J Bus Ethics (2017) 140:243–262
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social
Responsibility Following the Sustainable Development Paradigm
Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera1 • Enrique Bigne2 • Joaquı́n Aldas-Manzano2
Rafael Curras-Perez2
Received: 13 October 2014 / Accepted: 7 April 2015 / Published online: 17 April 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract The aim of this research is to develop and
validate a measurement scale for consumer’s perceptions
of corporate social responsibility (CSRConsPerScale) us-
ing the three-dimensional social, environmental and eco-
nomic conceptual approach as a theoretical basis. Based on
the stages of measurement scale creation and validation
suggested by DeVellis (Scale development: theory and
applications, 1991) and supported by Churchill Jr.’s (J
Mark Res 16(1):64–73, 1979) suggestions, five different
empirical studies are developed expressly and applied to
consumers of tourist services. This research involves 1147
real tourists from 24 countries in two different cultural and
geographical contexts. A three-dimensional 18-item scale
is proposed for measuring consumer perceptions of cor-
porate social, environmental and economic responsibilities.
This paper presents the complete development of the scale,
as well as the implications and limitations of the main
findings and the managerial implications.
& Rafael Curras-Perez
rafael.curras-perez@uv.es
Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera
aah@uqroo.edu.mx
Enrique Bigne
enrique.bigne@uv.es
Joaquı́n Aldas-Manzano
joaquin.aldas@uv.es
1
Sustainable Development Division, University of Quintana
Roo, Av. Andrés Quintana Roo (11 Avenida) s/n esquina 110,
77600 Cozumel, Quintana Roo, Mexico
2 CSR on consumer behaviour is the way the construct is
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University
of Valencia, Av. Tarongers s/n. Ed. Dptal. Oriental,
46022 Valencia, Spain
•
Keywords Consumer perceptions
Corporate social
responsibility
Scale development
Structural equation
modelling
Sustainable development
Abbreviations
CSR Corporate social responsibility
SD Sustainable development
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (i.e. CSR) is a topic of
growing academic and management interest (Maon et al.
2010; Peloza and Shang 2011), particularly regarding its
impact on consumer behaviour variables. This is because
consumers tend to employ a company’s CSR image in
purchase and consumption decision making (Du et al. 2011;
Choi and Ng 2011; Trudel and Cotte 2009; Vlachos et al.
2009). Although this statement does not hold for all types of
products or in all segments (Auger et al. 2010; Peloza and
Shang 2011), some internationally recognised companies,
like General Motors, Unilever, Ikea and Avon, seek to po-
sition themselves as socially responsible brands by be-
coming strategically linked to a variety of social causes
including among others sustainable development (i.e. SD),
the fight against the climate change and cancer. Magazines
such as Business Week or Fortune report on firms’ CSR
activities or publish surveys, including Fortune’s ‘‘Amer-
ica’s Most Admired Corporations’’, which include some
CSR-related items (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006).
One of the main limitations of studies on the impact of
measured. The lack of a unified scale for measuring CSR
makes it difficult to compare findings between studies, and
123
244
the vagueness of the concept often leads to contradictory
results (Coles et al. 2013). Thus, reliable instruments are
needed to measure consumer perceptions of a firm’s CSR
(Auger et al. 2010; Green and Peloza 2011; Vlachos et al.
2009).
There have been valuable efforts to develop CSR scales
focused on managers (Aupperle 1984; Chow and Chen
2011), stakeholders (Pérez et al. 2013) and consumers
(Öberseder et al. 2013). These have primarily used the
most successful theoretical approaches to the CSR con-
struct from consumer behaviour researchers: (i) Carroll’s
Pyramid model (1979, 1991), which includes economic,
legal, ethical and discretional dimensions and (ii) the cor-
porate associations notion suggested by Brown and Dacin
(1997), which discriminates between economic and non-
economic aspects, associating the latter with CSR in a one-
dimensional manner.
Both theoretical approaches have significant limitations.
Prior research into CSR perception based on Carroll’s
Pyramid suggests that it does not fit correctly to consumer
perceptions, as they do not manage to discriminate the four
dimensions proposed by the model (Garcı́a de los Salmones
et al. 2005; Alvarado and Shlesinger 2008). In some of the
studies, depending on the cultural context, the economic
dimension of CSR perception even disappears (Maignan
2001; Maignan and Ferrell 2003). The Corporate Asso-
ciations approach cannot be used to discriminate any CSR
dimension because it treats CSR as a holistic perception in
the consumer’s mind. Therefore, some researchers suggest
using different theoretical frameworks for conceptualising
CSR from the consumer perception point of view to miti-
gate the limitations identified above (Maignan 2001;
Maignan and Ferrell 2003).
A few recent papers have progressed in this regard
(Öberseder et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the use of the SD
paradigm (which is capable of meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future gen-
erations to meet their own needs) (WCED 1987) has been
largely neglected despite the fact that it offers a useful
perspective for conceptualising CSR (Choi and Ng 2011;
Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk 2003). Thus, the
main objective of this research is to develop and validate a
measurement scale to serve as a framework for measuring
customer perceptions of CSR activities (CSRConsPerS-
cale) using the SD three-dimensional (economic develop-
ment, social equity and environmental protection)
conceptual approach as a theoretical basis. This develop-
ment rests on the stages of measurement scale creation and
validation suggested by DeVellis (1991) and considers the
methodological aspects recommended by Churchill Jr.
(1979).
This article presents five empirical studies performed to
develop the scale. The studies were applied to tourism
123
A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.
services consumers in two countries (i.e. Spain and Mex-
ico) and for two activities: hotels and natural parks. Mexico
and Spain are among the top 15 world tourism destinations.
Both are highly dependent on international tourism with
different resources and type of tourist products. According
to the latest available data from World Tourism Organi-
zation, Spain was the third largest tourism destination in
2014 with 65 million and Mexico fifteenth in 2013 with
24.2 international tourist arrivals (UNWTO 2015).
An initial qualitative study based on a review of the
literature and the work of a panel of experts was conducted
to generate and then purge the items. An initial quantitative
study of university students in Spain was then conducted to
purge the scale for the first time. Next, we conducted a
mixed-method study (concept mapping, multidimensional
scaling and cluster analysis) with a focus group comprising
consumers of tourism services. The scale was refined and
validated by a second quantitative study among consumers
of hospitality services in Spain. Finally, to replicate and
generalise the scale, a third quantitative study was con-
ducted among natural parks tourists in Mexico. This article
presents and discusses the results of the above studies,
which demonstrate that the CSRConsPerScale is a reliable,
useful, valid and parsimonious instrument to measure
consumer perceptions of CSR in terms of sustainability
perspective. This study also reflects the professional and
academic implications of the CSRConsPerScale and the
main caveats for its extension.
The contributions of this paper to the existing literature
are twofold. First, it attempts to provide a multidimensional
scale for measuring consumer perceptions about CSR
firms’ initiatives. Second, the scale’s dimensions and items
are derived from the SD three-dimensional conceptual
approach: economic, social and environmental dimensions.
Thus, this work adopts a managerial perspective of CSR, as
the scale enables measurement of the consumer’s per-
spective on a firm’s particular strategy (e.g. on environ-
mental matters or in relation to its commitment to the
community). The scale also allows measurement of a
general CSR perspective on the firm because it can be used
to approximate global perception of a firm’s socially re-
sponsible nature (perceived CSR as a second-order
construct).
Theoretical Background
Sustainable Development as a Conceptual
Framework for CSR
The literature provides a wide variety of conceptualisations
of CSR (Garriga and Melé 2004; Peloza and Shang 2011).
Some of these conceptualisations define the businessperson
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm
(Bowen 1953; Davis 1960) as the subject of social re-
sponsibility, whereas others place responsibility on the
organisation as a whole (Carroll 1979; Sethi 1975). Some
conceptions situate CSR as a subversive doctrine (Fried-
man 1962), whereas others present it as the reflection of a
new social contract between firms and society (Bowen
1953; van Marrewijk 2003). Others consider CSR a reac-
tion to the social pressures that firms face (Carroll 1979;
Sethi 1975). Some works posit CSR as voluntary (Jones
1980; van Marrewijk 2003) and others as mandatory
(Bowen 1953; Frederick 1960). In other works, the study of
CSR focuses on the dimensions or areas for which the firm
is responsible (Carroll 1979) or underlines the public to
which the firm must answer (Jones 1980; Maignan et al.
2005).
In summary, there are at least two ideas shared by most
conceptualisations of CSR in academia. First is the as-
sumption that the firm has responsibilities beyond max-
imising profits (Carroll 1979; Davis 1960). The second idea
is linked to the first and maintains that the firm is not only
accountable to its owners, but also to other stakeholders
(Frederick 1960; Jones 1980; van Marrewijk 2003).
For some researchers, CSR differs from theoretical ap-
proaches such as Carroll’s Pyramid (1979, 1991) and
Corporate Associations (Brown and Dacin 1997); the use
of another framework might solve some of their main
limitations (Maignan 2001; Maignan and Ferrell 2003). As
indicated, the SD paradigm is a theoretical framework
particularly suitable for studying CSR. However, the aca-
demic community has largely neglected it (Choi and Ng
2011; Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk 2003), prob-
ably because it can be difficult to implement at organisa-
tional level (Garriga and Melé 2004).
The term sustainable development was conceived for a
macrolevel that ‘‘calls for a convergence between the three
pillars of economic development, social equity, and envi-
ronmental protection’’ (Drexhage and Murphy 2010, p. 2).
In other words, it is a hypernorm that offers universal
principles but demands attention at organisational level to
convert the traditional ‘‘baseline’’ of economic profitability
into the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ (Garriga and Melé 2004) and
develop CSR strategies and actions that are more tangible
and easy to assess for consumers (Öberseder et al. 2014).
This is because CSR reflects the highest expectations of
citizens, consumers and investors concerning economic
growth, social cohesion and environmental protection
(Eberhard-Harribey 2006).
Thus, a useful definition of CSR for this paper is ‘‘a
firm’s commitment to maximise long-term economic, soci-
etal and environmental well-being through business prac-
tices, policies and resources’’ (Du et al. 2011, p. 1). The
