The impact of brand equity on employee's opportunistic behavior: A case study on enterprises in Vietnam

Tran Quang Bach et al. Article The impact of brand equity on employee's opportunistic behavior: A case study on enterprises in Vietnam Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Tran Quang Bach et al. (2021) : The impact of brand equity on employee's opportunistic behavior: A case study on enterprises in Vietnam, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040164 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239580 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article The Impact of Brand Equity on Employee’s Opportunistic Behavior: A Case Study on Enterprises in Vietnam Quang Bach Tran 1, Quoc Hoi Le 2,* , Hoai Nam Nguyen 1, Dieu Linh Tran 1, Thi Thuy Quynh Nguyen 1 and Thi Thanh Thuy Tran 1   Citation: Tran, Quang Bach, Quoc Hoi Le, Hoai Nam Nguyen, Dieu Linh Tran, Thi Thuy Quynh Nguyen, and Thi Thanh Thuy Tran. 2021. The Impact of Brand Equity on Employee’s Opportunistic Behavior: A Case Study on Enterprises in Vietnam. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 164. https:// doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040164 Academic Editor: Elena Horska Received: 17 February 2021 Accepted: 31 March 2021 Published: 6 April 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 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/). 1Faculty of Economics, Vinh University, Vinh City 460000, Vietnam; [email protected] (Q.B.T.); [email protected] (H.N.N.); [email protected] (D.L.T.); [email protected] (T.T.Q.N.); [email protected] (T.T.T.T.) 2Faculty of Economics, National Economics University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Brand is considered a valuable asset that a business wants to create and maintain growth throughout its business cycle. This paper examines the impact of corporate brand equity on employees’ opportunistic behavior. The paper uses quantitative research methods, through linear SEM (Structural Equation Modelling) analysis of structural model with a scale of 609 samples of employees of enterprises in Vietnam. The research results show that corporate brand equity has a negative impact on employees’ opportunistic behavior. In the relationship between these two factors, trust and emotional engagement act as intermediate factors. Additionally, the research demonstrates that trust has a positive effect on all three components of employee engagement, including emotional engagement, computational engagement, and standards-based engagement. On that basis, the research suggests a number of recommendations to minimize the opportunistic behavior of employees in the enterprise. The findings of this study have shown the importance and impact of brand equity on employee opportunistic behavior. These are meaningful contributions in both theory and practice to help businesses gain deeper insight into brand equity and the need to pay attention to building and developing durable brand equity for businesses. At the same time, it is an important basis for the next research projects. Keywords: corporate brand equity; trust; emotional engagement; computational engagement; standards-based engagement; opportunistic behavior JEL Classification: J27; J81; M54 1. Introduction Opportunistic behavior is considered a negative behavior and has a significant impact on employee performance in the enterprise. All managers do not consent the employee’s work process to be seriouly influenced by the himself’s opportunistic behavior, or even a part or a collective in the business. Therefore, limiting these types of behavior on the part of employees has long been seen as an effective solution to increase business performance. Opportunitsic behavior often stems from benefits that the individual wishes to achieve through different expectations within the organization. Once an enterprise has a foothold in the market, and the brand itself of that enterprise has a high value, it will often influence employees’ perception, build trust, limit opportunistic behaviors that impose individualism in the business. Branding is about increasing brand value (Yoo and Donthu 2001). Brand is considered a valuable asset that a business wants to create and maintain growth throughout its business cycle. Consumers develop feelings, associate with the brand and become loyal to the brand because of the values it brings to them. Brand equity is based on the consumer, based on the idea that the power of a brand rests in the consumer’s mind (Leone et al. 2006). Today, J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040164 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 2 of 12 with the diversified development of the market economy, along with the international integration and globalization process, it shows the importance of corporate brand value. So far, in many of their studies, the authors have mentioned factors affecting opportunity behavior of employees such as the research of Katsikeas et al. (2009); Ivancevich and Mattson (2005); Pierce and Dunham (1987); Steers (1977); Ritzer and Trice (1969), etc. However, few studies refer to corporate brand equity as an important driver of opportunistic behavior. Many different models