How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Hotel Reputation: The Role of Customer Trust and Customer Engagement

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimensions shaped hotel reputation (REP) through customer trust (TRU), and whether customer engagement (ENG) moderated this relationship in the Mekong Delta context. Although prior studies had acknowledged the importance of CSR in shaping customer perceptions, they had paid limited attention to the distinct effects of multidimensional CSR and the conditions under which TRU was transformed into REP. A structured questionnaire survey was administered to 874 hotel guests in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. The measurement scales were adapted from previous studies and refined through a pilot test. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), together with bootstrapping, was used to test the direct, mediating, and moderating effects. CSR dimensions exhibited heterogeneous effects. Customer-oriented responsibility had the strongest impact on both TRU and REP, followed by environmental and economic responsibilities. Legal responsibility directly enhanced REP but did not significantly affect TRU, whereas community responsibility strengthened TRU without directly influencing REP. TRU significantly improved REP and mediated most CSR–REP relationships. ENG positively moderated the TRU–REP link, amplifying reputational outcomes. The study contributed to CSR and hospitality research by modeling CSR as a multidimensional construct and by identifying ENG as a boundary condition that strengthened the TRU–REP mechanism. Managers should prioritize customer-focused CSR and enhance engagement to maximize reputational gains.

1. Introduction

As the global hotel industry faces growing pressure to pursue sustainable development, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved from a peripheral practice into a strategic imperative for creating long-term value and sustaining competitive advantage. In hospitality, where services are highly intangible and perceived risk is substantial, CSR functions not only as an ethical commitment but also as a credible signal of transparency, capability, and long-term orientation that may shape how customers evaluate hotels and form perceptions of credibility and reliability (Fatma et al., 2015; Saeidi et al., 2015; Spence, 1978).

Customer trust plays a central role in this process by reducing information asymmetry and enabling customers to evaluate hotels before and after purchase. Prior studies indicate that positive CSR perceptions strengthen customer trust and, in turn, foster favorable outcomes such as hotel reputation, loyalty, and positive word of mouth (Fatma et al., 2018; Martínez & Del Bosque, 2013; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Hotel reputation, as a cumulative stakeholder assessment of credibility, quality, and value, is especially important in digital environments where customer experiences and reviews spread rapidly and shape market perceptions (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004; Heugens, 2004; Lai, 2019). In the present study, hotel reputation is examined primarily from the customer perspective, referring to customers’ overall perception of a hotel’s credibility, quality, and trustworthiness rather than broader market-level or stakeholder-level reputation.

Recent reviews of CSR in hospitality indicate that the field has expanded but remains fragmented, with research concentrated in several themes and a still incomplete understanding of how specific CSR dimensions shape customer-related outcomes (Liang et al., 2022). Earlier CSR studies have frequently modeled CSR perceptions as antecedents of customer trust and other customer-based outcomes: Liu et al. (2025) show that CSR affects customer green behavior through corporate image, service quality, customer trust, and customer satisfaction; Fatma and Khan (2024) demonstrate that CSR shapes brand image and word of mouth through multiple mediation in the hotel context; and Bernal Barbosa et al. (2025) report that CSR positively influences corporate reputation in the industrial sector. However, the mechanisms through which customer trust is translated into hotel reputation remain underexplored in hospitality, leaving open the question of whether different CSR dimensions affect customer trust and hotel reputation through distinct pathways and under what conditions trust becomes reputational value.

To address these gaps, this study develops an integrated framework that examines the effects of CSR dimensions on customer trust and hotel reputation, while also testing the moderating role of customer engagement. Unlike prior work that typically treats customer engagement as an outcome of CSR or customer trust (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Rather et al., 2023; So & Li, 2020), this study positions customer engagement as a boundary condition that determines whether customer trust is amplified and transformed into socially shared hotel reputation. The Mekong Delta context is theoretically informative because it represents an emerging tourism region where hospitality competition, cultural distinctiveness, and increasing dependence on digital customer feedback coexist. These characteristics make the region suitable for examining how customers interpret CSR signals and how customer trust is translated into hotel reputation in a highly experience-based service environment. Set in the Mekong Delta, one of Vietnam’s key tourism regions, the study contributes to the CSR and hospitality literature by clarifying how CSR dimensions operate differently, how customer trust mediates these effects, and how customer engagement strengthens the customer trust–hotel reputation link in an emerging-market context.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Foundations

This study is grounded in four core theoretical foundations. Stakeholder theory posits that firms can achieve sustainable development only by balancing the interests of key stakeholder groups, including customers, employees, communities, and the environment. In this context, CSR serves as a mechanism through which firms maintain harmonious relationships with stakeholders, thereby strengthening customer trust and hotel reputation (Freeman, 2010). Signaling theory explains that under conditions of information asymmetry, CSR functions as a credible signal of transparency, ethics, and corporate capability, thereby reducing perceived risk and enhancing customer trust (Spence, 1978). Commitment–trust theory emphasizes customer trust as the cornerstone of durable relationships; accordingly, CSR contributes to the formation of trust by demonstrating responsibility and integrity, which in turn lays the foundation for long-term customer relationships and hotel reputation (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Corporate reputation theory views reputation as an intangible asset that reflects stakeholders’ cumulative assessments of an organization’s competence and values; thus, CSR becomes an important source of signaling that helps shape and reinforce hotel reputation through customer trust (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004). Rather than treating these theories as separate explanatory layers, this study uses them sequentially to explain a single mechanism: CSR functions as a signal, the signal strengthens customer trust, trust is translated into hotel reputation, and customer engagement later strengthens the customer trust–hotel reputation link.