definition is appropriate because it allows identification of
CSR dimensions directly from the SD model and its
245
sustainable-centred rationality translates to management
and operative objectives (Kakabadse and Rozuel 2006).
This definition grants the operationalisation of consumer
perception of CSR business practices, policies and re-
sources related to economic, societal and environmental
dimensions. In this same vein, it supports the idea that CSR
is a multidimensional reflective construct whose three di-
mensions—economic development (ECO), social equity
(SOC) and environmental protection (ENV)—correspond
to SD dimensions (van Marrewijk 2003).
Measurement of Consumer Perceptions of CSR
The idea that the firm has more than economic and tech-
nical responsibilities is based on the assumption that the
firm is also accountable to other groups with interests
different from those of shareholders (Jones 1980; van
Marrewijk 2003). However, the scarce literature on CSR
scales from the consumer perspective is due to the or-
ganisational behavioural approach that has focused on firm
managers as stakeholders (Quazi and O’Brien 2000; Turker
2009a). Approaches to CSR from the perspective of other
stakeholders (i.e. employees or consumers) have increased
over the years (Turker 2009b), leading to a myriad of focal
points. However, a gap in measurements from the customer
perspective remains to be filled (Öberseder et al. 2013,
2014) and is therefore the focus of this paper.
The early works in the 1970s tended to analyse criteria
for the demographic and psychographic segmentation of
the socially responsible consumer (Anderson Jr. and Cun-
ningham 1972; Kinnear et al. 1974). Since then, works
focusing on the CSR-consumer binomial have mainly
concentrated on understanding how CSR perceptions in-
fluence the cognitive, affective and behavioural responses
of consumers to the firm. For example, CSR perceptions
have been shown to have a positive impact on various types
of responses, such as brand reputation (Brammer and
Millington 2005), firm credibility (Lafferty 2007), con-
sumer–company identification (Marı́n and Ruiz 2007; Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001), the consumer’s purchase intention
(Trudel and Cotte 2009) and attitude towards the firm
(Brown and Dacin 1997; Du et al. 2011; Sen and Bhat-
tacharya 2001).
However, the literature review on this topic revealed a
lack of a homogeneous conceptualisation of CSR from the
consumer behaviour perspective (Green and Peloza 2011)
and, in particular, a lack of solid measurement instruments
for corroborating the reliability and validity of scales used
to measure consumer perceptions of CSR. Most studies
operationalise CSR perceptions in a unidimensional man-
ner based on the notion of corporate associations proposed
by Brown and Dacin (1997). These authors distinguished
two types of associations perceived by consumers in
123
246
relation to the firm (i.e. corporate associations): corporate
ability (CA) associations, which refer to the firm’s expe-
rience in producing and delivering products and services
(mainly technical and economic); and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR associations, which are ‘‘the reflection
of a firm’s status and activities with regard to its perceived
social obligations’’ (p. 68) that correspond to non-eco-
nomic issues. This approach facilitates the operationalisa-
tion of consumer perceptions of CSR and is therefore
useful in causal studies seeking to understand its relation-
ship with other attitudinal or behavioural variables. The
notion of CSR associations, however, is too general an
approach (and could even be considered a naı̈ve approach)
to the CSR construct, as it does not permit discrimination
between different dimensions of CSR, thereby losing the
richness of the concept and distancing itself from content
validity.
In this context, a few works have assumed the multidi-
mensional nature of the CSR construct from the consumer
behaviour perspective or have carried out methodological
processes for creating and validating scales to measure the
construct for this group of stakeholders. Tables 1 and 2
summarise the conceptual and technical characteristics of
the six scales identified from the literature to measure
consumer perceptions of CSR from a multidimensional
perspective in the moment this stage was carried out, all
with a quantitative nature.
As can be seen, a group of works analyse whether
consumers perceptually discriminate economic, legal,
ethical and philanthropic responsibilities based on Carroll’s
(1979, 1991) conceptualisation, whereas the works of
Maignan (2001), Maignan and Ferrell (2003), David et al.
(2005), Garcı́a de los Salmones et al. (2005) and Alvarado
and Shlesinger (2008) have repeatedly shown that the
conception of CSR in Carroll’s (1979, 1991) four dimen-
sions does not adequately reflect consumers’ minds. The
general conclusion is that economic responsibility does not
appear to form a part of the CSR construct for consumers,
underlining the idea that CSR is not about making a profit
for these stakeholders.
Furthermore, some studies based on the theoretical no-
tions of SD suggest that consumers are able to discriminate
the three dimensions of the CSR construct (Bigne et al.
2005; Singh et al. 2007); therefore, its use is justified in
accordance with the literature. This finding is particularly
true in the case of tourism (the sector chosen as the study
context) because the industry offers three advantages: (i) it
enables the inclusion of a heterogeneous group of inter-
viewees comprising individuals of different nationalities;
(ii) the industry’s main agents (e.g. hotels, airlines) are
active in CSR activities (Sheldon and Park 2011); and (iii)
SD and the triple bottom line is the development paradigm
adopted by the World Tourism Organization (2004).
123
A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.
Scale Development: CSRConsPerScale
The methodological process for developing the
CSRConsPerScale follows DeVellis’ (1991) proposal.
Furthermore, the chosen procedure was adapted following
the recommendations from Churchill Jr. (1979, 1999) and
Malhotra and Birks (2007), including a mixed-method
study. The following sections present each of the five
empirical studies and their main results (see Table 3).
Study 1: Scale Generation and Initial Purification
Item Generation
Following Cadogan et al. (1999), the six scales identified in
the literature measuring the same construct were analysed to
generate potential items for the new scale (see Table 1). A
total of 73 items were initially identified. First, we eliminated
the unnecessary items following Shimp and Sharma’s (1987)
key elimination criteria: (i) double argument, (ii) connotations
conditioning the respondent’s answer, (iii) ambiguity, (iv)
implicit assumptions and (v) relation to more than one SD
dimension. Of the 73 items, five were deleted and 68 were
retained for the next methodological phase.
Expert Review
A panel of experts scrutinised the list of generated items to
establish the scale’s content validity (DeVellis 1991).
Following Ouellet (2007), the panel comprised six ex-
perts—three PhD and three advanced PhD students with
the following profile: (i) university education at the post-
graduate level in business, (ii) in-depth marketing knowl-
edge, (iii) well-versed in the subject matter of CSR and (iv)
experience applying the scientific method.
The experts’ opinions addressed item elimination fo-
cused on redundancy, uncorrelation, content ambiguity
(Hardesty and Bearden 2004) and scale representativeness
of the construct (Zaichkowsky 1985). The expert review
resulted in a list of 25 items, nine corresponding to the
dimension SOC, seven to ENV and nine to ECO. The re-
fined list was used to develop a scale for testing in the pilot
questionnaire in the next stage.
Initial Determination of the Measurement Format
At this stage, we employed a metric using the Likert scale
with no neutral point and six response points. Avoiding a
neutral option eliminates the ‘‘easy way out’’ (Churchill Jr.
1999, p. 343) by preventing respondents from consciously
seeking a non-definition (Cox III 1980) and forcing them to
make a choice. General scales with a neutral point are less
reliable than those without (Churchill Jr. and Peter 1984).
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm
Table 1 Conceptual characteristics of measurement scales for consumer perception of CSR and its dimensions
Research and scale name
Maignan (2001), Maignan
and Ferrell (2003)
Corporate social
responsibilities
Garcı́a de los Salmones
et al. (2005)
CSRa dimensions
David et al. (2005)
Personal importance (and
perceived performance)
of CSR action
Bigne et al. (2005)
Elements perceived by
consumers as integral to
CSR
Singh et al. (2007)
Corporate social
responsibility Scale
Alvarado and Shlesinger
(2008)
CSR dimensions
a
Although Garcı́a de los Salmones et al. (2005) tried to obtain the four dimensions established by Carroll (1979 and 1999) using Maignan’s
items (2001), their CFA indicated that the legal and ethical dimensions were in fact a single factor that they called the ethical–legal dimension. In
addition, a second-order CFA indicated that, according to their results, the economic dimension was not perceived by consumers as a component
of CSR
247
Method Conception Dimension(s) of the scale and what it/they Reference framework for
attempt(s) to measure the dimension(s)
Survey Reflective Economic Importance a consumer attributes to the Carroll’s Model (1979 and
economic dimension of CSR 1999)
Legal Importance a consumer attributes to the legal
dimension of CSR
Ethical Importance a consumer attributes to the
ethical dimension of CSR
Philanthropic Importance a consumer attributes to
the discretional dimension of CSR
Survey Reflective Economic Users’ opinion of what the firm does Carroll’s Model (1979 and
about its social responsibility in the economic 1999)
arena
Ethical–legal Users’ opinion of what the firm does
about its social responsibility in the ethical–legal
arena
Philanthropic Users’ opinion of what the firm does
about its social responsibility in the discretional
field
Survey Reflective Moral-Ethical Personal importance attributed to the Adapted from Carroll’s
moral and ethical aspects of CSR activities and the Model (1979 and 1999)
firm’s perceived performance
Discretional Personal importance attributed to the
discretionary aspects of CSR activities and the
firm’s perceived performance
Discretional Personal importance attributed to the
relational aspects of CSR activities and the firm’s
perceived performance
Survey Reflective Social Consumer perception of socially responsible Sustainable development
firms in relation to certain social practices
Economic Consumer perception of socially
responsible firms in relation to certain economic
practices
Environmental Consumer perception of socially
responsible firms in relation to certain
environmental practices
Survey Reflective Commercial Consumer perception of socially Carroll’s Model (1979 and
responsible firms in relation to their creation of 1999)
value in commercial terms
Ethical Users’ opinion of what the firm does about
its social responsibility in the ethical arena
Social Consumer perception of socially responsible
firms in relation to certain social practices
Survey Reflective Economic Users’ opinion of what the firm does Carroll’s Model (1979 and
about its social responsibility in the economic 1999)
arena
Ethical–legal Users’ opinion of what the firm does
about its social responsibility in the ethical–legal
arena
Philanthropic Users’ opinion of what the firm does
about its social responsibility in the discretional
field
123
 Table 2 Technical characteristics of scales for measuring consumer perception of CSR
248