are built by the authors when it comes to the brand equity of the business. For most employees, when working in a prestigious and professional environment, and enjoying appropriate remuneration they will have better motivation and limit individual behaviors, opportunism in the enterprise. Vietnamese enterprises are considered to have made significant progress in many fields. However, many Vietnamese enterprises today with limited operation scale, small and fragmented way of running business do not have clear business strategies, leading to less than expected business performance. There are many reasons for the limited quality of employees working in small and medium enterprises in the North Central region. In addition to the process of working under the direction of the manager, is still imposing, stereotyped, less innovative in terms of thinking and working style, weak in the bond between leaders and employees, one of the main reasons set out is the awareness of employees. Individualism or in other words, personal interests, is still popular and has considerable effect on their working process. In the context of deep and wide integration into the world economy, facing the competitive pressure of many large enterprises inside and outside the region, the problem of building brand names of Vietnamese enterprises becomes increasingly difficult. Corporate brand value is dominated by many different factors, and has a significant impact on employee’s opportunistic behavior at the same time. This greatly affects the motivation, their working performance and the overall business performance. The study aims to model and examine the relationships that directly and indirectly impact of brand equity on employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam. In the relationship between these two factors, research shows the mediating role of employees’ trust and emotional engagement to the firm. This result demonstrates the contribution of research both in terms of theory and practice, thereby helping enterprises make appropriate recommendations to reduce employee opportunistic behavior through the process of building, maintaining and developing brand equity for businesses. 2. Theory and Research Model 2.1. Corporate Brand Equity and Employee’s Opportunistic Behavior Brand is the combination of all physical, aesthetic, reasoning, and emotional elements of a product, or a product line, including the product itself, the name, the logo, and the image and all visual representations, gradually built up in the mind of the customer over time (Moore 2003). Brand equity is the core concept in brand management. Aaker (1991) defines brand equity as the set of assets and liabilities associated with a brand, its name and logo, plus or minus from value provided by a product or services to a company or its customers. In Aaker’s opinion, brand equity includes five components, which are Brand Loyalty; Brand Awareness; Perceived Quality; Brand Associations and Other Brand Proprietary Assets. According to Keller (1998), brand equity includes: Brand awareness; Brand image; Reaction to the brand; and Relationship with the brand. Brand attachment and attitude positively influence consumer-based brand equity (Amin et al. 2018). Brands are instrumental to marketers and consumers alike. For centuries, brands have served as effective carriers of functional and symbolic information about goods, services, and experiences, allowing customers to efficiently associate personal meaning to a company’s products (Travis et al. 2020). According to Erkmen (2018), while internal communication enhances brand knowledge and role clarity, external communication, and employee experience with the brand positively affect the brand commitment of employees. Iyer et al. (2018) argued that while brand orientation, strategic brand management, and internal J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 3 of 12 branding are directly associated with brand performance, internal branding partially mediates the relationship between brand orientation, strategic brand management, and brand performance. Opportunistic behavior is fraudulent seeking of personal gain (Williamson 1975), the nature of which is a breach of commitments, a breach of obligation, of liability required to be performed (Morgan and Hunt 1994). According to Nguyen et al. (2020), opportunistic behavior is considered to be a negative behavior of employees in the organization, governed and determined by perceptions, attitudes, and capacities of employees themselves. People as members of the organization are influenced and affected by factors of the organization such as culture, leadership, power, organizational structure, and groups of the organization in which the employee participates as a group member. Opportunistic behavior is measured by accrual-based earnings management and real earnings management, does have an affect on company performance (Suryani et al. 2018). According to Ko et al. (2018), both ethical leadership and formal control systems individually play significant roles in reducing employee opportunistic behavior. In addition, ethical leadership and formal control systems function as complements to jointly constrain employee opportunistic