Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6, 2354-2368 2024 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate * Correspondence: NguyenTanPhuoc24647@Gmail.com Quantitative study on the impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee performance at plant protection companies in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam Nguyễn Tấn Phước1*, Đào Duy Huân2, Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo3 1,2Tay Do University, Vietnam; NguyenTanPhuoc24647@Gmail.com (N.T.P.) 3Da Lat University, Việt Nam. Abstract: This article presents the results of a formal quantitative survey (Main Study or Official Survey) on the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Awareness on Employee Performance at plant protection products manufacturing enterprises in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. The objective is to examine the impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) on employee performance (EP), with the mediating role of organizational trust (OT) and the moderating role of organizational reputation (OR). The Main Study with 385 samples, used SPSS and AMOS to test Cronbach's Alpha, EFA, CFA and SEM models. The results of the impact coefficients showed that PCSR positively affects EWR with OT as the mediator, and OR as the moderator of this relationship. The coefficients obtained prove that the research hypothesis is appropriate. The research results also provide useful information for managers to better understand the impact of PCSR on employee performance, thereby making appropriate strategic adjustments to business goals. Due to the limited space and sample size, this is a limitation of the study. Keywords: Employee work results, Organizational citizenship behavior, Organizational reputation, Organizational trust; Perceived corporate social responsibility. 1. Introduction The Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) in the modern context has attracted strong attention since 2000, PCSR has become a decisive factor in the sustainable development of enterprises. PCSR not only enhances the image and reputation of enterprises but also contributes positively to the community and business results of enterprises. Previous studies have focused on the impact of CSR at the macro level, such as Aguinis and Glavas (2012) [1]; Kim et al. (2017) [2], but there is a great need for micro-level analysis, especially on employee behavior [3]. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and task orientation outcomes are important aspects in this study, but studies related to PCSR in the field of human resource management are limited [4]. In Vietnam, although there have been some studies on PCSR, they mainly focus on industries such as banking and fisheries. This study will examine the impact of PCSR on employee performance in the plant protection products manufacturing sector, with the mediating role of organizational trust. The article will focus on the results of the official quantitative survey (Main Study) with 385 samples, using SPSS and AMOS to test Cronbach’s Alpha, EFA, CFA and SEM models. The research results will provide insights for managers in adjusting strategies to improve operational efficiency, towards sustainable development and creating positive values for businesses and society as a whole. 2355 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypothesis 2.1. Social Responsibility Awareness & Organizational Trust Perceived corporate social responsibility (PCSR) is defined by Endsley (1995) [5] as the result of the interaction between employees and the organization. Wei et al. (2020) [6]; Phuoc et al. (2024) [7]; Phuoc and Huan (2024) [8] [8] argue that PCSR reflects how stakeholders evaluate a company's CSR activities. Dahlsrud (2006) [9] emphasizes that PCSR is the way stakeholders understand and interpret information about CSR, while Crane and Matten (2007) [10] argue that it forms and maintains beliefs about a company's CSR. From this, it can be understood that employees' perceptions of CSR reflect how they view these activities of the company. Organizational trust is the belief of employees that the actions of a company will benefit them. In an organizational environment, employees will perceive the ethical practices of the company in internal and external relationships. Hansen et al. (2011) [11]; Phuoc et al. (2024) [7]; Phuoc and Huan (2024) [8] argue that CSR activities send important signals about the ethics