JOURNAL OF

CUSTOMER
BEHAVIOUR

Consumer perceptions of corporate social

responsibility and its relationship with consumer
behaviour: Scale development and validation in an
emerging market context
Hiroko Oe, Bournemouth University, UK*
Yasuyuki Yamaoka, The Open University of Japan, Japan

Abstract This study aims to develop a conceptual framework on consumers’

perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CPCSR) and the impacts of this on
three types of consumer behaviour: company evaluation, company identification,
and purchase intention. A quantitative method was applied in this study. Structural
equation modelling was performed on 401 samples attained from a survey
conducted in Turkey to verify the proposed analytical model, with seven dimensions
of CPCSR and three dimensions of consumer behaviour based on the perceptions
of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
The dimensions of the model are all validated with Turkish consumers’
perceptions. The results indicate that CPCSR can be explained and validated by
the following seven dimensions: employee, customer, environment, community,
societal, supplier, and shareholder factors. It is also validated that consumer
behaviour in response to CPCSR can be measured by three dimensions: company
evaluation, company identification, and purchase intention. As a holistic model,
the proposed framework has been approved with the Turkish consumers’ dataset.
However, it has been found that CPCSR does not have a big impact on consumers’
behaviour; the results of this study show that CPCSR has a weaker impact on
consumers’ CSR behaviour.
While investigation into issues of CSR in emerging markets is essential for
twenty-first-century business ethics, the research theme of this study is how
to support and guide consumers to be more proactive and responsive to CSR

Cont’d...

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

JOURNAL OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR, 2020, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.203-226

[Link]
ISSN1475-3928 print /ISSN1477-6421 online © 2020 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
204 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

concepts. The validated and proposed model with practical dimensions can assist
businesses to assess CPCSR relative to its impact on consumer behaviour.

Keywords Consumer perception, Corporate social responsibility (CSR), Consumer

behaviour, Structural equation modelling, Emerging market

INTRODUCTION

In the last few decades, interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown
among both academics and practitioners (Alvarado-Herrera et al., 2015; Harrison et
al., 2019; Hur et al., 2020; Saxton et al., 2020). This is mainly because CSR influences
various aspects of a firm’s operations (Sethi et al., 2017; Szőcs & Schlegelmilch, 2020)
and might benefit firms in various ways (Assiouras et al., 2011; Kalwani & Mahesh,
2020). As one example of an established analytical frame with layers, Carroll (1979)
proposed the dimensions as Carroll’s pyramid, and this has since been the basis for
CSR literature and discussions. In line with the increase of interest and discussions
of CSR, big companies (such as Fortune 500 companies) have been engaging in CSR
activities as a strategy for maintaining customers (Moratis & Cochius, 2017; Popa &
Dabija, 2019). Standardised frameworks, such as the ISO 26000, have also provided
a practical benchmark for firms to announce their ethical business values to their
stakeholders and shareholders.
Although research on CSR has a long history in academia, for some time there was
a lack of attention on its effects on consumer behaviours and consumers’ perceptions
of a firm (Brown & Dacin, 1997). However, the number of studies published
regarding the relationship between organisations’ CSR activities and consumer
reactions to them increased after the 1990s (Maignan, 2001). The CSR actions of
firms have been discussed to develop the potential positive influence on consumer
attitudes towards the firms’ ethical behaviours and products, but the early stages
of research mostly studied these relationships in developed countries, especially in
the USA (Arli & Lasmono, 2010; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Maignan, 2001; Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001). Consumers’ reactions towards a company’s CSR activities have
still not been fully investigated, but scholars have now discussed some other factors
that have impacts on consumers’ reactions to companies, such as the total expenditure
for CSR activities (Green & Peloza, 2014) and strategic marketing communication
efforts (Luu, 2019).
Szőcs & Schlegelmilch (2020) have argued that CSR is not a stagnant concept but
a dynamic one that evolves an organisation’s culture based on transitions of cultural
standards and behaviour. Therefore, the impact of CSR on consumers’ reactions to
a company can differ from market to market and culture to culture; established CSR
frameworks such as Carroll’s (1979) framework are not necessarily best suited for
contexts beyond the developed market.
The aim of this study is to investigate consumers’ perceptions of CSR (CPCSR) in
emerging markets and to examine the impact of CPCSR on consumer behaviour. In
doing so, the proposed analytical model, which suggests that CPCSR has significant
impacts on consumer responses (i.e., purchase intention (PI, Coyle & Thorson, 2001;
Putrevu & Lord, 1994 ), company evaluation (CE, Goldsmith et al., 2000 ) and
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 205

consumer company identities (CCI, Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000), is validated against
primary data collected from Turkey. Thus, this study bridges the gap in academic
literature on how firms’ CSR activities influence consumers’ responses in reality,
especially in emerging markets.
The next sections review the relevant theories and academic discussions on the
conceptualisation of the relationship between companies’ CSR activities, from the
perspective of seven dimensions (consumer, employee, environment, community,
society, shareholder, and supplier), and consumer responses (i.e., PI, CE and
CCI). It is followed by empirical analysis, discussion and conclusions, as well as
recommendations for future study and limitations.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Corporate social responsibility: Origins and debates

Although the Industrial Revolution can be accepted as the starting point of CSR, at
least with respect to some of its activities and practices, the term is mostly a concept
of the twentieth century, and the systematic reasoning and conceptual frameworks
associated with it were improved upon after the 1950s (Carroll, 2008). There are
various definitions, debates and theoretical explanations of CSR, but it is still difficult
to find a widely accepted definition of the concept (Öberseder et al., 2014; Turker,
2009). Despite the fact that there is no unique definition of CSR, the most established
and accepted model of CSR was proposed by Archie Carroll in 1979. This model was
further refined in 1991 and 2009 (Crane & Matten, 2010). Carroll (1979) claimed
that four types of social responsibilities constitute CSR in total: economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary. In 1991, Carroll revisited his first definition and replaced
the term ‘discretionary’ with ‘philanthropic’.
Since Carroll’s contribution, researchers have been trying to discuss and define
CSR to develop more actionable implications for both practical and academic uses.
As Dahlsrud (2008) discussed in his exploration of 37 definitions of CSR, there
have been five main areas examined in CSR literature: stakeholder, social, economic,
voluntary, and environmental. From these discussions, two key benchmarks have
been developed: the ISO 26000, launched in 2010 (Moratis, 2016), and the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), launched in 2015 as the
agreed-upon guidance for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted
by all United Nations member states (United Nations, 2015). Both these frameworks
define CSR as the responsibility to contribute to societies and economies with ethical
behaviours and values that impact all five areas of behavioural dimension.
As noted previously, the established CSR framework, Carroll’s CSR pyramid,
has long been used as a discussion framework for the analysis of companies’ CSR
strategies (Carroll, 1991, 2016; Nalband & Kelabi, 2014). In the timeline of this
discussion, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) explored Carroll’s conceptual model with
three key questions about CSR (1979) and the pyramid of CSR (1991), proposing
an alternative approach with which CSR can be conceptualised with the three core
domains of economic, legal and ethical responsibilities.
However, despite the academic efforts, in this globalised age, some challenges
have been acknowledged, associated with the use of Carroll’s pyramid in different
markets with different societal and economic values, leading to differences in the
prioritisation of the layers. One study suggested that the order of priority in the
206 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