Corporate reputation is defined as the overall perception of stakeholders regarding an organization’s credibility, competence, and value, formed and accumulated over time (Fombrun, 1996). In the hospitality industry, hotel reputation reflects customers’ perceived esteem, credibility, and overall assessment of the hotel’s quality and reliability (Ali et al., 2023; S.-B. Kim & Kim, 2016; O’Connor & Assaker, 2022). As a strategic intangible asset, reputation directly influences customers’ choice, satisfaction, loyalty, and repurchase intention. At the same time, hotel reputation should be distinguished from hotel image, satisfaction, loyalty, word of mouth, and customer engagement. Image refers to a more immediate impression, satisfaction reflects a post-consumption evaluation, loyalty reflects a behavioral intention, and word of mouth or customer engagement reflects advocacy or participation; by contrast, hotel reputation captures a more cumulative and socially shared judgment of the hotel. In the hospitality context, hotel reputation reflects perceived reliability, service quality, and brand image in the minds of customers (Asgeirsson et al., 2024; Lai, 2019). This reputation is shaped by service quality, CSR, customer trust, and satisfaction. Prior studies show that CSR can enhance customer trust, satisfaction, and corporate reputation, thereby fostering loyalty and word-of-mouth behavior (M. Kim et al., 2020; Latif et al., 2020; Lin-Hi & Blumberg, 2018; Su et al., 2017).

2.2. Customer Trust and Hotel Reputation

Customer trust is widely regarded as the foundation of all business relationships, reflecting customers’ willingness to accept vulnerability based on the expectation that the firm will act reliably and in their best interests (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). When customers trust a firm, they are more likely to attribute positive characteristics to it, such as competence, integrity, and benevolence—core components of reputation (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004). From a signaling perspective, customer trust serves as a positive signal of a firm’s quality and ethics in contexts characterized by information asymmetry (Spence, 1978). Trusting customers also tend to become brand advocates, disseminating positive information through word of mouth and online reviews, thereby strengthening hotel reputation (Fatma et al., 2018; Latif et al., 2020). However, advocacy behavior is a consequence that may accompany customer trust rather than the same construct as hotel reputation itself. Customer trust reduces perceived risk and increases customers’ tolerance for minor organizational failures (Saeidi et al., 2015). In the hotel industry, customer trust acts as a reputation buffer, helping preserve a positive image even in competitive and uncertain environments (Mabkhot & Piaralal, 2023; Martínez & Del Bosque, 2013). In this sense, customer trust provides the relational basis through which customers’ positive evaluations can be translated into hotel reputation, especially when those evaluations are reinforced and shared in a socially visible way. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. 

Customer trust positively affects hotel reputation.

2.3. CSR Dimensions, Customer Trust, and Hotel Reputation

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to a firm’s commitment to balancing economic objectives with legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities in order to meet stakeholder expectations (Carroll, 1991). In the hotel industry, CSR encompasses economic, legal, environmental, customer-oriented, and community responsibilities, all of which contribute to building customer trust and a sustainable brand image (Fatma et al., 2018; Martínez & Del Bosque, 2013). However, these responsibilities are unlikely to be interpreted by customers in exactly the same way. Each dimension may operate through a different psychological route and therefore may not produce identical effects on customer trust or hotel reputation.

Effective CSR implementation helps firms strengthen customer trust or hotel reputation in the eyes of customers and society, consistent with stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010; Mohammad Shafiee & Tabaeeian, 2022). In addition, signaling theory suggests that CSR operates as a credible signal of quality, ethics, and capability under information asymmetry (H. L. Kim et al., 2017; Spence, 1978). In hospitality settings, CSR initiatives such as environmental protection, information transparency, and community contributions shape favorable customer perceptions, thereby reinforcing customer trust and enhancing hotel reputation (Fatma et al., 2018; Latif et al., 2020). Moreover, according to commitment–trust theory, CSR fosters long-term relationships between firms and customers by increasing customer trust and reducing perceived risk (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Empirical studies also confirm that CSR has a positive effect on trust, satisfaction, and corporate reputation (H. L. Kim et al., 2017; Latif et al., 2020; Martínez & Del Bosque, 2013; Saeidi et al., 2015). However, the strength of each CSR dimension may vary depending on context and the extent of customer awareness (González-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Moyeen & Mehjabeen, 2024). Accordingly, this study argues that CSR should not be conceptualized as a uniform driver of customer trust and hotel reputation, but rather as a set of distinct signals that may be evaluated differently by hotel guests.

