




































BANGLADESH JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 10(3) (2025), 37-48 

37 

        MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 
          BJMSR VOL 10 NO 3 (2025) P-ISSN 2687-850X E-ISSN 2687-8518 

         Available online at https://www.cribfb.com 

     Journal homepage: https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/BJMSR 

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Published by CRIBFB, USA 
                                                                                                                                     

EXAMINING HOW BUSINESS SCHOOL FACULTY’S PERCEPTION OF 

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AFFECTS EMPLOYEE 

ENGAGEMENT: THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AS A 

MEDIATOR                                                               
 

 Krishna Khanal (a)1     Neha Arora (b)  
 

(a) Ph.D. Scholar, Geeta University, India and Assistant Professor, King's College, Kathmandu, Nepal; E-mail: krishnakhanal1@gmail.com 
(b) Assistant Professor, Geeta University, Haryana, India; E-mail: neha.arora2491@gmail.com 
                 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 

 
 

Article History: 

 

Received: 18th February 2025 
Reviewed & Revised: 18th February 

to 30th May 2025 

Accepted: 11th June 2025 

Published: 16th June 2025 

 
Keywords: 

 

Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee 

Engagement, Organizational Trust, Social 

Identity Theory, Social Exchange Theory 

 
JEL Classification Codes: 

 

      I23, M14, J28, D23 

       

      Peer-Review Model:  
 

      External peer review was done through  

      double-blind method.        

 
A B S T R A C T      

 

The lack of understanding about how Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) influences faculty 

engagement in business schools presents a challenge for higher education institutions, especially in 
developing countries like Nepal. While CSR is often studied in corporate settings, there is limited 

research on its impact within academic environments, where faculty members play a central role. This 

study examines how faculty perceptions of CSR affect their engagement at work, with organizational 

trust as a mediating factor. A quantitative survey was conducted using purposive sampling, and 

responses were collected from 239 faculty members working in business schools across Nepal. Structural 

Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to investigate the relationships between perceived Corporate 

Social Responsibility (CSR), organizational trust, and faculty engagement. The results indicate that 

faculty members' positive views of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are associated with increased 
engagement and trust in their institutions. Moreover, organizational trust was found to mediate the 

relationship between CSR and engagement partially. This confirms that when faculty members perceive 

their institutions as socially responsible, they are more likely to trust their organization and be engaged 

in their roles. The findings contribute to existing research by demonstrating that CSR, often regarded as 

an external-facing strategy, also plays a crucial role internally in fostering trust and engagement among 

academic staff. The study adds new knowledge to the fields of business ethics, higher education, and 

organizational behavior by highlighting the importance of CSR perceptions and organizational trust 

within the academic context of Nepal's business schools. 
 

 

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the 
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).  

            

 

INTRODUCTION 

In recent years, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has gained prominence as a strategic and ethical imperative across 

sectors, including higher education (Che et al., 2025). However, academic institutions, especially business schools, have not 

received adequate scholarly attention in this regard (Singh et al., 2023). Despite their vital role in cultivating ethical 

leadership and promoting business ethics, business schools are seldom examined as organizations where corporate social 

responsibility (CSR) is enacted internally (Rhodes & Pullen, 2023; Wu, 2024). Faculty members, who play a central role in 

shaping the ethical compass of future leaders, are key actors whose perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) 

merit deeper exploration. 

A critical concern is the limited understanding of how CSR, when perceived by faculty, influences internal 

organizational outcomes such as employee engagement (EE). While EE is widely recognized as essential for institutional 

innovation and effectiveness, the psychological and organizational mechanisms linking CSR to EE remain understudied 

(Bauer, 2022; K. Park et al., 2024). In particular, organizational trust (OT) has been proposed as a mediating factor; however, 

its role in academic settings remains insufficiently explored. Although trust is fundamental to creating collaborative and 

cohesive work environments, its influence on CSR-related engagement in higher education has not been adequately 

theorized or empirically tested (Yu et al., 2021). 

Prior research has often focused on CSR’s external image-building or its impact on students, leaving a gap in 

understanding how faculty interpret and respond to CSR within their institutions (Abrahão et al., 2024). This study addresses 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0009-0003-1369-0952 
© 2025 by the authors. Hosting by CRIBFB. Peer review is the responsibility of CRIBFB, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i3.2437 

 
To cite this article: Khanal, K., & Arora, N. (2025). EXAMINING HOW BUSINESS SCHOOL FACULTY’S PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL 

RESPONSIBILITY AFFECTS EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AS A MEDIATOR. Bangladesh Journal 

of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 10(3), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i3.2437 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i3.2437
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1369-0952
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8197-2253


Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

38 

that gap by examining how faculty members in business schools perceive CSR and how this perception affects their 

engagement, with a specific focus on the mediating role of organizational trust. 

Using a quantitative research approach, the study surveyed 325 participants, comprising faculty members from 

business schools, to explore these relationships. Data was analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation 

Modeling (PLS-SEM) via SmartPLS 4. The results confirm that faculty members’ perception of CSR positively influences 

their engagement. Furthermore, the mediating effect of organizational trust is supported, reinforcing the view that faculty 

engagement is shaped not just by CSR initiatives but also by the level of trust within the institution. 

