Art%3 a10.1007%2fs10551 015-2654-9

A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate SocialResponsibility Following the Sustainable Development Paradigm

Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera1 • Enrique Bigne2 • Joaquın Aldas-Manzano2 •

Rafael Curras-Perez2

Received: 13 October 2014 / Accepted: 7 April 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract The aim of this research is to develop and

validate a measurement scale for consumer’s perceptions

of corporate social responsibility (CSRConsPerScale) us-

ing the three-dimensional social, environmental and eco-

nomic conceptual approach as a theoretical basis. Based on

the stages of measurement scale creation and validation

suggested by DeVellis (Scale development: theory and

applications, 1991) and supported by Churchill Jr.’s (J

Mark Res 16(1):64–73, 1979) suggestions, five different

empirical studies are developed expressly and applied to

consumers of tourist services. This research involves 1147

real tourists from 24 countries in two different cultural and

geographical contexts. A three-dimensional 18-item scale

is proposed for measuring consumer perceptions of cor-

porate social, environmental and economic responsibilities.

This paper presents the complete development of the scale,

as well as the implications and limitations of the main

findings and the managerial implications.

Keywords Consumer perceptions � Corporate social

responsibility � Scale development � Structural equation

modelling � Sustainable development

Abbreviations

CSR Corporate social responsibility

SD Sustainable development

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (i.e. CSR) is a topic of

growing academic and management interest (Maon et al.

2010; Peloza and Shang 2011), particularly regarding its

impact on consumer behaviour variables. This is because

consumers tend to employ a company’s CSR image in

purchase and consumption decision making (Du et al. 2011;

Choi and Ng 2011; Trudel and Cotte 2009; Vlachos et al.

2009). Although this statement does not hold for all types of

products or in all segments (Auger et al. 2010; Peloza and

Shang 2011), some internationally recognised companies,

like General Motors, Unilever, Ikea and Avon, seek to po-

sition themselves as socially responsible brands by be-

coming strategically linked to a variety of social causes

including among others sustainable development (i.e. SD),

the fight against the climate change and cancer. Magazines

such as Business Week or Fortune report on firms’ CSR

activities or publish surveys, including Fortune’s ‘‘Amer-

ica’s Most Admired Corporations’’, which include some

CSR-related items (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006).

One of the main limitations of studies on the impact of

CSR on consumer behaviour is the way the construct is

measured. The lack of a unified scale for measuring CSR

makes it difficult to compare findings between studies, and

& Rafael Curras-Perez

[email protected]

Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera

[email protected]

Enrique Bigne

[email protected]

Joaquın Aldas-Manzano

[email protected]

1 Sustainable Development Division, University of Quintana

Roo, Av. Andres Quintana Roo (11 Avenida) s/n esquina 110,

77600 Cozumel, Quintana Roo, Mexico

2 Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University

of Valencia, Av. Tarongers s/n. Ed. Dptal. Oriental,

46022 Valencia, Spain

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9&domain=pdf

the vagueness of the concept often leads to contradictory

results (Coles et al. 2013). Thus, reliable instruments are

needed to measure consumer perceptions of a firm’s CSR

(Auger et al. 2010; Green and Peloza 2011; Vlachos et al.

2009).

There have been valuable efforts to develop CSR scales

focused on managers (Aupperle 1984; Chow and Chen

2011), stakeholders (Perez et al. 2013) and consumers

(Oberseder et al. 2013). These have primarily used the

most successful theoretical approaches to the CSR con-

struct from consumer behaviour researchers: (i) Carroll’s

Pyramid model (1979, 1991), which includes economic,

legal, ethical and discretional dimensions and (ii) the cor-

porate associations notion suggested by Brown and Dacin

(1997), which discriminates between economic and non-

economic aspects, associating the latter with CSR in a one-

dimensional manner.

Both theoretical approaches have significant limitations.

Prior research into CSR perception based on Carroll’s

Pyramid suggests that it does not fit correctly to consumer

perceptions, as they do not manage to discriminate the four

dimensions proposed by the model (Garcıa de los Salmones

et al. 2005; Alvarado and Shlesinger 2008). In some of the

studies, depending on the cultural context, the economic

dimension of CSR perception even disappears (Maignan

2001; Maignan and Ferrell 2003). The Corporate Asso-

ciations approach cannot be used to discriminate any CSR

dimension because it treats CSR as a holistic perception in

the consumer’s mind. Therefore, some researchers suggest

using different theoretical frameworks for conceptualising

CSR from the consumer perception point of view to miti-

gate the limitations identified above (Maignan 2001;

Maignan and Ferrell 2003).

A few recent papers have progressed in this regard

(Oberseder et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the use of the SD

paradigm (which is capable of meeting the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future gen-

erations to meet their own needs) (WCED 1987) has been

largely neglected despite the fact that it offers a useful

perspective for conceptualising CSR (Choi and Ng 2011;

Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk 2003). Thus, the

main objective of this research is to develop and validate a

measurement scale to serve as a framework for measuring

customer perceptions of CSR activities (CSRConsPerS-

cale) using the SD three-dimensional (economic develop-

ment, social equity and environmental protection)

conceptual approach as a theoretical basis. This develop-

ment rests on the stages of measurement scale creation and

validation suggested by DeVellis (1991) and considers the

methodological aspects recommended by Churchill Jr.

(1979).

This article presents five empirical studies performed to

develop the scale. The studies were applied to tourism

services consumers in two countries (i.e. Spain and Mex-

ico) and for two activities: hotels and natural parks. Mexico

and Spain are among the top 15 world tourism destinations.

Both are highly dependent on international tourism with

different resources and type of tourist products. According

to the latest available data from World Tourism Organi-

zation, Spain was the third largest tourism destination in

2014 with 65 million and Mexico fifteenth in 2013 with

24.2 international tourist arrivals (UNWTO 2015).

An initial qualitative study based on a review of the

literature and the work of a panel of experts was conducted

to generate and then purge the items. An initial quantitative

study of university students in Spain was then conducted to

purge the scale for the first time. Next, we conducted a

mixed-method study (concept mapping, multidimensional

scaling and cluster analysis) with a focus group comprising

consumers of tourism services. The scale was refined and

validated by a second quantitative study among consumers

of hospitality services in Spain. Finally, to replicate and

generalise the scale, a third quantitative study was con-

ducted among natural parks tourists in Mexico. This article

presents and discusses the results of the above studies,

which demonstrate that the CSRConsPerScale is a reliable,

useful, valid and parsimonious instrument to measure

consumer perceptions of CSR in terms of sustainability

perspective. This study also reflects the professional and

academic implications of the CSRConsPerScale and the

main caveats for its extension.

The contributions of this paper to the existing literature

are twofold. First, it attempts to provide a multidimensional

scale for measuring consumer perceptions about CSR

firms’ initiatives. Second, the scale’s dimensions and items

are derived from the SD three-dimensional conceptual

approach: economic, social and environmental dimensions.

Thus, this work adopts a managerial perspective of CSR, as

the scale enables measurement of the consumer’s per-

spective on a firm’s particular strategy (e.g. on environ-

mental matters or in relation to its commitment to the

community). The scale also allows measurement of a

general CSR perspective on the firm because it can be used

to approximate global perception of a firm’s socially re-

sponsible nature (perceived CSR as a second-order

construct).

Theoretical Background

Sustainable Development as a Conceptual

Framework for CSR

The literature provides a wide variety of conceptualisations

of CSR (Garriga and Mele 2004; Peloza and Shang 2011).

Some of these conceptualisations define the businessperson

A. Alvarado-Herrera et al.

123

(Bowen 1953; Davis 1960) as the subject of social re-

sponsibility, whereas others place responsibility on the

organisation as a whole (Carroll 1979; Sethi 1975). Some

conceptions situate CSR as a subversive doctrine (Fried-

man 1962), whereas others present it as the reflection of a

new social contract between firms and society (Bowen

1953; van Marrewijk 2003). Others consider CSR a reac-

tion to the social pressures that firms face (Carroll 1979;

Sethi 1975). Some works posit CSR as voluntary (Jones

1980; van Marrewijk 2003) and others as mandatory

(Bowen 1953; Frederick 1960). In other works, the study of

CSR focuses on the dimensions or areas for which the firm

is responsible (Carroll 1979) or underlines the public to

which the firm must answer (Jones 1980; Maignan et al.

2005).