In the hotel industry, CSR is commonly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising economic, legal, environmental, customer-oriented, and community responsibilities, with each dimension serving as a distinct signal for customer trust and hotel reputation (Carroll, 1991; González-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Moyeen & Mehjabeen, 2024). Economic responsibility may be perceived by guests through value for money, stable service quality, and efficient operations, which can signal competence and reliability even if it is sometimes closer to service performance than to traditional CSR (González-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Park et al., 2014). Legal responsibility may function primarily as a baseline legitimacy condition: guests may not reward compliance strongly, but they may interpret visible legal adherence as a minimum requirement for customer trust and corporate reputation protection (H. L. Kim et al., 2017; Park et al., 2014). Environmental responsibility may act as a more visible ethical signal because guests can directly observe green practices, waste reduction, and energy-saving actions during their stay (Ali et al., 2023; González-Rodríguez et al., 2021). Customer-oriented responsibility is likely to be experienced most directly through service encounters, transparency, fair treatment, and complaint handling, making it especially relevant to customer trust formation (Martínez & Del Bosque, 2013; O’Connor & Assaker, 2022). Community responsibility may depend more strongly on salience, authenticity, and communication, because guests are more likely to appreciate it when it is visible and connected to the local experience (Ali et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2021).

Park et al. (2014) found that economic responsibility enhances expertise trust, legal and ethical responsibilities strengthen integrity trust, and philanthropic responsibility promotes benevolence trust; moreover, economic and legal responsibilities have a direct positive effect on corporate reputation. Similarly, H. L. Kim et al. (2017) and Latif et al. (2020) confirmed that CSR improves trust, satisfaction, and reputation, indicating that customer trust is a key mediating mechanism through which CSR is transformed into positive customer evaluations. In addition, customer-oriented CSR tends to exert a stronger influence on reputation, whereas environmental and community-related dimensions yield more mixed findings and depend on how firms communicate their social responsibility activities (González-Rodríguez et al., 2021). These findings suggest that the CSR–customer trust–hotel reputation relationship is not necessarily linear or uniform; some CSR dimensions may directly influence hotel reputation, whereas others may first build customer trust before reputational effects emerge. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a. 

The economic responsibilities positively affect customer trust.

H2b. 

The economic responsibilities positively affect hotel reputation.

H3a. 

The legal responsibilities positively affect customer trust.

H3b. 

The legal responsibilities positively affect hotel reputation.

H4a. 

The environmental responsibilities positively affect customer trust.

H4b. 

The environmental responsibilities positively affect hotel reputation.

H5a. 

The customer-oriented responsibilities positively affect customer trust.

H5b. 

The customer-oriented responsibilities positively affect hotel reputation.

H6a. 

The community responsibilities positively affect customer trust.

H6b. 

The community responsibilities positively affect hotel reputation.

2.4. The Moderating Role of Customer Engagement

Customer engagement (CE) is defined as a psychological state that reflects the degree of customers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral investment in their relationship with a firm (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek & Macky, 2019). In the hotel industry, CE is manifested through positive interaction, experience sharing, and commitment to the brand (So & Li, 2020). From a signaling perspective, highly engaged customers are more likely to amplify positive signals from the firm, especially trust, through word of mouth and online reviews (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019). These behaviors help strengthen hotel reputation in the market (Rather et al., 2023). Empirical studies indicate that CE amplifies the impact of psychological factors on brand outcomes and customer behavior (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; So & Li, 2020). Customers with high engagement are more likely to translate trust into stronger advocacy and favorable evaluations, thereby enhancing corporate reputation (So et al., 2014). Conceptually, this means that customer engagement is not merely a downstream outcome of trust or CSR; it can also function as a boundary condition that determines whether trust is publicly expressed, socially shared, and eventually converted into reputational value. In other words, trust may exist without producing strong reputational effects unless customers are sufficiently engaged to process, communicate, and reinforce that trust. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H7. 

Customer engagement positively moderates the relationship between customer trust and hotel reputation.

Based on the above theoretical arguments and hypothesis development, the conceptual framework of the study is presented in Figure 1.

3. Methods

This study was conducted in the Mekong Delta, one of Vietnam’s most important tourism regions. The survey covered hotels in several key tourism destinations across the Mekong Delta, including Can Tho City and the provinces of An Giang, Vinh Long, Ca Mau, and Kien Giang (Phu Quoc Island), with 3-star to 5-star properties. In 2024, the Mekong Delta welcomed more than 52 million tourist arrivals, including over 2.8 million international visitors, and generated total tourism revenue exceeding VND 62,000 billion (approximately USD 2.5 billion), representing a strong year-on-year increase. These figures reflect the considerable resilience and growth of the region’s hospitality and service sectors. The Mekong Delta, a major tourism hub in Vietnam, is renowned for its river-based experiences, orchard ecotourism, and rich indigenous culture, supported by a diverse hospitality sector. Rapid and uneven development, coupled with the growing influence of digital customer feedback, has made hotel reputation increasingly dependent on tourists’ perceptions and experiences. Therefore, this region provides an ideal context for examining the relationships among CSR dimensions, customer trust, and hotel reputation, as well as the moderating role of customer engagement in a dynamic and information-asymmetric service market. At the same time, the Mekong Delta is not only a practical data-collection site but also a theoretically meaningful context for studying how customers interpret CSR signals in an emerging hospitality market.

