jurnal sem 2

8/7/2019 JURNAL SEM 2

1/21

Customer expectations of CSR,perceived service quality and

brand effect in Thai retailbanking

Yaowalak PoolthongBank of Ayudhya Public Company Limited, Bangkok, Thailand, and

Rujirutana MandhachitaraPennsylvania State University, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, USA

AbstractPurpose This paper aims to explore how social responsibility initiatives can influence perceivedservice quality and brand effect from the perspective of retail banking customers in Bangkok,Thailand. The paper also aims to examine the impact of trust as a mediating variable betweenperceived service quality and brand effect.

Design/methodology/approach The study is quantitative in nature, using the responses of 275bank customers to a closed-end questionnaire administered on a face-to-face basis by trainedfieldworkers. The data analysis is performed by partial least squares (PLS), a second generationstatistical SEM variance-based modeling technique.

Findings The results of the study demonstrate how corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiativesinfluence service quality perceptions and also examine CSRs impact on trust and affective attitudes ofcustomers towards their banks. The studys hypothesized relationships were principally supported,i.e. perceived service quality is positively associated with brand effect mediated by trust. CSR

initiatives play an important role in perceived service quality, which in turn, influences trust andbrand effect. Finally, CSR is shown to be directly related to brand effect.

Research limitations/implications While the results are clear and have strong salience to theretail banking industry in Thailand, applications of the findings beyond Thailand should take intoaccount other factors such as the nature of retail banking industry, the perception, behavior anddemographics of retail banking customers as well as the strategic focus of retail banking toward CSR.

Practical implications The study provides a set of findings relating to CSR initiatives that couldbe readily incorporated into a banks corporate plan.

Originality/value To the authors knowledge, their study proposes an exhaustive review of CSRactivities a company could use to best match its stakeholders interests. Also the paper demonstratesthe contribution of advanced modeling methodology to understanding key relationships in thefinancial services sector.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Banking, Perception, Brand image, Thailand

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionLuo and Bhattacharya (2006) noted that in todays competitive service marketenvironments, corporate social responsibility (CSR) represents a high profile notion

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

Each of the authors made an equal contribution to this paper.

IJBM27,6

408

Received August 2008Revised March 2009Accepted April 2009

International Journal of Bank

Marketing

Vol. 27 No. 6, 2009

pp. 408-427

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-2323

DOI 10.1108/02652320910988302


2/21

that has strategic importance to many companies. Although academics and businessleaders have engaged in much discussion concerning the social responsibilities ofbusiness, there has been only sparse research conducted on customers expectationsconcerning the contribution of CSR to the standing of their service suppliers (Mohr

et al., 2001). Answers to questions such as the influence of CSR initiatives on customerattitudes remain largely anecdotal and only partially empirically answered. Discussionconcerning the relationship of CSR initiatives and positive outcomes has, however,increased in recent years (Argenti et al., 2005). Indeed, CSR has become an essentialelement of corporate marketing strategies (Pirch et al., 2007), often empoweringcorporate branding. Besides strengthening core corporate capabilities, CSR is oftenproposed as a means to build positive attitudes towards companies among consumers.However, in practice, there has been criticism that many companies make numerous adhoc charitable donations, but few approach their contributions with an eye towardsenhancing their brands (Cone et al., 2003).

Studies concerning the impact of customer expectations regarding CSR are evenmore important when competition is intensified, as firms try to capture the same groupof customers with similar products and/or services. Firms could benefit more fromspending on CSR activities if they understood the impact CSR can have on consumerbehavior. However, research has shown that some unique characteristics (i.e.inseparability between service provider and customers or intangibility of offerings) infinancial services industry can affect how a consumer evaluates a firms quality ofproducts/service and the pattern of the relationship between them (Lewis and Soureli,2006; Bejou et al., 1998). The interdependence of customer expectations toward CSRand perceived service quality (PSQ) has been reported in several studies (e.g. Garcia delos Salmones et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997). Murray and Vogel (1997) show thatmanagers are more willing to consume from a company after exposure to informationabout its CSR program. Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) establish both internal (i.e.

awareness, attachment and attitudes) and external outcomes (i.e. purchase, word ofmouth and loyalty) of CSR activities. Additionally, in a high-involvement industry (e.g.financial services), customers perceive quality to be a function of trust (Lewis andSoureli, 2006).

This paper examines the influence of a firms CSR activities on customer perceptionof service quality and their internal outcomes such as attitudinal components ofdecision process. The research context of this paper is the retail banking industry inThailand. Thailand was chosen due to a particularly strong element of homogeneity inretail banking service offerings. The authors aim to explore new strategies for firms tooptimize their corporate budgets effectively, particularly in their public relationsactivities, which include CSR initiatives such as community sponsorships andcharitable donations. CSR has become a powerful tool in building customer perceived

quality and brand effect, sometimes referred to as attitudinal loyalty.

