The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Management: A Case Study in Vietnam

  • Received : 2020.12.15
  • Accepted : 2021.03.15
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility for employees is associated with employees' requirements related to the work and the organization's ability to meet such needs. The study aims to examine the impact of corporate social responsibility for workers on employee management effectiveness amongst businesses in Vietnam. Using the quantitative method, through SEM linear structural model analysis, the research surveys 619 samples of employees at businesses in Vietnam. The study results show that corporate social responsibility for workers has both a direct and indirect impact on the effectiveness of employee management through intermediary factors such as organizational identity, organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing of employees. In addition, the study also demonstrates that commitment has a positive correlation with both organizational identification and knowledge sharing of employees in the businesses. On that basis, the study proposes several recommendations to improve employee administration efficiency. This study's findings have shown the importance and impact of corporate social responsibility in many respects on employee administration efficiency. These are meaningful contributions in theoretical and practical aspects that help businesses get a more in-depth insight into employee administration and the need to care and promote corporate social responsibility for employees, which is an important basis for further research.

Keywords

1. Introduction

The administration is an essential factor in directing all organizational components to effectively accomplish the organization’s goals (Burns, 1978). The effectiveness of employee management is understood as the result of the impact of the leader on the direct employees under his or her authority (including job satisfaction, mental health) and the common working environment in the department and organization, namely the capacity to organize activities and the willingness to implement innovation. Piero et al. (2005) measure the effectiveness of management activities through 4 indicators, including: Employee evaluation of management efficiency; Satisfaction at work; Self-assessment of individual results; Desire to change jobs.

In the enterprise, administrators are the organizers, implementing administration activities, making plans, organizing, directing, and supervising human and financial resources distribution. Consequently, the administrator helps the organization achieve its goals. Their superiors can give administrators more time to propose and implement new ways at work. As a consequence, they make positive changes (Spangler & House, 1991). House et al. (1999) argue that administrators influence, motivate employees to be productive and contribute to the organization’s success. Therefore, the effectiveness of administration activities is of great importance in the development of the business.

Corporate social responsibility is one strategy for managing firms’ business activities but may have heterogeneity depending on ownership structures (Lee, 2018). Corporate social responsibility for employees is associated with employees’ requirements related to the work and the organization’s ability to meet such needs. Employees will mostly feel satisfied and motivated to work if they think their expectations and the organization’s commitment to them are met. According to Hopkins (2003), one of the most obvious invisible benefits of participation in corporate social responsibility is increasing morale, loyalty, and employee satisfaction. Mittal et al. (2008) argue that corporate social responsibility has a positive impact on employee productivity. Employees feel more satisfied with the reasonable values of the organization.

According to Jenkins (2006), Zairi and Peters (2002), the study of corporate social responsibility will usually be related to long-term benefits rather than immediate short-term benefits. Corporate social responsibility can also attract better employees (Turban & Greening, 1997). Backhaus et al. (2002) demonstrate that corporate social responsibility increases a business’s attractiveness to potential employees, the most influential areas of corporate social responsibility, including environmental issues, community relations, and diversity policies.

So far, in their work, many authors have mentioned the relationship between corporate social responsibilities for workers to the effectiveness of employee management. Most studies tend to focus on the argument that corporate social responsibility has a positive effect on employee management effectiveness. Businesses carrying out social responsibility and employee satisfaction in the business have a positive relationship, according to research by Koh and Boo (2001). At the same time, it helps employees feel inclusive and be motivated to stay longer with the business. Siddiq and Javed (2014) argue that corporate social responsibility has a positive and strong impact on employee management effectiveness. Meanwhile, Khan et al. (2016) also mention corporate social responsibility as a useful measure that increases the effectiveness of employee management and the efficiency of business operations. Katou and Budhwar (2010) point to results that administration activities positively correlate with reward, reward based on efficiency, training, and development so that employees have higher expertise, evaluate performance results fairly, motivate employees to work. Research by Ritzer and Trice (1969) demonstrates a positive relationship between organizational commitment and employee remuneration policies. Bakiev (2013) argues that high-performance working systems through intermediaries are relationships between employee trust, engagement, and organizational performance awareness that positively affect the effectiveness of employee management within the organization. Shahzad et al. (2008) studied the relationship between remuneration, effectiveness evaluation, promotion practices, and administration efficiency within the organization, which showed that these factors positively correlate.