In summary, there are at least two ideas shared by most

conceptualisations of CSR in academia. First is the as-

sumption that the firm has responsibilities beyond max-

imising profits (Carroll 1979; Davis 1960). The second idea

is linked to the first and maintains that the firm is not only

accountable to its owners, but also to other stakeholders

(Frederick 1960; Jones 1980; van Marrewijk 2003).

For some researchers, CSR differs from theoretical ap-

proaches such as Carroll’s Pyramid (1979, 1991) and

Corporate Associations (Brown and Dacin 1997); the use

of another framework might solve some of their main

limitations (Maignan 2001; Maignan and Ferrell 2003). As

indicated, the SD paradigm is a theoretical framework

particularly suitable for studying CSR. However, the aca-

demic community has largely neglected it (Choi and Ng

2011; Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk 2003), prob-

ably because it can be difficult to implement at organisa-

tional level (Garriga and Mele 2004).

The term sustainable development was conceived for a

macrolevel that ‘‘calls for a convergence between the three

pillars of economic development, social equity, and envi-

ronmental protection’’ (Drexhage and Murphy 2010, p. 2).

In other words, it is a hypernorm that offers universal

principles but demands attention at organisational level to

convert the traditional ‘‘baseline’’ of economic profitability

into the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ (Garriga and Mele 2004) and

develop CSR strategies and actions that are more tangible

and easy to assess for consumers (Oberseder et al. 2014).

This is because CSR reflects the highest expectations of

citizens, consumers and investors concerning economic

growth, social cohesion and environmental protection

(Eberhard-Harribey 2006).

Thus, a useful definition of CSR for this paper is ‘‘a

firm’s commitment to maximise long-term economic, soci-

etal and environmental well-being through business prac-

tices, policies and resources’’ (Du et al. 2011, p. 1). The

definition is appropriate because it allows identification of

CSR dimensions directly from the SD model and its

sustainable-centred rationality translates to management

and operative objectives (Kakabadse and Rozuel 2006).

This definition grants the operationalisation of consumer

perception of CSR business practices, policies and re-

sources related to economic, societal and environmental

dimensions. In this same vein, it supports the idea that CSR

is a multidimensional reflective construct whose three di-

mensions—economic development (ECO), social equity

(SOC) and environmental protection (ENV)—correspond

to SD dimensions (van Marrewijk 2003).

Measurement of Consumer Perceptions of CSR

The idea that the firm has more than economic and tech-

nical responsibilities is based on the assumption that the

firm is also accountable to other groups with interests

different from those of shareholders (Jones 1980; van

Marrewijk 2003). However, the scarce literature on CSR

scales from the consumer perspective is due to the or-

ganisational behavioural approach that has focused on firm

managers as stakeholders (Quazi and O’Brien 2000; Turker

2009a). Approaches to CSR from the perspective of other

stakeholders (i.e. employees or consumers) have increased

over the years (Turker 2009b), leading to a myriad of focal

points. However, a gap in measurements from the customer

perspective remains to be filled (Oberseder et al. 2013,

2014) and is therefore the focus of this paper.

The early works in the 1970s tended to analyse criteria

for the demographic and psychographic segmentation of

the socially responsible consumer (Anderson Jr. and Cun-

ningham 1972; Kinnear et al. 1974). Since then, works

focusing on the CSR-consumer binomial have mainly

concentrated on understanding how CSR perceptions in-

fluence the cognitive, affective and behavioural responses

of consumers to the firm. For example, CSR perceptions

have been shown to have a positive impact on various types

of responses, such as brand reputation (Brammer and

Millington 2005), firm credibility (Lafferty 2007), con-

sumer–company identification (Marın and Ruiz 2007; Sen

and Bhattacharya 2001), the consumer’s purchase intention

(Trudel and Cotte 2009) and attitude towards the firm

(Brown and Dacin 1997; Du et al. 2011; Sen and Bhat-

tacharya 2001).

However, the literature review on this topic revealed a

lack of a homogeneous conceptualisation of CSR from the

consumer behaviour perspective (Green and Peloza 2011)

and, in particular, a lack of solid measurement instruments

for corroborating the reliability and validity of scales used

to measure consumer perceptions of CSR. Most studies

operationalise CSR perceptions in a unidimensional man-

ner based on the notion of corporate associations proposed

by Brown and Dacin (1997). These authors distinguished

two types of associations perceived by consumers in

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

123

relation to the firm (i.e. corporate associations): corporate

ability (CA) associations, which refer to the firm’s expe-

rience in producing and delivering products and services

(mainly technical and economic); and Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR associations, which are ‘‘the reflection

of a firm’s status and activities with regard to its perceived

social obligations’’ (p. 68) that correspond to non-eco-

nomic issues. This approach facilitates the operationalisa-

tion of consumer perceptions of CSR and is therefore

useful in causal studies seeking to understand its relation-

ship with other attitudinal or behavioural variables. The

notion of CSR associations, however, is too general an

approach (and could even be considered a naıve approach)

to the CSR construct, as it does not permit discrimination

between different dimensions of CSR, thereby losing the

richness of the concept and distancing itself from content

validity.

In this context, a few works have assumed the multidi-

mensional nature of the CSR construct from the consumer

behaviour perspective or have carried out methodological

processes for creating and validating scales to measure the

construct for this group of stakeholders. Tables 1 and 2

summarise the conceptual and technical characteristics of

the six scales identified from the literature to measure

consumer perceptions of CSR from a multidimensional

perspective in the moment this stage was carried out, all

with a quantitative nature.

As can be seen, a group of works analyse whether

consumers perceptually discriminate economic, legal,

ethical and philanthropic responsibilities based on Carroll’s

(1979, 1991) conceptualisation, whereas the works of

Maignan (2001), Maignan and Ferrell (2003), David et al.

(2005), Garcıa de los Salmones et al. (2005) and Alvarado

and Shlesinger (2008) have repeatedly shown that the

conception of CSR in Carroll’s (1979, 1991) four dimen-

sions does not adequately reflect consumers’ minds. The

general conclusion is that economic responsibility does not

appear to form a part of the CSR construct for consumers,

underlining the idea that CSR is not about making a profit

for these stakeholders.

Furthermore, some studies based on the theoretical no-

tions of SD suggest that consumers are able to discriminate

the three dimensions of the CSR construct (Bigne et al.

2005; Singh et al. 2007); therefore, its use is justified in

accordance with the literature. This finding is particularly

true in the case of tourism (the sector chosen as the study

context) because the industry offers three advantages: (i) it

enables the inclusion of a heterogeneous group of inter-

viewees comprising individuals of different nationalities;

(ii) the industry’s main agents (e.g. hotels, airlines) are

active in CSR activities (Sheldon and Park 2011); and (iii)

SD and the triple bottom line is the development paradigm

adopted by the World Tourism Organization (2004).

Scale Development: CSRConsPerScale

The methodological process for developing the

CSRConsPerScale follows DeVellis’ (1991) proposal.

Furthermore, the chosen procedure was adapted following

the recommendations from Churchill Jr. (1979, 1999) and

Malhotra and Birks (2007), including a mixed-method

study. The following sections present each of the five

empirical studies and their main results (see Table 3).

Study 1: Scale Generation and Initial Purification

Item Generation

Following Cadogan et al. (1999), the six scales identified in

the literature measuring the same construct were analysed to

generate potential items for the new scale (see Table 1). A

total of 73 items were initially identified. First, we eliminated

the unnecessary items following Shimp and Sharma’s (1987)

key elimination criteria: (i) double argument, (ii) connotations

conditioning the respondent’s answer, (iii) ambiguity, (iv)

implicit assumptions and (v) relation to more than one SD

dimension. Of the 73 items, five were deleted and 68 were

retained for the next methodological phase.

Expert Review

A panel of experts scrutinised the list of generated items to

establish the scale’s content validity (DeVellis 1991).

Following Ouellet (2007), the panel comprised six ex-

perts—three PhD and three advanced PhD students with

the following profile: (i) university education at the post-

graduate level in business, (ii) in-depth marketing knowl-

edge, (iii) well-versed in the subject matter of CSR and (iv)

experience applying the scientific method.

The experts’ opinions addressed item elimination fo-

cused on redundancy, uncorrelation, content ambiguity

(Hardesty and Bearden 2004) and scale representativeness

of the construct (Zaichkowsky 1985). The expert review

resulted in a list of 25 items, nine corresponding to the

dimension SOC, seven to ENV and nine to ECO. The re-

fined list was used to develop a scale for testing in the pilot

questionnaire in the next stage.