Research Dimension Type of scale: # Reliability Statistical Validity Sample Population Sector Country(ies)
items, # points technique and size

123
per item goodness of fit

Maignan (2001) Economic Likert: 4 items, a1 = .81 EFA; not specified Not specified 408 Consumers Not specified France, Germany
and Maignan and 3 points a2 = .95 and USA
Ferrell (2003)a
a3 = .86
Legal Likert: 4 items, a1 = .92
3 points a2 = .91
a3 = .90
Ethical Likert: 4 items, a1 = .91
3 points a2 = .96
a3 = .92
Philanthropic Likert: 4 items, a1 = .82
3 points a2 = .95
a3 = .93
Garcı́a de los Economic Likert: 3 items, a = .74 CFA; NFI = .90; Convergent and 689 Consumers Services (Mobile Spain
Salmones et al. 7 points IFC = .77 NNFI = .89; discriminant telephony)
(2005)b GFI = .94;
Ethical–legal Likert: 4 items, a = .75
AGFI = .90;
7 points IFC = .76 RMSEA = .08
Philanthropic Likert: 4 items, a = .73
7 points IFC = .73
David et al. Moral-Ethics Likert: 5 items; a = .84 EFA; not specified Not specified 176 Degree students Three from the USA
(2005)c 10 points a1 = .78 familiar with CSR consumer goods
sector and one
a2 = .81
fast food restaurant
a3 = .76
a4 = .82
Discretional Likert: 4 items; a = .86
10 points a1 = .86
a2 = .83
a3 = .77
a4 = .88
Relational Likert: 2 items; r = .48
10 points r1 = .35
r2 = .50
r3 = .40
r4 = .22
A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.
 Table 2 continued
Research Dimension Type of scale: # Reliability Statistical Validity Sample Population Sector Country(ies)
items, # points technique and size
per item goodness of fit

Bigne et al. Social Likert: 6 items; a = Not EFA; Expl. Not specified 418 Students Goods (Shoes and Argentina, Chile,
(2005)d 10 points specified; variance = 60 %; Consumers deodorant) Spain and
Economic Likert: 2 items; KMO = .81 Portugal
10 points
Environmental Likert: 4 items;
10 points
Singh et al. Commercial Likert:4 items, a1 = .79 CFA;[Spain] Convergent and 148 [Spain] Consumers Goods.Dairy products Spain and UK
(2007)e 10 points IFC = .80 NFI = .86 NNFI = .88 discriminant 144 [UK] (Danone), soft
CFI = .90 IFI = .90 drinks (Coca Cola),
a2 = .78
RMSEA = .06 cereals (Kellogg’s)
IFC = .80 and toothpaste
Social Likert: 4 items, a = .77; (Colgate)
10 points IFC = .76
a2 = .78
IFC = .81
Environmental Likert: 4 items, a = .77 [UK]
10 points IFC = .77 NFI = .85 NNFI = .86
a2 = .84 CFI = .88 IFI = .88;
RMSEA = .07
IFC = .83
Alvarado Economic Likert: 3 items, a = .70 CFA; NNFI = .93 Convergent and 358 Students Services (Mobile Spain
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm

and Shlesinger 7 points IFC = .76 CFI = .95 IFI = .95 discriminant consumers telephony)
(2008) MFI = .91 RMSEA = .04
Ethical–legal Likert: 4 items, a = .63
7 points IFC = .68
Philanthropic Likert: 4 items, a = .69
7 points IFC = .69
a
Coefficients a1, a2 and a3 refer to the French, German and US markets, respectively
b
Validity: Convergent for significant items p \.05 and standardised loads [.50; Discriminant: confidence interval
c
Coefficient a refers to the personal importance attributed, and coefficients a1, a2, a3 and a4 refer to the firms Microsoft, Nike, Wendy’s and Phillip Morris, respectively; in the case of Pearson’s
r, the information is shown with the same logic
d
Although a coefficients are not specified, they report that the items were purged taking into account the anti-image matrix (SMA) and its factorial loads
e
Coefficients a1 and a2 refer to the Spanish and English markets, respectively
249