established model was not the best model for a different market, such as an African
nation. It was suggested that priorities can be different from the classic American
order of priorities (Visser, 2006).
CSR should be analysed with a holistic view, not only focusing on ensuring
economic durability and boosting the economy to sustain businesses, but also
integrating goals, both internal and societal (Lee & Chen, 2018). CSR strategies
are also used as a promotional tool (Golob et al., 2017; Hildebrand, 2017) through
which interactive relationships can be developed between companies and customers.

Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility

Consumers want to buy products from companies they trust (Szőcs & Schlegelmilch,
2020). If the perceived social responsibility of a company is high, its reward might
be satisfied consumers, while low perceived social responsibility may cause boycotts
or other unwanted consumer action (Crane & Matten, 2010). The first large-scale
consumer boycott in England occurred in 1790 regarding slave-harvested sugar
(Arndt, 2003). More than 300,000 people boycotted sugar, and 400,000 signed
a petition to Parliament demanding an end to the slave trade (Hochschild, 2005).
However, research into CPCSR activities was rarely carried out, but this has changed
in the very late 20th century (Maignan, 2001).
Although there is growing research into CSR activities and consumers’ perceptions
of and reactions towards these activities, consumer perception is still unclear to
executives and researchers (Öberseder et al., 2014). Brown and Dacin (1997) claimed
that a negative perception of corporate responsibility can detrimentally impact a
product’s overall evaluation, while a positive perception can improve product
evaluations. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) also suggested that there is a definite
relationship between firms’ CSR activities and consumer behaviour, and some other
studies have demonstrated that consumers tend to buy products or services from
firms actively engaged in CSR activities (Du et al., 2010; Sen et al., 2006).
A review of the CSR literature suggests a growing emphasis on how to address
the relationship between CSR perceptions and consumer reactions (Brunk, 2010;
Eckhardt et al., 2010; Öberseder et al., 2014). Although research into CPCSR has
been accumulating, CPCSR discussions are still unclear on how to develop robust
implications and suggestions for executives and researchers (Öberseder et al., 2014;
Pohle & Hittner, 2008 ), mainly because this theme regards in-depth subject areas that
overlap with cultural values and traditional perspectives of markets and consumers.
To investigate the dimensions of CPCSR, the present study has adapted the model
developed by Öberseder et al. (2014), which proposes that seven factors make up
CPCSR. Distinguishing between different domains of firms’ CSR activities has been
attempted by various researchers because clarity of the antecedent factors is useful for
defining the significance of the impact on consumer responses. Without sufficiently
tangible implications from research, practitioners cannot implement focused CSR
activities to sustain and acquire customers in the market (Harrison et al., 2019;
Joo et al., 2019; Öberseder et al., 2014; O’Connor & Spangenberg, 2008; Pérez
& Rodríguez Del Bosque, 2013; Turker, 2009). Öberseder et al. (2014) suggested
a focus on a company’s stakeholders (i.e., its employees, customers, environment,
suppliers, local community, shareholders, and society) as a practical model to apply
to consumer studies.
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 207

Consumer behaviour in response to consumers’ perceptions of corporate social

responsibility
As noted, the discussions of CPCSR have been accumulated, and the developed scales
for the analysis of CPCSR have been shared by researchers in various market contexts,
which have led to actionable implications for both researchers and practitioners.
Some scholars have investigated consumers’ reactions towards CSR behaviour by
testing consumers’ systematic concurrence of sustainability values, beliefs and
attitudes based on a holistic approach (Abdul-Muhim, 2007; Goswami, 2008; Kim
et al., 2015; Ritch & Schroder, 2012). In doing so, it has been found that an ecolabel
on products alone cannot have a significant impact on consumers’ perceptions of
the companies’ eco-friendly attitudes, thereby implying that a more heuristic and
systematic approach is required to enhance consumers’ behaviour (Kim et al.,
2015). However, their attempts focus on analysing consumers’ value perceptions,
behavioural tendencies and activities, not on the impact of the companies’ CSR
activities and the consumers’ response to those. Not enough close investigations into
consumers’ reactions to companies’ CSR activities have been carried out, nor have
there been sufficient detailed investigations into how companies design their CSR
strategies to sustain and acquire consumers (Baskentli et al., 2019; Dang et al., 2020;
Schaefer et al., 2020).
Mainly because of this scarcity of research on the relationships of companies’ CSR
behaviour dimensions and the reactions to them, designing a conceptual framework
for the analysis of key themes has been one of the challenging issues in CSR literature
(Baskentli et al., 2019; Öberseder et al., 2014; Turker, 2009). There are various
scopes and dimensions for the analysis of CSR (Alvarado-Herrera et al., 2015;
Maignan & Ferrell, 2004), and there is no dominant model that has been agreed on.
Furthermore, research into CPCSR and the impact on consumer behaviour has rarely
been found until the early 21st century (Öberseder et al., 2014). Although some
scholars have explored consumers’ responses to the companies’ CSR activities, such
as Brown and Dacin (1997) and Du et al. (2007) with their pioneering inquiries into
the theme, an established model with practical scales from a holistic view showing a
‘relational flow’ has not been agreed on.
Every theoretical approach to CSR has some limitations. For instance, Carroll’s
pyramid model does not reflect consumer behaviour fully, as the model has only
four CSR functions - ethical, philanthropic, economic, and legal - which are too
limited to measure consumers’ real behaviour (Alvarado-Herrera et al., 2015). Some
experimental studies have focused on consumer behaviour, but most of them assumed
that all the other aspects were constant. However, in the real market, nothing is
consistent, and consumers’ CSR-related reactions to a firm are determined by a
firm’s actions and its stakeholder groups. In other words, consumer behaviour can be
affected by other stakeholders, which is something a firm cannot control (Du et al.,
2007). Considering this problem, a scale measuring consumer reactions towards CSR
policies within the context of market competition was developed by Du et al. (2007).
Turker (2009) also discussed the impact of CSR perceptions on consumer behaviour.
However, all these conceptual frameworks have some limitations with respect to
the objectives of this research. For example, the scale proposed by Turker (2009)
aimed to measure CSR and the responsibilities of a business according to various
stakeholders, so consumer behaviour was neglected. The conceptual framework
proposed by Du et al. (2007) aimed to reflect a brand’s competitive positioning
(with respect to its CSR positioning) and consumer reactions towards these policies.
208 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

On this point, as Brunk (2010) recommended, we should explore the impact of the
reputation-building process on the responses to companies’ ethical behaviour. Brunk
(2010) also suggested that the inferences in consumers’ ethical perception formation
(the seven factors comprising CPCSR) should be examined in terms of how they
impact on consumer behaviour, such as CE, PI and CCI.

