The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-2323.htm

Linking corporate social CSR and trust:

disaggregated
responsibility to trust in the relations

banking sector: exploring

disaggregated relations
Toussaint Ciza Bugandwa Received 27 April 2020
Revised 15 September 2020
Institute of Applied Computer Science, Institut Sup!erieur d’Informatique et de Gestion, Accepted 14 December 2020
ISIG, Goma, DRCongo and
Finance and Accountancy, Catholic University of Central Africa, Yaound!e, Cameroon
Eddy Balemba Kanyurhi
Faculty of Economics and Management, Catholic University of Bukavu,
Laboratoire d’Economie Appliqu!ee au Developpement (LEAD-UCB),
Institut Superieur de Commerce de Goma, ISC-GOMA, Goma, DRCongo and
Centre of European Research in Microfinance (CERMI), Brussels, Belgium
Deogratias Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa
Faculty of Economics and Management, Catholic University of Bukavu, Bukavu,
Democratic Republic of the Congo and
Faculty of Economics and Management Science, University of Goma, Goma,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
Benjamin Haguma Mushigo
Catholic University of Bukavu, Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Abstract
Purpose – This paper has two purposes. First is to operationalise the concepts of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and trust in the context of a developing country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Second purpose is to test in a disaggregated perspective the impact of each CSR dimension on trust.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 264 customers of six banks and processed with
exploratory, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equations using LISREL 9.1.
Findings – CSR is found to have five dimensions: legal responsibility, social needs responsibility, product
responsibility, environmental responsibility and employee responsibility; trust is found to be a three-
dimensional construct: integrity, compassion and partnership. Each CSR dimension has a positive impact on
customers’ perception of trustworthiness.
Research limitations/implications – Reliability of trust is not high enough, suggesting the need to deepen
research in order to find a more adapted CSR scale for banks. The smallness of sample size might have
influenced the robustness of our psychometric results. CSR and trust relationships might be analysed in a more
enriched framework including service quality, reputation and banks’ employee performance as moderating
variables. This paper has measured the two concepts from the customers’ perspective only. However, both CSR
and trust are best understood in a stakeholder perspective. So, it might be insightful to extend future research in
a stakeholder orientation perspective.
Practical implications – Banks from developing countries are also concerned with CSR and should invest in it.
Clearly, each dimension of CSR should receive enough importance if Congolese banks are to recover their customers’
trust. The findings of the study also suggest that banks’ customers are aware of the necessity for banks to comply
with the country’s legislation. Non-compliance can have severe influence on customers’ trustworthiness to banks.
Social implications – Financial institutions are generally evaluated through financial indicators. The
findings suggest that banks customers and other stakeholders begin a shift towards requiring their banks to International Journal of Bank
invest in social and environmental activities in order to improve their local milieu. These aspects are still Marketing
very neglected, or adopted only as marketing strategies to improve image, without a true willingness to be © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-2323
socially responsive. DOI 10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0209
IJBM Originality/value – The two concepts are measured in a context where they did not receive enough
importance (developing country), hence providing new knowledge in the field. Further, a disaggregated
approach allowed understanding the way each CSR dimension impacts trust, which had not been the case in
previous research.
Keywords Developing countries, Corporate social responsibility, Trust, Trustworthiness, Banking industry,
Bukavu-DRCongo
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The last international financial crisis significantly changed the financial sector functioning
worldwide (Gritten, 2011; Nienaber et al., 2014). Its main consequences have been the erosion
of trust in the banking sector (Jureviciene and Skvarciany, 2013; Novethic, 2012) and the way
it harmed the reputation of many financial institutions (Hurley et al., 2014; Ferrin, 2015).
Gritten (2011) claims that the financial crisis has brought to light the essential role of trust in
banks and financial services.
Trust is a very complex phenomenon that has been, and is still, studied through different
economic, psychological and sociologist lenses (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002) and different levels
(Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). Crossing the different aspects, trust is defined as a psychological
state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of
the intentions or behaviour of another (Rousseau et al., 1998; Geykens et al., 1998). It is
“a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to or rely on the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012, p. 1,171).
Regardless of the perspective adopted, confident/positive expectations (. . .) of trustworthiness
and a willingness to be vulnerable have been identified as the key components of all definitions
of trust (Rousseau et al., 1998; Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). So, this definition clearly fits the
relations between customers and banks, the former depending on the latter for finance, and the
latter’s sustainability depending on the customers. Trust is a strategic factor allowing any bank
and the banking system as a whole to ensure its stability and its operations’ continuity (Toth,
2009). It is linked with many marketing constructs (Geykens et al., 1998) and builds a
sustainable and lasting relationship with customers (Gurviez and Korchia, 2002; Bayart and
Brignier, 2013) by increasing the customers’ repurchase behaviour (McDonald and Rundle-
Thiele, 2008; Bayart and Brignier, 2013) as well as the level of spontaneous recommendation of
the bank (Ernst and Young, 2014; Deloitte, 2012). Trust presumes that under uncertainty, the
firm’s stakeholders will act according to the rules of acceptable behaviour (Bidault and Jarillo,
1995; Pluchart, 2010). Trustworthiness, which is a manifestation of trust, allows firms to win
customer loyalty (Halliburton and Poenaru, 2010) and reduces the risks and uncertainties
related to the banking sector (Perrien et al., 1993; Gatfaoui, 2007; Bayart and Brignier, 2013). It
may also exert a positive impact on the net banking income (NBI) per client, which depends on
whether customers trust their bank or not (Deloitte, 2012). The same Deloitte study found that a
trustful customer provides 27% more of the bank’s NBI than a customer who does not trust.
Hence, rebuilding and maintaining trust is very important in the financial sector.
A possible solution to improve trust in the banking sector is adopting and communicating
corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Domergue, 2012; Novethic Study, 2012; Fahd, 2009;
Scharf et al., 2012).
The European Commission (2001) has defined CSR as a voluntary concept whereby,
beyond their legal obligations, companies integrate social and environmental concerns in
their business operations and their relations with stakeholders. CSR is particularly important
for companies in the service sector. It might be an important tool in the endeavour to rebuild
trust and corporate image, which banks have lost due to the financial crisis (Domergue, 2012;
Scarf et al., 2012). Adopting socially responsible practices allows banks to acquire a good
reputation and, in turn, the trust needed for their proper functioning (Fahd, 2009). CSR offers CSR and trust:
banks a way to maintain their legitimacy, ensuring sustainability and good socioeconomic disaggregated
position (Mekdessi and Ben Hassen, 2009), and gives firms a way to disclose information that
may make them trustworthy from all their stakeholders (Kaeokla and Jaikengkit, 2013).
relations
Studies that analyse the link between CSR and trust can be categorised in two streams. The
first group includes analysis of CSR in banks (Rahman and Iqbal, 2013; Lenka and Jiri, 2014;
Dorasamy, 2013; Cheynel, 2010; Novethic, 2012; Perez and Del Bosque, 2014). Most of them have
analysed the links between CSR with concepts such as reputation, satisfaction and performance
(McDonald and Rundle-Thiele, 2008; Trotta and Cavallaro, 2012; Odeyato et al., 2014), or have
focused on the measurement of trust and its links with other concepts (Geykens et al., 1998;
Brignier Bayart, 2013; Deloitte, 2013, 2014; Ernst and Young, 2014; Halliburton and Poenaru,
2010; Toth, 2009). The second group has analysed the relationship between customer-perceived
CSR and trust in different sectors: automobile (H!erault, 2011), hospitality (Del Bosque and
Martinez, 2013) and banking (Scharf et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2014; Fahd, 2009; Fatma et al., 2015;
Decker and Sale, 2008). The combined results from those studies support that for a firm, being
perceived as socially responsible affects trust in the firm. They tend to conclude that banks have
to resort to CSR in order to improve their reputation, to reinforce customers’ trust (Fahd, 2009;
Fatma et al., 2015) and to regain the confidence that the crisis has destroyed (Domergue, 2012).
Although Pivato et al. (2008) and Hansen et al. (2011) view trust as the direct consequence
of a firm’s CSR’s activities, the complexity of trust (see Kramer, 2009) prevents us from going
that far in this research. Indeed, some customers might be rather concerned with their
savings’ security, while a few others are sensitised to aspects of CSR. We carefully posit that
as both CSR and trust (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012) are multifaceted, a few CSR activities of the
bank may influence trust to a certain level for specific customer segments. In line with Kramer
(2009), this may suggest that banks need to send incremental small trusting acts as signals to
customers in order to build long-lasting interactions with them. CSR activities are probably
among such signals. Therefore, when customers perceive that firms are behaving with
integrity, honesty and ethically, they may become committed and trustful (Choi and La, 2013).
The importance of this study relies on three complementary arguments. First, both trust
and CSR have received little attention, if any, in the context of developing countries, especially
in the African setting. Consequently, the relationship between the two concepts has been
weakly investigated in the African banking sector. We found only two studies on the topic
(Hinson et al., 2010; Chetty et al., 2015). Other existing studies in Africa on CSR have focused
on the mining sector (Jenkins and Obara, 2008; Gnanzou, 2010; Gnanzou and Wamba, 2014).
The scarcity of studies relying on CSR may be partially explained by a confusing argument
that pushes some researchers to state that developing economies are unable to withstand the
high standard of CSR used in their developed counterparts (Wilson, 2007). This study shows
that CSR studies are relevant in developing countries, especially in Africa and in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. Secondly, sub-Saharan Africa, where financial inclusion
hardly reaches 10%, is experiencing a low level of banking penetration. The persisting
shrinkage of trust in banks is one possible reason. Trust has been identified as one of the
essential levers to banking (“bancarisation”) at the Forbes Africa Forum 2014. Since CSR can
signal a willingness of the bank (and any enterprise) to be trustworthy, studying the
relationship between the two concepts deserves attention. Thirdly, this study is based on a
particular country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where trust in the banking sector
has been undermined by both the civil wars, a long period of bad economic governance and
other political conflicts that have disrupted the normal functioning of the financial system.
Recent mismanagement problems have also led many financial institutions to bankruptcy.
Thus, the financial sector is hatching and faces the challenge to restore trust. In such context,
it proved necessary to rethink in the context of banking model (Trotta and Cavallaro, 2012;
Deloitte, 2013) and to find new sources of competitive advantage (Saeidi et al., 2015) by
IJBM focusing more on CSR activities and actions. CSR may allow customers to identify themselves
to banks and manifest more confidence towards them.
The contribution of this study to knowledge advancement is threefold. First, relying on
the suggestion of Carrol (1991) and Seifert et al. (2003), we conceptualise CSR with a
multidimensional scale, from a consumers’ perspective. Five factors are identified, namely,
social needs responsibility, legal responsibility, environmental responsibility, employee
responsibility and product responsibility. While the environmental and legal components
have already been identified in previous studies (Glavas and Kelly, 2014; Salmones et al.,
2005; Carroll, 1991), the social needs, product and employee responsibilities have been
either understudied or not studied at all. Therefore, the present study improves the studies
of Salmones et al. (2005), Glavas and Kelly (2014) and Homburg et al. (2013), who have found
only two or three factors in measuring CSR. We show that CSR in the banking sector implies
that banks have to develop financial products and services that fit customers’ needs and
desires, and which deliver a higher customer value. Banks are required to develop and
manage financial services and products in order to maximise customer interest. Thus, the
present study relies on the advice of Salmones et al. (2005), for whom “there is a need to
further develop the measurement scale of social responsibility from a consumers’
perspective” (p. 381). By doing so, we value the customers’ voice and maximise the chance of
having more practical and workable recommendations. Secondly, we adopt a
disaggregated approach in measuring the link between CSR and trust, which allows to
go beyond many previous studies relying on a global measurement of CSR (Choi and La,
2013; Iglesias et al., 2018; Mandhachitara and Poolthong, 2011; Kang and Hustvedt, 2014)
when analysing its relationship to trust and other antecedents. Each dimension of CSR has
been linked to customers’ trust, hence confirming that different CSR activities can have
different impacts on trust (Homburg et al., 2013). This enriches the understanding of the
relationship between CSR and trust in the banking sector in Africa. Customers are
generally loyal to their banks largely because they feel safe and secured that their money
and assets are secured, and CSR comes as an after-thought. Thus, this study is a step
towards sensitising all banks’ stakeholders to shift emphasis back on CSR in their
evaluation of banks, and to be demanding about ecological and societal issues, gender
equality, decent work and other ethical issues. These new stakeholders’ requirements may
lead bank to have a new glance on their performance.
This paper is structured as follows. It begins with a brief literature review on trust
and CSR, stressing the link between the two concepts. Then, the methodology is
described, and then the main findings are presented and discussed. These drive to some
managerial recommendations as well as research limitations and future research
perspectives.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Corporate social responsibility and trust: definition and components
The CSR concept has a long and wide-ranging history, rooted in the industrial revolution.
Carroll (2008) gives the fatherhood of CSR’s first conceptualisations to Howard Bowen’s (1953)
landmark book Social Responsibility of Businessmen. The CSR concept is generally bound to
sustainable development (Cheynel, 2010; Rodic, 2007; Domergue, 2012). From this scope, firms
participate in sustainable development by integrating in their concerns some environmental,
social and economic aspects (Bouteaud, 2010). Carroll (1979) defines CSR as the social response
of a business, which includes the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that
society has of an organisation at a given point in time. Van De Walle and Brice (2012) define it as
a voluntary commitment of the firms towards social practices, beyond the legal requirements
and without a direct link to their economic activities. Such conceptualisations are in the vein of
stakeholder theory. CSR implies that the company is responsible not only to its owners but also CSR and trust:
to various interest groups including employees, customers, suppliers and the wider society as a disaggregated
whole (Maignan and Ferrel, 2005; Smith et al., 2010; Barnes, 2011). These definitions stress two
important aspects of CSR: the challenges of sustainable development and the involvement of
relations
stakeholders.
Carroll (1979) suggested four factors of a company’s social responsibility. (1) The
economic responsibility refers to the requirement for the company to be profitable. (2) In the
legal dimension, business is expected to comply with the laws and regulations promulgated
by local governments as the basis for business operations. Legal responsibilities reflect a
view of “codified ethics” in the sense that they embody basic notions of fair operations as
established by lawmakers. (3) The ethical responsibilities embrace those activities and
practices that are expected or prohibited by societal members even though they are not
codified. Ethical responsibilities embody those standards, norms or expectations that
reflect a concern for what consumers, employees, shareholders and the community regard
as fair, just or in keeping with the respect or protection of stakeholders’ moral rights.
(4) Philanthropy encompasses those corporate actions that are in response to society’s
expectation that businesses are good corporate citizens. This includes actively engaging in
activities that promote human welfare. Examples of philanthropy include business
contributions to financial resources or executive time, such as contributions to the arts,
education or the community.
CSR has specific meanings and applications for the banking sector. It implies the duty
to protect people’s well-being in their environment, to ensure a reasonable return to
shareholders, to pay decent wages and to use part of the profits to participate in the welfare
of the community (Onyekashi and Okoye, 2013). CSR refers also to minimising the
environmental impact of banking activities. In terms of products and services, CSR is about
the supply of responsible products such as socially responsible investment, financial
inclusion and innovation in the provision of banking services. Finally, communication
refers to how the bank communicates information related to sustainable development. For
retail banks, social responsibility emphasises also aspects such as improving customer
focus, responsible lending, microfinance (downscaling) (Prior and Argandona, 2008) and
funding energy-saving domestic equipment (Cheynel, 2010). The mere adaptation of
products to different customer segments (including the poor) is also seen as responsible
action that can contribute to fighting over-indebtedness, with maximum ease of access to
credit, adopting customised client service and setting up a system to support the poorest
customers.
Trust conceptualisation is embedded in Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395), who define trust as a
“psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”. This implies, for an agent, to believe
its trading partner will behave in a mutually acceptable manner, including an expectation
that neither party will exploit the other’s vulnerabilities (Sako and Helper, 1998); will perform
actions that are beneficial, or at least not detrimental to us, regardless of our capacity to
monitor those actions, so that we will consider cooperating with him (Lins et al., 2017). From
the consumers’ point of view, “the firm is expected to perform in a manner consistent with
their expectations” (Fatma et al., 2015, p. 6).
Trust has been conceptualised as a multidimensional construct in previous studies
(Gurviez, 2000; Gurviez and Korchia, 2002; Swaen and Chumpitaz, 2008; Deloitte, 2012, 2013,
2014). As stated so far, most definitions of trust have been approached from two perspectives
(Choi and La, 2013): One views trust as a belief, confidence or expectation about an exchange
partner’s trustworthiness that results from the partner’s expertise, reliability or intentionality
(Choi and La, 2013). The other views trust as one’s reliance upon another, due to his/her own
vulnerability and uncertainty. In an attempt to distinguish between trustworthiness and
IJBM trust, Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) developed a multifaceted, multidimensional model of the
behavioural components of trustworthiness and examined their differential effects on
consumer trust. They define trustworthiness to include behaviours that indicate motivation
to safeguard customer’s interest (p. 107). In their theoretical approach, trustworthiness is seen
as the way to operationalise trust. According to Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002), it includes
competence, benevolence and problem-solving orientation. This approach is further
developed by Colquitt et al. (2007, p. 909) for whom trust, which is the intention to accept
vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his or her actions, must be
distinguished from trustworthiness (ability, benevolence and integrity of a trustee) and
propensity to trust (a dispositional willingness to rely on others). Several studies conducted in
the banking sector have considered different dimensions; from two (Gurviez and Korchia,
2002; Grayson et al., 2008; Jarvinen, 2014) which are honesty and benevolence (Geykens et al.,
1998), to multiple facets such as credibility, integrity and benevolence (Gurviez, 1998),
honesty, reliability, fulfilment, competence, quality, credibility and benevolence (Kantsberger
and Kunz, 2010; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Deloitte (2012, 2013, 2014) added transparency,
listening and customer interest to the trust components, while Fatma et al. (2015) included the
goodwill in a study on the extent of trust in banks. Young-Ybarra and Wiersema (1999)
support that trust has three main components: “dependability (expectation that the partner
will act in the alliance’s best interests), predictability (consistency of actions), and faith
(partner will not act opportunistically). They use the vocabulary of both transaction cost
economics (opportunism) and social exchange theory (expectation of reciprocity)” (Seppanen
et al., 2007).