123
250 A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

Table 3 Methodological process for scale development

Study Aim Approach Country/sample’s size Research method(s) and technique(s) Main expected
outcome(s)

One Generation and Qualitative Spain and Mexico/N = 6 Literature review and panel of experts Specification of
initial experts on CSR construct domain
purification Generation of sample/
pool of dimensions
and items
Evaluation of content
validity
Determination of the
format for
measurement
Two Preliminary Quantitative Spain/N = 185 university Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Initial reliability and
measure students users of tourism validity assessment
assessment services
Three Refinement and Mixed Spain/N = 14 national and Concept mapping; multidimensional Enhanced items and
validation international tourism scaling and cluster analysis of focus dimensions
services’ users group results
Four Additional Quantitative Spain/N = 462 national and Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Refined and validated
testing of the international tourists on visit scale
scale
Five Final replication Quantitative Mexico/N = 440 national and Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Validated and
and international tourists on visit generalsed
generalisation CSRConsPerScale

Study 2: Preliminary Measure Assessment
Sample and Procedure
In the following stage, we tested for scale reliability to
detect poor item performance. The questionnaire was
pretested in a pilot study on 17 members from the uni-
versity community, resulting in minor changes to some
items. As this was the early stage of scale development, we
decided to use a convenience sample of university students
from a variety of disciplines at two Spanish universities,
who had used tourism services recently. Interviewees were
chosen in two stages: First, 50 % of quotas were estab-
lished for gender and university, and second, interviewees
were randomly selected at their schools. The instrument
was administered to 204 individuals; 19 respondents were
eliminated because they failed to answer items or had a
tendency to answer yes or no to everything (Churchill Jr.
1979). The final 185 respondents included a balanced
number of women (50.3 %) and men (49.7 %) with an
average age of 22.4 years. All respondents were Spanish.
Data Analysis and Results
We ran confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to detect items
that threatened convergent validity because of low stan-
dardised loadings or high Lagrange Multipliers (Cadogan
et al. 1999; Fornell and Larcker 1981). As a result, 11 items
(Soc6, Soc7, Soc8, Soc9, Env7, Eco1, Eco2, Eco3, Eco7,
Eco8 and Eco9) were identified as candidates for
elimination. Table 4 shows the results of each CFA and the
provisional decisions adopted.
The provisional consecutive exclusion of each item
identified as a candidate for elimination not only grants a
better statistical fit to the model, but also has theoretical
justification (Bagozzi 1981). The provisional purging of the
scale was detained to determine Cronbach’s a coefficients
for each factor using the retained items and calculate the
corresponding CR and AVE (see Table 5).
As observed, even with the elimination of the above-
mentioned items, the new values of Cronbach’s a and
composite reliability support scale reliability. However, the
AVE results show some deficiencies in the ECO and SOC
dimensions, suggesting the need for a new qualitative
phase to improve the scale.
Study 3: Scale Refinement and Validation (Mixed-
Method Study)
According to previous results, it was decided to carry out
the mixed-method study based on concept mapping (Tro-
chim 1989), which generates concept maps using multidi-
mensional scaling (i.e. MDS) and cluster analysis derived
from focus group results. This technique has been applied
to consumers (Joiner 1998), brands (John et al. 2006) and
travel agencies in the tourism setting (Bigne et al. 2002).

123
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm 251

Table 4 CFAs for the preliminary analysis of the initial purging of the proposed scale
AFC Item SL S-B0 ad hoc goodness-of-fit indicators FA D Expected Decision taken
in S-B with
NFI NNFI CFI IFI RMSEA elimination
of the item

1 Eco1 .315 586.68*** (272 df) .607 .709 .736 .742 .080 Soc -22.543*** Provisional elimination
2 Eco7 .519 534.43*** (249 df) .625 .725 .752 .757 .079 Env -21.34*** Provisional elimination
3 Soc7 .425 476.27*** (227 df) .647 .747 .773 .778 .078 Eco -13.49*** Provisional elimination
4 Eco2 .532 420.99*** (206 df) .668 .768 .793 .798 .076 Soc -9.282*** Provisional elimination
5 Soc8 .244 377.90*** (186 df) .678 .775 .801 .806 .075 NA NA Provisional elimination
6 Soc9 .336 324.40*** (167 df) .706 .804 .828 .832 .072 Eco -4.061* Provisional elimination
7 Eco9 .376 249.51*** (149 df) .751 .861 .879 .882 .061 Env -5.132* Provisional elimination
8 Soc6 .370 206.58*** (132 df) .779 .890 .905 .907 .056 NA NA Provisional elimination
9 Eco3 .472 161.93** (116 df) .812 .926 .937 .939 .045 NA NA Provisional elimination
10 Eco8 .454 135.29* (101 df) .831 .940 .950 .951 .043 NA NA Provisional elimination
11 Env7 .516 123.05** (87 df) .834 .932 .943 .945 .048 NA NA Provisional elimination
12 Soc1 .688 94.42 (74 df) .859 .957 .965 .966 .039 Eco -5.61* End of provisional
purging process
CFA consecutive number of CFA, SL standardised loading, S-B0 S-B with the item loading to the factor it should theoretically load to, FA
additional factor to which the item could load according to the Lagrange Multipliers test, NA not applicable (used when the elimination criterion
was that SL \ .60)
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 5 Reliabilities by dimension after preliminary optimisation of As expected, 24 of the 25 items considered in the pre-
the scale (Study 2) liminary questionnaire and group dynamics showed strong
Dimension Cronbach’s a CR AVE tendencies to group in their corresponding dimensions
anticipated by the theory and expert review. The exception
Social equity .725 .729 .352
was item Eco9 (sponsorship of sporting events), adding
Environmental protection .857 .858 .507
further evidence of its erratic behaviour. Garcı́a de los
Economic development .710 .726 .479
Salmones et al. (2005) first proposed that the item belonged
CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted to the SOC dimensions, but the empirical results of their
study did not support that proposal. Therefore, item Eco9
was eliminated from the scale, and the dimensions SOC,
Sample and Procedure ENV and ECO were integrated for further empirical testing
with items Soc1–Soc9, Env1–Env7 and Eco1–Eco8,
The focus group comprised 14 consumers of tourism ser- respectively.
vices. After the participants sorted the items individually,
generated groups were shown to the participants. They
reached a consensus by merging the different groups or Drafting Improvements and Determination of the New
reassigning items to different groups (see Trochim 1989 for Measurement Format
details of the methodological process).
When the participants reached a consensus on the items,
Data Analysis and Results groups and composition, they were asked to propose
improvements to the items to eliminate ambiguities and
The ALSCAL algorithm was used to construct the concept reaffirm the belonging of each to its resulting dimension.
map obtained from the MDS analysis because it is the most The suggested improvements were studied carefully and
appropriate algorithm for the type of data. The resulting incorporated in the final drafting. The main suggestion
concept map, shown in Fig. 1, provides a very good fit: was to use a 7-point Likert scale, as some focus group
Stress1 = .0156 (Kruskal 1964); S-Stress1 = .0062 participants believed that consumers should not neces-
(Takane et al. 1977) and RSQ = .9994 (Schiffman et al. sarily have to agree or disagree with the statements
1981). The cluster analysis was hierarchical, and the so- contained in the items, making a neutral response point
lution was determined following Ward’s method. more desirable.

