusing on promoting ethical business practices, minimizing environmental impacts, and economic efficiency [46].

The 17th goal set by the European Commission is aimed at promoting partnerships among businesses and organizations, with the objective of achieving higher interests beyond profit—such as environmental and social factors. A significant overlap between value management and sustainability lies in the pursuit of creating long-term value. This collaboration, with a focus on sustainable development, has positive impacts on reputation management, competitive advantage, and business prosperity. The intersection of these concepts is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Material and Methods

The paper aims to explore the connection between the enterprise’s interest in its stakeholders and the sustainability of those relationships. Additionally, it investigates how the knowledge and application of value management influence the process of establishing mutual, sustainable relationships between enterprises and their stakeholders, particularly buyers and suppliers.

The research specifically focuses on business-to-business (B2B) interactions. This focus is crucial as the study examines relationships between enterprises and their suppliers and buyers, rather than with the final customer. Therefore, selecting enterprises involved with suppliers and buyers (business entities rather than individual consumers) was essential for obtaining pertinent data. For this purpose, we selected enterprises that meet the specified criteria.

The research within the paper utilized structured questionnaires and online interviews. The survey employed an online structured questionnaire created in Google Forms, which was distributed to 10,200 enterprises selected based on criteria related to having suppliers and buyers (B2B). The survey questions have been selected and included in Appendix A. The sample included small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from the manufacturing sector, with a focus on geographical representation by incorporating enterprises from different regions within Slovakia. This approach was designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of value management (VM) practices across the Slovak business environment. Of these 10,200 enterprises, 412 respondents participated in the survey (4.12%). The reasons for this lack of engagement are unclear, with potential contributing factors including a lack of time, staff shortages, disinterest in the issue, emails potentially being diverted to spam, or failure to meet the deadline. The respondents were primarily managers or owners of manufacturing enterprises in Slovakia. After data cleaning, responses from 385 participants (3.77%) were used for analysis. The questions focused on knowledge and utilization of value management, the strength of relationships between enterprises and their buyers and suppliers, and the interest in understanding suppliers’ and buyers’ opinions, attitudes, goals, and needs.

The data collection process involved a clear explanation of the survey’s purpose, the nature of data collection, and how the data would be used. Respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary. To ensure data privacy and participant anonymity, measures were implemented to protect sensitive information. All responses were anonymized to prevent the identification of individual participants from the collected data. Additionally, the data were stored securely and accessed only by authorized personnel involved in the analysis.

Enterprises included in the study were those legally registered and operating as manufacturing enterprises in Slovakia. They were classified as small or medium-sized based on the number of employees and annual turnover. Additionally, these enterprises had to be willing to participate in the survey, providing information on their value management and stakeholder relationship practices. The study excluded enterprises that declined to participate in the survey or provided incomplete or inconsistent responses.

To mitigate potential biases, several measures were taken. Enterprises were randomly selected within the defined criteria to participate in the survey, avoiding selection bias. Efforts were made to achieve a high response rate by sending follow-up reminders. The anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents were ensured to encourage honest and accurate responses. Additionally, a pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted with a small group of manufacturing enterprises to identify and address any issues related to question clarity and survey design.

In addition to the survey, interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams with the managers and owners of 10 production enterprises familiar with VM and its principles. However, only 8 out of these 10 enterprises reported practical use of VM. During the interviews, these enterprises provided insights into their implementation of VM and their interactions with buyers and suppliers.

Respondents were asked whether the information regarding their suppliers’ and buyers’ goals, needs, and priorities impacted the decisions related to their stakeholders. Furthermore, they were asked whether they know and use value management to manage stakeholder relationships.

The mutual relationship between the enterprise and its buyers and suppliers (assessed separately) was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents “completely unsatisfied”, 2 indicates “more unsatisfied than satisfied”, 3 signifies “neutral”, 4 represents “more satisfied than unsatisfied” and 5 indicates “completely satisfied”.