2.2 Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

The relationship between corporate social responsibility and trust is grounded in both
stakeholder theory and exchange theory. The stakeholder theory sees a firm as “a group or
individual who can affect or be affected by the achievement of the firm’s goals” (Freeman,
1984, p. 46). According to this theory, “the managers’ decision must always take account of
the interests of all the stakeholders in a firm” (Jensen, 2001, p. 8). Beyond maximising
shareholder wealth, managers have to maximise all stakeholders’ wealth (Phillips et al.,
2003). Therefore, firms must actively manage the relationships and interests with diverse
stakeholders in order to maximise the promised value (Freeman et al., 2004; Harrison and
Wicks, 2013). By investing in social responsibility activities, firms expect that they will
more satisfy their multiple stakeholders’ interests by gaining their confidence and
commitment. Social exchange theory emphasises the interdependence existing between
firms and their stakeholders, so that organisations are considered as forums for
transactions (Cropanzano et al., 2002). Consequently, firms are engaged in voluntary
actions benefitting their stakeholders and expect this will create an obligation of reciprocity
from their stakeholders (Khalid and Ali, 2017; Aryee et al., 2002). Different outcomes can
emerge from these assumed interactions between individuals or organisations (Lioukas
and Reuer, 2015). Considering interactions between firms and individuals, a possible
outcome from CSR activities is the increase in customer-company identification and trust
(Homburg et al., 2013).
Empirical research linking trust to CSR has adopted aggregated approaches where a
computed index of CSR is supposed to explain the index of trust. Such an approach hinges on
explanations of how different components of CSR influence the organisational trust. Thereby,
a major contribution of this paper is to test how each CSR dimension influences trust, which
may allow better managerial policies about which aspects of CSR deserve more endeavour for
banks, if the purpose is to recover trust (see Figure 1).
 Social Product
Theoretical model CSR and trust:
Responsability
H1 disaggregated
Social Legal
H2
relations
Responsability
H3 Trust
Social Needs
Responsability
H4
Social
Environmental H5
Responsability
Social Figure 1.
Employee Theoretical model
Responsability