123
252
Indicator Calculated value
Stress1
S-Stress1
R2
Fig. 1 Concept mapping of Corporate Social Responsibility dimensions (Study 3)
Study 4: Testing the Refined Scale (Tourists
in Spain)
Sample and Procedure
The next methodological stage was conducted to refine and
validate the scale derived from the previous stage. We car-
ried out a new empirical study focused on the updated items
derived from the non-representative sample used in the
previous stage (Study 3). Due to the scale’s advanced de-
velopmental stage and because it was a second approach for
validation, we decided to work with a representative sample
of tourism consumers visiting the Spanish Mediterranean. A
random sampling plan was developed using three Spanish
urban tourism destinations ranked in the top 10 most visited
(Alicante, Barcelona and Valencia) as sampling points. The
sample size of 480 interviewees with a confidence level of
95 % (z = 1.96) and error less than ±5 % (e \ .046) was
considered appropriate. Of the 480 questionnaires, 18 were
discarded because of missing data or because they had been
answered unthinkingly, deriving a final sample of 462 tour-
ists without any significant impact on the anticipated confi-
dence levels or estimation error. The final sample comprised
59.3 % of men and 43.7 of women: 32 % were in the age
range of 18–30, 28.8 % in the range of 31–40 and 39.2 %
over 40. Of the respondents, 49.8 % were Spanish, 50.2 %
were foreign tourists and 77.3 % were employed. The av-
erage duration of stay was 3.5 days, and 60.4 % travelled by
plane to the tourist destination.
123
A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.
Critical value exceeded Fit
.0156 .025 Excellent
.0062 .025 Excellent
.9994 .600 Very good
Assessment of the Items and Determination of Reliability
Based on data from the 462 valid questionnaires, the op-
eration of each item on the scale was assessed with an
initial determination of its reliability (DeVellis 1991).
Table 6 shows the results of Pearson’s correlation coeffi-
cients, average and standard deviation of the items for each
CSR dimension and Cronbach’s a coefficient calculated
from all the items initially considered in each factor.
As shown, average values of the items remained
relatively close to the other means for the indicators of the
group to which they belonged, and all the relations were
significant at a level of p \ .01 in relation to the other
items belonging to each group. Simple reliabilities (Cron-
bach’s a) for each dimension exceeded the acceptable
value of .80 for consolidated scales (Malhotra and Birks
2007; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994); therefore, it was
considered appropriate to continue with the analysis.
To determine the composed reliability indices and
variances extracted and to analyse the purging of the scale,
the same procedure followed in the first quantitative study
was adopted. Several first-order CFAs were run, and the
items that significantly affected scale fit were eliminated.
To avoid conditions incompatible with the convergent va-
lidity of the scale, the CFA results led to the definitive
elimination of items Soc2 and Soc5 because their stan-
dardised loads were below .60 (kSoc2 = .567 and
kSoc5 = .534) (Cadogan et al. 1999; Fornell and Larcker
1981). This was important because incompatibility would
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm 253

Table 6 Correlations, mean, standard deviation and Cronbach’s a for each dimension (Study 4)
Soc1 Soc2 Soc3 Soc4 Soc5 Soc6 Soc7 Soc8 Soc9

Social equity dimension (a = .923)

Soc1 4.83 (1.27)
Soc2 .431** 5.45 (1.00)
Soc3 .801** .405** 4.97 (1.28)
Soc4 .518** .624** .568** 5.39 (1.14)
Soc5 .279** .609** .270** .605** 5.56 (1.07)
Soc6 .678** .465** .736** .613** .442** 5.21 (1.20)
Soc7 .714** .467** .706** .615** .412** .828** 5.07 (1.24)
Soc8 .659** .462** .630** .623** .461** .730** .812** 5.10 (1.21)
Soc9 .429** .483** .453** .556** .522** .580** .595** .652** 5.42 (1.11)
Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Env6 Env7

Environmental protection dimension (a = .946)

Env1 5.25 (1.07)
Env2 .427** 5.39 (1.08)
Env3 .435** .451** 5.40 (1.11)
Env4 .552** .415** .429** 5.47 (1.03)
Env5 .590** .418** .443** .599** 5.41 (1.04)
Env6 .734** .468** .432** .498** .601** 5.52 (1.09)
Env7 .353** .237** .387** .456** .470** .358** 5.44 (1.09)

Eco1 Eco2 Eco3 Eco4 Eco5 Eco6 Eco7 Eco8

Economic development dimension (a = .959)

Eco1 5.52 (1.08)
Eco2 .766** 5.58 (1.06)
Eco3 .706** .779** 5.59 (1.04)
Eco4 .711** .721** .750** 5.60 (1.07)
Eco5 .700** .737** .753** .789** 5.58 (1.07)
Eco6 .701** .681** .719** .753** .798** 5.56 (1.09)
Eco7 .740** .726** .738** .764** .780** .831** 5.59 (1.08)
Eco8 .685** .782** .747** .711** .752** .756** .820** 5.62 (1.06)

The diagonal shows the mean and standard deviation for each variable
** Significant correlation for p \ .01

affect scale operation. Table 7 shows Cronbach’s a for
each factor using the remaining items and the corre-
sponding CR and AVE, and also presents the results for the
corresponding second-order CFA, where the reflective
concept perceived CSR was considered in the hypothesised
terms.
As shown, elimination of the aforementioned items
barely affected the value adopted by Cronbach’s a for the
social dimension and in all cases supported instrument
reliability by exceeding the minimum expected value of .80
for consolidated scales (Malhotra and Birks 2007; Nun-
nally and Bernstein 1994). Moreover, all the CR values
exceeded the .70 threshold and supported the reliability of
the measurement instrument. The AVE results exceeded
the critical value of .50 established for this conservative
criterion (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Scale Length and Determination of Validity
The aim of this stage of scale development was twofold.
First, we sought to reduce scale length to an optimum point
and, second, to determine instrument validity. In all cases,
a balance between the length of the scale making it easy to
administer, scale reliability (DeVellis 1991) and validity
indicators at appropriate levels guided our goals. Conse-
quently, we assessed the validity of the scale in terms of
content, convergence, discriminant and nomological
validity.

123
254 A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

Table 7 The first- and second-order CFA results and psychometric properties of CSRConsPerScale (Study 4)
Scale Factor k (2 CFA) t value Item Reliability Convergent validity
a CR AVE k (std.) t value ks (mean)

Perceived CSR .874 (mean) .907 .766

Social equity .856*** 13.06 Soc1 .926 .929 .652 .78# #
.803
Soc3 .79*** 29.69
Soc4 .71*** 11.42
Soc6 .88*** 22.32
Soc7 .91*** 22.54
Soc8 .87*** 17.75
Soc9 .67*** 8.48
# #
Environmental protection .955*** 13.79 Env1 .946 .947 .718 .79 .847
Env2 .88*** 27.34
Env3 .83*** 23.26
Env4 .86*** 18.42
Env5 .87*** 19.32
Env6 .86*** 19.21
Env7 .85*** 18.60
Economic development .809*** 13.66 Eco1 .959 .959 .747 .82# #
.864
Eco2 .85*** 33.32
Eco3 .86*** 28.22
Eco4 .86*** 27.91
Eco5 .88*** 26.49
Eco6 .87*** 27.03
Eco7 .90*** 26.06
Eco8 .87*** 25.97
2
Goodness-of-fit indicators Discriminant validity. AVE, Corr and confidence intervals
Social Environmental Economic

S-B v2 (206 df) = 495.67** Social .652 .471*** .375***

NFI = .89
NNFI = .92 Environmental [.508–.864] .718 .333***
CFI = .93 Economic [.452–.772] [.427–.727] .747
IFI = .93
RMSEA = .06 The diagonal shows the values of the variance extracted indexes, below the diagonal the confidence intervals for
each pair of factors and above the diagonal the squares of the inter-factor correlation coefficients

k Standardised load
*** p \ .001
#
Not estimated because it was used to identify the model

Content validity refers to the degree to which a mea-
sure adequately reflects the different aspects of the phe-
nomenon being studied (Malhotra and Birks 2007). This
type of validity is fundamentally subjective (Malhotra and
Birks 2007) and cannot be guaranteed a priori because
construct consistency with the conceptual framework
from which it stems is given by the theory, appropriate
literature review and expert opinion (Churchill Jr. 1999).
As already noted, the methodological process chosen for
developing the scale included a stage for ensuring content
validity, which is considered to have been achieved in
light of the literature review and the results of Studies 1,
2 and 3.
Convergent validity of the CSRConsPerScale was de-
termined using goodness-of-fit criteria for the measurement
model, significance and direction of factor loading for the
items and the means of standardised loads on each factor.
Table 7 shows that goodness-of-fit indicators for the
CSRConsPerScale were adequate (NFI = .89; NNFI =
.92; CFI = .93; IFI = .93; RMSEA = .06).