The calculation of the recommended research sample was calculated using the following mathematical relationships:

x = Z(c/100)2r(100 − r)

n = N x/((N − 1)E2 + x)

E = √[(N − n)x/n(N − 1)]

where the meanings of the mathematical indicators are as follows:

-

n—represents the sample size,

-

E—represents the limit of permissible error,

-

N—represents the size of the base file,

-

R—represents the fraction of answers we are interested in,

-

Z(c/100)—represents the critical value for the confidence level c.

For the calculation of the recommended sample size, a confidence interval of 95% was set, and the size of the base set was 81,149 (the number of manufacturing enterprises in Slovakia). The recommended minimum research sample size was 383 respondents. The actual number of responses used in the survey was 385.

By focusing on small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises and employing a random sampling technique, the sample is representative of the broader population of similar enterprises in Slovakia. This focused approach ensures that the findings are relevant and can be generalized to the broader population of small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in Slovakia with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Descriptive statistics (primarily means and frequencies) are employed to evaluate other pertinent data in alignment with the paper’s objectives. Additionally, image processing techniques and data presentation through graphs and tables are utilized to enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of the analyzed data.

Since hypothesis testing involves an ordinal variable, Spearman’s correlation coefficient is used to determine the dependence between the variables [47]. Before using the given test, a normality test, specifically the Shapiro–Wilk test, was necessary. The Shapiro–Wilk test, one of the most powerful normality tests, assesses whether a sample comes from a normally distributed population. The chi-square test is used to evaluate the significance, and the ANOVA test, employing one factor, is used to confirm the results of the hypothesis. The hypothesis testing is conducted separately for suppliers and buyers [47,48,49,50]. All calculations were performed using the statistical program JASP.

However, these methods have inherent limitations that must be considered. Although Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicated a significant positive relationship between enterprises’ interest in stakeholder opinions and the quality of their relationships with buyers and suppliers, this does not confirm a direct causal effect. While ANOVA is effective for comparing group means, it relies on certain assumptions, such as homogeneity of variances and normally distributed residuals. Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure these assumptions were reasonably met; however, any deviation could influence the results. The Shapiro–Wilk test, while useful for testing normality, can be sensitive to sample size; with a large sample, even minor deviations from normality can appear significant. Since the data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric methods like Spearman’s correlation were used to address this issue.

To mitigate these challenges, the study incorporated a random selection of participants, ensured high response rates through follow-up reminders, and maintained anonymity and confidentiality to promote honest responses. Additionally, pilot testing of the survey instrument was carried out to refine question clarity and survey design. These methodological steps aimed to enhance the reliability of the findings while acknowledging the limitations of the statistical methods employed.

4. Results

4.1. Awareness and Usage of Value Management

In the initial phase, the enterprises were asked whether they were familiar with value management and its application in stakeholder relationship management. Two hundred thirty-eight respondents (61.82%) could not define value management. On the other hand, 147 respondents (38.18%) reported knowledge of value management (VM) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of respondents familiar with VM into those who use VM to manage relationships with buyers and suppliers and those who do not. Out of the total respondents (385), 102 (26%) enterprises understand and actively use value management, while 45 (12%) comprehend the concept but do not employ it in stakeholder relationships.

4.2. The Enterprise’s Relationship with Its Buyers and Suppliers

The enterprise’s goals in managing sustainable relationships with suppliers and buyers and their fulfillment largely depend on its relationship with these stakeholders. At the same time, the relationship with stakeholders depends on how the enterprise approaches them, communicates with them, and what values it creates. As part of the research, enterprises were supposed to determine the level of their relationship with suppliers and buyers on a scale from 1 to 5. Enterprises expressed their relationship separately to suppliers and separately to buyers.

One hundred and four (27.01%) of enterprises reported being completely satisfied with their relationships with suppliers, while a majority of enterprises (54.03%; 208) expressed more satisfaction than dissatisfaction, as illustrated in Figure 3. However, 72.99% (281) of enterprises identified opportunities for improvement in the given relationships. In the case of buyers, the numbers are similar. One hundred and nineteen (30.91%) respondents reported complete satisfaction with buyer relationships. Most enterprises have more satisfactory than unsatisfactory relationships with their buyers (57.66%; 222). Nonetheless, 69.09% (266) of enterprises identified potential for enhancing their relationships with buyers (Figure 3).