This study employed a non-probability purposive convenience sampling design, combining hotel-intercept sampling and online recruitment. In the first stage, measurement scales were adapted from prior studies on CSR dimensions, customer trust, customer engagement, and corporate reputation, with adjustments to fit the hotel context in the Mekong Delta. All constructs were measured using multi-item reflective scales on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” CSR was operationalized through five dimensions: environmental, customer-oriented, community, economic, and legal responsibilities. The measurement scales for environmental, customer-oriented, community, and legal responsibility were mainly adapted from Turker (2009), while the scale for economic responsibility was adapted from Fatma et al. (2015). The measurement scale for hotel reputation was adapted from Asgeirsson et al. (2024), whereas the measurement scale for customer engagement was adapted from So et al. (2014). The items were translated from English into Vietnamese using back-translation, and their content validity was refined through a focus group with 10 experts, including hospitality scholars, hotel managers, and tourism practitioners. Their feedback was used to reduce conceptual overlap, especially among the legal, economic, and customer-related CSR dimensions. The final items are reported in Appendix A.

Before the full survey, a pilot test was carried out with 50 hotel customers who had stayed in the Mekong Delta. Internal consistency was assessed in SPSS 26 using Cronbach’s alpha and corrected item–total correlations. Based on Hair et al. (2019a), values above 0.70 for Cronbach’s alpha and above 0.30 for corrected item–total correlations were considered acceptable. The results showed that all constructs met these criteria, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.794 to 0.925 and the lowest corrected item–total correlation exceeding 0.45 (

Table 1. Summary of pilot study results based on responses from 50 participants.

Constructs	Number of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha	Minimum Corrected Item–Total Correlation
Environmental responsibility	4	0.846	0.651
Customer-oriented responsibility	4	0.794	0.543
Community responsibility	4	0.841	0.634
Economic responsibility	4	0.830	0.596
Legal responsibility	4	0.869	0.683
Customer trust	4	0.925	0.807
Customer engagement	4	0.856	0.639
Hotel reputation	4	0.796	0.544

).

Data were collected between January and March 2026 through both face-to-face and online surveys targeting hotel guests in the Mekong Delta region. Each respondent evaluated the specific hotel where they had most recently stayed during their latest trip. To ensure that respondents had sufficient information to evaluate hotel CSR activities and practices, only customers who had completed at least one overnight stay at a hotel in the region during their most recent trip were invited to participate. For the face-to-face survey, respondents were approached in hotel lobbies and common areas, such as reception and waiting areas, at check-out or shortly after their stay, with prior consent from hotel management. Online questionnaires were designed using Google Forms and distributed via Zalo.

Before the survey was administered, respondents were informed about the study objectives, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to discontinue at any time. No personally identifiable information was collected, and consent was obtained prior to participation. Of the 1200 questionnaires distributed, 874 valid responses were retained after removing incomplete or invalid cases, yielding an effective response rate of 72.83%. All responses were anonymized and used exclusively for research purposes. These procedures were intended to support respondent privacy and encourage careful responses.

Table 2. Sample demographic characteristics.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent (%)
Gender	Male	362	41.4
	Female	512	58.6
Age (years old)	18–30	185	21.2
	30–40	81	9.3
	41–50	219	25.1
	Over 50	389	44.5
Education	Less than high school	164	18.8
	High school	282	32.3
	College and university degree	133	15.2
	Master’s degree	295	33.8
Occupation	Employee	205	23.5
	Supervisor	123	14.1
	Department head	207	23.7
	Manager	339	38.8

indicates that the final sample showed variation across gender, age, education, and occupation. Women accounted for a slightly larger share of respondents (58.6%) than men (41.4%). In terms of age, the largest group was respondents aged over 50 years (44.5%), followed by those aged 41–50 years (25.1%) and under 30 years (21.2%). Regarding education, the sample was relatively well educated, with master’s degree holders representing the largest group (33.8%), followed by high school graduates (32.3%). Occupationally, managers formed the largest segment (38.8%), while department heads (23.7%) and employees (23.5%) also accounted for substantial proportions. Overall, the sample was concentrated more heavily in older, relatively well-educated, and managerial respondents, suggesting that the findings primarily reflect the perceptions of guests who are likely to have more experience and stronger capacity to evaluate CSR dimensions, customer trust, customer engagement, and hotel reputation.

To examine the proposed relationships, this study adopted partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) implemented in SmartPLS 4.0, which is appropriate for handling complex and prediction-focused models incorporating both mediating and moderating mechanisms (Hair et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2019b).

4. Research Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

Because the data were collected from the same respondents using a single self-reported questionnaire, common method bias (CMB) was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results showed that the first factor accounted for 37.153% of the total variance, which was below the commonly used 50% threshold, suggesting that CMB was unlikely to be a serious concern. In addition, the multicollinearity assessment revealed no serious concerns, as all VIF values ranged from 1.466 to 2.983, remaining well below the conservative cutoff value of 5 (see

Table 3. Inner model—Matrix.