Initial Determination of the Measurement Format

At this stage, we employed a metric using the Likert scale

with no neutral point and six response points. Avoiding a

neutral option eliminates the ‘‘easy way out’’ (Churchill Jr.

1999, p. 343) by preventing respondents from consciously

seeking a non-definition (Cox III 1980) and forcing them to

make a choice. General scales with a neutral point are less

reliable than those without (Churchill Jr. and Peter 1984).


123

Table 1 Conceptual characteristics of measurement scales for consumer perception of CSR and its dimensions

Research and scale name Method Conception Dimension(s) of the scale and what it/they

attempt(s) to measure

Reference framework for

the dimension(s)

Maignan (2001), Maignan

and Ferrell (2003)

Survey Reflective Economic Importance a consumer attributes to the

economic dimension of CSR

Carroll’s Model (1979 and

1999)

Legal Importance a consumer attributes to the legal

dimension of CSR

Corporate social

responsibilities

Ethical Importance a consumer attributes to the

ethical dimension of CSR

Philanthropic Importance a consumer attributes to

the discretional dimension of CSR

Garcıa de los Salmones

et al. (2005)

Survey Reflective Economic Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the economic

arena


1999)

CSRa dimensions Ethical–legal Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the ethical–legal

arena

Philanthropic Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the discretional

field

David et al. (2005) Survey Reflective Moral-Ethical Personal importance attributed to the

moral and ethical aspects of CSR activities and the

firm’s perceived performance

Adapted from Carroll’s

Model (1979 and 1999)

Personal importance (and

perceived performance)

of CSR action

Discretional Personal importance attributed to the

discretionary aspects of CSR activities and the

firm’s perceived performance

Discretional Personal importance attributed to the

relational aspects of CSR activities and the firm’s

perceived performance

Bigne et al. (2005) Survey Reflective Social Consumer perception of socially responsible

firms in relation to certain social practices

Sustainable development

Elements perceived by

consumers as integral to

CSR

Economic Consumer perception of socially

responsible firms in relation to certain economic

practices

Environmental Consumer perception of socially

responsible firms in relation to certain

environmental practices

Singh et al. (2007) Survey Reflective Commercial Consumer perception of socially

responsible firms in relation to their creation of

value in commercial terms


1999)

Corporate social

responsibility Scale

Ethical Users’ opinion of what the firm does about

its social responsibility in the ethical arena

Social Consumer perception of socially responsible

firms in relation to certain social practices

Alvarado and Shlesinger

(2008)

Survey Reflective Economic Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the economic

arena


1999)

CSR dimensions Ethical–legal Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the ethical–legal

arena

Philanthropic Users’ opinion of what the firm does

about its social responsibility in the discretional

field

a Although Garcıa de los Salmones et al. (2005) tried to obtain the four dimensions established by Carroll (1979 and 1999) using Maignan’s

items (2001), their CFA indicated that the legal and ethical dimensions were in fact a single factor that they called the ethical–legal dimension. In

addition, a second-order CFA indicated that, according to their results, the economic dimension was not perceived by consumers as a component

of CSR


123

Table

2T

ech

nic

alch

arac

teri

stic

so

fsc

ales

for

mea

suri

ng

con

sum

erp

erce

pti

on

of

CS

R

Res

earc

hD

imen

sio

nT

yp

eo

fsc

ale:

#

item

s,#

po

ints

per

item

Rel

iab

ilit

yS

tati

stic

al

tech

niq

ue

and

go

od

nes

so

ffi

t

Val

idit

yS

amp

le

size

Po

pu

lati

on

Sec

tor

Co

un

try

(ies

)

Mai

gn

an(2

00

1)

and

Mai

gn

anan

d

Fer

rell

(20

03)a

Economic

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

3p

oin

ts

a 1=

.81

EF

A;

no

tsp

ecifi

edN

ot

spec

ified

40

8C

on

sum

ers

No

tsp

ecifi

edF

ran

ce,

Ger

man

y

and

US

Aa 2

=.9

5

a 3=

.86

Legal

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

3p

oin

ts

a 1=

.92

a 2=

.91

a 3=

.90

Ethical

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

3p

oin

ts

a 1=

.91

a 2=

.96

a 3=

.92

Philanthropic

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

3p

oin

ts

a 1=

.82

a 2=

.95

a 3=

.93

Gar

cıa

de

los

Sal

mo

nes

etal

.

(20

05)b

Economic

Lik

ert:

3it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.74

CF

A;

NF

I=

.90

;

NN

FI=

.89

;

GF

I=

.94

;

AG

FI=

.90

;

RM

SE

A=

.08

Co

nv

erg

ent

and

dis

crim

inan

t

68

9C

on

sum

ers

Ser

vic

es(M

ob

ile

tele

phony)

Sp

ain

IFC=

.77

Ethical–legal

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.75

IFC=

.76

Philanthropic

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.73

IFC=

.73

Dav

idet

al.

(20

05)c

Moral-Ethics

Lik

ert:

5it

ems;

10

po

ints

a=

.84

EF

A;

no

tsp

ecifi

edN

ot

spec

ified

17

6D

egre

est

ud

ents

fam

ilia

rw

ith

CS

R

Th

ree

fro

mth

e

con

sum

erg

oo

ds

sect

or

and

on

e

fast

foo

dre

stau

ran

t

US

A

a 1=

.78

a 2=

.81

a 3=

.76

a 4=

.82

Discretional

Lik

ert:

4it

ems;

10

po

ints

a=

.86

a 1=

.86

a 2=

.83

a 3=

.77

a 4=

.88

Relational

Lik

ert:

2it

ems;

10

po

ints

r=

.48

r 1=

.35

r 2=

.50

r 3=

.40

r 4=

.22


123

Table

2co

nti

nu

ed

Res

earc

hD

imen

sio

nT

yp

eo

fsc

ale:

#

item

s,#

po

ints

per

item

Rel

iab

ilit

yS

tati

stic

al

tech

niq

ue

and

go

od

nes

so

ffi

t

Val

idit

yS

amp

le

size

Po

pu

lati

on

Sec

tor

Co

un

try

(ies

)

Big

ne

etal

.

(20

05)d

Social

Lik

ert:

6it

ems;

10

po

ints

a=

No

t

spec

ified

;

EF

A;

Ex

pl.

var

ian

ce=

60

%;

KM

O=

.81

No

tsp

ecifi

ed4

18

Stu

den

ts

Co

nsu

mer

s

Go

od

s(S

ho

esan

d

deo

dora

nt)

Arg

enti

na,

Chil

e,

Sp

ain

and

Po

rtu

gal

Economic

Lik

ert:

2it

ems;

10

po

ints

Environmental

Lik

ert:

4it

ems;

10

po

ints

Sin

gh

etal

.

(20

07)e

Commercial

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

10

po

ints

a 1=

.79

CF

A;[

Sp

ain

]

NF

I=

.86

NN

FI=

.88

CF

I=

.90

IFI=

.90

RM

SE

A=

.06

Co

nv

erg

ent

and

dis

crim

inan

t

14

8[S

pai

n]

14

4[U

K]

Con

sum

ers

Go

od

s.D

airy

pro

duct

s

(Dan

on

e),

soft

dri

nks

(Co

caC

ola

),

cere

als

(Kel

logg’s

)

and

tooth

pas

te

(Co

lgat

e)

Sp

ain

and

UK

IFC=

.80

a 2=

.78

IFC=

.80

Social

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

10

po

ints

a=

.77

;

IFC=

.76

a 2=

.78

IFC=

.81

Environmental

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

10

po

ints

a=

.77

[UK

]

NF

I=

.85

NN

FI=

.86

CF

I=

.88

IFI=

.88

;

RM

SE

A=

.07

IFC=

.77

a 2=

.84

IFC=

.83

Alv

arad

o

and

Sh

lesi

ng

er

(20

08)

Economic

Lik

ert:

3it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.70

CF

A;

NN

FI=

.93

CF

I=

.95

IFI=

.95

MF

I=

.91

RM

SE

A=

.04

Co

nv

erg

ent

and

dis

crim

inan

t

35

8S

tud

ents

con

sum

ers

Ser

vic

es(M

ob

ile

tele

ph

on

y)

Sp

ain

IFC=

.76

Ethical–legal

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.63

IFC=

.68

Philanthropic

Lik

ert:

4it

ems,

7p

oin

ts

a=

.69

IFC=

.69

aC

oef

fici

ents

a 1,a 2

anda 3

refe

rto

the

Fre

nch

,G

erm

anan

dU

Sm

ark

ets,

resp

ecti

vel

yb

Val

idit

y:

Co

nv

erg

ent

for

sig

nifi

can

tit

emsp\

.05

and

stan

dar

dis

edlo

ads[

.50

;D

iscr

imin

ant:

con

fid

ence

inte

rval

cC

oef

fici

enta

refe

rsto

the

per

son

alim

po

rtan

ceat

trib

ute

d,

and

coef

fici

entsa 1

,a 2

,a 3

anda 4

refe

rto

the

firm

sM

icro

soft

,N

ike,

Wen

dy

’san

dP

hil

lip

Mo

rris

,re

spec

tiv

ely

;in

the

case

of

Pea

rso

n’s

r,th

ein

form

atio

nis

sho

wn

wit

hth

esa

me

log

icd

Alt

ho

ug

ha

coef

fici

ents

are

no

tsp

ecifi

ed,

they

rep

ort

that

the

item

sw

ere

pu

rged

tak

ing

into

acco

un

tth

ean

ti-i

mag

em

atri

x(S

MA

)an

dit

sfa

cto

rial

load

se

Co

effi

cien

tsa 1

anda 2

refe

rto

the

Sp

anis

han

dE

ng

lish

mar

ket

s,re

spec

tiv

ely


123

Study 2: Preliminary Measure Assessment

Sample and Procedure

In the following stage, we tested for scale reliability to

detect poor item performance. The questionnaire was

pretested in a pilot study on 17 members from the uni-

versity community, resulting in minor changes to some

items. As this was the early stage of scale development, we

decided to use a convenience sample of university students

from a variety of disciplines at two Spanish universities,

who had used tourism services recently. Interviewees were

chosen in two stages: First, 50 % of quotas were estab-

lished for gender and university, and second, interviewees

were randomly selected at their schools. The instrument

was administered to 204 individuals; 19 respondents were

eliminated because they failed to answer items or had a

tendency to answer yes or no to everything (Churchill Jr.

1979). The final 185 respondents included a balanced

number of women (50.3 %) and men (49.7 %) with an

average age of 22.4 years. All respondents were Spanish.

Data Analysis and Results

We ran confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to detect items

that threatened convergent validity because of low stan-

dardised loadings or high Lagrange Multipliers (Cadogan

et al. 1999; Fornell and Larcker 1981). As a result, 11 items

(Soc6, Soc7, Soc8, Soc9, Env7, Eco1, Eco2, Eco3, Eco7,

Eco8 and Eco9) were identified as candidates for

elimination. Table 4 shows the results of each CFA and the

provisional decisions adopted.

The provisional consecutive exclusion of each item

identified as a candidate for elimination not only grants a

better statistical fit to the model, but also has theoretical

justification (Bagozzi 1981). The provisional purging of the

scale was detained to determine Cronbach’s a coefficients

for each factor using the retained items and calculate the

corresponding CR and AVE (see Table 5).

As observed, even with the elimination of the above-

mentioned items, the new values of Cronbach’s a and

composite reliability support scale reliability. However, the

AVE results show some deficiencies in the ECO and SOC

dimensions, suggesting the need for a new qualitative

phase to improve the scale.

Study 3: Scale Refinement and Validation (Mixed-

Method Study)

According to previous results, it was decided to carry out

the mixed-method study based on concept mapping (Tro-

chim 1989), which generates concept maps using multidi-

mensional scaling (i.e. MDS) and cluster analysis derived

from focus group results. This technique has been applied

to consumers (Joiner 1998), brands (John et al. 2006) and

travel agencies in the tourism setting (Bigne et al. 2002).

Table 3 Methodological process for scale development

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

outcome(s)

One Generation and

initial

purification

Qualitative Spain and Mexico/N = 6

experts on CSR

Literature review and panel of experts Specification of

construct domain

Generation of sample/

pool of dimensions

and items

Evaluation of content

validity

Determination of the

format for

measurement

Two Preliminary

measure

assessment

Quantitative Spain/N = 185 university

students users of tourism

services

Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Initial reliability and

validity assessment

Three Refinement and

validation

Mixed Spain/N = 14 national and

international tourism

services’ users

Concept mapping; multidimensional

scaling and cluster analysis of focus

group results

Enhanced items and

dimensions

Four Additional

testing of the

scale

Quantitative Spain/N = 462 national and

international tourists on visit

Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Refined and validated

scale

Five Final replication

and

generalisation

Quantitative Mexico/N = 440 national and

international tourists on visit

Survey and confirmatory factor analysis Validated and

generalsed

CSRConsPerScale


123


The focus group comprised 14 consumers of tourism ser-

vices. After the participants sorted the items individually,

generated groups were shown to the participants. They

reached a consensus by merging the different groups or

reassigning items to different groups (see Trochim 1989 for

details of the methodological process).


The ALSCAL algorithm was used to construct the concept

map obtained from the MDS analysis because it is the most

appropriate algorithm for the type of data. The resulting

concept map, shown in Fig. 1, provides a very good fit:

Stress1 = .0156 (Kruskal 1964); S-Stress1 = .0062

(Takane et al. 1977) and RSQ = .9994 (Schiffman et al.

1981). The cluster analysis was hierarchical, and the so-

lution was determined following Ward’s method.

As expected, 24 of the 25 items considered in the pre-

liminary questionnaire and group dynamics showed strong

tendencies to group in their corresponding dimensions

anticipated by the theory and expert review. The exception

was item Eco9 (sponsorship of sporting events), adding

further evidence of its erratic behaviour. Garcıa de los

Salmones et al. (2005) first proposed that the item belonged

to the SOC dimensions, but the empirical results of their

study did not support that proposal. Therefore, item Eco9

was eliminated from the scale, and the dimensions SOC,

ENV and ECO were integrated for further empirical testing

with items Soc1–Soc9, Env1–Env7 and Eco1–Eco8,

respectively.

Drafting Improvements and Determination of the New

Measurement Format

When the participants reached a consensus on the items,

groups and composition, they were asked to propose

improvements to the items to eliminate ambiguities and

reaffirm the belonging of each to its resulting dimension.

The suggested improvements were studied carefully and

incorporated in the final drafting. The main suggestion

was to use a 7-point Likert scale, as some focus group

participants believed that consumers should not neces-

sarily have to agree or disagree with the statements

contained in the items, making a neutral response point

more desirable.

Table 4 CFAs for the preliminary analysis of the initial purging of the proposed scale

AFC Item SL S-B0 ad hoc goodness-of-fit indicators FA D Expected

in S-B with

elimination

of the item

Decision taken

NFI NNFI CFI IFI RMSEA

1 Eco1 .315 586.68*** (272 df) .607 .709 .736 .742 .080 Soc -22.543*** Provisional elimination

2 Eco7 .519 534.43*** (249 df) .625 .725 .752 .757 .079 Env -21.34*** Provisional elimination

3 Soc7 .425 476.27*** (227 df) .647 .747 .773 .778 .078 Eco -13.49*** Provisional elimination

4 Eco2 .532 420.99*** (206 df) .668 .768 .793 .798 .076 Soc -9.282*** Provisional elimination

5 Soc8 .244 377.90*** (186 df) .678 .775 .801 .806 .075 NA NA Provisional elimination

6 Soc9 .336 324.40*** (167 df) .706 .804 .828 .832 .072 Eco -4.061* Provisional elimination

7 Eco9 .376 249.51*** (149 df) .751 .861 .879 .882 .061 Env -5.132* Provisional elimination

8 Soc6 .370 206.58*** (132 df) .779 .890 .905 .907 .056 NA NA Provisional elimination

9 Eco3 .472 161.93** (116 df) .812 .926 .937 .939 .045 NA NA Provisional elimination

10 Eco8 .454 135.29* (101 df) .831 .940 .950 .951 .043 NA NA Provisional elimination

11 Env7 .516 123.05** (87 df) .834 .932 .943 .945 .048 NA NA Provisional elimination

12 Soc1 .688 94.42 (74 df) .859 .957 .965 .966 .039 Eco -5.61* End of provisional

purging process

CFA consecutive number of CFA, SL standardised loading, S-B0 S-B with the item loading to the factor it should theoretically load to, FA

additional factor to which the item could load according to the Lagrange Multipliers test, NA not applicable (used when the elimination criterion

was that SL\ .60)

* p\ .05; ** p\ .01; *** p\ .001

Table 5 Reliabilities by dimension after preliminary optimisation of

the scale (Study 2)