and values of the company to stakeholders such as the government, employees, and customers. Trust is a key element in sustainable relationships and is the foundation for positive exchanges between participants. Blau (1964) [12] proposed the trust mechanism as the foundation for social responsibility, which is well understood through social exchange theory [12]. According to this theory, CSR creates employee trust in the organization, thereby enhancing their commitment and intention to stay. Salanova et al. (2021) [13]; Blomqvist (2000) [14]; Bauman and Skitka (2012) [15] emphasize that CSR influences employees' perceptions of the organization, while Bello (2012) [16] argues that trust in the organization increases compliance with ethical behavior. Finally, the perception of corporate social responsibility (PCSR) on CSR implementation will create signals about the organization's ethics and values to stakeholders, affecting the feelings, perceptions and trust of employees (OT) towards the organization, thereby bringing many values to the business such as enhancing engagement, reducing recruitment costs and attracting resources, increasing operational efficiency and work results of the business. With the above presentation, the author proposes hypothesis H1. H1: Perceived corporate social responsibility affects organizational trust. 2.2. Social Responsibility Awareness & Work Results Perceived corporate social responsibility (PCSR) can produce positive outcomes for employees at work, encouraging them to build strong relationships with the organization based on a sense of belonging [17];[18]. According to Dutton et al. (1994) [19], employees tend to exert more emotional and cognitive effort, which in turn creates positive attitudes toward work and affects work outcomes. Work outcomes are part of the corporate goals, directing individuals' attention to actions and providing a framework for interpreting related events [20]. With Dweck (2013) [21] indicating that goal orientation is associated with stable personality and development of attributes such as intelligence and skills. Vandewalle (1997) [22] and Elliot and Church (1997) [23] divided performance orientation into approach orientation and avoidance orientation, in which performance-oriented individuals are motivated to demonstrate their abilities and avoid failure. According to Barron and Harackiewicz (2000) [24], individuals with a performance-oriented approach strive to achieve goals and outperform others. Therefore, the organization's social responsibility activities affect employees' perceptions and behaviors in achieving work goals. Chaudhary (2018) [25]; Mensah et al. (2017) [26]; Helm (2013); Phuoc et al. (2024) [7]; Phuoc and Huan (2024) [8] also affirmed that companies with good social responsibility will attract good employees, although there is still controversy about the effect of social responsibility on work results. However, Phuoc et al. (2024) [7]; Phuoc and Huan (2024) [8]; Wagner et al. (2004) [26]; Knippenberg et al. (2000) [27] stated that employees with a strong sense of identification with the organization will demonstrate positive behavior and improve work performance in the organization. From the above arguments, the author proposes hypothesis H2: 2356 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate H2a: Perceptions of corporate social responsibility influence work performance orientation. H2b: Perceived corporate social responsibility influences citizenship behavior (OCB-I). H2c: Perceived corporate social responsibility influences citizenship behavior (OCB-O). 2.3. Organizational Trust & Work Orientation Outcomes, Citizenship Behavior Organizational trust reflects the relationship between employees and the organization and society. According to Podsakoff et al. (1990) [28], organizational trust is the extent to which employees trust their superiors and colleagues. George et al. (2020) [29] describe organizational trust as a social exchange relationship, while Yang and Tsai (2022) [30] relate this to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1943) [31], arguing that when employees see benefits from organizational behavior, they will respond positively. Organizational trust contributes to performance and goal achievement, influencing employee behavior [32]; [33]; [7]; [8]. Increased organizational trust leads to job satisfaction and improved job performance [34]; [35]; [42]. From these analyses, the author found a correlation between organizational trust and employee performance, thereby proposing hypothesis H3. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been extensively studied, with Organ (1988) [36]; Organ (1989) [41] identifying five components: altruism, politeness, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. Chaudhary (2020) [5] extended this definition to include non-compulsory event participation behaviors and suggested improvements. Williams and Anderson's (1991) [37] study divided OCB into OCB-O (organization-oriented) and OCB-I (individual-oriented). However, the specific influence of organizational trust (OT) on OCB-I and OCB-O is still limited, so the author proposed hypotheses H4 and H5. H3: Organizational trust affects task orientation outcomes. H4: Organizational trust affects citizenship behavior (OCB-I) H5: Organizational trust affects citizenship behavior (OCB-O) 2.4. Research Model With the above presentation content and hypotheses, the research model is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Research model. 2357 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 3. Research Methods In this study, the author combines both qualitative and quantitative research methods. In the previous article, the qualitative research method and Pilot test quantitative research were presented. In this article, the author presents the official quantitative research results with a sample size of 385 samples. The survey subjects are employees working at enterprises in the field of plant protection drugs in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed with many new attributes and aspects, suitable for the characteristics of businesses in this field, based on the inheritance and adjustment from the scales of Turker(2009)[38], Pearce et al(1994)[39], Top et al(2015)[40], Williams et al(1991)[37], Chaudhary(2020)[25], Organ(1988)[36], Podsakoff et al(1990)[28], with the consensus of experts. The author used a 5-point Likert scale and used SPSS and AMOS version 4.2 software to check the related coefficient values. The survey was conducted by sending the survey directly and sending the Google Form link via applications such as Zalo, Viber, WeChat and WhatsApp. After eliminating invalid responses, the remaining 385 valid questionnaires were coded and analyzed. 4. Results and Analysis 4.1. Demographic information The survey resulted in 385 valid responses and demographic information is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic information. Information Select Number (people) Rate (%) Giới tính Female 138 35.8 % Male 241 62.6 % Other 6 1.6 % year old 22-30 173 44.9 % 31-40 96 24.9 % 41-50 77 20.0 % > 50 39 10.1 % Marital status Single 165 42.9 % Married 220 57.1 % Job position Staff 346 90.1 % Manage 39 9.9 % Education level Other 204 53.0 % Finished University 127 33.0 % Master 54 14.0 % PhD 0 0.0 % Income/month <10 million 148 38.4 % 10-15 million 122 31.7 % 15-20 million 73 19.0 % > 20 million 42 10.9 % Total 385 100% 4.1.1. Scale Test Results with Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient The reliability test results obtained showed that all 9 scales were reliable with Cronbach's Alpha values ranging from 0.78 - 0.923, all ≥ 0.6. 2358 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 2. Summary of cronbach's alpha test results. Scale name Observation variable Cronbach's alpha Result PCSR - Stakeholders 4 0.806 Accept PCSR - With staff 4 0.83 Accept PCSR - With customers 3 0.79 Accept PCSR - With the government 3 0.781 Accept OR - Reputation 5 0.9 Accept OT - Organizational trust 5 0.901 Accept EP - Job task orientation 9 0.923 Accept EP - OCB-I 5 0.875 Accept EP - OCB-O 5 0.885 Accept 4.1.2. Evaluate the Scale Using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) EFA analysis with 43 observed variables showed that KMO = 0.913 (> 0.5), and Bartlett's Test had Chi-square = 10,180.489, df = 903, Sig. = 0.000 (< 0.05). The total variance extracted reached 60.357% (> 50%), proving that the 9 extracted factors explained 60.357% of the variation in the data. The Eigenvalue of the last factor was 1.041 (> 1), meeting the criteria for factor analysis (Table 3; Table 4). Table 3. KMO and Bartlett's Test. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. 