behaviors. In addition to the two main factors mentioned are corporate brand equity and employee opportunistic behavior, the study also addresses the mediating factors in the model including employee’s trust and employee engagement to enterprise. Trust is an employee’s willingness to share thoughts and perceptions with colleagues in the company. Mayer et al. (1995) believe that trust is the belief of one object with another, it is necessary to clarify the concept of trust in the relationship between trustees and believers. From an organizational perspective, trust is understood as the degree to which a member places trust in an enterprise (Zaheer and Harris 2006). Trust can be expressed at the cognitive, intentional and behavioral levels. Trust at the cognitive and intentional levels is often difficult to discern. Morgan and Hunt (1994) argue that willingness to rely on partners can be seen as the result of trust. If a party believes in a partner and is not willing to rely on a partner, then the confidence is limited (Moorman et al. 1992). Behavioral level of trust means that the believer must take risks when acting (Mayer et al. 1995). According to Campagna et al. (2020), whether trust meta-accuracy is associated with positive relational outcomes for leaders depends upon the level of an employee’s actual trust in the leader. Integrity-based trust has a negative effect on knowledge-seeking behavior at workplace (Neethu and Kamalanabhan 2019). Entrepreneurial engagement is defined as an unwavering belief in the organization’s goals and values (Meyer and Allen 1991). Consistent with that view, Mowday et al. (1979) , Porter et al. (1974) and Steers (1979) further emphasize that engagement is an employee’s willingness to contribute to significant efforts for business. The importance of employee expectations towards leaders and the factors fostering positive relations between employees is emphasized (Drewniak et al. 2020;Den Hartog and Belschak 2012). According to Meyer and Allen (1991), commitment to business is a psychological state (desires, needs, and responsibilities) that shows the employee’s relationship with the organization and has an impact on the aspirations to stay in the organization. The author examines these differences in concepts and has since proposed a concept of engagement consisting of three components: emotion, calculation, and norm. Meyer and Allen (1991) also emphasize that emotional, computational, and normative engagement should be viewed as three components, not the three categories of commitment. Each employee can experience all three of these components in his or her engagement. Emotional engagement refers to the employee’s affection and attachment to the business, feeling a part of the business. Employees with a high emotional engagement to stay because they like it. Mowday et al. (1982) claim that emotional-based commitment is influenced by groups of factors such as personal characteristics, structural characteristics, work characteristics, and work experience. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 4 of 12 Computational commitment refers to the perception of the costs and benefits associated with leaving the business. Employees have high computational-based commitments to stay with the business because they need to be. In a classic psychological study, Becker (1960) suggested that commitment to an action increases when a person has invested and that this investment can be lost if the action is not continued. A standards-based engagement refers to a sense of responsibility to stay in the business. Committed employees who are based on a high standard perceive that staying in the organization are a duty and ethical standard even though they may not be interested or genuinely beneficial compared to other options. Studies related to ethical commitment are more theoretical than empirical. 2.2. Hypotheses 2.2.1. Corporate Brand Equity and Employee’s Trust Brand is considered as an important asset with long-term value for the business, a “strong brand” brings many values and benefits to the business. According to Joe (1999), the way to create a brand with added value in the competitive global market today is to create a suitable, effective strategy including advertising, marketing, public relations, and research investigation. The author has synthesized and showed readers how to build a successful brand strategy and to build brand loyalty. Employees have a desire to work in organizations with “strong brands”, and employees’ trust seems to be strengthened in those organizations. In order to examine the relationship between brand equity, employee’s trust and its direction impact on the Vietnamese corporate context, the study hypothesizes: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Brand equity positively affects employee’s trust in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13 components, not the three categories of commitment. Each employee can experience all three of these components in his or her engagement. Emotional engagement refers to the employee’s affection and attachment to the business, feeling a part of the business. Employees with a high emotional engagement to stay because they like it. Mowday