123
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm 255

Table 8 Correlation of
Dimension Mean Validation item Mean Correlation coefficient
measures of the perceived CSR
dimensions with validation Pearson Spearman
items
Social equity 5.14 G_Soc1 5.38 .600** .575**
G_Soc2 5.39 .628** .577**
Environmental protection 5.41 G_Env1 5.40 .699** .660**
G_Env2 5.47 .707** .642**
Economic development 5.58 G_Eco1 5.44 .705** .635**
G_Eco2 5.47 .676** .609**
** p \ .01

Table 7 also shows that the factor loadings for all the
items were significant and positive in relation to their
factors (Churchill Jr. 1979), thereby indicating the con-
vergent validity of the model. Similarly, the means for the
standardised loads on each factor were high, significant and
exceeded the cut-off points of .70 and .50 (Fornell and
Larcker 1981), providing good indications of convergent
validity. In short, joint interpretation of the above criteria
makes it possible to state that the ongoing scale has con-
vergent validity.
Discriminant validity was tested using the difference test
and the confidence interval test for the correlation among
constructs (Anderson and Gerbing 1988) and the Fornell
and Larcker (1981) criterion, which compares AVE with
the squared correlation between constructs. Table 7 shows
that no evidence of problems with discriminant validity
arose from the results.
Nomological validity is shown if the scale correlates in the
theoretically anticipated form with the measures of different
but theoretically related concepts (Malhotra and Birks 2007).
To determine the nomological validity of our scale, six general
items were included in the questionnaire, two for the SOC
dimension (G_Soc1 and G_Soc2), two for ENV (G_Env1 and
G_Env2) and two for ECO (G_Eco1 and G_Eco2).
Table 8 shows the correlation coefficients between the
mean values of the responses in each considered dimension
and the contrast items. As can be seen, in all cases, the
correlations were strong, positive and significant (p \ .01)
thereby establishing the nomological validity of the scale
being developed according to the criterion (Shimp and
Sharma 1987).
Figure 2 shows the results of the second-order CFA for
Study 4.
Study 5: Replication and Generalisation (Tourists
in Mexico)
To refine and purge the CSRConsPerScale for addressing
generalisation, we conducted a third quantitative study in a
different country. Replication in geographical, sociocul-
tural and tourism service environments different from those
used for the previous quantitative studies (Studies 3 and 4)
will grant potential generalisation.
Sample and Procedure
A representative sample of tourists visiting the Mexican
Caribbean was chosen for the sample. A random sampling
plan was developed using three natural parks equipped
with appropriate infrastructures and tourist services, and
adopting three sampling points on the Yucatan Peninsula
(X’cacel-Xcacelito, Chankanaab and Faro Celerain-Punta
Sur). The sample size of 440 showed an estimation error of
less than ±4.5 % (e \ .047) with p = q = .50. The final
sample was 53.6 % of women and 46.4 % of men: 56.1 %
were in the age range of 16–35, 26.8 % were in the range
of 36–45 and 17 % were over 45. Americans comprised
64.2 % and Mexicans 20 %; 64.3 % were employed and
40.5 % came by cruise to the destination.
Data Analysis and Results
The operation of each item in the scale was evaluated, and
simple reliabilities were determined for each of the three
factors. Table 9 shows the results for Pearson’s correlation
coefficients, averages and standard deviations of the items
for each CSR dimension and Cronbach’s a coefficients cal-
culated from all the items initially considered in each factor.
Four new first-order CFA analyses were run for a
definitive purging of the scale, which led to the elimination
of items Soc9, Env3, Eco1 and Eco5: the first two because
of convergent validity problems (kSoc9 = .559, kEn-
v3 = .567) and the other two because of discriminant va-
lidity problems (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Then we ran a
new second-order CFA (Fig. 3). The results (Table 10)
permitted reasonable recognition (in general terms and
with the same tests and criteria followed in Studies 2 and 4)
of the convergent and discriminant validity of the
CSRConsPerScale in the context of Study 5. The above
analysis supported the scale’s external validity and its
usefulness as a valid parsimonious instrument in the terms
discussed in the following section.

123
256 A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

ESoc1 .621*** Soc1

.784#

ESoc3 .608*** Soc3

.794***
ESoc4 .700*** Soc4 .714***

ESoc6 .473*** Soc6 .881*** SOC

.911***
ESoc7 .413*** Soc7
.866***
.500*** .518***
ESoc8 Soc8
.674***
.856***
ESoc9 .739*** Soc9 DSoc

EEnv1 .617*** Env1

.787#
EEnv2 .482*** Env2
.876***
EEnv3 .563*** Env3 .826***

.506***
Perceived
EEnv4 Env4 .863*** ENV .955***
CSR
.866***
EEnv5 .501*** Env5
.862***
EEnv6 .508*** Env6 .297**
.848***
EEnv7 .530*** Env7
DEnv

EEco1 .568*** Eco1

.823# .809***
EEco2 .525*** Eco2
.851***
EEco3 .517*** Eco3
.856***
EEco4 .510*** Eco4 .860***
ECO
.476*** .880***
EEco5 Eco5
.872***
EEco6 .489*** Eco6 .898***
.588***
EEco7 .440*** Eco7 .871***
DEco
EEco8 .491*** Eco8

Fig. 2 The second-order CFA for Study 4. **p \ .01; ***p \ .001. model. Goodness of fit indicators: NFI = .89; NNFI = .92;
The details and psychometric properties of the model are shown in CFI = .93; IFI = .93; RMSEA = .06, for a confidence interval at
Table 7. # = Not estimated because it was fixed at 1 to identify the 90 % [.049; .061]; S-B chi (206df) = 495.669, p \ .001

Discussion and Conclusions consumer perceptions of CSR based on three dimensions

Theoretical Discussion
The main contribution of this research is the development
of the CSRConsPerScale, a valid measurement scale for
proposed by the SD approach: economic development,
social equity and environmental protection responsibilities
(Choi and Ng 2011; Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk
2003). Based on the methodology suggested by DeVellis
(1991), a process of 13 stages over five empirical studies

123
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm 257

Table 9 Correlations, means, standard deviation and Cronbach’s a for each dimension (Study 5)
Soc1 Soc3 Soc4 Soc6 Soc7 Soc8 Soc9

Social equity dimension (a = .835)

Soc1 3.67 (1.03)
Soc3 .521** 3.26 (1.12)
Soc4 .457** .434** 3.76 (1.03)
Soc6 .550** .443** .453** 3.70 (1.10)
Soc7 .425** .440** .429** .449** 3.69 (1.07)
Soc8 .356** .428** .340** .453** .421** 3.07 (1.01)
Soc9 .371** .309** .273** .351** .388** .527** 3.38 (1.02)
Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Env6 Env7

Environmental protection dimension (a = .872)

Env1 4.20 (.94)
Env2 .599** 3.94 (1.00)
Env3 .443** .471** 3.38 (1.02)
Env4 .585** .536** .313** 4.23 (.89)
Env5 .464** .456** .361** .504** 3.88 (.96)
Env6 .476** .501** .355** .557** .609** 3.99 (.95)
Env7 .487** .541** .413** .500** .626** .629** 3.87 (.99)

Eco1 Eco2 Eco3 Eco4 Eco5 Eco6 Eco7 Eco8

Economic development dimension (a = .880)

Eco1 3.37 (.92)
Eco2 .499** 3.59 (.93)
Eco3 .470** .545** 3.68 (1.01)
Eco4 .403** .438** .577** 3.51 (.99)
Eco5 .431** .297** .477** .462** 3.73 (1.06)
Eco6 .368** .492** .414** .561** .466** 3.45 (.93)
Eco7 .383** .478** .539** .623** .408** .565** 3.55 (.97)
Eco8 .470** .541** .545** .521** .408** .473** .596** 3.61 (.98)