Analytical model for the study

A conceptual framework that emphasises measuring CPCSR with a more
comprehensive, stakeholder-based approach was developed by Öberseder et al.
(2014). This framework was constructed on the definition of CSR devised by the
European Commission (2011; 6), because of its strong stakeholder focus (Öberseder
et al., 2014; Szőcs & Schlegelmilch, 2020). CSR is defined as a socially responsible
company integrating social and environmental concerns into its core business activities
and acting responsibly towards its employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders,
environment and local community, and to society as a whole. They identified seven
different CSR domains in their definition to assess CPCSR. They also stated that these
domains are of varying importance to consumers. For example, the most relevant
domains for CPCSR are customers, the environment and employees. This framework
posits CPCSR in a hierarchical, multidimensional construct reflecting consumers’
overall perceptions of CSR (Öberseder et al., 2014).
Öberseder et al. (2014) built a conceptual model with useful measurements for an
analytical framework, insisting that CE, CCI and PI are positively related to CPCSR.
This relationship can be seen in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 Proposed conceptual model

Customer (e.g.,
fair sales practices,
clear labels) H1.1

Employee H1.2 CE

H2

Environment H1.3

H1.4 H3
Community CPCSR PI

H1.5

Societal H5
H1.6 H4

Shareholder CCI

H1.7

Supplier

Adapted from Öberseder et al. (2014)

 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 209

In the present study, the conceptual model proposed by Öberseder et al. (2014)
is applied to the primary data collected from Turkish consumers. Then, the seven
domains - customer, employee, environment, community, societal, shareholder,
and supplier factors - are critically evaluated as the impactful elements of CPCSR
(H1.1 to H1.7). At the same time, CE, PI and CCI are analysed based on the holistic
relationships’ paradigm shown in Figure 1. In doing so, the following hypotheses will
be tested:

H1.1 The customer domain, such as fair prices, clear and comprehensive product
labelling and safe and high-quality products, affects CPCSR.

H1.2 The employee domain, such as working conditions, non-discrimination of

employees and adequate remuneration, affects CPCSR.

H1.3 The environmental domain, such as the reduction of energy consumption, waste
and emissions, affects CPCSR.

H1.4 The community domain, such as contribution to the regional economy and creation
of jobs for the local population, affects CPCSR.

H1.5 The societal domain, such as employment of disabled people and donation to
social facilities, affects CPCSR.

H1.6 The shareholder domain, such as the sustainable growth of companies and fair
communication with shareholders, affects CPCSR.

H1.7 The supplier domain, such as fair conditions for suppliers and fair communication
with them, affects CPCSR.

H2 CPCSR affects consumers’ CE.

H3 CPCSR affects consumers’ PI.

H4 CPCSR affects consumers’ CCI.

H5 CCI affects consumers’ PI.

METHODOLOGY

This study applies a quantitative approach because it aims to test and validate a
conceptual model with measurements against a dataset attained from Turkey to
examine hypotheses developed from the literature review (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The
study has been conducted using a survey strategy to collect data with a questionnaire,
which is a popular method because it enables the collection of data from groups of
samples (Saunders et al., 2019; Weathington et al., 2012). As Park and Park (2016)
discussed, surveys attempt to gather information from an entire group, which is
usually a sample.

Survey design
For the survey design, 44 items responding to the hypotheses were prepared, with
some modification of wording and format following a pilot test carried out on 12
210 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

volunteers in advance. The questions were designed following the proposed elements
by Öberseder et al. (2014), covering seven dimensions for CPCSR. The employee
dimension incorporates such issues as working conditions, non-discriminatory
attitudes for employees and fair salaries. The customer dimension comprises basic
attributes, such as fair prices, informative product labelling, good quality of products,
and so on. The environmental dimension includes questions on eco-friendly business
attitudes, efforts in reducing CO2 footprints and increasing sustainable energy
consumption. The supplier dimension includes the themes of fair and transparent
terms and conditions, justified supplier selections and reliable auditing to enhance
accountability. Another dimension is the relationship with the local community, which
was questioned from the perspective of creating job opportunities, procurement from
local businesses and contribution to community development. The shareholders
dimension includes questions on long-term financial success and responsible
investments to sustain businesses. The societal dimension presents elements which
include companies’ social contributions to vulnerable citizens, enhancing diversity in
the society, partnerships with charities and support for social enterprises. The three
dimensions of consumer behaviour are PI (Coyle & Thorson, 2001; Öberseder et al.,
2014; Putrevu & Lord, 1994 ), CE (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Öberseder et al., 2014)
and CCI (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Öberseder et al., 2014).
The survey was conducted using a web-based survey service, SurveyMonkey, to
collect primary data for the study from Turkey. The questions and corresponding
options used in this research have been carefully measured and chosen based on the
key take-aways from the academic sources, mainly following the model developed
by Öberseder et al. (2014). Based on the research aim and related hypotheses, the
questionnaire consists of Likert scale questions to assess the factors reflecting the
hypotheses, the relationship between CPCSR and the consumer behaviours of CE,
CCI and PI (Joshi et al., 2015). To validate the scales, the dataset was analysed based
on factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha tests, then the scales and the model were
applied to the dataset to examine the hypotheses using structural equation modelling
(SEM).

