Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty

In the aim to define our research results, it is important to analyse first the validity of the variables that we want to measure thanks to our questionnaire. Hence, as we want to analyse the effect of the variables between each other as in this research the aim is to analyse the effect of the variables in relation with the consumer attitude and those related to CSR, and the result on brand loyalty. Thus we decided to proceed to a discriminant and convergent validity analysis between the variables.

The principle of the discriminant analysis is to analyse the degree of discrimination from one variable to other variables. The discriminant analysis is able to show if the latent variable is accounting for more more variance than its association with other viances A, B, and C, for example.

In this section, thanks to our discriminant and convergent analysis, we will be able to analyse the validity of our questionnaire. Here, the discriminant analysis will be evaluating the degree at which there will have a discrimination exercised between the following construct: customer satisfaction, customer identification, customer trust, brand image, price, corporate social responsibility, and brand loyalty. To realise this analysis we have use the software SPSS that helped to calculate the coefficients that we then exported on Microsoft Excel where we made the table that is allowing us to make a precise analysis.

Once that we have calculated the standardized loadings of our variables, we are importing them in our excel table. There we want to calculate the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of our variables. Our standardize loadings are the following: customer satisfaction, cs1 б=0.920), cs2 б=0.934); customer identification, ci1 б=0.500), ci2 б=0.431); customer trust, ct1 б=0.501), ct2 б=0.498); brand image, bi1 б=1.422), bi2 б=1.241); price, p1 б=0.665), p2 б=0.503); corporate social loyalty, csr1 б=0.499), csr2 б=0.953); brand loyalty, bl1 б=0.498), bl2 б=0.921).

Now, in order to make our convergent validity analysis of our latent variables we calculated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of all the variables. To calculate the AVE, we need to calculate the sum of the standardized loadings of each latent variables and then we must calculate the number of indicators for each variable. Then, once we calculated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), we have to control that the AVE coefficient is AVE > 0.5 to design a positive convergent validity between the latent variables.

Once that we calculated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and that we made our convergent validity, we are calculating the Discriminant Validity of the latent variables. We will calculate the Discriminant Validity by calculating the Square Root of the AVE. It is also necessary here, to calculate the correlation between the different latent variables.

In order to verify the Discriminant Validity between the variables, we have to insert the data inside a table and compare the Square Root of AVE of each variables and see if this is higher than the coeeficient of correlation between the different variables. If the Square Root is Higher, hence there is Discrimination between the latent variables.



4. Empirical research results

4.1 Validity Analysis Results

4.1.1 Discriminant Validity

What we can see in the Figure 2, it is the different indicater variables related to each latent variables. This table is helping us to determine the Average Variance Extracted that we need to make our discriminant analysis. Thus, in our case, we will have a look only on the Square root of the AVE now as it is the value that is interesting us to analyse the discrimination between our variables. The Square Root of the AVE of our latent variables is the following: Customer satisfaction v0.859 = 0.927; Customer Identification v0.218 = 0.467; Customer Trust v0.250 = 0.500; Brand Image v1.781 = 1.335; Price v0.348 = 0.590; Corporate Social Responsibility v0.579 = 0.761; Brand Loyalty v0.548 = 0.740. Once that we determine the Square Root of the AVE of our variables, we are capable to compare them to the correlation coefficient, and determine if the values are discriminant to each other.

If we now have a look at the Figure 3, we can see that the Square Root б=0.927) of the Customer Satisfaction is higher than the correlation coefficient of the values to which it is compared. Now let's look at the second column, and the Customer Identification б=0.467), we can also say that the value is also higher than the correlation between Customer Identification and the other variables. About the Customer Trust, and the Brand Image, we can also see that they are both higher than the other variables with б=0.500) and б=1.335) respectively. Then, we can have a look at the Square Root of the Price, it is also higher than the correlation coefficient to which he is linked. If we now have a look at the two last indicators that are Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Loyalty, we can also conclude that with б=0.761) and б=0.740) they are higher.

Hence, we can state that our latent variables are discriminant to each other, as each of the Square Root is higher than the value of the all the correlations. According to thos results, we can state that if those variables should not have any relationship between each other, will not demonstrated any relationship at all according to our calculations.