Dimension Cronbach’s a CR AVE

Social equity .725 .729 .352

Environmental protection .857 .858 .507

Economic development .710 .726 .479

CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted


123

Study 4: Testing the Refined Scale (Tourists

in Spain)


The next methodological stage was conducted to refine and

validate the scale derived from the previous stage. We car-

ried out a new empirical study focused on the updated items

derived from the non-representative sample used in the

previous stage (Study 3). Due to the scale’s advanced de-

velopmental stage and because it was a second approach for

validation, we decided to work with a representative sample

of tourism consumers visiting the Spanish Mediterranean. A

random sampling plan was developed using three Spanish

urban tourism destinations ranked in the top 10 most visited

(Alicante, Barcelona and Valencia) as sampling points. The

sample size of 480 interviewees with a confidence level of

95 % (z = 1.96) and error less than ±5 % (e\ .046) was

considered appropriate. Of the 480 questionnaires, 18 were

discarded because of missing data or because they had been

answered unthinkingly, deriving a final sample of 462 tour-

ists without any significant impact on the anticipated confi-

dence levels or estimation error. The final sample comprised

59.3 % of men and 43.7 of women: 32 % were in the age

range of 18–30, 28.8 % in the range of 31–40 and 39.2 %

over 40. Of the respondents, 49.8 % were Spanish, 50.2 %

were foreign tourists and 77.3 % were employed. The av-

erage duration of stay was 3.5 days, and 60.4 % travelled by

plane to the tourist destination.

Assessment of the Items and Determination of Reliability

Based on data from the 462 valid questionnaires, the op-

eration of each item on the scale was assessed with an

initial determination of its reliability (DeVellis 1991).

Table 6 shows the results of Pearson’s correlation coeffi-

cients, average and standard deviation of the items for each

CSR dimension and Cronbach’s a coefficient calculated

from all the items initially considered in each factor.

As shown, average values of the items remained

relatively close to the other means for the indicators of the

group to which they belonged, and all the relations were

significant at a level of p\ .01 in relation to the other

items belonging to each group. Simple reliabilities (Cron-

bach’s a) for each dimension exceeded the acceptable

value of .80 for consolidated scales (Malhotra and Birks

2007; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994); therefore, it was

considered appropriate to continue with the analysis.

To determine the composed reliability indices and

variances extracted and to analyse the purging of the scale,

the same procedure followed in the first quantitative study

was adopted. Several first-order CFAs were run, and the

items that significantly affected scale fit were eliminated.

To avoid conditions incompatible with the convergent va-

lidity of the scale, the CFA results led to the definitive

elimination of items Soc2 and Soc5 because their stan-

dardised loads were below .60 (kSoc2 = .567 and

kSoc5 = .534) (Cadogan et al. 1999; Fornell and Larcker

1981). This was important because incompatibility would

Indicator Calculated value Critical value exceeded Fit Stress1 .0156 .025 Excellent S-Stress1 .0062 .025 Excellent R2 .9994 .600 Very good

Fig. 1 Concept mapping of Corporate Social Responsibility dimensions (Study 3)


123

affect scale operation. Table 7 shows Cronbach’s a for

each factor using the remaining items and the corre-

sponding CR and AVE, and also presents the results for the

corresponding second-order CFA, where the reflective

concept perceived CSR was considered in the hypothesised

terms.

As shown, elimination of the aforementioned items

barely affected the value adopted by Cronbach’s a for the

social dimension and in all cases supported instrument

reliability by exceeding the minimum expected value of .80

for consolidated scales (Malhotra and Birks 2007; Nun-

nally and Bernstein 1994). Moreover, all the CR values

exceeded the .70 threshold and supported the reliability of

the measurement instrument. The AVE results exceeded

the critical value of .50 established for this conservative

criterion (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Scale Length and Determination of Validity

The aim of this stage of scale development was twofold.

First, we sought to reduce scale length to an optimum point

and, second, to determine instrument validity. In all cases,

a balance between the length of the scale making it easy to

administer, scale reliability (DeVellis 1991) and validity

indicators at appropriate levels guided our goals. Conse-

quently, we assessed the validity of the scale in terms of

content, convergence, discriminant and nomological

validity.

Table 6 Correlations, mean, standard deviation and Cronbach’s a for each dimension (Study 4)

Soc1 Soc2 Soc3 Soc4 Soc5 Soc6 Soc7 Soc8 Soc9

Social equity dimension (a = .923)

Soc1 4.83 (1.27)

Soc2 .431** 5.45 (1.00)

Soc3 .801** .405** 4.97 (1.28)

Soc4 .518** .624** .568** 5.39 (1.14)

Soc5 .279** .609** .270** .605** 5.56 (1.07)

Soc6 .678** .465** .736** .613** .442** 5.21 (1.20)

Soc7 .714** .467** .706** .615** .412** .828** 5.07 (1.24)

Soc8 .659** .462** .630** .623** .461** .730** .812** 5.10 (1.21)

Soc9 .429** .483** .453** .556** .522** .580** .595** .652** 5.42 (1.11)

Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Env6 Env7

Environmental protection dimension (a = .946)

Env1 5.25 (1.07)

Env2 .427** 5.39 (1.08)

Env3 .435** .451** 5.40 (1.11)

Env4 .552** .415** .429** 5.47 (1.03)

Env5 .590** .418** .443** .599** 5.41 (1.04)

Env6 .734** .468** .432** .498** .601** 5.52 (1.09)

Env7 .353** .237** .387** .456** .470** .358** 5.44 (1.09)

Eco1 Eco2 Eco3 Eco4 Eco5 Eco6 Eco7 Eco8

Economic development dimension (a = .959)

Eco1 5.52 (1.08)

Eco2 .766** 5.58 (1.06)

Eco3 .706** .779** 5.59 (1.04)

Eco4 .711** .721** .750** 5.60 (1.07)

Eco5 .700** .737** .753** .789** 5.58 (1.07)

Eco6 .701** .681** .719** .753** .798** 5.56 (1.09)

Eco7 .740** .726** .738** .764** .780** .831** 5.59 (1.08)

Eco8 .685** .782** .747** .711** .752** .756** .820** 5.62 (1.06)

The diagonal shows the mean and standard deviation for each variable

** Significant correlation for p\ .01


123

Content validity refers to the degree to which a mea-

sure adequately reflects the different aspects of the phe-

nomenon being studied (Malhotra and Birks 2007). This

type of validity is fundamentally subjective (Malhotra and

Birks 2007) and cannot be guaranteed a priori because

construct consistency with the conceptual framework

from which it stems is given by the theory, appropriate

literature review and expert opinion (Churchill Jr. 1999).

As already noted, the methodological process chosen for

developing the scale included a stage for ensuring content

validity, which is considered to have been achieved in

light of the literature review and the results of Studies 1,

2 and 3.

Convergent validity of the CSRConsPerScale was de-

termined using goodness-of-fit criteria for the measurement

model, significance and direction of factor loading for the

items and the means of standardised loads on each factor.

Table 7 shows that goodness-of-fit indicators for the

CSRConsPerScale were adequate (NFI = .89; NNFI =

.92; CFI = .93; IFI = .93; RMSEA = .06).

Table 7 The first- and second-order CFA results and psychometric properties of CSRConsPerScale (Study 4)

Scale Factor k (2� CFA) t value Item Reliability Convergent validity

a CR AVE k (std.) t value ks (mean)

Perceived CSR .874 (mean) .907 .766

Social equity .856*** 13.06 Soc1 .926 .929 .652 .78# # .803

Soc3 .79*** 29.69

Soc4 .71*** 11.42

Soc6 .88*** 22.32

Soc7 .91*** 22.54

Soc8 .87*** 17.75

Soc9 .67*** 8.48

Environmental protection .955*** 13.79 Env1 .946 .947 .718 .79# # .847

Env2 .88*** 27.34

Env3 .83*** 23.26

Env4 .86*** 18.42

Env5 .87*** 19.32

Env6 .86*** 19.21

Env7 .85*** 18.60

Economic development .809*** 13.66 Eco1 .959 .959 .747 .82# # .864

Eco2 .85*** 33.32

Eco3 .86*** 28.22

Eco4 .86*** 27.91

Eco5 .88*** 26.49

Eco6 .87*** 27.03

Eco7 .90*** 26.06

Eco8 .87*** 25.97

Goodness-of-fit indicators Discriminant validity. AVE, Corr2 and confidence intervals

Social Environmental Economic

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

NFI = .89

NNFI = .92 Environmental [.508–.864] .718 .333***

CFI = .93 Economic [.452–.772] [.427–.727] .747

IFI = .93

RMSEA = .06 The diagonal shows the values of the variance extracted indexes, below the diagonal the confidence intervals for

each pair of factors and above the diagonal the squares of the inter-factor correlation coefficients

k Standardised load

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


123

Table 7 also shows that the factor loadings for all the

items were significant and positive in relation to their

factors (Churchill Jr. 1979), thereby indicating the con-

vergent validity of the model. Similarly, the means for the

standardised loads on each factor were high, significant and

exceeded the cut-off points of .70 and .50 (Fornell and

Larcker 1981), providing good indications of convergent

validity. In short, joint interpretation of the above criteria

makes it possible to state that the ongoing scale has con-

vergent validity.