2.2.1 Social product responsibility and trust. The relationship between Social product
responsibility and customer trust is supposed to be positive. The underlying argument is that
socially responsible companies build trust with customers by transmitting the impression of
being responsible with their products (Salmones et al., 2005). When customers perceive that a
company is making efforts to be more transparent and socially responsible, they will develop
positive attitudes towards the firm (Kang and Hustvedt, 2014). Thus, transparency and socially
responsible behaviour are expected to push customers to consider that any financial
transaction performed with the firm is normal and understandable because it is free of
asymmetric information that would be detrimental to the customers’ well-being. Consequently,
being responsible with products enables customers to engage in a transaction that they are
familiar with (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004). From this perspective, product liability
enables beneficiaries to protect themselves against over-indebtedness and other irresponsible
behaviour linked to financial intermediation and reinforces a relationship of trust between
clients and financial institutions. In this case, clients no longer feel that they are victims of fraud
by an institution seeking to take advantage of them. Therefore, firms which are perceived as
being socially responsive with their products and as delivering sustainable products would
positively influence “consumer perceptions of other valued attributes which in turn will affect
customers’ product preference and customer trust in the company” (Luchs et al., 2010, p. 19).
H1. Social product responsibility positively influences customers’ trust.
2.2.2 Social legal responsibility and trust. Legal responsibility is mainly related to compliance
with the laws and regulations governing financial intermediation. According to Carroll (1991,
p. 41), “legal responsibilities reflect a view of codified ethics in the sense that they embody
basic notions of fair operations as established by lawmakers”. The relationship between legal
responsibility and trust is supposed to be positive. Indeed, financial institutions that comply
with the laws are likely to avoid fines and other disciplinary measures from the regulatory
and supervisory authority. Therefore, financial institutions that comply with the law are
likely to achieve high financial performance and long-term sustainability. Therefore, the legal
liability of a financial institution is seen as a strategic resource enabling financial institutions
to receive support from regulatory authorities and thus to withstand macroeconomic shocks.
It is also clear that regulating authorities have the mission to guarantee bank customers that
their banks are acting in a way to protect their investments. In this sense, when customers –
who are supposed to trust supervising authorities – feel their banks are complying with laws,
they might be more trustful in the complying bank than in the non-complying one. As a result,
complying with regulations reinforces the seriousness of the institution and its long-term
viability. Thus, customers might be more trustful in complying institutions, seen as more able
to secure their savings. Consequently, the legal aspect of perceived CSR is expected to
positively influence customer trust (Choi and La, 2013).
IJBM H2. Social legal responsibility exerts a positive influence on customers’ trust.
2.2.3 Social needs responsibility. Social needs responsibility implies a better understanding of
customers’ needs and desires in order to maximise customers’ well-being. Thus, firms are
obliged to allocate resources in ways that yield optimum benefits to society (Mandhachitara
and Poolthong, 2011). Indeed, the more a banking institution regularly adapts its products
and services to the needs of its customers, the more likely it is to improve their well-being and
thus have a rapid impact on their living conditions. Therefore, customers will positively
respond to social responsibility activities with “behavioural outcomes such as intentions to
purchase” (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000, p. 218). Consequently, the relationship between
customers and the institution will be situated in a solid social anchorage so that customers
decide to carry out all their financial transactions with a single institution that they know well
and in which they place a great deal of trust. Thus, a strong social responsibility based on
financial institutions’ endeavour to adapt their products and services to customers’ needs and
desires is supposed to create and reinforce a strong communion between the company and its
customers. Therefore, the mutual communication and understanding will lead to higher
levels of trust between the two parties. Thus, “customers that interact closely with suppliers
are likely to appreciate the value delivered and the costs incurred by suppliers” (Tuli et al.,
2007, p. 14).
H3. Social needs responsibility activities positively influence customers’ trust.
2.2.4 Social environmental responsibility. Social environmental responsibility requires
financial institutions to recall the banks’ societal role and sensitise them to make
environmental protection part of their strategic objectives. Thus, banks can fund ecological
and sustainable activities in order to protect the general interest and the planet. The
relationship between social environmental responsibility and trust is supposed to be
positive. In fact, banks which invest in and properly handle environmental issues would
create trust among immediate stakeholders (Pellizzoni, 2005). The main argument is related
to the fact that environmental activities by banks are expected to reduce all negative
consequences customers would suffer through bank activities and actions. Investing in
environmental activities is seen as a bank’s altruistic behaviour proving that beyond selfish
interest, the bank is also motivated by social and environmental wellbeing (Baron, 2001).
Such positive behaviour demonstrates that the banks’ interests merge with the interests of
customers and society by protecting the environment for the benefit of present and future
generations. Thus, the strong predisposition of financial institutions to promote ecological
and sustainable activities and behaviours will be rewarded with a high level of trust
(Orlitzky et al., 2011).
H4. Social environmental responsibility activities positively influence customers’ trust.
2.2.5 Social employee responsibility. Social employee responsibility encompasses all
voluntary activities and behaviours that target employees in order to provide them with
resources and power to deal properly with customers. Indeed, employees are viewed as key
ambassadors and enactors of the organisational CSR (McShane and Cunningham, 2012;
Slack et al., 2015). The link between social employee responsibility and trust is supposed to
be positive. In fact, according to internal marketing theory, salesperson expertise and
likeability are positively related with customer trust in the salesperson, which, in turn, has a
strong positive association with trust in the company (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2002).
Therefore, employees who behave ethically when they interact with customers will
generate customers’ trust because they are supposed to operate in the customers’ best
interests (Bejou et al., 1998; Roman, 2003; Choi and La, 2013). More ethically oriented
employees could surpass themselves and serve customers adequately because they are
almost obliged to reciprocate to rewards and other advantages they have received from the CSR and trust:
firm (Ert€ urk and Vurgun, 2015; Colquitt and Rodell, 2011; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). disaggregated
Thus, social employee responsibility activities and practices bring employees and other
stakeholder groups closer, thereby improving the quality of encounters between employees
relations
and external community (McShane and Cunningham, 2012). Social employee responsibility
practices will enhance employee job satisfaction, customer satisfaction and trust (Balmer
et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin 2001).
H5. Social employee responsibility activities positively influence customers’ trust.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sampling and data collection
Data have been collected through qualitative and quantitative techniques. We gathered
qualitative data through individual interviews, conducted in Bukavu in June 2015, with 20
customers from three banks, according to semantic saturation as any new theme did not
emerge from new survey customers. Customers were requested to debate around three main
themes: What should be the contribution of a bank to social, economic and environmental
well-being? What are banks’ responsibilities beyond financial services and products? What
are the main factors that may demonstrate that a bank is socially, economically and legally
established in its host country? We proceeded in the same way to assess trustworthiness
around the following themes: activities that banks are doing well and which would make
them trustworthy; the main characteristics of a bank that inspires trust and confidence; and
the capacity of banks in the region to inspire trust to customers. Customers have been
contacted during their financial transactions at the bank’s central branch, using purposive
sampling, based on the length of the relationship with the bank. Only customers who have
spent at least six months were considered. Individual interviews have been conducted by one
of the authors, with a book and a pen. Each interview took at least 90 min; extensive notes
were taken in order to capture the interviewee’s own view.
The qualitative material was submitted to content analysis using both horizontal and
vertical analyses. An item was retained should it appear twice or more in the interview. Items
stated only once were not considered unless they described an important aspect of one of the
latent variables. Results from qualitative inquiry identified 22 items, of which 13 are related
to trustworthiness and 9 to CSR. It appeared that according to the surveyed customers,
the social responsibility of banks refers to facilitating access to credit, integration of
microfinance products (financial inclusion of low-income people), the bank’s commitment to
charitable activities (scholarships, sponsoring, social or cultural activities) and the
mobilisation of savings. Some items were directly linked to the banks’ role in financial
intermediation, while others described a particular context of the study. Indeed, items
related to banks’ commitment to regulation recall that customers have lost their savings due
to the collapse of several banks that did not comply with regulation. So, customers are
convinced that besides their financial intermediation role, banks have to demonstrate their
compliance to central bank regulation in order to guarantee their sustainability. Items
related to the employee responsibility demonstrate that banks are seen as potentially good
employers in a context where unemployment is prevailing. So, customers search information
for themselves or for their children in order to find good job opportunities. In terms of trust,
surveyed customers confirmed that a bank is trustworthy if it does not have liquidity
problems, is older than others and provides higher service quality. The bank’s partnerships
with other economic actors are also considered. The emergence of liquidity related items is
mainly explained by the fact that Congolese banks regularly face liquidity problems, leading
to customers’ savings loss. The partnership items are strange but are consistent to the
context. In fact, in a context of bank failure, only multinational banks have succeeded to
IJBM resist and able to serve customers every day because they can mobilise their partner in order
to overcome problems they account in DRC. The 13 items identified from the interviews were
added to those extracted from the literature, which is consistent with the theory of
measurement scale development (Churchill, 1979). We relied on three studies that have
measured trust and CSR in the customer perspective (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Swaen and
Schumpitaz, 2008; Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). By merging items from interviews and
literature, we obtained a total of 52 items for both constructs, which are embedded in both
the context and the international literature. This list was sent to two researchers and two
experts in the field of banking and microfinance to ensure both facial and content validity.
The scale was then submitted to about 30 customers from two banks in a pilot survey to
identify items that were poorly formulated and were therefore difficult to understand from
their point of views. At the end of the process, only two items were reformulated, proving
that customers had a good understanding of the two constructs (Churchill, 1979; Spector,
1985). The retained items were placed in the quantitative survey and used to gather data on
trust and CSR from the respondents.
The quantitative survey also took place in Bukavu in July 2015, on a total of 300 active
customers from six commercial banks in Bukavu: BIAC, BCDC, TMB, FNB/BIC, Rawbank
and Ecobank. The sample was drawn through proportional stratification based on the bank’s
size and customers’ seniority. Only customers who used the bank services for at least one year
were surveyed as they would have more experience with the bank and able to appreciate both
trust and CSR activities within the bank.
The surveys took place in the bank’s halls or nearby place. The first strategy was used
where the research team obtained a formal permission to access to clients. In this way,
customers were contacted when they were waiting to receive a financial service. A second
strategy was used if formal permission was not obtained. Surveyors were posted around the
bank and approached customers once they finished performing a financial transaction. The
survey was performed by ten students of licence/master’s degrees from the faculty of
Economics and Management of the Catholic University of Bukavu. Surveyors received a
two-day training related to questionnaire administration and errors to avoid in the survey.
The survey lasted seven days, from 15 to 25 July 2015. A total of 300 questionnaires were
administered, and 275 were returned after regular monitoring from the research team. A total
of 11 questionnaires were not useable because of either incompleteness or being badly filled.
This brought the sample size to 264, representing an 88% response rate.