Retail banking in ThailandDuring the past several decades, the global financial services sector has undergoneconsiderable change, resulting in an intensely competitive market place (Bloemer et al.,1998). A major monetary crisis in 1997 impacted negatively on the Thai financialindustry but also led to significant structural and regulatory changes. A number offinance companies were closed or transformed into small banks. Also some banks were

Customeexpectation

of CSR

409


3/21

merged, causing a reduction in the number of institutions offering universal bankingservices, and newer, smaller, restricted-license banks were permitted to operate.Deregulations by the Bank of Thailand and the Thai Ministry of Finance allowedglobal financial institutions to increasingly participate in the Thai market, either

through strategic partnerships or 100 percent ownership of commercial banks.The majority of Thai banks engage in varying levels of CSR activity. Seemingly the

level of engagement depends on firm size, larger firms tend to receive a higher level ofattention and visibility from the public. This may, in turn, encourage larger firms tospend more on CSR (Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998) because larger firms economies ofscale make CSR expenditure relatively less burdensome (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001).However, the effectiveness of CSR is not necessarily measured by the size ofbudget allocated, but rather by the increase in positive and favorable attitude towardthe brand/organization.

This paper, therefore, aims to address the potential influence of CSR initiatives inrelation to the perception of Thai bank service quality, and also to assess CSRscontribution to the development of trust and affective attitudinal evaluation in theretail banking environment.

Literature review and hypothesis developmentCSRCSR is referred to as pro-social corporate endeavors Murray and Vogel (1997) orcorporate social performance (Turban and Greening, 1997). It also has receivedincreasing attention by scholars (Berens et al., 2007; Chapple and Moon, 2005;Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001;Pirch et al., 2007; Garcia de los Salmones et al., 2005; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Moreevidence can be found in the business world. For example, most companies web sitesinclude CSR reports (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). One reason is the increasing

acceptance of the positive impact of CSR on consumer behavior (Sen and Bhattacharya,2001). In Thailand, a similar trend is evident, albeit at a slower pace than in the West.CSR-related activities such as philanthropic donations made by firms, especially bigfirms, are publicized in the media and the companies own communications andreports. Studies of CSR issues relating to the Thai financial industry includeKuasirikun and Sherer (2004), Ratanajongkol et al. (2006) and Kraisornsuthasinee andSwierczek (2006), who report that customer awareness of firms CSR engagements inThailand is still relatively low.

As CSR is such a broad term (Garcia de los Salmones et al., 2005), a variety ofmeanings have been ascribed to this concept (Mohr et al., 2001). Traditional definitionof CSR is conceptualized as The managerial obligation to take action to protect andimprove both the welfare of society as a whole and the interest of organization (Davis

and Blomstrom, 1975, p. 6). Brown and Dacin (1997, p. 68) define CSR in a larger andsocietal view as the companys status and activities with respect to its perceivedsocietal obligation. Carroll (1979, 1991) defines CSR as the social responsibility ofbusiness (which) encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionaryexpectations that society has of organizations. This definition of CSR has becomeone of the most widely accepted and used (Mohr et al., 2001; Garcia de los Salmoneset al., 2005). There has been discussion as to how CSR should be defined by firms. IfCSR is defined in a purely economic term, this means that corporations may focus

IJBM27,6

410


4/21

principally on revenue generation. On the other hand, stakeholder theory views CSRmore generally as firms having responsibilities towards society. Specifically, they areabout individuals or groups that may be directly or indirectly affected by their activity(Carroll, 1999, 1991; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Mintzberg et al., 2002; Garcia de los

Salmones et al., 2005).The domains of socially responsible behavior are diverse (Sen and Bhattacharya,

2001). Proposed dimensions in past studies include: environment, personnel andemployee support, community support, equal opportunity, products, corporatephilanthropy, disclosure of social information, representation of women, andrepresentation of minorities (Carroll, 1999; Owen and Scherer, 1993; Sen andBhattacharya, 2001). CSR activities can range from simple philanthropic involvementsuch as charitable contributions to more strategically designed philanthropy,cause-related marketing (Cone et al., 2003), and green marketing (Cone et al., 2003;Hart, 1997).

Stanwick and Stanwick (1998) and Pava and Krausz (1996) discuss the impact ofCSR on the financial performance of firms. Garcia de los Salmones et al. (2005) foundthat consumer perceptions of CSR behavior can be important and have directconsequences for their valuation of the service and PSQ. Several marketing studiesfound that CSR can positively affect consumers attitudes towards the firm and itsproducts (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Folks and Kamins,1999; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; McWilliams and Siegel,2001; Mohr et al., 2001). Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) found that CSR activitiesinfluence consumer behavior such as purchase, loyalty and word of mouth advocacy.

PSQMost studies incorporating the service quality construct do so in a multidimensionalform (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Gournaris et al., 2003;

Parasuraman et al., 1988). Given the fact that services are intangible, heterogeneous,perishable, and inseparable in terms of production and consumption, the criteriacustomers use to evaluate service quality are complex and difficult to determineprecisely (Athanassopoulos et al., 2001). Scholars generally recognize that customerperception of quality is based on one or more cues (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998).Customers do not assess service quality only on its outcome (Kotler, 2008). Thewell-known PSQ measurement, SERVQUAL, which is a construct of 22 itemsrepresenting five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, andempathy, was constructed by Parasuraman et al. (1988).