4.1.2 Convergent validity

In the Figure 4, we can observe the latent variables and their respective AVE. If there is a convergence between the variables, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of the latent variables must be over б=0.400). However in the this table we can see that 3 variables are below the required threshold. Thos variables are Customer identification б= 0.218 AVE, Customer Trust б= 0.250 AVE, and Price б= 0.348 AVE. This means that those variables are not convergent. On the other hand, we have 4 variables that are convergent to each other: Customer Satisfaction б= 0.859 AVE, Brand Image б= 1.781 AVE, CSR б= 0.579, Brand Loyalty б= 0.548.

Our convergent validity is analysis the degree of convergence of variables that should be convergent. In this research, we want to study if CSR is enhancing the brand loyalty toward FMCG brands. Hence, we can see that CSR is converging with Brand Loyalty and that Customer Satisfaction and Brand image are also convergent. We can state that Brand Image, Customer Satisfaction and CSR can exercise a positive convergence toward Brand Loyalty and thus have an influence on the customer behaviour.

4.2 Questionnaire Results

In this section we will analyse the results of the questionnaire more in details and analyse the customer behaviour of our samples of responsents. As a reminder, 91 consumers from France aged between 20-30 years old answered to this questionnaire that is allowing us to study the behaviour of consumers toward CSR and the enhancement of brand loyalty with FMCG brands.

Corporate Social Responsibility

The result in Figure 5 is highlighting the answers of our sample regarding the awareness of the social and sustainable business initiatives and csr implementations. The first question was `Are you aware of Sustainable Business initiatives ?', and 89% of the respondents answered `Yes', while 11% said `No'. Then, the second question was `Are you sensitive to social and environmental initiatives ?', here again we have 56% respondents that answered `Yes' and 44% of the respondents answered `No'. The third question was asking our respondents to specify if for them the fact that FMCG goods are social and environmental responsible is important, and 7.7% of our sample Strongly Agree, while 35.2% Agree, 44% Neutral, 8.8% Disagree, and 5.5% Strongly Disagree.

Thus, we can say that our sample is conscious that companies are implementing social and environmental actions, as the big majority replied 89% `Yes'. Also we can see that a good majority majority is sensitive to social and environmental initiaves and and we can also see that it is important for the respondants to buy FMCG goods that social and eco responsible. Despite the fact that we have 56% of consumers that are sensitive to social and environmental initiatives, we can see that we still have 44% of respondents that are neutral about the importances of social characteristics on FMCG.

Concerning the 4^th question of our questionnaire, it has been asked to the respondents if for them, products that present characteristics such as the social and environmental characteristics are sign of quality. The answer is that for 53.8% of the respondents it is `Yes', while for 46.2% it is `No'. Still, we can see that our sample of French consumers is well receptive to those characteristics, that are participating in making engaged products.

Well, we can imagine that maybe those positive results regarding corporate social responsibility and the importance of social and environmental characteristics of the FMCG products for our respondents can be related to the fact that a lot of students have replied to our questionnaire. Indeed, 49.5% of our sample is representing students, hence the knowledge of social and environmental responsible products is very often developed inside the schools and universities, were students can be sensitivised.

FMCG Brands and sustainability

The 6^th question of our questionnaire was consisting in asking the respondent to cite the first FMCG brand (e.g packaged food, beverages, toiletries, etc…) that is coming to their mind when we are talking about corporate social responsibility, and social and environmental initiatives. Our sample answered companies such as: Nestlй, Danone, Bjorg, Kinder, Estйe Lauder, Kellogg's, Heineken, L'Orйal for the brands that appeared several times in the answers. Here, we can see that some of the respondents have a quite good knowledge of sustainable intitatives, for example Bjorg is the standard bearer of Bio biscuits in France.

