Article

How CSR Affects Brand Equity Global Business Review

18(3S) 1–18
of Indian Firms? © 2017 IMI
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0972150917693149
http://gbr.sagepub.com

Anupam Singh1
Priyanka Verma2

Abstract
Studies in the developed economies report that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has effect on
brand’s performance. However, there is a dearth of such studies in developing economies like India.
Therefore, this study attempts to examine the nexus of CSR and brand equity (BE) in Indian business
perspective. For the purpose of this study, questionnaire-based online survey was conducted to collect
the empirical data. Structural equation modelling (SEM) technique using AMOS 22.0 was utilized to test
structural model. Results indicate that firm’s CSR activities have positive effect on its BE. However,
brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and purchase intention mediate the CSR and BE rela-
tionship. This study adds to the existing CSR literature theoretically and also offers the managerial
implications. The findings of this study would help the companies to renovate their management strate-
gies from traditional profit oriented to socially responsible business approach for sustainable business
performance.

Keywords
Corporate social responsibility, brand equity, India

Introduction
Nowadays, companies are putting public face on their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.
Previous studies have reported that company’s CSR initiatives drive customer purchase intention (PI),
loyalty and ultimately brand equity (BE). For example, a recent global survey by Mckinsey shows that
76 per cent of executives believe that CSR contributes positively to long-term stakeholder value and
55 per cent of executives agree that CSR helps their companies to build a strong reputation (Bonini,
Görner & Jones, 2010). More than 90 per cent of the Fortune 500 companies now have explicit CSR

1
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Management Studies, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal,
India.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal,
India.

Corresponding author:
Anupam Singh, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Management Studies, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT),
Bhopal 462003, India.
E-mail: mr.anupam123@gmail.com
2 Global Business Review 18(3S)

initiatives (Kotler & Lee, 2004; Lichtenstein, Drumwright & Braig, 2004). According to a report
published in Businessweek (Berner, 2005, p. 72), companies show their interest in disclosing their sub-
stantial CSR investments. Academic researchers claim that an effective CSR communication can bring
positive business outcomes. Therefore, letting the people know about your organization through CSR
initiatives has become one of the integral organizational functions (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2008).
Strong social brand is a powerful tool that a company can use for its competitive advantage. The brand
and CSR operate in synchrony. This is appropriate as market research shows responsible business prac-
tices to be a key driver of brand preference and performance (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Jain, Vyas
& Chalasani, 2016). The most important aspect of this approach is that companies with the right business
model can show a single compelling story across all touch points. It works best for those organizations in
which social responsibility is a core value and informs all aspects of the business (Sen & Bhattacharya,
2001).
On the other hand, CSR efforts have come under fire from both investors, who cry for misuse of
shareholders’ money, and from customers and other interested groups who criticize the companies for
charging higher than they deliver. The Coca-Cola and British American Tobacco are just some of the
latest examples of backlash of their CSR efforts. Majority of the companies are either not clear about
social obligation (i.e., CSR) or unable to integrate CSR with their business performance. The reason
might be that there is growing issue over single agreed definition of CSR. Some researchers define
CSR as charitable giving; others define CSR as strategic philanthropy and community development.
However, none of these definitions of CSR really does justice to the concept. This leads to further
enquiry—‘What is CSR?’

What is CSR?
Over a period of time, CSR definitions, practices and its adaptation expanded immensely. While there is
no universal definition of CSR, it generally refers to transparent business practices that are based on
ethical values, legal compliance and respect for people, communities and the environment. Thus, beyond
making profits businesses are responsible for their impact on people and planet. In the business
community, CSR is also referred as ‘corporate citizenship’ which essentially means that a company
should be a good neighbour within its host community. In 1954, Peter Drucker, in his book The Practice
of Management, included public responsibility as one of the key areas in which business objectives were
to be set. He stated: ‘it has to consider whether the action is likely to promote the public good, to advance
the basic beliefs of society, to contribute to its stability, strength, and harmony’ (Drucker, 1954, p. 388).
However, one of the most eminent scholars of the 1970s, Noble Prize economist, Milton Friedman,
defined CSR in a different angle:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed
to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free
competition without deception or fraud. (Friedman, 1970)

Sethi (1975) introduced the dimensions of corporate social performance and distinguished between
‘social obligations’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘social responsiveness’. He sought to draw attention away
from social responsibility and towards the notion of public responsibility. The CSR concepts and
definitions grew well in the 1970s. Businessmen during that period highly engaged with corporate
philanthropy and community relations. A few definitions during this period emphasized on inclusion of
stakeholders that needed to match public expectations and utilize CSR for long-term social and business
benefits. However, in 1979, Carroll, a great CSR think tank, had attempted to put a broader concept of CSR.
Singh and Verma 3

He offered the following definition: ‘The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic,
legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’
(Carroll, 1979).