0.913 Bartlett's test of Sphericity Approx. chi-square 10180.489 df 903 Sig. 0.000 Table 4. Total extracted variance. Factor Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadingsa Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total 1 12.793 29.751 29.751 12.400 28.837 28.837 8.125 2 4.261 9.909 39.661 3.894 9.057 37.894 3.936 3 2.988 6.949 46.609 2.627 6.110 44.004 8.440 4 2.370 5.512 52.122 1.965 4.570 48.573 7.257 5 1.834 4.265 56.386 1.463 3.401 51.975 7.652 6 1.687 3.923 60.309 1.299 3.022 54.997 7.334 7 1.381 3.211 63.520 0.974 2.266 57.263 6.197 8 1.144 2.660 66.181 0.720 1.673 58.936 5.437 9 1.041 2.420 68.601 0.611 1.421 60.357 6.309 10 0.816 1.897 70.498 11 0.772 1.795 72.293 12 0.748 1.740 74.033 13 0.649 1.509 75.542 14 0.648 1.506 77.049 15 0.625 1.454 78.503 2359 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 16 0.583 1.356 79.859 17 0.551 1.281 81.140 18 0.528 1.228 82.368 19 0.523 1.216 83.584 20 0.462 1.073 84.657 21 0.442 1.027 85.684 22 0.429 0.997 86.681 23 0.403 0.938 87.620 24 0.395 0.918 88.538 25 0.370 0.860 89.398 26 0.355 0.826 90.224 27 0.346 0.805 91.029 28 0.344 0.800 91.829 29 0.328 0.763 92.592 30 0.305 0.709 93.301 31 0.304 0.706 94.007 32 0.285 0.662 94.669 33 0.272 0.633 95.302 34 0.262 0.610 95.913 35 0.239 0.556 96.469 36 0.232 0.539 97.008 37 0.225 0.523 97.531 38 0.212 0.493 98.024 39 0.196 0.456 98.480 40 0.191 0.445 98.924 41 0.174 0.404 99.328 42 0.159 0.370 99.698 43 0.130 0.302 100.000 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring. 4.1.3. Scale Evaluation by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) CFA analysis results were performed for the scales and CFA results with regression weights and standardized regressions as shown in Table 5. 2360 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 5. CFA analysis results. Standardized regression weights (Group number 1- Default model) Regression weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate S.E. C.R. P EP9 <-- IRTP 0.759 EP9 <-- IRTP 1 EP3 <-- IRTP 0.781 EP3 <-- IRTP 1.062 0.067 15.938 *** EP4 <-- IRTP 0.752 EP4 <-- IRTP 0.967 0.063 15.255 *** EP5 <-- IRTP 0.81 EP5 <-- IRTP 1.055 0.063 16.643 *** EP10 <-- IRTP 0.804 EP10 <-- IRTP 1.068 0.065 16.497 *** EP6 <-- IRTP 0.709 EP6 <-- IRTP 0.924 0.065 14.272 *** EP2 <-- IRTP 0.758 EP2 <-- IRTP 1.035 0.067 15.394 *** EP7 <-- IRTP 0.724 EP7 <-- IRTP 0.951 0.065 14.618 *** EP1 <-- IRTP 0.706 EP1 <-- IRTP 0.962 0.068 14.193 *** OR2 <-- OR 0.884 OR2 <-- OR 1 OR3 <-- OR 0.854 OR3 <-- OR 0.907 0.041 22.079 *** OR5 <-- OR 0.844 OR5 <-- OR 0.915 0.042 21.616 *** OR4 <-- OR 0.744 OR4 <-- OR 0.814 0.046 17.546 *** OR1 <-- OR 0.685 OR1 <-- OR 0.681 0.044 15.485 *** OT3 <-- OT 0.8 OT3 <-- OT 1 OT1 <-- OT 0.813 OT1 <-- OT 0.972 0.055 17.585 *** OT5 <-- OT 0.802 OT5 <-- OT 1.03 0.06 17.288 *** OT4 <-- OT 0.794 OT4 <-- OT 1.002 0.059 17.073 *** OT2 <-- OT 0.814 OT2 <-- OT 1.073 0.061 17.614 *** EP15 <-- OCB_I 0.755 EP15 <-- OCB_I 1 EP12 <-- OCB_I 0.823 EP12 <-- OCB_I 1.123 0.069 16.17 *** EP14 <-- OCB_I 0.779 EP14 <-- OCB_I 0.998 0.066 15.236 *** EP11 <-- OCB_I 0.8 EP11 <-- OCB_I 1.025 0.065 15.685 *** EP13 <-- OCB_I 0.673 EP13 <-- OCB_I 0.91 0.07 13.004 *** EP20 <-- OCB_O 0.827 EP20 <-- OCB_O 1 EP17 <-- OCB_O 0.831 EP17 <-- OCB_O 1.016 0.054 18.723 *** EP19 <-- OCB_O 0.778 EP19 <-- OCB_O 0.91 0.053 17.105 *** EP16 <-- OCB_O 0.749 EP16 <-- OCB_O 0.903 0.056 16.254 *** EP18 <-- OCB_O 0.714 EP18 <-- OCB_O 0.881 0.058 15.272 *** 2361 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Standardized regression weights (Group number 1- Default model) Regression weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate S.E. C.R. P PCSR6 <-- PCSR_B 0.788 PCSR6 <-- PCSR_B 1 PCSR7 <-- PCSR_B 0.834 PCSR7 <-- PCSR_B 1.008 0.061 16.526 *** PCSR5 <-- PCSR_B 0.703 PCSR5 <-- PCSR_B 0.782 0.057 13.804 *** PCSR8 <-- PCSR_B 0.645 PCSR8 <-- PCSR_B 0.812 0.065 12.542 *** PCSR2 <-- PCSR_A 0.773 PCSR2 <-- PCSR_A 1 PCSR1 <-- PCSR_A 0.749 PCSR1 <-- PCSR_A 0.95 0.07 13.652 *** PCSR3 <-- PCSR_A 0.729 PCSR3 <-- PCSR_A 0.976 0.073 13.337 *** PCSR4 <-- PCSR_A 0.612 PCSR4 <-- PCSR_A 0.762 0.068 11.219 *** PCSR13 <-- PCSR_D 0.76 PCSR13 <-- PCSR_D 1 PCSR12 <-- PCSR_D 0.756 PCSR12 <-- PCSR_D 0.914 0.072 12.778 *** PCSR14 <-- PCSR_D 0.702 PCSR14 <-- PCSR_D 0.929 0.077 12.139 *** PCSR9 <-- PCSR_C 0.712 PCSR9 <-- PCSR_C 1 PCSR10 <-- PCSR_C 0.816 PCSR10 <-- PCSR_C 1.128 0.083 13.62 *** PCSR11 <-- PCSR_C 0.713 PCSR11 <-- PCSR_C 0.99 0.08 12.343 *** 2362 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate The results of EFA analysis showed convergent validity, when the observed variables were classified into factor groups with factor loading coefficients consistent