An essential attribute for improving the relationship with suppliers and buyers and ensuring its sustainability is whether and how the enterprises are satisfied with their relationship. Suppose enterprises are satisfied and see no reason to improve the given relationship. In that case, they will not even think on their own about how to improve this relationship, how to find out their stakeholders’ needs, opinions, and goals, and how to provide them with values. Only after they realize that a problem needs to be solved and that a good relationship, loyalty, and trust among these stakeholders can help solve the issue will the enterprises start thinking about how to improve these relationships. Figure 4 expresses the enterprises’ satisfaction with their buyers’ and suppliers’ relationships.

4.3. Impact of Obtained Information

Enterprises try to be supportive to ensure sustainable, long-term relationships with suppliers and buyers. If enterprises get information regarding stakeholders’ needs, frustrations, goals, and opinions, they should use it to build and maintain sustainable, mutual relationships.

However, not all enterprises that obtain such information use it in the value-creation process. Eighty-six percent of respondents who are interested in the goals and opinions of their stakeholders also use this information, which consequently impacts their decisions concerning the given stakeholders. On the other hand, for up to 14% of respondents, even if they have information regarding the stakeholders’ needs, frustrations, and goals, this information has no impact on their decisions concerning their buyers and suppliers (see Figure 5).

4.4. Testing the Hypothesis

Through the given hypothesis, it was tested whether the interest in stakeholders (buyers and suppliers) enhances the enterprise’s relationship with them. As part of the questionnaire survey, enterprises had to classify the level of their relationship with suppliers and buyers and whether their business partners’ opinions, priorities, and goals impact the enterprise’s decisions in managing relations with the given stakeholders.

H0: 

Interest in stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, and goals (buyers and suppliers) does not affect the enterprise’s relationship with its suppliers and buyers.

H1: 

Interest in stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, and goals (buyers and suppliers) improves the enterprise’s relationship with its suppliers and buyers.

Table 1. Shapiro–Wilk normality test for interest in the opinions, priorities, and goals of stakeholders (buyers and suppliers) and the enterprise’s relationship with its buyers and suppliers.

Normality Test (Shapiro–Wilk)
	W	p
Interest in opinions, priorities and goals	0.412	<0.001
Relationship (buyers)	0.823	<0.001
Interest in opinions, priorities and goals	0.404	<0.001
Relationship (suppliers)	0.841	<0.001

Note: Significant results indicate deviation from ordinary.

presents the results of the normality test. Since the W value is in all cases lower than 1 (W ≤ 1) and, at the same time, the p value is in all cases lower than 0.05, it can be concluded that the variables do not follow a normal distribution. This significant result allows us to proceed with evaluating the hypothesis using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Based on the data from

Table 2. Spearman´s correlation coefficient for interest in the opinions, priorities, and goals of stakeholders (buyers and suppliers) and the enterprise’s relationship with its buyers and suppliers.

Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient
			n	Spearman’s rho	p
Interest in priorities, opinions, goals	-	Relationship (buyer)	385	0.586	<0.001
Interest in priorities, opinions, goals	-	Relationship (supplier)	385	0.464	<0.001

, we can state that there is a significant positive correlation between the enterprise’s interest in buyers and suppliers and the enterprise’s relationship with them, as rs > 0, p < 0.05, and that with the number of respondents n = 385. Based on the above, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1).

The ANOVA test with one factor also supports the given result. As shown in

Table 3. ANOVA test with one factor for interest in the opinions, priorities, and goals of stakeholders (buyers and suppliers) and the enterprise’s relationship with its buyers and suppliers.