Literature Review

CSR and Brand Equity

The term ‘brand’ is not just a name or symbol (Kotler, Adam, Brown & Armstrong, 2006); it has the capa-
bility in it to develop a value which is known as BE in business literatures (Aaker, 1991). Hunt and
Morgan (1995) stated that firms, by offering products and services that have value to their target custom-
ers, attain higher economic performance. This concept is referred to as BE (Aaker, 1991). It indicates the
incremental utility or value added to a product by virtue of its brand name (Farquhar, 1989; Yoo & Donthu,
2001). In general, it is assumed that brand reflects intangible corporate asset (De Mortanges & Van Riel,
2003) that entails value (Brady, 2003). In this study, brand awareness (BA), brand image (BI), brand
loyalty (BL) and PIs, derived from companies’ CSR initiatives, have been used as proxy to measure BE.
Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman (2002) posited that a firm’s reputation for ethical behaviour, which
includes its integrity in dealing with multiple stakeholders, is part of its BE. Consumers’ perception about
a firm’s CSR initiatives can, therefore, have a positive effect on BE. Lai, Chiu, Yang and Pai (2010)
showed the empirical evidence that CSR activities can positively affect industrial BE and brand perfor-
mance. According to Lai et al. (2010), industrial BE consists of BL, perceived quality, BA, brand associa-
tion and brand satisfaction. In other words, buyers’ perceptions about suppliers’ CSR initiatives enhance
the positive brand awareness/association, while perceived quality of products also improves the loyalty.
Thereby, BL to suppliers is developed and brand satisfaction is brought about. BA, BI, BL and PIs compose
the BE. Thus, we predict a direct and positive effect of CSR activities on BE. The subsequent hypotheses
are formulated in the following sections for direct effects of CSR on BE components (i.e., BA, BI, BL and
PI) as well as indirect effect of CSR on BE through mediating effect of BE components.

CSR and Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is a measure of extent to which a brand is recognized by customers. A brand is not
judged (or known) by only quality of its products or services but also by social performance. The strategic
objective of CSR is ‘doing well by doing good’. An impactful CSR programme effectively creates BA
and connects with customers (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). A top brand strives to engage with their
audiences (Brammer & Pavelin, 2004), trigger action and reaction, and develop long-lasting bonding by
doing social good (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Research shows that people trust a company more if it is
socially responsible (Pivato, Misani & Tencati, 2008), and also shows that a proactive, multifaceted CSR
programme can generate more positive awareness for brand than advertising (Berger, Cunningham &
Kozinets, 1999).
Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) stated that individuals who are aware of the CSR initiatives will have
more positive association with the company and display greater intent to purchase the products of that
company, and will be willing to invest than the individuals who are unaware of the initiatives
(Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2007; Klein & Dawar, 2004; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Key implication,
therefore, is to work hard at raising awareness level (Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2006). The study
4 Global Business Review 18(3S)

of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) shows that consumers’ ability to accurately identify the CSR initiatives
of the company is quite low. They suggested that awareness of CSR initiatives should be associated with
consumers’ beliefs, attributions, attitude and identification for the better business outcome of CSR. Thus,
we propose that there is a positive and significant effect of CSR on (i) BA and (ii) BE through mediating
effect of BA.

CSR and Brand Image

Nguyen (2006) defines corporate image as customer response to company’s offerings and is related to
business name, products and/or services, tradition, ideology and impression of quality of communication
to each stakeholder. The first thing that can be impacted by CSR is BI. Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008) in
their study found that there can be an effect on BI and trust towards the company, if consumers are aware
of and positively perceive companies’ CSR actions. Previous studies have found that having favourable
corporate reputation can lead to a distinctive and credible appeal as well as more effective form
of differentiation (Brown, Dacin, Pratt & Whitten, 2006). Yeo, Goh and Tso (2011) argued that corporate
image is not a sort of window dressing, but a real indicator of whether a company will survive in
long run.
Action that demonstrates CSR supports the corporate reputation (Alconiz, Caceres & Perez, 2010).
Branco and Rodrigues (2006) too argued that CSR enables a firm to improve its reputation with a broad
range of stakeholders, including customers, employees, competitors, investors and bankers. A company
with relatively higher reputation experiences high stock market returns. In addition a good BI can attract
customers and talented employees (Lange, Lee & Dai, 2011). The investment in reputation develops
consumer support and increases confidence in firms’ offerings. Thus, a company can use CSR activities
as mechanism to build reputation, thereby creating corporate level differentiation strategy (Hsu, 2012).
Thus, based on previous research findings, this study claims that there is a positive and significant
influence of CSR on BI. However, BI has mediating effect between CSR and BE relationship.

CSR and Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty refers to extent of the faithfulness of consumers to a specific brand, expressed through
their repeat purchases, unaffected by marketing pressure generated by the competing brands (Jones,
David & Sharon, 2002). Researchers and marketers define BL in terms of consumers’ behaviour and
repeat purchases (Punniyamoorthy & Raj, 2007). Past studies have demonstrated that thoughtful and
meaningful CSR efforts can promote customer loyalty (Nareeman & Hassan, 2013). The CSR initiatives,
therefore, need to impact customers’ direct experience with company’s brand. It should not just be
furnished in public relations (PR) campaigns and sustainability reports, which means CSR must be core
to an organization in a way that customers can see and feel. Previous findings also indicate that belief in
CSR activities has a positive and direct effect towards the firm/brand loyalty and the likelihood of repeat
purchases (Schramm-Klein & Zentes, 2008). According to Zhang (2009), CSR has an indirect effect
through the organizational admiration and organizational capacity towards the organization’s loyalty,
which was assessed by the repeat purchase, recommendation and the sustainable commitment. CSR has
a positive effect towards the product attitude of both direct effect and the interaction effect with the
product suitability (both suitable features and suitable market) and has interaction effect with involvement
(seek to know, to understand the need and benefits) towards the product attitude (Berens, Van Riel & Van
Singh and Verma 5