In addition to the SERVQUAL model, the attributes of search (i.e. before serviceconsumption takes place), experience (i.e. when the actual service experience occurs),and credence (i.e. the financial stability of the firm) were proposed by Berry (1983) as

an assessment of service quality that customers use (Athanassopoulos et al., 2001).Gronroos (1995) proposed two dimensions: technical performance, which refers todelivery of the core service (what the customer is buying); and functional performance,the customers perception of the service delivery process (how the service is delivered).

The operationalization of the service quality construct varies depending upon itsobjectives, the industry under investigation and the status of the economy of thecountry, to mention a few. Studies related to the operationalization of service quality inbanking have been largely based on the SERVQUAL scale. Gournaris et al. (2003)

Customeexpectation

of CSR

41


5/21

employ a multi-item measure in their study of the retail banking industry of Greece.Their measurement instrument includes the five dimensions of Parasuraman et al.sSERVQUAL, and additional items capturing industry-specific dimensions. Thus,Gournaris et al.s (2003) PSQ construct includes six dimensions: staff competence,

service reliability, physical evidence, convenience, product innovation, and value formoney.

TrustThe nature of a business is one reason for variations in dimensions of service qualityand their relationship patterns. In a high-involvement market such as financialservices, service quality is often regarded to have an indirect relationship with otherconstructs, via variables such as trust (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Lewis and Soureli,2006).

Trust is not only an attitude toward another person, but it may also be directedtoward an intangible object, such as a brand (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman,

2001). Trust is a crucial factor in the development and maintenance of relationships (e.g.Bejou et al., 1998; Chiou and Droge, 2006; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan and Hunt,1994). Moorman et al. (1993) consider trust as a uni-dimensional construct. Doney andCannon (1997) measure trust in terms of the credibility (based on a partners expertiseand reliability) and benevolence (focused on the motives and intentions of the exchangepartner). A similar approach was taken by Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman(2001). Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) conceptualized trust as a multidimensional constructencompassing competence and benevolence. Hess (1995) proposed a measure of trustencompassing three dimensions: altruism, honesty, and reliability.

The consequences of trust have been found to have positive outcomes such assatisfaction (Bejou et al., 1998), commitment (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Morgan and Hunt,1994), value (Nijssen et al., 2003), price tolerance (Delgado-Ballester and

Munuera-Aleman, 2001), long-term orientation in the relationship (Ganesan, 1994),brand effect (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) and loyalty (Lewis and Soureli, 2006;Nijssen et al., 2003). In the service sector, trust in the service providers reliability andintegrity has shown to be important and related to the emotional nature of customerloyalty (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Lewis and Soureli, 2006). In retailing, Berry (1983)stressed that trust is the basis of loyalty. Trust is likely to be particularly significant inthe financial service sector given both the nature of utilitarian value and thecomplexity of certain service offerings. Bejou et al. (1998) highlighted the importance oftrust in a banks reliability and integrity and also proposed that trust in a financialprovider and its personnel is a prerequisite for loyalty.

CSR and PSQ

Studies have found a link between CSR initiatives and PSQ. Rummell (1999) uses BodyShop to illustrate that its use of natural ingredients and environmentally friendlypractices has had positive associations with consumer perception of its products. Senand Bhattacharya (2001) found that consumers are sensitive to the implications of CSRactivities and the companys ability to exceed expectations. Garcia de los Salmoneset al. (2005), for example, found that consumers perception of CSR behavior can havedirect consequences in their assessment of the service and PSQ. The level ofengagement in certain CSR activities, in which customers expect their service

IJBM27,6

412


6/21

providers to become engaged, are proposed to influence PSQ. Therefore, the followingrelationships are hypothesized:

H1. CSR expectation is positively related to PSQ.

PSQ and trustA number of studies confirm the mediating role of trust (Bejou et al., 1998; Chiou andDroge, 2006; Ganesan, 1994; Nijssen et al., 2003; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Chiou andDroge (2006) reported an indirect impact of service quality and loyalty mediated bytrust. Trust has been found to have relationships with constructs such as commitment,reputation, and brand effect (Bejou et al., 1998; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Chiouand Droge, 2006; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust is treated as a cognitive, rather thanaffective, construct (Singh and Sirdeshmukh, 2000). Trust leads to loyalty because itcreates exchange relationships that are highly valued (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Bejouet al. (1998) reported the importance of trust in a banks image for reliability. Therefore,PSQ, which is a construct related to core abilities of the company, is hypothesized to

affect trust:H2. PSQ is positively related to trust.

Brand effectBrand effect is conceptualized as a determinant of loyalty and customer commitment(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Dick and Basu, 1994; Fournier, 1998; Gundlach et al.,1995). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) defined brand effect as a brands potential toelicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its use.Brand effect can also be expressed as a strong emotional tie with the company or theservice provider (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Other studies have shown that brandeffect may derive from greater trust in the reliability of a brand or from more favorable

affect when customers use the brand.