The diagonal shows the mean and standard deviation for each variable
** Significant correlation for p \ .01

was followed to create the new scale and to debug and test
its reliability and validity through a confirmatory approach.
The final version of the CSRConsPerScale comprises 18
items: six for the ECO, six for the SOC and six for the
ENV dimension. Table 11 presents the wording and con-
tent of each item in the final version of the
CSRConsPerScale scale.
This study has two main theoretical conclusions. First,
the dependent factors considered in the second-order are
reflective of the CSR model (SOC, ENV and ECO) and
have discriminant validity according to the criteria used.
This proves that consumer perception of CSR is a multi-
dimensional construct, rather than the one-dimensional
factor postulated by the corporate associations approach
(Brown and Dacin 1997). This result, in line with Carroll’s
(1979, 1991), confirms that CSR is a complex construct
and that even in terms of consumer perceptions, its
complexity is reflected in the discrimination of economic,
social and environmental dimensions. This finding is im-
portant because no study in the literature has corroborated
[using confirmatory techniques (CFA)] consumer percep-
tions of the multidimensionality of CSR from a SD
perspective.
Secondly, this work supports the triple bottom line of
SD as a theoretical approach (widely accepted by practi-
tioners) that matches consumer perceptions of CSR even in
different cultural contexts. This finding helps overcome the
doubts expressed in previous studies about the extent to
which the framework established by Carroll (1979, 1991)
and its dimensions appropriately reflect the perceptions of
this group of stakeholders (e.g. Alvarado and Shlesinger
2008; Garcı́a de los Salmones et al. 2005; Maignan 2001;
Maignan and Ferrell 2003). The definition of CSR pro-
posed by Carroll (1979, 1991) appears to fit better with the

123
258 A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

ESoc1 .714*** Soc1 .700#

ESoc3 .742*** Soc3

.670***
ESoc4 .751*** Soc4 .660***
SOC
.700*** .714***
ESoc6 Soc6
.645***
ESoc7 .764*** Soc7
.595*** .718***

ESoc8 .804*** Soc8 .696***

DSoc

EEnv1 .710*** Env1 .704#

EEnv2 .687*** Env2 .726***

.696***
Perceived
EEnv4 Env4 .718*** ENV .862***
CSR
.719***
EEnv5 .695*** Env5
.767***
EEnv6 .641*** Env6 .489***
.767***

EEnv7 .642*** Env7 DEnv

.825***
EEco2 .746*** Eco2
.666#
EEco3 .682*** Eco3
.732***
EEco4 .647*** Eco4 .763***
ECO
.739*** .674***
EEco6 Eco6
.790***
EEco7 .613*** Eco7
.729*** .566***
EEco8 .684*** Eco8
DEco

Fig. 3 CSRConsPerScale after external validation and final purging: fit indicators: NFI = .89; NNFI = .93; CFI = .94; IFI = .94;
the second-order CFA for Study 5. ***p \ .001. The details and RMSEA = .051, for a confidence interval of 90 % [.042; .059];
psychometric properties of the model are shown in Table 10. # = Not S-B(132df) = 280.119, p \ .001
estimated because it was fixed at 1 to identify the model. Goodness of

measurement of consumer expectations about the socially
responsible nature of the firm but not necessarily with the
measurement of perceptions of what the firm does in CSR.
In fact, in relation to whether the economic dimension
belongs to the CSR construct, Carroll (1999) notes that it
cannot always be perceived as such, because many indi-
viduals think that the economic component of CSR is what
the firm does for itself, whereas the other dimensions are
what the firm does for others. Furthermore, Carroll (1999)
adds that even when an individual does not perceive the
economic dimension as forming part of CSR, ‘‘financial
viability is something that firms do for society as well,
although we do not see it like that’’ (p. 284). Nevertheless,
it is illogical to exclude an essential part of the definition of
a concept when studying its indicators (Diamantopoulos
and Winklhofer 2001). Therefore, as financial viability is
indissociable from CSR according to the main dimensional
frameworks of CSR (i.e. Carroll’s Pyramid and SD), there

123
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm 259

Table 10 Results of the first- and second-order CFA and psychometric properties of CSRConsPerScale (Study 5)
Scale Factor k t value Item Reliability Convergent validity
(28 CFA)
a CR AVE k (Std.) t value ks (mean)

Perceived CSR .798 (mean) .842 .529

Social equity .696*** 10.77 Soc1 .825 .826 .442 .70# #
.664
Soc3 .67*** 12.38
Soc4 .66*** 10.51
Soc6 .71*** 12.25
Soc7 .65*** 10.77
Soc8 .60*** 10.59
Environmental protection .872*** 10.58 Env1 .875 .875 .539 .70# #
.734
Env2 .73*** 14.21
Env4 .72*** 13.54
Env5 .72*** 13.42
Env6 .77*** 13.12
Env7 .77*** 13.87
# #
Economic development .825*** 10.44 Eco2 .870 .870 .529 .67 .726
Eco3 .73*** 12.59
Eco4 .76*** 12.00
Eco6 .67*** 14.05
Eco7 .79*** 11.90
Eco8 .73*** 14.21
Goodness-of-fit indicators Discriminant validity. AVE, Corr2 and confidence intervals
Social Environmental Economic
2
S-B v (132 df) = 280.12*** Social .442 .368*** .329***
NFI = .89 Environmental [.517–.697] .539 .517***
NNFI = .93 Economic [.476–.672] [.651–.787] .529
CFI = .94
IFI = .94
RMSEA = .05 The diagonal shows the values of the variance extracted indexes, below the diagonal the confidence intervals for
each pair of factors and above the diagonal the squares of the inter-factor correlation coefficients

k Standardised load
*** p \ .001
#
Not estimated because it was used to identify the model

is no logical or theoretical justification for eliminating it, as
to do so would destroy the content validity of the construct
itself. The above suggests that, at least in the area of the
behaviour of tourism services consumers, the SD paradigm
has greater explanatory ability for consumer perceptions of
CSR than Carroll’s Model (1979, 1991).
Managerial Implications
The main managerial implication of this study is that it
provides practitioners with a reliable, valid instrument for
measuring their customers’ perceptions of CSR, enabling
correct discrimination between economic, social and
environmental initiatives, that is, the CSRConsPerScale
could become a powerful instrument for monitoring the
effectiveness of CSR programmes in general or itemised
according to SD dimensions. This procedure would enable
a more effective combination of CSR with other classical
relational variables, such as perceived value, satisfaction
and loyalty, achieving measures that are more consistent
with the returns on a CSR programme, at least from the
consumer behaviour perspective.
Moreover, the CSRConsPerScale could be used by other
entities (e.g. NGOs, public authorities and social commu-
nication media) to determine real consumer perceptions of
a firm’s CSR performance.

123
260 A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

Table 11 Items in the validated and purged CSRConsPerScale scale

In my opinion, regarding society, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…
… Trying to sponsor educational programmes (Soc1)
… Trying to sponsor public health programmes (Soc3)
… Trying to be highly committed to well-defined ethical principles (Soc4)
… Trying to sponsor cultural programmes (Soc6)
… Trying to make financial donations to social causes (Soc7)
… Trying to help to improve quality of life in the local community (Soc8)
In my opinion, regarding the environment, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…
… Trying to sponsor pro-environmental programmes (Env1)
… Trying to allocate resources to offer services compatible with the environment (Env2)
… Trying to carry out programmes to reduce pollution (Env4)
… Trying to protect the environment (Env5)
… Trying to recycle its waste materials properly (Env6)
… Trying to use only the necessary natural resources (Env7)
In my opinion, regarding the economy, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…
… Trying to maximise profits in order to guarantee its continuity (Eco2)
… Trying to build solid relations with its customers to assure its long-term economic success (Eco3)
… Trying to continuously improve the quality of the services that they offer (Eco4)
… Trying to have a competitive pricing policy (Eco6)
… Trying to always improve its financial performance (Eco7)
… Trying to do its best to be more productive (Eco8)