This study contributes to the CSR literature in higher education by highlighting the internal dynamics of CSR 

perception and engagement among faculty. It also provides empirical insights into how trust functions as a critical link in 

enhancing institutional performance through employee engagement. The remainder of the study is divided into a review of 

the literature, materials and methods, discussions, and conclusions. Future directions are also reported in the concluding 

section of this paper. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Theoretical Background  

Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) 

Two commonly used theoretical frameworks for describing the connections between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 

and Organizational Theory (OT) are Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Homans, 1969) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) 

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Paruzel et al., 2020), as noted in studies such as Jones (2010). SET revolves around the concept 

of reciprocity and is one of the most prominent theories that aim to explain the process by which trust is cultivated within 

an organization (George et al., 2021). When employees perceive their organization as just, compassionate, and supportive, 

they are more likely to reciprocate similar behavior (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).  Over time, this reciprocal behavior 

cultivates loyalty, commitment, and trust (Farooq et al., 2014). 

SIT (Gond et al., 2017) is the primary theoretical framework used to explain how CSR positively affects employees. 

SIT (Tajfel, 1982) suggests that people define themselves in terms of their group memberships. Therefore, when employees 

see their values reflected in their organization's corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, they react positively (Hu et 

al., 2020). This Identification with a group stems from feelings of belonging and emotional connection (Abrams & Hogg, 

1988; Ma et al., 2021). 

 

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 

CSR involves a combination of economic gains and social benefits, where companies contribute to enhancing society 

(Davis, 1973). It is the duty of a company to its diverse stakeholders, including staff, customers, and the general public 

(Ansu-Mensah et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2016). The Nepalese higher education system is slowly prioritizing Corporate Social 

Responsibility (CSR) in its daily operations and research. Many universities, especially business schools, include topics 

related to business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in their curricula, but it is not a compulsory component 

across all disciplines. Nepal's education policy and guidelines encourage corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, 

but there are no policies that mandate universities to implement such initiatives. Nepal's business schools are facing a 

growing demand to uphold social responsibility and ethical standards (Bajracharya et al., 2024).  While there is a primary 

emphasis on academic success, a growing awareness of the importance of executing CSR initiatives is also evident 

(Chapagain, 2020). CSR initiatives in Nepal's higher education institutions (HEIs) are expanding through various programs, 

including community service, environmentally sustainable initiatives, and efforts to integrate underprivileged segments into 

educational institutions. These initiatives can help strengthen the brand image, reputation, stakeholder perception, well-

being of teachers, and quality of education of HEIs (Bajracharya et al., 2024; Wu, 2024). It is a strategic priority for 

universities and serves as an internal compass for both university improvement and its external reputation (Latif et al., 2022) 

Employee perceptions are important because they affect attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions (Cheema et al., 2019). 

Employee behavior is often driven by their interpretation of reality rather than by objective reality. According to Hansen et 

al. (2011), perceptions of CSR initiatives are more important than CSR initiatives. Studying employees' perceptions of 

corporate social responsibility (CSR) provides valuable insights into the alignment of organizational values with employees' 

beliefs, thereby cultivating a shared vision and sense of belonging among staff. Additionally, understanding these 

perceptions enables companies to tailor their CSR strategies more effectively, meeting employee expectations and enhancing 

employee engagement. CSR's core philosophy is the ethical responsibility to contribute to society, both human and natural 

resources. Therefore, input from various societal groups and stakeholders, particularly employees, is crucial for sustainable 

business (George et al., 2021).  

 

CSR and Employee Engagement (EE) 

EE is a critical aspect of organizational psychology and management studies, representing the depth of emotional 

connection, dedication, and participation of employees toward their jobs and the organization they belong to. It ensures that 

the staff are committed to the organization's values and simultaneously enhances individuals' sense of satisfaction and 

fulfillment. Rooted in SET, EE emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between an organization and its workforce, wherein 

engaged employees are more likely to put in extra effort, contribute creative ideas, and demonstrate significant levels of 

productivity. Engaged employees tend to exhibit greater job satisfaction, lower absenteeism rates, decreased turnover, and 

improved overall performance, all of which are pivotal for organizational success and sustainability (Buhler, 2006; Hakanen 

& Schaufeli, 2012). Efficient communication, bonuses, work-life balance, regular appraisals, career development 

opportunities, favorable working conditions, effective teamwork, and overall job satisfaction are some of the key elements 

that enhance employee engagement. 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

39 

CSR is positively linked to EE (Caligiuri et al., 2013; Glavas, 2016; Tsourvakas & Yfantidou, 2018). A positive 

relationship between CSR and EE stems from employees finding more profound meaning and alignment with company 

values (Glavas, 2012). Consequently, this instills a sense of contributing one's complete self to the work environment (Rich 

et al., 2010). By participating in CSR initiatives, organizations move beyond mere rhetoric in their value statements to 

effectively communicate their core values to their employees (Jones et al., 2014). However, the relationship between CSR 

and EE differs based on the culture and industries under study (Chaudhary, 2017). Drawing from SET and SIT and the 

related arguments made above, we propose the following hypothesis: 

 

Hypothesis 1: Faculty members’ perception of CSR is positively related to EE. 

 

CSR and Organizational Trust (OT) 

Trust, as described by Bozic et al. (2019), is a mental state characterized by positive beliefs about another’s intentions or 

actions that enable openness and vulnerability in relationships. These positive expectations stem from perceptions of the 

other party’s trustworthiness, shaped by mutually beneficial interactions in the past (Tzafrir & Dolan, 2004). Trust is an 

important form of social capital, in addition to human and physical capital, that influences a country’s economic growth 

(Francois & Zabojnik, 2005; Kong et al., 2023). Organizational trust (OT) entails perceptions, beliefs, or anticipations 

concerning the probability that another party's forthcoming actions will be advantageous, favorable, or non-detrimental (Cui 

& Jiao, 2019). Aureliyah Putri and Kusuma (2022) argue that business trust includes overlooking mistakes based on positive 

assumptions.  

