Does Trust Mediate in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Brand Equity Nexus? Empirical Evidence from the Banking Sector

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of trust on the CSR and brand-equity nexus in the banking sector of Bangladesh. Using the convenient sampling method and structured questionnaire, the study conducted an online survey of 275 customers of private commercial banks from Bangladesh. This study applied structural equation modelling (SEM) to define the complete structural model to analyse the direct and indirect relationships between study constructs. The results reveal a positive and significant impact of CSR on brand equity. Regarding the mediating effect of trust, the study found a significant impact of trust on the CSR components and the brand-equity nexus. The study’s outcomes enrich the existing literature as a dimension of trust is added as mediating effect on the CSR and brand equity relationship in Bangladesh.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility brand equity trust SEM banking sector Bangladesh

Introduction

Over the last few decades, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been regarded as an important brand management tool by researchers and practitioners (Ali & Kaur, 2021). Along with traditional marketing activities, CSR is commonly used as major marketing tool for the brand equity. CSR is an essential portion of brand equity (BE) as it can build the positive image in the customer’s mind and finally impact on the purchase decision (Ali & Kaur, 2021; Baalbaki & Guzmán, 2016). Additionally, CSR activities could benefit companies by creating moral capital and supporting intangible assets like BE (Melo & Ignacio, 2011). Vishwanathan et al. (2019) argued that customers not merely prioritize the products but rather give importance to company practices also. In order to enhance the reputation in the market place, policy-makers advocate for the involvement of sustainable business activities (Khan et al., 2021). As a part of the service industry, banking organizations’ brand value can be enhanced by undertaking CSR events like promoting social programs and welfare activities. After the global financial crisis, CSR can be used as an important tool to rebuild the trust and corporate image for the banking sector (Kaeokla & Jaikengkit, 2013; Roberto Scharf et al., 2012).

In the banking sector, trust plays an indispensable role in constructing brand loyalty (Ndubisi et al., 2007). Trust can increase the repurchase behaviour and long-run relationship with the customers (McDonald & Rundle‐Thiele, 2008). In the recent days, banking sectors are using CSR as their major marketing strategies for satisfying their customers. Kim and Lee (2019) argued CSR activities enhance trust of customers which lead to higher brand credibility. Park et al. (2014) mentioned the importance of examining the impact of trust on CSR activities. From a CSR viewpoint, trust has been regarded as an anticipation of customers about ethical behaviour or socially responsible activities from companies (Vlachos et al., 2009). Most of the previous studies have taken corporate reputation and brand credibility (Hur et al., 2014); customer satisfaction (Hsu, 2012); corporate branding as mediating variables between CSR and brand-equity association. Thus, mediating mechanism of trust is a new area of interest of the researchers (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Only a few researches, that is, the study of Fatma et al. (2015) examined the mediating influence of trust between CSR and BE. But their study only showed the effect of CSR as a single construct and did not consider various dimensions of CSR in creating trust and BE. A recent study of Huo et al. (2022) examined the role of CSR in improving sustainable purchase intentions and showed the mediating roles of brand trust and brand loyalty in the context of textile industry of Pakistan. In their study, brand trust was identified as a possible link between CSR and brand loyalty. Bugandwa et al. (2021) emphasized more rigorous studies are required to explore the relationship between the CSR and trust. Therefore, we can say that trust raised as a potential mediator between CSR and brand-related outcomes.

Following other developing countries, the Central Bank of Bangladesh started CSR and green banking operations in 2008 (Bangladesh Bank, 2015). Hence, banking sector is the pioneer of starting CSR activities in Bangladesh. That initiative in the financial sector encouraged to accelerate the wisdom of CSR arrangements of financial institutions through direct budgetary expenditure and financial inclusion efforts (Bangladesh Bank, 2015). As per CSR-spending guidelines of the Central Bank of Bangladesh, banks, and non-bank financial institutions have to expend 2.5% of their net profits on CSR activities (Bangladesh Bank, 2015). As illustrated in the annual report (2019–2020) of the Central Bank of Bangladesh, the total amount of CSR expenditure by banks and non-bank financial institutions was BDT 9399.67 million in the financial year 2020; where banks expended BDT 9255.1 million. (Bangladesh Bank, 2022a) According to Ahmed (2020), CSR activities have become a global phenomenon which also made these practices an influential sign of brand image. Therefore the emphasis on CSR in Bangladesh would be beneficial not only for developing corporate governance, community development and environment management but also for economic development and ensuring long-term BE (Ahmed, 2020). As the banking sector is a competitive sector and huge commercial banks already operate in Bangladesh, it is now very tough to create long-term BE in this sector. Many banks offer varieties of selection criteria and effortless switching options to customers. As a result, consumer behaviour is also changing day by day. Customers are now seeking trustworthy banks, which fulfil the banking need of a customer as well as the need of a broader environment, that is, society and beyond. From this standpoint, authors realize that it is high time to determine the effect of CSR in creating BE in Bangladesh banking sector.

Based on the above rationale, the current study offers a deeper understanding by examining a conceptual model postulating the direct and indirect (through trust) relationships between CSR components and BE. This study was conducted to fulfil two specific objectives. The first objective is to examine the effect of customer perception of CSR components on BE. Second, this study analyses the mediating mechanism of trust in CSR components and BE interactions.

By providing empirical evidence through the present study, it is hoped that existing research on CSR can be extended to a new dimension as, such kind of study is very rare in Bangladesh. This gap will be filled by the current research by showing how CSR influences BE through mediation of trust. Among the various contributions of this study, the most important one is that as stated by Vogel, 2006 — CSR influences are varied among various service sectors. This article empirically examines the impact of CSR’s four dimensions on BE and customers’ trust in association with the banking service industry where little research has been done. Another contribution of this research is that it highlights the significance of CSR insights for building BE through the explanation of how organizations can expand their understanding of CSR activities and how they can make successful brand-building strategies. So, this unified investigation may assist the decision-makers in understanding the CSR components and their effects on BE and the influence of trust on this effect. The results of the study will be practically applicable to prospective CSR approaches aimed to boost BE.

This research article is designed as follows: the second section offers a review of existing literature and a conceptual framework indicating the hypothesized relationships among CSR, BE and trust. Then, data and methodology of the study has been included in the third section. Next, in the fourth section the results of the analysis has been given with a comprehensive discussion in the fifth section. Then, study limitations with future research directions are presented in the sixth section. At last, conclusion and managerial implications are added in the seventh section.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Literature Review

All types of organizations consider CSR a universal idea, and banking organizations are reasonably being delicate to its advantages (Fatma & Rahman, 2015). According to Poolthong and Mandhachitara (2009), banking companies are involved in CSR activities to attain an optimistic customer insight about the service quality. Most importantly, customers are now emphasising business’s social value and expressing their preference of CSR in banking and other service sectors (Fatma & Rahman, 2016). Perez and Bosque (2013) mentioned that community development, legal and ethical concerns, social banking, etc. are now standard practices of banks in addition to their traditional offering of economic benefits. In the Bangladesh banking industry, Khan et al. (2009) conducted a study concerning CSR activities and found that banks voluntarily accepted CSR reporting and customers possess positive reactions to CSR actions. In addition, Mahbuba and Farzana (2013) stated that a remarkable advancement of CSR activities in the banking sector of Bangladesh had been witnessed.

According to Orlitzky et al. (2003), CSR offers both outer (corporate reputation, BE) and inner (capabilities, competencies) rewards by acting as an organizational resource. If intangible resources (e.g., BE, corporate reputation) is exceptional, worthy and unique they can sustain the competitive advantage (Hur et al., 2014). Guzman and Davis (2017) studied the effect of CSR on BE and found that CSR influences BE via customers’ attitudes formed by differential effects of two forms of brand–cause fit. A study by Hsu (2012) on life insurance policyholders in Taiwan found that policyholders’ perceptions of CSR performance positively affect corporate reputation, BE, and customer satisfaction. A similar study in the context of Indian banking industry by Fatma et al. (2015) revealed that CSR has a direct influence on corporate reputation and BE. Customers’ perceptions of CSR can influence BE and brand performance (Lai et al., 2010).

Morgan and Hunt (1994) stated that trust remains when one has an assurance of others’ integrity and reliability. In addition, Nelson and Kim (2021) stated that trust is indispensable for enhancing cooperation. From the consumer perspective, trust is assumed as the belief of consumers that companies will execute all activities according to their expectations (Park et al., 2014). Delgado‐Ballester and Luis Munuera‐Alemán (2001) defined brand trust as the assumption of security while choosing a brand. In addition, Singh and Agarwal (2013) indicated CSR programs are organized to shelter company reputation and encourage consumer trust. Vlachos et al. (2009) revealed that distrustful buyers are seriously impacted by unfavourable CSR actions that directly affect their buying intention and trust. They also suggested that trust can positively affect the CSR and financial performance relationship. According to Le et al. (2021), consumers who hold trust on the brand are predicted to have a positive outcome. Previous branding researches proved that, powerful brands can form a strong communication, and satisfy the promises made (Batt et al., 2021). A critical study by Kim et al. (2015) explored that CSR perception of consumer is the precursor of brand trust, which also have a mediation effect on the relationship of CSR, reputation, and corporate hypocrisy. Besides the significance of trust on CSR actions, trust is also central to BE as it could be a vital figure of any fruitful relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Some previous studies (Hur et al., 2014; Muniz et al., 2019) investigated the relationship between CSR and BE. But, facts regarding the clarification of CSR and customer-based BE are very rare. Hence, there is a dearth of research to identify the influence of four major CSR components (economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic) on BE. Furthermore, the mediation effect of trust on BE through specific CSR components is unrevealed yet. Hence, a gap is identified as how trust influences the relationship between CSR components and BE. Moreover, in developing countries like Bangladesh, there is a scarcity of empirical study on this issue. Identification of these research gaps encouraged the authors to conduct the current research.

Conceptual Framework

Based on the above justification, the present study proposes a conceptual model incorporating four predictor variables (i.e., economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility and philanthropic responsibility) as the components of CSR with one mediating variable (trust) to test the effect of CSR on BE of private commercial banks of Bangladesh (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ development.

Hypothesis Development

Based on the proposed model, thirteen hypotheses were developed to test in this study. The supports behind the hypothesized relationships with related literature are included.

CSR components and brand-equity relationship: According to Carroll (1979), the social responsibility of business comprises economic, legal, ethical and discretionary views. According to UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2002), satisfying the economic responsibility creates jobs and income in developing countries. The study of Roberto Scharf et al. (2012) revealed that CSR actions reflect different demands in supporting the financial institution brand, including social, economic and environmental demands. The second one of Carroll’s (1991) CSR model is legal responsibilities which include performing business works by fulfiling the anticipations of government and law. Furthermore, legal responsibilities are society’s expectations about lawful business transactions (Gunesh & Geraldine, 2015). The third component is the ethical responsibilities of CSR which means to know and admire society’s ethical norms, inhibiting the compromise of ethical standards for attaining corporate goals. When consumers purchase products that are not for fulfiling the basic needs and have many substitutes, they usually follow an ethical way of decision-making (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001). The fourth component of Carroll’s (1991) CSR model is philanthropic responsibilities. Visser (2007) stated that developing countries give importance in philanthropy after the economic responsibilities.

Moreover, philanthropic activities in the practice of donations are regarded as CSR in developing countries (Crane & Matten, 2012). Regarding the long-term brand relationship, philanthropic activities affect customer’s and other stakeholder’s perception about the business (Brammer & Millington, 2005). Furthermore, Rodríguez et al. (2017) investigated the dimensions of CSR and BE and confirmed that CSR has four dimensions as stated by Carroll (1991) and BE been reflected in traditional categories. In addition, they showed the existence of a significant relation between CSR and customer-based BE. Basing on the discussion about CSR and brand-equity relationship, the following hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between economic responsibility and brand equity.

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between legal responsibility and brand equity.

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between ethical responsibility and brand equity.

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between philanthropic responsibility and brand equity.

Trust and brand-equity relationship: Prior studies indicated that BE is the asset of the relational market (Hunt, 1997; Srivastava et al., 1998). According to Ganesan (1994) any brand in the market is usually established based on trust. While studying the determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationship, he recommended that mutual dependence and the extent to which the buyer and seller trust one another are the key factors. He also added that, a seller can influence the time orientation of customer’s by involving in trust-enhancing activities. Precisely, a customer’s orientation can alter by sellers’ capability to deliver promised benefits effectively and trustfully.

Chen and Park (2020) examined the relationships among BE, satisfaction and use intention from the perspective of Chinese tourists by taking trust as a moderating variable. They revealed that brand image and brand awareness in airline’s BE have a positive impact on satisfaction. In addition, their study confirmed that, trust has a positive effect as a moderating variable in relation to BE and satisfaction. Besides, the study of Delgado‐Ballester and Luis Munuera‐Alemán (2005) revealed that brand trust is embedded in the result of previous experience with the brand. They also stated that trust is positively related to brand loyalty, which positively relates to BE. Although their result of brand trust does not show a full mediation effect recommended by Morgan and Hunt (1994), it helps to explain BE better. According to Song et al. (2019) trust is considered as a critical part of a business as the corporate image is shaped by trustworthy undertakings of a firm. Chen (2009) explored that trust, brand image and satisfaction are positively related to BE. Likewise, Ambler (1997) stated that customer trust is a significant factor of BE. Furthermore, Jevons and Gabbott (2000) and Kim et al. (2008) showed that BE is positively affected by customer trust. Credibility as well as trust is considered as a key factor of BE (del Barrio-García & Prados-Peña, 2019). Brand credibility can influence brand credibility by refining insights of brand quality and usefulness (Spry et al., 2011). They also claimed that credibility upholds customer-based brand equity (CBBE).

Thus the following hypothesis was postulated:

Hypothesis 5: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between trust and brand equity.

CSR and trust relationship: Several researchers (Lin et al., 2011; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013) investigated CSR and trust relationships and revealed that socially responsible business organizations gain customer trust in their products or services. It was found by Kim et al. (2021) that corporate responsibility for the environment and community, law and ethics, culture and economy during social responsibility activities directly affects corporate brand trust. By empirically examining the relationships between multidimensional set of CSR initiatives, customer trust, and corporate image in the hotel industry of Pakistan, Chen et al. (2021) found that economic, legal, and philanthropic CSRs were in a significant relationship with customer trust, while ethical CSR was not in a significant relationship with customer trust. Choi and La (2013) revealed that CSR affects customer trust in various service sectors such as restaurants, financial services and airlines. According to Islam et al. (2021) as society’s ethical view about the company is important to build a trustworthy relationship with society, businesses are now dedicated to involve in socially responsible activities. Kim et al. (2019) suggested that, one of the most important tactics to enhance trust in customers is performing CSR activities. The study of Abu Zayyad et al. (2020) found significant connection among CSR and brand credibility.

A recent study by Sharma and Jain (2019) examined the effect of perceived CSR initiatives on consumer-based BE and brand loyalty where they found positive and direct relationships between CSR and consumer trust as well as consumer trust and CBBE. Besides, Hansen et al. (2011) empirically proved that CSR is related to trust in top management. A study on CSR communication process by Kim, 2017 confirmed the positive influence of CSR communication factors on consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust and perceptions of corporate reputation.

Therefore, embracing the four main components of Carroll’s CSR model, the following four hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 6: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between economic responsibility and trust.

Hypothesis 7: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between legal responsibility and trust.

Hypothesis 8: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between ethical responsibility and trust.

Hypothesis 9: There is a significant positive relationship that exists between philanthropic responsibility and trust.

Mediating role of trust between CSR and brand-equity relationship: Ellen (2006) suggested that consumer trust is a dominant factor to affect (both good and bad) CSR activities of a company. Besides, Godfrey (2005) stated that investment in CSR is essential as it creates moral capital, and positive moral capital reduces the loss from undesirable stakeholder estimations. A critical study of Jevons and Gabbott (2000) showed that trust is positively related to BE and crucial for business. According to the findings of Cuong (2020), brand trust plays a mediator role between brand satisfaction and the purchase intentions. The study of Villagra et al. (2021) found the parallel mediating role of trust and showed that brand personality has an indirect beneficial impact on consumer loyalty, which is mediated through brand trust. Farooq et al. (2013) conducted a study based on social exchange theory and revealed that organizational identification and trust are the key mediating variables in CSR and organizational commitment link. In addition, Iglesias et al. (2018) examined the mediating mechanism of customer trust and co-creation in the CSR and customer loyalty link. Their study also found a mediating effect of trust in the stated relationship. In a different setting, a recent study of Kumari et al. (2021) found the mediating effect of organizational trust and commitment between the relationship of CSR and corporate reputation. While measuring CSR communication effectiveness on social media, Fernández et al. (2022) embraced CSR credibility and motive attribution as mediator between CSR associations, corporate/brand attitude and downstream sequential effects on purchase intention, loyalty, as well as CSR post endorsement.

Based on the above discussions, the following four hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 10: The relationship between economic responsibility and brand equity is mediated by trust.

Hypothesis 11: The relationship between legal responsibility and brand equity is mediated by trust.

Hypothesis 12: The relationship between ethical responsibility and brand equity is mediated by trust.

Hypothesis 13: The relationship between philanthropic responsibility and brand equity is mediated by trust.

Data and Methodology

Kline (2005) gave sample size guidelines for structural equation models. He said that a sample of 100 is small, a sample of 100–200 is medium, and a sample over 200 is large. This study is taking appropriate sample size based on population size as well. The target population of this study is the customers of private commercial banks of Bangladesh. Cross-sectional data were collected by following the convenience sampling method. Regarding the sampling unit, there are 43 private commercial banks currently operating in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Bank, 2022b) and data collection was done covering all the banks through an online survey. Initially, 290 responses were gathered from the online survey. This study mainly focused on structural equation modelling (SEM). Structural equation modelling has one important requirement that 15 respondents should be included for each of the factor assessed (Hair et al., 1998). Therefore, 290 sample size fulfils this condition. Among the 290 responses, 15 had to be discarded because of respondent error. The remaining 275 is regarded as the sample size of the study. The sample profile of the study is included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile of the Samples

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	%
Age	Below 20	4	1.5
	20–30	94	34.2
	30–40	93	33.8
	40–50	53	19.3
	50–60	22	8.0
	Above 60	9	3.3
	Total	275	100.0
Gender	Male	154	56.0
	Female	121	44.0
	Total	275	100.0
Marital status	Unmarried	133	48.4
	Married	122	44.4
	Other	20	7.3
	Total	275	100.0
Occupation	Govt. job	29	10.5
	Private sector job	98	35.6
	Businessman	27	9.8
	Student	70	25.5
	Housewife	15	5.5
	Unemployed	24	8.7
	Other	12	4.4
	Total	275	100.0
Level of education	Below SSC	2	0.7
	SSC	10	3.6
	HSC	22	8.0
	Bachelor	90	32.7
	Masters	115	41.8
	Higher study	36	13.1
	Total	275	100.0
Monthly income	No personal income	34	12.4
	Below Tk. 10,000	35	12.7
	Tk. 10,000–Tk. 20,000	32	11.6
	Tk. 20,000–Tk. 30,000	50	18.2
	Tk. 30,000–Tk. 40,000	46	16.7
	Tk. 40,000–Tk. 50,000	29	10.5
	Tk. 50,000–Tk. 60,000	20	7.3
	Tk. 60,000–Tk. 70,000	13	4.7
	Above Tk. 70,000	16	5.8
	Total	275	100.0
Religion	Islam	226	82.2
	Hinduism	32	11.6
	Christianity	10	3.6
	Buddhism	5	1.8
	Other	2	0.7
	Total	275	100.0
Residential area	Rural	47	17.1
	Urban	228	82.9
	Total	275	100.0

Source: Authors’ estimation.

Among 275 samples, the highest proportion (34.2%) belonged to the age category of 20–30, followed by 30–40 years (33.8%). At the same time, responses from the below 20 years and above 60 years are lowest (1.5%–3.3%). The majority of the respondents were male (56%) and unmarried (48.4%). Regarding occupation, the maximum respondents were private-sector job holders (35.6%) followed by students (25.5%). About 41.8% of respondents had a master’s degree followed by bachelor degree (32.7%), and the majority (18%) had mid-ranged personal income (Tk. 20,000–Tk. 30,000). A vast majority (82.2%) of the respondents were Muslims and lived in the urban area (82.9%) of Bangladesh.

The main instrument used in this study was a structured questionnaire including seven sections. A 7-point Likert scale was used to measure the items as Likert’s scale is recommended for assessing marketing and brand-related studies (Brakus et al., 2009). Respondents’ familiarity of CSR initiatives undertaken by the particular bank facilitated to collect consistent reliable and valid answers. For further understanding, instructions had been provided at the beginning of the questionnaire and brief explanation of various terms had been included with the questionnaire items. Besides, confidentiality of respondent data was guaranteed.

In this study, authors followed Carroll’s definition (1979) of CSR and applied his four-domain pyramid framework due to the vast acceptance and application by many theorists and empirical investigators (i.e., Strong & Meyer, 1992). To measure the four components of CSR, the items were adapted from Maignan (2001) and Salmones et al. (2005)’s survey instrument.

Between the two approaches (perception related and behaviour related) to measure customer-based BE, authors omitted behavioural variables as there is only a weak link of CSR to behavioural variables (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). As stated by Yoo and Donth (2001), because of the absence of discriminate validity, it is needed to group brand awareness and brand associations. Recommended by Yoo and Donth (2001), the strength of CBBE was tested by Washburn and Plank (2002). They indicated that, the best parsimonious model can be created when brand awareness and brand associations are combined. Moreover, Keller (1993) also explained BE as a distinct construct where brand awareness and brand associations are merged. So, in this study BE was measured with the four-brand awareness items proposed by Yoo and Donthu (2001) and one-brand association item by Delgado‐Ballester and Luis Munuera‐Alemán (2005), which were in line with the definition of BE proposed by Keller (1993).

In this study, authors accepted a multi-dimensional approach to measure trust as suggested by Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002), which were vastly applied in previous researches (e.g., Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Delgado‐Ballester & Luis Munuera‐Alemán, 2001). Precisely, trust was measured by four items following Poolthong and Mandhachitara (2009) study. All the measurement scale items are presented in Table 2 with corresponding sources.

Table 2.

Constructs and Scale Items

Constructs	Item Code	Scale Items	Source
Economic responsibility	ER1	Conducts its activities to maximize profits.	Maignan (2001)
	ER2	Stringently control the production costs.
	ER3	Continuously expand economic performance.
	ER4	Attempts to gain utmost enduring success.	Salmones et al. (2005)
	ER5	Always tries to progress economically.	Salmones et al. (2005)
Legal responsibility	LR1	Employees’ performance according to the standards of law is assured by this bank.	Maignan (2001)
	LR2	Resist themselves from breaking the contractual obligations.
	LR3	Even for achieving better performance this bank resist themselves from breaching the law.
	LR4	This bank always render to the principles of the regulatory system.
	LR5	When accomplish its tasks this bank always obey the rules prescribed by the law.	Salmones et al. (2005)
Ethical responsibility	ETR1	This bank maintain ethical behaviour with the customers.	Salmones et al. (2005)
	ETR2	Allow ethical concerns to adversely affect economic performance.	Maignan (2001)
	ETR3	Obeying ethical values has importance above the economic performance of this bank.
	ETR4	This bank is dedicated to definite ethical ideologies.
	ETR5	For the achievement of commercial goals, this bank negates for compromising ethical standards.
Philanthropic responsibility	PR1	This bank is focused on respecting and preserving natural environment.	Salmones et al. (2005)
	PR2	This bank makes sponsorship to promote social events.
	PR3	In favour of the underprivileged, this bank makes donations and undertakes social work.
	PR4	This bank is focused on upholding the overall well-being of the society.
	PR5	This bank contributes to the organization of public affairs.	Maignan (2001)
Brand equity (BE)	BE1	Among other banks, I can identify with this bank.	Yoo and Donthu (2001)
	BE2	I can remember the logo and symbol of this bank rapidly.
	BE3	I am aware of this bank.
	BE4	Some characteristics of this bank come to my mind quickly.
	BE5	Even if another bank has the same features as this bank, I would prefer to take service from this bank.	Delgado‐Ballester and Luis Munuera‐Alemán (2005)
Trust	TRU1	This bank is of high integrity	Poolthong and Mandhachitara (2009)
	TRU2	This bank is honestly dedicated to my satisfaction.
	TRU3	I feel that this bank gives me enough attention
	TRU4	All things considered, I trust this bank.

Source: Authors’ development based on literature review.

This study applied SEM, a multivariate approach to analyse covariance structure, latent variable analysis, CFA, path analysis and structural relations in a linear manner (Hair et al., 1998). Using AMOS tools, SEM was done to estimate the strength of causal linkage between the variables. Subsequently, SEM was conducted to define the complete structural model to analyse the direct and indirect relationships between study constructs. Using MLE (maximum probability evaluation), this research carried out SEM to understand the estimation of the model parameters. Chi-square, goodness-of-fit (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized chi-square (Bollen, 1989; Jöreskog, 1969) were used for the study’s model fitness. Finally, the mediation test was performed through cumulative effects, direct effects and indirect field variables.

Results of the Analysis

Measurement model: At first confirmatory factor analysis was done and the results showed that no interrelationships exist among the constructs (Figure 2). So, there is no problem of multicollinearity in the model. In the measurement model p-value = 0.000; chi/df = 3.027; RMSEA = 0.075; CFI = 0.921; AGFI = 0.952; GFI = 0.932; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.961. Values show that CFI is near one, normed chi-square upper limit is three or five and RMSEA is between 0.05 and 0.10, which demonstrates good-fit indices of data.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ estimation.

Validity and reliability assessment: To check the reliability of the scales, Cronbach’s alpha of economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, philanthropic responsibility, trust and BE were calculated. All the Cronbach’s alpha values are 0.80 or higher (Table 3), which confirms the reliability of the items. The alpha scores indicate high standard of reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 3.

Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted for Constructs

Construct Name	Measurement Items	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE (average variance extracted)	CR (composite reliability)
Economic responsibility (ER)	ER1	0.912	0.862	0.556	0.869
	ER2	0.893
	ER3	0.741
	ER4	0.770
	ER5	0.631
Legal responsibility (LR)	LR1	0.931	0.837	0.784	0.927
	LR2	0.882
	LR3	0.816
	LR4	0.692
	LR5	0.667
Ethical responsibility (ETR)	ETR1	0.936	0.874	0.629	0.995
	ETR2	0.927
	ETR3	0.897
	ETR4	0.811
	ETR5	0.771
Philanthropic responsibility (PR)	PR1	0.971	0.802	0.796	0.889
	PR2	0.911
	PR3	0.841
	PR4	0.706
	PR5	0.712
Brand equity (BE)	BE1	0.829	0.855	0.582	0.912
	BE2	0.817
	BE3	0.768
	BE4	0.623
	BE5	0.611
Trust (TRU)	TRU1	0.937	0.861	0.772	0.869
	TRU2	0.918
	TRU3	0.887
	TRU4	0.843

Source: Authors’ estimation.

To explore sampling adequacy, this study has been done Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, where the results are variance explained = 40%, KMO = 0.912, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS) chi-square = 1935.40 (p = 0.000). The results show that the sample is suitable for factor extraction (Hair et al., 1998). A measure of content validity is ‘how illustrative and comprehensive the pieces were in making by the scale’ (Bohrnstedt, 1970). By examining the process by which scale objects were made, this investigation appraised them (Straub, 1989). After conducting a thorough assessment of the literature, which helped to define the items and constructs, this study conducted a number of tests utilizing SEM in order to verify the relevant validity (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). The convergent validity of a model is increased when the factor loading is higher. Higher discriminant validity may result from improved content validity and increased average variance explained (Alam et al., 2014; Borsboom et al., 2004). To supplement the validity scores, a CFA was performed.

Besides, composite reliability (CR) of the scales was measured, and it is found that all CR values are greater than recommended cut-off point of 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Next, average variance extracted (AVE) was assessed to test convergent validity. Suggested by Hair et al., 1998, this study further assures the validity of constructs as all of the AVE values are not smaller than 0.50. In addition, the researchers conducted discriminant validity by incorporating the correlation score between the components and testing the confidence interval (Kline, 2005). Similarly, the researchers in this study estimated the variables’ confidence intervals which is 95%. This study’s discriminant validity was reinforced by the absence of any such value in any of the intervals studied (Torkzadeh et al., 2003).

Structural model: This study tested all the direct and indirect relationships through SEM. The measurement model from SEM outcome shows good-fit indices (p-value = 0.000; chi/df = 3.128; RMSEA = 0.0732; GFI = 0.912; AGFI = 0.906; TLI = 0.908; CFI = 0.959). Values show that CFI is near one, normed chi-square upper limit is three or five and RMSEA is between 0.05 and 0.10, which demonstrates good-fit indices of data. The structural model of the research is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Source: Authors’ estimation

The path coefficients of the structural model are presented in Table 4. The path coefficient value of 0.15 and higher is considered statistically significant (Hair et al., 1998). Following this standard, this study showed that standardized path coefficient between economic responsibility and BE is 0.274, which confirmed the acceptance of hypothesis one. Likewise, this study showed the relationship between legal responsibility and BE as the standardized path coefficient is 0.412. Hence, hypothesis two is accepted. Similarly, hypothesis three is also accepted in this study as the standardized path coefficient between ethical responsibility and BE is 0.331 (p ≥ 0.05).

Table 4.

Regression Weights

Hypothesis Path	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	p-Value	Result
BE ← ER	0.274	0.061	4.492	0.003	Supported
BE ← LR	0.412	0.053	7.774	0.000	Supported
BE ← ETR	0.331	0.076	4.355	0.025	Supported
BE ← PR	0.253	0.063	4.016	0.000	Supported
BE ← TRU	0.214	0.085	2.518	0.000	Supported
TRU ← ER	0.259	0.093	2.785	0.007	Supported
TRU ← LR	0.479	0.071	6.746	0.017	Supported
TRU ← ETR	0.402	0.069	5.826	0.001	Supported
TRU ← PR	0.371	0.083	4.470	0.000	Supported

Source: Authors’ estimation.

In this study, the significant positive relationship between philanthropic responsibility and BE is ratified (standardized path coefficient is 0.253), which supports hypothesis four. Next, hypothesis five is also accepted because standardized path coefficient between trust and BE is found to be 0.214. This study also confirms a significant positive relationship between economic responsibility and trust (standardized path coefficient = 0.259). Therefore, hypothesis six is also accepted. It is found that the standardized path coefficient is 0.479 between legal responsibility and trust, which confirms the significant positive relationship between these two constructs. Therefore hypothesis seven is also accepted. The standardized path coefficient between ethical responsibility and trust is 0.402, which assures the existence of a significant positive relationship. So, hypothesis eight is also supported. This study also confirms that a significant positive relationship exists between philanthropic responsibility and trust as the standardized path coefficient is 0.371. Therefore, hypothesis nine is also accepted. So, all hypotheses regarding direct relationships of the proposed model are established in this research.

Mediating effect: Following the recommendations of Baron and Kenny (1986) the mediation test was done in this study. The relationship between economic responsibility and trust is significant (β = 0.259, CR = 2.785, p = 0.007). Also the relationship between BE and trust is also significant (β = 0.214, CR = 2.518, p = 0.000). If these relationships were controlled, a formerly significant relationship among exogenous variables and endogenous variables seems essential. So, this research discovered that trust plays a weak-mediator role in the relationship between economic responsibility and BE. Hence, hypothesis ten is accepted. Then the relationship between legal responsibility and trust is significant (β = 0.479, CR = 6.746, p = 0.017). The relationship between BE and trust is also significant (β = 0.214, CR = 2.518, p = 0.000). The direct effect of legal responsibility and trust was significant in the primary stage. After adding the mediator variable (i.e., trust), this relationship became significant, indicating that trust mediates the relationship between legal responsibility and BE (Table 3). Therefore, hypothesis 11 is supported. Next, the relationship between ethical responsibility and trust is significant (β = 0.402, CR = 5.826, p = 0.001). Besides the relationship between BE and trust is also significant (β = 0.214, CR = 2.518, p = 0.000). At the primary stage, a direct effect of ethical responsibility and trust was significant and this relationship again became significant after adding the mediator variable (i.e., trust). So, it indicates that trust mediates the relationship between ethical responsibility and BE, which assures hypothesis 12. Lastly, relationship between philanthropic responsibility and trust is significant (β = 0.371, CR = 4.470, p = 0.000). As the relationship between BE and trust is also significant (β = 0.214, CR = 2.518, p = 0.000). The direct effect of philanthropic responsibility and trust was significant in the primary stage. After adding the mediator variable (i.e., trust), this relationship became significant, indicating that trust mediates the relationship between philanthropic responsibility and BE. Therefore, hypothesis 13 is also supported.

Findings and Discussion

The result section indicates that four CSR components have direct and positive impacts on BE. This finding is similar to the finding of Hafez (2018) who also conducted study in the context of Bangladesh banking industry. Furthermore, this outcome is in agreement with the previous research of Lai et al. (2010) and Hur et al. (2014). Among the four CSR components, legal responsibility shows the highest impact on creating BE. The possible explanation behind this finding may be customers now think that banks should not operate to fulfil the earnings motive only and conform to the legal guidelines and policies below which commercial enterprise ought to perform. Besides, Carroll (1991) also stated that companies are expected to chase economic operations following the basis of law. Furthermore, legal responsibilities get highest priorities in developed economies among other magnitudes of CSR (Rahim et al., 2011).

Next, ethical responsibility shows the second-highest impact on creating BE. The probable cause behind this finding may be banks are now offering almost the same services, and customers are influenced not only by their offerings but also their ethical behaviour. Rahim et al. (2011) stated that unless just following laws and regulations, economic and ethical responsibilities are reflected as principal values of CSR. Then the economic responsibility has the third-highest impact. This finding is contrary to the existing literature. It is considered that economic responsibilities are gaining the greatest importance in developing and developed countries as prescribed by Carroll’s original work (Planken et al., 2010). Among the four components of CSR, philanthropic responsibility shows the lowest impact to build BE though the relationship is significant. Therefore this finding contradicts the findings of Visser (2005) and (Flandez, 2013) because they showed that in case of developing economies, philanthropic responsibility is regarded as the most imperative aspect in the customer decision-making process, after quality and price. The possible explanation behind our finding in developing countries like Bangladesh is that philanthropic or voluntary donations may be beyond the customer’s expectations.

The study results also showed that customer trust has a direct and positive impact on BE, which is similar to the previous study (Chen, 2009). Besides, this study also confirmed that different components of CSR (economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities) have a direct and positive impact on building customer trust in banking activities. This finding is similar to the previous findings (Sharma & Jain, 2019), who also found positive and direct relationships between perceived CSR and BE; consumer trust and BE, and perceived CSR and consumer trust. Similarly, Iglesias et al. (2018), Tian et al. (2011) and Singh and Verma (2019) also found a direct relationship between CSR and customer trust.

The most important finding of this study is the mediating role of trust in the relationship between CSR components and BE. However, some previous studies tested and confirmed the mediation effect of corporate image and brand awareness (Hafez, 2018), brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, and purchase intention (Singh & Verma, 2019) between the relationship of CSR and BE rather than testing customer trust as a mediator. Therefore, the present finding is in line with Fatma et al. (2015), who also demonstrated the mediating role of trust between CSR and BE. Their study showed that CSR activities build consumer trust in a company, which positively impacts BE and corporate reputation. But, their study did not show the effects of four individual CSR components. The present research finds out the mediator role of trust in between the relationship of each of the CSR components and BE.

Regarding the indirect relationships, legal responsibility shows the highest degree of impact, and ethical responsibility offers the second-highest degree of effects to build customer trust in banking services. This finding agreed with previous finding of Kim et al. (2021) who showed that legal and ethical responsibility has the highest meaning for brand trust. But philanthropic responsibility shows more impact than the economic responsibility to build trust. This means that the power of indirect effect (through trust) is higher for the philanthropic responsibility than direct effect to create BE. So, it is evident that impacts of specific CSR components have been changed when customer trust is considered, which is the most interesting finding of this study.

Limitations and Future Research

Notwithstanding that this study is an extensive attempt, some limitations exist, which directs for more research on this issue. This study was conducted only considering the customers of private commercial banks of Bangladesh, which might restrict the generalization of the result just in private commercial banks. Hence, further research can be conducted by also taking the customers of state-owned banks, specialized banks, and other types of financial institutions that undertake CSR activities. Meanwhile, this study was conducted by taking samples mainly from the metropolitan area. The sample size was restricted to 275 and just cross-sectional data was utilized with a convenience sampling technique. So it is suggested that, forthcoming investigation should be directed by taking a larger sample covering also the rural-area customers. As this research is limited to Bangladesh context only, future cross cultural and cross-country research should be directed to examine the proposed model. Next, this study was conducted in regard to the customer’s perception about CSR activities. Future research should be conducted by embracing the actual CSR programs. Finally, with the incorporation of additional consumer-oriented and market-based factors such as customer awareness, emotional attachment, brand performance and corporate branding, the range of the proposed model could further be expanded.

Conclusion and Managerial Implications

This study accomplished the stated objectives by testing the proposed model postulating direct and indirect (through trust) relationships between CSR components and BE. Rather than accepting the integrated approach of evaluating CSR at aggregate level, this study considered the solitary effects of CSR dimensions in brand-equity formation. Besides, indirect connections among them mediated through trust. To sum up, four types of CSR activities can create trust in banking activities, resulting in brand-equity formulation. To enhance the BE of private commercial banks in Bangladesh, current study outcome can be regarded as a foundation.

It is evident from this study that private commercial banks can enhance BE through different CSR practices and trust can boost this enhancement significantly. Thus, it is suggested by this study that CSR regarding banking sector should not be simplified with a combined measure of CSR because each type of CSR component builds BE directly and indirectly through trust.

From the managerial view point, present findings possess diverse implications for the current and future CSR-oriented banks. To begin with, each of the CSR components help in improving marketing performance (BE) of the banks. So it is suggested that through increasing concern in the field of economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities, and banking sector can form BE. Managers must be focused on CSR and donate more funds in social activities as customers trust socially accountable businesses. In particular, legal and ethical responsibility of CSR has the most significant impact on improving BE. So, bank authority should be concerned about following the legal and ethical work environment, which may include following the laws and regulations, increasing transparency, behaving properly to customers and understanding the differences between right and wrongdoings.

Next, banks should closely monitor their activities and ensure that they are not operating only for profit maximization but also for helping the society. Rather than viewing customer trust as a temporary public relation measure, it is now necessary to accept it as a meaningful and enduring activity. In this way, deliberately overseeing CSR exercises to create trust may bring about ideal results. Our discoveries could give significant bits of knowledge to directors concerning the vital function of CSR in developing customer–brand connections.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abu Zayyad

, Obeidat

, Alshurideh

, Abuhashesh

, Maqableh

, & Masa’deh

(2020). Corporate social responsibility and patronage intentions: The mediating effect of brand credibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(5), 510–533. 10.1080/13527266.2020.1728565

Ahmed

(2020). The widening range of CSR. The Financial Express. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/the-widening-range-of-csr-1583244538

Alam

A. M.

, Somta

, & Srinives

(2014). Generation mean and path analyses of reaction to mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) and yield-related traits in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). SABRAO Journal of Breeding & Genetics, 46(1), 150–159.

Ali

S. S.

, & Kaur

(2021). Effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in implementation of social sustainability in warehousing of developing countries: A hybrid approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 324, 129154. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129154

Ambler

(1997). How much of brand equity is explained by trust? Management Decision, 35(4), 283–292. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/00251749710169666

Baalbaki

, & Guzmán

(2016). A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Brand Management, 23(3), 229–251. 10.1057/bm.2016.11

Bagozzi

, & Yi

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/bf02723327

Bangladesh Bank. (2015). Review of CSR activities review of Bangladesh bank, Commercial banks & Financial Institutions—2014. Bangladesh Bank.

Bangladesh Bank. (2022a). Annual report 2019–2020. https://www.bb.org.bd/pub/annual/anreport/ar1920/index1920.php

10.

Bangladesh Bank. (2022b). Banks & FIs. https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/financialactivity/bankfi#:~:text=These%20banks%20are%20also%20fully,by%20individuals%2Fthe%20private%20entities.

11.

Baron

, & Kenny

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

12.

Batt

, Holzer

, Bruhn

, & Tuzovic

(2021). Effects of sponsorship quality and quantity on employee brand behavior. Journal of Brand Management, 28(5), 495–509. 10.1057/s41262-021-00242-w

13.

Bhattacharya

, & Sen

(2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/41166284

14.

Bohrnstedt

G. W.

(1970). Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement. Attitude Measurement, 4(3), 80–99.

15.

Bollen

(1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0049124189017003004

16.

Borsboom

, Mellenbergh

G. J.

, & Van Heerden

(2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061.

17.

Brakus

, Schmitt

, & Zarantonello

(2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052

18.

Brammer

, & Millington

(2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4

19.

Bugandwa

, Kanyurhi

, Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa

, & Haguma Mushigo

(2021). Linking corporate social responsibility to trust in the banking sector: Exploring disaggregated relations. International Journal of Bank Marketing, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). 10.1108/ijbm-04-2020-0209

20.

Carrigan

, & Attalla

(2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/07363760110410263

21.

Carroll

(1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497. 10.2307/257850

22.

Carroll

(1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. 10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

23.

Chaudhuri

, & Holbrook

(2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

24.

Chen

(2009). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307–319. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9

25.

Chen

, & Park

(2020). An analysis of the relationships among brand equity, brand satisfaction and use intention of Chinese Airlines: Focused on trust as a moderating variable. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Research, 32(12), 277–297. 10.31336/jtlr.2020.12.32.12.277

26.

Chen

, Khan

, Hongsuchon

, Ruangkanjanases

, Chen

, Sivarak

, & Chen

(2021). The role of corporate social responsibility and corporate image in times of crisis: The mediating role of customer trust. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8275. 10.3390/ijerph18168275

27.

Choi

, & La

(2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery. Journal Of Services Marketing, 27(3), 223–233. 10.1108/08876041311330717

28.

Crane

, & Matten

(2012). New directions in business ethics. SAGE Publications.

29.

Cuong

(2020). The role of brand trust as a mediator in the relationship between brand satisfaction and purchase intention. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(6), 1475–7192. 10.37200/IJPR/V24I6/PR261416

30.

del Barrio-García

, & Prados-Peña

(2019). Do brand authenticity and brand credibility facilitate brand equity? The case of heritage destination brand extension. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 13, 10–23. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.05.002

31.

Delgado‐Ballester

, & Luis Munuera‐Alemán

(2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238–1258. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/eum0000000006475

32.

Delgado‐Ballester

, & Luis Munuera‐Alemán

(2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/10610420510601058

33.

Ellen

(2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0092070305284976

34.

Farooq

, Payaud

, Merunka

, & Valette-Florence

(2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 563–580. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/article/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3

35.

Fatma

, & Rahman

(2015). Consumer perspective on CSR literature review and future research agenda. Management Research Review, 38(2), 195–216. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/mrr-09-2013-0223

36.

Fatma

, & Rahman

(2016). The CSR’s influence on customer responses in Indian banking sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 49–57. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.008

37.

Fatma

, Rahman

, & Khan

(2015). Building company reputation and brand equity through CSR: The mediating role of trust. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(6), 840–856. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/ijbm-11-2014-0166

38.

Fernández

, Hartmann

, & Apaolaza

(2022). What drives CSR communication effectiveness on social media? A process-based theoretical framework and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 385–413. 10.1080/02650487.2021.1947016

39.

Flandez

(2013). Most consumers who buy charity-linked products want results. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Most-Consumers-Who-Buy/154285

40.

Ganesan

(1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1252265

41.

Godfrey

P. C.

(2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777–798.

42.

Gunesh

R. V.

, & Geraldine

R. W.

(2015). Do CSR practices of banks in Mauritius lead to satisfaction and loyalty? Studies in Business and Economics, 10(2), 128–144.

43.

Guzmán

, & Davis

(2017). The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand equity: Consumer responses to two types of fit. Journal of Product and Management, 26(5), 435–446. 10.1108/jpbm-06-2015-0917

44.

Hafez

(2018). Measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility practices on brand equity in the banking industry in Bangladesh. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(5), 806–822. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/ijbm-04-2017-0072

45.

Hair

J. F. J.

, Anderson

R. E.

, Tatham

R. L.

, & Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

46.

Hansen

S. D.

, Dunford

B. B.

, Boss

A. D.

, Boss

R. W.

, & Angermeier

(2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45.

47.

Hoyle

R. H.

, & Smith

G. T.

(1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429.

48.

Hsu

(2012). The advertising effect of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 189–201.

49.

Hunt

S. D.

(1997). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationships marketing in resource-advantage theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 431–445.

50.

Huo

, Hameed

, Zhang

, Bin Mohd Ali

, & Amri Nik Hashim

(2022). Modeling the impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable purchase intentions: Insights into brand trust and brand loyalty. Economic Research [Ekonomska Istraživanja], 1–30. 10.1080/1331677x.2021.2016465

51.

Hur

W. M.

, Kim

, & Woo

(2014). How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating mechanism of corporate brand credibility and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(1), 75–86.

52.

Iglesias

, Markovic

, Bagherzadeh

, & Singh

(2018). Co-creation: A key link between corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 151–166. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-018-4015-y

53.

Islam

, Islam

, Pitafi

, Xiaobei

, Rehmani

, Irfan

, & Mubarak

(2021). The impact of corporate social responsibility on customer loyalty: The mediating role of corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, and trust. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 123–135. 10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.019

54.

Jevons

, & Gabbott

(2000). Trust, brand equity and brand reality in internet business relationships: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(6), 619–634.

55.

Jöreskog

(1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/bf02289343

56.

Kaeokla

, & Jaikengkit

(2013). Exploring the corporate social responsibility reporting: A case study in Thai listed companies. African Journal of Business Management, 7(28), 2794–2800. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM/article-abstract/295CF0A39440

57.

Keller

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

58.

Khan

, Halabi

, & Samy

(2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: A study of selected banking companies in Bangladesh. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 344–357.

59.

Khan

P. A.

, Johl

S. K.

, & Johl

S. K.

(2021). Does adoption of ISO 56002-2019 and green innovation reporting enhance the firm sustainable development goal performance? An emerging paradigm. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 2922–2936. 10.1002/bse.2779

60.

Kim

(2017). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143–1159. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6

61.

Kim

, & Lee

(2019). The effect of CSR fit and CSR authenticity on the brand attitude. Sustainability, 12(1), 275. 10.3390/su12010275

62.

Kim

, Cho

, & Park

(2019). Does CSR assurance affect the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance? Sustainability, 11(20), 5682. 10.3390/su11205682

63.

Kim

, Ferrin

, & Rao

(2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564. 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001

64.

Kim

, Lee

, & Lee

(2021). Effect of CSR activities on brand equity: Through the trust of a company’s brand. Natural Volatiles & Essential Oils, 8(4), 10931–10940.

65.

Kim

, Hur

, & Yeo

(2015). Corporate brand trust as a mediator in the relationship between consumer perception of CSR, corporate hypocrisy, and corporate reputation. Sustainability, 7(4), 3683–3694. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3390/su7043683

66.

Kline

(2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE Publications.

67.

Kumari

, Abbas

, Rashid

, & Haq

(2021). Role of corporate social responsibility in corporate reputation via organizational trust and commitment. Reviews of Management Sciences, III(2), 42–63. https://rmsjournal.com/index.php/admin/article/view/84

68.

Lai

, Chiu

, Yang

, & Pai

(2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469. 10.1007/s10551-010-0433-1

69.

T. T.

, Ngo

H. Q.

, & Aureliano-Silva

(2021). Contribution of corporate social responsibility on SMEs’ performance in an emerging market—The mediating roles of brand trust and brand loyalty. International Journal of Emerging Markets (ahead-of-print). 10.1108/IJOEM-12-2020-1516

70.

Lin

C. P.

, Chen

S. C.

, Chiu

C. K.

, & Lee

W. Y.

(2011). Understanding purchase intention during product-harm crises: Moderating effects of perceived corporate ability and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 455–471.

71.

Mahbuba

, & Farzana

(2013). Corporate social responsibility and profitability: A case study on Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 3(4), 139–145.

72.

Maignan

(2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 57–72.

73.

Martínez

, & Rodríguez del Bosque

(2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89–99.

74.

McDonald

, & Rundle‐Thiele

(2008). Corporate social responsibility and bank customer satisfaction. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(3), 170–182. 10.1108/02652320810864643

75.

Melo

, & Ignacio

(2011). Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 423–437.

76.

Morgan

R. M.

, & Hunt

S. D.

(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

77.

Muniz

, Guzmán

, Paswan

, & Crawford

(2019). The immediate effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(7), 864–879. 10.1108/jpbm-09-2018-2016

78.

Ndubisi

N. O.

, Wah

C. K.

, & Ndubisi

G. C.

(2007). Supplier-customer relationship management and customer loyalty: The banking industry perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(2), 222–236.

79.

Nelson

J. L.

, & Kim

S. J.

(2021). Improve trust, increase loyalty? Analyzing the relationship between news credibility and consumption. Journalism Practice, 15(3), 348–365. 10.1080/17512786.2020.1719874

80.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

81.

Orlitzky

, Schmidt

, & Rynes

(2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

82.

Park

, Lee

, & Kim

(2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 295–302.

83.

Perez

, & Bosque

I. R.

(2013). The development of a stakeholder-based scale for measuring corporate social responsibility in the banking industry. Service Business, 7(3), 459–481.

84.

Planken

, Sahu

, & Nickerson

(2010). Corporate social responsibility communication in the Indian context. Journal of Indian Business Research, 2(1), 10–22. 10.1108/17554191011032910

85.

Poolthong

, & Mandhachitara

(2009). Customer experience of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(6), 408–427.

86.

Rahim

A. R.

, Jalaludin

F. W.

, & Tajuddin

(2011). The importance of corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), 119–139.

87.

Roberto Scharf

, Fernandes

, & Diego Kormann

(2012). Corporate social responsibility to build strong Brazilian bank brand. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(6), 436–451.

88.

Rodríguez

, Valiño

, & Burguete

(2017). The effects of corporate social responsibility on customer-based brand equity: Spanish hypermarket case. Economic Research [Ekonomska Istraživanja], 30(1), 290–301.

89.

Salmones

, Crespo

, & Bosque

(2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 369–385. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-005-5841-2

90.

Sharma

, & Jain

(2019). CSR, trust, brand loyalty and brand equity: Empirical evidences from Sportswear Industry in the NCR region of India. Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, 18(1), 57–67. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0972622519853158

91.

Singh

, & Agarwal

(2013). Does CSR orientation reflect stakeholder relationship marketing orientation? An empirical examination of Indian banks. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 31(4), 405–420.

92.

Singh

, & Verma

(2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand equity of Indian firms. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 20(1), 64. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1504/ijbir.2019.10023212

93.

Sirdeshmukh

, Singh

, & Sabol

(2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.

94.

Song

Ruan

, & Park. (2019). Effects of service quality, corporate image, and customer trust on the corporate reputation of Airlines. Sustainability, 11(12), 3302. 10.3390/su11123302

95.

Spry

, Pappu

, & Bettina Cornwell

(2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882–909. 10.1108/03090561111119958

96.

Srivastava

R. K.

, Shervani

T. A.

, & Fahey

(1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.

97.

Straub

D. W.

(1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147–169.

98.

Strong

K. C.

, & Meyer

G. D.

(1992). An integrative descriptive model of ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 89–94.

99.

Tian

, Wang

, & Yang

(2011). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 197–212. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10551-010-0716-6

100.

Torkzadeh

, Koufteros

, & Pflughoeft

(2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 263–275.

101.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2002). Corporate social responsibility: Implications for small and medium enterprises in developing countries. United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

102.

Villagra

, Monfort

, & Sánchez Herrera

(2021). The mediating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1153–1163. 10.1002/cb.1922

103.

Vishwanathan

, van Oosterhout

, Heugens

, Duran

, & Essen

(2019). Strategic CSR: A concept building meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 314–350. 10.1111/joms.12514

104.

Visser

(2005). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid: An African perspective. In Pedersen

E. R.

& Huniche

(Eds.), Corporate citizenship in developing countries: New partnership perspectives (pp. 29–56). Copenhagen Business School Press.

105.

Visser

(2007). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In Crane

, McWilliams

, Matten

, Moon

, & Siegel

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 473–499). Oxford University Press.

106.

Vlachos

P. A.

, Tsmakos

, Vrechopoulos

A. P.

, & Avramidis

P. K.

(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x

107.

Vogel

(2006). The market for virtue. Brookings Institution Press.

108.

Washburn

J. H.

, & Plank

R. E.

(2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 10(1), 46–62.

109.

Yoo

, & Donthu

(2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.