In fact, the administration activities at businesses in Vietnam have changed profoundly in recent years, especially since Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The efficiency brought by administration activities has great significance, contributing to increasing the motivation to work, improving the performance and scale of the organization, as well as creating a more favorable working environment for workers and the long-term development of the organization. However, in terms of social responsibility for workers, many businesses are still urgent yet underestimated today. Businesses have barely grasped employees’ practical needs; the solutions businesses build have had not come from the expectations and desires, both physically and mentally, from employees. Besides, administrators often radiate an air of imposing with little innovation in terms of their philosophy and working methods when they carry out their management styles. Moreover, administrators, in many cases, do not have the proper attention and support for employees. Besides, there are other causes such as low quality of labor resources, limited labor awareness. These have a significant impact on trust, thereby dominating the effectiveness of employee management in the business.

The study is based on an overview of the theory and related works, conducting modeling and testing the impact of corporate social responsibility on workers on the effectiveness of employee management. In the context of businesses in Vietnam, the study results show that corporate social responsibility for workers has both a direct and indirect impact on the effectiveness of employee management through intermediary factors such as organizational identity, organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing of employees. These are meaningful contributions both in terms of reason and practice, helping businesses have a deeper insight into employees’ administrative activities and the need to pay attention and promote corporate social responsibility activities for workers. From that, the research comes up with more effective solutions and policies in the future.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility for Workers and the Effectiveness of Employee Management

Maignan and Ferrell (2004) argue that a business has a social responsibility when its decisions and activities are intended to create and balance the different interests of the individuals and organizations involved. Corporate social responsibility for employees is associated with employees’ requirements related to the work and the organization’s ability to meet such needs. Employees will mostly feel satisfied and motivated to work if they feel their expectations and the organization’s commitment to work is met to a reasonable extent. Besides, Carroll (1979) defines that corporate social responsibility includes society’s expectations economically, legally, ethically, and charitably for organizations at a given time.

In his research, Brammer et al. (2007) propose components of corporate social responsibility, including social responsibility for society, social responsibility for the natural environment, social responsibility for customers, social responsibility for other external stakeholders, social responsibility for law, social responsibility for fairness in policies and social responsibilities for training employees. The study results show a correlation between the components of corporate social responsibility to the organizational commitment of employees. In particular, the fair share of policy has the most decisive influence. Next is the business’s external social responsibility and finally, the issue of training for employees of the enterprise.

Imran et al. (2010) consider the impact of corporate social responsibility on the organizational commitment of employees and evaluate how social responsibility and employee commitment affect the organization’s effectiveness. Research demonstrates that corporate social responsibility, including those for the benefit of employees and their families, increases employee engagement with the organization. The more businesses contribute to society, the more they attract potential employees and improve their current engagement level. The good deeds of the company motivate employees to introduce the company to others, making them feel more proud of their company and therefore will improve their working productivity. Moreover, social responsibility will also enhance prestige for businesses, customers, investors, suppliers, and governments. Thereby positively affecting the decision-making process, which is in favour of the business. Social responsibility also brings a competitive advantage, thereby positively impacting the effectiveness of the organization. In addition, organizations can increase employee engagement by promoting activities that are useful to society. All these activities will positively affect employees’ inclusiveness to the organization, thereby affecting working productivity and increasing the organization’s operations efficiency.

Perhaps the most valuable but often least recognized source of a company’s intellectual property is the staff. However, keeping those hearts and minds loyal to the cause is no easy feat (Kumari, 2015). According to Piero et al. (2005), employee management’s effectiveness is understood as a result of the leader’s impact on employees directly under his authority and on the familiar working environment in the department and organization, namely the capacity to organize activities and the readiness to innovate. The effectiveness of employee management includes the following criteria: Satisfaction with a job (Piero et al., 2005); Psychological health, and mental comfort (Reave, 2005; Thun, 2009).

Olsen (1993) defined satisfaction with a job as a positive emotional response of employees when the job’s value meets the employees’ expectations. Ivancevich and Mattson (2005) argue that satisfaction with a job reflects an individual’s attitude toward work and self-awareness. The individual’s perception of the job will lead to their attitude to the job. George and Jones (1996) argue that job satisfaction is a collection of feelings and beliefs about a person’s current position. Satisfied employees at work are happy with their current job and work enthusiastically. They even find the work very interesting and attractive. It seems that the work is not always finished, always opening up new opportunities (Thun, 2009). Piero et al. (2005) say that employees satisfied at work are always content with their jobs.

According to Thun (2009), good leadership will help employees under the authority to have a good psychological state when working, such as better concentration, feeling themselves a valuable part of the organization, being involved in the decision-making process, facing and overcoming difficulties more easily, rarely feeling the pressure, unhappiness, loss of confidence in themselves. As a result, good mental and psychological comfort will make them work better and achieve higher yields at work.

The two main factors mentioned are corporate social responsibility for workers and employee management effectiveness. The study also addressed intermediaries in the model, including Organizational identification, Organizational commitment, and Knowledge sharing.