OT is a foundational element crucial for cultivating positive relationships and effective collaboration in the 

workplace. Rooted in SET and organizational psychology, trust within an organization is built on a mutual belief in the 

reliability, honesty, and capabilities of leaders, colleagues, and the organization. When employees perceive their leaders and 

peers as trustworthy, they are more likely to work with dedication, loyalty, and cooperation, which in turn brings productivity 

and innovation to the organization. Moreover, trust facilitates open communication, risk-taking, and conflict resolution. It 

helps build a supportive and inclusive workplace where individuals feel psychologically open to expressing their opinions, 

voicing concerns, and engaging in constructive dialogue. Therefore, nurturing and maintaining open and transparent 

communication is essential for cultivating a positive organizational culture and achieving long-term success. This trust, in 

turn, is responsible for organizational achievement and creating competitive advantage (Berraies et al., 2021). 

CSR initiatives send signals to employees regarding their values, ethics, and trustworthiness (Rupp et al., 2006). 

These initiatives also cultivate greater employee trust in organizations that demonstrate a commitment to societal and 

employee well-being (Vuong & Bui, 2023). Many companies use CSR to cultivate OT (Yan et al., 2022). Research has 

shown a strong positive link between CSR efforts and OT (Tourigny et al., 2019). Accordingly, we hypothesized that 

 

Hypothesis 2:  There is a positive relationship between faculty perceptions of CSR and OT. 

 

Organizational Trust (OT) and Employee Engagement (EE) 

EE is a measure of motivation and shares similarities with organizational commitment (Roberts & Davenport, 2002). 

Therefore, trust in an organization may be associated with work engagement (Ugwu et al., 2014). OT helps increase 

knowledge exchange, which, in turn, boosts EE (Wong et al., 2010). Trust plays a crucial role in enabling staff to concentrate 

on their work, thereby increasing motivation, investment, and engagement. When staff perceive their company as 

trustworthy, they invest themselves fully in their work, causing a higher level of engagement and motivation.  

 

Hypothesis 3: OT is positively related to EE. 

 

OT likely mediates the relationship between faculty perceptions of CSR and EE. Institutions that exhibit good social 

behavior are most likely to be regarded as trustworthy by their employees (Rupp et al., 2006). This trust can augment the 

employer-employee relationship and increase work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008; Lin, 2010).  CSR initiatives 

signal to employees that the organization values their well-being, instilling higher trust among employees, which in turn 

fosters positive perceptions and behavior toward the firm (Farooq et al., 2014).  The empirical findings indicate that trust 

acts as a mediator between the factors that lead to trust and the behavioral outcomes of employees (Colquitt et al., 2007). 

Thus, the following hypothesis has been formulated: 

 

Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between faculties’ CSR perceptions and EE is mediated by OT.  

 

The research model is presented in Figure 1. 

 
Figure 1. Theoretical model 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

40 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Sample and Data Collection 

Data were collected via email using questionnaires from full-time and part-time business school faculty members (full-time 

and part-time) all over Nepal.  The questionnaire included all the details regarding the study's objectives, data confidentiality, 

respondent anonymity, and informed consent. Using purposeful sampling, the researchers gathered data from 239 

respondents out of approximately 320 distributed questionnaires. Purposive sampling was employed as a non-probability 

technique because it aligned with the specific criteria set forth by the research objectives, wherein participants (faculty) 

were selected based on predetermined characteristics relevant to the study. B-school faculty members were selected because 

they are not only responsible for teaching CSR in academic work but also influence how CSR is perceived and implemented 

in organizations.  These faculties' perceptions regarding CSR can impact their engagement level in B-schools, making them 

a relevant population for this study.  

 

Demographics 

Among the 239 surveyed samples, male respondents were higher (65.7 %) than female respondents (32.6 %). Most 

respondents had 0-5 years of teaching experience (accounting for 33.9%), followed by 6-10 years (25.9%). The age 

distribution of the respondents showed a concentration in the 31–35-year range (30.6%), followed by the 36-40-year range 

(23.1%). Most respondents (62.7%) were married. Regarding education, respondents with graduate (or Master's) degrees 

were predominant at 76.1%, followed by those with undergraduate (or Bachelor's) degrees, accounting for 15.7%. Regarding 

monthly income levels, respondents earning between $ 45,001 and $ 60,000 were the most numerous, accounting for 32.8% 

of the total. Nearly a quarter (23.9%) of respondents had incomes in the 60001-75000 range.  

Research Instrument  

A five-point Likert scale was used in this study. The scale ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).  

 

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):  Employee perceptions of CSR initiatives were assessed using a 3-item scale 

adapted from Du et al. (2007) and Wagner et al. (2009). This scale has been used in various other studies (Brammer et al., 

2015) and demonstrated a reliability of 0.837 in the current study. 

 

Organizational Trust (OT): To measure OT, we relied on a 4-item scale developed by Cummings and Bromiley (1996). 

The reliability of this scale was 0.893. 

 

Employee Engagement (EE): EE was measured using a 4-item scale developed by Rich et al. (2010).  The scale 

demonstrated a reliability of 0.843. 

 

Common Method Bias  

In recent decades, researchers in social science and organization studies have emphasized common method bias and its 

effect on research findings. Common method bias is the spurious "variance that is attributable to the measurement method 

rather than to the constructs that measures are assumed to represent" (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Reio (2010) suggests that this 

bias can compromise the reliability and validity of constructs, creating systematic bias in the perceived relationships among 

variables. 