et al. (1982) claim that emotional-based commitment is influenced by groups of factors such as personal characteristics, structural characteristics, work characteristics, and work experience. Computational commitment refers to the perception of the costs and benefits associated with leaving the business. Employees have high computational-based commitments to stay with the business because they need to be. In a classic psychological study, Becker (1960) suggested that commitment to an action increases when a person has invested and that this investment can be lost if the action is not continued. A standards-based engagement refers to a sense of responsibility to stay in the business. Committed employees who are based on a high standard perceive that staying in the organization are a duty and ethical standard even though they may not be interested or genuinely beneficial compared to other options. Studies related to ethical commitment are more theoretical than empirical. 2.2. Hypotheses 2.2.1. Corporate Brand Equity and Employee’s Trust Brand is considered as an important asset with long-term value for the business, a “strong brand” brings many values and benefits to the business. According to Joe (1999), the way to create a brand with added value in the competitive global market today is to create a suitable, effective strategy including advertising, marketing, public relations, and research investigation. The author has synthesized and showed readers how to build a successful brand strategy and to build brand loyalty. Employees have a desire to work in organizations with “strong brands”, and employees’ trust seems to be strengthened in those organizations. In order to examine the relationship between brand equity, employee’s trust and its direction impact on the Vietnamese corporate context, the study hypothesizes: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Brand equity positively affects employee’s trust in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Research model. Figure 1. Research model. 2.2.2. Corporate Brand Equity and Employees’ Engagement Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that engagement to business is a steadfast belief in the goals and values of the organization. Brand is one of the important factors contributing to maintaining, expanding and developing domestic and foreign markets for enterprises, which creates a more professional working environment for employees and positively impacts the employee’s long-term commitment to the business. In order to test the impact of corporate brand equity on employees’ engagement, in the context of enterprises in Vietnam, the authors hypothesized: Hypothesis 2 (H2). Brand equity positively affects employees’ emotional engagement to businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 5 of 12 Hypothesis 3 (H3). Brand equity positively affects employees’ computational engagement to businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 4 (H4). Brand equity positively affects employees’ standards-based engagement to businesses in Vietnam (see Figure 1). 2.2.3. Employee’s Engagement and Opportunistic Behavior Research on the relationship between engagement and work behavior has shown mixed results. Engagement is found to be related to work behavior in several studies such as Pierce and Dunham (1987); Steers (1977), etc., but not confirmed in other studies (Jarnal 1984) . From the individual level in the business, research by Ritzer and Trice (1969) demonstrated a positive relationship between organizational engagement and employee remuneration policy. A long-term commitment to the business creates a positive, comfortable, and secure working mentality in striving for the job, thereby limiting the opportunistic behavior of employees. With the context of enterprises in Vietnam, in order to examine the relationship affecting organizational engagement to the opportunistic behavior of employees, the hypotheses were built: Hypothesis 5 (H5). Emotional engagement negatively impacts employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 6 (H6). Calculation engagement negatively impacts on employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 7 (H7). A standard-based engagement adversely impacts employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). 2.2.4. Corporate Brand Equity and Employees’ Opportunistic Behavior Brand equity shows consumers’ perception of difference, superiority or peace of mind, comfort, and trust in choosing and consuming goods and services that that brand brings. Brand equity brings customers expectations about employee’s positive attitude and professional behavior towards them. Gond et al. (2010) clarified the impact of the implementation of social responsibility on employee’s behavior and attitude. Viswesvaran et al. (1998) analyzed the link between corporate social responsibility toward employees and employees’ oppose acts. To clarify the relationship between corporate brand equity and employee opportunistic behavior, a hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 8 (H8). Brand equity has a negative impact on the employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). 