Bruggen, 2005). CSR also has a direct effect towards the brand performance (select over other brands,
brand commitment), but will be impacted from the firm reputation which included the brand loyalty,
perceived quality and brand satisfaction (Lai et al., 2010), and has a direct effect towards the brand
loyalty and evaluation of services (Salmones, Crespo & Bosque, 2005). Therefore, if a brand is strong,
it benefits from a high degree of loyalty and also the future stability of sales. Secondly, market share is
improved. Loyal consumers purchase products repeatedly regardless of situational limitations (Chaudhari
& Holbrook, 2001). In addition, marketing costs are reduced. In fact, loyal clients are up to five times
less costly to contact than non-loyal clients (Kapferer, 2004). BL also increases positive word of mouth
(Salmones et al., 2005, p. 373), and is less likely to persuade consumers to try a competing brand. The
above discussion on linkage between CSR, BL and BE leads to another hypothesis that CSR has a
positive effect on BL, and BL mediates the relationship between CSR and BE.

CSR and Purchase Intention

Consumer’s PI or buying intention is based on a potential buying decision of a consumer who has a
belief and an attitude about one particular product. Several surveys show that the consumer PI can be
divided into a five-point scale as ‘definitely will buy’, ‘probably will buy’, ‘might/might not buy’,
‘probably will not buy’ and ‘definitely will not buy’ (Whitlark, Geurts & Swenson, 1993). Thus, each
category of PI scale indicates a different level of buying probability that a customer intends to buy one
particular product. According to Espejel, Fandos and Flavia᷇ n (2008), buying intention is a prediction of
consumer attitude or behaviour towards a future purchase decisions. In other words, buying or PI is a
pattern of consumers’ attitudes or beliefs regarding their future purchases. Espejel et al. (2008) stated
that the basic attitude model for a consumer towards a product/service has three main elements:

1. Cognitive element refers to consumer’s beliefs and knowledge towards a particular product or
service (Espejelet al., 2008; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
2. Affective element reflects to a consequence of consumer’s feelings or emotions towards a
particular product or service (Espejel et al., 2008).
3. Behavioural element means the consumer’s PI in terms of expression (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
Espejel et al., 2008).

According to the theory proposed by Spence (1974), customer PI can be weighted by a company’s CSR
activities too as it reduces the inherent uncertainty in any transaction. Morgan and Hunt (1994) claimed
that the effect of customers’ trust is derived from the existing values that customers and the company
share with each other. Thus, customers’ trust can be defined as joint beliefs, regarding whether certain
kinds of behaviours, goals and policies are significant, appropriate or good. The positive attitude of
consumers towards the company’s reputation, image and product evaluation can be influenced by CSR
activities (Brown & Dacin, 1997). A number of studies have shown that there is a positive relationship
between a business’s CSR programme and consumers’ attitude towards that organization and its products
(Brown & Dacin, 1997; Creyer & Ross, 1997). Mohr, Harris and Webb’s (2001) findings indicated an
important relationship between CSR and consumer responses. Sen and Bhattacharya’s (2001) research
on reaction of consumers to CSR shows that CSR will directly affect consumers’ intentions to purchase
corporation’s products. Consumers feel that by supporting CSR activities they are labelled as ethical
consumers (Auger, Burke, Devinney & Louviere, 2003). Accordingly, ethical consumption is defined as
the conscious and deliberate choice to make certain consumption choices due to personal and moral
6 Global Business Review 18(3S)

beliefs. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between CSR and consumer behaviour.
For instance, Ali, Rehman, Yilmaz, Nazie and Ali (2010) analyzed the effects of CSR on consumer
retention. In the context of consumer PIs, Holmes and Kilbane, (1993), Berger et al. (1999), Mohr et al.,
(2001), Nelling and Webb (2009) and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) also investigated the effects of CSR
on consumer PIs. Grigore (2011) posited that CSR is an instrument to have influence on consumer
behaviour.
Shelley (2008) suggested that company’s CSR activities do affect purchase decision. However, the
author highlights that better understanding (more knowledge) about firm’s CSR activities will definitely
lead to favourable perception of company. Finally, the author has proved that awareness and understanding
on CSR activities strongly lead to better perception towards corporate and stronger PIs. Thus, literature
review in this direction could be concluded to the research hypothesis that there is a positive and
significant impact of CSR activities on PI. However, PI mediates the relationship between CSR and BE.

Objectives and Rationale of the Study

CSR is an integral part of modern industry. No industry is expected to ignore it. India, in the last one
decade, has seen surge and tremendous growth in various businesses; however, CSR has a long way to
go. Globalization and liberalization of Indian economy, from over two decades, has resulted in a shift
from economic goal to focus towards increasing stakeholders’ value to the welfare of various stakeholders.
The important observation from current literature on social performance (i.e., CSR) and brand equity is
that the majority of studies are from developed economies. However, there is a dearth of such studies in
emerging economies like India. Besides this, available studies in this direction in India have been
undertaken so far with the objective to examine consumer-based BE from CSR initiatives (e.g., Dutta &
Swati, 2013; Fatma, Rahman & Khan, 2015; Fatma & Rahman, 2016; Vyas & Raitani, 2015). However,
to our best of knowledge, there is no evidence of any study that attempted to examine BE from CSR
activities from mangers’ perspective, that is, what managers think about the effect of their CSR activities
on company’s BE. The study on managers’ perceptions is deemed necessary in the current CSR literature
to validate CSR and BE relationship because managers can give first-hand information about benefits
derived from CSR initiatives. Therefore, objective of this study is to examine the impact of CSR on BE
from the managers’ perspective. Besides this, previous study did not consider the role of mediating
factors, which can change the direction of relationship. Thus, the present study includes the role of
mediating variables (BA, BI, BL and PI) while examining the relationship. Hence, this study attempts to
answer the most debatable question, that is, does it pay to be philanthropic (socially responsible)? The
study also bridges the existing gaps by providing empirical evidence of CSR–BE association and adds
an extant of knowledge to CSR literature.