The correlation matrix procedure was used to assess the impact of common method bias through latent constructs, 

where a correlation coefficient r > 0.9 between the principal constructs was considered indicative of the presence of common 

method bias (Tehseen et al., 2017). 

 

Analyses Strategy  

This study used IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27) and AMOS (version 24) to analyze the data. Structural equation modeling 

(SEM), a theory-based approach, was employed to test the pre-defined hypotheses regarding the causal relationships 

between the measured and latent variables (Mueller & Hancock, 2018). Following Hair et al. (2013), SEM was conducted 

in two steps. First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the constructs. 

Convergent validity was evaluated using Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criteria, requiring an average variance extracted 

(AVE) of at least 0.50 and composite reliability (CR) greater than 0.70. Discriminant validity was confirmed if the maximum 

shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) were lower than the average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et 

al., 2010). Additionally, the Fornell-Larcker criteria and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations were used to validate 

further discriminant validity (Ab Hamid et al., 2017). 

Once construct reliability and validity were established, the study hypotheses were tested by estimating the 

structural equation parameters using maximum likelihood estimation. A bootstrap sample of 2,000 was used to estimate the 

indirect effect of CSR perception on employee engagement, with a 95% confidence interval (Ibrahim et al., 2023). 

 
RESULTS 

Primary Analysis 

Initially, the data were scrutinized for fundamental assumptions (e.g., missing values, unengaged responses, outliers, and 

normality). The data were collected from Google Forms, where participants were required to respond to every question, 

resulting in no missing values. 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

41 

Following Kline’s (2005) instructions, 239 responses were examined for outliers, where we applied the 

Mahalanobis distance at p < 0.000 as a criterion for identifying significant outliers. No significant outliers were observed in 

the data. 

Data normality was assessed according to Byrne's (2010) guidelines. The skewness and kurtosis values were within the 

acceptable ranges of ±1 and ±3, respectively, indicating a normal distribution. 

 

Common Method Bias  

 

Table 1. Correlation between the constructs  

  
Corporate social responsibility  Organizational Trust Employee engagement 

Corporate social responsibility 1     

Organizational Trust .603(***) 1   

Employee engagement .765(***) .751(***) 1 

***significant at 0.001 level (Two-tailed) 

 

Table 1 shows that the correlation between the constructs was less than 0.9. Thus, common method bias was not a concern 

in the present study. Further, it also shows the relationship between variables. The results indicate a significant relationship 

between organizational trust and corporate social responsibility. Additionally, employee engagement is found to have a 

positive and significant relationship with both corporate social responsibility and organizational trust.  

 

Measurement Model Evaluation  

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the fit of our measurement model to the data. We used a factor loading 

cutoff of ≥0.5 for each item. We assessed goodness of fit using the following criteria: chi-square/degrees of freedom, Tucker-

Lewis's index (TLI ≥ 0.9), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.9), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08) 

(Sathyanarayana & Mohanasundaram, 2024). The model fit indices suggest that our measurement model is suitable for 

further analyses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Measurement model with factor loadings 

 

Figure 2 illustrates the measurement model, which includes factor loadings that show the relationships between the 

latent constructs—Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Trust, and Employee Engagement—and their observed 

indicators in confirmatory factor analysis.  

To ensure the accuracy of the measures, the study evaluated convergent and discriminant validity, confirming the 

reliability and validity of the constructs. Reliability was deemed acceptable because all constructs demonstrated a Composite 

Reliability (CR) and Cronbach's alpha of 0.70 or higher (Cheema et al., 2019; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 2 shows that 

AVE≥0.5 and CR≥0.7 for all constructs. Thus, the convergent validity of all constructs was adequate. Table 3 shows that 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

42 

the square root of each construct's Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is greater than its correlation with other latent 

constructs, thus fulfilling the Fornell and Larcker criterion for discriminant validity. Furthermore, Table 4 presents that the 

correlation between the model constructs is less than 0.85, satisfying the Heterotriat-Monotriat ratio of correlation criteria 

and indicating discriminant validity. 

 

Table 2. Factor loading, reliability, and validity test of the model  

 
Construct Items Factor       Loadings CR AVE MSV ASV 

Corporate social responsibility csr1 0.805 0.845 0.646 0.585 0.468  
csr2 0.843 

    

 
csr3 0.761 

    

Organizational Trust ot1 0.849 0.903 0.757 0.564 0.461  
ot2 0.926 

    

 
ot3 0.833 

    

Employee engagement ei1 0.719 0.851 0.59 0.585 0.57 

 
ei2 0.721 

    

 
ei3 0.785 

    

 
ei4 0.840 

    

Abbreviations: CR=Composite reliability, AVE=Average Variance Extracted, MSV=Maximum Shared variance, ASV=Average shared variance 
 

Table 2 presents the factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum 

shared variance (MSV), and average shared variance (ASV) for each construct, demonstrating the model’s reliability and 

convergent and discriminant validity. 

 
Table 3.  Fornell and Larcker Criterion  

 
Construct Corporate social responsibility Organizational Trust Employee engagement 

Corporate social responsibility 0.804 
  

Organizational Trust 0.603 0.87 
 

Employee engagement 0.765 0.751 0.768 

Note: The bold number represents AVE's square root of the AVE, while the off-diagonal number represents the correlation between the constructs. 

 

Table 3 presents the Fornell and Larcker Criterion, where the bold diagonal values indicate the square roots of the 

AVEs for each construct, all exceeding the inter-construct correlations, thereby supporting discriminant validity. 