Discriminant validity was tested using the difference test

and the confidence interval test for the correlation among

constructs (Anderson and Gerbing 1988) and the Fornell

and Larcker (1981) criterion, which compares AVE with

the squared correlation between constructs. Table 7 shows

that no evidence of problems with discriminant validity

arose from the results.

Nomological validity is shown if the scale correlates in the

theoretically anticipated form with the measures of different

but theoretically related concepts (Malhotra and Birks 2007).

To determine the nomological validity of our scale, six general

items were included in the questionnaire, two for the SOC

dimension (G_Soc1 and G_Soc2), two for ENV (G_Env1 and

G_Env2) and two for ECO (G_Eco1 and G_Eco2).

Table 8 shows the correlation coefficients between the

mean values of the responses in each considered dimension

and the contrast items. As can be seen, in all cases, the

correlations were strong, positive and significant (p\ .01)

thereby establishing the nomological validity of the scale

being developed according to the criterion (Shimp and

Sharma 1987).

Figure 2 shows the results of the second-order CFA for

Study 4.

Study 5: Replication and Generalisation (Tourists

in Mexico)

To refine and purge the CSRConsPerScale for addressing

generalisation, we conducted a third quantitative study in a

different country. Replication in geographical, sociocul-

tural and tourism service environments different from those

used for the previous quantitative studies (Studies 3 and 4)

will grant potential generalisation.


A representative sample of tourists visiting the Mexican

Caribbean was chosen for the sample. A random sampling

plan was developed using three natural parks equipped

with appropriate infrastructures and tourist services, and

adopting three sampling points on the Yucatan Peninsula

(X’cacel-Xcacelito, Chankanaab and Faro Celerain-Punta

Sur). The sample size of 440 showed an estimation error of

less than ±4.5 % (e\ .047) with p = q = .50. The final

sample was 53.6 % of women and 46.4 % of men: 56.1 %

were in the age range of 16–35, 26.8 % were in the range

of 36–45 and 17 % were over 45. Americans comprised

64.2 % and Mexicans 20 %; 64.3 % were employed and

40.5 % came by cruise to the destination.


The operation of each item in the scale was evaluated, and

simple reliabilities were determined for each of the three

factors. Table 9 shows the results for Pearson’s correlation

coefficients, averages and standard deviations of the items

for each CSR dimension and Cronbach’s a coefficients cal-

culated from all the items initially considered in each factor.

Four new first-order CFA analyses were run for a

definitive purging of the scale, which led to the elimination

of items Soc9, Env3, Eco1 and Eco5: the first two because

of convergent validity problems (kSoc9 = .559, kEn-

v3 = .567) and the other two because of discriminant va-

lidity problems (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Then we ran a

new second-order CFA (Fig. 3). The results (Table 10)

permitted reasonable recognition (in general terms and

with the same tests and criteria followed in Studies 2 and 4)

of the convergent and discriminant validity of the

CSRConsPerScale in the context of Study 5. The above

analysis supported the scale’s external validity and its

usefulness as a valid parsimonious instrument in the terms

discussed in the following section.

Table 8 Correlation of

measures of the perceived CSR

dimensions with validation

items

Dimension Mean Validation item Mean Correlation coefficient

Pearson Spearman

Social equity 5.14 G_Soc1 5.38 .600** .575**

G_Soc2 5.39 .628** .577**

Environmental protection 5.41 G_Env1 5.40 .699** .660**

G_Env2 5.47 .707** .642**

Economic development 5.58 G_Eco1 5.44 .705** .635**

G_Eco2 5.47 .676** .609**

** p\ .01


123

Discussion and Conclusions

Theoretical Discussion

The main contribution of this research is the development

of the CSRConsPerScale, a valid measurement scale for

consumer perceptions of CSR based on three dimensions

proposed by the SD approach: economic development,

social equity and environmental protection responsibilities

(Choi and Ng 2011; Chow and Chen 2011; van Marrewijk

2003). Based on the methodology suggested by DeVellis

(1991), a process of 13 stages over five empirical studies

.856***

.955***

.809***

.784#

.794***

.714***

.881***

.911***

.866***

.674***

.787#

.876***

.826***

.863***

.866***

.862***

.848***

.823#

.851***

.856***

.860***

.880***

.872***

.898***

.871***

.621***

.608***

.700***

.473***

.413***

.500***

.617***

.482***

.563***

.506***

.501***

.508***

.530***

.568***

.525***

.517***

.510***

.476***

.489***

.440***

.491***

.739***

.518***

.297**

.588***

SOC

PerceivedCSR

ECO

ENV

Soc7

Soc9

Soc3

Soc4

Soc1

Soc6

Soc8

Env2

Env5

Env1

Env3

Env4

Env6

Env7

Eco1

Eco2

Eco3

Eco4

Eco5

Eco6

Eco7

Eco8

ESoc1

ESoc3

ESoc4

ESoc6

ESoc7

ESoc8

EEnv1

EEnv2

EEnv3

EEnv4

EEnv5

EEnv6

EEnv7

EEco1

EEco2

EEco3

EEco4

EEco5

EEco6

EEco7

EEco8

ESoc9 DSoc

DEnv

DEco

Fig. 2 The second-order CFA for Study 4. **p\ .01; ***p\ .001.

The details and psychometric properties of the model are shown in

Table 7. # = Not estimated because it was fixed at 1 to identify the

model. Goodness of fit indicators: NFI = .89; NNFI = .92;

CFI = .93; IFI = .93; RMSEA = .06, for a confidence interval at

90 % [.049; .061]; S-B chi (206df) = 495.669, p\ .001


123

was followed to create the new scale and to debug and test

its reliability and validity through a confirmatory approach.

The final version of the CSRConsPerScale comprises 18

items: six for the ECO, six for the SOC and six for the

ENV dimension. Table 11 presents the wording and con-

tent of each item in the final version of the

CSRConsPerScale scale.

This study has two main theoretical conclusions. First,

the dependent factors considered in the second-order are

reflective of the CSR model (SOC, ENV and ECO) and

have discriminant validity according to the criteria used.

This proves that consumer perception of CSR is a multi-

dimensional construct, rather than the one-dimensional

factor postulated by the corporate associations approach

(Brown and Dacin 1997). This result, in line with Carroll’s

(1979, 1991), confirms that CSR is a complex construct

and that even in terms of consumer perceptions, its

complexity is reflected in the discrimination of economic,

social and environmental dimensions. This finding is im-

portant because no study in the literature has corroborated

[using confirmatory techniques (CFA)] consumer percep-

tions of the multidimensionality of CSR from a SD

perspective.