Limitations and Future Research
First, despite the effort to generalise the scale by applying it
to a different cultural context (Mexico) from the one in which
it was developed (Spain), this work does not by any means
exhaust the possibilities for generalising the scale. The
scale’s predictive validity needs corroborating with new
studies relating the CSR construct (measured with the
CSRConsPerScale) with other variables established in the
literature. For example, the relations between the CSR con-
struct and variables including consumer–company identifi-
cation (Lichtenstein et al. 2004; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001),
consumer satisfaction (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006), brand
loyalty (Garcı́a de los Salmones et al. 2005) or consumer
interest and information about CSR initiatives (Öberseder
et al. 2011), which have significant relationships with con-
sumer CSR perception, should be evaluated.
Second, the content of the proposed scale items assumes
that the consumer must have a certain degree of knowledge
of the firm’s CSR initiatives to prevent erratic, unthinking
responses or reactions that are marked by social desirability.
However, there is usually low awareness of a company’s
CSR activities among its external stakeholders, especially
consumers (Pomering and Dolnicar 2009; Du et al. 2010).
This phenomenon in the creation of scales is not new. The
limitation of the consumer’s lack of information when ap-
plying a scale is also relevant to the application of well-
consolidated scales, such as SERVQUAL (Parasuraman
et al. 1988) or the customer-based corporate reputation of a
service firm scale (Walsh and Beatty 2007). This is also true
for other scales for measuring consumer perceptions about
the firm or its processes. Information asymmetry leads to
some items or dimensions about which consumers have less
knowledge, leaving them with less information upon which
to base their judgements—judgements that are typically
made considering heuristics or basic decision rules. The
halo effect (Nisbett and Wilson 1977) may come into play
in these situations: a consumer may use the evaluation of a
particular opinion (e.g. their knowledge of the firm’s sup-
port of social causes) to evaluate the entire socially re-
sponsible nature of the firm (e.g. the environmental or
economic CSR dimensions).
Managers who use the scale should consider this phe-
nomenon and try to mitigate it by, for example, providing
consumers with prior information on the firm’s CSR ac-
tivities. This approach has been used extensively in CSR
research (Berens et al. 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001),
and its aim is to elicit in consumers’ minds or bring to their
memory the firm’s CSR activities, so they have the nec-
essary elements to make an evaluation. Alternatively, re-
searchers might check CSR awareness and adopt it as a
classification variable that could lead to cluster identifica-
tion in a sample population.
In this vein, the CSRConsPerScale appears more suit-
able for service firms (where personal contact between
consumer and firm is more frequent) than to firms that sell

123
A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of CSR Following the SD Paradigm
goods. It could also be more applicable to long-term cus-
tomers than new ones. The services chosen in this research
are high involvement and considerably expensive. In short,
the scale must be applied to more industries with different
product categories to find out its degree of adaptability and
if, as we believe, the SD approach is valid beyond the
tourism sector as a theoretical approach to studying CSR
from the perspective of consumer perception.
Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the financial support
of the research project of the Generalitat Valenciana (GV/2013-055).
References
Alvarado, A., & Shlesinger, W. (2008). Dimensionality of perceived
business social responsibility and its effects on firm’s image and
reputation: a Carroll’s model based approach. Estudios Geren-
ciales, 24(108), 37–59.
Anderson, W. T, Jr, & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially
conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23–31.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Auger, P., Devinney, T., Louviere, J., & Burke, P. (2010). The
importance of social product attributes in consumer purchasing
decisions: A multi-country comparative study. International
Business Review, 19(2), 140–159.
Aupperle, K. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social
orientation. Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy, 6, 27–54.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: A comment.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 375–381.
Berens, G., Van Riel, C., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-quality
trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and corporate
ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics,
74(3), 233–252.
Bigne, E., Aldas-Manzano, J., Küster, I., & Vila, N. (2002). The
concept mapping approach in marketing: An application in the
travel agencies sector. Qualitative Market Research: An Inter-
national Journal, 5(2), 87–95.
Bigne, E., Chumpitaz, R., Andreu, L., & Swaen, V. (2005).
Percepción de la responsabilidad social corporativa: un análisis
cross-cultural. Universia Business Review, 5, 14–27.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New
York: Harper & Row.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and
philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
61, 29–44.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:
Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal
of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & de Mortanges, C. P. (1999).
A measure of export market orientation: Scale development and
cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business
Studies, 30(4), 689–707.
Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.
Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a
definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.
261
Choi, S., & Ng, N. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions
of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses.
Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269–282.
Chow, Y., & Chen, Y. (2011). Corporate sustainable development
testing a new scale based on the Mainland Chinese context.
Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 519–533.
Churchill, G. A, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 16(1), 64–73.
Churchill, G. A, Jr. (1999). Marketing research: Methodological
foundations. Forth Worth: The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Churchill, G. A, Jr, & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on
the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Marketing Research, 21(4), 360–375.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate
social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122–141.
Cox, E. P, I. I. I. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for
a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407–422.
David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility
practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process
model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsi-
bilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76.
DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction
with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.
Drexhage, J., & Murphy, D. (2010). Sustainable development: From
Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background Paper for the High Level
Panel on Global Sustainability. New York: United Nations.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns
to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR commu-
nication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social
responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust
barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528–1545.
Eberhard-Harribey, L. (2006). CSR as a new paradigm in the
European policy: How CSR comes to legitimate the European
regulation process. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 358–368.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equations
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business
responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Garcı́a de los Salmones, M., Herrero Crespo, A., & Rodrı́guez del
Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on
loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61,
369–385.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility
theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics,
53(1–2), 51–71.
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social respon-
sibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(1), 48–56.
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges
in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of
measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business
Research, 57(2), 98–107.
John, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand
concept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association
networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 549–563.
123
262
Joiner, C. (1998). Concept mapping in marketing: A research tool for
uncovering consumers’ knowledge structure associations. In J.
E. Alba & W. Hutchinson (Eds.), NA—Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 25, pp. 311–322). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited,
redefined. California Management Review, 22(3), 59–67.
Kakabadse, N. K., & Rozuel, C. (2006). Meaning of corporate social
responsibility in a local French hospital: A case study. Society
and Business Review, 1(1), 77–96.
Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. (1974). Ecologically concerned
consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38, 20–34.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing good-
ness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.
Lafferty, B. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance
when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of
Business Research, 60, 447–453.
Lichtenstein, D., Drumwright, M., & Braig, B. (2004). The effect of
corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corpo-
rate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsi-
bility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of
Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumer perceptions of corporate social
responsibility: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business
Ethics, 30(1), 57–73.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Nature of corporate responsi-
bilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German
consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 55–67.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for
implementing social responsibility in marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956–977.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An
applied approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages
and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model
of corporate social responsibility development. International
Journal of Management Review, 12(1), 20–38.
Marı́n, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). ‘‘I need you too!’’—Corporate identity
attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for
unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (2011). Why don’t
consumers care about CSR? A qualitative study exploring the
role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business
Ethics, 104(4), 449–460.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR
practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business
Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V.
(2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsi-
bility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 1–15.
Ouellet, J. F. (2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic
cross-ethnic product purchase: An empirical test in the United
States, Canada, and France. Journal of Marketing, 71(1),
113–128.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsi-
bility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic
123
A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.
review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1),
117–135.
Pérez, A., Martı́nez, P., & Rodrı́guez del Bosque, I. (2013). The
development of a stakeholder-based scale for measuring corpo-
rate social responsibility in the banking industry. Service
Business, 7(3), 459–481.
Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of
successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR
initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285–301.
Quazi, A. M., & O’Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-
national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 25(1), 33–51.
Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L., & Young, F. W. (1981).
Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods and
applications. Orlando: Academic Press Inc.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to
doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsi-
bility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance—An
analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3),
58–64.
Sheldon, P. J., & Park, S. Y. (2011). An exploratory study of
corporate social responsibility in the US travel industry. Journal
of Travel Research, 50(4), 392–407.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism:
Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of
Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289.
Singh, J., Garcı́a de los Salmones, M. M., & Rodrı́guez del Bosque, I.
(2007). Understanding corporate social responsibility and pro-
duct perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural eval-
uation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 597–611.
Takane, Y., Young, F., & de Leeuw, J. (1977). Nonmetric individual
differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least
squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika,
42(1), 7–67.
Trochim, W. M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for
planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning,
12(1), 1–16.
Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50(2), 61–68.
Turker, D. (2009a). How corporate social responsibility influences
organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2),
189–204.
Turker, D. (2009b). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A
scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4),
411–427.
UNWTO. (2015). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical
Annex, January 2015. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism
Organization.
van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and
corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion.
Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105.
Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P.
(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and
the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37, 170–180.
Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate
reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Envi-
ronment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.