Data analysis
A non-probability quota sampling method was applied to the study, then a convenience
sampling and a subsequent snowball technique was used to select candidates of
respondents for the survey (Shukla, 2008). The questionnaire was then distributed
via electronic measures (e.g., email and social network services) to a sample of 401
respondents. These samples represent a spectrum of ages and genders in Turkey. The
sample size was suitable for conducting factor analysis, which was enhanced by SEM
analysis (Karem Kolkailah et al., 2012). For data analysis, SPSS version 26 was used.
Data was analysed based on the descriptive analysis to overview the profile of the
dataset, which was followed by relational analysis using factor analysis with all the
relevant observed variables. To test the reliability of the potential factors for further
analyses, a Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to validate the factors (McQuitty &
Wolf, 2013) and correlation analysis was carried out to check the multicollinearity of
independent variables among the candidates (Yamamoto & Onodera, 1999). Once
the variables were confirmed as being reliable and suitable for further analysis, SEM
analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses using AMOS version 26.
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 211

TABLE 1 Data profile

Attribute Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

Gender
Female 214 53.4 53.4
Male 187 46.6 100.0
Total 401 100.0
Education
Secondary 12 3.0 3.0
High school 95 23.7 26.7
BS 208 51.9 78.6
MS 74 18.5 97.0
PhD 12 3.0 100.0
Total 401 100.0
Age
18-30 244 60.8 60.8
31-40 116 28.9 89.8
41-50 41 10.2 100.0
Total 401 100.0
Income (monthly)*
Less than 1000 146 36.4 36.4
1000-3000 104 25.9 62.3
3000-5000 88 21.9 84.3
Over 5000 63 15.7 100.0
Total 401 100.0
*Currency is Turkish lira

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Data overview
Table 1 shows the key statistics of the 401 respondents, made up of age, gender,
social class and economic background.

Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility dimensions and consumer

behaviour
There are 41 questions that attempt to measure CSR dimensions and Turkish
consumers’ behaviour in the questionnaire. The authors numerically recoded all
answers to ease the process of interpretation. Thus, values ranging from 5 to 1 (Likert
scale: very important to not important) were subsequently assigned to each answer.
Table 2 shows the overall results of the answers.
Some interesting attitudes were observed. While the employee dimension has
the highest mean value, the shareholder dimension has the lowest. Nonetheless, all
mean values are over four, which means that those dimensions are very important
for Turkish consumers. Factor analysis and measurements arrangement were then
prepared.
212 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

TABLE 2 Overall results of the seven dimensions of CSR

Sub-dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Customer 401 2 5 4.47 0.530
Environment 401 2 5 4.40 0.549
Employee 401 2 5 4.49 0.549
Community 401 2 5 4.14 0.636
Societal 401 2 5 4.19 0.624
Supplier 401 1 5 4.19 0.739
Shareholder 401 2 5 4.15 0.776

Factor analysis for the seven domains

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the dataset of CSR dimensions and
consumers’ behaviour to generate a complex set of data (Kline, 1994); in doing so,
the researchers attempted to summarise a data overview and data reduction (Hair et
al., 2010). As Figure 1 indicates, in the conceptual model adapted from Öberseder
et al. (2014), it was suggested that CPCSR consists of seven latent dimensions -
employee, customer, environment, community, societal, supplier, and shareholders
factors - and relevant questions to represent those dimensions were suggested.
This research aimed to analyse Turkish consumers’ perceptions of and behaviour
towards companies engaged in CSR activities; the researchers applied the model
developed by Öberseder et al. (2014) to the dataset in this study to validate the
measurements and instruments proposed by Öberseder et al. The authors also used
those items and dimensions to find out the CPCSR. Confirmatory factor analysis
was conducted using IBM SPSS version 26 in order to identify whether the adapted
items represented the same results as in the original study and whether the items or
dimensions could be reduced to smaller numbers. To ease both the factor analyses
and following hypotheses tests, the authors renamed all questions according to the
dimensions they belong to. For example, question 5 in the questionnaire measures
the customer dimension, so it was renamed ‘Customer 1’; similarly, question 9 was
renamed ‘Customer 5’. All questions in the questionnaire were renamed accordingly.
A principal component method is used and assumes that each component represents
subgroups of strongly interrelated variables with high loadings on the relating
component (Tacq, 1997 ). Öberseder et al. (2014) claimed that the CSR concept
consists of various aspects attributed from consumers’ perceptions, so their study
also discussed whether the relevant attributes are closely related among the seven
dimensions proposed. Therefore, the rearranged observed variables, comprising the
original structure of CPCSR with the seven dimensions, can be applied to the dataset
collected from Turkey. Table 3 shows the results of the factor analysis.

Preparation of the measurements

Based on these results, the observed variables were verified, which can then be
used for SEM analysis in the hypotheses-testing phase. In doing so, as Yamamoto
and Onodera (1999) suggested, the top three loading variables were selected as the
observed variables for SEM analysis.
One of the most used reliability measures to test the factors is the Cronbach’s
alpha test, which varies with the number of observed measures and their degree of
correlation (McQuitty & Wolf, 2013). It ranges from 0 to 1, but 0.60 is deemed the
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 213

TABLE 3 Results of the factor analysis

Component
Alpha
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shareholder 1 .736 .274 .235 .015 .017 .033 .167
Supplier 3 .728 .121 .076 .265 .282 .194 .020 .837
Shareholder 2 .727 .312 .281 -.060 .033 .120 .084
Supplier 5 .718 .093 .163 .242 .161 .131 .084
Supplier 4 .672 .167 .174 .319 .240 .239 -.025
Supplier 1 .649 .169 .100 .386 .272 .058 .137
Supplier 2 .637 .250 .198 .296 .315 .134 .054
Shareholder 3 .574 .343 .241 .080 -.121 .228 .137
Employee 3 .192 .698 .144 .282 .126 .110 .122
Employee 2 .171 .665 .119 .087 .140 .221 .071 .791
Employee 1 .212 .647 .145 .135 .198 .253 .114
Employee 4 .305 .627 .282 .154 .151 .081 .108
Employee 5 .394 .593 .303 .119 .189 .018 .108
Environment 2 .194 .556 .089 .088 .494 .200 -.013
Environment 3 .122 .510 .135 .128 .474 .154 .130
Community 1 .210 .281 .684 .131 .117 .111 .246
Community 3 .109 .084 .672 .325 .171 .012 .110 .755
Community 2 .260 .271 .657 .149 .132 .155 .100
Community 4 .303 .125 .580 .252 .122 .192 -.033
Community 5 .392 .213 .549 .102 .265 .271 -.056
Societal 3 .212 .085 .211 .761 .155 -.017 .077
Societal 2 .189 .108 .356 .637 .165 .223 -.133 .730
Societal 4 .182 .422 .086 .609 -.011 .117 .134
Societal 5 .277 .291 .342 .531 .049 -.016 .173
Environment 1 .209 .157 .176 .072 .701 .127 .184
Environment 5 .188 .263 .289 .272 .530 .095 .068 .722
Environment 4 .214 .370 .297 .086 .490 .076 .087
Customer 2 .132 .180 .189 .005 .189 .718 .259
Customer 1 .309 .166 .078 .000 .181 .672 .105 .657
Societal 1 .171 .318 .159 .355 .099 .505 -.211
Customer 3 .103 .245 .164 .242 -.063 .502 .405
Customer 4 .237 .173 .259 .074 .124 .103 .702
.600
Customer 5 .064 .151 -.039 .023 .404 .310 .599
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation
Rotation converged in 8 iterations

lower limit of acceptability (Hair et al., 2010). The right column of Table 3 shows
the results of the Cronbach’s alpha test for the seven components. Five of the seven
components are satisfactorily over 0.70, the only marginal exceptions being the
sixth and seventh components, whose alpha values were 0.6. These alphas reach a
reasonably reliable level, i.e., over 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the Cronbach’s
alpha of these seven components can be confirmed to state the reliability of this
study’s research questionnaire (George & Mallery, 2003 ).
 214