Secondly, this work supports the triple bottom line of

SD as a theoretical approach (widely accepted by practi-

tioners) that matches consumer perceptions of CSR even in

different cultural contexts. This finding helps overcome the

doubts expressed in previous studies about the extent to

which the framework established by Carroll (1979, 1991)

and its dimensions appropriately reflect the perceptions of

this group of stakeholders (e.g. Alvarado and Shlesinger

2008; Garcıa de los Salmones et al. 2005; Maignan 2001;

Maignan and Ferrell 2003). The definition of CSR pro-

posed by Carroll (1979, 1991) appears to fit better with the

Table 9 Correlations, means, standard deviation and Cronbach’s a for each dimension (Study 5)

Soc1 Soc3 Soc4 Soc6 Soc7 Soc8 Soc9

Social equity dimension (a = .835)

Soc1 3.67 (1.03)

Soc3 .521** 3.26 (1.12)

Soc4 .457** .434** 3.76 (1.03)

Soc6 .550** .443** .453** 3.70 (1.10)

Soc7 .425** .440** .429** .449** 3.69 (1.07)

Soc8 .356** .428** .340** .453** .421** 3.07 (1.01)

Soc9 .371** .309** .273** .351** .388** .527** 3.38 (1.02)

Env1 Env2 Env3 Env4 Env5 Env6 Env7

Environmental protection dimension (a = .872)

Env1 4.20 (.94)

Env2 .599** 3.94 (1.00)

Env3 .443** .471** 3.38 (1.02)

Env4 .585** .536** .313** 4.23 (.89)

Env5 .464** .456** .361** .504** 3.88 (.96)

Env6 .476** .501** .355** .557** .609** 3.99 (.95)

Env7 .487** .541** .413** .500** .626** .629** 3.87 (.99)

Eco1 Eco2 Eco3 Eco4 Eco5 Eco6 Eco7 Eco8

Economic development dimension (a = .880)

Eco1 3.37 (.92)

Eco2 .499** 3.59 (.93)

Eco3 .470** .545** 3.68 (1.01)

Eco4 .403** .438** .577** 3.51 (.99)

Eco5 .431** .297** .477** .462** 3.73 (1.06)

Eco6 .368** .492** .414** .561** .466** 3.45 (.93)

Eco7 .383** .478** .539** .623** .408** .565** 3.55 (.97)

Eco8 .470** .541** .545** .521** .408** .473** .596** 3.61 (.98)

The diagonal shows the mean and standard deviation for each variable

** Significant correlation for p\ .01


123

measurement of consumer expectations about the socially

responsible nature of the firm but not necessarily with the

measurement of perceptions of what the firm does in CSR.

In fact, in relation to whether the economic dimension

belongs to the CSR construct, Carroll (1999) notes that it

cannot always be perceived as such, because many indi-

viduals think that the economic component of CSR is what

the firm does for itself, whereas the other dimensions are

what the firm does for others. Furthermore, Carroll (1999)

adds that even when an individual does not perceive the

economic dimension as forming part of CSR, ‘‘financial

viability is something that firms do for society as well,

although we do not see it like that’’ (p. 284). Nevertheless,

it is illogical to exclude an essential part of the definition of

a concept when studying its indicators (Diamantopoulos

and Winklhofer 2001). Therefore, as financial viability is

indissociable from CSR according to the main dimensional

frameworks of CSR (i.e. Carroll’s Pyramid and SD), there

.696***

.862***

.825***

.700#

.670***

.660***

.714***

.645***

.595***

.704#

.726***

.718***

.719***

.767***

.767***

.666#

.732***

.763***

.674***

.790***

.729***

.714***

.742***

.751***

.700***

.764***

.804***

.710***

.687***

.696***

.695***

.641***

.642***

.746***

.682***

.647***

.739***

.613***

.684***

.718***

.489***

.566***

SOC

PerceivedCSR

ECO

ENV

Soc7

Soc3

Soc4

Soc1

Soc6

Soc8

Env2

Env5

Env1

Env4

Env6

Env7

Eco2

Eco3

Eco4

Eco6

Eco7

Eco8

ESoc1

ESoc3

ESoc4

ESoc6

ESoc7

ESoc8

EEnv1

EEnv2

EEnv4

EEnv5

EEnv6

EEnv7

EEco2

EEco3

EEco4

EEco6

EEco7

EEco8

DSoc

DEnv

DEco

Fig. 3 CSRConsPerScale after external validation and final purging:

the second-order CFA for Study 5. ***p\ .001. The details and

psychometric properties of the model are shown in Table 10. # = Not

estimated because it was fixed at 1 to identify the model. Goodness of

fit indicators: NFI = .89; NNFI = .93; CFI = .94; IFI = .94;

RMSEA = .051, for a confidence interval of 90 % [.042; .059];

S-B(132df) = 280.119, p\ .001


123

is no logical or theoretical justification for eliminating it, as

to do so would destroy the content validity of the construct

itself. The above suggests that, at least in the area of the

behaviour of tourism services consumers, the SD paradigm

has greater explanatory ability for consumer perceptions of

CSR than Carroll’s Model (1979, 1991).

Managerial Implications

The main managerial implication of this study is that it

provides practitioners with a reliable, valid instrument for

measuring their customers’ perceptions of CSR, enabling

correct discrimination between economic, social and

environmental initiatives, that is, the CSRConsPerScale

could become a powerful instrument for monitoring the

effectiveness of CSR programmes in general or itemised

according to SD dimensions. This procedure would enable

a more effective combination of CSR with other classical

relational variables, such as perceived value, satisfaction

and loyalty, achieving measures that are more consistent

with the returns on a CSR programme, at least from the

consumer behaviour perspective.

Moreover, the CSRConsPerScale could be used by other

entities (e.g. NGOs, public authorities and social commu-

nication media) to determine real consumer perceptions of

a firm’s CSR performance.

Table 10 Results of the first- and second-order CFA and psychometric properties of CSRConsPerScale (Study 5)

Scale Factor k(28 CFA)

t value Item Reliability Convergent validity

a CR AVE k (Std.) t value ks (mean)

Perceived CSR .798 (mean) .842 .529

Social equity .696*** 10.77 Soc1 .825 .826 .442 .70# # .664

Soc3 .67*** 12.38

Soc4 .66*** 10.51

Soc6 .71*** 12.25

Soc7 .65*** 10.77

Soc8 .60*** 10.59

Environmental protection .872*** 10.58 Env1 .875 .875 .539 .70# # .734

Env2 .73*** 14.21

Env4 .72*** 13.54

Env5 .72*** 13.42

Env6 .77*** 13.12

Env7 .77*** 13.87

Economic development .825*** 10.44 Eco2 .870 .870 .529 .67# # .726

Eco3 .73*** 12.59

Eco4 .76*** 12.00

Eco6 .67*** 14.05

Eco7 .79*** 11.90

Eco8 .73*** 14.21

Goodness-of-fit indicators Discriminant validity. AVE, Corr2 and confidence intervals

Social Environmental Economic

S-B v2 (132 df) = 280.12*** Social .442 .368*** .329***

NFI = .89 Environmental [.517–.697] .539 .517***

NNFI = .93 Economic [.476–.672] [.651–.787] .529

CFI = .94

IFI = .94

RMSEA = .05 The diagonal shows the values of the variance extracted indexes, below the diagonal the confidence intervals for

each pair of factors and above the diagonal the squares of the inter-factor correlation coefficients

k Standardised load

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


123

Limitations and Future Research

First, despite the effort to generalise the scale by applying it

to a different cultural context (Mexico) from the one in which

it was developed (Spain), this work does not by any means

exhaust the possibilities for generalising the scale. The

scale’s predictive validity needs corroborating with new

studies relating the CSR construct (measured with the

CSRConsPerScale) with other variables established in the

literature. For example, the relations between the CSR con-

struct and variables including consumer–company identifi-

cation (Lichtenstein et al. 2004; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001),

consumer satisfaction (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006), brand

loyalty (Garcıa de los Salmones et al. 2005) or consumer

interest and information about CSR initiatives (Oberseder

et al. 2011), which have significant relationships with con-

sumer CSR perception, should be evaluated.

Second, the content of the proposed scale items assumes

that the consumer must have a certain degree of knowledge

of the firm’s CSR initiatives to prevent erratic, unthinking

responses or reactions that are marked by social desirability.

However, there is usually low awareness of a company’s

CSR activities among its external stakeholders, especially

consumers (Pomering and Dolnicar 2009; Du et al. 2010).

This phenomenon in the creation of scales is not new. The

limitation of the consumer’s lack of information when ap-

plying a scale is also relevant to the application of well-

consolidated scales, such as SERVQUAL (Parasuraman

et al. 1988) or the customer-based corporate reputation of a

service firm scale (Walsh and Beatty 2007). This is also true

for other scales for measuring consumer perceptions about

the firm or its processes. Information asymmetry leads to

some items or dimensions about which consumers have less

knowledge, leaving them with less information upon which

to base their judgements—judgements that are typically

made considering heuristics or basic decision rules. The

halo effect (Nisbett and Wilson 1977) may come into play

in these situations: a consumer may use the evaluation of a

particular opinion (e.g. their knowledge of the firm’s sup-

port of social causes) to evaluate the entire socially re-

sponsible nature of the firm (e.g. the environmental or

economic CSR dimensions).