Construct	COM	CUS	ECO	ENG	ENV	LEG	TRU
REP	2.703	2.983	2.754	1.466	2.617	2.266	2.898
TRU	2.490	2.711	2.676		2.527	2.256

). This indicates that collinearity was unlikely to bias the estimation results (Hair et al., 2019a; Kock, 2015).

As reported in

Table 4. Reliability and Validity.

Constructs	Items	Factor Loading	AVE	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR
Community responsibility (COM)	COM1	0.857	0.723	0.872	0.913
	COM2	0.830
	COM3	0.862
	COM4	0.853
Customer-oriented responsibility (CUS)	CUS1	0.851	0.731	0.877	0.916
	CUS2	0.848
	CUS3	0.857
	CUS4	0.864
Economic responsibility (ECO)	ECO1	0.836	0.702	0.859	0.904
	ECO2	0.839
	ECO3	0.842
	ECO4	0.835
Customer engagement (ENG)	ENG1	0.853	0.734	0.879	0.917
	ENG2	0.860
	ENG3	0.856
	ENG4	0.860
Environmental responsibility (EVN)	EVN1	0.840	0.710	0.864	0.907
	EVN2	0.828
	EVN3	0.821
	EVN4	0.880
Legal responsibility (LEG)	LEG1	0.858	0.736	0.880	0.918
	LEG2	0.862
	LEG3	0.862
	LEG4	0.850
Hotel reputation (REP)	REP1	0.871	0.762	0.896	0.928
	REP2	0.872
	REP3	0.874
	REP4	0.875
Customer trust (TRU)	TRU1	0.848	0.693	0.852	0.900
	TRU2	0.797
	TRU3	0.836
	TRU4	0.847

, all indicator loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0.70 (ranging from 0.746 to 0.883), supporting indicator reliability (Hair et al., 2022). Internal consistency was also confirmed, with Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.807 and 0.875 and composite reliability values from 0.873 to 0.914, both exceeding the acceptable level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2022). Convergent validity was established as AVE values ranging from 0.633 to 0.727, surpassing the minimum requirement of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In particular, customer trust (TRU) and hotel reputation (REP) exhibited relatively high AVE values (0.693 and 0.762, respectively), indicating strong explanatory power of their respective indicators in the hotel research context.

Discriminant validity was evaluated using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT). As reported in

Table 5. Heterotrai–monotrait ratio and Fornell–Larcker criterion for discriminant validity.

	COM	CUS	ECO	ENG	ENV	LEG	REP	TRU
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio
CUS	0.784
ECO	0.795	0.797
ENG	0.112	0.150	0.227
ENV	0.776	0.795	0.807	0.235
LEG	0.726	0.769	0.759	0.165	0.719
REP	0.690	0.791	0.810	0.523	0.817	0.746
TRU	0.804	0.831	0.786	0.313	0.781	0.709	0.820
Fornell–Larcker criterion
COM	0.850
CUS	0.687	0.855
ECO	0.688	0.692	0.838
ENG	0.099	0.133	0.198	0.857
ENV	0.674	0.693	0.697	0.207	0.843
LEG	0.637	0.676	0.662	0.146	0.627	0.858
REP	0.611	0.701	0.710	0.465	0.720	0.663	0.873
TRU	0.695	0.719	0.674	0.271	0.671	0.615	0.717	0.833

, all HTMT coefficients remained below the conservative cutoff of 0.85, with the majority falling under 0.80, thereby satisfying the recommended threshold (Henseler et al., 2015). Notably, the HTMT values between customer engagement (ENG) and the CSR dimensions were relatively low (ranging from 0.112 to 0.235), suggesting that ENG captures a conceptually distinct construct and can be appropriately modeled as a moderator. In addition, discriminant validity was further verified using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Specifically, the square root of AVE for each construct exceeded its correlations with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For example, the square root of AVE for TRU (0.833) and REP (0.873) were both greater than their respective inter-construct correlations, confirming adequate construct separation (Table 5).

To assess the adequacy of the structural model, a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples was applied to examine the statistical significance of the proposed relationships. Following (Hair et al., 2016; Hair et al., 2022; Hair et al., 2017), model evaluation was based on the coefficients of determination (R²), predictive relevance (Q²_predict), and effect size (f²), rather than relying on a single overall fit index. As shown in

Table 6. R Square and Q Square.

Constructs	R2	Q2_Predict
Hotel reputation	0.763	0.752
Customer trust	0.627	0.623

, the model explained 76.3% of the variance in REP and 62.7% of the variance in TRU, indicating substantial explanatory power for both endogenous constructs. The Q²_predict values were also positive for REP (0.752) and TRU (0.623), confirming that the model possessed predictive relevance in the present study.

The effect size results in

Table 7. Effect size.