3.2 Measurement and analytical procedures

Data were processed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and structural
equation modelling. Exploratory factor analysis served to identify items and variable
structures of the two constructs. We resorted to KMO ≥ 0.5 with the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (χ 2 significant at p ≤ 0.05) to check adequacy of the data for factor analysis. Both
scales satisfied these criteria (Bartlett’s sphericity tests 5 450.9, df 5 91, p 5 0.000 and 450.9,
df 5 91, p 5 0.000, respectively, for CSR and trust). For factor analysis with orthogonal
rotation, we resorted to factor loadings, communalities, eigenvalues and extracted variance to
identify items and factors for inclusion in the final factor solution using an iterative approach.
Items with low communalities (<0.5), low factor loadings on any factor (<0.5) and those with
significant loadings on two or more factors were considered for deletion. In addition, factors
with eigenvalues <1 were considered for deletion (Lings and Greenley, 2005).
With these criteria, the initial 34 CSR items measured on a 7-point Likert scale yielded a
reduced scale of 13 items grouped into five dimensions, explaining 60% of the CSR variance.
All communalities ranged from 0.53 to 0.74, and eigenvalues ranged from 1.05 to 2.67. All
items are strongly correlated to a single factor, with factor loadings ranging from 0.61 to 0.84.
Consistent with Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002), we measured trust through the way respondents CSR and trust:
perceive trustworthiness, but using 18 items mainly from Gurviez and Korchia (2002) disaggregated
completed by items from interviews, using a multidimensional 7-point scale. Trust appears to
be a three-dimensional construct, with 9 items explaining 63% of the variance. Confirmatory
relations
factor analysis was used to confirm the dimensionality of each scale by demonstrating that
the items and dimensions identified by the exploratory analysis are those that actually
characterise the latent constructs (Brown, 2006). All identified items exhibited a loading ≥0.50
(Hair et al., 2010). The analysis allowed also to confirm that all estimated models were well
adjusted by resorting to three adjustment indices (χ 2/df ≤ 3; RMSEA ≤ 0.1; CFI ≥ 0.90;
IFI ≥ 0.90) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Bagozzi and Yi, 2012).
For the two constructs, confirmatory factory analysis on the purified scales showed that the
model fits the data quite well, with (χ 2/df 5 1.66, GFI 5 0.95; AFM 5 0.92, CFI 5 0.92,
RMSEA 5 0.05) for CSR, and (χ 2/df 5 2.3, GFI 5 0.96; AFM 5 0.92, CFI 5 0.96,
RMSEA 5 0.07) for trust.
Results indicate that all items have relatively high loadings, between 0.31 and 0.52 for CSR and
between 0.41 and 0.77 for trust (see Table 1). All 22 items from the two constructs exhibit t-values
well above the 1.96 standard (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The main constructs and their
underlying factors achieved good AVE indicators, ranging between 0.52 and 0.77 for trust and
from 0.44 to 0.78 for CSR. Such values are in the line of the good limit (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). This
means that each item is highly linked to its underlying factor and explains it better than another
factor would. Taken together, these results show that the scales provide internal stability and
high convergent validity (Lings and Greenly, 2005; Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). Discriminant validity
was examined by comparing the AVE for each factor with the squared phi-correlation between
both latent variables (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Lings and Greenly, 2005).
The results confirm that all possible pairs of factors passed this test, suggesting good
discriminant validity of the dimensions in both CSR and trust scales (Walsh and Beatty,
2007). Scale reliability was tested by resorting to both Cronbach’s alpha and the CR values.
The two constructs exhibited high Cronbach’s alpha starting, respectively, from 0.78 to 0.65
for trust and CSR. Although the CSR’ Cronbach’s alpha seems to be low, its small value is
largely compensated with very good results from the confirmatory factor analysis of the
concept. In fact, according to Baggozi and Yi (2012): “. . .old standards for Cronbach’s alpha
and other formulae for reliability should not be applied rigidly to SEMs, and indeed focus
should be placed more on the hypotheses under tests in, and goodness-of-fit of, any SEM.,
p. 17”. The CR values from the two constructs are also high, ranging from 0.78 to 0.59 for CSR
and from 0.76 to 0.48 for Trust. Thus, all reliability results are also satisfactory (CR ≥ 0.70)
(Bagozzi and Yi, 2012) (see Table 2).
The hypothesised causal relationships between CSR dimensions and trust have been
tested through structural equation modelling (Byrne, 2009). Factors relating to the trust
construct were transformed into average scores and thus served as observable indicators
for this construct in its relation with CSR dimensions (Vieira, 2011; Brown, 2006). This
transformation allowed reducing the complexity of the structural model (Vieira, 2011).
Structural equation modelling was conducted in three stages (Giannelloni and Vernette,
2012). First, the parameters of the structural model were tested by identifying both loadings
and measurement errors (Byrne, 2009). Second, the estimation allowed to assess the model
adjustment by resorting to three indicators (χ 2/df ≤ 3; RMSEA ≤ 0.1; CFI ≥ 0.90; IFI ≥ 0.90)
(Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). Third, the reliability and validity of all latent constructs were
established. Reliability was tested using both Cronbach’s α and J€oreskog’s rho, with values
above 0.70 and 0.60, respectively, for alpha and rho considered as satisfactory values
(Churchill, 1979; Bagozi and Yi, 2012).
The direction and intensity of the relationship between the different latent variables were
tested by the t-value ≥ 1.96 and a significance level ≤ 0.05 (Vieira, 2011). Common method bias
 IJBM

analysis
Table 1.

confirmatory factor
from exploratory and
Variable measurement
Structural coefficients
Description of variables EFA CFA CR AVE

Trustworthiness perception (α 5 0.779; GFI 5 0.96; AGFI 5 0.92; CFI 5 0.96; RMSEA 5 0.04)
(1) Integrity 0.76 0.77
Item 1 Being a client of this bank gives me security in the constitution of my savings 0.60 0.70
Item 2 This bank is sincere to its customers 0.80 0.99
Item 3 This bank is honest with its customers 0.82 0.99
Item 4 This bank cares about its customers 0.70 0.79
(2) Partnership 0.69 0.52
Item 5 This bank has strong partnerships with the state 0.75 0.71
Item 6 This bank has strong partnerships with major companies in the financial community 0.73 0.75
Item 7 This bank has strong partnerships with other banks 0.76 0.70
(3) Benevolence 0.52 0.48
Item 8 This bank facilitates the transactions of its customers with efficient innovations 0.77 0.78
Item 9 This bank adapts its products to the different categories of customers 0.77 0.65
Corporate social responsibility (α 5 0.65; GFI 5 0.95; AGFI 5 0.92; CFI 5 0.92; RMSEA 5 0.05)
(1) Product responsibility 0.62 0.65
Item 1 This bank returns its customers’ savings at the right time 0.69 0.70
Item 2 Lending and borrowing conditions are explained to customers in advance 0.73 0.99
Item 3 Lending and borrowing contracts are clear 0.72 0.69
(2) Legal responsibility 0.60 0.56
Item 4 This bank submits to regulation quickly and correctly 0.61 0.63
Item 5 This bank could cooperate with its competitors in socially responsible projects 0.73 0.92
Item 6 This bank avoids unfair competition 0.80 0.67
(3) Social needs responsibility 0.60 0.54
Item 7 This bank takes care of the social needs of its customers by developing special products (credits for healthcare, 0.82 0.67
credit for school fees, etc.)
Item 8 This bank pays particular attention to the problems of its customers 0.81 0.80
(4) Environmental responsibility 0.78 0.57
Item 9 This bank evaluates the negative impact of its activities on the environment 0.84 0.88
Item 10 This bank is involved in activities to protect the environment 0.76 0.89
(5) Employee social responsibility 0.59 0.44
Item 11 This bank takes special interest in the needs of its employees 0.78 0.62
Item 12 This bank strives to create new job opportunities 0.73 0.71
Item 13 This bank compensates its employees fairly 0.83 0.75
was addressed by combining the 22 items related to the two constructs. We ran a unique CSR and trust:
factor analysis and found a solution with seven factors accounting for 58.3% of variance. The disaggregated
first factor accounted only for 21.3%, confirming that any one factor does not itself account
for about 50% of the variance. Such results confirmed that common method bias was not an
relations
issue in our database (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Jebarajakirthy and Thaichon, 2016).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Sample socio-demographic characteristics
Seven characteristics are analysed. Four are related to socio-demographic characteristics
(sex, income, main activity and educational level) and three to respondents’ experience with
banks and financial products (main bank, main product and access to credit) (Table 3).