TABLE 4 Correlation of the variables

JCB

Std.
7 domains Mean Deviation N Customer Employee Environment Community Societal Shareholder Supplier
Pearson Correlation 1
Customer 4.156 0.764 401 Sig. (2-tailed)
N 401
Pearson Correlation .519** 1
Employee 4.523 0.568 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 401 401
Pearson Correlation .510** .523** 1
Journal of Customer Behaviour

Environment 4.108 0.693 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 401 401 401
Pearson Correlation .464** .493** .576** 1
Community 4.138 0.709 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 401 401 401 401
Pearson Correlation .532** .589** .576** .502** 1
Societal 4.318 0.616 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 401 401 401 401 401
Pearson Correlation .512** .556** .450** .439** .509** 1
Shareholder 4.421 0.544 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 401 401 401 401 401 401
Pearson Correlation .398** .437** .391** .273** .455** .453** 1
Supplier 4.455 0.615 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 401 401 401 401 401 401 401
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 215

Based on the Cronbach’s alpha test for the seven components, as shown in Table 4,
our proposed research model can be identified to present reliable measurements for
Turkish CPCSR domains. Components 1-6 comprise three variables, and component
7 consists of two variables. Some variables originally planned to represent the
corresponding domain can be seen as the chosen variable for a different domain,
for instance, the customer domain includes one societal variable (Society 1), and
the shareholder domain includes one supplier variable (Supplier 3). This outcome,
with some overlapping variables, is not the most desired result. However, with this
unexpected and complex overlap, the Cronbach’s alpha shows the reliability for all
seven domains (see Table 3). The overlap of these constructs is explainable, as the
customer and societal domains are somewhat related to the societal context regarding
content, so a reasonable relationship should exist between these factors.

Correlation analysis of key variables

Table 4 shows that the seven variables as antecedent factors for the CPCSR do not have
particularly high correlations (the lowest correlation can be found between ‘supplier’
and ‘community’, standing at .273; the highest correlation can be found between
‘social’ and ‘employee’, standing at .589), which indicates that the proposed seven
variables are mostly independent from each other and can avoid multi-correlation
issues (Yamamoto & Onodera, 1999). Therefore, the proposed seven variables are
eligible to be used for SEM analysis in the next stage.
Following this evaluation of CPCSR and the seven comprising dimensions, the
next section investigates the impact of CPCSR on the consumer behavioural factors
of CE, PI and CCI.

The impact of consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility on

consumer responses
Table 5 shows the overview of Turkish consumers’ perceptions towards CE, PI and
CCI. The mode value of all consumer behaviours is four, which is an ‘agree’ level. All
basic statistics of the variables are summarised in Table 5. It has been shown that CE
has the highest mean value of 3.95. These findings indicate that Turkish consumers
expect companies to be engaged in CSR activities at a high level.

Factor analysis for three domains

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to identify whether the adapted items
represented the same results as in the original study and whether items or dimensions
could be reduced to smaller numbers. To facilitate both the factor analyses and
following hypotheses tests, the authors renamed all questions according to the
dimensions they belong to. As discussed earlier, the researchers had to decide the

TABLE 5 Overall results of CSR behavioural variables

Sub-dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

CE 401 2 5 3.95 0.662
PI 401 1 5 3.45 0.748
CCI 401 1 5 3.43 0.726
216 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

observed variables that were going to be used for SEM analysis in the following
process, as Yamamoto and Onodera (1999) had suggested. The top three loading
variables were selected as the observed variables for SEM analysis, as shown in Table
6.

TABLE 6 Results of the factor analysis for CSR behaviour

Component
1 2 3 Alpha
CE4 .961 .201 .188
CE2 .866 .149 .196 0.924
CE3 .829 .186 .136
CE1 .805 .190 .154
PI4 .199 .972 .113
PI2 .181 .875 .048 0.917
PI1 .123 .833 .078
PI3 .190 .740 .153
CCI4 .197 .119 .973
0.950
CCI1 .172 .081 .892
CCI2 .186 .136 .873
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Norrmalisation

TABLE 7 Correlation of the variables

CSR Std.
behaviour Mean Deviation N CE PI CCI
Pearson Correlation 1
CE 3.925 0.677 401 Sig. (2-tailed)
N 401
Pearson Correlation .368** 1
PI 3.502 0.758 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 401 401
Pearson Correlation .389** .235** 1
CCI 3.429 0.726 401 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 401 401 401
** Correlation in significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 217

Preparation of the measurements

The results of the Cronbach’s alpha test for the three elements, CE, PE and CCI, are
also presented in Table 6. All three components are satisfactorily over 0.70, which
means that they are robust (Hair et al., 2010). Following the comparison of alphas
between the combinations of observed elements, the presented latent variables with
selected variables after the procedure of choosing the best components (Yamamoto &
Onodera, 1999), CCI with two elements (.950), CE with three elements (.924) and PI
with three elements (.917) were selected as the candidates for further analysis. Based
on the analytical process heretofore discussed, the dimensions for the relationship
between CPCSR and consumer behaviour are validated for the next step of testing
hypotheses based on SEM.

Correlation analysis of key variables

The correlated relationships between the three factors comprising the consumer
responses are summarised in Table 7. No particularly high correlations have been
found: the lowest correlation was between CCI and PI (.235), and the highest
correlation was between CCI and CE (.389), indicating that the proposed variables
are mostly independent of each other and can avoid multi-correlation relationships
(Yamamoto & Onodera, 1999).
Therefore, the proposed three variables as elements comprising consumer
responses are eligible to be used for SEM analysis in the next stage.