ANOVA Relationship (Buyer)
Cases	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p
Interest in opinions, priorities and goals	99.030	1	99.030	274.980	<0.001
Residuals	137.931	385	0.360
ANOVA Relationship (Suppliers)
Cases	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p
Interest in opinions, priorities, and goals	77.757	1	77.757	136.063	<0.001
Residuals	218.876	385	0.571

, with an F-value significantly different from 1 and p < 0.05 at the 0.05 significance level, we again reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1). This indicates a relationship between the enterprise’s interest in suppliers’ and buyers’ priorities, opinions, and goals and the quality of its relationships with these stakeholders. The given test was conducted separately for buyers and suppliers.

The results also confirm that enterprises interested in the opinions, priorities, and goals of their stakeholders (suppliers and buyers) have better average relationships with these stakeholders compared to enterprises that do not consider this information in managing their relationships.

Table 4. Average level of relationship with suppliers and buyers.

Enterprises	Average Level of Relationship with Suppliers (max 5)
With an interest in opinions, priorities and goals	4.08
Without interest in opinions, priorities and goals	2.77
Enterprises	Average level of relationship with buyers (max 5)
With an interest in opinions, priorities and goals	4.23
Without interest in opinions, priorities and goals	2.90

illustrates the intensity of the enterprise’s relationship with its stakeholders (suppliers and buyers), with a maximum value of 5 indicating a completely satisfactory relationship. As shown in the given table, enterprises that consider the opinions, priorities, and goals of their stakeholders and use this information in managing these relationships report an average relationship level above 4 (more satisfactory than unsatisfactory). In contrast, enterprises that do not consider these factors report an average relationship level below 3 (neutral).

The fact that enterprises know and use VM also impacts whether enterprises are interested in their business partners’ priorities, opinions, and goals. Figure 6 illustrates the percentage of enterprises that are attentive to their buyers’ and suppliers’ priorities, opinions, and goals, categorized by whether they know and use VM. Notably, 100% of enterprises that are familiar with VM and apply it to managing relationships with buyers and suppliers demonstrate an interest in their business partners’ opinions, priorities, needs, and goals.

Based on the results from the applied statistical methods together with descriptive statistics, the validity of Hypothesis was confirmed.

5. Discussion

The paper aims to identify the connection between the enterprise’s interest in the stakeholders and the nature of their mutual relationship. It also investigates whether stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, needs, and goals influence the enterprise’s decisions in managing sustainable relationships with buyers and suppliers. Furthermore, it examines whether the knowledge regarding the stakeholders (including their needs, opinions, etc.) impacts the enterprise–stakeholder relationship.

To understand this dynamic, it is crucial first to determine whether enterprises are familiar with and apply value management (VM) in their relationships with suppliers and buyers. According to the 2021 Global SRM Research Report, 82% of enterprises define value primarily in terms of cost reduction or avoidance, which is 40% higher than the emphasis on social values [51].

5.1. Answers to the Research Questions

1.

Do enterprises in Slovakia have an awareness of value management?

Based on the questionnaire results, only 38% of all the respondents could correctly define value management, while 62% were unfamiliar with it (Figure 2). Considering that VM is a relatively new concept in practice in Slovakia, these results are not necessarily negative. On the contrary, they suggest that VM is gradually gaining recognition among enterprises, underscoring the need for further education on its principles and applications. As awareness of VM increases, its practical implementation is likely to rise.

The research should not be limited to enterprises that have already implemented VM in managing sustainable relationships with buyers and suppliers. Many enterprises are taking individual steps in the value-creation process without being formally aware of VM.

2.

Do enterprises in Slovakia use value management to manage the process of building mutual, sustainable relationships between enterprises and their stakeholders?

Up to 68.42% of enterprises that are familiar with VM are using it to build and maintain mutual, sustainable relationships with their stakeholders. Only 31.58% of these respondents do not apply VM in practice (Figure 3). However, the reason for this remains unclear.

The survey also included interviews with managers or owners of enterprises knowledgeable about VM and its principles. Despite their familiarity with VM, not all of them apply it in practice. For example, two of the ten interviewees acknowledged that although they understand the concept of VM, they have not yet integrated it into their stakeholder relationship processes due to a lack of resources. However, they expressed a willingness to adopt VM in the future.

3.