with the original scale. Discriminant validity was also confirmed, when each variable had only one loading coefficient greater than 0.5, proving that the variables had practical significance and qualified for the next testing steps. Specifically, 9 factors were extracted including: Task Oriented Outcomes (IRTP); Organizational Reputation (OR); Organizational Trust (OT); Individual Citizenship Behavior (OCB-I); Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB-O); PCSR-B; PCSR-A; PCSR-D; and PCSR-C. The rotation matrix showed that the observed variables were clearly distributed, demonstrating high convergence in each factor and good discrimination between groups. 4.1.4. SEM Linear Structural Model Testing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis determined the relationships among the factors, with unstandardized weights presented in Table 6 and standardized weights in Table 7, illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2. SEM results of the research model (standardized). 2363 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 6. Unstandardized weights of the SEM model. Relationship Estimated value SE CR P PCSR → PCSR_A 1.000 PCSR → PCSR_B 1.265 0.140 9.038 0.000 PCSR → PCSR_C 1.207 0.134 9.015 0.000 PCSR → PCSR_D 0.933 0.117 7.971 0.000 PCSR → OT 1.124 0.130 8.667 0.000 PCSR → IRTP 0.565 0.130 4.347 0.000 PCSR → OCB_O 0.945 0.144 6.582 0.000 PCSR → OCB_I 0.901 0.141 6.372 0.000 OT → IRTP 0.211 0.071 2.967 0.003 OT → OCB_I 0.140 0.068 2.068 0.039 OT → OCB_O 0.151 0.070 2.174 0.030 Table 7. Standardized weights of the SEM model. Relationship Coefficient PCSR → PCSR_A 0.678 PCSR → PCSR_B 0.747 PCSR → PCSR_C 0.832 PCSR → PCSR_D 0.634 PCSR → OT 0.687 PCSR → IRTP 0.374 PCSR → OCB_O 0.606 PCSR → OCB_I 0.602 OT → IRTP 0.229 OT → OCB_I 0.153 OT → OCB_O 0.159 The SEM analysis results show that the model has 654 degrees of freedom, with a Chi-square value of 1424.091 (P-value=0.000), Chi-square/df=2.178 (<3). The CFI=0.908, TLI=0.902, IFI=0.909 (>0.9) and RMSEA=0.055 (<0.08) indicators are all good, indicating that the model fits the actual data. The unstandardized regression coefficient estimates in Table 4.8 also show that all relationships are statistically significant (p<5%). 4.1.5. Model Testing with Bootstrap Method This test evaluates the reliability of the estimates in the model with a replicate sample of N=1,000. The results from 1,000 observations show that the bias is very small, proving that the model is still significant with a large sample size, so the estimate is reliable. The Mean column shows the regression coefficient of the bootstrap estimate, the Bias column is the difference between the Mean and the regression coefficient when not using the bootstrap, and the SE-Bias column is the standard deviation of the Bias. The C.R (Critical Ratios) value is calculated by dividing the Bias by the SE-Bias. If C.R < 1.96, the p-value > 5% is inferred, reject Ha, accept H0, showing that the deviation is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, confirming the accuracy of the model (see Table 8). 2364 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 8. Model estimation results with Bootstrap method. Parameter SE SE-SE Mean Bias SE-Bias CR PCSR → PCSR_A 0.050 0.001 0.675 -0.002 0.002 -1.00 PCSR → PCSR_B 0.054 0.001 0.750 0.003 0.002 1.50 PCSR → PCSR_C 0.034 0.001 0.832 0.000 0.001 0.00 PCSR → PCSR_D 0.061 0.001 0.633 -0.001 0.002 -0.50 PCSR → OT 0.057 0.001 0.689 0.002 0.002 1.00 PCSR → IRTP 0.090 0.002 0.373 -0.001 0.003 -0.33 PCSR → OCB_O 0.135 0.003 0.604 -0.002 0.004 -0.50 PCSR → OCB_I 0.131 0.003 0.601 0.000 0.004 0.00 OT → IRTP 0.091 0.002 0.230 0.000 0.003 0.00 OT → OCB_I 0.133 0.003 0.152 -0.001 0.004 -0.25 OT → OCB_O 0.135 0.003 0.156 -0.002 0.004 -0.50 4.1.6. The Moderating Role of Organizational Reputation and Hypothesis Testing Results The results of the analysis using Process Procedure for SPSS Version 4.2 showed that organizational reputation (OR) moderated the relationship between perceived social responsibility (PCSR) and organizational trust (OT). Specifically, PCSR had a positive and statistically significant impact on OT (coeff = 0.7697, p = .0000), meaning that as employees' perceptions of social responsibility increased, their trust in the organization also increased. Similarly, organizational reputation also positively affected organizational trust (coeff = .1558, p = .0003), indicating that employees in organizations with good reputations trust