Research Method
Sample and Data Collection
The main purpose of the study is to empirically test the efficacy of firm’s CSR initiatives on its BE. Thus,
for the purpose of this study, we have selected 20 Indian companies (listed in Bombay Stock Exchange-500,
i.e., BSE-500) from 5 different industries, namely, oil & gas, power, metals & mining, non-banking
financial companies (NBFCs) and banking. Industries were selected wherein both public and private
sector companies existed as there are some industries also where no public sector companies were
available such as automobile, retail, pharmaceutical, textiles, etc. Further, the top four companies from
Singh and Verma 7

each of five industries have been selected (see Appendix A). Thus, the final criteria of selecting industries
and companies were choosing equal number of public and private companies from each sector wherein
both public and private sector companies existed. Managers from these selected companies were chosen
as respondents because they are directly involved in organizational CSR affairs and have first-hand
knowledge on CSR-related outcomes. The empirical data were collected through web-based
questionnaires. Before administering the final survey, assessment of content validity of measurement
instrument was done. Twenty-five managers, who were not part of the survey, were invited to assess the
content validity. Finally, after making some minor changes, the final and corrected version of measurement
instrument was prepared. Quota sampling technique was employed. From each of the 20 companies, 40
respondents were approached. The CSR literature has reported a low response rate when top managers
are surveyed (Mishra & Suar, 2010). Thus, keeping in mind the high refusal rate (non-response rate) the
total sample size was kept high to obtain minimum 300 desired sample size. The total sample size is
calculated as: ‘desired sample size ÷ expected response rate’. Assuming 35 per cent response rate, we
needed a total sample size of around 800. Therefore, online version of final questionnaire was circulated
to 800 managers. And, prior to administering the final survey, formal permissions were taken from the
officials of sample companies. The data were collected from November 2015 to January 2016. Initially,
over the period of one month, only 184 filled responses were received. After multiple phone calls and
email reminders, another 244 responses were collected in two months’ time. Thus, finally 429 responses
were received with response rate of 53 per cent. However, only 406 responses were found to be complete.
It was observed that actual response rate is significantly higher than the expected response rate. The
reason of this good sign of improved response rate is the introduction of The Companies Act, 2013. The
new act directed big Indian companies to mandatorily spend at least 2 per cent of their net profit on CSR
activities and reporting thereof (Verma & Singh, 2016). The demographic details such as age, gender,
designation and years of service of respondents were recorded as part of the questionnaire survey. Of the
406 respondents, 93 were female indicating low representation of women in the management positions
of the Indian companies. The mean age of respondents was 36.12 years (SD = 6.230) and the mean years
of service was 13.15 (SD = 10.03). The respondents in the sample were from all hierarchical levels, that
is, lower, middle and top management. A detailed sample characteristics are show in Table 1.

Measurement Scale
The survey instrument was developed based on an extensive review of the literature and studied
definitions. The measurement scale was a structured questionnaire consisting of 44 items, categorized in

Table 1. Profile of Respondents

Number of Number of Managerial Number of Years of Number of

Age (Years) Respondents Gender Respondents Level Respondents Service Respondents
18–30 59 Male 93 Lower 127 <1 NIL
31–40 139 Female 313 Middle 215 1–5 78
41–50 117 Top 64 6–10 123
51–60 68 11–15 87
>60 23 16–20 63
>20 55
406 406 406 406
Source: Authors’ own.
8 Global Business Review 18(3S)

4 sections. The questions were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale. In the first section, eight statements
(items) were used to determine the companies’ CSR orientation. Carroll’s (1991) CSR model has been
utilized to measure firm’s CSR. Carroll’s CSR model provides four dimensions, that is, economic,
ethical, legal and philanthropic. Each dimension has two items in the measurement scale. The second
section consisted of 32 statements (items) concerning proposed mediating variables (i.e., BA, BI, BL and
PIs). Each mediating variable contained eight questions. In the third section, questions were asked
related to BE generated from the CSR actions. Last section gathers the demographic information of the
respondents such as gender, age, designation, years of service.

Data Analysis and Results

We first applied Harman’s single factor test to detect the presence of common method bias in the study.
According to this test, if a common method bias is present in the sample data, a single factor will account
for the majority of variance in the dependent or independent variables. The results of exploratory analysis
show there is no single factor in the study that account for majority of variance (i.e., greater than 50 per
cent). Thus, common method bias is unlikely to be present in our study. We examined the validity and
reliability of measurement model to ensure the appropriate use of measurement instrument.