In Figure 6, we can have a look at the evaluation of social and environmental initiatives of the brands cited. What we can say it is that 16.5% of the respondents think that the social inititiatives of the brands that they cited are `Very Good', in addition we can see that in this evaluation we can find several times brands like Bjorg, Danone, Unilever, Nestlй, or Kellogg's. On the other hand 5.5% and 1.1% think that there are no initiatives, or maybe the implemented actions are not good. In this section of answers, we can find brands like Coca Cola, Nutella, or Axe. We have also a majority of consumers that think that CSR actions are `Good' for 48.4% of them, and 28.6% are not pronounced.

Let's now have a look at the Figure 7, that is giving us some percentages of places and platforms, where the respondents discovered the social and environmental actions implemented by the brands that they cited. The majority of the respondents discovered the actions implemented on social media for 30.80%, then, 16.50% on the package of products, 14.30% on TV Spots, 7.70% in the magazines, 2.20% on the newspapers, and 28.50% in other tools.

In Figure 8, we can see some percentages that are describing the perceived image of the brands by the respondents. Hence, the big majority of our sample replied for 39.60% for a `Green' image, while 18.70% said `Social', 20.90% perceive the brands like `Low Cost', 9.90% has a perception of `Expensive' brands and to finish 10.90% of our sample has an other perception. This is a very positive statistics, and it match perfectly with the awareness of sample regarding its knowledge of corporate social responsibility. In addition, the consumers surveyed have a positive image of green and social perception of several FMCG brands that is positive.

Customers motivations

If we now have a look at the Figure 9, we can identify the motivates of our respondents toward FMCG products that present social and environmental characteristics. What we can say it s that there is a majority of respondents that make the choice of the quality for 34.10% in this survey. Then, 26.40% of the surveyed consumers are making the choice of sustainable characteristics, it can be social or environmental characteristics. Also, we have 20.90% of the respondents that are making the choice of the price. As we said previously in this research, price is the main concern of the consumers nowadays, they are looking for the cheaper. But this answer means that a product identified as social and environmental friendly in a first time can be seen as affordable by the client. Especially, if we now look at the socio demographic questions, 49.5% of the respondents are students and live with les than $10 K per annum, while 50.5% of the respondents have income that is located between $10K - $50K.

The Specific Concerns regroup 9.90% of the respondents, then we have around 4.40% of respondents that say they are not buying products for this brand. So there we can say that potentially it is consumers that doesn't buy this brand because he doesn't like the brand that he cited and hence he is not buying this brand, or he heard positively or negatively talk about corporate social responsibilities of the company that is producing this brand. Further more, 4.30% of the respondents are motivated by other reasons.

Customer Identification and Customer Brand Loyalty

In Figure 10, we can see that questions regarding the customer identification and the brand loyalty of the consumers are represented. The first question represented below is ` In this category of products, do you only buy products stemmed from this brand or company ?'. Our sample replied for 57.10% `Yes' to this question, while 42.90% answered `No'. Then, the second question represented is `Do you recognize values in this brand and its engagements ?', here again we have a majority of consumers surveyed that answered `Yes' for 54.90% of them, against 45.10% that said `No'.

Here we can see that 57.10% of the consumers surveyed are loyal to the FMCG brand that they cited, it can be for several reasons, such as social and environmental characteristics, or the price. This hypothesis is confirmed by the next question were our sample answered 54.90% `Yes' that they are recognized in the engagements of the FMCG brand that they cited. However, we can see in the last question `Do you like to share the sustainable characteristics of products stemmed from this brand with other people ?' that 24.20% of the respondents said `Yes, which is pretty low compared to the previous answers. We can say that our consumers are engaged, but that only a quarter of them are sharing good characteristics of their goods.



4.3 Pearson's correlations

Let's now have a look at the Figure 11. We can identify the the Pearson's Correlations of our different latent variables. In this table we can identify several positive correlations, and among the most important ones, we can find CSR and Customer Satisfaction that is the higher correlation with 0.516. However the correlation that is interesting us the most is CSR - Brand Loyalty relationship with a coefficient that is 0.326. Hence we can say that there is a positive correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Brand Loyalty toward FMCG products. We can also state that Brand Loyalty is enhanced by other variables such as the Customer identification with low positive correlation with 0.276, an also Customer Satisfaction with a low positive correlation of 0.221.

Furthermore, other variables interact between each others, and for example Corporate Social Responsibility relationship with Customer Identification is also positive (0.347), CSR - Customer Trust is also positive with 0.415. Hence we can say that CSR is positive or highly positive with a majority of variables except with the Price. The correlation between CSR and Price is negative with -0.257, such as the correlation between Price and Brand Loyalty that is highly negative with -0.369. To finish, we can say that Brand Loyalty is positively influenced by all the consumer's components of the attitude but in this research through the brands that have been cited by our respondents and our survey about their purchasing behaviour, the CSR can clearly have an influence on consumers and enhance or generate brand loyalty

4.4 Regression Analysis

In this section, we are going to analyze the regression between our dependant variable and our independent variables. Ou dependent variable is the importance of CSR for the consumers. On the other hand, our independent variables are: The frequency of purchasing, the customer identification, consumer income, the evaluation fo the price, and the customer evaluation of CSR implementations.

In table 1, we can have a look at several coefficients related to our regression analysis between our variables. However, we are interested only in the coefficients, and in the P-value. In a first time we will analyse the significance of our variables represented in the P-value. Then, we will be able to identify is there is a true relationship or not between the variables. Thus, the P-value of our intercept =.040, the P-value of the Frequency of purchasing =.008, the P-value of Customer Identification =.777, the P-value of Consumer Income =.031, the P-value of Price evaluation =.845, and the P-value of Customer Evaluation of CSR =.000. To confirm the real significance of the value, the P-Value should represent less than.05, what would mean that there is at least 95% of chances that the value indicated presents a relationship with the consumers. Thus, if we look at the table 1, we can see that 3 variables have a P-value that is <.05, it's the Frequency of purchasing =.008, Consumer Income =.031, Customer Evaluation of CSR =.000.

Now we have to calculate the percentage of the significance, for this we will use the following formula: Percentage = 1 - `P-value' * 100. So, we have 1 - 0.008 * 100 = 99.2%; 1 - 0.031 * 100 = 96.9%; 1 - 0.000 * 100 = 100%. Hence, there is 99.2% of chances that there is a true relationship between the importance for the consumer of CSR in FMCG brands and the Frequency or purchasing. Also, there is 96.9% of chances that there is a true relationship between the importance for the consumer of CSR in FMCG brands and the Consumer Incomer, and there is 100% of chances of a true relationship between the importance for the consumer of CSR in FMCG brands and Customer Evaluation of CSR.

Now that we identified our significant variables, we will generate a new table with only our significant values. And we will analyse our coefficient generated by our regression analysis.

If we now have a look at the table 2, we can see that all our coefficients are positive. We will take the time to analyse them one by one. So first, the coefficient of Frequency of purchasing =.086, which means that there is a positive relationship between the two variables, and it confirms that if the Frequency of purchasing is high it is positively related with the importance of CSR in FMCG products for our assessed sample. The, the coefficient of Consumer income =.130, which means that there is a positive relationship between the income of our respondents and the importance of CSR in FMCG products. To finish, the coefficient of the relationship between our dependent variable and the Customer Evaluation of CSR is 0.145. This means that the relationship between the importance of CSR in FMCG products, and the Customer evaluation of CSR is positively related.

Hence, we can say that there is a positive influence of the Importance of CSR in FMCG products felt by the consumer, and if the consumer is evaluating good implementations of CSR in FMCG products, he will become loyal to the brand, and buy products stemmed from this brand more frequently.

4.5 Anticipated Results

If we now have a look at the Figure 10, we can see that several hypothesis have been confirmed. We will start to analyse the hypothesis 1, and what we can see it is that the hypothesis is confirmed. Indeed, the regression analysis conducted during this study shows that there is a positive coefficient (0.145) between the evaluation of CSR initiatives by the consumers and the importance of CSR in FMCG products for the consumers.

The hypothesis 2 of this research is confirmed as there is a positive coefficient (0.086) between the frequency of purchasing and the importance of CSR toward FMCG products at the eyes of the consumers.

The hypothesis 3 of the research is not confirmed for the reason that the significance between the customer identification to the brand and the importance of CSR in FMCG products for the consumer was not enough relevant with a P-value = 0.777.

However, we can see that in our questionnaire 54.90% of the respondents affirmed that they were recognizing in the brand they cited, but only 24% of them like to share the benefits of the brands. This is a variable that would deserve to be studied more deeply in an other study, as Customer Identification is a complex component of the consumer attitude.

The hypothesis 4 of our research is not confirmed for the reason that we did not have enough materials to really analyse properly this hypothesis. Indeed, in our sample of respondents, there are 58.3% of the respondents that describes products stemmed from the brand that they cited as green or social, however we don't know if those respondents are loyal or not to this brand.

Then, our hypothesis 5 is confirmed by our results, as the regression analysis as shown that there is a positive relation between the income of the consumers and the importance of CSR inside FMCG products for the consumers. Indeed, the coefficient between the two variables was positive (0.145). Which means that there is a correlation between the income and the motivations for CSR.



Conclusion

To conclude, we can say that the question raised in this study has been studied deeply. Indeed, to understand if the Corporate Social Reponsibility could enhance the Customer Brand Loyalty toward FMCG brands thanks to CSR initiatives, we decided to analyse some components of the consumer attitude and behaviour that could potentially be influenced by social and environmental intitiatives. In this research, the aim was to analyse if the consumers are receptive and sensitive to social and environmental inititiatives when it comes to their day to day procurement, and especially the procurement of FMCG products.

To better answer this research question we have defined several hypothesis that were related to factors or aspects of the consumer attitude or behaviour that can influence potentially its loyalty to a brand. Thanks to the collaboration of our sample of 91 French respondents we were able to help us to run an analysis that is reliable and full of hope and potential for future researches. As a result, 3 out of 5 hypothesis have been supported. We can state that the consumers that recognize a certain importance and a real value in social and environmental initiatives in the FMCG products are more willing to be driven by CSR implementations, also to buy more frequently the products that present CSR characteristics and hence to become loyal to the brand.

However, regarding the undecised result about the effect of the perception of the brand image on the consumer attitude, we can't say that a responsible image is enhancing the brand loyalty, such as the price, or the consumer trust. We are facing the same result for the consumer identification to the brand, our research cannot arrive at the result that thanks to CSR the consumer is able to identify himself in the brand and hence become loyal to the brand.

Hence the answer to the research question is Yes, the corporate social responsibility is generating customer brand loyalty toward FMCG products. However we must take into consideration that the most receptive consumers to social and sustainable practices are those that already have a pro-social and environmental purchasing behaviour. According to the result of our research, we can say that customer that are identifying themselves in Social and Environmental inititiatives are more willing to identify to the social and sustainable brands, to make a good evaluation of the brand, to be satisfied, and hence become loyal.

To finish, this study can be useful to FMCG companies that are struggling to retain consumers near their responsible products, and that cannot motivate them to become loyal. We know that today there is a strong competition in the FMCG industry, and that a lot of brands are implementing social and environmental initiatives. However, as we know it is always the consumer that decide, and on such a sensitive topic as CSR it can be difficult to answer the needs expressed by everybody. This is especially the case in the FMCG industry were promotions are implemented in supermarkets, and were consumers can be attracted by many other factors than by CSR. Thus, thanks to this research, the marketer will be more able to define a segment for its sustainable FMCG products and to drive the best strategy possible to incitate the consumer to develop a real relationship on a long term perspective with its product.

It will be interesting to develop other researches in this industry, particularly because FMCG goods are everywhere, easily accessible, and they are generating a lot of waste, and a lot of plastic consumption every year. Also, I believe that this research is pioneer about this industry, and thanks to identification of the components of the attitude that are playing an important role in the generation of brand loyalty, other researchers will be able to go forward on this topic.

I would recommend to develop more research about the FMCG industry in terms of CSR, but more focused about the companies and their implementations than about the consumers.

corporate social brand reputation



References

1. Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1048-1063. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230197

2. Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/258189

3. Baalbaki, S., & Guzmбn, F. (2016). A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Brand Management, 23(3), 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.11

4. Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

5. Berrone, P., Surroca, J., & Tribу, J. A. (2007). Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9276-1

6. Bolton, R. N., Kannan, P. K., & Bramlett, M. D. (2000). Implications of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experiences for Customer Retention and Value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281009

7. Brown, T., & Dacin, P. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252190

8. C.B. Bhattacharya and Sankar Sen (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers' Relationships with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040524

9. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497. https://doi.org/10.2307/257850

10. Chung, K.?H., Yu, J.?E., Choi, M.?G., & Shin, J.?I. (2015). The Effects of CSR on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in China: The Moderating Role of Corporate Image. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3(5), 542-547. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.243

11. Cowan, K., & Guzman, F. (2018). How CSR reputation, sustainability signals, and country-of-origin sustainability reputation contribute to corporate brand performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.017

12. Crosby, L., Evans, K., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68-81. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251817

13. Donald R. Lichtenstein, Minette E. Drumwright, & and Bridgette M. Braig (2004). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16-32. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.16.42726

14. Eason, C. C., Bing, M. N., & Smothers, J. (2015). Reward me, charity, or both? The impact of fees and benefits in loyalty programs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 25, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.04.001

15. Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341011056186

16. Guzman, F., & Davis, D. (2017). The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand eauity consumer responses to two types of fit. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 26(5), 435-446. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0917

17. Hah, K., & Freeman, S. (2014). Multinational Enterprise Subsidiaries and their CSR: A Conceptual Framework of the Management of CSR in Smaller Emerging Economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1753-8

18. Han, W., Zhuangxiong, Y., & Jie, L. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, product market competition, and product market performance. International Review of Economics & Finance, 56, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.03.019

19. He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification and Moderating Effect of Service Quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 673-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0703-y

20. He, Y., & Lai, K. K. (2014). The effect of corporate social responsibility on brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand image. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(3-4), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.661138

21. Heinberg, M., Ozkaya, H. E., & Taube, M. (2018). Do corporate image and reputation drive brand equity in India and China? - Similarities and differences. Journal of Business Research, 86, 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.018

22. Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x

23. Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2019). Do Customer Perceptions of Corporate Services Brand Ethicality Improve Brand Equity? Considering the Roles of Brand Heritage, Brand Image, and Recognition Benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3455-0

24. Jamali, D. (2008). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4

25. Karaosmanoglu, E., Altinigne, N., & Isiksal, D. G. (2016). CSR motivation and customer extra-role behavior: Moderation of ethical corporate identity. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4161-4167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.035

26. Khan, I., & Fatma, M. (2019). Connecting the dots between CSR and brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand experience and brand trust. International Journal of Business Excellence, 17(4), 439. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2019.10020542

27. Khan, S. (2009). Corporate social performance of Indian FMCG Companies. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312130832_Corporate_Social_Performance_of_Indian_FMCG_Companies_Introduction_of_CSR_framework_and_Karmayog_CSR_Ratings_with_three_top_Indian_FMCG_companies_CSR_initiatives

28. Kiessling, T., Isaksson, L., & Yasar, B. (2016). Market Orientation and CSR: Performance Implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2555-y

29. Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Streng, I. (2012). Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(2), 68-75. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/sustainability-nears-a-tipping-point/

30. Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.234

31. Kumar, S., Advani, J. (2005). Factors affecting brand loyalty: a study in an emerging market on fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 251-275. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233641988_Factors_Affecting_Brand_Loyalty_A_study_in_an_emerging_market_on_fast_moving_consumer_goods

32. Lee, S., & Heo, C. Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction among US publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 635-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.02.007

33. Landrum, S. (2017) Millenials driving brands to practice socially responsible marketing. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahlandrum/2017/03/17/millennials-driving-brands-to-practice-socially-responsible-marketing/#21ea11244990

34. Lii, Y.?S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing Right Leads to Doing Well: When the Type of CSR and Reputation Interact to Affect Consumer Evaluations of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0948-0

35. Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162111.

36. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956-977. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610662

37. Mandhachitara, R., & Poolthong, Y. (2011). A model of customer loyalty and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111119840

38. Mantovani, D., Andrade, L. M. de, & Negrгo, A. (2017). How motivations for CSR and consumer-brand social distance influence consumers to adopt pro-social behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 36, 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.01.009

39. Maqbool, S., & Zameer, M. N. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Future Business Journal, 4(1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2017.12.002

40. Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The Role of Identity Salience in the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9673-8

41. Martin, W. C., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2009). Price fairness perceptions and customer loyalty in a retail context. Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 588-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.017

42. Martнnez, P., & Rodrнguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.009

43. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987

44. Mithas, S., Krishnan, M. S., & Fornell, C. (2005). Why Do Customer Relationship Management Applications Affect Customer Satisfaction? Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 201-209. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.201

45. Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252308

46. Naidoo, C., & Abratt, R. (2018). Brands that do good: insight into social brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 25(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0072-2

47. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives: Examining the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360204

48. Peng, X., Tang, P., Yang, S. [Shuwang], & Fu, S. (2020). How should mining firms invest in the multidimensions of corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Resources Policy, 65, 101576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101576

49. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

50. Pйrez, A., del Mar Garcнa los Salmones, M. de, & Rodrнguez del Bosque, I. (2013). The effect of corporate associations on consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 218-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311285529

51. Pйrez, A., & Rodrнguez del Bosque, I. (2014). CSR and customer loyalty exploring the role of identification satisfaction and type of company. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2013-0272

52. Ravichandran, M., & Gowtham, S. (2016). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Consumer Satisfaction with Refernce to FMCG Product. -International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology, 2(11). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/25849186/The_Impact_of_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_CSR_on_Consumer_Satisfaction_with_Refernce_to_FMCG_Product

53. Reichheld, F. F., Schefter, P. (2000, July - August) E-Loyalty: Your Secret Weapon on the Web. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2000/07/e-loyalty-your-secret-weapon-on-the-web

54. Reputation Institute (2015). Global CSR RepTrek rankings report. http://www.

55. reputationinstitute.com/thought-leadership/global-reptrak-100 (Accessed 30.

56. 03.20).

57. Rim, H., Yang, S.?U. [Sung-Un], & Lee, J. (2016). Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of perceived altruism and organizational identification. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3213-3219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035

58. Sankar Sen and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838

59. Scott, S., & Lane, V. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43-62.

60. Shnayder, L., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2016). Motivations for Corporate Social Responsibility in the packaged food industry: an institutional and stakeholder management perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 212-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.030

61. Stets, J., & Burke, P. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2695870

62. Sun, K.?A., & Kim, D.?Y. (2013). Does customer satisfaction increase firm performance? An application of American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.008

63. Swami, V., Humbe, V. (2009). An empirical study: Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility activities undertaken by FMCG companies towards the loyalty of organized retail customers of Pune city. Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research. Retrieved from http://www.nevillewadia.com/images/Cronicle2015/Prof.-Vivek-Swami15.pdf

64. Sweetin, V. H., Knowles, L. L., Summey, J. H., & McQueen, K. S. (2013). Willingness-to-punish the corporate brand for corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1822-1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.003

65. Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948-963. https://doi.org/10.1086/660851

66. Tourky, M., Kitchen, P., & Shaalan, A. (2019). The role of corporate identity in CSR implementation: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.046

67. Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share Development. Journal of Marketing, 67, 30-45. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.67.4.30.18685

68. Walsh, G., & Bartikowski, B. (2013). Exploring corporate ability and social responsibility associations as antecedents of customer satisfaction cross-culturally. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 989-995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.022

69. Xia, L., Monroe, K., Cox, J. The price is unfair ! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733

70. Xie, X., Jia, Y., Meng, X., & Li, C. (2017). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: The moderating effect of the institutional environment in two transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 26-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.192

71. Zairi, M. (2000). Social responsibility and impact on society. The TQM Magazine, 12(3), 172-178. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09544780010320278/full/html

72. Zhao, T., & Xiao, X. (2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial constraints: Does the life cycle stage of a firm matter? International Review of Economics & Finance, 63, 76-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.08.010

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...