CSR and brand effectSeveral marketing studies have found that CSR can positively affect consumersattitudes towards the firm and its products (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brown andDacin, 1997; Folks and Kamins, 1999; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo and Bhattacharya,2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Mohr et al., 2001). CSR has an indirect effect withaffective variables such as satisfaction, image, and reputation (Bloemer et al., 1998;Garcia de los Salmones et al., 2005). Some positive consequences of the relationshipbetween CSR and brand effect are employee commitment (Cone et al., 2003; Fombrunand Shanley, 1990; Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Turbanand Greening, 1997), market share (Owen and Scherer, 1993), image and brand (Brown

and Dacin, 1997; Cone et al., 2003; Folks and Kamins, 1999; McWilliams and Siegel,2001), and customer loyalty (Berens et al., 2007; Cone et al., 2003; Lichtenstein et al.,2004; Garcia de los Salmones et al., 2005; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).

H3. CSR expectation is positively related to brand effect.

Trust and brand effectBy definition, trust is viewed to be a cognitive-related construct involving a processthat is well thought out and carefully considered (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Singh and

Customeexpectation

of CSR

41


7/21

Sirdeshmukh, 2000), rather than an emotional one. Customer expectation, in a generalsense, involves some degree of uncertainty of outcome, which gives rise to negativeemotion and disappointment when expectations are not met (Lazarus, 2006). CSRexpectation is not hypothesized to have a direct relationship with the cognitive concept

of trust. The CSR expectation is rather related to affective variables such as brandeffect which is more spontaneous, more immediate, and less deliberately reasoned innature (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).

Gundlach et al. (1995) suggested that strong and positive affective responses will beassociated with high levels of brand commitment. Similarly, Dick and Basu (1994)proposed that brand loyalty should be greater under conditions of more positiveemotional mood or affect. In general, brands that are higher in affect are purchasedmore often and should generate greater attitudinal commitment. Few studies haveexplicitly conceptualized and empirically tested the brand effect construct. Hence:

H4. Trust is positively related to brand effect.

Conceptual modelBased on a review of the relevant literature and hypothesized relationships, Figure 1illustrates the proposed conceptual model.

Research methodologyMeasurement and scalingCSR. The domains of socially responsible behavior are diverse (Sen and Bhattacharya,2001). However, the five most important items of CSR activities suggested by Owenand Scherer (1993) are: environmental pollution, corporate philanthropy, disclosure ofsocial information, representation of women, and representation of minorities. Themanagerial accounting firm Ernst & Ernst developed a set of social responsibilitydisclosures, which includes six categories of CSR, namely environment, equal

opportunity, personnel, community involvement, products, and others (Carroll, 1999).Carroll (1979, 1991) advanced a well-recognized CSR framework, which posits that thesocial responsibility of the business sector encompasses economic, legal, ethical, anddiscretionary (philanthropic responsibility) expectations that society has oforganizations. This paper adopts three elements of Carrolls CSR framework whichdeal with economic, ethical, and philanthropic dimensions.

Figure 1.Proposed conceptualframework

IJBM27,6

414


8/21


9/21

focus on customers who patronize any one particular bank. A convenience samplingtechnique was selected due to its cost and time efficiency. The final questionnaire wasadministered by three trained research assistants, who distributed the document in thecentral business district of Bangkok. Respondents were personally approached at

shopping malls, office buildings, entertainment establishments and other high-trafficlocations. The research assistants were instructed to administer a minimum of 15questionnaires at each location. This restriction was set to avoid the possibility ofreceiving responses that were related disproportionately to a small number of banksbecause of the effect of payroll services used by their employers.

A sample of 300 was initially recruited. The usable 275 respondents orapproximately 92 percent were included in the main study; 40 percent were maleand 60 percent were female. The majority of respondents, or 36 percent, were 25-34years old. Also, most respondents, or 68 percent, had some post secondary education.Full-time employees, which included office workers, government officers and stateenterprise employees, represented 60 percent of the sample, while 16 percent wereself-employed. These well-educated officers of private and public institutions weretargeted in the belief that CSR issues become more important to the middle class thanother segments of society.

Partial least squares (PLS), a path modeling analytical approach was chosen fordata analysis. The minimum sample size requirement recommended by Cohen (1988)and Barclay et al. (1995) should be ten times the largest number of reflective indicatorsor structured paths directed to a reflective construct used in the model (Chin, 1998). Inthis study, the largest number of paths directed to a construct was 15 for the PSQconstruct; thus, the minimum sample size required was 150 cases. However, a samplesize as small as 50 cases can be used to conduct PLS analysis, while Hair et al. (2010)suggest that a sample size of 200 is an appropriate size with which to test a PLS model.

Scale dimensionality and validationIn order to test dimensionality of the three latent constructs; CSR expectation, PSQ andtrust, two statistical analyses, namely exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses,were employed.

Exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to conducta preliminary examination of the structure of the data as well as to achieve datareduction (Hair et al., 2010). Since the multi-item constructs used in this paper weretaken from existing marketing scales that are commonly found to have clean anddistinct dimensionality, the authors did not perform a pooled-sample factor analysis forall items belonging to each of latent constructs. The elimination of cross-loading itemsfor each factor-analyzed construct is common and necessary because the primaryobjective of EFA is to define the underlying structure among the variables (Hair et al.,

2010, p. 94). Moreover, the authors wished to have a strong measurement model for theconfirmatory factor analysis.