Scale Validity and Reliability

The validity of each construct in the model was examined through convergent validity and discriminate
validity (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). A confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted for this purpose. We have used two measures to examine the convergent validity
of measurement model as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). According to them, for assessing the
convergent validity of model: (i) all standardized factor loadings should exceed 0.50; and (ii) the average
variance extracted (AVE) must exceed 0.50. The results show that all standardized factor loadings range
between 0.513 and 0.884. The composite reliability (CR) value of each construct is greater than 0.80, and
the AVE of each construct exceeds 0.50 (see Table 2). Thus, results confirmed the convergent validity.
Regarding discriminant validity, square root of AVE should exceed the construct correlations with all
other construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results reported in Table 3 confirm the discriminant
validity of each construct.

Table 2. Measurement Model Summary

Construct Indicator Factor Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s a

CSR 0.624 0.903 0.898
CSR1 0.759
CSR2 0.761
CSR3 0.744
CSR4 0.768
CSR5 0.869
CSR6 0.861
CSR7 0.799
CSR8 0.750
Singh and Verma 9

Construct Indicator Factor Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s a

Brand awareness 0.711 0.811 0.769
BA1 0.752
BA2 0.784
BA3 0.632
BA4 0.686
BA5 0.868
BA6 0.857
BA7 0.748
BA8 0.744
Brand image 0.665 0.866 0.814
BI1 0.818
BI2 0.845
BI3 0.742
BI4 0.773
BI5 0.859
BI6 0.860
BI7 0.824
BI8 0.699
Brand loyalty 0.722 0.818 0.795
BL1 0.812
BL2 0.832
BL3 0.791
BL4 0.683
BL5 0.861
BL6 0.843
BL7 0.513
BL8 0.769
Purchase intention 0.765 0.887 0.866
PI1 0.783
PI2 0.785
PI3 0.715
PI4 0.754
PI5 0.859
PI6 0.852
PI7 0.803
PI8 0.795
Brand equity 0.688 0.883 0.847
BE1 0.884
BE2 0.849
BE3 0.707
BE4 0.851
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Note: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

Reliability was assessed by CR (Raykov, 1997) and Cronbach’s alpha (α), and values should exceed
the recommended threshold value of 0.70 for both (Nunnally, 1978). As shown in Table 2, CR and α
value for each construct is higher than the threshold value of 0.70. Thus, all these values computed from
confirmatory factor analysis show that the measurement model has a good construct validity and
reliability.
10 Global Business Review 18(3S)

Table 3. Discriminant Validity of Latent Constructs

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. CSR 0.789 a

2. BA 0.538 0.843a

3. BI 0.429 0.611 0.815a
4. BL 0.401 0.553 0.389 0.849a
5. PI 0.522 0.438 0.470 0.631 0.874a
6. BE 0.627 0.574 0.490 0.408 0.633 0.829a
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: 1. aDiagonal elements are square root of AVE; off-diagonal elements are the correlation between constructs.
2. CSR = corporate social responsibility; BA = brand awareness, BI = brand image, BL = brand loyalty; PI = Purchase
Intention; BE = brand equity.

Structural Model Assessment

After validity and reliability test, model fit assessment was done to ensure that data support relationships
among the observed variables and their respective factors. For this purpose, we have used structural
equation modelling (SEM) with analysis of movement structure (AMOS) 22.0 software (Byrne, 2010).
The most common fit measure is chi-square (|2) statistic, which should be non-significant for a good
model fit. However, according to Schermelleh-Engle, Moosbrugger and Müller, (2003), a good fit is
provided if the ratio of |2 and degrees of freedom (|2/df) lies between 0 and 2 (i.e., 0≤ |2/df≤2). The
results show the |2 value of 296.36 (p = 0.000) with 205 degree of freedom (df) and the |2/df ratio was
1.45. Other fit indices, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.904, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) =
0.854, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.936, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.501,
are in the acceptable limits recommended by Byrne (2010). Thus, results of model fit indices assure a
good fit between the data and the model.
A multicollinearity diagnostics test was also performed; variance inflation factor (VIF) values have
been examined for the assessment (Kline, 1998). Grewal et al. (2004) recommended a minimum
acceptable threshold value of VIF (<5) or tolerance (>0.2). Results show that latent construct of the study
had VIF values within the acceptable limit (CSR = 1.78; BA = 1.29; BI = 2.31; BL = 1.16; PI = 2.58; BE
= 1.82), indicating that our dataset is free from problem of multicollinearity.

Testing of theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework was tested using SEM technique with AMOS 22.0 version. The results are
reported in Table 4. For testing the indirect effects, we have used the procedures outlined by Preacher and
Hayes (2008) and Baron and Kenny (1986). According to the approach recommended by Preacher and
Hayes (2008), the mediation effect can directly be examined between independent and dependent
variables through a mediator via bootstrapping procedure (Mooney & Duval, 1993). Researchers have
used bootstrapping technique to estimate mediating effect. By using bootstrapped confidence intervals
(CIs), it is possible to eliminate power problems caused by asymmetric and other non-normal sampling
of an indirect effect (MacKinnon, Lockwood & Williams, 2004).
We have stated that CSR has a positive effect on BA. The results have supported the statement for
b = 0.344 (95% CI 0.23–0.68) as coefficient is different from zero. We further claimed that CSR has a
Singh and Verma 11

Table 4. Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for Mediation Models