the organization more. In particular, the moderating effect of the PCSR * OR interaction was also statistically significant (coeff = 0.1850; p = 0.0166), with a positive coefficient (+), indicating that organizational reputation strengthens the positive relationship between PCSR and OT (Table 8). And the results of theoretical model estimation and Bootstrap show that the hypothesized relationships in the model all reach statistical significance with P- value ranging from 0.000 to 0.005 (95% confidence level). The results of hypothesis testing are presented in (Table 9; Table 10). Table 9. Results of testing the moderating role. 2365 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 10. Hypothesis testing results. Hypothesis Regression coefficient Result H1 PCSR ➔ OT 0.687 Accept H2a PCSR ➔ IRTP 0.374 Accept H2b PCSR ➔ OCB-I 0.606 Accept H2c PCSR ➔ OCB-O 0.602 Accept H3 OT ➔ IRTP 0.229 Accept H4 OT ➔ OCB-I 0.153 Accept H5 OT ➔ OCB-O 0.159 Accept H6 0.185 Accept 5. Conclusion & Recommendations 5.1. Conclusion The official quantitative research process with 385 samples and using SPSS software, Version 4.2 to test the reliability of the scale through Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results show that corporate social responsibility (PCSR) awareness has a positive impact on organizational trust (OT), similar to previous studies by Endsley (1995) [5] and Dahlsrud (2006) [9]. The study also pointed out important aspects of PCSR, including responsibility to employees, customers and the government. The results of regression coefficient analysis showed that PCSR has the strongest impact on organizational trust (OT) with a coefficient of 0.687, followed by organizational citizenship behavior of the individual aspect (OCB-I), organizational aspect (OCB-O). The model meets the measurement standards of fit with CFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.902 and RMSEA = 0.055. With the obtained β coefficients, it shows that the perception of social responsibility to customers has the strongest impact (β = 0.832) on OT, while responsibility to employees (β = 0.747) also creates a significant impact. OT has a strong impact on work results (IRTP) with β = 0.229, showing that employees tend to complete tasks better when they trust the organization. And the research results confirm that PCSR not only improves work results but also through OT and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), especially OCB-O has a higher impact coefficient than OCB-I. In addition, organizational reputation (OR) is identified as a positive moderator in the relationship between PCSR and OT. From the above findings, the study extends the theory of job performance and social exchange, emphasizing that CSR activities create value for the enterprise, impact on PCSR; OT; OCB-I and OCB- O; on employee work outcomes, impacting on performance in business operations. Future studies should consider other factors such as socioeconomic and organizational factors to better understand PCSR and employee behavior in organizations, especially in the field of production and trading of plant protection products. 5.1.1. Contribution of the Study The findings of this study are important for enhancing awareness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in enterprises. The link between organizational trust (OT) and work performance (EWR) not only creates a positive work environment but also promotes organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which benefits both the organization and employees. When PCSR is enhanced, organizational trust will lead to better work outcomes, improving employee performance and satisfaction. Organizational citizenship behavior not only reflects cultural values but also builds a sustainable work environment. This study emphasizes that commitment from leaders and employees in implementing CSR values is the key to building a strong organization in the future. Furthermore, the study confirms that PCSR is a 2366 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate key variable in enhancing EWR, IRTP, and OCB (including OCB-O and OCB-I), with organizational trust (OT) playing a mediating role. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices not only benefit society but also create value for businesses and employees, contributing to sustainable development. From there, the implementation of corporate social responsibility creates a sense of social responsibility among employees, builds trust among employees. That will help businesses not only achieve economic success but also demonstrate responsibility to the community. Commitment from the entire organization will be a solid foundation for building a sustainable and prosperous business in the future. 