 

Table 4. Heterotriat-Monotrait Criteria  

 
Construct Corporate social responsibility Organizational Trust Employee engagement 

Corporate social responsibility _ 
  

Organizational Trust 0.63 _ 
 

Employee engagement 0.783 0.777 _ 

 

Table 4 displays the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios of correlations between constructs, all of which are 

below the recommended threshold of 0.90, indicating adequate discriminant validity among the constructs. 

 

Hypothesis testing 

The direct and indirect relationships between the constructs were analyzed using structural equation modeling. 

 

Hypothesis Testing for Direct Effect  

Table 5 displays the standardized beta coefficients, which show the direct relationships between the constructs. A significant 

positive link was found between CSR perception and employee engagement (EE) (β = 0.759, p < 0.001), supporting 

Hypothesis 1. Similarly, Hypothesis 2 was supported, as CSR perception had a significant positive impact on organizational 

Identification (β = 0.592, p < 0.001). Organizational Identification also had a significant positive effect on EE (β = 0.749, p 

< 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3. In summary, all direct effects were significant and positive in this study. 

 

Table 5. Hypothesis testing for direct effect  

 
Regression paths  Hypothesis  Estimate  p value   

 

Remarks 

CSR perceptions ---> Employee Engagement  H1 0.759*** <0.001 0.579 Supported  

CSR perceptions ---> Organizational 

Identification  

H2 0.592*** <0.001 0.35 Supported  

Organizational Identification --->Employee 

Engagement  

H3 0.749*** <0.001 0.56 Supported  

***significant at 0.001 level (Two-tailed) 

 

𝑹𝟐 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

43 

Table 5 presents the results of hypothesis testing for direct effects, showing that all three hypothesized relationships 

are statistically significant (p < 0.001) and supported, with substantial R² values indicating strong explanatory power for 

employee engagement and organizational Identification. 

 
Hypothesis Testing for Indirect Effect 

Because a significant direct effect of CSR perception on employee engagement (EE) was observed, organizational 

Identification was added to the model as a mediating variable. A bootstrapped model (2000 samples, 95% confidence 

interval) was used to test the indirect effect of organizational Identification. All regression paths were statistically significant 

with organizational Identification as a mediator (Table 6). Furthermore, the indirect impact of CSR perception on EE through 

organizational Identification was significant and positive (β = 0.275, p = 0.000, LL = 0.170, UL = 0.421), with the confidence 

interval not containing zero (Table 7). As both direct and indirect effects were significant, a partial mediation model was 

confirmed in this study. Thus, organizational Identification partially mediates the relationship between CSR attitude and 

EE. 

 

Table 6. Regression path in the mediation model  

 
Regression path  Estimate S.E. CR. p value Remarks 

CSR Perception Organizational Trust .603 .077 8.270 *** Significant 

Organizational trust Employee engagement .456 .057 6.267 *** Significant 

Corporate social responsibility Employee engagement .490 .064 6.337 *** Significant 

***significant at 0.001 level (Two-tailed) 

 

Table 6 presents the regression paths in the mediation model, indicating that all tested paths are statistically 

significant (p < 0.001), supporting the mediating role of organizational trust between CSR perception and employee 

engagement. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Standardized regression paths in the presence of organizational trust as a mediator  

Figure 3 illustrates the Standardized Regression Paths, Showing That Corporate Social Responsibility Positively Influences 

Employee Engagement Both Directly and Indirectly Through Organizational Trust, Confirming Its Mediating Role. 

 

Table 7. Hypothesis testing for indirect effect based on Bootstrapping  
 

   95% Bootstrap Confidence Interval   

Regression path    Lower Limit Upper limit P-Value 

CSR Perception Organizational 

TrustEmployee Engagement 

Total Effect   .765 .620 .885 0.001 

Direct effect  .490 .285 .662 0.001 

Indirect Effect  .275 .170 .421 0.000 

 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

44 

Table 7 shows that both the direct and indirect effects of CSR perception on employee engagement through 

organizational trust are statistically significant, confirming a significant mediation effect as supported by the bootstrapped 

confidence intervals and p-values. 

 

DISCUSSIONS 
Research examining the impact of university CSR initiatives and policies on faculty perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors is 

scarce. This study contributes to the literature by addressing this gap and demonstrating the significant influence of perceived 

CSR initiatives on employee engagement (EE) and organizational trust (OT). The findings reaffirm previous studies that 

have shown a positive link between CSR and employee attitudes (Chaudhary, 2017; Manimegalai & Baral, 2018), 

particularly regarding employee engagement (Chaudhary, 2017; Lin, 2010) and organizational trust (Kazmi & Abbas, 2021; 

Lee et al., 2012). By extending this research into the context of higher education, this study provides a novel perspective on 

how CSR perceptions shape faculty engagement and trust in academic institutions. 

This study offers several important contributions. First, it highlights the role of CSR as a strategic tool for enhancing 

faculty engagement in business schools, demonstrating that CSR initiatives impact not only corporate employees but also 

academic professionals. Faculty members, unlike their corporate counterparts, often perceive CSR through the lens of ethical 

responsibility and societal impact. The results suggest that CSR initiatives can elevate employees' sense of purpose at work, 

catalyzing engagement (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017). These initiatives foster pride, teamwork, and skill development, 

ultimately contributing to overall well-being, as evidenced by a recent study on Chinese university teachers (Che et al., 

2025). 