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVE

Trust 1 0.50
Product 0.40*** (0.16) 1 0.65
Legal 0.45*** (0.20) 0.29*** (0.08) 1 0.56
Social needs 0.27*** (0.07) 0.07 (0.01) 0.16** (0.03) 1 0.57
Environmental 0.22*** (0.05) 0.11* (0.01) 0.16** (0.03) 0.20*** (0.04) 1 0.52
Employee 0.33*** (0.11) 0.19** (0.04) 0.14** (0.02) 0.14** (0.02) 0.20*** (0.04) 1 0.44 Table 2.
Source(s): Own compilation from SPSS 16.00; *** 5 p ≤ 0.01; ** 5 p ≤ 0.05; () 5 squared correlation between Correlation matrix
constructs among constructs

CSR (M 5 4.42) Trust (M 5 5.00)

Variable Modality Number Average Total F/T p Average F/T p

Gender Male 173 4.39 173 1.42 0.16 4.96 1.36 0.17
Female 91 4.49 264 5.1
Study level None/Primary 21 4.37 21 0.75 0.52 5.08 0.15 0.93
Secondary 52 4.43 73 5.03
High 177 4.44 250 5.00
education
Professional 14 4.21 264 4.90
Main activity Business 55 4.36 55 1.23 0.30 5.02 1.54 0.206
Employee 140 4.49 195 5.08
Services 26 4.34 221 4.99
Others 43 4.34 264 4.79
Income level <100 53 4.42 53 0.08 0.97 4.82 1.91 0.13
101–300 73 4.40 126 4.98
301–600 82 4.44 208 5.13
>600 56 4.43 264 5.06
Main bank BIAC 61 4.46 61 0.31 0.91 5.08 2.44 0.035
BCDC 26 4.38 87 4.83
Rawbank 86 4.39 173 5.19
Table 3.
TMB 44 4.40 217 4.84 Sample distribution by
Ecobank 22 4.54 239 4.94 socio-demographic
(FNB) 25 4.41 264 4.74 characteristics of
Main product Loans 12 4.49 12 2.41 0.09 4.81 4.83 0.009 customers (M 5 Mean
Savings 142 4.35 154 4.89 (for the latent variable
Both 110 4.51 264 5.17 computed); F 5 Fisher
Access to Yes 157 4.55 157 !4.54 0.000 5.16 3.87 0.00 statistic; T 5 Students
credit No 107 4.23 264 4.79 Statistics; P 5 p-value)
IJBM Results from socio-demographic characteristics reveal that of the 264 respondents, 65.5%
are men and 34.5% are women, aged between 20 and 67 years. The average age of the
respondents is 35 years. In all, 87% of the respondents have either secondary education or
university degree, and the proportion of individuals with a primary level or with vocational
training was 12.9%. The majority (53.4%) of bank customers are employees, followed by
retailers (20.8%) and service providers (9.8%). The majority of these customers (52.3%) have
a monthly income of $300, and more than 50% of them earn either $301 or more. However,
27% of these customers have an income between $101 and $300, while 20% of customers earn
less than $100 a month.
As for customers’ access and experience with banks, most of the respondents have stayed
3 years or more with their main banks, 68% of the sample participants are customers of one
bank and 30% have accounts in one or two secondary banks besides their main bank.
Savings and loans are the more demanded products (95% of customers), while money
transfer is demanded by 59% of our sample. Other services include mobile banking (11.7%),
safe deposit box (3.8), overdraft (2.7%) and others (22.7%). In all, 59% of our respondents
have already accessed loans.
The level of perception of CSR in banks is 4.42 (slightly > 4), indicating that customers
perceive their banks as lowly committed to CSR. Among the various dimensions of CSR, the
dimension of compliance with legal obligations has the highest score (5.01) followed by the
product and outreach dimension (4.63) and the employment dimension (4.3). The ethics-
related dimension and environment are perceived by customers as being relatively low in
banks with respective average scores of 3.89 and 3.92 (<4). Results from the ANOVA and
t-tests revealed that none of the socio-demographic variables influence customers’ CSR
perceptions (p > 0.05 with low Fisher values and t < 1.96), but there is a significant difference
in customers’ CSR perceptions regarding their access to credit (t 5 !4.53; p 5 0.000). Indeed,
customers with access to loans have also higher CSR perceptions than those with no access
(4.55 > 4.23). The underlying argument is that customers who access loans have their needs
satisfied and their investments can bear profits and accumulation. Thus, these beneficiaries
might perceive the bank as more responsible because it improves their own business and
livelihood.
The perceived level of trust is 5.00, which is slightly higher than the mean of 4. The
integrity dimension has the highest score (5.2), followed, respectively, by compassion and
partnership which have almost the same score (4.86 and 4.82). Like CSR, results from the
ANOVA and t-tests revealed that socio-demographic variables do not influence customers’
perception of trustworthiness (p > 0.05 with low Fisher values and t < 1.96). Results
demonstrate that there is a significant difference between respondents’ perceptions of
trustworthiness and the main bank where they are affiliated (F 5 2.44; p 5 0.03). Rawbank
and BIAC scored the highest customers’ trust perception. Such results suggest that different
banks also differently inspire customers’ trust by offering them customised products and
protecting their savings. Unsurprisingly, results suggest a significant difference between the
customers’ perceptions of trustworthiness and access to credit (t 5 3.87; p 5 0.000).
Customers who have accessed credit also exhibit higher levels of trust (5.19–4.79). This is
understandable since credit relies on trust, and their beneficiaries may perceive banks as
good partners for the growth of their business. Indeed, the more a customer accesses loans,
the more their encounter with the bank is reinforced. There is also a significant difference
between respondents’ trust perceptions and the main product demanded (F 5 4.83; p 5 0.009).
Respondents who have access to both savings and loans have higher levels of trust than those
who access only one of the two financial services (5.19 for both, 4.91 for loans and 4.89 for
savings). This means that customers value banks that diversify their product portfolio in
order to adapt and meet customers’ ever-changing financial needs.
4.2 Corporate social responsibility and trust links CSR and trust:
The results from the specified structural model suggest that the model fits the data, as all fit disaggregated
indices exceed the thresholds (χ 2/df 5 1.61, CFI 5 0.98, GFI 5 0.97; AGFI 5 0.95,
RMSEA 5 0.048) (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Brown, 2006). Table 3 gives more information about
relations
the relationship between constructs. Each variable is statistically linked to its latent variable
to which it was supposed to load. This is the case for the two latent variables of interest. All
items related to the five dimensions of CSR have loadings above 0.50, except for two items of
the employee dimension. All items of the trust construct have also loading above 0.50, except
one. All items and dimensions related to each latent variable have t-values larger than 1.96.
The R2 related to each dimension is high and varies from 0.65 (integrity and trust) for trust, to
0.01 for environmental responsibility for CSR constructs. Such results indicate that the
specified model meets convergent and discriminant validity requirements (Vieira, 2011; Lings
and Greenly, 2005; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) (see Figure 2).
Results confirm that social needs responsibility positively and significantly influences
trust in the banking sector (γ 5 0.24; t 5 2.64; p 5 0.008). The more a bank is committed to
meet its customers’ changing needs, the better it is perceived as being honest, sincere and
competent by taking seriously its customers’ interests (compassion/empathy). Therefore,
banks that adapt their services and products to their customers’ needs are expected to be
more embedded in the community, which influences the level of trust of customers in it.
Mandhachitara and Poolthong (2011) found that banks that consider the customers’ needs
and desires in developing new products and services largely contribute to the customers’
social welfare and trust. They might therefore benefit from positive evaluation in customers’
mindset, which reinforces customers’ trust in the bank (Kang and Hustvedt, 2014). Social
needs in the particular context of Bukavu town may include access to food, children’s
education, health expenses and so forth. A bank that eases access to such products for its
customers might be perceived as being trustworthy. Thus, social needs responsibility
reinforces both the trust and the long-term relationship between the customer and the bank.

0.68 rse1

0.61 rse2 0.56

0.63
0.59 PRODUIT
0.66 rse3

0.72 rse4 INTEGRIT 0.37

0.53 0.35
0.64 LEGAL
0.59 rse5 0.79
0.56 0.41
0.68 rse6 CONFIANC
0.65
0.24 PARTENAR 0.58
0.60
SOCIETA
0.64 rse7
0.71 –0.08 0.39
0.49 rse8
0.35
ENVIRONN
0.57 BIENVEIL 0.85
0.68 rse9
0.69

0.52 rse10
EMPLOI
0.36
0.87 rse11
0.66
0.09
0.57 rse12
Figure 2.
0.99 rse13 Links between CSR
and trust
Source(s): Chi-Square = 127.85, df = 89, p-value = 0.00440, RMSEA = 0.041
IJBM Parameters Estimators Standard errors t-values R2

Integrity ← trust 0.79 0.06 5.88 0.63

Partnership ← trust 0.65 0.07 8.96 0.42
Benevolence ← trust 0.39 0.07 5.55 0.15
RSE1 ← product social responsibility 0.56 0.09 7.84 0.32
RSE2 ← product social responsibility 0.63 0.10 8.67 0.39
RSE3 ← product social responsibility 0.59 0.09 8.16 0.34
RSE4 ← legal social responsibility 0.53 0.09 7.46 0.28
RSE5 ← legal social responsibility 0.64 0.10 9.04 0.41
RSE6 ← legal social responsibility 0.56 0.09 7.98 0.32
RSE7 ← social needs responsibility 0.60 0.13 6.61 0.36
RSE8 ← social needs responsibility 0.71 0.15 7.08 0.51
RSE9 ← social environmental responsibility 0.57 0.12 6.30 0.32
RSE10 ← social environmental responsibility 0.69 0.14 6.84 0.48
RSE11 ← employee social responsibility 0.36 0.10 4.26 0.13
RSE12 → employee social responsibility 0.66 0.17 5.47 0.43
RSE13 → employee social responsibility 0.09 0.09 1.05 0.01
Product social responsibility → trust 0.35 0.10 3.65 0.775
Legal social responsibility ← trust 0.41 0.10 3.81
Social needs responsibility → trust 0.24 0.09 2.64
Social environmental responsibility → trust !0.08 0.11 !0.65
Table 4. Employee social responsibility → Trust 0.35 0.13 2.72
Links between
corporate social Model fit index: χ 2/df 5 1.42; CFI 5 0.96; IFI 5 0.96; RMSEA 5 0.04; AGFI 5 0.91
responsibility and trust Source(s): Own compilation with LISREL 9.1