Hypothesis testing: SEM analysis

Following the statistical analysis on the dataset to secure the reliability and validity
of each dimension, SEM analysis was applied to the dataset to test the hypotheses.
As a result, Figure 2 was developed, which includes both the seven domains’ impacts
on CPCSR and CPCSR’s impact on CE, PI and CCI. The SEM model indicates the
following: Chi-squared = 777.216, df = 339, C/D = 2.287, CFI = .933 and RMSEA
= .057. These are significant and reach the threshold level (Hair et al., 2010). Table
8 shows the standardised regression weights on the research model.
This outcome indicates that this completed model is well fitted with the dataset
and can explain the relationships between all 11 of the latent factors, of which all
the path coefficients are statistically significant. However, the impacts of CPCSR on
the three factors (consumers’ responsive activities) are relatively weaker than those
of the measurements of CPCSR. This indicates that Turkish consumers perceive the
importance of the seven factors representing the CPCSR, but in reality, the impacts
of CPCSR are not enough to change consumers’ behaviour.
This outcome suggests that Turkish CPCSR can be explained with the established
seven dimensions proposed by Öberseder et al. (2014), which were developed and
confirmed with the Western market dataset. However, with respect to the impact of
CPCSR on consumer behaviour, it does not have critical impacts on the three factors
of CE, PI and CCI. This finding suggests that the influence of CPCSR is weaker than
that developed from the Western dataset (Figure 2).
 218

FIGURE 2 SEM results

JCB

Customer 1 0.64 (1 fix) Customer (e.g.,

Customer 2 0.68***
fair sales practices,
Society 1 0.58*** clear labels) 0.84***

Employee 1 0.77 (1 fix) 0.85 (1 fix) CE 2

Employee 2 0.71*** 0.81***
Employee CE CE 3
Employee 3 0.76*** 0.95*** CE 4
0.86***
0.16**
0.63 (1 fix)
Journal of Customer Behaviour

Environment 1
Environment 4 0.71***
Environment 0.89***
Environment 5 0.72***

Community 1 0.83 (1 fix) 0.80 (1 fix) PI 1

0.82*** 0.81*** 0.16*** 0.86***
Community 2 Community CPCSR PI PI 2
Community 3 0.59*** 0.93*** PI 3
Society 2 0.73 (1 fix) 0.76***
0.68*** Chi-square = 777.216 0.23***
Society 3 Societal
Society 4 0.67*** df = 339
0.73 (1 fix) C/d = 2.287 0.17**
Shareholder 1 0.83 (1 fix) P = 0.000 0.88 (1 fix)
0.86*** CCI 1
Shareholder 2 Shareholder CFI = 0933 CCI
0.67*** 0.93*** CCI 3
Supplier 3 RMSEA = 0.057
0.73***
Supplier 4 0.73 (1 fix) (note 1) *** means p < 0.001
Supplier 5 Supplier (note 2) ** means p < 0.01
0.60*** (note 3) “1 fix” means coefficient value fixed as 1
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 219

TABLE 8 A summary of the SEM analysis

Standardised
To From regression weights p
CCI  CPCSR 0.165 0.002
Supplier  CPCSR 0.728 ***
Customer  CPCSR 0.842 ***
Environment  CPCSR 0.893 ***
Shareholder  CPCSR 0.733 1 fix
Employee  CPCSR 0.862 ***
Societal  CPCSR 0.759 ***
Community  CPCSR 0.805 ***
CE  CPCSR 0.161 0.001
PI  CPCSR 0.161 0.002
Shareholder 1  Shareholder 0.833 1 fix
Shareholder 2  Shareholder 0.864 ***
Supplier 3  Shareholder 0.665 ***
Employee 1  Employee 0.768 1 fix
Employee 2  Employee 0.712 ***
Employee 3  Employee 0.756 ***
Societal 2  Societel 0.730 1 fix
Societal 3  Societel 0.678 ***
Societal 4  Societel 0.673 ***
Environment 5  Environment 0.714 ***
Environment 4  Environment 0.706 ***
Environment 1  Environment 0.634 1 fix
Community 1  Community 0.828 1 fix
Community 2  Community 0.820 ***
Community 3  Community 0.593 ***
Societal 1  Customer 0.582 ***
Customer 2  Customer 0.682 ***
Customer 1  Customer 0.643 1 fix
Supplier 5  Supplier 0.600 ***
Supplier 4  Supplier 0.725 1 fix
CE4  CE 0.953 ***
CE3  CE 0.812 ***
CE2  CE 0.854 1 fix
PI4  PI 0.926 ***
PI2  PI 0.857 ***
PI1  PI 0.803 1 fix
CCI3  CCI 0.931 ***
CCI1  CCI 0.885 1 fix
*** means p < 0.001
220 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

Discussion
As Öberseder et al. (2014) proposed, CPCSR can be categorised into seven
measurements: customer, employee, environment, community, societal, shareholder,
and supplier. The impacts of all these measurements are high enough to have a
significant impact on CPCSR. As Figure 2 shows, the model developed fitted well
with the dataset (CFI = .933), which also indicates that the measurements of this
model explain Turkish CPCSR well. Therefore, it is useful to provide the analytical
instrument with these measurements for marketers and researchers.
The model from Öberseder et al. (2014) was developed and validated with a
dataset attained from Austrian consumers (p. 109). Therefore, the main aim of this
study has been to investigate and discuss the applicability of the proposed model,
developed with Western consumers’ perceptions, on consumer perceptions and
behaviours in the emerging market context (Turkish consumers).
The outcome of the analysis suggests that Turkish consumers also perceive the
CPCSR dimensions proposed in the model, but their CPCSR does not necessarily
have significant impacts on their consumption behaviour (i.e., CPCSR does not have
a strong influence on consumer behaviour). Even though the fitting index (CFI =
.933; RMSEA = .057) indicates a reasonably acceptable level, similar to the outcome
of the original study (CFI = .93; RMSEA = .056), our study has revealed significantly
lower impacts of CPCSR on consumer behaviour. The results of Öberseder et al.
(2014) showed a significant relationship between CPCSR and three behavioural
factors: CPCSR >> CE = .76**; CPCSR >> PI = .56*; CPCSR >> CCI = .64**;
CCI >> PI = .73**. Our study, on the other hand, shows a much lower impact on all
relationships: CPCSR >> CE = .16**; CPCSR >> PI = .16***; CPCSR >> CCI
= .17**; CCI >> PI = .23***.
This research outcome does not only validate that the original model developed
by Öberseder et al. (2014) can be applied to datasets from a different market, but
also demonstrates different reactions to firms’ CSR activities in the emerging market
context.
Turkey is one of the emerging markets that has the potential for further expansion,
and this attracts researchers’ interests; the practical implications of this study for both
marketers and researchers pertain to meeting the demands of Turkish consumers
(Dincer & Dincer, 2007; Eren-Erdoğmuş, 2014). The developed conceptual model
with measurements can also contribute to the enhancement of discussions on other
emerging markets. How to stimulate and activate consumers’ CSR perceptions and
behaviour is on the current social and economic agenda, therefore, studies in this
field should be led with a clear intention by researchers.