Organizational identification refers broadly to what members are aware of, feel and think about their organization. It is assumed to be a collective general understanding, a broad sharing of the organization’s particular values and characteristics. Albert and Whetten (1985) define an influential organizational identity that is a central, enduring, and distinctive factor in an organization’s character.

The identity of the organization is harmony between individual and organizational values (Pratt, 1998). In other words, identifying the organization is a psychological structure that connects employees with the organization in which they work. A strong self-commitment with the organization will promote the development of positive attitudes (Davila & Garcia, 2012; Stinglhamber et al., 2015) and reduce employee departures (Riketta, 2005; Chiu & Ng, 2013).

Organizational commitment is a psychological state (desire, need, responsibility) that shows employees’ relationship with the organization. According to Mowday et al. (1982), commitment to the organization is the relative strength of employee co-synchronization with the organization and employees’ active participation in a certain organization. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) argue that organizational commitment is defined as the psychological state of the member of the organization, reflecting the level of individuality that absorbs or accepts the characteristics of the organization. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment is viewed from two perspectives: attitude and behavior. Mowday et al. (1982), Reicher (1985), Salancik (1977), Scholl (1981), Staw (1977), during a theoretical overview of organizational commitment, show that there is a difference between attitudes and behavioral commitments. Porter et al. (1974) and Mowday et al. (1979) further emphasize that organizational commitment is an employee’s willingness to contribute significant efforts to the organization.

Knowledge sharing is defined as a deliberate subjective act that makes knowledge reused by others through knowledge transfer (Lee & Al-Hawamdeh, 2002); the process of imparting and receiving knowledge, including creativity and knowledge sharing, depend on the conscious efforts of the individual to make knowledge shared (Nonaka & Tekeuchi 1995). According to Hari et al. (2005), Knowledge sharing is a process or activity in which existing knowledge of an organization is transferred from its holder to those who do not have it, i.e., communicating hidden knowledge and explicit knowledge. Knowledge assets refer to the degree to which individuals accumulate and utilize knowledge. In terms of enterprises, knowledge assets can be defined as the knowledge accumulated concerning items, market, technology, process, and organization demanded by companies or which generates profits (Seo et al., 2018). Tsui et al. (2006) believe that knowledge sharing is an activity that helps employees share understanding and experience to support projects and plans to complete quickly and cost-effectively. Also, knowledge sharing involves sharing organizational information, ideas, suggestions, and work experience with others. Maponya (2004) research also shows knowledge sharing is based on experience obtained during work inside and outside the organization. If knowledge is available within members, the organization minimizes duplicate decisions and solves problems faster. Practical knowledge-sharing activities will help reuse each individual’s ability and raise understanding to a new high. Krough et al. (2000) say that knowledge sharing is also essential in creating a unique experience and improving its performance. In this same view, Nguyen et al. (2020) mention the role of knowledge sharing as an intermediary in the relationship that affects employees’ motivation, thereby impacting employee management’s effectiveness.

2.2. Research Hypotheses

2.2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility for Workers and the Effectiveness of Employee Management

Research by Thorne et al. (1993) demonstrates that if businesses do not carry out their social responsibility, their effectiveness will be significantly reduced. Enterprise performance of social responsibility increases current employees’ goodwill, from which it is possible to improve financial results (Davis, 1973; McGuire et al., 1988). Implementing social responsibility will positively impact workers’ willingness to participate in production and business activities, increase productivity, and enhance employee management in the enterprise.

Also, many other studies show similar results when evaluating corporate social responsibility for workers that it has a positive effect on the effectiveness of employee management as research works by (Yang & Kim, 2018; Babola, 2012; Khan et al., 2016; Akanbi & Ofoegbu, 2012; Wan Ahamed et al., 2014). In the context of businesses in Viet Nam, to verify the impact of corporate social responsibility on workers on the effectiveness of employee management, the authors hypothesize:

H1: Corporate social responsibility for workers positively correlates with the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Proposed Research Model

2.2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility for Workers and Organizational Identification

Many studies in the world and practice show that if businesses perform well corporate social responsibility for workers, their benefit increases. The benefits that businesses have when implementing corporate social responsibility for employees include: Reducing costs, increasing revenue, increasing brand value, reducing the percentage of employees who quit, increasing productivity, and adding opportunities to access new markets.