Because of some cross-loading, five items of the PSQ scale and one item of the CSRscale were eliminated during the process of data reduction. The trust constructrevealed two very distinct dimensions, while brand effect was found to beuni-dimensional. The EFA results showed the percentages of variance explainedranged from 61.95-87.87 percent which is larger than the 60 percent thresholdrecommended by Hair et al. (2010). The high Cronbachs alphas of indicators belonging

IJBM27,6

416


10/21

to each dimension (a 0:857 to a 0:905) indicate high internal consistency andscale reliability (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) The dimensions extracted from eachlatent construct are presented in Table I.

Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to

validate scale dimensionality of the remaining EFA items. Several goodness-of-fitindices were used to report convergent and discriminant validity, as well as thereliability properties of the measures to identify internal consistency and adequate fitof scale items. To assess the fit of the observed variables with the latent variables,overall model fit indices were evaluated. CFA cannot be performed on constructs whichcontain fewer than three indicators. Therefore, the brand effect result is not presented.

The 14 CSR items revealed four dimensions, according to the EFA results. Theremaining 14 items of CSR did not fit well due to a large RMSEA value and x2/df ratio.One item, csrexp 15, with the lowest squared multiple correlations (SMC) was excluded.The remaining ten-item battery measuring the PSQ construct yielded three dimensionsbased on the EFA results. The ten-item model indicated a poor fit with a RMSEA valuemarginally above the 0.08 threshold, and a large x2/df ratio. The item convenient

location (psqual8) with the lowest SMC was eliminated which resulted in improvedgoodness-of-fit indices. The two factors of the trust scale revealed a good fit. Asummary of the CFA results is presented in Table II.

Data analysis and resultsPLS is a variance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) technique that allowssimultaneous evaluation of all construct paths. PLS is an iterative procedurecombining principal components analysis relating measures to constructs, and pathanalysis permitting the construction of a system of interrelated constructs. AmongPLSs major advantages are an ability to produce consistent parameter estimates forcomplex causal models and robustness to violations of multivariate normality (Fornell

and Cha, 1994; Hulland, 1999). PLS is suitable for prediction purposes, and does notrequire the same level of satisfaction of measurement properties in order to yieldresults for a structural model, particularly traditional SEM.

Measurement models resultsPrior to assessing the structural model, the validation of the measurement models isrequired. The convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement models of theexogenous and endogenous latent variables included in this paper were tested.

The authors applied a second-order factor model approach (Chin, 1998; Lohmoller,1989), whereby the first-order model combines relevant indicators of each dimension tocreate the second-order model, with the composite dimensions reflecting the givenlatent constructs. Then these dimensions derived from the second-order factor model

were used in the structural model. The factor loadings and their critical ratios for eachdimension shown in Table III indicate their substantially strong explanatory power inrelation to the latent constructs.

Discriminant validity can be verified if the correlation between latent constructsis not higher than their Cronbachs alphas (Gaski and Nevin, 1985; OCass, 2002;Patterson and Smith, 2003). The construct correlations of this paper were smallerthan their respective reliabilities as shown in Table IV. Therefore, discriminantvalidity was established. Convergent validity refers to the principle that the items of

Customeexpectation

of CSR

41


11/21

Varianceexplained

Latentconstruct

No.ofitems

Examplesofitems

%

a

CSRexpectation

75.26

0.905

Communitysupport

5

Donatetocharities

44.79

0.911

Helpthedisadvantaged

Disasterrelief

A

ntidrugs

Provideeducationscholarships

Employeerelations

4

Supportsafeworkplace

15.33

0.854

Supportemployeesfamilyvalues

Offerfaircompensation

Offerequalemploymentopportunity

Productandservice-oriented

2

Providequalityproductsandservices

8.47

0.758

Focusoncustomersatisfaction

Environmentsupport

3

Supportforestpreservation

6.67

0.917

Supportenvironmentpreservation

Supportwaterresourcepreservation

Perceivedservicequality

61.95

0.857

Staffcompetenceandservicereliability

4

Productknowledge

42.53

0.775

Promptservice

Noerrors

Reliable

Convenienceandproduct

4

Convenientlocation

11.07

0.755

Convenienthours

Productvariety

Newproducts

Physicalevidence

2

Friendlystaff

8.35

0.816

W

armatmosphere

Trust

69.53

0.886

Benevolence

3

Yourbankisgenuinelycommittedtoyou

rsatisfaction.

55.94

0.838

Youfeelthatyourbankshowsyouenoug

hconsideration

Yourbanktreatsyoufairlyandjustly

Credibility

5

Yourbankhasaverygoodreputation

13.59

0.869

Yourbankisofhighintegrity

Yourbankisveryreliable

Yourbankisverycompetent

A

llthingsconsidered,youtrustyourbank

Brandeffect

2

Youarehappybeingacustomerofyourbank

87.87

0.860

Youfeelgoodusingthisbankasyourmainbank

Table I.Summary of EFA results

IJBM27,6

418


12/21

x2 df x2/df p value GFI AGFI RMSEA SRMR

CSR expectationAll 14 items included 185.119 71 2.607 0.000 0.911 0.869 0.086 0.076

csrexp 15 removed 137.640 59 2.333 0.000 0.928 0.889 0.070 0.056

Perceived service qualityAll ten items included 88.524 32 2.766 0.000 0.938 0.894 0.083 0.0471psqual8 removed 50.236 24 2.093 0.000 0.961 0.927 0.064 0.0348