Managers who use the scale should consider this phe-

nomenon and try to mitigate it by, for example, providing

consumers with prior information on the firm’s CSR ac-

tivities. This approach has been used extensively in CSR

research (Berens et al. 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001),

and its aim is to elicit in consumers’ minds or bring to their

memory the firm’s CSR activities, so they have the nec-

essary elements to make an evaluation. Alternatively, re-

searchers might check CSR awareness and adopt it as a

classification variable that could lead to cluster identifica-

tion in a sample population.

In this vein, the CSRConsPerScale appears more suit-

able for service firms (where personal contact between

consumer and firm is more frequent) than to firms that sell

Table 11 Items in the validated and purged CSRConsPerScale scale

In my opinion, regarding society, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…… Trying to sponsor educational programmes (Soc1)

… Trying to sponsor public health programmes (Soc3)

… Trying to be highly committed to well-defined ethical principles (Soc4)

… Trying to sponsor cultural programmes (Soc6)

… Trying to make financial donations to social causes (Soc7)

… Trying to help to improve quality of life in the local community (Soc8)

In my opinion, regarding the environment, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…… Trying to sponsor pro-environmental programmes (Env1)

… Trying to allocate resources to offer services compatible with the environment (Env2)

… Trying to carry out programmes to reduce pollution (Env4)

… Trying to protect the environment (Env5)

… Trying to recycle its waste materials properly (Env6)

… Trying to use only the necessary natural resources (Env7)

In my opinion, regarding the economy, [Hotel chain/Park name] is really…… Trying to maximise profits in order to guarantee its continuity (Eco2)

… Trying to build solid relations with its customers to assure its long-term economic success (Eco3)

… Trying to continuously improve the quality of the services that they offer (Eco4)

… Trying to have a competitive pricing policy (Eco6)

… Trying to always improve its financial performance (Eco7)

… Trying to do its best to be more productive (Eco8)


123

goods. It could also be more applicable to long-term cus-

tomers than new ones. The services chosen in this research

are high involvement and considerably expensive. In short,

the scale must be applied to more industries with different

product categories to find out its degree of adaptability and

if, as we believe, the SD approach is valid beyond the

tourism sector as a theoretical approach to studying CSR

from the perspective of consumer perception.

Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the financial support

of the research project of the Generalitat Valenciana (GV/2013-055).

References

Alvarado, A., & Shlesinger, W. (2008). Dimensionality of perceived

business social responsibility and its effects on firm’s image and

reputation: a Carroll’s model based approach. Estudios Geren-

ciales, 24(108), 37–59.

Anderson, W. T, Jr, & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially

conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23–31.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modeling in practice. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Auger, P., Devinney, T., Louviere, J., & Burke, P. (2010). The

importance of social product attributes in consumer purchasing

decisions: A multi-country comparative study. International

Business Review, 19(2), 140–159.

Aupperle, K. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social

orientation. Research in Corporate Social Performance and

Policy, 6, 27–54.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error: A comment.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 375–381.

Berens, G., Van Riel, C., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-quality

trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and corporate

ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics,

74(3), 233–252.

Bigne, E., Aldas-Manzano, J., Kuster, I., & Vila, N. (2002). The

concept mapping approach in marketing: An application in the

travel agencies sector. Qualitative Market Research: An Inter-

national Journal, 5(2), 87–95.

Bigne, E., Chumpitaz, R., Andreu, L., & Swaen, V. (2005).

Percepcion de la responsabilidad social corporativa: un analisis

cross-cultural. Universia Business Review, 5, 14–27.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New

York: Harper & Row.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and

philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,

61, 29–44.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:

Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal

of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & de Mortanges, C. P. (1999).

A measure of export market orientation: Scale development and

cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business

Studies, 30(4), 689–707.

Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate

social performance.Academy ofManagement Review, 4, 497–505.

Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:

Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.

Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.

Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a

definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

Choi, S., & Ng, N. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions

of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses.

Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269–282.

Chow, Y., & Chen, Y. (2011). Corporate sustainable development

testing a new scale based on the Mainland Chinese context.

Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 519–533.

Churchill, G. A, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Re-

search, 16(1), 64–73.

Churchill, G. A, Jr. (1999). Marketing research: Methodological

foundations. Forth Worth: The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace

College Publishers.Churchill, G. A, Jr, & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on

the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Marketing Research, 21(4), 360–375.

Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate

social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda.

Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122–141.

Cox, E. P, I. I. I. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for

a scale: A review. Journal ofMarketing Research, 17(4), 407–422.

David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility

practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process

model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313.

Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsi-

bilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76.

DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction

with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.

Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

Drexhage, J., & Murphy, D. (2010). Sustainable development: From

Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background Paper for the High Level

Panel on Global Sustainability. New York: United Nations.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns

to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR commu-

nication. International Journal ofManagementReviews, 12(1), 8–19.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social

responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust

barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528–1545.

Eberhard-Harribey, L. (2006). CSR as a new paradigm in the

European policy: How CSR comes to legitimate the European

regulation process. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 358–368.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equations

models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business

responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Garcıa de los Salmones, M., Herrero Crespo, A., & Rodrıguez del

Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on

loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61,

369–385.

Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility

theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics,

53(1–2), 51–71.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social respon-

sibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer

Research, 28(1), 48–56.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges

in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of

measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business

Research, 57(2), 98–107.

John, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand

concept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association

networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 549–563.


123

Joiner, C. (1998). Concept mapping in marketing: A research tool for

uncovering consumers’ knowledge structure associations. In J.

E. Alba & W. Hutchinson (Eds.), NA—Advances in consumer

research (Vol. 25, pp. 311–322). Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research.

Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited,

redefined. California Management Review, 22(3), 59–67.

Kakabadse, N. K., & Rozuel, C. (2006). Meaning of corporate social

responsibility in a local French hospital: A case study. Society

and Business Review, 1(1), 77–96.

Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. (1974). Ecologically concerned

consumers: Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38, 20–34.

Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing good-

ness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.

Lafferty, B. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance

when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of

Business Research, 60, 447–453.

Lichtenstein, D., Drumwright, M., & Braig, B. (2004). The effect of

corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corpo-

rate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsi-

bility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of

Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

Maignan, I. (2001). Consumer perceptions of corporate social

responsibility: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business

Ethics, 30(1), 57–73.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Nature of corporate responsi-

bilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German

consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 55–67.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for

implementing social responsibility in marketing. European

Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956–977.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An

applied approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages

and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model

of corporate social responsibility development. International

Journal of Management Review, 12(1), 20–38.

Marın, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). ‘‘I need you too!’’—Corporate identity

attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for

unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (2011). Why don’t

consumers care about CSR? A qualitative study exploring the

role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business

Ethics, 104(4), 449–460.

Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR

practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business

Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.

Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V.

(2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsi-

bility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business

Ethics, 1–15.

Ouellet, J. F. (2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic

cross-ethnic product purchase: An empirical test in the United

States, Canada, and France. Journal of Marketing, 71(1),

113–128.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A

multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of

service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsi-

bility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic

review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1),

117–135.

Perez, A., Martınez, P., & Rodrıguez del Bosque, I. (2013). The

development of a stakeholder-based scale for measuring corpo-

rate social responsibility in the banking industry. Service

Business, 7(3), 459–481.

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of

successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR

initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285–301.

Quazi, A. M., & O’Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-

national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Business Ethics, 25(1), 33–51.

Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L., & Young, F. W. (1981).

Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods and

applications. Orlando: Academic Press Inc.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to

doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsi-

bility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance—An

analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3),

58–64.

Sheldon, P. J., & Park, S. Y. (2011). An exploratory study of

corporate social responsibility in the US travel industry. Journal

of Travel Research, 50(4), 392–407.

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism:

Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of

Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289.

Singh, J., Garcıa de los Salmones, M. M., & Rodrıguez del Bosque, I.

(2007). Understanding corporate social responsibility and pro-

duct perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural eval-

uation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 597–611.

Takane, Y., Young, F., & de Leeuw, J. (1977). Nonmetric individual

differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least

squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika,

42(1), 7–67.

Trochim, W. M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for

planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning,

12(1), 1–16.

Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan

Management Review, 50(2), 61–68.

Turker, D. (2009a). How corporate social responsibility influences

organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2),

189–204.

Turker, D. (2009b). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A

scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4),

411–427.

UNWTO. (2015). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical

Annex, January 2015. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism

Organization.

van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and

corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion.

Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105.

Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P.

(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and

the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 37, 170–180.Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate

reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

WCED. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Envi-

ronment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.

Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.


123