Besides, corporate social responsibility for employees also creates a reputation for the organization, thereby strengthening employees’ organizational identification (Van Riel & Balmer, 1997). Excellent conduct of corporate social responsibility activities for employees, coupled with strategies to create a brand and reputation for the organization, will contribute to employee’s higher appreciation of the current organization (Dowling, 1994). To clarify the relationship impacting corporate social responsibility for employees on organizational identification, given the context of businesses in Vietnam, the study sets out the hypothesis:

H2: Corporate social responsibility for the employee positively correlates with organizational identification in businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.3. Organizational Identification and the Effectiveness of Employee Management

Organizational identification has the effect of connecting employees with the organization in which they work. A strong self-identification with the organization promotes a positive attitude (Stinglhamber et al., 2015), thereby reducing employees’ intention to leave and improving their work efficiency (Chiu & Ng, 2013). Employees’ understanding, perceptions, feelings, and thoughts about their organization positively impact psychology and job satisfaction, thereby improving employee management effectiveness. To test the effects of organizational identification and the effectiveness of employee management at businesses in Vietnam, the study hypothesizes:

H3: Organizational identification positively correlates with the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.4. Corporate Social Responsibility to Employees and an Organizational Commitment

Research by Nejati and Ghasemi (2013) based on Turker (2008) confirms that corporate social responsibility for employees has a positive impact on the organizational commitment of employees. The research results of Maignan et al. (1999) show that social responsibility plays a vital role in enhancing employee commitment. Turker (2008), in his research, demonstrates that corporate social responsibility for employees has a significant impact on employee engagement.

In general, previous studies on the impact of corporate social responsibility on employees on an employee’s organizational commitment can be classified into two categories. First, the authors analyze how corporate social activity affects potential employees (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et al., 2002; Turban & Greening, 1997). These studies support the notion that corporate social responsibility for employees creates a good reputation for a company’s business and increases its attractiveness.

In the second category, the authors focus on the organization’s social responsibility impact on current employees (Peterson, 2004; Rupp et al., 2007; Wood & Jones, 1995). Riordan et al. (1997) argue that employees’ corporate social responsibility will affect employees’ attitudes, behaviors, and cohesion. Studies by Brammer et al. (2007) demonstrate the influence of social responsibility activities on organizational cohesion.

Thus, most studies have reached a consensus that shows a direct and positive relationship of corporate social responsibility for employees on an organizational commitment of employees. In the context of Vietnamese businesses, to test this relationship more clearly, the authors hypothesize:

H4: Corporate social responsibility for employees positively correlates with the organizational commitment of employees at businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.5. Organizational Commitment and the Effectiveness of Employee Management

The organizational commitment has a positive correlation with motivation, performance, and job satisfaction (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Organizational commitment has a regulating and building role in the organization. At the same time, it supports employees’ working processes through the inter- mediary relationships between management and employees. This will boost their motivation and work results and improve the effectiveness of employee management in the enterprise. Therefore, to test the relationship of the organizational commitment’s impact on the effectiveness of employee management, given the context of businesses in Vietnam, the hypothesis is built:

H5: Organizational commitment positively correlates with the effectiveness of employee management at businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.6. Corporate Social Responsibility for Employees and Knowledge Sharing

According to Mohr et al. (2001), corporate social responsibility for employees is the minimization or elimination of dangers arising in society as well as maximization of certain effects for a long time. Drucker (1974) argues that when performing corporate social responsibility for employees, businesses should carry out social activities to create the community welfare. Because organizations will profit from the community and reduce the natural resources of society, they have a responsibility to improve the environment and other resources and improve the standard of living for the whole society. According to research results by Siddiq and Javed (2014), Babola (2012), Raihan et al. (2015), Khan et al. (2016), Akanbi and Ofoegbu (2012), Monsuru and Abdulazeez (2014), Weshah et al. (2012), Wan Ahamed et al. (2014), then corporate social responsibility for employees has a positive impact on knowledge sharing and overall corporate performance. In order to clarify the relationship impacting corporate social responsibility on employees on knowledge sharing, with the context of businesses in Vietnam, the study hypothesizes:

H6: Corporate social responsibility for the employee positively correlates with knowledge sharing of employees at businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.7. Knowledge Sharing and the Effectiveness of Employee Management

Podug et al. (2017) suggest that the Knowledge sharing process positively correlates with organizational innovation outcomes. Robert (2016) recommends businesses provide support and encouragement to supervisors and employees in the workplace through HR and job satisfaction policies. A friendly working environment and open knowledge sharing among colleagues always bring positive signs for long-term development for businesses. From the above statements, to clarify the relationship of the impact of knowledge sharing on the effectiveness of employee management, given the context of businesses in Vietnam, the research hypothesizes:

H7: Knowledge sharing positively correlates with the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.8. Commitment of Employee and Organizational Identification

The organizational commitment represents the spiritual relationship between employees and the organization in order to reduce employees’ likelihood of leaving the organization. Organizational identification reflects awareness and attachment to the organization’s standards, values, and goals (Van Dick et al., 2004). In addition, Organizational identification occurs when an individual identifies himself as having the same attributes as the organization in which they are working (Elsbach & Bhattaharya, 2001).