TrustAll eight items included 37.123 19 1.954 0.008 0.967 0.938 0.059 0.034

Table ISummary of CFA resul

ConstructNo. ofitems Mean SD Loadings

Criticalratio

CSR expectation(AVE 0:606, Composite reliability 0:860,Cronbachs alpha 0:784)Community support 5 4.056 0.695 0.785 16.784Employee relations 3 3.964 0.741 0.786 28.277Product and service-oriented 2 4.192 0.668 0.749 18.973Environment support 3 3.698 0.749 0.793 25.307

Perceived service quality(AVE 0:690, Composite reliability 0:870,Cronbachs alpha 0:776)Staff competence and service reliability 4 3.877 0.603 0.879 52.356Convenience and product 3 3.597 0.711 0.815 24.579

Physical evidence 2 3.696 0.771 0.796 22.236

Trust(AVE 0:799, Composite reliability 0:888,Cronbachs alpha 0:749)Benevolence 3 3.800 0.688 0.883 46.514Credibility 5 4.043 0.559 0.904 70.791

Brand effect(AVE 0:882, Composite reliability 0:938,Cronbachs alpha 0:867)Affect 1 4.070 0.724 0.935 94.408Affect 2 4.020 0.787 0.935 88.181

Table IIMeasurement mode

resul

Brand effect CSR PSQ Trust

Brand effect 1CSR 0.434 1PSQ 0.578 0.379 1Trust 0.676 0.357 0.657 1

Table IVLatent constru

correlation matr

Customeexpectation

of CSR

419


13/21

a construct be at least moderately correlated (Nunally, 1978). The PLS approachassesses the convergent validity through average variance explained (AVE) whichmeans that the variance explained should be greater than the unexplained variance.In other words, AVE should be greater than 0.500 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). This

study has AVEs ranging from 0.559 to 0.878, indicating that the indicatorsconverged well within their constructs. Table III also presents the results of themeasurement models.

Hypothesis testingIn order to test the hypothesized relationships among the latent constructs, multipleindices which are characterized by aspects such as their quality, sufficiency to explainthe data, congruence with systematic expectations and precision are needed(Lohmoller, 1989). Those indices for predictive relevance of the model include R2,average variance accounted for (AVA), regression weights or path coefficients (Fornelland Cha, 1994). These indices provide evidence for the existence of the relationshipsrather than standard statistical tests (Falk and Miller, 1992).

The AVA for the endogenous variables is simply the mean R2 of the model, whichequals 0.325, and the individual R2s are greater than the recommended 0.10 (Falk andMiller, 1992) for all of the predicted variables. As all of these R2 are larger than therecommended levels, it is appropriate to examine the significance of the pathsassociated with these variables. The path coefficients (b) are all significant with abootstrapping critical ratio greater than 1.96 (p , 0:05). Figure 2 illustrates thegraphical output and results of data analysis. Table V summarizes the results ofhypothesis testing.

Figure 2.Graphical model andresults

Hypothesis Independent Dependent b CR R2

H1 CSR Perceived service quality 0.380 5.552 0.143 SupportedH2 Perceived service quality Trust 0.659 8.722 0.434 SupportedH3 CSR Brand effect 0.221 4.108 SupportedH4 Trust Brand effect 0.597 14.842 0.498 Supported

Note: Average variance accounted for AVA 0:325

Table V.Results of hypothesistesting based on PLSanalysis

IJBM27,6

420


14/21

Results and managerial implicationsThe four hypothesized relationships were supported by the data analysis. Customerexpectation of CSR activities was found to positively influence the perception of servicequality (B 0:380, CR 5:522), which in turn, resulted in customers developing trust

(B 0:

659, CR 8:

722) and affective attitudes (B 0:

597, CR 14:

842) toward thebanks. The significant path relationships in this paper are in line with earlier researchstudies. For example, Garcia de los Salmones et al. (2005) report that CSR is positivelyrelated to PSQ. The association between PSQ and trust is also demonstrated in thestudies of Chiou and Droge (2006) and Lewis and Soureli (2006). The trust and brandeffect link is supported by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). A positive relationshipbetween CSR, PSQ, trust and brand effect suggests several managerial implications.

First, CSR positively affects consumer attitudes toward a company and thequality of its service offerings. An appropriate program of CSR activities tends toenhance the likelihood of positive perception of banks service quality. Additionally,Thai banks can utilize the CSR initiatives to help increase customers positive

attitudes. Two dimensions of CSR, product-service orientation (e.g. providing qualityproducts and services and focusing on customer satisfaction) and communitysupport (e.g. donating to charities, granting scholarships, helping withdisadvantaged or with disaster relief), have higher mean scores compared to theother two dimensions of CSR (see Table III). Organizations should ensure that thesetwo activities are communicated well to the public through various means such aspublic relations and advertising campaigns.