CONCLUSION

Contributions to theory and practices

Despite its long history, CSR only became popular among researchers after the
1950s. The majority of the formal writing about CSR arrived in the late 20th
Century, approximately in the last 60 years. However, there was not sufficient
empirical research investigating the relationships between consumer perception and
CSR activities, and most of the research has been conducted mainly in developed
countries to develop implications for businesses. CPCSR can differ from culture to
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 221

culture and from developed to developing countries. Because of this, an empirical

inquiry was conducted among Turkish consumers to describe their perception of and
reaction towards CSR activities.
It has been found that the impact of CPCSR on consumer behaviour is not critical,
although the path coefficients are all significant. This implies that Turkish consumers
perceive CSR values and understand the importance of CSR dimensions. However,
the impacts of CPCSR on three behavioural dimensions, CE, PI and CCI, are very
low (0.16 and 0.17). This could be a snapshot of the current situation of an emerging
market such as Turkey, which could change as time goes by. This finding differs
from the outcome of the study by Öberseder et al. (2014), which was developed
from a Western context and discussed the stronger impact of CPCSR on consumer
behaviour. The findings of the present study suggest that consumer behaviour in
emerging markets has a different landscape. This needs to be investigated further
to develop more actionable implications for researchers and relevant strategies in
the field of study. As Hassan et al. (2013) discussed, uncertainty in ethical consumer
choice should be investigated in detail in a context-based way to develop actionable
implications for each case with different backgrounds and market cultures.

Limitations
This study aimed to investigate CPCSR based on survey data collected from the
Turkish market. As Turkey is an emerging market, the findings of this study can
provide clear implications for further research in other emerging markets. Even with
the potential contributions to both theories and practices, this study is limited to
analysis of data collected only from Turkey. The authors acknowledge the necessity
to conduct further research with various datasets from different countries. As Arli
and Pekerti (2017) discussed, cross-cultural comparisons of CPCSR and behavioural
responses should be further investigated; this is another acknowledged limitation of
the present study, as the impact of religious and other cultural values is missing.

Recommendations for future study

The developed model needs to be validated with measurements that can enable
researchers and practitioners to design holistic CSR strategies for companies. CSR is
a critical concept whose impact will increase in the future as an important aspect of
business ethics in the twenty-first century. It is the responsibility of researchers and
social scientists to investigate this topic in order to contribute to the sustainability of
businesses.
To develop more actionable recommendations for businesses, a microscopic
approach focusing on the demographic details of the samples, such as gender, age
and residential location, is required. To develop a marketing strategy that would
attract consumers to the CSR activities of enterprises, more precise tendencies and
key antecedents of the targeted clusters should be understood and proposed. This
type of research approach will enhance the value of the present study which is
inevitable to support sustainable business development.
222 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Mr Ceyhun Deniz for his support in arranging the data
collection in his home country, Turkey. We appreciate his help for the research study.

REFERENCES
Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. (2007). Exploring consumers’ willingness to be environmentally
friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 237–247. [Link]
j.1470-6431.2006.00528.x
Alvarado-Herrera, A., Bigne, E., Aldas-Manzano, J. & Curras-Perez, R. (2015). A Scale
for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Following the
Sustainable Development Paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 243-262. https://
[Link]/10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9
Arli, A. I., & Lasmono, H. K. (2010). Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility
in a developing country. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 46–51. https://
[Link]/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00824.x
Arli, D., & Pekerti, A. (2017). Who is more ethical? Cross-cultural comparison of consumer
ethics between religious and non-religious consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
16(1), 82–98. [Link]
Arndt, M. (2003). An Ode to the Money-Spinner. Business Week, 3825, 22–23.
Assiouras, I., Siomkos, G., Skourtis, G., & Koniordos, M. (2011). Consumer Perceptions
of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Greek Mobile Telecommunication Industry.
International Journal of Management Cases, 13(3), 210–216. [Link]
APBJ.2011.00055
Baskentli, S., Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Consumer reactions to corporate
social responsibility: The role of CSR domains. Journal of Business Research, 95, 502–513.
[Link]
Baskentli, S., Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Consumer reactions to corporate
social responsibility: The role of CSR domains. Journal of Business Research, 95, 502-513.
[Link]
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-
esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 39(4), 555-577. [Link]
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations
and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. [Link]
org/10.1177/002224299706100106
Brunk, K. H. (2010). Reputation building: Beyond our control? Inferences in consumers’
ethical perception formation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(4), 275–292. [Link]
org/10.1002/cb.317
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy
of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. [Link]
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. [Link]
org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: concepts and practices.
In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. [Link]
Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International journal of
corporate social responsibility, 1(1), 1-8. [Link]
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 223

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and
vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77. [Link]
080/00913367.2001.10673646
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.
[Link]
Dang, V. T., Nguyen, N., & Pervan, S (2020). Retailer corporate social responsibility and
consumer citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of perceived consumer effectiveness
and consumer trust. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102082. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2020.102082
Dincer, C., & Dincer, B. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: Future Prospects
in the Turkish Context. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(3), 44–49. [Link]
org/10.1108/17471110710835572
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate
social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 24, 224–241. [Link]
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. [Link]
Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically?
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426-436. [Link]
Eren-Erdoğmuş, İ., Çobanoğlu, E., & Öğüt, B. (2014). Success in philanthropic corporate social
responsibility: The case of Turkey. In A. Yuksel Mermod & S. O. Idowu (Eds.), Corporate
social responsibility in the global business world, 271–286., [Link]
642-37620-7_16
European Commission (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social
responsibility. Available from: [Link]
documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf [Accessed 1 June
2020]
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and
reference. Allyn and Bacon.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility
and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of
Advertising, 29(3), 43-54. [Link]
Golob, U., Verk, N., Ellerup-Nielsen, A., Thomsen, C., Elving, W. J., & Podnar, K. (2017). The
communicative stance of CSR: Reflections on the value of CSR communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 22(2), 166-177. [Link]
03-2017-0019
Goswami, P. (2008). Is the urban Indian consumer ready for clothing with eco-labels?
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 438–446. [Link]
6431.2008.00716.x
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). How do consumers infer corporate social responsibility? The
role of organisation size. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(4), 282–293. [Link]
org/10.1002/cb.1466
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Prentice Hall.
Harrison, D. E., Ferrell, O. C., Ferrell, L., & Hair, J. F., Jr. (2019). Corporate social
responsibility and business ethics: Conceptualization, scale development and validation.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, ahead-of-print. Advance online publication.
[Link]
Hassan, L., Shaw, D., Shiu, E., Walsh, G., & Parry, S. (2013). Uncertainty in ethical consumer
choice: A conceptual model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), 182–193. [Link]
org/10.1002/cb.1409
224 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