Employees who show a long-term attachment to the organization will feel more secure and comfortable at work. They will tend to increase their understanding of the organization’s values, goals, as well as standards set to increase organizational identification. So, given the context of businesses in Vietnam, to identify how the relationship between employee commitment and Organizational identification is shown, the following hypothesis is built:

H8: Employee commitment positively correlates with organizational identification at businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

2.2.9. Organizational Commitment and Knowledge Sharing

According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), cooperative behavior and knowledge sharing are positive results of commitment. Employee commitment is considered to have a certain impact on the degree of knowledge sharing of employees with colleagues, administrators, and vice versa. Employees who are highly committed to the organization, whether emotionally, intellectually, or morally, want to contribute to the organization’s success. Employees who are willing to share practical knowledge to learn experiences with colleagues will create good support in the organization’s overall working process and have a positive impact on perfecting the working procedures of employees. Given the context of businesses in Vietnam, and in order to test the relationship, the research comes up with the following hypothesis:

H9: Organizational commitment positively correlates with knowledge sharing of employees at businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1).

3. Research Method

3.1. Research Scale

Based on a theoretical overview and related research works, the article proposes a research model with independent variables that are corporate social responsibility for workers, intermediate variables including organizational identification, organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and the goal variable is the effectiveness of employee management. The scale used in the study is a Likert scale with 5 levels (Strongly agree; Agree; Normal; Disagree; Strongly disagree). Variable measurement indicators are applied with adjustments to the characteristics of the research sample from previous studies.

With the variable Corporate social responsibility for workers (SR) using the scales of Hopkins (2003) and Clarkson (1995) including 5 observations. The Organizational Commitment (OC) variable using Meyer and Allen’s research scale (1991) consists of 18 observations with 3 groups of factors: Organizational commitment (AC) has 6 observations; Continuance commitment (CC) has 6 observations; Normative commitment (NC) has 6 observations. Organizational identity (OI), using the scales of Wiesenfeld et al. (2001), Jones and Volpe (2011), consists of 5 observations. Knowledge sharing (KS) using Chennamaneni’s scale (2006) consists of 6 observations.

The effectiveness of employee management (EM) consists of 2 factors: Satisfaction with a job (SJ) using the scale by Judge et al. (2002), which consists of 5 observations; Psychological health and mental comfort (MH) using Thun’s scale (2019) consists of 3 observations.

3.2. Research Sample

The research sample was selected by the non-probability sampling method, a convenient sampling, and relatively stratified according to the provinces and localities in Vietnam. The investigating unit in the study was identified as an employee at businesses in Vietnam. The sample size in the collection is 619 samples. The data collection process is conducted in two ways: direct distribution and online. The number of online votes collected is 402, the number of votes used is 378. In terms of direct distribution, the number of votes issued is 500, the number of votes collected is 398, the number of votes used is 241. The total number of valid votes used for analysis is 619. According to Hair et al. (1998) study for reference to the expected sample size, the sample size is at least 5 times the total number of observed variables. With the number of observations in the article of 42, the scale of the study, which consists of 619 samples, meets analysis requirements. The time to complete data collection is from October 2020 to December 2020.

3.3. Data Processing

The research uses quantitative methods. Data collected and cleaned are processed through SPSS and AMOS programs. The first is to assess the reliability of the scale with the Cronbach’s Alpha value requirement > 0.7. Next, the study analyzes EFA discovery factors to determine the “convergence value” and “differentiated value of the scale.” Then, the AMOS program is used to assess the appropriateness of the research model through CFA testing. Finally, the study conducts the examination of research hypotheses by analyzing the SEM linear structure model.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Testing the Reliability of the Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha test results show the reliability of the scale used in the analysis when the Cronbach’s Alpha of all variables > 0.7. However, the NC6 index has a Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Delete of 0.90, which is greater than the Cronbach’s Alpha of the NC variable (0.899). The SJ3 index has a Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Delete of 0.965, which is greater than the Cronbach’s Alpha of the SJ variable (0.959). Therefore, in order to increase the appropriateness of the scale, the study uses two indicators NC6 and SJ3 (see Table 1).

Table 1: Evaluation of the Reliability of the Scale Through Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient

OTGHEU_2021_v8n4_1033_t0001.png 이미지

4.2. EFA

After examining the appropriateness of the scale, the study conducted an analysis of EFA discovery factors for both variations, intermediate variables, and dependent variables. The results show that the data are eligible for analysis due to Factors loading > 0.5 and satisfies two conditions: “Convergence value” (observation variables converging on the same factor) and “Distinguishing value” (observation variables belonging to one factor distinguish from another) (see Table 2).