Second, the study reinforces the crucial mediating role of OT in linking CSR perceptions to employee engagement 

(EE). The findings indicate that OT significantly predicts EE, aligning with prior research showing that trust enhances 

engagement and motivates employees to reciprocate with improved performance (Saks, 2006). Furthermore, integrating 

CSR into an institution's decision-making processes cultivates trust among faculty, as observed in corporate settings (J. Park 

et al., 2014). The results build upon previous studies (Chowdhury et al., 2024; J. Park et al., 2014; Pivato et al., 2008) by 

confirming that CSR initiatives have a positive influence on OT in the academic environment. 

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of CSR perceptions on employee engagement 

(EE) through organizational trust (OT) as a mediator. The results confirm that OT partially mediates the relationship between 

CSR and EE, emphasizing the importance of trust in institutional CSR efforts. CSR initiatives convey positive signals about 

an organization's values, increasing trust and cultivating greater engagement (Rupp et al., 2006). As a bridge between CSR 

perceptions and behavioral outcomes, OT helps employees develop confidence in institutional values and goals, ultimately 

enhancing their commitment and engagement (Colquitt et al., 2007). 

Overall, this study contributes to the discourse on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in higher education 

institutions, offering valuable insights for administrators, policymakers, and educators. It underscores the importance of 

cultivating trust through CSR initiatives to enhance faculty engagement and strengthen institutional commitment. Future 

research can build on these findings by exploring additional factors that influence faculty engagement, such as leadership 

support and institutional culture, further enriching the understanding of CSR's role in academia. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

This study aimed to examine how business school faculty members' perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) 

initiatives influence their organizational trust and employee engagement within the context of Nepal's higher education 

institutions. Given the diversity among societies, universities and their faculties possess different abilities to address CSR 

challenges across cultures. Nepal, as an underdeveloped nation, has universities and faculties equipped with the necessary 

abilities, analytical skills, knowledge, and decision-making capabilities to advance societal goals and contribute to a better 

world. These universities and colleges play a crucial role in promoting sustainable economic development by fostering 

connections between corporations and society, ultimately benefiting the nation as a whole. This is a cross-sectional study, 

and these results should be interpreted with caution regarding causality. Long-term studies are necessary for more definitive 

conclusions.  

This study builds on the understanding of CSR by utilizing social identity and social exchange theory to explain how the B-

school faculty's perception of CSR initiatives influences employee engagement. The study underscores the notion that CSR 

is not just an external corporate function but an important internal function that helps organizational commitment and trust. 

This study contributes to the literature on human resource management by identifying CSR as a strategic resource that yields 

positive outcomes within organizations. These findings contribute to the resource-based view by identifying CSR initiatives 

that generate trust as an intangible resource, thereby increasing university or college performance. This study also advances 

the discourse on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in higher education institutions (HEIs) by demonstrating how CSR 

initiatives impact faculty outcomes.  

Based on the frameworks of SIT and SET, this study contributes to the existing literature on CSR and human 

resources. To understand the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and employee behavior, 

stakeholders should implement regular CSR-related programs in universities and colleges to assess their impact on 

employees' work behavior and satisfaction. CSR should be integrated into universities' core values and daily operations. 

This enables management to tailor and enhance CSR initiatives to meet employee expectations and bring greater loyalty.  

They should increase their investment in CSR initiatives to enhance faculty engagement and trust in higher education 

institutions (HEIs). Universities can incentivize faculty members to be involved in CSR initiatives that promote social 

impact.  Universities should design CSR-based faculty development programs to cultivate socially responsible teaching.  

Regulators can enforce these CSR initiatives by mandating CSR in the accreditation process and establishing a funding 



Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

45 

mechanism in research and academia that supports socially responsible business practices. This research should inspire 

senior management in universities and colleges to adopt CSR initiatives, thereby achieving positive work outcomes for 

employees. This holds particular significance for underdeveloped economies like Nepal, where the notion of university 

social responsibility is still in its initial stages and is rarely discussed. Sustainable campus practices, such as waste reduction 

programs and the ethical sourcing of materials, can be implemented on the premises to set an example for students.  

The scope of this study was limited to business school faculty. This decreases the ability to generalize the results 

across Nepal’s higher education institutions (HEIs) and limits the diversity of perspectives. Other schools and departments 

within the universities may have varying levels of CSR awareness and institutional support. This study considers CSR a 

one-dimensional construct and does not differentiate between its internal and external aspects. Future research should 

explore these dual dimensions of CSR and examine their impact on outcome variables. The use of qualitative methods, such 

as in-depth interviews, could offer deeper insights into the perspectives of CSR that may not be well captured through 

quantitative methods.  The use of a Western scale to measure CSR is another limitation. Moving forward, looking for 

alternative CSR dynamics in Nepal’s context is crucial.  Studies using self-report measures often contain an inherent 

common method bias. Since the perception and attitudes of CSR differ across industries, further research can be conducted 

in other industries or within other departments of universities or colleges. The study could also employ cross-country 

comparisons to identify differences in faculty perceptions among regions, thereby gaining a better understanding of global 

variations. To see the evolution of CSR perceptions over time, longitudinal studies can be equally helpful. 

 
 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K. and N.A.; Methodology, K.K.; Software, K.K.; Validation, K.K.; Formal Analysis, K.K. and N.A.; 

Investigation, K.K. and N.A.; Resources, K.K. and N.A.; Data Curation, K.K.; Writing –Original Draft Preparation, K.K. and N.A.; Writing –Review & 

Editing, K.K. and N.A.; Visualization, K.K., Supervision, N.A.; Project Administration, K.K.; Funding Acquisition, K.K. and N.A. The Authors have read 
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not deal with vulnerable groups 
or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The Authors received no funding for this research.  