2.2.5. Employee’s Trust and Opportunistic Behavior According to Katsikeas et al. (2009), there is a relationship that influences opportunistic behavior on trust and thereby the business performance. Morgan and Hunt (1994) in their research showed that there is an opposite effect between trust and opportunistic behavior in marketing. Strengthening employee’s trust will create a series of positive effects, create long-term engagement and gradually reduce negative behaviors on the part of employees. With the business context in Vietnam, how is this relationship demonstrated? To have specific measures of this relationship, the authors hypothesize: Hypothesis 9 (H9). Trust has a negative impact on the employee’s opportunistic behavior in enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). 2.2.6. Employee’s Trust and Engagement Up to now, in their studies, many authors have mentioned factors that influence employee engagement to business. One of the first attempts to develop a theoretical J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 6 of 12 framework of engagement was that of Becker (1960) on the basis of the relationship between the individual and the organization. This argument is supported by later research (Ritzer and Trice 1969). Stone and Porter (1975) also emphasize that job factors are considered the key which plays the most important role in determining employee’s engagement with business. From a trust perspective, there are many studies mentioned when analyzing the components, levels, and relationships with many other factors belonging to the individual and the organization. However, there are a few researches examine the impact of trust on employee’s engagement to the business and its constituents. As one of the personal factors, trust is of great importance in the success or failure of most activities in business. Trust at different levels has different effects on effectively mobilizing and utilizing resources for business. Trust has the effect of creating a long-term connection between employees and the business, creating a solid solidarity, promoting the implementation of decisions quickly and effectively. In order to clarify the impact of trust on employee’s engagement to enterprises in Vietnam, the following hypotheses are established in this study: Hypothesis 10 (H10). Trust positively impacts employee’s emotional engagement to enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 11 (H11). Trust positively impacts employee’s calculation engagement to enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). Hypothesis 12 (H12). Trust positively impacts employee’s standards-based engagement to enterprises in Vietnam (see Figure 1). 3. Methodology 3.1. Measurement Scales Based on the theoretical overview and related research works, the paper proposes a research model with independent variable as Corporate brand equity. The intermediate variables are Employee Trust and Commitment in the business, including: Emotional engagement; Computational engagement; Standards-based engagement. The target variable is the employee’s opportunistic behavior. The scale used in the research is a likert scale with 5 levels (Strongly agree; Agree; Normal; Disagree; Strongly disagree). The indicators measuring the applied variables are adjusted in accordance with the characteristics of the sample from the previous studies (see Table 1). Table 1. The origin of the scale of variables. No. Variable Number of Observations Origin of the Scale 1 Corporate brand equity 9 Yoo et al. (2000) 2 Trust 5 Morgan and Hunt (1994) 3 Emotional engagement 6 Meyer and Allen (1991) 4 Computational engagement 6 Meyer and Allen (1991) 5 Standards-based engagement 6 Meyer and Allen (1991) 6 Opportunistic behavior 5 Katsikeas et al. (2009) 3.2. Data Collection and Sampling The sample selected by the non-probability sampling method is a convenient sampling, relatively stratified by provinces and localities in Vietnam. The unit of analysis in this study is an employee in enterprises in Vietnam. The sample size for collection is 609 samples. The data collection process is conducted in two ways: direct and online questionnaires distribution. The number of online questionnaires collected was 256, the number of available questionnaires was 241. In term of direct survey, the number of questionnaires issued is 500, the number of questionnaires collected is 394, the number of questionnaires used is 368. The total number of valid questionnaires used for analysis is 609. Based on the J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 7 of 12 study of Hair et al. (1998) for reference to the expected sample size, the minimum sample size is 5 times the total number of observed variables. With the number of observations in the paper is 37, the research scale includes 609 samples to ensure analysis requirements. The time to complete data collection is from June 2020 to September 2020. 3.3. Data Analysis Method The research applies quantitative methods. The data after collection and cleaning are processed through SPSS and Amos. First, the study assesses the reliability of the scale with Cronbach’s Alpha value > 0.7. Next, the study analyses EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) discovery factor with the aim of determining “convergent values” and “discriminant values of the scale”. Then, using AMOS to assess the suitability of the research model through CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) test and finally the research conducts to examine the research hypotheses by analyzing SEM model. 