When customers judge a bank as trustworthy, they stick to this bank by doing all their
financial services with the same bank. Therefore, social needs responsibility positively
influences intentions to purchase (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Tuli et al., 2007) (see Table 4).
Results also show that product liability responsibility positively and significantly
influences trust (γ 5 0.35; t 5 3.65; p 5 0.000). Banks that develop sustainable financial
products and services are more inclined to shape customers’ trust. By offering diversified
financial services and products to their customers, banks “transmit the impression of being
responsible with its products and generates trust and safety to the consumers” (Salmones
et al., 2005). Therefore, banks that provide all needed information on products and services
are expected to reduce information asymmetry and maximise the customers’ welfare. Such
ethical behaviour positively influences customers’ preference and trust in the bank. Thus,
when customers perceive that a bank provides them with a range of financial products and
services that reduce transactions costs, they consider it as a more responsive institution.
Therefore, “the presence of a positive ethical attribute could lead to positive perceptions of a
product’s other attributes” (Luchs et al., 2010) which reinforce the customers’ trust. Further,
when customers have a better understanding of all financial products and services of a
bank, they engage in transactions which inspire trust and tend to repeat transactions with
the same bank in the future. Briefly, an easy understanding and use of bank’s products and
services increases initial trust (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004). This result calls on
banks to avoid developing products which are outside their core mission. The DRC’s
experience shows indeed that those financial institutions that diversified activities outside
their core business (radio-television broadcasts, boats, money exchange/transfer, etc.) have
also undergone serious liquidity crisis, which endangered their customers’ savings and
destroyed their customers’ trust.
Employee social responsibility appears to positively and significantly influence trust
(γ 5 0.35; t 5 2.72; p 5 0.007). Such a result confirms the premises of internal marketing
theory. In fact, firms provide employees more training, rewards and empowerment in order CSR and trust:
to allow them to provide value to customers. Therefore, the behaviour and characteristics of disaggregated
the salesperson are supposed “to influence customer trust in the salesperson and the
company. . .” (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004, p. 383). In fact, when customers perceive
relations
that a bank’s frontline employees are doing their best to meet their interests to provide good
service, they develop a trusting relationship towards the employee and the bank. Indeed,
the more a salesperson is judged to be ethical, the more the quality of customer encounters
(Bejou et al., 1998) and trust towards the bank (Roman, 2003; Choi and La, 2013). Therefore,
employees are acting as ambassadors for, and enactors of, organisational CSR activities,
and their good mood and behaviour are expected to reinforce customers’ trust in the bank
(McShane and Cunningham, 2012; Slack et al., 2015). In a service sector such as banks,
frontline employees are seen to be both the service, the firm and the marketing agent. So, in
order to foster customers’ long-term relationships with the firm, employees must delight
customers, beyond their satisfaction. Therefore, when an employee improves the service
quality through social responsibility activities they have received, they develop and enjoy
richer relationships with external community members (McShane and Cunningham, 2012;
Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016). When banks behave in right, just and fair way towards
employees, this responsibility will benefit indirectly the company, as employee satisfaction
will lead to customers’ satisfaction and trust in the firm (Balmer et al., 2007; Dirks and
Ferrin, 2001; Hansen et al., 2011). Thus, the bank can regain customers’ trust by investing
heavily in employee social responsibility activities.
Results confirm that legal social responsibility positively and significantly influences
trust (γ 5 0.41; t 5 3.81; p 5 0.000). This means that customers tend to trust in banks that
comply with prudential and non-prudential banking regulations. Such banks are expected to
be more likely to develop their activities in the long run. In fact, banks that show great
compliance with national law and regulations will not suffer regulations’ abusive fees,
because firms are expected to pursue their economic missions within the framework of the
law (Carroll, 1991). Thus, banks which are investing more in legal responsibility activities are
expected to protect the customers’ savings against liquid risk and generate more trust in the
customers’ mind (Choi and La, 2013; Paine, 2000). Such results are more appealing in a context
of the DRC where many microfinance institutions have been collapsing for several months,
because of low management norms and weaker regulation standards. Thus, customers trust
banks that comply with legal requirements as they may be seen as safer.

5. Conclusion, managerial implications, limits and research perspectives

This study has demonstrated that CSR in banking can be operationalised into five factors: legal
responsibility, social responsibility, product responsibility, environmental responsibility and
employee responsibility. Each of these dimensions is found to have a different impact on trust,
justifying the usefulness of using a disaggregated approach when studying the links between
the two constructs. This major finding is even more interesting as it is found for a developing
country where studies about CSR and trust are scarce. The adoption of a multidimensional
approach in measuring CSR construct helps banks to respond to the needs and desires of
multiple stakeholders in a more unified ways. Thus, banks that disclose all needed information
to customers and develop services and products in a more customer-oriented perspective,
introduce more market orientation approach in their management while avoiding to propose
generic products and services. Therefore, they are able to meet customers’ needs and positively
contribute to their economic and social well-being. Banks that invest in CRS activities towards
employees’ responsibility are also able to satisfy their employees. They are able to stand as
good employers, attract employees that are more qualified and gain competitive advantage in a
more current competitive banking sector. Therefore, by developing CSR activities towards
IJBM customers and employees, banks will reinforce both customers’ and employees’ identification
and psychological ownership and improve their own reputation. Being customer-focused for
banks also implies complying with laws and regulations; and this improves trust from their
customers. These banks are able to protect and keep customers’ savings available even in a
harmful environment. Thus, incremental implementation of CSR activities in banks – in Kremer
(2009)’s sense – is among ways towards regaining trust.
Banks that invest in CSR activities will contribute to a more responsible financial
intermediation and expand financial inclusion in Africa and in other developing countries.
In fact, banks that adapt their products and services to customers’ needs are able to meet
even poor excluded clients with formal services. Such a downscaling strategy will allow
banks to increase their own outreach and profitability towards a more customer-oriented
strategy. Thus, banks will act as development agents and contribute to poverty alleviation
in developing countries. Therefore, they will go beyond their sole financial intermediation
role by helping more needed populations and contribute to customers’ well-being.
The development of CSR activities is considered as a strategic tool for improving
customers’ trust in the banking sector. Banking services are mainly based on trust. Customers
will not save their money in a bank that will not be able to reimburse them in due time. Thus,
by communicating and implementing CSR activities, banks are able to signal their entire
willingness to behave in customers’ interest and deliver even other unexpected values.
Therefore, banks will go beyond their real financial intermediation role and become valuable
sincere partners, who are highly interested in the customers’ needs. Thus, they will develop
more customised services and reinforce customer confidence. This will reinforce customers’
participation and co-creation activities and improve banks’ social embeddedness and social
capital. The underlying argument is that when customers are treated fairly by banks, they
become more loyal and may decide to do their financial transactions with only the bank
that understands their needs. By implementing CSR activities, banks will reinforce their
links with customers who will feel be more valued. Therefore, banks will jump from a
transactional approach in delivering services to a more relational perceptive by building
strong relationships with customers. Thus, customers will remain loyal to their bank not only
for safety of their money, but also because they may get other unexpected values from the
developed trustful relationship. CSR activities will give evidence that banks are inclined to
maximise customer value and lead to a strong customers’ trust.
Banks’ investment in CSR activities will enhance transparency and contribute to their own
reputation in developing countries, and especially in DRC. In a post-conflict environment
such as DRC where public trust in the banking system has shrunk, it is appropriate that they
develop mechanisms to mitigate this distrust and reassure and retain customers. In such a
town characterised by soil erosion, hunger, insecurity and so forth, responsible acts from
banks, such as reforestation, participation in environmental awareness activities, loan
products to ease access to secured land and security, could increase customers’ willingness to
trust. A commitment to a social responsibility approach is well suited for this purpose. This
commitment can go through compliance with legal obligations including paying its taxes and
avoiding unfair competition. It can also manifest itself through the special attention that the
bank grants to products and services it offers, that is, in guaranteeing its customers can
withdraw their savings at any moment (security of savings) and by clearly explaining to its
customers the lending and borrowing conditions. The social responsibility of banks also
requires the adoption of a societal behaviour oriented towards customers’ interest by
developing products such as healthcare credit and credit for education. Also, the bank should
struggle to respond in a special way to its employees’ needs, including their working
conditions, wages, training and so forth. Therefore, banks must also implement channels to
communicate their involvement in socially responsible activities to the public in order to
improve their reputation and therefore earn more trust from its customers. Communication
through various channels (radio and television advertisements, publications reporting on the CSR and trust:
achievements of the bank’s social responsibility) makes the commitment of the bank in CSR disaggregated
activities more noticeable.
This study also revealed that one of the main dimensions of trust in banks is the
relations
partnership between the bank and various local actors including the state, large companies
and other banks in the market (more generally, its stakeholder orientation), which is
consistent with all conceptualisations of trust and CSR. This implies that it would be
profitable for the bank in terms of trust-gain to invest in partnerships with community
businesses. Thus, banks could create strategic alliances with microfinance institutions, for
example, and use their extensions to extend financial inclusion. This would have three
advantages for banks: to reduce the queues which are observed at the end of the month at
banks, to increase the level of perceived benevolence of the bank by customers and to
increase the perception of the existence of a strong partnership between the bank and other
economic players in the community.
This study suffers from four limitations, which can be seen as opportunities for further
research. First, CSR and trust relationships have been measured in a direct way, ignoring
moderating and mediating variables. CSR and trust relationships might be analysed in a
more enriched framework including service quality, reputation and banks’ employee
performance as moderating variables. The underlying argument is to test whether such a
moderating variable strengthens or weakens the relationship between CSR and trust. The
importance of service quality and employee performance is justified by the fact that banks in
DRC and in most developing countries are still characterised by poor service quality and less
customer-oriented employees. Results from this research may push banks to invest in service
quality improvement and employee training in order to reinforce customers’ trust.
Second, this paper has measured the two concepts from the customers’ perspective only.
However, both CSR and trust are best understood from a stakeholder’s perspective. So, it
might be insightful to extend future research from a stakeholder orientation perspective.
Hence, data could be gathered from both employees and customers, allowing comparing CSR
and trustworthiness perceptions among employees and customers. The objective is to test
who can truly evaluate CSR and trust. The main idea is also to test the hypothesis that
employees may overevaluate their CSR activities in order to reinforce their reputation.
Third, the role of some demographic variables has not been investigated. For instance,
future studies may test the moderating effect of customers’ education level and gender in the
relationship between CSR activities and trust. In fact, more educated customers may have
mental and intellectual capacities in order to judge the banks’ CSR activities. Customers that
are more educated may also be very demanding and more critical about banks’ CSR activities,
and may balk at trusting their banks. CSR activities imply also targeting women in order to
include them financially. In a country like the DRC, where women suffer lower financial
inclusion, one may expect them to be more sensitive to such activities, and thus more inclined
to trust banks that adopt them.
Fourth, the present study has focused on one region in one country. It could be interesting
to analyse the relationship between the CSR and trust both at country level and in an
international perspective. In the Congolese context, however, expanding our sample might
require that the study consider the entire country because the DRC has only 18 banks and
microfinance institutions. From an international perspective, the study would collect data
from DRC, Burundi and Rwanda, countries that are members of the Great Lakes Economic
Association (CPGL), and test whether the relations between the two constructs depend on
cultural and country specific factors. The underlying argument is that the robustness of a
financial system may depend on people’s financial culture as well as countries’ economic
governance. Thus, the relationship between CSR and trust may be strengthened in countries
with a solid and stable banking sector and which rely on good governance mechanisms.
IJBM References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. and Chen, Z. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 267-285.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Balemba, E.B.K. and Bugandwa, M.A.D. (2016), “Internal marketing, employee job satisfaction, and
perceived organizational performance in microfinance institutions”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 773-796.
Balmer, J.M.T., Fukukawa, K. and Grey, E. (2007), “The nature and management of ethical corporate
identity: a commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Barnes, A. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility and its effects on brand trust”, Master Thesis,
Auckland University of Technology Business School, Auckland, available at: http://hdl.handle.
net/10292/2121 (accessed 31 March 2020).
Baron, D. (2001), “Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy”, Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-45.
Bayart, C. and Brignier, J. (2013), “Etablir une relation de fid!elit!e dans le secteur bancaire: le cas de la
cible !etudiant”, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278618806_Etablir_une_
relation_de_fidelite_dans_le_secteur_bancaire_le_cas_de_la_cible_etudiants (accessed 31
March 2020).
Bejou, D., Ennew, C.T. and Palmer, A. (1998), “Trust, ethics and relationship satisfaction”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 170-175.
Bidault, F. and Jarillo, J.C. (1995), “La confiance dans les transactions !economiques”, in Bidault, F.,
Gomez, P.Y. and Marion, G. (Eds), Confiance, Entreprise et Soci!et!e, Eska, Paris, pp. 109-123.
Bouteaud, A. (2010), “La responsabilit!e soci!etale des entreprises (RSE): un bref !etat des lieux”, available
at: https://www.google.com/url?sa5t&rct5j&q5&esrc5s&source5web&cd51&ved52ahUK
Ewjw853sx8XoAhUrmuAKHRVLDsIQFjAAegQIAhAB&url5https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
millenaire3.com%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F937%2F10844&usg5AOvVaw1nVm0oKh
1Fv3KU0qSn2wNm (accessed 31 March 2020).
Bowen, H. (1953), “Social responsibility of the business man”, Ethics and Economics of Society (Series),
1st ed., Harper & Brothers, New York.
Brown, T.A. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Guilford Press, New York.
Byrne, B.M. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34, pp. 39-49.
Carroll, A.B. (2008), “A history of corporate social responsibility: concepts and practices”, The Oxford
Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, pp. 19-46, Chapter 2.
Chetty, S., Naidoo, R. and Seetharam, Y. (2015), “The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm
financial performance in south-Africa”, Contemporary Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 193-214.
Cheynel, H. (2010), “Responsabilit!e sociale d’entreprise (RSE) dans les entreprises bancaires”, Working
paper, Observatoire des m!etiers, des qualifications et d’!egalit!e professionnelle entre les hommes
et les femmes dans la banque, Observatoire des m!etiers de la banque, France, 1 septembre.
Choi, B. and La, S. (2013), “The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on CSR and trust:
the restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 223-233. disaggregated
Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of
relations
Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Colquitt, J.A. and Rodell, J.B. (2011), “Justice, Trust, and Trustworthiness: a longitudinal analysis
integrating three theoretical perspectives”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 6,
pp. 1183-1206.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. (2007), “Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-
analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 909-927.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 324-351.
Dawar, N. and Pillutla, M.M. (2000), “Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: the moderating
role of consumer expectations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 215-226.
Decker, S. and Sale, C. (2008), “An analysis of corporate social responsibility, Trust and Reputation in
the Banking Profession”, in Idowu, S.L. and Filho, W.L. (Eds), Professionals’ Perspectives of
Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, London, pp. 135-156.
Deloitte (2012), “Relations banques et clients: Comment regagner durablement la confiance des
clients”, working paper, 2#eme !edition Deloitte Financial Service, France, April 2012.
Deloitte (2013), “Relation banque et clients : Banquiers, que faites-vous vraiment pour vos clients?”,
working paper, 3#eme !edition Deloitte Financial Service, France, April 2013.
Deloitte (2014), “Relations banques et clients: Fidelit!e, vous avez dit fid!elit!e?”, working paper, 4#eme
!edition Deloitte Financial Service, France. April 2014.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in organizational settings”, Organization Science,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-467.
Domergue, F. (2012), “La RSE dans le secteur bancaire, un outil de reconqu^ete de la confiance en
p!eriode de crise ?”, Management et sciences sociales, Humanisme Mutuellisme Solidarit!e No. 12,
pp. 86-100, .
Dorasamy, N. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility and ethical banking for developing economies”,
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, Vol. 59 No. 11, pp. 777-785.
Ernest and Young (2014), “Gagner la bataille de l’exp!erience client”, Working paper, 3#eme Edition EY
Global Consumer Banking Survey, France, 2014.
Ert€
urk, A. and Vurgun, L. (2015), “Retention of IT professionals: examining the influence of
empowerment, social exchange and trust”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, pp. 34-46.
European Commission (2001), “Commission of the European community (COM2001, 366): green
paper”, Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility.
Fahd, R. (2009), “Banques et RSE”, Magasine de la communication de crise et sensible, Vol. 18,
pp. 14-16.
Fatma, M., Rahman, Z. and Khan, I. (2015), “Building company reputation and brand equity through
CSR: the mediating role of trust”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 840-856.
Ferrin, D.L. (2015), “Insights and observations on the decision to trust in both science and practice:
interview with Robert F. HURLEY”, Journal of Trust Research, Taylor and Francis Journals,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 184-198.
IJBM Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Freeman, E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B. (2004), “Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective
revisited”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 364-369.
Fulmer, C.A. and Gelfand, M.J. (2012), “At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple
organizational levels”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1167-1230.
Gatfaoui, H. (2007), “Are credit default swaps spreads market driven?”, 21st Autralian Finance and
Banking Conference.
Geykens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Kumar, N. (1998), “Generalizations about trust in marketing
channel relationships using meta-analysis”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-248.
Giannellonni, J. and Vernette, E. (2012), Etudes de march!e, 3#e ed., Magnard-Vuibert, Paris.
Glavas, A. and Kelly, K. (2014), “The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee
attitudes”, Business Ethics Quaterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-202.
Gnanzou, D. (2010), RSE et d!eveloppement des populations du Sud : une analyse relative aux OMD
comme cadre d’analyse macro!economique du d!eveloppement, Cahiers de recherche PRISM-
Sorbonne, pp. 1-14, CR-10-33.
Gnanzou, D. and Wamba, S. (2014), “Op!erationnalisation de la RSE dans les entreprises d’Afrique :
retour d’exp!erience #a travers une !etude comparative de deux entreprises industrielles ivoiriennes”,
paper presented at RSE Martinique, 25 – 28 February, Martinique, available at: http://
fossowambasamuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/D.-GNANZOU-et-S.-FOSSO-article-1-
Martinique.pdf (accessed 1 April 2020).
Grayson, K., Johnson, D. and Chen, D.F.R. (2008), “Is firm trust essential in a trusted environment?
How trust in the business context influences customers”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 45, pp. 241-256.
Gritten, A. (2011), “New insights into consumer confidence in financial services”, International Journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 90-106.
Gurviez, P. (1998), “Le r^ole central de la confiance dans la relation consommateur-marque”, Lille Th#ese
(Doctoral Dissertation), Aix-Marseille 3..
Gurviez, P. (2000), “Marque-Consommateur : contrat ou relation de confiance?”, Revue Française du
Marketing, Vol. 176, pp. 31-44.
Gurviez, P. and Korchia, M. (2002), “Proposition d’une !echelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la
confiance dans la marque”, Recherche et Application en Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 41-58.
Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle-River.
Halliburton, C. and Poenaru, A. (2010), The Role of Trust in Consumer Relationship, ESCP Europe
Business School, Paris.
Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, W. and Angermeier, I. (2011), “Corporate social
responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 102, pp. 29-45.
Harrison, J.S. and Wicks, A. (2013), “Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 97-125.
H!erault, S. (2011), La responsabilit!e sociale de l’entreprise et publicit!e: Vers une validation du statut
m!ediateur de l’attitude envers la marque au sein de la relation entre responsabilit!e sociale
de l’entreprise communiquante et la confiance envers la marque, Cahiers de Recherche
PRISM, Sorbonne, Vieira, pp. 1-14, CR-11-06.
Hinson, Madichie, N. and Boateng, R. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility activity reportage on CSR and trust:
bank websites in Ghana”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 498-518.
disaggregated
Homburg, C., Stierl, M. and Bornemann, T. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility in business-to-
business markets: how organizational customers account for supplier corporate social
relations
responsibility engagement”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77, pp. 54-72.
Hurley, R., Gong, X. and Adeela, W. (2014), “Understanding the loss of trust in large banks”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 348-366.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh and Singh, J.J. (2018), “Co-creation: a key link between
corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 163, pp. 151-166.
Jarvinen, R.A. (2014), “Consumer trust in banking relationship in Europe”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 551-566.
Jebarajakirthy, C.P. and Thaichon, P. (2016), “The effects of service quality on internet service
provider customers’ behaviour: a mixed methods study”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 435-463.
Jenkins, H. and Obara, L. (2008), Corporate, Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry-The
Risk of Community Dependency, Queen’s University, Belfast.
Jensen, M.C. (2001), “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function”,
Journal of Applied Finance, pp. 1-17.
Jurevicienne, D. and Skvarciany, V. (2013), “The concept of confidence in bank”, The 7th International
Days of Statistics and Economics.
Kaeokla, P. and Jankengkit, A. (2013), “Exploring the corporate social responsibility reporting. The
case study in Thai listed companies”, African Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 28,
pp. 2794-2800.
Kang, J. and Hustvedt, G. (2014), “Building trust between consumers and corporations: the role of
consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 253-265.
Kantsperger, R. and Kuntz, W. (2010), “Consumer Trust in service companies: a multiple mediating
analysis”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Khalid, S. and Ali, T. (2017), “An integrated perspective of social exchange theory and transaction cost
approach on the antecedents of trust in international joint ventures”, International Business
Review, Vol. 26, pp. 491-501.
Khan, H.A., Zahoor, A. and Irum, S. (2014), “Impacts of corporate social responsibility on employees
behaviour in telecom sector of Pakistan”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6
No. 11, pp. 34-43.
Koufaris, M. and Hampton-Sosa, W. (2002), “Customer Trust online: examining the role of the
experience with the web-site”, CIS Working Paper Series, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch
College, Electronic Publication.
Koufaris, M. and Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004), “The development of initial trust in an online company by
new customers”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 377-397.
Kramer, R.M. (2009), “Rethinking trust”, Havard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 68-77, 113.
Lenka, B. and Jiri, P. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility in commercial banking-a case study from
Czech Republic”, Journal of Competitiveness, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 50-70.
Lings, I. and Greenley, G. (2005), “Measuring internal market orientation”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Lins, K.V., Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A. (2017), “Social capital, trust, and firm performance: the value of
corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. LXXII
No. 4, pp. 1785-1824.
IJBM Lioukas, C.S. and Reuer, J.J. (2015), “Isolating trust outcomes from exchange relationships: social
exchange and learning benefits of prior ties in alliances”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 1826-1847.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R. and Raghunathan, R. (2010), “The sustainability liability:
potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74,
pp. 18-31.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), “A stakeholder model for implementing social
responsibility in marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9-10, pp. 956-977.
Mandhachitara, R. and Poolthong, Y. (2011), “A model of customer loyalty and corporate social
responsibility”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 122-133.
Martinez, P. and Del Bosque, I. (2013), “CSR and customer loyalty: the role of trust, customer
identification with the company and satisfaction”, International Journal of Hospital
Management, Vol. 3, pp. 89-99.
McDonald, L. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility and bank customer
satisfaction: a research agenda”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 170-182.
McShane, L. and Cunningham, P. (2012), “To thine own self Be true? Employees’ judgments of the
authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 108, pp. 81-100.
Mekdessi, S. and Ben Hassen, N. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility in the mena region: challenges
and perspectives”, Paper presented at Colloque International Academy of Management - ISEOR,
France, available at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00762734 (accessed 1 April 2020).
Nienaber, A., Hofeditz, M. and Searle, R. (2014), “Do we banks on regulation or reputation? A meta-
analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 367-407.
Novethic (2012), “RSE et Communication responsable: Pratiques des banques et Assurances
Europ!eennes”, working paper Recherche Novethic, France, November 2012.
Odeyato, T., Adeyemi, A.Z. and Sajuyige, A.S. (2014), “Impact of corporate social responsibility of
Nigeria banks”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,
Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 252-263.
Onyekashi and Okoye (2013), “Impact of corporate social responsibility on the deposit money banks in
Nigeria”, Global Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 71-84.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D.S. and Waldman, D.A. (2011), “Strategic corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability”, Business and Society, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 6-27.
Paine, L.S. (2000), “Does ethics pay?”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 319-330.
Pellizzoni, L. (2005), “Trust, responsability and environmental policy, sociology”, European Societies,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 567-594.
Perez, A. and Del Bosque, I. (2014), “Customer CSR expectations in the banking industry”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 223-244.
Perrien, J., Filiatrault, P. and Ricard, L. (1993), “The Implementation of relationship marketing in
commercial banking”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-148.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E. and Wicks, A.C. (2003), “What stakeholder theory is not”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-502.
Pivato, S., Misani, N. and Tencati, A. (2008), “The impact of corporate social responsibility on
consumer trust: the case of organic food”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Pluchart, J. (2010), La confiance institutionnelle en question, cahiers de recherche PRISM-Sorbonne,
pp. 1-15, CR-10-17.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in CSR and trust:
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. disaggregated
Prior, F. and Argandona, A. (2008), “Best practices in credit accessibility and corporate social
relations
responsibility in financial institutions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, pp. 251-265.
Rahman, M. and Feroz, I. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility practices and private commercial
banks: a case study on Bangladesh”, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 270-275.
Rodic, I. (2007), Responsabilit!e sociale des entreprises-le d!eveloppement d’un cadre europ!een, Institut
europ!een de l’universit!e de Gen#eve, Gen#eve.
Rom!an, S. (2003), “The impact of ethical sales behaviour on customer satisfaction, trust and loyalty to
the company: an empirical study in the financial services industry”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 915-949.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Introduction to special topic forum: not
so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. and Saaeidi, S.A. (2015), “How does Corporate Social
Responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive
advantage, reputation and Customer satisfaction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68,
pp. 341-50.
Sako, M. and Helper, S. (1998), “Determinants of trust in supplier relations”, Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, Vol. 34, pp. 387-417.
Salmones, M.M., Herrero, A., Ignacio, C. and Del Bosque, R. (2005), “Influence of corporate social
responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61,
pp. 369-385.
Scharf, R.E., Fernandes, J. and Kormann, B.D. (2012), “Corporate Social Responsibility to build strong
Brazilian bank brand”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 436-451.
Seifert, B., Morris, S.A. and Bartkus, B.R. (2003), “Comparing big givers and small givers: financial
correlates of corporate philanthropy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 195-211.
Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2007), “Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical
review of the empirical research in 1990–2003”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36,
pp. 249-265.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Slack, R., Corlett, S. and Morris, R. (2015), “Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social
responsibility: a social exchange perspective on organisational participation”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 127, pp. 537-548.
Smith, C., Palazzo, G. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2010), “Marketing’s consequences: stakeholder
marketing and supply chain CSR issues”, Working paper (2010/17/ISIC), INSEAD-Social
Innovation Center.
Spector, P.E. (1985), “Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the job
satisfaction survey”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 693-713.
Swaen, V. and Chumpitaz, R. (2008), “L’impact de la responsabilit!e soci!etale de l’entreprise sur la
confiance des consommateurs”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 7-35.
Toth, Z. (2009), Approaches to Consumer Trust in Banking Sector, with Special Regard to Young
Customers, Budapest Tech KeletiKaroly Faculty of Economics, Budapest.
Trotta, A. and Cavallaro, G. (2012), “Banking reputation and CSR, a stakeholder value approach”,
International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 21-30.
IJBM Tuli, K., Kohli, A.K. and Sundar, B.G. (2007), “Rethinking customer solutions: from product bundles to
relational processes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Van De Walle, I. and Brice, L. (2012), “Pour les consommateurs l’emploi doit ^etre la priorit!e de la
responsabilit!e sociale des entreprises (RSE)”, Working paper n8 Sou2012-3946, CREDOC note de
synth#ese, Paris, November 2012.
Vieira, A. (2011), Interactive Lisrel in Practice, Getting Started with a Simplis Approach, Springer,
Heidelberg, New York.
Walsh and Beatty (2007), “Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale development
and validation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 127-143.
Wilson, A. (2007), “Rising to the challenge: how to develop responsible leaders”, Leadership in Action,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 7-11.
Young-Ybarra, C. and Wiersema, M. (1999), “Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances:
the influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory”, Organization Science,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 439-459.

Further reading
Jenkins, H. and Yakovleva, N. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry:
exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure”, BRASS, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 14 Nos 3-4, pp. 271-284.
Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2001), “Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument: concepts,
evidence, and research directions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3-4, pp. 457-484.
McDonald, L.M. and Lai, C.H. (2011), “Impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on
Taiwanese banking customers”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 50-63.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharia, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 225-244.

Corresponding author
Deogratias Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa can be contacted at: bugandwa.munguakonkwa@ucbukavu.
ac.cd

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com