Hypothesized Path Value CIlow CIhigh Results

BE CSR 0.135 0.12 0.38 Partially Accepted
BA CSR 0.344 0.23 0.68 Accepted
BI CSR 0.310 0.12 0.39 Accepted
BL CSR 0.366 0.16 0.48 Accepted
PI CSR 0.408 0.31 0.59 Accepted
BE BA CSR 0.381 0.22 0.41 Accepted
BE BI CSR 0.289 0.18 0.37 Accepted
BE BL CSR 0.361 0.11 0.43 Accepted
BE PI CSR 0.403 0.26 0.49 Accepted
Source: Authors’ own findings.
Notes: BE = brand equity; BA = brand awareness; BI = brand image; BL = brand loyalty; PI = purchase intention;
CSR = corporate social responsibility.

positive impact on BI which is also supported for b = 0.310 (95% CI 0.12–0.39). The effect of CSR on
BL and PI are also positive and significant (b = 0.366, 95% CI 0.16–0.48 and b = 0.408, 95% CI 0.31–
0.59, respectively) (see Table 4). However, for testing the first hypothesis about direct relationship
between CSR and BE, we followed the Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. The path coefficient
(without introducing mediators into model) are positive and significantly high as 0.445 (p < 0.05).
However, when mediator variables were introduced in the model, path coefficient was still positive and
significant, but value was reduced to 0.135 (95% CI 0.12–0.38). Therefore, results indicated a partial
mediation between CSR and BE relationship. Hence, our first hypothesis has been supported partially.
Figure 2 provides estimate of direct effects.
Our hypotheses concerning relationship between CSR and BE via mediating effects of BA, BI, BL
and PI stated positive relationships. The relationship between CSR and BE through mediating effect BA

Figure1. Conceptual Model

Source: Author’s own representation.
12 Global Business Review 18(3S)

Figure 2. Structural Model

Source: Authors’ own findings.
Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.

is in hypothesized direction (b = 0.381, 95% CI 0.22–0.41). We stated that BI mediates the relationship
between CSR and BE and is also supported (b = 0.289, 95% CI 0.18–0.37). Similarly, our other two
hypotheses stated a positive association between CSR and BE through the mediating effect of BL and PI
and are also supported (b = 0.361, 95% CI 0.11–0.43; b = 0.403, 95% CI 0.26–0.49, respectively).

Discussion
The current study explores whether being socially responsible pays to firms. We find an evidence of
positive association between CSR and brand performance. Our results corroborate the findings of studies
which found positive link between CSR and BE whether carried out in developed or developing
economies. Since CSR literature is dominated by developed nations as large numbers of studies have
been conducted in these advanced economies the results were found to be positive. In contrast, less
numbers of studies have been conducted in developing nations and their results were found bit inconsistent
due to poor economic conditions and lack of seriousness towards CSR issues. This study is being
conducted in India, a developing country. The economy is growing rapidly due to industrialization and
at the same time there is growing public demands from the firms to leverage their CSR. Therefore, firms
feel it as a stakeholders’ pressure to perform CSR. However, it is the other way round; CSR offers
opportunity for competitive advantage for the firms in developing counties since most of the firms do not
practice CSR as a business strategy. The findings of this study validate this statement. According to the
results reported in the previous section, CSR activities have indirect influence on brand performance as
our findings supported the mediating roles of BA, BI, BL and PI between CSR and BE. Empirical results
had approved that CSR initiatives of the firm’s create the BA and enhance the BI. Results had also
supported for enhanced BL and PI for the firms exhibiting socially responsible behaviour. Hsu (2012)
also found positive association between CSR and BA. He stated that CSR is a strategic tool to enhance
Singh and Verma 13

brand awareness and reputation which has positive impact on BE of the firms. Our finding on CSR and
BI is consistent with the findings of Ali (2011). Ali in his study found that CSR has a positive effect on
reputation (image), which finally influences the purchase decision of consumers in cellular industry of
Pakistan.
A company that diligently engage in CSR activities enhances the positive consumer attitude which
develops BL (Salmones et al., 2005). In this connection, Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008) stated that CSR
can play a vital role in building long-term relationship with the stakeholders. CSR initiatives encourage
the people to trust a company to fulfil the term of exchange and perform as expected. Our empirical
results validate the Swaen and Chumpitaz’s (2008) findings from the managers’ perspective. In addition,
results of this study extend the support to the findings of Lee, Park, Rapert and Cristopher (2012) who
found out that a positive CSR perception can lead to BL because consumers are likely to show loyalty
when they notice socially responsible behaviour from the company.

Conclusions
This study investigated the effect of CSR on BE. The study found that CSR has direct and positive
effects on BA, BI, BL and PI. However, BA, BI, BL and PI mediate the effects of CSR on BE. There is
a presence of mediation effects between CSR and BE via BA, BI, BL and PI. The hypothesis regarding
direct association between CSR and BE was partially supported as results indicated the presence of
partial mediation. In sum, our findings showed that CSR has direct and positive effect on BA, BI, BL and
PI, and it has indirect effects on BE via mediating effects of BA, BI, BL and PI. Our empirical results
imply that CSR practices are unlike any other business activities which immediately influence the brand
performance outcomes. Firm’s honest CSR activities create the brand visibility which attracts the
attention of potential stakeholders. Thus, CSR is a business function which boosts the firm’s performance
in long run.
This study fills the existing gaps in the CSR literature in many ways. Though numbers of studies have
been conducted to examine outcomes of CSR initiatives from consumers’ perspective, none of the studies
attempted to verify the CSR and BE nexus from the perspectives of other stakeholders, especially
manager who can attest if firm’s CSR policy and acts have any benefits to the organization. Therefore,
this study is first of its kind to examine the CSR–BE association from managers’ perspectives. Second,
this study considers the role of mediators in CSR and BE relationship which were missed by most of the
previous studies. CSR researchers (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Rowley &
Berman, 2000) argue that CSR benefits are contingent to certain factors, and ignoring these factors
(mediators) may cause conflicting results. Thus, the current study surpasses the limitations of previous
studies.