5.1.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions This paper focuses on the results of formal quantitative research and in this study only focused on 385 samples in the Mekong Delta region, Vietnam, so the results do not fully reflect the entire plant protection products industry. To have a deeper understanding of corporate social responsibility (PCSR) awareness and its impact on organizational trust (OT), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), as well as employee work orientation (IRTP), it is necessary to expand the number of survey samples, research areas and surveys. Future research should also consider additional moderating factors such as corporate vision, mission, and leadership awareness. The development scale of this study will be the basis for further research, and the survey should be expanded to many different enterprises and provinces to obtain more comprehensive results on the plant protection products industry. Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 932-968. [2] Kim, H., Lee, J. H., & Na, S. H. (2017, September). Predictor-estimator using multilevel task learning with stack propagation for neural quality estimation. In Proceedings of the second conference on machine translation (pp. 562-568). [3] Liu, Y., Cherian, J., Ahmad, N., Han, H., de Vicente-Lama, M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2023). Internal corporate social responsibility and employee burnout: an employee management perspective from the healthcare sector. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 283-302. [4] Aguinis, H., Rupp, D. E., & Glavas, A. (2024). Corporate social responsibility and individual behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2), 219-227. [5] Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors, 37(1), 65-84. [6] Wei, J., Liu, T., Chavez, D. E., & Chen, H. A. (2020). Managing corporate-government relationships in a multi- cultural setting: How political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) as a response to legitimacy pressures affects firm reputation. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 1-12. [7] Phuoc, N. T., & Huan, Đ. D. (2024). Impact of corporate social responsibility awareness, the intermediate role of organizational trust on employee work performance: A study at pesticide production enterprises in the Mekong Delta. International Journal of Religion, 5(12), 619–642. doi:10.61707/kdhtf773 [8] Phuoc. N.T & Huan. D.D. (2024, May 27). 7.1 ICDI2024-SESG Conference. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from MUST University website: https://must.edu.my/7-1-icdi2024-sesg-conference/ [9] Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.I32 [10] Crane, Andrew, & Matten, Dirk. (2007). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press [11] 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. [12] Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological inquiry, 34(2). [13] Salanova, M., Acosta-Antognoni, H., Llorens, S., & Le Blanc, P. (2021). We trust you! a multilevel-multireferent model based on organizational trust to explain performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4241. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://must.edu.my/7-1-icdi2024-sesg-conference/ https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.I32 2367 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [14] Blomqvist, K., & Ståhle, P. (2000, September). Building organizational trust. In 16th Annual IMP Conference, Bath, UK (pp. 7-9). [15] Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in organizational Behavior, 32, 63-86. [16] Bello, S. M. (2012). Impact of ethical leadership on employee job performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(11), 228-236. [17] Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business ethics, 85, 257-272. [18] Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39. [19] Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy‐anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 24(15), 1367-1386. [20] Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95: 256–273. [21] Dweck, C. S. (2013). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology press. [22] VandeWalle, D. 1997. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57: 995– 1015. [23] Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. 1997. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 218–232. [24] Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of educational psychology, 92(2), 316. [25] Chaudhary, R. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: a study among indian business executives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(21), 2761-2784. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1469159 [26] Wagner, U., Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., 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. [27] Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(2), 137-147. [28] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7. [29] George, N. A., Aboobaker, N., & Edward, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment: effects of CSR attitude, organizational trust and identification. Society and Business Review, 15(3), 255-272. [30] Yang, J. S., & Tsai, L. C. (2023). The moderating effects of trustor characteristics and the cost of being trusted on the relationship between felt trust and OCB intention. Review of Managerial Science, 17(7), 2417-2441. [31] Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370. [32] Akdere, M., Gider, Ö., & Top, M. (2012). Examining the role of employee focus in the Turkish healthcare industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(11-12), 1241-1256. [33] Vineburgh, J. H. (2010). A study of organizational trust and related variables among faculty members at HBCUs (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). [34] Van Nhan, N., Trang, H. T. T., & Vân, T. T. T. (2024). Identify attributes of service quality factors and other factors affecting Calla Spa customer satisfaction. Research of Business and Management, 2(2), 67-76. [35] Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants' and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895-933. [36] Bridoux, F., Stofberg, N., & Den Hartog, D. (2016). Stakeholders' responses to CSR tradeoffs: When other- orientation and trust trump material self-interest. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1992. [37] Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington books/DC heath and com. [38] Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. 1991. “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors” Journal of Management 17(3): 601-617. [39] Turker, D. (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6. [40] Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bakacsi, G. (1994). Person‐based reward systems: A theory of organizational reward practices in reform‐communist organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 261-282. DOI 10.1002/job.4030150307 2368 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 2354-2368, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2481 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [41] Top, M., Akdere, M., & Tarcan, M. (2015). Examining transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in Turkish hospitals: public servants versus private sector employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(9), 1259-1282. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.939987. [42] Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157. [43] Thuy Van Tran Thị, Van Nhan Nguyen, Van Luc Nguyen. (2023). Job Stress and Turnover Intention through Employees Job Attitude: Finding Out at District Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology. http://doi.org/10.61463/ijset.vol.9.issue5.102 [44] Phuoc. N.T & Huan. D.D. (2024, May 27). 7.1 ICDI2024-SESG Conference. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from MUST University website: https://must.edu.my/7-1-icdi2024-sesg-conference/ Organ,%20D.%20W.,%20&%20Konovsky,%20M.%20(1989).%20Cognitive%20versus%20affective%20determinants%20of%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior. Journal%20of%20Applied%20Psychology,%2074(1),%20157–164. https:/doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157 Organ,%20D.%20W.,%20&%20Konovsky,%20M.%20(1989).%20Cognitive%20versus%20affective%20determinants%20of%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior. Journal%20of%20Applied%20Psychology,%2074(1),%20157–164. https:/doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157 http://doi.org/10.61463/ijset.vol.9.issue5.102