Do the opinions, needs, priorities, and goals of buyers and suppliers impact the enterprises´ decisions that concern given stakeholders?

Before establishing a relationship, enterprises typically analyze the characteristics of their potential partners. It is crucial for enterprises to consider the priorities and goals of both buyers and suppliers when making decisions that impact key stakeholders. Analyzing these characteristics ensures compatibility, sustainability, and long-term success in their partnerships. Once a relationship is established, these qualities continue to influence the parties’ perceptions and can serve as sources of interest for the relationship’s continuation [51]. The enterprises should know and understand their stakeholders thoroughly (buyers and suppliers); only then can they build trust and, based on that trust, establish strong, enduring relations. A climate of trust facilitates open information sharing; however, stakeholders may hesitate to disclose information due to concerns about vulnerability. Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing buyer and supplier performance, which is achievable only through trust development [17].

According to the 2021 Global SRM Research Report, up to 69% of respondents cited improved trust in relationships as the primary benefit of increased collaboration, with 45% indicating they set joint goals with their suppliers. However, this figure dropped to 30% in the 2022 report [1,52].

The research findings show that 86% of respondents believe that information about the opinions, needs, and goals of their buyers and suppliers influences their decisions regarding these stakeholders. Conversely, 14% of respondents reported that such information does not impact their decisions. This indicates that while enterprises express interest in their stakeholders, a notable portion do not effectively utilize this information to foster sustainable, long-term relationships with their suppliers and buyers.

There is a clear relationship between implementing value management and maintaining sustainable relationships. Notably, 100% of enterprises that know and use VM also pay attention to their stakeholders’ needs, opinions, and goals. In contrast, approximately 80% of enterprises that either know what VM is but do not use it or are unfamiliar with VM still show interest in their stakeholders (Figure 6).

4.

Are enterprises generally satisfied with their relationships with their suppliers and buyers?

According to Figure 3, 30.91% of respondents reported being completely satisfied with their relationships with buyers, while 27.01% expressed complete satisfaction with their relationships with suppliers. Conversely, Figure 4 shows that up to 80% of enterprises are dissatisfied with their relationships with suppliers and buyers and seek improvement.

Enterprises that show interest in their suppliers’ and buyers’ needs, opinions, and goals tend to have better, more sustainable relationships with these stakeholders. These enterprises rated their relationships higher than those that do not pay attention to their stakeholders. For instance, the average level of relationship between enterprises interested in their suppliers is 4.08 (out of 5) compared to 2.77 for those that are not. Similarly, the average relationship level between enterprises interested in their buyers is 4.23 (out of 5) compared to 2.9 for those that are not.

Implementing VM in practice can help address enterprises’ general dissatisfaction with their relationship with given stakeholders. Eight out of ten enterprises (based on the interview) that know and use VM in building and maintaining their sustainable relationships with stakeholders stated that VM has positively influenced their relationships with given stakeholders. A study by Ullah et al. (2012) underscores that trust development strengthens relationships between buyers and suppliers. The 2022 Global SRM Research Report revealed that 84% of enterprises trust their suppliers and consider themselves customers of choice for their critical and strategic suppliers, compared to just 45% overall [17,52].

This research highlights the critical role of VM in building sustainable relationships with suppliers and buyers. The findings suggest that enterprises that actively engage with their stakeholders’ needs, opinions, and goals report higher levels of relationship satisfaction. These insights underscore the practical value of VM in fostering trust and long-term cooperation, which are essential for business success.

The practical implications of these findings highlight the necessity for enterprises to integrate value management principles into their stakeholder relationship practices. Adopting systematic approaches to address stakeholder needs can lead to improved relationship outcomes and overall business performance. Future research should explore how different value management strategies influence relationship quality across various industries and investigate the long-term effects of stakeholder engagement on enterprise success.

5.2. International Context and Relevance

1.

Rising importance of stakeholder engagement

The growing emphasis on understanding and integrating stakeholder priorities, opinions, and goals mirrors a global trend towards more inclusive and participatory business practices. This shift aligns with international frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which advocate for inclusive decision-making processes. Enteprises that actively engage with stakeholders are better equipped to align their operations with these global standards, thereby enhancing their profiles in terms of sustainability and social responsibility.