Table 2: EFA Factor Analysis Results

4.3. CFA

The positive results show the conformity of the measurement model. Chi-square Index = 2350.415, df = 712, Chi–square/df = 3.301 (< 5), P = 0.000, GFI = 0.837 (> 0.8), TLI = 0.909 (> 0.9), CFI = 0.917 (> 0.9), RMSEA = 0.061 (< 0.08).

4.4. SEM Analysis

Conducting analysis of the SEM model for the research model, we see that the synthetic indicators are satisfactory. Specifically, Chi–square = 2395.518, df = 726, Chi–square/ df = 3.300 (< 5), P = 0.000, GFI = 0.834 (> 0.8), TLI = 0.909 (> 0.9), CFI = 0.915 (> 0.9), RMSEA = 0.061 (< 0.08) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: SEM Model Analysis

The results of estimating the relationships in the model show that the research model is appropriate. All hypotheses with P < 0.05 are accepted.

Specifically, the H1 hypothesis examines the impact of corporate social responsibility for workers on the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam. The study results show that the hypothesis is accepted with the meaning of P < 0.05 and the revoicing weight of 0.576 > 0. This demonstrates that corporate social responsibility for workers has a positive correlation with the effectiveness of employee management. This result corresponds to the work of (Thorne et al., 1993; Davis, 1973; McGuire et al., 1988; Babola, 2012; Khan et al., 2016; Akanbi, & Ofoegbu, 2012; Ahamed et al., 2014).

Hypotheses H2, H3 examine the impact of corporate social responsibility for workers on organizational identification and organizational identity on the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam. The results of the study showed that with P < 0.05 and positive regression weight, both of these hypotheses are accepted. These results are similar to those of Van Riel and Balmer (1997), Dowling (1994), Stinglhamber et al. (2015), Chiu and Ng (2013), etc. research has demonstrated the intermediary role of organizational identification in the relationship of corporate social responsibility for workers on employee management effectiveness.

Similarly, H4, H5, H6, H7 hypotheses are all accepted with P < 0.05 and positive regression weight, which corresponds to the research works of (Nejati & Ghasemi, 2013; Turker, 2008; Maignan et al., 1999; Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et al., 2002; Turban & Greening, 1997; Peterson, 2004; Rupp et al., 2007; Wood & Jones, 1995; Riordan et al., 1997; Brammer et al., 2007; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mohr et al., 2001; Drucker, 1974; Podug et al., 2017). These results show that, like organizational identification, organizational commitment and knowledge sharing are proven as intermediary factors in the impact of corporate social responsibility for workers on the effectiveness of employee management.

Thus, by accepting all hypotheses from H1 to H7, it can be seen that corporate social responsibility for workers has both a direct impact and an indirect impact on the effectiveness of employee management through intermediary elements that are organizational identification, organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing of employees in the business (see Table 3).

Table 3: SEM Analysis Results for the Relationships in the Model

In addition, the H8 and H9 hypotheses examine the impact of commitment on organizational identification and Knowledge sharing of employees at businesses in Vietnam. The results of the study also showed that the hypotheses are accepted with P < 0.05 and among regression weight > 0. It means that the commitment has a positive correlation with both organizational identification and knowledge sharing of employees in businesses. These results also correspond to the works of (Van Dick et al., 2004; Elsbach & Bhattaharya, 2001; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Research has demonstrated the importance of corporate social responsibility to workers in a relationship that affects the effectiveness of employee management and the intermediary role of organizational identity factors, organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing of employees in the business. To show the manifestation of each factor in this study for employees at businesses in Vietnam, the study conducts a descriptive statistical analysis to determine the average value of variables. The results show that, with the highest average value in the research variables included in the model maintaining at 3.8423, the organizational identity factor in Vietnamese businesses is evaluated at a fairly high level, showing relatively rational thinking and ways of doing things from business leaders, as well as the general direction of the State. However, this index is still modest compared to the general index of other factors in management and business activities.

Besides, the mean value of Normative commitment stood at 3.4924, compared to other factors in the model; it can be concluded that this is the factor rated at the lowest level. This partly proves that, with the current momentum of economic development and global integration, businesses and workers are racing for profits and traditional values tend to be underestimated. This is also an issue that deserves attention for both businesses and authorities because maintaining conventional beauty; ethical values are always the right motto besides increasing the growth rate to keep up with developed countries’ economies today (see Table 4).

Table 4: The Results of Statistical Analysis Describing the Values of the Variables

5. Conclusion

Based on an overview of related works, modeling research, and inspection of the relationship between corporate social responsibility for workers and the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam. The study results show that corporate social responsibility for workers has both a direct and indirect impact on the effectiveness of employee management through intermediary factors such as organizational identity, commitment to the organization, and Knowledge sharing of employees. In addition, the study also demonstrates that commitment has a favorable impact on both organizational identification and knowledge sharing of employees in businesses. Based on the results of this study, the authors make many recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of employee management in businesses in Vietnam:

Firstly, regarding corporate social responsibility for employees, businesses need to create a safe working environment and take care of employees’ spiritual life and health.

Secondly, regarding organizational identification, businesses need to have open policies, encouraging the development of internal communication channels within the organization, which can be done by enhancing the exchange of supporting information between departments.

Thirdly, regarding the employees’ commitment to the organization, businesses need to pay attention and meet the material and spiritual needs of employees. Businesses should focus on developing individual skills, recording employees’ achievements reasonably, and listening to feedback from them to have timely incentive and encouragement policies.

Fourth, regarding knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing should be encouraged in work in an open and candid way among employees and colleagues in the business, promoting the working group’s role.

References

  1. Akanbi, P. A., & Ofoegbu, O. E. (2012). Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Bank Performance in Nigeria. Journal of UsChina Public Administration, 9(4), 374-383.
  2. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263-295. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-02640-001
  3. Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006289817941
  4. Babola, Y. A. (2012). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm's Profitability in Nigeria. European Journal of Economies, Finance and Administrative Science, 45, 39-49. https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/0060841/Subjects/impact%20on%20profitiability.pdf
  5. Backhaus, K., Stone, B., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness. Business & Society, 41(3), 292-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302041003003
  6. Bakiev, E. (2013). The Influence of Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Commitment on Perceived Organizational Performance. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 3(3), 166-180.
  7. Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866
  8. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  9. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
  10. Chennamaneni, A. (2006). Determinants of knowledge sharing behaviors: Developing and testing an integrated theoretical model. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington.
  11. Chiu, W. Y. B., & Ng, F. F. (2013). Improvement of job satisfaction and organizational commitment through work group identification: An examination of the quantity surveyors in Hong Kong. Construction Economics and Building, 13(3), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v13i3.3316
  12. Clarkson, M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analysing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-118. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994
  13. Davila, M. C., & Garcia, G. J. (2012). Organizational Identification and Commitment: Correlates of Sense of Belonging and Affective Commitment. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 244-255. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n1.37316
  14. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80(2), 97-125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033951
  15. Dowling, G. R. (1994). Corporate reputations: strategies for developing the corporate brand. London, UK: Kogan Page.
  16. Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices, New York: Harper & Row.
  17. Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you're not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638
  18. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318
  19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  20. Hari, S., Egbu, C., & Kumar, B. (2005). A knowledge capture awareness tool: An empirical study on small and medium enterprises in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12, 533-567. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980510634128
  21. Hopkins, M. (2003). The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Matters (1st ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773201
  22. House, J. D., Jacobs, R. L., Stead, L. M., Brosnan, M. E., & Brosnan, J. T. (1999). Regulation of homocysteine metabolism. Advances in Enzyme Regulation, 39(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2571(98)00008-9
  23. Imran, A., Rehman, K. U., Ali, S. I., Yousaf, J., & Zia, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influences, employee commitment and organizational performance. African journal of Business management, 4(13), 2796-2801.
  24. Ivancevich, J., & Mattson, M. (2005). The Measurement of Experienced Evidence. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 10 (2), 99-113.
  25. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. Social Science Computer Review, 26(2), 252-254. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439307306088 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439307306088
  26. Jones, C., & Volpe, E. H. (2011). Organizational identification: Extending our understanding of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.694
  27. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
  28. Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies and organisational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector. European Management Journal, 28(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.06.001
  29. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
  30. Koh, H. C., & Boo, H. Y. (2001). The Link Between Organizational Ethics and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Managers in Singapore. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010741519818
  31. Krough, V. G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation: how to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  32. Kumari, N. (2015). Up-gradation in Human Resource Management Practices for the Biotech Industry in India. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 2(2), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2015.vol2.no2.27
  33. Lee, C. K., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors impacting knowledge sharing. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 1(1), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219649202000169
  34. Lee, W. J. (2018). Group-affiliated Firms and Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 5(4), 127-133. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no4.127
  35. Maignan I., & Ferrell O. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303258971
  36. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274005
  37. Maponya, P. M. (2004). Knowledge management practices in academic libraries. A case study of the University of Natal. Pietermaritzburg Libraries, South Africa.
  38. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
  39. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Thomas, S. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-872. https://doi.org/10.2307/256342
  40. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z
  41. Mittal R., Sinha N., & Singh A. (2008). An Analysis of Linkage between Economic Value and Corporate. Social Responsibility Management Decision, 46(9), 1437-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810912037
  42. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
  43. Monsuru, F. A., & Abdulazeez, A. A. (2014). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Activity Disclosure on Corporate Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Nigerian Commercial Banks. ISOR Journal of Economies and Finance, 2(6), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.9790/5933-0261725
  44. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308
  45. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, New York: Academic Press.
  46. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
  47. Nejati, M., & Ghasemi, S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment: Empirical findings from a developing country. Journal of Global Responsibility, 4(2), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1108/jgr-01-2013-0001
  48. Nguyen, H. N., Le, Q. H., Tran, Q. B., Tran, T. H. M., Nguyen, T. H. Y., & Nguyen, T. T. Q. (2020). The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Employee Motivation: A Study in Vietnamese Enterprises. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(6), 439-447. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.439
  49. Nonaka, I., & Tekeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  50. Olsen, D. (1993). Work Satisfaction and Stress in the First and Third Year of Academic Appointment. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), pp. 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778439
  51. O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492
  52. Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650304268065
  53. Piero, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., Knippenberg, D. V., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.002
  54. Podug, N., Filipovic, D., & Kovac, M. (2017). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability in Croatian ICT companies. International Journal of Manpower, 38(4), 632-644. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-04-2016-0077
  55. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335
  56. Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In: D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Foundations for organizational science. Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (p. 171-207).
  57. Raihan, Z. M., Baskar, R., & Islam, A. M. (2015). Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Expenditures on Financial Performance of Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. The Social Science, 12(2), 171-177. https://doi.org/10.47277/jee/1(1)6
  58. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003
  59. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278960
  60. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
  61. Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Bill, J. B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017989205184
  62. Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker'side-bet theory. Social Forces, 47(6), 475-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/2574537
  63. Robert, D. M. (2016), Security Operations Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  64. Rupp, D. E., Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836-863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678
  65. Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1-54), Chicago: St. Clair Press.
  66. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285698
  67. Seo, S. Y., Kim, S. D., & Lee, M. S. (2018). The Effects of Knowledge Assets on the Performances of Startup Firms: Moderating Effects of Promotion Focus. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(4), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no4.187
  68. Shahzad, K., Bashir, S., & Ramay, M. I. (2008). Impact of HR Practices on Perceived Performance of University Teachers in Pakistan. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(2), 302-315.
  69. Siddiq, S., & Javed, S. (2014). Impact of CSR on Organizational Performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(27), 40-45.
  70. Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.439
  71. Staw, B. M. (1977). Two sides of commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando.
  72. Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Desmette, D., Hansez, I., Hanin, D., & Bertrand, F. (2015). Employees' organizational identification and affective organizational commitment: An integrative approach. PloS One, 10(4), e0123955. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123955
  73. Thorne, P. D., Hardcastle, P. J., & Soulsby, R. L. (1993). Analysis of acoustic measurements of suspended sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(C1), 899-910. https://doi.org/10.1029/92jc01855
  74. Thun, N. B. (2009). Character Strengths in Leadership, Doctor of Philosophyin Business Administration. The Departement of Management, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
  75. Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z. X., Wang, H., & Xin, R. (2006). Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 113-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.001
  76. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672. https://doi.org/10.2307/257057
  77. Turker, D. (2008). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6
  78. Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x
  79. Van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340-355. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060635
  80. Wan Ahamed, W. S., Almsafir, M. K., & Al-Smadi, A. W. (2014). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Improve in Firm Financial Performance? Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v6n3p126
  81. Weshah, S. R., Dahiyat, A. A., Awwad, M. R. A., & Hajjat, E. S. (2012). The Impact of Adopting Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from Jordanian. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(5), 34-44. https://journal-archieves23.webs.com/34-44.pdf
  82. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational Identification among virtual workers: The Role of Need for Affiliation and Perceived Work-Based Social Support. Journal of Management, 27(2), 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700205
  83. Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028831
  84. Yang, H. C., & Kim, Y. E. (2018). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Job Performance: Moderating Effects of Authentic Leadership and Meaningfulness of Work. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(3), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no3.121
  85. Zairi, M., & Peters, J. (2002). The impact of social responsibility on business performance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(4), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900210424312

Cited by

  1. The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Commercial Banks: A Case Study in Vietnam vol.8, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no9.0201
  2. The Impact of Sharing Culture on Opportunistic Behavior and Effectiveness of Employee Management: A Case Study in Vietnam vol.9, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no1.0423