Managerial Implications
Results of this study offer implications for the practicing managers. It is imperative to be mentioned here
that the study is conducted on managers of well-established Indian corporate brands. These brands enjoy
high level of business returns in the form of strong BL for their social responsibility behaviours.
Therefore, managers of the companies that do not practice CSR must treat it as one of their core business
functions for long-term business performance. Our empirical results approve that CSR is a business
opportunity since it (CSR) is an inimitable business strategy which leads to sustainable competitive
14 Global Business Review 18(3S)

advantage. It may not lead to firm’s tangible performance (financial performance) immediately. However,
firm’s CSR performance will likely enhance intangible performance such as BA, BI and BL which
consequently lead to BE performance.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This section addresses the limitations of the study and highlights future research scopes. Despite
meaningful contributions of the study, the interpretations of results are subject to some limitations. First,
the relationship of CSR and BE was examined from managers’ perspectives only. Thus, for more robust
results, future research should consider multiple stakeholders (such as managers, consumers, suppliers,
etc.) while establishing CSR–BE relationship. Second, managers’ responses from five different industries
were collected to measure CSR outcomes which could have been done with more industries. The current
study did not compare CSR–BE association across industries as CSR performance and outcomes may
vary from one industry to another due to nature of their operations. The manufacturing industries whose
operations have high impact on environment may engage more in CSR activities than service industries.
Therefore, future research may verify CSR–BE relationship with respect to industry. The same can be
done for ownership also as in this study 50 per cent of the sample companies were public and the
remaining 50 per cent were private sector companies. Since it was out of scope of the study to compare
results with respect to ownership, therefore, future studies may compare our model of CSR–BE
relationship with respect to ownership (public versus private). Third, this research was conducted in
India. Therefore, generalization of findings need be done cautiously since culture, economic condition
and industrial norms may vary from one country to another. Therefore, more numbers of study need to
be conducted, especially in developing nations, for worldwide generalization of CSR and BE relationship.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their useful suggestions to improve the quality
of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Appendix A. Sample Companies in the Study

Sl. No. Company Industry Ownership

 1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) Oil & Gas Public
 2 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) Oil & Gas Public
 3 Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) Oil & Gas Private
 4 Cairn India Oil & Gas Private
 5 National Thermal Power Corp Ltd (NTPC) Power Public
 6 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (PGCIL) Power Public
 7 Reliance Power Ltd Power Private
 8 Tata Power Company Ltd Power Private
 9 Coal India Ltd (CIL) Metals & Mining Public
10 NMDC Ltd Metals & Mining Public
11 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Metals & Mining Private
12 Tata Steel Ltd Metals & Mining Private
13 Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) NBFC Public
14 IDFC NBFC Public
Singh and Verma 15

Sl. No. Company Industry Ownership

15 HDFC Life NBFC Private
16 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services NBFC Private
17 State Bank of India (SBI) Banking Public
18 Punjab National Bank (PNB) Banking Public
19 HDFC Bank Banking Private
20 ICICI Bank Banking Private
Note: NBFC = Non-banking financial companies.

References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: Free Press.
Alconiz, E.B., Caceres, R.C., & Perez, R.C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of
company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186.
Ali, I. (2011). Influence of corporate social responsibility on development of corporatere putation and consumer
purchase intentions. Romanian Review of Social Sciences,1(1), 19–25.
Ali, I., Rehman, K.U., Yilmaz, A.K., Nazie, S., & Ali, J.F. (2010). Effects of corporate social responsibility on
consumer retention in cellular industry of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 475–485.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M., & Louviere, J.J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features?
Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Edwards, J.R. (1998). A general approach to construct validation in organizational research:
Application to the measurement of work values. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),
1173–1182.
Berens, G., Van Riel, C.B.M., & Van Bruggen, G.H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses:
The modeling role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 35–48.
Berger, I.E, Cunningham, P.H., & Kozinets, R.V. (1999). Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising.
Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 491–497.
Berner, R. (2005, November 28). Smarter corporate giving. Businessweek, 68–76.
Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.
———. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives.
California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility as an internal marketing
strategy.Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 1–29.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent.
Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.
Brady, A.K. (2003). How to generate sustainable brand value from responsibility. The Journal of Brand Management,
10(4–5), 279–289.
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2004). Building a good reputation. European Management Journal, 22(6), 704–713.
Branco, M.C., & Rodrigues, L.L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal
of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.
Brickley, J., Smith, C., & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Business ethics and organizational architecture. Journal of Banking
& Finance, 26(9), 1821–1835.
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.
Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G., & Whitten, D.A. (2006). Identity, intended image, constructed image, and
reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 99–106.
16 Global Business Review 18(3S)

Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of
Management Review,4(4), 497–505.
———. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational
stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Chaudhari, A., & Holbrook, M. (2001). The chain of efforts from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance:
The role of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
Creyer, E.H., & Ross, W.T. (1997). The influence of firm behaviour on purchase intention: Do consumers really care
about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421–432.
De Mortanges, C.F., & Van Riel, A. (2003). Brand equity and shareholder value. European Management Journal,
21(4), 521–527.
Drucker, P.F. (1954). The practice of management (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
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. doi: 10.1111/j.
1468–2370.2009.00276.x
Dutta, K., & Swati, S. (2013). Customer perception of CSR and its impact on retailer evaluation and purchase
intention in India. Journal of Services Research, 13(1), 111–134.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Espejel, J., Fandos, C., &Flavia᷇ n, C. (2008). Customer satisfaction a key factor of consumer loyalty and buying
intention of a PDO food product. British Food Journal, 110(9), 865–881.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24–33.
Fatma, M., & Rahman, Z. (2016). The CSR’s influence on customer responses in banking sector in India. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 29(March), 49–57.
Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., & Khan, I. (2015). Building company reputation and brand equity through CSR: The
mediating role of trust. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(6), 840–856.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.
Massachusetts, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York
Times Magazine, 32–33, 122, 126.
Grewal, R., Cote, J., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation
models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519–529.
Grigore, G.F. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing (Chapter 3). In G. Aras and D. Crowther (Eds),
Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility (Vol. 2, pp. 41–58). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holmes, J.H., & Kilbane, C.J. (1993). Cause-related marketing: Selected effects of price and charitable donations.
Journal of Nonprofit Public Sector Marketing, 1(4), 67–83.
Hsu, K.-T. (2012). The advertising efforts of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand
equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 189–201.
Hunt, S.D., & Morgan, R.M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing,
59(April), 1–15.
Jain, P., Vyas, V., & Chalasani, D.P.S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in SME:
A structural equation modelling approach. Global Business Review, 17(3), 630–653.
Jones, M.A., David, L.M., & Sharon, E.B. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring the underlying dimensions of
services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
55(4), 41–50.
Singh and Verma 17

Kapferer, J.N. (2004). The new strategic brand management: Creating sustainability brand equity long term
(3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited. ISBN: 07 494 4283 2
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in
a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.
Kotler, P., Adam, S., Brown, L., & Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of marketing (3rd ed.). NSW: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lai, C.S., Chiu, C.J., Yang, C.F., & Pai, D.C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand
performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: An overview. Journal of Management, 37(1),
153–184.
Lee, E.M., Park, S.Y., Rapert, M.I., & Cristopher, L.N. (2012). Does perceived consumer fit matter in corporate
social responsibility issues? Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1558–1564.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E., & Braig, B.M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on
customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 16–32.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value.
Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of
the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 99–128.
Bonini, S., Görner, S., & Jones, A. (2010). How companies manage sustainability: McKinsey global survey results.
Retrieved 17 March 2014, from https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/
Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies?
Journal of Business Ethic, 95(8), 571–601.
Mohr, L., Webb, D., & Harris, K. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of
corporate social responsibility on buying behaviour. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–67.
Mooney, C.Z. & Duval, R.D. (1993). Bootstrapping. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.4135/9781412983532
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing,
58(3), 20–38.
Nareeman, A., & Hassan, Z. (2013). Customer perceived practices of CSR on improving customer satisfaction and
loyalty. International Journal of Accounting and Business Management, 1(1), 30–49.
Nelling, E., & Webb, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The virtuous circle
revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 32(2), 197–209.
Nguyen, N. (2006). The perceived image of service cooperatives: An investigation in Canada and Mexico. Corporate
Reputation Review, 9(1), 62–78.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The
case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3–12.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Punniyamoorthy, M., & Raj, P.M. (2007). An empirical model for brand loyalty measurement. Journal of Targeting,
Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(4), 222–233.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement,
21(2), 173–184.
Salmones, M. del M.G. de los., Crespo, A.H.., & Bosque, I.R. del. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility
on loyalty and valuation of service. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 369–385.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test
of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
18 Global Business Review 18(3S)

Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility of retail companies: Is it relevant for
consumer’s purchasing behaviour? Paper Presented at 11th Etienne THIL France Retailing Conference, Institute
de Gasto, University de La RochelleI, 2–3 October.
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(May), 225–243.
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.
Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management
Review, 17(3), 58–64.
Shelley, W. (2008). Gauging consumers’ responses to CSR activities: Does increased awareness make cents. Public
Relations Review, 34(4), 306–308.
Spence, M. (1974). Competitive and optimal responses to signals: An analysis of efficiency and distribution. Journal
of Economic Theory, 7(3), 296–332.
Swaen, V., & Chumpitaz, R.C. (2008). Impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust. Recherche
Et Applications En Marketing, 23(4), 7–33.
Verma, P., & Singh, A. (2016). Fostering stakeholders trust through CSR reporting: An analytical focus. IIM
Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 5(2), 1–13.
Vyas, V., & Raitani, S. (2015). An examination of linkages between CSR and cross-buying. Social Responsibility
Journal, 11(3), 622–640.
Whitlark, D.B., Geurts, M.D., & Swenson, M.J. (1993). New product forecasting with a purchase intention survey.
The Journal of Business Forecasting Methods & Systems, 12(3), 18.
Yeo, R.K., Goh, M., & Tso, S. (2011). Corporate image and reputation of large mainland Chinese enterprise. Journal
of Marketing Communications, 17(3), 195–211.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.
Zhang, Y. (2009). A study of corporate reputation’s influence on consumer loyalty based on PLS-PM. International
Business Research, 2(3), 28–35.