Constructs	COM	CUS	ECO	ENV	LEG	TRU
Hotel reputation	0.002	0.044	0.046	0.077	0.047	0.048
Customer trust	0.062	0.088	0.023	0.027	0.004

indicate that the individual path effects were generally small, and although the associated f² values are modest, the significant paths still make a meaningful incremental contribution to the model’s explanatory power in a multifactor context. For REP, environmental responsibility showed the strongest contribution, whereas TRU, legal responsibility (LEG), economic responsibility (ECO), and customer-oriented responsibility (CUS) also made modest contributions, while community responsibility (COM) had a negligible effect. For TRU, CUS showed the strongest contribution, followed by COM, whereas the remaining CSR dimensions exerted only weak effects. Overall, these findings suggest that the model was suitable for explaining REP and TRU, although the contribution of each individual predictor was limited and should therefore be interpreted with caution (Hair et al., 2016; Hair et al., 2022; Hair et al., 2017).

Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the measurement model satisfies the required criteria for reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, while also showing positive predictive relevance and acceptable but mixed benchmark performance in PLSpredict, thereby providing a solid foundation for subsequent structural model evaluation.

4.2. Structural Model Results

The structural model estimates (see

Table 8. Direct Path Analysis.

Hypothesis	Direct Path	Coefficient	T-Value	p-Value	Results
H1	TRU -> REP	0.181	6.931	0.000	Supported
H2a	ECO -> TRU	0.151	4.811	0.000	Supported
H2b	ECO -> REP	0.173	6.611	0.000	Supported
H3a	LEG -> TRU	0.060	1.900	0.058	No Supported
H3b	LEG -> REP	0.160	6.986	0.000	Supported
H4a	ENV -> TRU	0.161	5.143	0.000	Supported
H4b	ENV -> REP	0.219	8.517	0.000	Supported
H5a	CUS -> TRU	0.299	9.102	0.000	Supported
H5b	CUS -> REP	0.176	6.190	0.000	Supported
H6a	COM -> TRU	0.239	8.145	0.000	Supported
H6b	COM -> REP	−0.031	1.197	0.231	No supported

and Figure 2) show that the majority of the hypothesized relationships are supported. TRU has a positive and statistically significant impact on REP (β = 0.181, p < 0.001), supporting H1 and suggesting that customer trust functions as an important intervening mechanism in translating CSR perceptions into hotel reputation outcomes. Regarding CSR components, ECO exerts significant positive effects on both REP (β = 0.173, p < 0.001) and TRU (β = 0.151, p < 0.001), supporting H2a and H2b. LEG positively influences REP (β = 0.160, p < 0.001) but does not significantly affect TRU (β = 0.060, p = 0.058), supporting H3b and not supporting H3a. ENV significantly enhances both REP (β = 0.219, p < 0.001) and TRU (β = 0.161, p < 0.001), supporting H4a and H4b. CUS shows the strongest effect on TRU (β = 0.299, p < 0.001) and also significantly influences REP (β = 0.176, p < 0.001), supporting H5a and H5b. Finally, COM significantly improves TRU (β = 0.239, p < 0.001) but does not have a significant impact on REP (β = −0.031, p = 0.231), supporting H6a and not supporting H6b. Taken together, the direct path results indicate that the five CSR dimensions operate differently across customer trust and hotel reputation. Customer-oriented, environmental, and economic responsibilities positively influence both constructs; legal responsibility mainly affects hotel reputation directly; and community responsibility primarily strengthens customer trust rather than hotel reputation.

Results (

Table 9. Mediating Path Analysis.

Indirect Path	Coefficient	T-Value	p-Value	Results
ECO -> TRU -> REP	0.027	3.872	0.000	Supported
LEG -> TRU -> REP	0.011	1.824	0.068	No supported
EVN -> TRU -> REP	0.029	3.981	0.000	Supported
CUS -> TRU -> REP	0.054	5.853	0.000	Supported
COM -> TRU -> REP	0.043	5.229	0.000	Supported

) showed significant indirect associations for ECO (β = 0.027, p < 0.001), ENV (β = 0.029, p < 0.001), CUS (β = 0.054, p < 0.001), and COM (β = 0.043, p < 0.001), whereas the indirect association for LEG was not statistically significant (β = 0.011, p = 0.068). These findings suggest that TRU functioned as an intervening mechanism in the relationships between most CSR dimensions and REP, although the evidence should be interpreted as an indirect association rather than causal mediation. In particular, the coexistence of significant direct and indirect paths for ECO, ENV, and CUS indicates partial mediation by TRU, while the significant indirect path combined with the non-significant direct path for COM indicates full mediation. By contrast, the absence of a significant indirect path for LEG suggests no mediation. Overall, TRU appears to play a differentiated mediating role across CSR dimensions, explaining part of REP’s variance through ECO, ENV, and CUS, fully transmitting the effect of COM, and not mediating the relationship between LEG and REP.

The moderating analysis (

Table 10. Moderating Path Analysis.