4. Research Results and Discussion 4.1. Verify the Reliability of the Scale Cronbach’s Alpha test analysis results show that the reliability of the scale used in the analysis that Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of all variables >0.7. However, indicator BE6 has Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Delete coefficient as 0.946 which is larger than the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of BE variable (0.940). Meanwhile, indicator SE6 has a Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Delete coefficient of 0.901 larger than the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the variable SE (0.899). Therefore, in order to increase the suitability of the scale, the study conducted BE6 and SE6 indicators (see Table 2). Table 2. Assess the reliability of the scale through Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. No. Variable Code Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient 1 Corporate brand equity BE 0.946 2 Trust TR 0.904 3 Emotional engagement EE 0.882 4 Computational engagement CE 0.828 5 Standards-based engagement SE 0.901 6 Opportunistic behavior OPB 0.867 4.2. EFA Analysis After conducting the test of the suitability of the scale, the research conducts the analysis of EFA discovery factor. The analysis process conducted for both independent variables, intermediate variables and dependent variables. The analysis results show that the data are eligible for analysis due to the load factor coefficient > 0.5 and satisfy the two conditions of “Convergence value” (observation variables converge on the same factor) and “Distinctive value” (observed variables that belong to one factor are distinguished from another) (see Table 3). Table 3. Results of analysis EFA factor. EFA Analysis KMO Coefficient p-Value Variance Extracted Load Factor Coefficient Conclusion Independent variables, Intermediate variables 0.944 0.000 67.467 All coefficient > 0.5 Ensure analysis requirements Dependent variables 0.852 0.000 65.516 All coefficient > 0.5 Ensure analysis requirements J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 164 8 of 12 4.3. CFA Analysis The research results indicate the appropriateness of the measurement model. Chỉsố Chi-square = 1270.267, df = 545, Chi-square/df = 2.331 (<3), p= 0.000, GFI = 0.890 (>0.8), TLI = 0.942 (>0.9), CFI = 0.947 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.047 (<0.08). 4.4. SEM Linear Structure Model Analysis Conducting analysis of SEM model for the research model, we found that the general indicators are satisfactory. In particular, Chi-square = 1409.208, df = 548, Chi-square/df = 2.572 (<3), p= 0.000, GFI = 0.880 (>0.8), TLI = 0.932 (>0.9), CFI = 0.937 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.051 (<0.08) (see Figure 2). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13 and “Distinctive value” (observed variables that belong to one factor are distinguished from another) (see Table 3). Table 3. Results of analysis EFA factor. EFA Analysis KMO Coefficient p-Value Variance Extracted Load Factor Coefficient Conclusion Independent variables, Intermediate variables 0.944 0.000 67.467 All coefficient > 0.5 Ensure analysis requirements Dependent variables 0.852 0.000 65.516 All coefficient > 0.5 Ensure analysis requirements 4.3. CFA Analysis The research results indicate the appropriateness of the measurement model. Chỉ số Chi-square = 1270.267, df = 545, Chi-square/df = 2.331 (<3), p = 0.000, GFI = 0.890 (>0.8), TLI = 0.942 (>0.9), CFI = 0.947 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.047 (<0.08). 4.4. SEM Linear Structure Model Analysis Conducting analysis of SEM model for the research model, we found that the general indicators are satisfactory. In particular, Chi-square = 1409.208, df = 548, Chi-square/df = 2.572 (<3), p = 0.000, GFI = 0.880 (>0.8), TLI = 0.932 (>0.9), CFI = 0.937 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.051 (<0.08) (see Figure 2). Figure 2. SEM model analysis. Figure 2. SEM model analysis. The results of estimating the relationships in the model show that the research model is suitable. Except for hypothesis H6 and H7, all other hypotheses with significance level p< 0.05 are accepted. In particular, hypothesis H1 is accepted with the significance level p< 0.05 and the regression weight is 0.593 (>0). That is, brand equity has positive impact on employees’ trust in small and medium enterprises in the North Central region. This result corresponds to the work of Joe (1999); Ritzer and Trice (1969), etc. Hypotheses H2, H3, and H4 examine the impact of brand equity on employee’s engagement components on small and medium-sized enterprises in the North Central region. The research results show that the hypotheses are accepted with significance level p< 0.05 and positive regression weight, showing the positive effect of brand equity on all three components of engagement. These results correspond to the works of Meyer and