Acknowledgments: Not applicable.  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, as participation is voluntary, and the statement is 

included on the first page of the questionnaire. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 
due to restrictions.  

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

 

REFERENCES 

Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Mohmad Sidek, M. H. (2017). Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker 

criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890, 012163. 

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163 

Abrahão, V. de M., Vaquero-Diego, M., & Currás Móstoles, R. (2024). University social responsibility: The role of 

teachers. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(1), 100464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100464 

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self‐esteem in social identity and intergroup 

discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403 

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2017). On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness 

Through Work. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1057–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691575 

Ansu-Mensah, P., Marfo, E. O., Awuah, L. S., & Amoako, K. O. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder 

engagement in Ghana’s mining sector: A case study of Newmont Ahafo mines. International Journal of Corporate 

Social Responsibility, 6, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-020-00054-2 

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy of Management Review, 

14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189 

Aureliyah Putri, L. Z., & Kusuma, K. A. (2022). The Effect of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Culture, and Perceived 

Organizational Support on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees in a Company. Indonesian Journal 

of Law and Economics Review, 18(1), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v18i0.879 

Bajracharya, S., Subedi, G., & Pokhrel, L. (2024). Corporate social responsibility and brand loyalty: The mediating role of 

brand experience and brand trust among students in Nepali business schools. The Journal of Business and 

Management, 8(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.3126/jbm.v8i1.72122 

Bauer, E. L. (2022). Linking Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Well-Being—A Eudaimonia 

Perspective. Sustainability, 14(16), 10240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610240 

Berraies, S., Hamza, K. A., & Chtioui, R. (2021). Distributed leadership and exploratory and exploitative innovations: 

Mediating roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing and organizational trust. Journal of knowledge 

management, 25(5), 1287–1318. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0311 

Bozic, B., Siebert, S., & Martin, G. (2019). A strategic action field perspective on organizational trust repair. European 

Management Journal, 37(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.04.005 

Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee Organizational Identification, and 

Creative Effort: The Moderating Impact of Corporate Ability. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 323–

352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114562246 

Buhler, P. (2006). Engaging the workforce: A critical initiative for all organizations. Super Vision, 67(9), 18–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100464
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691575
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-020-00054-2
https://doi.org/10.2307/258189
https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v18i0.879
https://doi.org/10.3126/jbm.v8i1.72122
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610240
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0311
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.04.005
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114562246


Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

46 

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). 

Routledge. 

Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–Win–Win: The Influence of Company‐Sponsored Volunteerism 

Programs on Employees, NGOs, and Business Units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 825–860. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12019 

Chapagain, B. R. (2020). Status of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Nepal. Quest Journal of Management and 

Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3126/qjmss.v2i1.29012 

Chaudhary, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Can CSR help in redressing the 

engagement gap? Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2016-0115 

Che, Y., Samad, S., Han, H., & Ryu, H. B. (2025). Beyond the classroom: How CSR fosters teacher well-being and 

institutional success in higher education. Acta Psychologica, 255, 104899. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104899 

Cheema, S., Afsar, B., & Javed, F. (2019). Employees' corporate social responsibility perceptions and organizational 

citizenship behaviors for the environment: The mediating roles of organizational Identification and environmental 

orientation fit. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 9–21. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1769 

Chowdhury, M. S., Moniruzzaman, H. M., Lipy, N. S., & Kang, D. (2024). Modeling corporate social responsibility and 

organizational attractiveness: The underlying mechanism of organizational trust. South Asian Journal of Business 

Studies, 13(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-05-2021-0187 

Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: A conceptual 

analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 47–71.  

https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.17170 

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of 

their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–

927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 

31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 

Cui, Y., & Jiao, H. (2019). Organizational justice and management trustworthiness during organizational Change: 

Interactions of Benevolence, Integrity, and managerial approaches. Information Processing & Management, 56(4), 

1526–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.10.008 

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. 

Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302–330). Sage 

Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n15 
Davis, K. (1973). The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. Academy of Management 

Journal, 16(2), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/255331 

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of 

competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–

241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001 

Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on 

Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 563–

580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement 

Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 

Francois, P., & Zabojnik, J. (2005). Trust, Social Capital, and Economic Development. Journal of the European Economic 

Association, 3(1), 51–94. https://doi.org/10.1162/1542476053295304 

George, N. A., Aboobaker, N., & Edward, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility, organizational trust, and commitment: 

A moderated mediation model. Personnel Review, 50(4), 1093–1111. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2020-0144 

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of 

Their Whole Selves at Work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796 

Glavas, A. (2012). Employee engagement and sustainability: A model for implementing meaningfulness at and in work. The 

Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 46, 13–29. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.46.13 

Gond, J., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social 

responsibility: A person‐centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225–246. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170 

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, 

NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous 

Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1–

12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001 

Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life 

satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141(2–3), 415–424. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043 

https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12019
https://doi.org/10.3126/qjmss.v2i1.29012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104899
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1769
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-05-2021-0187
https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.17170
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.10.008
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n15
https://doi.org/10.2307/255331
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
https://doi.org/10.1162/1542476053295304
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2020-0144
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043


Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

47 

Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and the 

Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 29–45. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0 

Homans, G. C. (1969). The sociological relevance of behaviorism. In R. L. Burgess & D. Bushell Jr., Behavioral Sociology: 

The Experimental Analysis of Social Processes. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Hu, B., Liu, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). The impact of employees’ perceived CSR on customer orientation: An integrated 

perspective of generalized exchange and social identity theory. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 

Management, 32(7), 2345–2364. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2019-0822 

Ibrahim, Y., Ahmed, M. M., & Nayel, M. T. (2023). The impact of corporate social responsibility practices on employees' 

engagement: The mediating role of organizational Identification. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 

43(2), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22212 

Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social 

exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and 

Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 857–878. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X477495 

Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014). Why Are Job Seekers Attracted by Corporate Social Performance? 