Hildebrand, D., DeMotta, Y., Sen, S., & Valenzuela, A. (2017). Consumer responses to
corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type. Journal of Consumer Research,
44(4), 738-758. [Link]
Hochschild, A. (2005). How the British Inspired Dr. King’s Dream. New York Times. Available
from: [Link]
[Link]?_r=0 [Accessed 5 May 2020].
Hur, W. M., Moon, T. W., & Kim, H. (2020). When and how does customer engagement in
CSR initiatives lead to greater CSR participation? The role of CSR credibility and customer–
company identification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Advance online publication. [Link]
Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity:
Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of
Business Research, 98, 236–249. [Link]
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained.
British Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(4), 396–403. [Link]
BJAST/2015/14975
Kalwani, S., & Mahesh, J. (2020). Trends in Organizational Behavior: A Systematic Review
and Research Directions. Journal of Business and Management, 26(1), 40–78.
Karem Kolkailah, S., Abou Aish, E., & El-Bassiouny, N. (2012). The impact of corporate social
responsibility initiatives on consumers’ behavioural intentions in the Egyptian market.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(4), 369–384. [Link]
j.1470-6431.2011.01070.x
Kim, H., Lee, S. H., & Yang, K. (2015). The heuristic-systemic model of sustainability
stewardship: Facilitating sustainability values, beliefs and practices with corporate social
responsibility drives and eco-labels/indices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39,
249–260. [Link]
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
Lee, L., & Chen, L. F. (2018). Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational
analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 948-960.
[Link]
Luu, T. T. (2019). CSR and customer value co-creation behavior: The moderation mechanisms
of servant leadership and relationship marketing orientation. Journal of Business Ethics,
155(2), 379-398. [Link]
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A
Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57–72. [Link]
org/10.1023/A:1006433928640
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An
Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19. https://
[Link]/10.1177/0092070303258971 McQuitty, S., & Wolf, M. (2013). Structural
Equation Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Journal of African Business, 14(1), 58–69.
[Link]
Moratis, L. (2016). Out of the ordinary? Appraising ISO 26000’s CSR definition. International
Journal of Law and Management., [Link]
Moratis, L., & Cochius, T. (2017). ISO 26000: The business guide to the new standard on
social responsibility. Routledge. [Link]
Nalband, N. A., & Kelabi, S. A. (2014). Redesigning Carroll’s CSR pyramid model. Journal of
Advanced Management Science, 2(3). [Link]
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’
Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation. Journal
of Business Ethics, 124, 101–115. [Link]
O’Connor, M., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2008). A methodology for CSR reporting: Assuring
a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance
issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(13), 1399–1415. [Link]
jclepro.2007.08.005
 Oe & Yamaoka Consumer perceptions of CSR and its relationship with consumer behaviour 225

Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: Discovery or
justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1–7.
Pérez, A., & Rodríguez Del Bosque, I. R. (2013). Measuring CSR image: Three studies to
develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2),
265–286. [Link]
Pohle, G., & Hittner, J. (2008). Attaining sustainable growth through corporate social
responsibility. IBM Global Business Services.
Popa, D. I., & Dabija, D. C. (2019). ISO 26000: A Brief Literature Review. In ISO 26000-A
Standardized View on Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 81–92). Springer., [Link]
org/10.1007/978-3-319-92651-3_6
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising: Attitudinal
effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising, 23(2),
77-91. [Link]
Ritch, E. L., & Schroder, M. J. (2012). Accessing and affording sustainability: The experience
of fashion consumption within young families. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
36, 203–210. [Link]
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business students (8th
ed.). Harlow.
Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2020). Responding to Diffused Stakeholders on Social
Media: Connective Power and Firm Reactions to CSR-Related Twitter Messages. Journal of
Business Ethics. [Link]
Schaefer, S. D., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2020). Talking about CSR matters: Employees’
perception of and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR
domains. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 191–212. [Link]
650487.2019.1593736
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-
domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530. [Link]
beq200313435
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(2), 225–243. [Link]
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The Role of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field
Experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166. [Link]
org/10.1177/0092070305284978
Sethi, S. P., Rovenpor, J. L., & Demir, M. (2017). Enhancing the quality of reporting in
corporate social responsibility guidance documents: The roles of ISO 26000, global
reporting initiative and CSR-sustainability monitor. Business and Society Review, 122(2),
139–163. [Link]
Shukla, P. (2008). Marketing Research. Ventus Publishing ApS.
Szőcs, I., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2020). Embedding CSR in Corporate Strategies. In
Rethinking Business Responsibility in a Global Context (pp. 45–60). Springer. [Link]
org/10.1007/978-3-030-34261-6_4
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon.
Turker, D. (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. [Link]
United Nations. (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
Available from: [Link]
[Accessed 23 April 2020]
Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid. In Corporate citizenship in developing
countries (pp. 29-56). Copenhagen Business School Press.
Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J., & Pittenger, D. J. (2012). Understanding Business
Research. John Wiley & Sons Inc., [Link]
Yamamoto, K., & Onodera, T. (1999). Structural Equation Modelling by Amos and case
analyses. Nakanishiya Syuppan.
226 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Dr Hiroko Oe is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Bournemouth University. She holds

a PhD from Waseda University, MSc in Regulation from the LSE, and BEcon from the
University of Tokyo. Before moving to academia, she used to work for the Central
Government of Japan as a policy maker, and she contributed to international policy
coordination in the field of ICT and designing regulatory framework for business
performance. Her research interests include SDGs’ implementations in business
strategies and communicating sustainability.
Corresponding author: Hiroko Oe, Bournemouth University, 89 Holdenhurst
Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EB, UK.
E hoe@[Link]

Dr Yasuyuki Yamaoka is a researcher at the Open University of Japan, and holds a

PhD degree in Engineering from Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan. He worked
for IBM Japan for some decades as a consumer relationship specialist. His current
research interests cover consumer-supplier communications, satisfaction survey
design, and the quality of management study of tourism sector. He also is a certified
Japan Quality of Management assessor.
Yasuyuki Yamaoka, The Open University of Japan, 2-11 Wakaba, Mihama-ku,
Chiba city, 261-8586, Japan.
E yamaoka-y@[Link]
© of Journal of Customer Behaviour is the property of Westburn Publishers Ltd or its
licensors and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without first obtaining the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or e-mail articles for individual, non-commercial use only. This article has
been reproduced by EBSCO under license from Westburn Publishers Ltd.