The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance with the mediating role of employee engagement and green innovation: evidence from the Malaysian banking sector

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Source: Created by the author’s based on previous literature.

Table 1. Variables with items.

S. No.	Variable	Items	Source
1	Corporate social responsibility	6	Cheema et al. (2020)
2	Employee engagement	9	Rich e al. (2010)
3	Green innovation	8	El-Kassar and Singh (2019)
4	Organizational performance	4	Lin et al. (2013)

Source: Author’s Estimation

Figure 2. Reliability and validity.

Source: Author's Estimation

Figure 3. Structural model.

Source: Author's Estimation

Table 2. Reliability and validity of the constructs.

Variables	Items	Factor loading	α	CR	AVE	R^2
Corporate social responsibility	CSR1	0.752	0.887	0.913	0.638
	CSR2	0.897
	CSR3	0.891
	CSR4	0.780
	CSR5	0.704
	CSR6	0.750
Employee engagement	EE1	0.811	0.911	0.923	0.571	0.037
	EE2	0.708
	EE3	0.712
	EE4	0.730
	EE5	0.842
	EE6	0.744
	EE7	0.723
	EE8	0.783
	EE9	0.733
Green innovation	GI1	0.675	0.889	0.912	0.568	0.252
	GI2	0.742
	GI3	0.740
	GI4	0.728
	GI5	0.863
	GI6	0.862
	GI7	0.835
	GI8	0.527
Organizational performance	OP1	0.862	0.833	0.889	0.669	0.277
	OP2	0.816
	OP3	0.864
	OP4	0.721

Source: Author’s Estimation

Table 3. Discriminant validity Fornell-Larcker criteria.

Variables	CSR	EE	GI	OP
Corporate social responsibility	0.799
Employee engagement	0.191	0.756
Green innovation	0.502	0.243	0.754
Organizational performance	0.401	0.398	0.334	0.818

Source: Author’s Estimation

Table 4. Discriminant validity HTMT criteria.

Variables	CSR	EE	GI	OP
Corporate social responsibility
Employee engagement	0.185
Green innovation	0.520	0.233
Organizational performance	0.448	0.401	0.356

Source: Author’s Estimation

Table 5. Hypothesis direct and indirect effects.

Hyp.	Paths	β-value	STD	T-value	P-Value	Remarks
H1	CSR -> OP	0.282	0.060	4.738	0.000	Supported
H2	CSR -> EE	0.191	0.052	3.660	0.000	Supported
H3	CSR -> GI	0.502	0.045	11.199	0.000	Supported
H4	EE -> OP	0.316	0.046	6.887	0.000	Supported
H5	GI -> OP	0.115	0.065	1.771	0.077	Not-supported
H6	CSR -> EE -> OP	0.061	0.016	3.729	0.000	Supported
H7	CSR -> GI -> OP	0.058	0.033	1.773	0.077	Not-supported

Source: Author’s Estimation

Cheema, S., Afsar, B., Al‐Ghazali, B. M., & Maqsoom, A. (2020). Retracted: How employee’s perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee’s pro‐environmental behaviour? The influence of organizational identification, corporate entrepreneurship, and environmental consciousness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1826

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El-Kassar, A. N., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, R. J., Tan, K. H., & Geng, Y. (2013). Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar