Exploring the role of corporate social

responsibility skepticism in ethical

purchase intention
Salmi Mohd Isa, Phaik Nie Chin and Irene Liew

Abstract Salmi Mohd Isa,

Purpose – Few studies exist which delve into the possible factors that prevent ethically minded Phaik Nie Chin and
consumers from translating their ethical perceptions into ethical purchase intention (EPI). Thus, this study Irene Liew are all based at
aims to explore how consumers assess corporate social responsibility (CSR) based on several Graduate School of
influencing factors toward EPI, with CSR skepticism (SKP) as a moderator. Business, Universiti Sains
Design/methodology/approach – This cross-sectional study is conducted through a self-administered Malaysia, Minden, Penang,
questionnaire and uses a positive research approach with a quantitative basis of enquiry. The partial least Malaysia.
squares–structural equation modeling- model is used to examine the causal relationship between seven
independent variables of CSR assessment (i.e. CSR awareness, knowledge of CSR position of company,
cause importance, price consciousness, CSR image of company, credibility of CSR efforts and peer
influence) with EPI. In addition, this study also examines the moderating effect of SKP in the relationship.
Findings – The findings show that CSR assessment factors are important to convert mere purchase
criteria into EPI and SKP does play a significant role in weakening the relationship.
Originality/value – This study examines the moderating effect of CSR skepticism, the exploration of
which still remains very limited in current literature.
Keywords Developing countries, Corporate social responsibility, Skepticism, Ethical purchase intention
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Because of growing interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) from companies
(Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Dickson, 2001; Maignan, 2001; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004;
Vlachos et al., 2009) and the concurrent upsurge in the news regarding CSR in recent times
(Lange and Washburn, 2012; Murphy and Schlegelmilch, 2013), awareness among
consumers have led them to become more critical of what companies can offer in this
respect. This leads to growing skepticism toward CSR initiatives that companies claim to be
contributing to the society and increasing consciousness of the social consequences of
consumers’ buying decisions to engage in ethical purchase intention (EPI) (Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2004; Auger and Devinney, 2007; Bernstein, 2009; Skarmeas and Leonidou, 2013;
Skarmeas et al., 2014; Mombeuil and Fotiadis, 2017; Chernev and Blair, 2015).
It is, however, worth noting that consumers who are constantly looking for ethical products
and services might not necessarily convert their attitudes into actual behavior (Carrigan and
Attalla, 2001; Elliott and Jankel-Elliott, 2003; Carrington et al., 2016; Caruana et al., 2016).
This phenomenon has been termed as Ethical Purchasing Gap (Nicholls and Lee, 2006) or
Attitude Behaviour Gap (Kim et al., 1997). Research on ethical consumerism is abundant Received 2 January 2018
Revised 30 May 2018
but very few studies focus specifically on the possible factors that contribute to this gap 27 September 2018
(Bray et al., 2011). Furthermore, despite the extensive literature on CSR, available literature Accepted 17 December 2018

DOI 10.1108/SRJ-01-2018-0003 VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020, pp. 291-307, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 291
 within the context of developing countries is, likewise, just as limited (Maignan, 2001; Jamali
and Mirshak, 2007; Ramasamy et al., 2007; Amran and Siti-Nabiha, 2009; Dobers and
Halme, 2009; Tolhurst et al., 2010) and it has been noted that research findings from
developed countries may not be that applicable – if at all – in the context of developing

n et al., 2006; Tolhurst et al., 2010).
countries (Fox, 2004; Prieto-Carro
Hence, this study aims, first of all, to examine how consumers assess CSR as a purchase
criterion leading to EPI; second, to investigate if consumers’ skepticism on CSR would
weaken such relationships; and finally, to add to the knowledge of CSR in developing
countries such as Malaysia. This article is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the
related literature and hypotheses development of this study. Section 3 is methodology,
which is then followed by results in Section 4. Section 5 offers a discussion on the major
findings derived. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper with a summary of limitations that
arise from the study that suggests some avenues for future research.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Corporate social responsibility
Bowen (1953) has been acknowledged as the first scholar to delve into CSR (Carroll, 1979;
Wartick and Cochran, 1985). This seminal contribution was the starting point of an
abundance of literature on the nature of CSR (Ackerman and Bauer, 1976; Davis, 1973;
Eells and Walton, 1961). According to (Carroll, 1979, p. 500), “the social responsibility of
business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that
society has of organization at a given point of time”. Berger et al. (2007) mentioned that the
growing number of studies of CSR since the 1990s focuses on two major perspectives, with
one stream intending to investigate from the point of view of corporate management with
regards to companies’ involvement in CSR and another stream emphasizing on CSR
marketing elements on customers’ perception, attitudes and behaviors toward CSR.
Öberseder et al. (2014) stated that it is important for marketers to look into the consumers’
perception of CSR. A growing body of academic research also confirmed that CSR has
positive influence on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions of a company’s
product (Öberseder et al., 2014; Ellen et al., 2006; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004;
Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Mohr and Webb, 2005; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Chernev and
Blair, 2015). The positive association between CSR and consumer loyalty makes managers
realize that CSR is not only an ethical/ideological imperative, but also an economic one in
today’s marketplace (Smith, 2001). Thus, more companies are willing to increase their CSR
investment and integrate it into their long-term strategic plan to maintain or even enhance
long-term market performance (Mahoney and Thorne, 2005).

2.2 Corporate social responsibility in developing countries

According to Dobers and Halme (2009), most publications related to CSR tend to focus on
the western context, whereas very little is known about its state in developing countries.
Several studies (Jamali and Mirshak, 2007; Visser and Tolhurst, 2017; Jamali and Karam,
2018) have confirmed that a distinct difference exists in terms of CSR general interest
between developed and developing countries. CSR studies in developing countries are
mainly conducted from the business perspective rather than from the consumer’s point of
view (Arli and Lasmono, 2010). The meta-analysis of CSR studies in developing countries
can be found in Jamali and Karam (2018), where they identified five key themes
that capture the main aspects of variation between developed and developing countries.
Chapple and Moon (2005) noticed that even CSR does vary considerably among the Asian
countries, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and
Thailand.

PAGE 292 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

In Malaysia, the trend of implementing CSR among businesses in view of becoming a good
corporate citizen in the Malaysian market started gaining ground sometime in 2007
(Ramasamy et al., 2007). Early publications in relation to CSR in Malaysia focus on CSR
disclosure for Malaysian public-listed companies (Said et al., 2009); CSR disclosure and
company/ownership structure (Janggu et al., 2007; Mohd Ghazali, 2007); and general level
of awareness and perceptions of the accounting professionals on the concepts of CSR
(Zulkifli and Amran, 2006). Amran and Siti-Nabiha (2009) and Lu and Castka (2009) further
examined the state of CSR in Malaysia and suggested issues related to CSR
implementation. In recent years, CSR studies in Malaysia and other emerging economies
emphasize on the impact of CSR on a firm’s financial performance (Ahamed et al., 2014; Su
et al., 2016); the community as a stakeholder and its development (Ismail et al., 2015); and
the value of CSR in sustainability reporting quality (Amran et al., 2014). Despite voluminous
literature on CSR in Malaysia, there exists an inadequacy when it comes to studies that
focus on CSR in terms of consumers’ perception and EPI in Malaysia.

2.3 Consumers’ awareness of corporate social responsibility

Consumer awareness of CSR, as the name suggests, simply focuses on whether
consumers are aware of CSR activities in real consumption (Tian et al., 2011, p.198). Madar
et al. (2013) mentioned that consumers’ awareness of CSR is essential in ethical purchase
behavior. Maignan (2001) investigated how consumers evaluate the economic, legal,
ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of business based on the Caroll model in France,
Germany and USA, while Mohr et al. (2001) conducted an in-depth interview with
consumers in the USA to determine their views concerning the social responsibilities of
companies. Both results showed positive support for CSR by consumers. Pomering and
Dolnicar (2009), who conducted personal interviews with four bank executives and internet
survey on consumers in the Australian banking industry, found consumers’ awareness on
bank’s CSR efforts to be low. The lack of awareness may become an inhibitor of consumer
sensitivity to CSR and explain why CSR might not be taken into account when appraising a
company and its products (Maignan, 2001; Tian et al., 2011). Past literature indicated that
consumers with CSR awareness (CA) have higher purchase intention (Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen et al., 2006; Tian et al., 2011). However, the study on consumers’
awareness of CSR on EPI is still limited especially in Malaysia. To date, Suki et al. (2016)
found positive relationship between green marketing awareness and consumer purchase
intention in Malaysia. Thus, to contribute to current literature, we try to find the missing link
by hypothesizing that:
H1. A higher degree of CA leads to higher EPI.

2.4 Influencing factors of corporate social responsibility assessment

According to Öberseder et al. (2011), consumers clearly differentiate between core, central
and peripheral factors in making purchase decisions. Core factors are information and
personal concerns that determine whether CSR is taken into account when making a
decision about a purchase (i.e. knowledge of CSR position of company (KCP) and cause
importance (CI)). Central factor refers to the financial situation of a buyer (i.e. price
consciousness (PC)). Peripheral factors are the credibility of CSR initiatives, the image of
the company and peer influence (PI). These factors were adopted in this study to examine
their effect on EPI because they were known to increase the likelihood of taking CSR into
consideration while making consumer purchase decisions (Öberseder et al., 2011).
2.4.1 Knowledge of corporate social responsibility position of company. KCP measures the
consumers’ knowledge of a company’s CSR activities and their ability to evaluate those
activities (Homburg et al., 2013). This information is important as it affects consumer
purchase decisions (Öberseder et al., 2011). A number of studies (Shim, 1995; Strong,

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 293

 1996; Shaw and Clarke, 1999) found that the level of such knowledge plays an important
role in either helping consumers make ethical purchase decisions or limiting their ethical
consumption. Shaw and Clarke (1999) and Dickson (2001) conducted questionnaire
surveys and noticed that information on product labels is important to ethically minded
consumers. Sen et al. (2006) found that consumers who know about the CSR position of a
company display more positive, stronger identification and higher purchase intention for the
focal company’s brand as compared to those who do not have such information. Rahim
et al. (2011) found positive relationship between CSR knowledge and consumer behaviors
in Malaysia. Hence, the following hypothesis has been developed:
H2a. A higher level of KCP that a consumer possesses brings to higher EPI.
2.4.2 Cause importance. Ajzen (1991) indicated that the consequences of a specific
behavior tend to form the consumers’ attitudes toward said behavior. The concept of
personal relevance is demonstrated as CI. CI measures the importance of social cause of a
company on consumers’ behaviors (Ellen et al., 2000). The study assumed that when
consumers think that a social cause performed by a company is relevant to them, this will
affect their behaviors. Carrington et al. (2010) mentioned that consumers can activate their
EPI if they are reminded of their ethical intention through visualization or corresponding
behaviors. In the study of Vitell (2015), consumer social responsibility has increasingly
gained its weight to ensure the success of companies’ CSR. As to today, limited literature is
found to explore the relationship between CI and EPI. Thus, the following hypothesis was
developed:
H2b. A higher level of CI leads to higher EPI.
2.4.3 Price consciousness. PC refers to consumers’ tendency to compare prices for a
product before purchase in their effort to find the best deal (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Ajzen
(2002) asserted that the personal finances of a consumer play an important role in PC,
echoing what has been mentioned by past literature. Bray et al. (2011) found that
consumers tend to be more concerned of their financial condition rather than the ethical
values of a product. Similarly, Carrigan and Attalla (2001) and Öberseder et al. (2011) also
implied that consumers are more likely to engage in ethical consumption only when a
product being touted as ethical is at the same price point as regular goods, given that the
quality of both items are at par. Aschemann-Witzel and Zielke (2017) confirmed that the
price for organic food is the biggest perceived barrier to ethical purchase. However, some
literature mentioned that a company’s reputation for social responsibility tended to
decrease consumers’ price sensitivity and increase their brand loyalty (Green and Peloza,
2011; Marin et al., 2009). Therefore, this study is interested to confirm the effect of PC on
EPI by hypothesizing that:
H3. A higher level of PC results in lower EPI.
2.4.4 Corporate social responsibility image of company. CSR image of company (CIC) is
defined as stakeholder perceptions of company responses to the general social concerns
of stakeholder groups (Pérez and Del Bosque, 2013, p.265). A positive perception of a
company’s image evokes the association that the company behaves in a socially
responsible manner. Respondents of previous research believe that this, in turn, increases
the likelihood of consciously opting for a company’s products and incorporating CSR efforts
into their purchasing decisions (Öberseder et al., 2011, p.456). Brown and Dacin (1997)
suggested that consumers have a tendency to involve corporate image associations when it
comes to evaluation of new products. Gray and Balmer (1998) implied that the image of the
company gives an important first impression to consumers and it plays a critical role in
influencing consumers’ purchasing behavior. Yoon et al. (2006) found that a favorable
company image would be enhanced if the CSR initiatives of the company were believed to
be sincere and trustworthy, while Pérez and Del Bosque (2013) demonstrated that
a favorable CSR image helps companies to achieve their business goal more easily.

PAGE 294 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

Gürlek et al. (2017) observed that corporate image has a mediating effect on the influence
of CSR on customer loyalty in independent hotels. Based on the past literature, the following
hypothesis was developed as follows:
H4a. Perceived positive CIC leads to EPI.
2.4.5 Credibility of corporate social responsibility effort. Credibility of CSR effort (CCE)
examines the trustworthiness or reliability of a company’s CSR activities. Lii and Lee (2012)
indicated that CSR initiatives bring mutual benefits for companies that have been perceived
as credible, socially responsible or good corporate citizens. Prior studies have found that
consumers perceive companies as credible when the CSR activities that they initiate are
directly related to their core businesses (Menon and Kahn, 2003; Öberseder et al., 2011;
Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed to test its
relationship with EPI:
H4b. A higher level of credibility of a CSR effort brings to higher EPI.
2.4.6 Peer influence. Bearden et al. (1989) showed that PI plays a significant role in making
a consumer aware of a product and eventually filling them in with their own opinions, while
Öberseder et al. (2011) found that family and friends have an enormous influence in
persuading or discouraging consumers from purchasing products from socially responsible
companies. The following hypothesis was developed to test the effect of PI on EPI.
H4c. PI is positively related to EPI.

2.5 Moderating effects – corporate social responsibility skepticism

In general, skepticism is usually defined as “a person’s tendency to doubt, disbelieve and
question. The word ‘skepticism’ comes from the Greek word ‘skeptomai,’ which means to
think, to consider, to examine [. . .]” (Skarmeas and Leonidou, 2013, p. 1832). Mohr et al.
(1998) describe sceptics as people who only change their minds when sufficient evidence
is presented, hence it can be said to be a cognitive response derived from situational
factors (Foreh ansd Grier, 2003). Previous studies have found that consumers are generally
skeptical about CSR as they claim that CSR could merely be a marketing strategy of a
company trying to take advantages of consumers’ goodwill to effectively justify charging a
much higher price for their goods (Webb and Mohr, 1998; Rifon et al., 2004; Trimble and
Rifon, 2006; Bray et al., 2011).
Ellen et al. (2006) suggested that consumers might be more concerned about the motives
of the company behind their CSR initiatives rather than what the actual CSR effort is all
about. When consumers believe that the CSR work carried out by a company is sincere,
their attitudes toward the company tend to be positive (Foreh and Grier, 2003; Becker-
Olsen et al., 2006; Yoon et al., 2006). On the other hand, when consumers feel that some
deception is involved, they would respond negatively toward the CSR initiatives of that
particular company (Foreh and Grier, 2003). Such negative effect is usually associated with
much skepticism that will lead to influences on consumers’ purchase intentions (Becker-
Olsen et al., 2006; Ellen et al., 2006).
Studies on skepticism extend across a range of disciplines, such as environment (Leonidou
and Skarmeas, 2017), politics (Rohrschneider and Whitefield, 2016), climate change and
tourism research (Hall et al., 2015). Abdeen et al. (2016) confirmed the association between
ethical belief and purchase intention. As skepticism is considered as a cognitive response
to company’s socially responsible actions, this study hypothesized that:
H5a. The positive relationship between CA and EPI will be weaker when CSR skepticism
(SKP) is higher.
H5b. The positive relationship between core factors and EPI will be weaker when SKP is
higher.

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 295

 H5c. The negative relationship between central factor and EPI will be weaker when SKP
is higher.
H5d. The positive relationship between peripheral factors and EPI will be weaker when
SKP is higher.
Figure 1 summarizes the 11 hypotheses as follows:

3. Methodology
3.1 Survey design
An exploratory study was used to examine whether the value of one variable affects or
determines the value of another variable. The research was conducted by using survey
questionnaire as it allowed data to be analyzed quantitatively and offered the researcher the
independence to study the subject matter. In total 50 respondents were given a list of four
companies, from which they were required to select only one, then respond to the survey
questions. To ensure that these companies are familiar to the respondents, the four choices
were picked from the top food and beverage companies in Malaysia. The pilot study was
conducted to ensure that respondents would not encounter any difficulties in attempting the
questions and understanding the concepts in the main survey. The responses collected
from the pilot test were excluded from the final analysis.

3.2 Sample and data collection

As this study aims to look into the ethical aspect of consumerism that involves
environmental and societal concerns in consumer’s purchase behavior, Penang was
selected because the consumers in that state have greater exposure to environmental and
societal initiatives, given the Penang Government’s multiple projects that increased
consumers’ awareness under the Cleaner and Greener Penang program that has been in
place since 2010. For instance, Penang consumers have to bring their own shopping bags
when they are out buying goods, as shops do not give out plastic shopping bags. Penang

Figure 1 Conceptual framework and hypotheses

PAGE 296 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

is also one of the states in Malaysia with the most number of vegan and vegetarian cafés
and organic shops.
A two-stage cluster sampling was used in this study where the cluster refers to a shopping
center in the state of Penang. The samples were randomly chosen from the cluster at
different times, on different days of the week, at different areas of a shopping center, to
ensure that there is an equal possibility for each individual customer to be randomly
selected. A printed self-administered survey was used for easy distribution of the
questionnaire across the clusters.
A sample of 297 respondents was obtained after the data screening process. A post hoc
power analysis was conducted using G Power 3.1.9.2 software (Faul et al., 2007) and the
analysis showed that the statistical power was 0.91 for the detection of moderate effect size
(p < 0.05). Hence, there was sufficient statistical power to explain the model in this study.
The summary of demographics of respondents is presented in Table I.

3.3 Measures of constructs

In this study, all questions in the questionnaire were replicated from previous literature and
based upon five-point Likert scales (1 – strongly disagree; 5 – strongly agree). Table II
illustrates the measurement of constructs.

Table I Summary of demographics of respondents (n = 297)

Frequency (%)

Gender
Male 113 38.05
Female 184 61.95
Marital status
Single 165 55.6
Married 131 44.1
Divorced 0 0
Widow 1 0.3
Age of respondents
Below 18 years old 2 0.7
18-24 years old 59 19.9
25-34 years old 140 47.1
35-44 years old 72 24.2
45-54 years old 18 6.0
55 years old and above 6 2.0
Education level
High school 25 8,4
Diploma/professional certificate 33 11.1
Bachelor’s degree 205 69.0
Master’s degree 26 8.8
Doctorate/PhD 8 2.7
Income level
Below RM2,000 44 14.8
RM2,000-3,999 110 37.0
RM4,000-5,999 77 25.9
RM6,000-7,999 37 12.5
RM8,000-9,999 13 4.4
RM10,000 and above 16 5.4
Notes: Females and males in the sample size comprised 38.05 per cent and 61.95 per cent,
respectively. From the total number of respondents, 55.6 per cent were single and 44.1 per cent were
married. Dominant age group was 25-34 years old. Dominant education level was bachelor’s degree
and income level was between RM2,000 and RM3,999, which was quite a good representation of an
ethical consumer group

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 297

 Table II Measurement of constructs
Variable Items Sources

EPI EPI1 – I would pay more to buy products from a socially and ethically responsible company Maignan (2001)
EPI2 – I consider the ethical reputation of businesses when I shop
EPI3 – I avoid buying products from companies that have engaged in immoral actions
EPI4 – I would pay more to buy the products of a company that shows caring for the well-being of
our society
EPI5 – If the price and quality of two products are the same, I would buy from the company that
has a socially responsible reputation
CA CA1 – I care about environmental protection in my daily consumption Tian et al. (2011)
CA2 – I pay attention to some social issues involving company’s charities
CA3 – I buy those products that are fine and inexpensive, regardless of whether the company is
socially responsible or not
KCP KCP1 – I have good knowledge about the CSR engagement of this company Homburg et al.
KCP2 – I learn about this company’s engagement on CSR (2013)
KCP3 – I can easily evaluate the CSR engagement of this company
CI CI1 – The social cause undertaken by this company is important to me Ellen et al. (2000)
CI2 – The social cause undertaken by this company is relevant to me
CI3 – The social cause undertaken by this company means a lot to me
CI4 – The social cause undertaken by this company matters a great deal to me
CI5 – I have great concern on the social cause undertaken by this company
PC PC1 – I compare prices of at least a few brands before I purchase Ailawadi et al.
PC2 – It is important to me to get the best price for the products I buy (2001)
CIC CIC1 – This company is aware of environmental matters Alcañiz et al.
CIC2 – This company fulfils its social responsibilities (2010), Dean
CIC3 – This company puts something back into society (2002), Lichtenstein
CIC4 – This company acts with society’s interest in mind et al. (2004), Menon
CIC5 – This company acts in a socially responsible way and Kahn (2003)
CIC6 – This company integrates philanthropic contributions into its business activities
CCE CCE1 – This company is logically related to the social issue it supports
CCE2 – The CSR effort of this company communicated to the users is relevant
CCE3 – The CSR effort of this company is convincing
CCE4 – I think it is normal to see CSR effort like this from this company
CCE5 – The CSR effort is consistent with the product attributes of this company
CCE6 – The match between the CSR effort and this company is good
PI PI1 – I often observe what my family and friends are buying and using to make sure I buy the right Bearden et al.
product (1989)
PI2 – If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my family and friends about the product
PI3 – I often consult my family and friends to help choose the best alternative available from a
product class
PI4 – I frequently gather information from my family and friends about a product before I buy
SKP SKP1 – I think that the CSR claim is intended to mislead rather than to inform customers Mohr et al. (1998)
SKP2 – I do not believe this CSR claim
SKP3 – I think that this CSR claim exaggerates

3.4 Measurement model

Following the recommended two-stage analytical procedures by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), the measurement model (validity and reliability of the measures) was examined,
followed by the assessment of the structural model (testing of the hypothesized
relationships) (Hair et al., 2016). Based on the results, both convergent and discriminant
validity of the measures in this study were fulfilled, where the average variance extracted
(AVE) attained values higher than the recommended level of 0.50 and the values of
heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) fall below the cut-off point of 0.90 (Henseler
et al., 2015). The internal consistency reliability of the model is also achieved where
composite reliability scores for each construct is found to lie between 0.831 and 0.916,
which are higher than the suggested 0.7 minimum. The results are presented in Table III
and IV respectively.

PAGE 298 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

Table III Factor loadings, AVE, CR
Variable Items Loadings AVE CR

CA CA1 0.919 0.758 0.862

CA2 0.820
KCP KCP1 0.890 0.777 0.913
KCP2 0.849
KCP3 0.905
CI CI1 0.776 0.601 0.883
CI2 0.750
CI3 0.824
CI4 0.796
CI5 0.727
PC PC1 0.684 0.718 0.831
PC2 0.983
CIC CIC1 0.710 0.582 0.893
CIC2 0.789
CIC3 0.789
CIC4 0.827
CIC5 0.795
CIC6 0.655
CCE CCE1 0.668 0.513 0.863
CCE2 0.801
CCE3 0.666
CCE4 0.755
CCE5 0.704
CCE6 0.693
PI PI1 0.801 0.686 0.897
PI2 0.824
PI3 0.858
PI4 0.830
SKP SKP1 0.974 0.786 0.916
SKP2 0.812
SKP3 0.865
EPI EPI1 0.784 0.527 0.847
EPI2 0.768
EPI3 0.617
EPI4 0.778
EPI5 0.668

Table IV Results of HTMT criterion for discriminant validity

CA KCP CI PC CIC CCE PI SKP EPI

CA
KCP 0.168
CI 0.489 0.429
PC 0.106 0.087 0.132
CIC 0.190 0.475 0.413 0.279
CCE 0.305 0.482 0.533 0.275 0.728
PI 0.158 0.146 0.118 0.554 0.223 0.236
SKP 0.157 0.234 0.305 0.080 0.132 0.302 0.069
EPI 0.345 0.204 0.316 0.156 0.313 0.308 0.263 0.055

4. Results
4.1 Structural model for direct effects
To test H1-H4, a structural equation model was developed using Smart PLS 3 and the
hypotheses were examined via bootstrapping analysis. From the analysis, the

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 299

 coefficient of determination (R 2) value of EPI is 0.161, which signifies that 16.1 per
cent of the variation in EPI can be explained by CA, KCP), CI, PC, CIC, CCE, PI and
SKP. As shown in Table V, H1 – CA has a positive and significant impact on EPI (path
coefficient = 0.174; p < 0.01). A positive path coefficient is also found between H2 –
core factors and EPI. The H2a – KCP is positively related to EPI but not statistically
significant (path coefficient = 0.003; p < 0.01), whereas H2b – CI has positive and
significant impact on EPI (path coefficient = 1.716; p < 0.01). However, H3, which
predicts central factor (PC) to be negatively related to EPI, is tested not statistically
significant (path coefficient = 0.007; p < 0.01). On the other hand, most H4 –
peripheral factors have a positive relationship on EPI. A positive and significant path
coefficient is found between H4a – CIC and EPI (path coefficient = 0.142; p < 0.01)
and H4c – PI and EIP (path coefficient = 0.142, p < 0.01). However, there is no
significant positive relationship found for H4b – CCE to EPI (path coefficient = 0.070;
p < 0.01).

4.2 Moderating effects

Moderating effects – also called interaction effect – are activated by variables that influence
the strength of a relationship between an independent and a dependent variable (Baron
and Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). In this study, the moderating effects of SKP presumed by H5
are examined by bootstrapping analysis in Smart PLS 3 (Table VI). H5 predicts that SKP
moderates the relationship between all the independent variables and dependent variable.
However, H5a (path coefficient = 0.049; p < 0.01), H5b(i) (path coefficient = 0.038; p <
0.01), H5b(ii) (path coefficient = 0.092; p < 0.01), H5c (path coefficient = 0.009; p < 0.01),
H5d(i) (path coefficient = 0.083; p < 0.01), H5d(ii) (path coefficient = 0.041; p < 0.01) and
H5d(iii) (path coefficient = 0.059; p < 0.01) are found to be statistically insignificant and
hence cannot be supported.

Table V Hypotheses results (H1-H4)

Relationships Path coefficients t-values p-values Decision

CA ! EPI 0.174 2.558 0.005 Supported

KCP ! EPI 0.003 0.044 0.483 Not supported
CI ! EPI 0.114 1.716 0.043 Supported
PC ! EPI 0.007 0.087 0.466 Not supported
CIC ! EPI 0.142 2.182 0.015 Supported
CCE ! EPI 0.070 1.009 0.157 Not supported
PI ! EPI 0.142 1.937 0.027 Supported

Table VI Hypotheses results (H5)

Hypotheses Path coefficients t-values p-values Decision

H5a: SKP  CA ! EPI 0.049 0.530 0.298 Not supported

H5b(i): SKP  KCP ! EPI 0.038 0.600 0.274 Not supported
H5b(ii): SKP  CI ! EPI 0.092 1.179 0.119 Not supported
H5c: SKP  PC ! EPI 0.009 0.122 0.451 Not supported
H5d(i): SKP  CIC ! EPI 0.083 0.899 0.184 Not supported
H5d(ii): SKP  CCE ! EPI 0.041 0.488 0.313 Not supported
H5d(iii): SKP  PI ! EPI 0.059 0.701 0.242 Not supported

PAGE 300 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

5. Discussions and conclusions
5.1 Discussions

5.1.1 Consumers’ awareness of corporate social responsibility. The findings of this study
are consistent with those of Maignan (2001), Mohr et al. (2001) and Pomering and Dolnicar
(2009) that consumers’ awareness of CSR has a profound effect on purchase intention. This
study’s findings contribute to existing literature by proving the significant relationship
between consumers’ awareness of CSR on EPI. The moderating effect consumer
skepticism does not show significant effect on the relationship between consumers’
awareness to CSR on EPI. The outcomes of this study shed some insights that consumers
have attained a certain level of CA to be able to determine the consequences and the
implications of their buying behaviors that lead to ethical consumption.
5.1.2 Core factors. CI is significant in affecting consumers’ EPI. When consumers feel that
the social cause of the company CSR is important and relevant to them, consumers tend to
exhibit higher EPI. The findings confirmed the relationship between CI and EPI that is still
limited in current literature. However, the results of KCP is inconsistent with Shaw and
Clarke (1999), Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) and Sen et al. (2006), which may be a
consequence of respondents not having enough knowledge about the company’s CSR
from a consumer standpoint. In general, Bray et al. (2011) confirmed that core factors are
important consideration for consumers’ ethical purchase. The moderating effect does not
show significant effect in core factors. This suggests that consumers are ready to take CSR
into consideration when it comes to their EPI. Companies should focus more on relating
their CSR initiatives to the personal relevance of consumers and to consider this effect
during CSR marketing.
5.1.3 Central factor. The study shows that there is insignificant positive relationship between
PC and EPI. The result contradicts with past researches that have cited price as the main
consideration in ethical consumerism and higher PC as having negative effect on purchase
intention (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Auger and Devinney, 2007; Bray et al., 2011;
Öberseder et al., 2011), especially during unstable economic conditions (Hampson and
McGoldrick, 2013). To find out why this is the case, we found that scholars such as
(Elfenbein and McManus, 2009) and Papaoikonomou et al. (2011) explained that some
consumers are willing to pay more for ethical products. In addition, Green and Peloza
(2011) and Marin et al. (2009) have also confirmed that CSR decreases price sensitivity.
The moderating effect does not play a significant role in central factor. This finding implies
that consumers might be willing to pay more for ethical products if they form a belief on the
CSR efforts of the company. Another reason could be attributed to consumers being more
health-conscious, given that the survey focused on food and beverage. It is also worth
noting that one of the limitations is that of the model not taking into account environmental or
economic factors, which may be able to explain why price is irrelevant in affecting
consumers’ decision. Further studies can be done to confirm this.
5.1.4 Peripheral factors. There is a significant positive relationship between the CIC and PI
and EPI but such is not the case for CCE. Thus, in general, peripheral factors play an
important role in EPI. Findings on CIC is consistent with Brown and Dacin (1997), Gray and
Balmer (1998) and Yoon et al. (2006), which confirm that a positive image of a company is
crucial in consumers’ purchase decision-making. However, this study confirms its
importance specifically in EPI. It is also noted that the moderating effect does not play a
significant role.
This study’s finding on CCE is not consistent with past literature. One of the possible
explanations is based on the studies by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), Menon and Kahn
(2003) and Öberseder et al. (2011), which believe that the creditability of a CSR initiatives
depends on the congruity between a company’s CSR effort and its core businesses. The
researcher believes that respondents in this study may hold the perception that there is not

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 301

 a good fit between the CSR claim and the core business of their chosen company.
Moreover, Amran and Siti-Nabiha (2009) found that there is low CA among managers and
mimetic pressure that is the driving force of the CSR phenomenon in Malaysia, which could
explain why there exists an incongruence between companies’ CSR efforts and the projects
chosen by them. Latest study by Lii and Lee (2012) also found that the CSR credibility of a
company does not necessarily influence purchase intention.
PI is significantly and positively associated with EPI. The result is in line with Bearden et al.
(1989) and Öberseder et al. (2011). The result implies that consumers perform ethical
consumerism just because their peers think it is important for them to do so. Thus, EPI is
very much dependent on individual awareness and word of mouth advertising in promoting
ethical goods and services. The moderating effect is not significant for both CCE and PI.
The results could imply that consumers might still lack CSR consciousness because they
only focus on CSR image that is more visible compared to credibility of CSR that might need
more survey and confirmation.
5.1.5 Moderator role of corporate social responsibility skepticism. Based on Table VI, the
results demonstrated that SKP does not significantly moderate the relationship between CA,
core factors, central factors, peripheral factors and EPI. Even though the moderator effect of
SKP is not significant, it still has the most impact on CI and the least impact on price
consciousness. The findings are not consistent with past literature (Mohr et al., 1998; Rifon
et al., 2004; Trimble and Rifon, 2006; Bray et al., 2011; Abdeen et al., 2016), whereby
consumers tend to be skeptical about the CSR efforts performed by companies. However,
these findings are consistent with the result obtained under the relationship between CCE
and EPI. The study also found no significant relationship between these two variables. This
might lend a support of why CSR skepticism does not play a significant role in this study.
The respondents might have not trusted the CSR of the chosen company as the beginning.

5.2 Implications, future research and conclusions

This study examined the relationship between CA, core, central and peripheral factors and
EPI with SKP as a moderator to attain a better understanding of consumer behavior and
possible attitude-behavior gaps. The study has extended research on several levels. Firstly,
it adds to the pool of literature by providing some empirical evidence of applicability of
existing CSR and ethical consumerism theories within the Malaysian context. This study also
shows that the relationship between CSR assessment factors is important to convert the
mere purchase criteria into EPI to make the researchers’ humble contribution in attitude-
behavior gap. Secondly, the researchers link CSR as a facet of ethical consumerism to
expand the understanding of ethical consumer behavior. Thirdly, it contributes to existing
literature the supporting evidence of SKP acting as a moderator. However, it still needs to
be confirmed if such moderation effects also exist in other contexts.
Nevertheless, the study can still be improved based on the limitations. First, future studies
can increase the sample size by recruiting respondents from other states of Malaysia to
have a better representation of the Malaysian population. Second, future research can
focus on industries other than food and beverage to provide a deeper insight on the
relationship between CSR and EPI from the standpoint of consumer behaviors. Finally, more
dimensions can be used to test on CSR in Malaysia (Isa and Reast, 2014).

References
Abdeen, A., Rajah, E. and Gaur, S.S. (2016), “Consumers’ beliefs about firm’s CSR initiatives and their
purchase behaviour”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34, pp. 2-18.
Ackerman, R.W. and Bauer, R.A. (1976), Corporate Social Responsiveness: The Modern Dilemna [sic],
Reston.

PAGE 302 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

Ahamed, W.S.W., Almsafir, M.K. and Al-Smadi, A.W. (2014), “Does corporate social responsibility lead to
improve in firm financial performance? Evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Economics and
Finance, Vol. 6, pp. 126-138.
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A. and Gedenk, K. (2001), “Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store
brands versus national brand promotions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Alcañiz, E.B., Cáceres, R.C. and Pérez, R.C. (2010), “Alliances between brands and social causes: the
influence of company credibility on social responsibility image”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 2,
pp. 169-186.
Amran, A. and Siti-Nabiha, A. (2009), “Corporate social reporting in Malaysia: a case of mimicking the
west or succumbing to local pressure”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 358-375.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic
corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217-235.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arli, D.I. and Lasmono, H.K. (2010), “Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility in a
developing country”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-51.
Aschemann-Witzel, J. and Zielke, S. (2017), “Can’t buy me green? A review of consumer
perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 211-251.
Auger, P. and Devinney, T.M. (2007), “Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences
with unconstrained ethical intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 361-383.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-481.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), “The impact of perceived corporate social
responsibility on consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 46-53.
Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H. and Drumwright, M.E. (2007), “Mainstreaming corporate social
responsibility: developing markets for virtue”, California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 132-157.
Bernstein, D. (2009), “Rhetoric and reputation: some thoughts on corporate dissonance”, Management
Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 603-615.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers
respond to corporate social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Bray, J., Johns, N. and Kilburn, D. (2011), “An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical
consumption”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 597-608.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations and
consumer product responses”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour? ”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-578.

Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2010), “Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk:
towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual
buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 139-158.

Carrington, M.J., Zwick, D. and Neville, B. (2016), “The ideology of the ethical consumption gap”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 21-38.

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 303

 Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Caruana, R., Carrington, M.J. and Chatzidakis, A. (2016), “Beyond the attitude-behaviour gap: novel
perspectives in consumer ethics: introduction to the thematic symposium”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 215-218.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study of
CSR web site reporting”, Business & Society, Vol. 44, pp. 415-441.
Chernev, A. and Blair, S. (2015), “Doing well by doing good: the benevolent halo of corporate social
responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1412-1425.
Davis, K. (1973), “The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 312-322.
Dean, D.H. (2002), “Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship: measuring
the effects on corporate community relations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 77-87.
Dickson, M.A. (2001), “Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and
predicting their purchases”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 96-119.
Dobers, P. and Halme, M. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility and developing countries”, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 237-249.
Eells, R.S.F. and Walton, C.C. (1961), Conceptual Foundations of Business: an Outline of Major Ideas
Sustaining Business Enterprise in the Western World, Richard Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Elfenbein, D.W. and Mcmanus, B. (2009), “A greater price for a greater good? Evidence that consumers
pay more for charity-linked products”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 28-60.
Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2000), “Charitable programs and the retailer: do they mix? ”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 393-406.
Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006), “Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for
corporate socially responsible programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 147-157.
Elliott, R. and Jankel-Elliott, N. (2003), “Using ethnography in strategic consumer research”, Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 215-223.
Foreh, M.R. and Grier, S. (2003), “When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on
consumer skepticism”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 349-356.
Fox, T. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and development: in quest of an agenda”, Development,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 29-36.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. and Buchner, A. (2007), “G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 39, pp. 175-191.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.

Green, T. and Peloza, J. (2011), “How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? ”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 48-56.

Gürlek, M., Düzgün, E. and Meydan Uygur, S. (2017), “How does corporate social responsibility create
customer loyalty? The role of corporate image”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 409-427.

Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications.

Hall, C., Amelung, B., Cohen, S., Eijgelaar, E., Gössling, S., Higham, J., Leemans, R., Peeters, P., Ram, Y.
and Scott, D. (2015), “On climate change skepticism and denial in tourism”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-25.

Hampson, D.P. and Mcgoldrick, P.J. (2013), “A typology of adaptive shopping patterns in recession”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 831-838.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 115-135.

PAGE 304 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

Homburg, C., Stierl, M. and Bornemann, T. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility in business-to-
business markets: how organizational customers account for supplier corporate social responsibility
engagement”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 54-72.

Isa, S.M. and Reast, J. (2014), “Operationalising corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the
development debate”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 169-197.
Ismail, M., Alias, S.N. and Mohd Rasdi, R. (2015), “Community as stakeholder of the corporate social
responsibility programme in Malaysia: outcomes in community development”, Social Responsibility
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 109-130.
Jamali, D. and Karam, C. (2018), “Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging
field of study”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 32-61.
Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): theory and practice in a
developing country context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Janggu, T., Joseph, C. and Madi, N. (2007), “The current state of corporate social responsibility among
industrial companies in Malaysia”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 9-18.
Kim, Y.-K., Forney, J. and Arnold, E. (1997), “Environmental messages in fashion advertisements: impact
on consumer responses”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 147-154.
Lange, D. and Washburn, N.T. (2012), “Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 300-326.
Leonidou, C.N. and Skarmeas, D. (2017), “Gray shades of green: causes and consequences of green
skepticism”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 401-415.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate social responsibility
on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32.
Lii, Y.-S. and 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, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 69-81.
Lu, J.Y. and Castka, P. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility in Malaysia–experts’ views and
perspectives”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 146-154.
Madar, A., Huang, H.H. and Tseng, T.-H. (2013), “Do ethical purchase intentions really lead to ethical
purchase behavior? A case of animal-testing issues in shampoo”, International Business Research,
Vol. 6, pp. 102-110.
Mahoney, L.S. and Thorne, L. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation:
evidence from Canada”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 241-253.
Maignan, I. (2001), “Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural
comparison”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S. and Rubio, A. (2009), “The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social
responsibility on consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Menon, S. and Kahn, B.E. (2003), “Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do they
impact perception of sponsor Brand?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 316-327.
Mohd Ghazali, N.A. (2007), “Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some
Malaysian evidence”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), “The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer
responses”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Mohr, L.A., Eroglu, D. and Ellen, P.S. (1998), “The development and testing of a measure of skepticism
toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 30-55.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001), “Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.
Mombeuil, C. and Fotiadis, A.K. (2017), “Assessing the effect of customer perceptions of corporate social
responsibility on customer trust within a low cultural trust context”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 698-713.

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 305

 Murphy, P.E. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate social
irresponsibility: introduction to a special topic section”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10,
pp. 1807-1813.
Nicholls, A. and Lee, N. (2006), “Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical purchase ‘gap’:‘is
there a fair trade twix?”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 369-386.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Gruber, V. (2011), “Why don’t consumers care about CSR?: a
qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104
No. 4, pp. 449-460.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Murphy, P.E. and Gruber, V. (2014), “Consumers’ perceptions of
corporate social responsibility: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 124
No. 1, pp. 101-115.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G. and Ginieis, M. (2011), “Towards a holistic approach of the attitude
behaviour gap in ethical consumer behaviours: empirical evidence from Spain”, International Advances
in Economic Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Pérez, A. and Del Bosque, I.R. (2013), “Measuring CSR image: three studies to develop and to validate a
reliable measurement tool”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 265-286.

Pomering, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2009), “Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: are
consumers aware of CSR initiatives?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. S2, pp. 285-301.

Prieto-Carro
n, M., Lund-Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A. and Bhushan, C. (2006), “Critical perspectives
on CSR and development: what we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know”, International
Affairs, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 977-987.
Rahim, R.A., Jalaludin, F.W. and Tajuddin, K. (2011), “The importance of corporate social responsibility on
consumer behaviour in Malaysia”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 119-139.
Ramasamy, B., Ting, H.W. and Yeung, M.C. (2007), “Does it pay to be good in developing countries? The
relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Malaysia”, Asian
Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 3, pp. 21-36.
Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, C.S. and Li., H. (2004), “Congruence effects in sponsorship: the
mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Rohrschneider, R. and Whitefield, S. (2016), “Responding to growing European union-skepticism? The
stances of political parties toward European integration in Western and Eastern Europe following the
financial crisis”, European Union Politics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 138-161.
Said, R., Hj Zainuddin, Y. and Haron, H. (2009), “The relationship between corporate social responsibility
disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 212-226.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The role of corporate social responsibility in
strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 158-166.
Shaw, D. and Clarke, I. (1999), “Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: an exploratory study”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 17, pp. 109-120.
Shim, S. (1995), “Environmentalism and consumers’ clothing disposal patterns: an exploratory study”,
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Skarmeas, D. and Leonidou, C.N. (2013), “When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR
skepticism”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 1831-1838.
Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C.N. and Saridakis, C. (2014), “Examining the role of CSR skepticism using
fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1796-1805.
Smith, N.C. (2001), “Changes in corporate practices in response to public interest advocacy and
actions”, Handbook of Marketing and Society, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strong, C. (1996), “Features contributing to the growth of ethical consumerism-a preliminary
investigation”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14, pp. 5-13.

PAGE 306 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020

Su, W., Peng, M.W., Tan, W. and Cheung, Y.-L. (2016), “The signaling effect of corporate social
responsibility in emerging economies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 134 No. 3, pp. 479-491.

Suki, N.M., Suki, N.M. and Azman, N.S. (2016), “Impacts of corporate social responsibility on the links
between green marketing awareness and consumer purchase intentions”, Procedia Economics and
Finance, Vol. 37, pp. 262-268.

Tian, Z., Wang, R. and Yang, W. (2011), “Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 197-212.
Tolhurst, N., Pohl, M., Matten, D. and Visser, W. (2010), The a to z of Corporate Social Responsibility,
Wiley Publications, NJ.
Trimble, C.S. and Rifon, N.J. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing
messages”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-47.
Visser, W. and Tolhurst, N. (2017), The World Guide to CSR: A Country-by-country Analysis of Corporate
Sustainability and Responsibility, Routledge, London.
Vitell, S.J. (2015), “A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): including a selected review of
consumer ethics/social responsibility research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 4, pp. 767-774.

Vlachos, P.A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A.P. and Avramidis, P.K. (2009), “Corporate social
responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 170-180.

Wartick, S.L. and Cochran, P.L. (1985), “The evolution of the corporate social performance model”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 758-769.
Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), “A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: from
skeptics to socially concerned”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 226-238.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z. and Schwarz, N. (2006), “The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
activities on companies with bad reputations”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 377-390.
Zulkifli, N. and Amran, A. (2006), “Realising corporate social responsibility in Malaysia”, Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 2006 No. 24, pp. 101-114.

Corresponding author
Salmi Mohd Isa can be contacted at: salmi.mohd.isa@usm.my

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

VOL. 16 NO. 2 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 307