Hypothesis	Path	Coefficient	T-Value	p-Value	Results
H7	TRU -> REP	0.181	6.931	0.000	Supported
	ENG X TRU -> REP	0.080	5.699	0.000

and Figure 3) revealed that customer engagement (ENG) significantly strengthens the relationship between TRU and REP. The direct effect of TRU on REP remained significant (β = 0.181, p < 0.001), while the interaction term between ENG and TRU was positive and statistically significant (β = 0.080, p < 0.001), supporting H7. However, the interaction effect was modest, indicating that customer engagement amplified rather than fundamentally altered the customer trust–hotel reputation relationship. The interaction plot further illustrates that the positive effect of customer trust on hotel reputation is stronger at higher levels of customer engagement. This finding suggests that customer engagement adds incremental explanatory value by making the reputational benefits of trust more visible among more involved customers.

4.3. Discussion and Managerial Implications

The findings indicate that CSR influences hotel reputation through a more differentiated mechanism than is often assumed in the literature. Rather than producing a uniform reputational effect, each CSR dimension contributes differently depending on whether customers perceive it as directly service-related, legitimacy-based, or value-driven. This supports the idea that CSR in hospitality is not interpreted as a single abstract construct, but as a set of distinct signals that customers evaluate through their own service experiences and expectations. The results also show that CSR does not always translate directly into hotel reputation: some dimensions operate through customer trust, whereas others influence hotel reputation more directly or not at all. In particular, customer trust emerges as a central relational mechanism linking CSR to hotel reputation, confirming that CSR creates reputational value most effectively when it reduces uncertainty and strengthens confidence in the hotel’s sincerity and reliability. This is consistent with earlier studies by Fatma et al. (2018); Martínez and Del Bosque (2013), and O’Connor and Assaker (2022), who also highlight trust as a key pathway through which CSR influences customer-based outcomes in service contexts.

Among the five dimensions, customer-oriented responsibility emerges as the most influential. This finding suggests that customers respond most strongly to CSR practices directly related to their own interests, such as fair treatment, transparent communication, complaint handling, and service protection. The result is consistent with Martínez and Del Bosque (2013), Chen et al. (2021), and O’Connor and Assaker (2022), who argue that customer-facing CSR is particularly effective because it is visible, personally relevant, and embedded in the service experience. Consequently, customer-oriented responsibility strengthens both customer trust and hotel reputation, highlighting its strategic importance in hotel reputation management.

Economic responsibility also contributes positively to both customer trust and hotel reputation. This finding is consistent with Park et al. (2014), H. L. Kim et al. (2017) and (Latif et al., 2020), who reported that economically responsible practices enhance perceptions of competence, reliability, and reputation. In the hotel context, stable operations, efficient resource management, and consistent service quality appear to function primarily as signals of organizational competence. This result further supports the argument of González-Rodríguez et al. (2021) that the effectiveness of CSR dimensions depends on their visibility and relevance to customers.

Environmental responsibility likewise exerts positive effects on both customer trust and hotel reputation. This finding aligns with González-Rodríguez et al. (2021) and Ali et al. (2023), who emphasize that environmental CSR is most effective when it is visible and embedded in hotel operations. Practices such as energy conservation, waste reduction, and eco-friendly amenities signal responsibility and long-term commitment, thereby enhancing both trust and reputation. These results reinforce the growing importance of environmental responsibility as a strategic component of sustainable hotel development.

The pattern for legal responsibility is more nuanced. It contributes to hotel reputation, but it does not meaningfully strengthen customer trust. This divergence is theoretically important. It suggests that legal compliance functions primarily as a baseline expectation rather than as a distinctive CSR signal. Customers appear to assume that hotels should obey laws and regulations, so compliance may protect hotel reputation, but it does not necessarily create additional customer trust. This finding differs from Park et al. (2014) and H. L. Kim et al. (2017), who reported stronger trust-related effects of legal responsibility in service settings. One possible explanation is contextual: in the Mekong Delta hospitality market, customers may view compliance as a minimum requirement rather than as evidence of moral excellence or relational commitment. Therefore, legal responsibility should be understood as a hygiene factor. It is necessary for legitimacy, but it is unlikely to generate a strong reputational advantage on its own.

Community responsibility presents another interesting pattern. It contributes to customer trust but does not directly translate into hotel reputation. This means that community-oriented CSR works more as a moral signal than as an immediate reputational driver. Supporting local development, charitable initiatives, or social causes may increase customers’ goodwill toward the hotel, but these activities may not be sufficiently visible or personally relevant to generate hotel reputation unless they are clearly communicated and connected to the guest experience. This finding is broadly aligned with Chen et al. (2021) and Ali et al. (2023), who note that CSR initiatives need authenticity and salience to become reputational assets. In practical terms, community responsibility should not be hidden behind internal activities. Hotels need to make their social value understandable to customers; otherwise, its impact remains indirect.

The mediation results further clarify the mechanism. Customer trust serves as an important bridge through which economic, environmental, customer-oriented, and community responsibility influence hotel reputation, but not legal responsibility. More precisely, customer trust operates as a partial mediator for economic, environmental, and customer-oriented responsibility, a full mediator for community responsibility, and not as a mediator for legal responsibility. This suggests that customer trust is especially important when CSR is seen as voluntary, authentic, and customer-relevant. Where CSR is interpreted as obligatory, as in the case of legal responsibility, it may support hotel reputation directly but does not necessarily deepen customer trust. This distinction adds theoretical clarity because it shows that CSR dimensions differ not only in strength but also in the psychological route through which they operate. Some CSR practices build hotel reputation because they are seen and experienced directly; others build hotel reputation because they first strengthen confidence in the hotel’s motives and reliability.

The moderating effect of customer engagement adds another layer of insight. The relationship between customer trust and hotel reputation becomes stronger when customers are more engaged. This confirms the view of So et al. (2014), Hollebeek and Macky (2019), and Rather et al. (2023) that customer engagement amplifies the value of relational outcomes. However, the interaction effect is statistically significant but modest, indicating that customer engagement strengthens rather than fundamentally reshapes the customer trust–hotel reputation relationship. This study therefore extends prior work by showing that customer engagement is not merely an outcome of good relationships; it is also a condition that strengthens how customer trust is converted into reputational capital. Engaged customers pay more attention to hotel behavior, process CSR information more deeply, and are more likely to translate customer trust into word of mouth, loyalty, and favorable hotel reputation. This means that customer trust alone is not enough. Hotels must also cultivate active customer participation if they want customer trust to become a durable reputational asset.

From a managerial perspective, the results suggest that hotel managers should adopt a selective and differentiated CSR strategy rather than a general one. First, they should prioritize customer-oriented responsibility because it delivers the strongest reputational return. This means emphasizing fairness, transparency, responsive complaint handling, and service recovery. Second, environmental responsibility should be made visible through concrete practices that guests can observe during their stay. Third, economic responsibility should be presented as evidence of professionalism, stability, and consistency. Fourth, legal responsibility must be maintained rigorously, but managers should recognize that compliance alone will not generate a strong trust advantage. Fifth, community-oriented responsibility should be communicated in ways that make its social value meaningful to guests. For hotels in the Mekong Delta, this means linking CSR more concretely to local suppliers, river- and orchard-based tourism experiences, cultural preservation, waste reduction, energy-saving practices, and credible communication through the channels that guests actually use. CSR messages should therefore be specific, visible, and authentic rather than general and declarative. Finally, hotels should actively build customer engagement through personalized service, digital interaction, loyalty communities, feedback systems, and co-created experiences, because customer engagement increases the reputational payoff of customer trust.

5. Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence that hotel reputation in emerging markets is not shaped by CSR commitments alone, but depends critically on customer trust and the level of customer engagement. The findings demonstrate that CSR dimensions closely linked to the customer experience play a central role in reputation formation, whereas different CSR dimensions influence hotel reputation through different mechanisms rather than through a single uniform pathway. Customer-oriented, environmental, and economic responsibilities contribute to hotel reputation both directly and indirectly through customer trust, while community responsibility operates primarily through customer trust. In contrast, legal responsibility affects hotel reputation directly but does not significantly strengthen customer trust. Notably, customer engagement emerges as a key boundary condition that enables individual trust to be translated into socially shared reputation, thereby offering an integrated perspective that aligns signaling theory, social exchange theory, and corporate reputation theory within a unified framework. These insights contribute to the CSR literature in hospitality while offering practical guidance for managers in designing context-sensitive CSR and reputation management strategies in emerging service markets.

This study makes three main contributions. First, it shows that CSR is not a single reputational driver in hospitality; its effects differ substantially across dimensions. Second, it demonstrates that customer trust is a central but dimension-dependent mediator, helping explain why some CSR actions translate into hotel reputation more effectively than others. Third, it identifies customer engagement as a boundary condition that strengthens the customer trust–hotel reputation link. These findings extend CSR–reputation research in an emerging-market hospitality context and provide evidence that customers evaluate hotel CSR through a combination of service experience, relational trust, and engagement intensity. As a result, the study contributes both theoretically and managerially by showing how CSR should be designed, communicated, and operationalized to create genuine reputational value.

Several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to capture changes in customer perceptions over time and restricts stronger causal inference. Future studies could employ longitudinal designs to examine how customer trust, customer engagement, and hotel reputation evolve across different stages of the customer relationship. Second, the concentration of respondents in older, relatively well-educated, and managerial groups suggest that the results primarily reflect the perceptions of more experienced hotel users. Future research should examine whether the proposed relationships differ across demographic groups and customer segments. Finally, the close conceptual proximity between some constructs, especially customer-oriented responsibility and customer trust, indicates the need for continued refinement of measurement models. Future studies may further validate these constructs and explore alternative conceptualizations to strengthen discriminant validity.

Beyond addressing these limitations, several findings of the present study open additional avenues for future research. The non-significant trust effect of legal responsibility suggests that future studies should examine whether legal compliance is perceived by hotel guests as a basic legitimacy requirement rather than a source of relational trust. The indirect-only effect of community responsibility indicates that factors such as CSR visibility, perceived authenticity, and communication effectiveness may influence how community initiatives contribute to hotel reputation. Future research could also extend the model by incorporating customer satisfaction as a sequential mediator, testing CSR credibility as an additional explanatory mechanism, and comparing local and international hotel brands across different tourism destinations and cultural contexts.