Experimental and Field Tests of Three Signal-Based Mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 383–

404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848 

Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. (2016). Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social 

Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0324 

Kazmi, S. J. A., & Abbas, J. (2021). Examining the Impact of Industry 4.0 on Labor Market in Pakistan. In C. M. Hussain 

& P. Di Sia (Eds.), Handbook of Smart Materials, Technologies, and Devices (pp. 1–11). Springer International 

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58675-1_80-1 

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. 

Kong, D., Piao, Y., Zhang, W., Liu, C., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Trust and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from CEO’s 

early experience. Economic Analysis and Policy, 78, 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.04.003 

Latif, K. F., Tariq, R., Muneeb, D., Sahibzada, U. F., & Ahmad, S. (2022). University Social Responsibility and 

performance: the role of service quality, reputation, student satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Marketing for Higher 

Education, 34(2), 967–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2139791 

Lee, Y.-K., Kim, Y. S., Lee, K. H., & Li, D.-X. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: 

A perspective of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 745–

756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.011 

Lin, C.-P. (2010). Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement Based on Attachment 

Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6 

Ma, R., Cherian, J., Tsai, W.-H., Sial, M. S., Hou, L., & Álvarez-Otero, S. (2021). The Relationship of Corporate Social 

Responsibility on Digital Platforms, Electronic Word-of-Mouth, and Consumer-Company Identification: An 

Application of Social Identity Theory. Sustainability, 13(9), 4700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094700 

Manimegalai, S., & Baral, R. (2018). Examining the mediating role of organizational trust in the relationship between CSR 

practices and job outcomes. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(3), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2017-

0007 

Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). Structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, L. M. Stapleton, & R. O. Mueller 

(Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 445–456). Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649-33 

Park, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust, and corporate reputation: South Korean 

consumers’ perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 295–302. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.016 

Park, K., Cheng, Y., Jiang, H., & Luo, Y. (2024). Employee Engagement with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 

During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ethical Judgments and the Path to Positive Word-of-Mouth. Journal of Public 

Relations Research, 37(1–2), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2024.2373252 

Paruzel, A., Danel, M., & Maier, G. W. (2020). Scrutinizing Social Identity Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility: An 

Experimental Investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 580620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580620 

Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of 

organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00515.x 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and 

Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 

Reio, T. G. (2010). The Threat of Common Method Variance Bias to Theory Building. Human Resource Development 

Review, 9(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331 

Rhodes, C., & Pullen, A. (2023). The good business schools. Organization, 30(6), 1273–

1280. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231189268 

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance. 

Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 

Roberts, D. R., & Davenport, T. O. (2002). Job engagement: Why it’s important and how to improve It. Employment 

Relations Today, 29(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.10048 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2019-0822
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22212
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X477495
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0324
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58675-1_80-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.04.003
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094700
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649-33
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.016
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580620
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00515.x
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331
https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231189268
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.10048


Khanal & Arora, Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(3) (2025), 37-48

 

48 

Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: 

An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–

543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380 

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 

600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 

Sathyanarayana, S., & Mohanasundaram, T. (2024). Fit indices in structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor 

analysis: Reporting guidelines. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 24(7), 561–

577. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i71430 

Singh, P. K., Sunder, R. G., Mahamuni, P. N., Singh, E. N., Das, B. K., Jumle, A. G., & Kashyap, R. (2023). Corporate 

social responsibility & students' perceptions: Evidence from Indian higher education institutions. F1000Research, 

12, 1187. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137572.1 

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–

39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 

Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of 

Available Methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142–168. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202 

Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V., & Pan, P. (2019). Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A 

Multilevel Study of Their Effects on Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 

158(2), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3745-6 

Tsourvakas, G., & Yfantidou, I. (2018). Corporate social responsibility influences employee engagement. Social 

Responsibility Journal, 14(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2016-0153 

Tzafrir, S. S., & Dolan, S. L. (2004). Trust Me: A Scale for Measuring Manager‐Employee Trust. Management Research: 

Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 2(2), 115–132. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/15365430480000505 

Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: 

The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-

0198 

Vuong, T. K., & Bui, H. M. (2023). The role of corporate social responsibility activities in employees’ perception of brand 

reputation and brand equity. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 7, 100313. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100313 

Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social 

responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77 

Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behaviour and 

perceptions of care quality: Authentic leadership. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 889–900. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x 

Wu, S. (2024). From Global Goals to Classroom Realities: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Promoting 

Teacher Wellbeing in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16(16), 6815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166815 

Yan, X., Espinosa-Cristia, J. F., Kumari, K., & Cioca, L. I. (2022). Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, 

Organizational Trust, and Corporate Reputation for Sustainable Performance. Sustainability, 14(14), 8737. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148737 

Yu, W., Han, X., Ding, L., & He, M. (2021). Organic food corporate image and customer co-developing behavior: The 

mediating role of consumer trust and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 

102377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102377 

 
 

Publisher’s Note: CRIBFB stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research (P-ISSN 2687-850X   E-ISSN 2687-8518) by CRIBFB is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i71430
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137572.1
https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3745-6
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2016-0153
https://doi.org/10.1108/15365430480000505
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100313
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166815
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148737
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102377
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