2.

Value Management as a Global Best Practice

The findings indicate that enterprises proficient in value management are more likely to engage deeply with stakeholders. This suggests that VM could serve as a valuable framework on an international scale, offering a structured approach to integrating stakeholder insights into business strategies. Such integration is vital for fostering sustainable practices, as it ensures that the diverse needs and concerns of stakeholders are considered in the decision-making process.

3.

Sustainability and Competitive Advantage

Globally, enterprises increasingly recognize that sustainability is not merely a regulatory obligation but also a source of competitive advantage. Enterprises that manage stakeholder relationships effectively, particularly through the lens of VM, are likely to build stronger and more resilient relationships. This capability is critical in an era where consumers and partners are increasingly aware of corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship.

4.

Challenges and Opportunities in Global Adoption

While the study highlights positive correlations between stakeholder engagement and relationship quality, it also underscores persistent challenges, such as the substantial number of enterprises not utilizing available stakeholder information. Internationally, this reflects broader issues related to capacity building and the dissemination of best practices like VM. There is a pressing need for global business networks, educational institutions, and policy frameworks to promote the adoption of such methodologies, ensuring that businesses worldwide can effectively engage with stakeholders.

6. Conclusions

Identifying stakeholders’ opinions, attitudes, goals, and needs is a critical step in the value-creation process. The study reveals that although a majority of enterprises are not familiar with value management (VM), those that are aware of and actively utilize VM principles tend to have significantly better relationships with their stakeholders. Specifically, enterprises that incorporate stakeholders’ opinions, attitudes, goals, and needs into their decision-making processes experience a notable increase in satisfaction and relationship quality with both suppliers and buyers. This indicates that VM can play a crucial role in enhancing these relationships, even though many enterprises remain unaware of or do not fully utilize VM.

The research underscores the importance of VM in fostering sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships between enterprises and their stakeholders. Enterprises that effectively implement VM are more likely to understand and address the needs and goals of their stakeholders, leading to stronger and more enduring partnerships. However, common barriers such as limited financial, time, and personnel resources often impede the implementation of VM practices.

To strengthen their stakeholder relationships, enterprises should consider implementing value management principles. Adopting VM practices can significantly enhance an organization’s understanding of stakeholder needs, goals, and opinions, allowing for more effective alignment of strategies and fostering sustainable, long-term relationships. To overcome common obstacles, such as resource limitations, enterprises are encouraged to invest in training programs focused on VM principles and stakeholder engagement strategies. Such training will equip employees with essential skills for successful VM implementation and stakeholder management.

Moreover, leveraging technology can greatly benefit stakeholder engagement efforts. By utilizing tools like customer relationship management (CRM) systems and data analytics, enterprises can efficiently gather and analyze stakeholder feedback, leading to more informed decision making. For those facing resource constraints, a phased implementation approach to VM can be particularly advantageous. Beginning with pilot programs or targeting specific stakeholder groups allows for the gradual integration of VM principles while managing resource allocation effectively.

Furthermore, enhancing communication and transparency is crucial for building trust with stakeholders. Enterprises should prioritize clear and open dialogue about their goals, strategies, and any changes that might impact stakeholders. This openness not only fosters mutual respect but also strengthens relationships. Overall, these strategies will help enterprises optimize their stakeholder management practices, leading to sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships.

Future research should focus on developing practical frameworks for the implementation of VM, addressing the specific challenges faced by enterprises, and evaluating the long-term impacts of VM on organizational performance. Further studies could also explore the integration of VM with other management practices to optimize stakeholder engagement and value creation.

In summary, while VM is recognized as a significant tool for improving stakeholder relationships, widespread adoption and effective implementation remain challenging. This paper sets the foundation for understanding these dynamics and suggests pathways for both practical application and future research, ultimately aiming to consolidate the value creation process into a cohesive and actionable model for enterprises.