Second, the relationship between PSQ and trust confirms the significance of trust ina high-involvement service context, such as retail banking. For companies to developstrategies to build both benevolence and credibility, the two dimensions of trust, theyshould also take into account the different impact of each of the PSQ elements. In orderto achieve this objective, the authors performed two multiple regression models

between the two dimensions of trust as dependent variables and three dimensions ofPSQ as independent variables (see Table VI for multiple regression results). benevolenttrust may be built from staff competence and service reliability, physical evidence andconvenient location/hours and product variety, in the order of the strength of thestandardized beta coefficients. Only staff competence and service reliability andconvenient location/hours and product variety are important in building credibility.

Independent variables Standardized coefficients t-value Sig.

Equation 1 a,b

Staff competence and service reliability 0.322 5.149 0.000Convenience and product 0.143 2.398 0.017Physical evidence 0.250 4.143 0.000

Equation 2c,d

Staff competence and service reliability 0.429 6.901 0.000Convenience and product 0.217 3.653 0.000Physical evidence 0.048 0.799 ns

Notes: aR2 0:358, Adjusted R2 0:351; bDependent variable: benevolence; cR2 0:365, AdjustedR2 0:358; dDependent variable: credibility

Table VMultiple regressio

resul

Customeexpectation

of CSR

42


15/21

Third, trust as a crucial factor in the development and maintenance of relationships iswidely established in the field of marketing strategy (e.g. Chaudhuri and Holbrook,2001; Chiou and Droge, 2006; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Moorman et al., 1993; Morganand Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Banks can increase their customers positive

affect by building and sustaining their credible reputation such as being reliability,competence and having integrity in business conduct.

ConclusionGlobal retail banking represents an industry characterized by declining differentiationof offerings, resulting in the change of banks to focus on less tangible and lesseasy-to-imitate determinants of customer commitment. In addition, studies suggestthat in markets where the number of products/services available makes it difficult todifferentiate one brand from another, all other things being relatively equal, acompanys level of social responsibility can actually attract customers (McWilliamsand Siegel, 2001; Owen and Scherer, 1993).

It is important that organizations spend the resources allocated to CSR initiatives inways that yield optimum benefits to society as well as to their stakeholders such ascustomers, employees, investors, supply chain associates, strategic alliances,communities, as well as governments (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Post et al., 2002;Sen et al., 2006). When engaging in appropriate CSR initiatives, firms tend to increasetheir potential to gain positive perception of their service quality and more favorableattitudes among the companys stakeholders. Moreover, customers tend to trustorganizations as a result of positive perception towards quality of products/servicesthey offer, rather than the CSR activities.

Possible future research could be predicated on our understanding that Thai retailbanking is an industry in which products/services differentiation is limited. As thisstudy was conducted in the context of Thai retail banking among a middle-class

population, future studies may wish to test the proposed relationship in otherindustries and even in other countries. Organizations planning to incorporate or toincrease their social responsibility activity should develop measures of the economic ornon-economic returns on their investment in these philanthropic activities. Thismeasurement is a crucial component to help managers and organizations makedecisions concerning the activities they should engage in.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), Customer loyalty and complex services: the impactof corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers withvarying degrees of service expertise, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Angur, M.G., Nataraajan, R. and Jahera, J.S. Jr (1999), Service quality in the banking industry: anassessment in a developing economy, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17No. 3, pp. 116-23.

Argenti, P.A., Howell, R.A. and Beck, K.A. (2005), The strategic communication imperative,MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 30-9.

IJBM27,6

422


16/21

Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S. and Stathakopoulos, V. (2001), Behavioral responses to

customer satisfaction: an empirical study, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 5/6,pp. 687-707.

Barclay, D.W., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), The partial least squares approach to

causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as illustration, Technology Studies,Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.

Bejou, D., Ennew, C.T. and Palmer, A. (1998), Trust, ethics and relationship satisfaction,International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 170-5.

Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Rekom, J. (2007), The CSR-quality trade-off: when cancorporate social responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other?, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 233-52.

Berry, L.L. (1983), Relationship marketing, in Berry, L., Shostack, G.L. and Upah, G.D. (Eds),

Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-8.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), Consumer-company identification: a framework forunderstanding consumers relationships with companies, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67,

April, pp. 68-76.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. 47No. 1, p. 9.

Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009), Strengthening stakeholder-company

relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 257-72.

Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. and Peeters, P. (1998), Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: thecomplex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction, InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 276-86.

Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations andconsumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, January, pp. 68-84.

Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moralmanagement of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.

Carroll, A.B. (1999), Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct,

Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.

Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia, Business andSociety, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-41.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), The chain of effects from brand trust and brand effect

to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, April,pp. 81-93.

Chin, W.W. (1998), The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, inMarchoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ.

Chiou, J.S. and Droge, C. (2006), Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and expertise:direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 613-27.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.

Customeexpectation

of CSR

42


17/21

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cone, C.L., Feldman, M.A. and DaSilva, A.T. (2003), Causes and effects, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 81 No. 7, pp. 95-101.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a reexamination and

extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.

Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I. and Rentz, J.O. (1996), A measure of service quality for retail

stores: scale development and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-16.

Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R.L. (1975), Business and Society: Environment and Responsibility,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001), Brand trust in the context of consumer

loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-58.

Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework,

Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.

Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-sellerrelationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, April, pp. 35-51.

Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron,OH.

Folks, V.S. and Kamins, M.A. (1999), Effects of information about firms ethical and unethical

actions on consumers attitudes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-59.

Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate

strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-58.

Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), Partial least squares, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods ofMarketing Research, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge, MA.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structure equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-51.

Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer

research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, March, pp. 343-73.

Ganesan, S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 1-19.

Garcia de los Salmones, M.d.M., Crespo, A.H. and del Bosque, I.R. (2005), Influence of corporate

social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 369-85.

Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), The differential effects of exercised and unexercised powersources in a marketing channel, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, May,pp. 130-43.

Ginsberg, J.M. and Bloom, P.N. (2004), Choosing the right green marketing strategy, MIT SloanManagement Review, Fall, pp. 79-84.

Gounaris, S.P. and Venetis, K. (2002), Trust in industrial service relationship: behavioral

consequences, antecedents and the moderating effect of the duration of the relationship,

The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 636-55.

Gournaris, S.P., Stathakopoulos, V. and Athanassopoulos, A.D. (2003), Antecedents to perceived

service quality: an exploratory study in the banking industry, International Journal ofBank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 168-90.

IJBM27,6

424


18/21

Gronroos, C. (1995), Relationship marketing: the strategy continuum, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 252-60.

Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), The structural of commitment inexchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, January, pp. 78-92.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hart, S.L. (1997), Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 75 No. 1, January-February, pp. 66-76.

Hess, J.S. (1995), Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust, in Stern,B.B. and Zinkhan, G.M. (Eds), American Marketing Association Proceedings, Vol. 6,pp. 22-6.

Hulland, J. (1999), Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a reviewof four recent studies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, p. 195.

Kraisornsuthasinee, S. and Swierczek, F.W. (2006), Interpretations of CSR, The Journal ofCorporate Citizenship, Summer, pp. 53-65.

Kotler, P. (2008), Marketing Management, 13th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Kuasirikun, N. and Sherer, M. (2004), Corporate social accounting disclosure in Thailand,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 629-60.

Lazarus, R. (2006), Emotions and interpersonal relationships: toward a person-centeredconceptualization of emotions and coping, Journal of Personality, Vol. 74 No. 1, p. 9.

Lewis, B.R. and Soureli, M. (2006), The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retail banking,Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, February, pp. 15-31.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), The effects of corporate socialresponsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68, October, pp. 16-32.

Lohmoller, J.B. (1989), Latent Variable Modelling with Partial Least Squares, Physica-Verlag,Heidelberg.

Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006), Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction,and market share value, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, October, pp. 1-18.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firmperspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-27.

Mintzberg, H., Simons, R. and Basu, K. (2002), Beyond selfishness, MIT Sloan ManagementReview, Fall, pp. 67-74.

Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001), Do consumers expect companies to be sociallyresponsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior, TheJournal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Desphande, R. (1993), Factors affecting trust in market researchrelationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 81-101.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.

Murray, K.B. and Vogel, C.M. (1997), Using a hierarchy of effects approach to gauge theeffectiveness of CSR to generate goodwill towards the firm: financial versus nonfinancialimpacts, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 575-84.

Nijssen, E., Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D. and Holzmueller, H. (2003), Investigating industry contexteffects in consumer-firm relationships: preliminary results from a dispositional approach,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 46-60.

Customeexpectation

of CSR

42


19/21

Nunally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

OCass, A. (2002), Political advertising believability and information source value during

elections, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 63-74.

Owen, C.L. and Scherer, R.F. (1993), Social responsibility and market share, Review of Business,

Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-16.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), Understanding customer expectations

of service, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 39-48.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality

and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERQUAL: a multiple-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,

pp. 12-40.

Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T.A. (2003), A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and

propensity to stay with service providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, p. 107.

Pava, M.L. and Krausz, J. (1996), Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: TheParadox of Social Cost, Quorum Books, Westpoint, CT.

Pirch, J., Gupta, S. and Grau, S.L. (2007), A framework for understanding corporate social

responsibility programs as a continuum: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 125-40.

Post, J.E., Preston, L. and Sachs, S. (2002), Managing the extended enterprise: the new

stakeholder view, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 6-28.

Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H. and Low, M. (2006), Corporate social reporting in Thailand: the

news is all good and increasing, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management,

Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 67-83.

Rummell, T. (1999), Whats new at the body shop?, Global Cosmetic Industry, Vol. 165 No. 5,

pp. 16-18.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. 225-43.

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. 158-66.

Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction

and loyalty judgments, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,

pp. 150-67.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational

exchanges, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, January, pp. 15-37.Stanwick, P.A. and Stanwick, S.D. (1998), The relationship between corporate social

performance and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental

performance: an empirical examination, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2,

pp. 195-204.

Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997), Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,

pp. 658-72.

IJBM27,6

426


20/21

Further reading

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of servicequality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.

About the authorsYaowalak Poolthong has made a career in banking in Thailand for ten years, specializing incorporate communications. She has an MBA from the University of Sydney, Australia and herPhD in Marketing from Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Rujirutana Mandhachitara is an Associate Professor of Business at Penn State University.She has a Masters and a PhD in Marketing. Her research interests are retailing and servicesmarketing. Rujirutana Mandhachitara is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Customeexpectation

of CSR

42

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


21/21

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

jurnal sem 2

Documents