Effects of corporate social responsibility activities on Corporate Image: evidence from food and beverage industry in Amhara Region

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		.801
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	3943.816
	df	528
	Sig.	.000

Table 2. Harman’s single-factor test.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	6.807	26.182	26.182	6.807	26.182	26.182
2	2.674	10.285	36.467
3	2.484	9.556	46.023
4	2.218	8.533	54.555
5	2.004	7.709	62.264
6	1.116	4.293	66.557
7	.939	3.610	70.167
8	.763	2.935	73.102
9	.727	2.795	75.897
10	.688	2.647	78.544
11	.601	2.312	80.856
12	.587	2.259	83.115
13	.545	2.096	85.211
14	.496	1.907	87.119
15	.445	1.713	88.832
16	.421	1.621	90.453
17	.395	1.519	91.972
18	.364	1.402	93.373
19	.348	1.340	94.714
20	.312	1.199	95.912
21	.290	1.114	97.027
22	.249	.957	97.984
23	.207	.796	98.780
24	.185	.712	99.492
26	.132	.508	100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Source: Researcher’s analysis.

Table 3. Loadings, reliability, and composite reliability.

Factor	Standardized loadings	Standardized loadings square (A)	ME= 1-A	sum of SL	Sum of ME	^2 of sum of SL (C)	C + sum of ME	CR = C/C + SUM ME)
Economic Responsibility	0.688	0.473799	0.526200	3.043	1.668	9.259	10.927	0.847
	0.708	0.501254	0.498745
	0.797	0.634767	0.365232
	0.850	0.722343	0.277656
Ethical Responsibility	0.825	0.68002	0.319973	3.079	1.624	9.478	11.102	0.853
	0.725	0.524968	0.475031
	0.742	0.550722	0.449277
	0.787	0.619913	0.380086
Legal Responsibility	0.768	0.590569	0.409430	2.888	1.908	8.339	10.247	0.813
	0.679	0.461412	0.538587
	0.756	0.572022	0.427977
	0.684	0.467614	0.532385
Philanthropic Responsibility	.785	0.616790	0.383209	2.965	1.798	8.789	10.587	0.830
	.722	0.521424	0.478575
	.699	0.488992	0.511007
	.721	0.519472	0.480527
Corporate Image	0.769	0.590908	0.409091	7.251	4.406	52.581	56.987	0.917
	0.766	0.586880	0.413119
	0.836	0.699452	0.300547
	0.619	0.383077	0.616922
	0.755	0.569989	0.430010
	0.696	0.484511	0.515488
	0.705	0.496671	0.503328
	0.748	0.559248	0.440751
	0.647	0.418145	0.581854
	0.711	0.505492	0.494507

Source: Researcher’s analysis.

Table 4. Average variance extracted and composite reliability test.

Measures	Number of Items	Alpha	Composite Reliability
Economic Responsibility	4	.764	0.84
Ethical Responsibility	4	.779	0.85
Legal Responsibility	4	.753	0.81
Philanthropic Responsibility	4	.738	0.83
Corporate Image	10	.901	0.91

Source: Researcher’s analysis.

Table 5. Convergent and discriminant validity.

Factor	indicator		latent variable	standardized loadings	Sl square (A)	sum of (sl^2)	no of indicators	AVE	square root of AVE
Economic Responsibility	ER1	<---	F1	0.688	0.473799	2.332	4	0.583041	0.763
	ER2	<---	F1	0.708	0.501254
	ER3	<---	F1	0.797	0.634767
	ER4	<---	F1	0.850	0.722343
Ethical Responsibility	ET1	<---	F2	0.825	0.68002	2.376	4	0.593908	0.770
	ET2	<---	F2	0.725	0.524968
	ET3	<---	F2	0.742	0.550722
	ET4	<---	F2	0.787	0.619913
Legal Responsibility	LR1	<---	F3	0.768	0.590569	2.092	4	0.522905	0.723
	LR2	<---	F3	0.679	0.461412
	LR3	<---	F3	0.756	0.572022
	LR4	<---	F3	0.684	0.467614
Philanthropic Responsibility	PR1	<---	F4	0.785	0.616790	2.202	4	0.550388	0.741
	PR2	<---	F4	0.722	0.521424
	PR3	<---	F4	0.699	0.488992
	PR4	<---	F4	0.721	0.519472
Corporate Image	CI1	<---	F6	0.769	0.590908	5.294	10	0.529438	0.727
	CI2	<---	F6	0.766	0.586880
	CI3	<---	F6	0.836	0.699452
	CI4	<---	F6	0.619	0.383077
	CI5	<---	F6	0.755	0.569989
	CI6	<---	F6	0.696	0.484511
	CI7	<---	F6	0.705	0.496671
	CI8	<---	F6	0.748	0.559248
	CI9	<---	F6	0.647	0.418145
	CI10	<---	F6	0.711	0.505492

Source: Researcher’s analysis.

Table 6. Model fitness indices.

Fit Indices	Recommended value	Sources	Obtained Value
P	Insignificant	Bagozzi and Yi (1988)	.004
CMIN/df	3–5	Less than 2 (Ullman, 2006) to Schumacker and Lomax (2004)	1.434
CFI	> .90	(Bentler, 1990)	.942
TLI	> .90	(Bentler, 1990)	.936
SRMR	< .80	(Bentler & Hu, 1998)	.0484
RMSEA	< .08	(Bentler & Hu, 1998)	.036

Figure 2. Structural model.

Table 7. Structural model results.

Hypothesized Relationship	Standardized Estimates	t-value	p-value	Decision
Economic Responsibility-> CI	.582	7.556	***	H1 Accepted
Ethical Responsibility-> CI	.566	7.449	***	H2 Accepted
Legal Responsibility-> CI	.512	7.982	***	H3 Accepted
Philanthropic Responsibility-> CI	.521	7.070	***	H4 Accepted
R-Square
Corporate Image	.43
Model Fit
CMIN/df = 1.270, TLI = .968, CFI = .972, SRMR = .0452, and RMSEA = .029

* = p<.010, **= p<.005, *** = p < 001.

Source: Researcher’s analysis.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

 Google Scholar

Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (second). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

 Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparitive fit indexes in SEM. Psychological Methods, 22(4), 541–562. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12152184

 Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M., & Hu, L. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar