Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Retailer corporate social responsibility and consumer citizenship behavior:

The mediating roles of perceived consumer effectiveness and
consumer trust
Van Thac Dang a, Ninh Nguyen b, c, *, Simon Pervan b
a
Business School, Shantou University, Guangdong, 515063, China
b
Department of Entrepreneurship Innovation and Marketing, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia
c
Business Sustainability Research Group, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, 100000, Viet Nam

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Retailers often face pressure from stakeholders to address social and environmental issues. The purpose of this
Corporate social responsibility study is to investigate the influence of retailer corporate social responsibility (CSR) on consumers’ perceptions
Consumer citizenship behavior and behavior. Drawing on the theoretical foundations of social identity theory and signaling theory, this study
Consumer trust
presents and validates a unique model which examines the mediating effects of perceived consumer effectiveness
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Retailer
and consumer trust on the relationship between retailer CSR and consumer citizenship behavior. Using a sample
China of 407 consumers in China, results of structural equation modeling show that retailer CSR is positively associated
with consumer citizenship behavior. Additionally, perceived consumer effectiveness and consumer trust posi­
tively mediate this association. Taken together, these findings provide support for retailers to develop CSR
programs that remind and reinforce consumers’ perceptions about socially responsible behaviors.

1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is defined as an organization’s
ethical behavior and social obligation beyond their own financial profits
(McWilliams et al., 2006). Firms including retailers increasingly engage
in CSR activity due to pressure from key stakeholders (Yoon and Chung,
2018; Vlachos et al., 2009). For example, consumers demanding more
environmentally friendly products, the community expecting retailers to
donate and contribute more to their local society, and government re­
quests that retailers avoid harming the environment and engaging in
illegal businesses (Andrews et al., 2014; Yoon and Chung, 2018).
However, engaging in CSR may require investment of additional re­
sources which result in abundant costs for retailers (e.g. investment for
green facilities and equipment, donation and philanthropy, and re­
sources for environmental activities, etc.) (Bolton and Mattila, 2015).
Retailer managers may also misuse resources in CSR activities instead of
focusing on the retailers’ business objectives (Elg and Hultman, 2016).
Therefore, retailers can be skeptical leading to caution in meeting these
expectations because they are uncertain about the effect of CSR on their
business (Louis et al., 2019; Oberseder et al., 2014). In fact, prior
research has investigated the relationship between CSR and firm per­
formance, with mixed results reported (Ailawadi et al., 2014; Anser
et al., 2018). Several studies have found that CSR positively influences
firm performance including return on investment, sale growth and
market share growth (e.g. Abu Bakar and Ameer, 2011; Margolis and
Walsh, 2003; Saeidi et al., 2015; Surroca et al., 2010). However, studies
have also shown that CSR can harm firm value and firm performance (e.
g. Lima Criso�stomo et al., 2011; Go €ssling, 2011; Orlitzky et al., 2011).
Scholars (e.g., Anser et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018; Saeidi et al., 2015;
Walker et al., 2019) are therefore unsure about the direct relationship
between CSR and firm performance claiming that the inconsistent
findings may be due to some other mediating or moderating variables,
which prior studies have omitted. Saeidi et al. (2015), in an effort to
explain the complex association between CSR and firm performance,
empirically confirmed that such an association is mediated rather than
direct.
Consumers increasingly care more about socially responsible brands.
They also advocate groups to punish and boycott brands that harm the
environment and society (Nyilasy et al., 2014). This growing consumer
attention on CSR is likely to influence their purchase behavior (Elg and

* Corresponding author. Department of Entrepreneurship Innovation and Marketing, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086,
Australia.
E-mail addresses: wshdang@stu.edu.cn (V.T. Dang), ninh.nguyen@latrobe.edu.au (N. Nguyen), s.pervan@latrobe.edu.au (S. Pervan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102082
Received 5 June 2019; Received in revised form 14 February 2020; Accepted 15 February 2020
Available online 22 February 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.T. Dang et al.
Hultman, 2016; Mohr and Webb, 2005; Utgard, 2018). As a result,
business firms face pressure to respond to consumer concerns (Ober­
seder et al., 2014; Yoon and Chung, 2018). Despite the possible impact
of CSR on consumer behavior, studies on how consumers react to re­
tailer’s CSR are rather limited (Ailawadi et al., 2014; Palihawadana
et al., 2016; Louis et al., 2019). Investigating the effects of CSR on
noneconomic outcomes relating to consumers (e.g., attitudes and per­
ceptions) is important for retailers to make better business decisions
(Anastasiadou et al., 2019; Diallo and Lambey-Checchin, 2017). This
may also help retailers establish and maintain longer-term relationships
with their consumers (Hultman and Elg, 2018; Walker et al., 2019).
Studies have indicated that retailers who develop ethical practices will
achieve positive benefits for society, consumers, and themselves
(Anastasiadou et al., 2019; Stanaland et al., 2011). Importantly, CSR
may help retailers gain loyal customers (Valenzuela et al., 2010) and
improve their customer relationships (Andrews et al., 2014). Conse­
quently, it has been suggested that CSR should be placed in the heart of
retailers’ business strategies (Iglesias et al., 2018).
Consumer citizenship behavior (CCB) represents consumer’s volun­
tary and discretionary behavior. It reflects consumer’s extra-role
behavior which comprises helpful and constructive behavior toward
the firm and other consumers (Yi et al., 2013). Consumer citizenship
behavior is very important for retailers because consumers who engage
in citizenship behavior are more likely to share their positive experi­
ences with friends (e.g. word of mouth), provide valuable suggestions
for retailers, help service employees, show tolerance if the service does
not satisfy their needs, and assist other consumers. (Kim et al., 2019; van
Tonder et al., 2018). Some scholars have investigated antecedents to
CCB. For example, Kim and Choi (2016) reported that customer expe­
rience promotes citizenship behavior in a service environment. Kim
et al. (2019) suggested a positive relationship between customer inter­
action and CCB. Revilla-Camacho et al. (2015) found that customer
participation is positively related to CCB. van Tonder et al. (2018)
indicated that consumer affective commitment is an important predictor
of CCB. Wu et al. (2017) found that relationship quality positively in­
fluences CCB on social networking sites. While, Zhu et al. (2016) also
reported a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and CCB.
Interestingly, very little research to date has determined how retailer
CSR influences this kind of consumer voluntary and discretionary
behavior. Therefore, this study aims at clarifying the relationship be­
tween retailer CSR and CCB. In doing so, both perceived consumer
effectiveness (PCE) and consumer trust are examined as important
mediating variables.
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) represents consumers’ per­
ceptions of their ability to improve important environmental and social
issues (Dagher and Itani, 2014; Ellen et al., 1991). It has been demon­
strated as an important facilitator that encourages consumers to engage
in socially responsible behavior (Higueras-Castillo et al., 2019; Nguyen
et al., 2016). For example, Cojuharenco et al. (2016) found that PCE has
a positive impact on consumer recycling behavior and environmental
purchase behavior. Jaiswal and Kant (2018) demonstrated that PCE is an
important predictor of green purchase intention. Wang and Chen (2019)
found that PCE is positively associated with consumer intention to
purchase fair trade products. Zhao et al. (2018) suggested that PCE is an
important determinant of consumers’ perception and behavioral inten­
tion toward carbon-labeled products. The role of PCE in the relationship
between retailer CSR and CCB is unclear given prior literature. This
study therefore examines the mediating role of PCE in the link between
retailer CSR and CCB.
In addition, when retailers engage in CSR, consumers may typically
hold positive attitudes and, in particular, trust these retailers because
they believe that socially responsible retailers provide reliable products
and act to bring goodwill for consumers (Castaldo et al., 2009; Mohr
et al., 2001; Oberseder et al., 2014). Consequently, consumers may
engage in CCB that benefit these socially responsible retailers (Iglesias
et al., 2018; Vlachos et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the role of consumer
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082
trust in the association between CSR and CCB has been largely unex­
plored in the literature. Therefore, this study also determines the
mediating role of consumer trust in the relationship between retailer
CSR and CCB.
In sum, several researchers have suggested that the mediating or
moderating mechanism between CSR and its outcomes should be clari­
fied instead of examining only the direct effect of CSR on individual or
retailer outcomes (Anser et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018; Saeidi et al.,
2015; Walker et al., 2019). Following these suggestions, this study
considers PCE and consumer trust as the two mediating variables in the
link between retailer CSR and CCB. Ignoring these potential mediators is
a limitation of prior research and has left causality questions unresolved.
Specifically, this study aims to answer two research questions: (1) How
does CSR influence CCB? (2) How do PCE and consumer trust mediate
the relationship between CSR and CCB? To the best of our knowledge, no
previous studies have examined the mediating roles of PCE and con­
sumer trust in the link between retailer CSR and CCB. Thus, this study
provides new insight into the relationship between retailer CSR and CCB
and helps to clarify the mediating mechanism of PCE and consumer trust
in the link between retailer CSR and CCB.
The present study also enriches the literature relating to CSR and
citizenship behavior in emerging markets by focusing on China, which
has become the second largest economy and the largest emerging market
in the world (World Bank, 2019). The growth of China’s economy has
provided many benefits to consumers and society; however, the devel­
opment of the economy has also detrimentally affected the country’s
environment (Su et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2005). Environmental pollution
has become a critical issue in China (Su et al., 2017; Song and Wang,
2018; Zhu et al., 2011). With higher incomes and increasing wealth,
Chinese consumers are demanding both quality and environmentally
friendly products. Consumers hold high expectation for socially
responsible actions from retailers (Iglesias et al., 2018; Lee and Lee,
2015). The Chinese government has also developed policies and regu­
lations to guide business behaviors. As a result, business firms and re­
tailers in China are putting more effort into dealing with environmental
and ethical issues (Su et al., 2017; Song and Wang, 2018; Zhu et al.,
2011). Some notable examples include Apple, Huawei, Samsung, Ali­
baba and JD.com, all making significant efforts to support employees,
protect the environment, create jobs in regional areas and support local
community and vulnerable groups (Li et al., 2019).
Environmental and social issues have become particularly important
for China because it has the largest manufacturing base in the world
(Iglesias et al., 2018; Su et al., 2017; Song and Wang, 2018; Zhu et al.,
2005). With unique cultural qualities and the largest consumer popu­
lation of the world, investigating Chinese consumer perceptions and
behavior toward environmental and ethical issues may benefit local and
foreign retailers in China. Chinese consumers are very active in
spreading (positive) information about retailers among their social
groups (Magni and Atsmon, 2010; Ye et al., 2018; Song and Wang,
2018). It is therefore desirable to determine the effect of retailers’ CSR
activities on their consumer’s citizenship behaviors.
The rest of the study is structured as follows. The next section re­
views previously relevant literatures and develops hypotheses. This is
followed by a detailed description of the methodology and presentation
of empirical results. Thereafter, discussion of the results and their im­
plications is provided. Finally, conclusions and suggestions for future
research directions are presented.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. CSR
CSR is a broad and complex concept for which scholars have pro­
posed several definitions (Dahlsrud, 2008). For example, Carroll (1979)
suggested that CSR includes four types of responsibility, namely, eco­
nomic, legal, social, and ethical. Dahlsrud (2008) extended Carroll’s
V.T. Dang et al.
(1979) viewpoint and proposed five dimensions of CSR: economic, so­
cietal, stakeholder, environmental, and voluntariness. Others have
conceptualized CSR as a set of principles, moral norms and values that
guide firm’s behavior (Sherwin, 1983). For example, Godfrey and Hatch
(2007) suggested that a corporates’ responsibility should exceed the
domain of simply making profit while Devinney (2009) espoused both a
narrow view and broad view of CSR. The former focused on the firms
obligation to make a financial profit within the legal framework while
the latter indicated a broader set of obligations (e.g. social obligations,
environmental responsibility, legal obligation, etc.). More recently,
Vitell (2015) framed CSR in terms of kinds of exchange, referring to two
dimensions: proactive participation and voluntary engagement. Proac­
tive participation indicates that firms actively engage in activities that
offer social benefits. Voluntary engagement implies that firms avoid
activities that can harm environment and society.
The present study adopts the conceptualization given by Ailawadi
et al. (2014) who focus on CSR activities of retailers. These authors
emphasize four dimensions of retailer CSR, i.e. environmental friendli­
ness, community support, employee fairness and offering local products.
Ailawadi et al. (2014) suggest that these activities can be grouped into
non-customer experience (the two former items) and customer experi­
ence (the two latter items). Given that the last two activities may directly
influence customer’s shopping experience through product range and
employee-customer interaction, they are uniquely associated with the
retailing context.
2.2. CCB
In the service context, customers may replace employees to perform
some tasks in service-based firms or they may voluntarily undertake
actions that benefit firms (Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004). In this way,
customers exhibit citizenship behaviors similarly to employees in an
organization (Delpechitre et al., 2018). CCB refers to “voluntary and
discretionary behaviors that are not required for the successful pro­
duction and/or delivery of the service but that, in the aggregate, help the
service organization overall” (Groth, 2005, p. 11). Citizenship behaviors
include discretionary and prosocial behaviors exhibited by consumers
that benefit both retailers and other consumers (Balaji, 2014; Bove et al.,
2009). CCB presents in several ways. For example, customers may
recommend a retailer’s service to others, assist other customers, and
help service employees (Van Doorn et al., 2010). Customers may also
voluntarily share positive experiences with their friends, treat service
associates in a friendly manner, and patiently tolerate a service failure
(Yi et al., 2013). Keh and Teo (2001) and Groth (2005) identified four
elements of CCB: (1) providing useful feedbacks for the organization to
improve their service quality, (2) engaging in altruistic behaviors that
help employees and other customers, (3) providing positive recom­
mendations to their friends (or word of mouth), and (4) tolerating ser­
vice failures. Notably, Yi and Gong (2008) suggested that CCB is a single
dimension of customer value co-creation behavior. These authors also
reviewed the literature and concluded that the common features of CCB
comprise discretionary behavior, helping the service organization and
voluntary feedback.
Researchers have investigated antecedents of CCB. Bettencourt
(1997) found a positive impact of customer satisfaction, customer
commitment, and perceived support on CCB. Gruen et al. (2000) re­
ported a positive effect of affective commitment on CCB. Yi and Gong
(2008) found that positive affect influences CCB. Delpechitre et al.
(2018) suggested that salesperson emotional intelligence is positively
related to CCB. Woo (2019) demonstrated that service quality and
perceived value affect CCB. Nevertheless, none of previous studies have
examined the relationship between retailer CSR and CCB.
2.3. Social identity theory and the CSR-CCB relationship
According to social identity theory, a person often identifies his or
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082
herself as belonging to a certain group and will categorizes themselves as
being in these groups (Tajfel, 1978). People are more likely to hold a
positive attitude, trust, and express their positive emotion toward in­
dividuals or groups who share some similarity with them (Ashforth and
Mael, 1989). People identify because they perceive their values, beliefs,
and behaviors are similar to other members of the group (Tajfel and
Turner, 1986). Perception of similarity makes people like, trust, and
share other positive attributions with group members (Edwards et al.,
2019). As a result, social groups influence member perceptions and
behavior (Teng, 2017). Furthermore, when people classify themselves as
“in-group” members, they endeavor to act or conform to the social
norms of that group, because conformity behavior helps maintain and
strengthen individual identity in their social groups (Ambrose et al.,
2018). For example, Ambrose and Schnitzlein (2017) found that fans
often express their similar values and behavior in accordance with their
favorite sport teams. Teng (2017) also reported that when gamers
identify themselves as members of gaming community, their awareness
and interpersonal relationships with other members affect their per­
ceptions and behavior in that gaming environment.
CSR helps retailers build reputation and a positive image in the eyes
of consumers and community (Singh, 2016). Consumers may perceive
these retailers as ethical, socially responsible, and good role models in
society. According to SIT, consumers who care about ethical and moral
behavior may identify themselves as members of a group who engage
with socially responsible retailers accepting and viewing these retailers
as sharing their identity in society. Consequently, retailer CSR may
affect consumers’ perceptions and behavior. Consumers may act to
support retailers or spread information about the socially responsible
activities of retailers (Iglesias et al., 2018). Thus, CCB is likely to emerge
from retailer CSR activities. For example, when consumers perceive
retailers as ethically and socially responsible they may engage in posi­
tive word of mouth about and recommend the retailer to their friends, or
they may help employees and other customers when they make a pur­
chase. The following hypothesis informs this proposed relationship.
H1. Retailer CSR is positively related to CCB
2.4. The mediating role of PCE
PCE is defined as “the belief that an individual can have a positive
influence on resolving social and environmental problems” (Webb et al.,
2008, p. 95). PCE reflects a person’s judgment in his or her ability to
affect and improve environmental and social problems (Roberts, 1996;
Straughan Robert and Roberts James, 1999). It is associated with con­
sumers’ perceptions and behavior regarding ethical and environmental
issues. When consumers perceive their role as important in reducing
pollution, they will show higher concern for the environment (Kinnear
et al., 1974). Further, consumers who are environmentally conscious
often feel that they can do something to reduce their negative impact on
environment and society (Webster and Frederick, 1975). Consumers
high in PCE tend to exhibit a strong tendency to show socially respon­
sible attitudes and behavior (Tucker and Lewis, 1978) and are more
aware of the relationship between their behavior and ecology (Roberts,
1996). Researchers have suggested that PCE is the single best predictor
of consumer’s socially responsible consumption (Cojuharenco et al.,
2016; Webb et al., 2008). Also, several studies of socially responsible
behaviors have confirmed the mediation role of PCE in the
antecedents-behavior nexus (Kim and Choi, 2005; Segev, 2015).
According to Young (1986), people usually expect and endeavor to
build an ideal society. It reflects people’s ideas, values, norms, and be­
liefs about a progressive society and a better world (Mills, 2005).
Further, that expectations and dreams about an ideal society will
motivate and guide people’s thinking and behavior to realize their vi­
sions (Sen, 2006). Individuals understand they exert impact on and are
influenced by society, because they are an integral part of society (Haller
and Hadler, 2006). When people recognize that behaviors of other
V.T. Dang et al.
individuals are fair and beneficial to society, they tend to approve, echo
and mimic those behaviors (Solomon, 2018). Ethical and environmental
issues are key components of an ideal society (Haller and Hadler, 2006).
When consumers perceive retailers as socially responsible firms, they
believe that these retailers will act for the best interest of society. In
other words, consumers may think that socially responsible retailers are
acting to build and maintain a better society (Palihawadana et al.,
2016). This perception may facilitate consumers to take similar actions
to become more socially responsible (Iglesias et al., 2018). Consumers
who hold beliefs about an ideal society tend to favor socially responsible
retailers. They believe that individuals and retailers together have the
ability to contribute to reducing their impacts on environment and so­
ciety (Webster and Frederick, 1975). As a result, consumers may echo
the behaviors of socially responsible retailers and take actions that
benefit the whole society.
In sum, it is argued that retailer CSR enhances consumer’s PCE,
which in turn influences CCB. The reason is that socially responsible
retailers may influence consumer’s perceptions about their ability to
affect and improve socio-environmental problems. Consequently, con­
sumers will actively engage in citizenship behaviors, because consumers
who hold expectation about an ideal society tend to believe that socially
responsible behavior from retailers and individuals may contribute to
building a better world. Another possible explanation for the mediation
role of PCE is that those high on this individual difference are more
likely to learn vicariously, leading to greater likelihood of behavior
(Ellen et al., 1991) That is, PCE may mediate the association between
retailer CSR, which can play the role of a vicarious experience or source
of learning (Lee et al., 2019), leading to the behavioral outcome of CCB.
Given the first hypothesis and the aforementioned discussion, the second
hypothesis is proposed test the mediating effect of PCE.
H2. PCE has a positive and partially mediating effect on the relation­
ship between retailer CSR and CCB.
2.5. The mediating role of consumer trust
Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the
ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p.
712). Several factors affect consumer trust, such as the company,
salesperson, product, service, brand, physical environment, and so forth
(Komiak and Benbasat, 2004). Trust affects consumer’s perceptions,
attitudes, and behavior toward retailers. It also functions to enhance
consumer’s confidence in their decision-making (DeWitt et al., 2008;
Guenzi et al., 2009). Customer trust is an important predictor of cus­
tomer’s patronage and recommendation intention (Vlachos et al., 2009)
as well as corporate reputation (Park et al., 2014), customer loyalty
(Iglesias et al., 2018) and purchase intention (Oghazi et al., 2018).
Therefore, building consumer trust is critically important for retailers
because trust leads to positive consumer outcomes (Diallo and
Lambey-Checchin, 2017).
Signaling theory is used to explain how individuals communicate
information to one another in the context of uncertainty (Spence, 1973).
Senders may use various signals to convey information and influence the
receiver’s cognition, decision-making process, and behavioral intention
(Wells et al., 2011). In the fields of management, marketing, and
e-commerce, signaling theory has been extensively adopted to explain
how organizations use extrinsic cues to convey information about
product and service quality to customers to reduce their perceived un­
certainty (Li et al., 2015). Various signals are conveyed to affect con­
sumer’s perceptions and behavior, including the store environment
(Bloom and Reve, 1990), reputation (Chu and Chu, 1994), additional
investments (Kirmani and Rao, 2000), warranties (Balachander, 2001),
price (Erdem and Swait, 1998), and brand (Pecot et al., 2018). Re­
searchers have discovered that effective signals can change the
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082
receiver’s perception and their behavior. For example, Celani and Singh
(2011) found that conveying positive cues about brands can facilitate
customer perceptions about corporate reputation. In addition, online
sellers’ who signal about their website quality can enhance sales per­
formance (Li et al., 2015), brand quality and their willingness to pay a
premium price (Pecot et al., 2018).
According to signaling theory, retailers may convey various signals
to influence and change consumer’s perceptions and attitudes (Pecot
et al., 2018). In today’s business environment, consumers care more
about the socially responsible behavior of firms. Retailers who can
disseminate signals about relevant activities can benefit from reputation
and trust, in terms of CSR, from consumers (Oberseder et al., 2014).
When retailers spread information about their engagement in CSR, they
signal that they are socially responsible firms. In this way they commit to
take actions to bring the best for consumers and society (Vlachos et al.,
2009). As a result, consumers tend to trust these retailers because they
believe that these retailers care more about environment and society
(Mohr et al., 2001; Pecot et al., 2018).
When consumers hold a positive attitude toward and trust their
retailer because of relevant positive signals, they tend to engage in
citizenship behavior. The reason is that CSR affects consumer’s per­
ceptions and beliefs about socially responsible behavior of retailers
(Vlachos et al., 2009). This belief may also motivate consumers to
behave in a more ethical manner. That is, consumers may take actions to
help other customers, assist retailer employees, or say good things about
retailers because consumers are motivated to express their socially
responsible behaviors (Iglesias et al., 2018).
In sum, it is argued that CSR functions as positive signal to affect and
enhance consumer’s trust in retailers. When consumers develop trust in
socially responsible retailers, they are motivated perform reciprocal acts
that benefit the retailers and community; CCB may be one such kind of
behavior (Ho, 2014). In addition, Morgan and Hunt (1994) postulated
that trust is an important mediator that connects the antecedents with
the consequences associated with customer relationship development.
Whilst retailer CSR represents the key antecedent to customer re­
lationships (Schramm-Klein et al., 2016), CCB may be an indicator of
consumer willingness to develop a long-term relationship with com­
panies (Ho, 2014). Considering the first hypothesis and the aforemen­
tioned discussion, the third hypothesis is developed to examine the
mediating role of trust.
H3. Consumer trust has a positive and partially mediating effect on the
relationship between retailer CSR and CCB.
Fig. 1 presents the research framework and includes all proposed
relationships in this study.
Fig. 1. Research framework.
V.T. Dang et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082

3. Methods et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2016). In this study, to measure consumer’s
evaluation of trust in retailers, a three item measure was adapted from
3.1. Measures Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and Guenzi et al. (2009). Specifically,
one item is a general measure of trust, the others refer to the credibility
Items of measurement scales in this study were adopted from prior of the retailer and the reliability of its products. Finally, six items for
literature (Table 1). These measurement scales, originally in English, operationalizing CCB were adapted from the measurement scale sug­
were translated into Chinese using back-translation technique (Triandis gested by Yi and Gong (2008). This scale has been adapted by several
and Brislin, 1984; Behling and Law, 2000). Two professional translators authors and it proved to have good validity and reliability (Kim and
and two bilingual researchers were recruited to perform the back Choi, 2016; Kim et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2013). The items
translation and cross-check of the translated versions, respectively were selected to reflect the common features of CCB including positive
(Nguyen et al., 2017). Thirty consumers were initially invited to word of mouth, recommending the retailer to others, providing volun­
participate in a pilot test to confirm the clarity and meanings of mea­ tary feedback and suggestions, and engaging in altruistic behaviors that
surement items. improve the retailer’s service. Respondents rated each item based on a
To measure consumer’s overall perceptions of retailer CSR, this study seven-point Likert scale (1¼ “strongly disagree” to 7¼ “strongly agree”).
adopted the succinct measurement scale for retailer CSR developed by
Ailawadi et al. (2014). This scale includes four items measuring con­ 3.2. Data collection and sample
sumer’s overall perceptions about a retailer’s environmental friendli­
ness, community support, selling local products, and treating employees The respondents in this study were Chinese citizens who were
fairly. Furthermore, PCE was measured with four items adopted from shoppers at retail stores. Paper-based surveys were used to obtain data
Straughan Robert and Roberts James (1999). This measurement scale from eligible consumers at 14 retail stores (i.e. supermarkets and
has been widely used in prior marketing literature and confirmed with department stores) in China in two stages. In the first stage, data were
high reliability and validity (Jaiswal and Kant, 2018; He and Zhan, collected at 10 different retail stores who publicly stated their CSR
2018; Higueras-Castillo et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2008; Straughan policies and initiatives. In the second stage, data were obtained at four
Robert and Roberts James, 1999). In addition, prior studies have retail stores who did not disclose their CSR policies. The volunteer
developed several measurement scales for consumer trust (see Dietz and sampling was used due to the absence of a proper sampling frame. The
Den Hartog, 2006; Swan et al., 1999; and Wang et al., 2016 for a re­ researchers conveniently approached consumers and requested their
view). Consumer trust is treated as either a single or multiple dimen­ voluntary participation. Those consumers who agreed to participate in
sional construct in prior research (Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006; Swan the study were provided with facilities to complete the surveys. A final
total of 449 questionnaires was returned, including 280 questionnaires
collected in the first stage and 169 questionnaires obtained during the
Table 1 second stage. Through the data screening process, 38 questionnaires
Constructs and items. with incomplete and missing data (i.e. unanswered questions) were
Constructs Items Sources removed. Given that the missing data rate was less than 10%, the
problem of missing data was inconsequential (Bennett, 2001). In addi­
Retailer Corporate I believe that Retailer A has Ailawadi et al.
Social Responsibility environmentally friendly policies. (2014)
tion, the Mahalanobis distance indicated that 4 surveys contained
(CSR) I believe that Retailer A cares about multivariate outliers. This resulted in a final effective sample of 407
the local community. responses.
I believe that Retailer A offers a large Demographic information in Table 2 shows that about 67.3% of re­
selection of local products.
spondents were female and 32.7% were male. Approximately 84% held
I believe that Retailer A treats
employees fairly. college or university degree, 9.9% had graduate or above education, and
Perceived Consumer What I purchase as a consumer has an Straughan and 8.6% had high school or below education. In terms of age, about 24.3%
Effectiveness (PCE) effect on the nation’s environmental Roberts (1999) were under 20 years old, 45.5% were between 21 and 30 years old,
problem.
16.7% were between 31 and 40 years old, and 13.5% were above 41
Each consumer’s behavior can have
an effect on how companies treat
years old. Income were classified into 4 groups: under 5,000 RMD (304
their employees. respondents, 74.7%), 5,000-under 10,000 RMB (70 respondents,
Each consumer can have a positive 17.2%), 10,000-under 15,000 RMB (22 respondents, 5.4%), and 15,000
effect on society by purchasing
products sold by socially responsible
companies. Table 2
Since one person cannot have any Demographic profile of respondents.
effect upon pollution and natural Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
resource problems, it doesn’t make
any difference what I do (r) Gender
Consumer Trust (CT) Retailer A can be trusted Guenzi et al. Male 133 32.7%
Retailer A keeps their promises (2009) Female 274 67.3%
Retailer A’s products are reliable Education
Consumer Citizenship I say positive things about Retailer A Yi and Gong High school or below 25 6.1%
Behavior (CCB) to others (2008) College or university 342 84.0%
I give constructive suggestions to Graduate or above 40 9.9%
Retailer A on how to improve its Age
service. Under 20 99 24.3%
I recommend Retailer A to others 21-30 185 45.5%
When I have a useful idea on how to 31-40 68 16.7%
improve service, I communicate it to 41 or above 55 13.5%
people of Retailer A Income
When I experience a problem in Under 5,000 RMB 304 74.7%
Retailer A, I let they know so that 5,000 - under 10,000 RMB 70 17.2%
they can improve the service 10,000- under 15,000 RMB 22 5.4%
I do things that can make Retailer A’s 15,000 RMB or above 11 2.7%
service process easier
n ¼ 407.

5
V.T. Dang et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082

RMB or above (11 respondents, 2.7%).
3.3. Control variables and analysis method
Several variables were controlled due to their potential impacts on
the dependent variable in this study. These variables include gender (0
¼ male, 1 ¼ female), age (0 ¼ under 20, 1 ¼ 21–30, 2 ¼ 31–40, 3 ¼ 41 or
above), education (0 ¼ high school or below, 1¼ undergraduate, 2 ¼
master or above), and income (0 ¼ under 5,000 RMB, 1 ¼ 5000-under
10.000 RMB, 2 ¼ 10.000–15.000 RMB, and 3 ¼ 15.000 or above RMB).
Given that the control variables are nominal, dummy variables were
created using the guidelines suggested by Kline (2011). The use of
dummy variables in multivariate analysis has proven effective in mar­
keting, consumer behavior and CSR literature (Boccia et al., 2019;
Desrochers and Nelson, 2006; Wildt, 1977).
SPSS version 20.0 was used to analyze descriptive statistics and
reliability of the variables, while AMOS version 20.0 was used to per­
formed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hy­
potheses. Using the SEM guidelines from Hair et al. (2010), confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the goodness of fit between
empirical data and the hypothesized model. Based on results of CFA,
convergent validity and discriminant validity were tested. Hypotheses
were tested using structural equation model in this study.
the square root of AVE exceed all correlation coefficients of all variables
in the Pearson correlation matrix. Tables 3 and 5 show that the values of
square roots of AVE were greater than every element of correlation co­
efficients of the Pearson correlation matrix. Thus, discriminant validity
was also satisfactory in this study.
To test internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was deter­
mined in this study. As shown in Table 5, Cronbach’s alpha for retailer
CSR, PCE, consumer trust, and CCB were 0.85, 0.83, 0.90, and 0.87,
respectively. These values are greater than the cut-off value of 0.60 (Hair
et al., 2010; Kline, 2011). Thus, the measures show good reliability in
this study.
Due to the use of self-reports survey in this study, common method
variance may appear. Thus, according to Podsakoff et al. (2003), Har­
man’s one factor analysis was performed to detect possible common
method variance. This method indicates that common method variance
appears if a single factor is emerged or the first factor explains most of
the variance. Our analysis shows that four factors were emerged with an
eigenvalue greater than 1.0, which accounted for 72.91% of variance.
The first factor accounted for 25.71% of variance. Furthermore, we also
performed a CFA one-factor model analysis. Results show that this
model had a very poor model fit (χ2/df ¼ 6.56, GFI ¼ 0.71, CFI ¼ 0.78,
NFI ¼ 0.78, TLI ¼ 0.79, and RMSEA ¼ 0.27). Thus, common method
variance did not seem to be a problem in our sample data.

4. Results 4.3. Structural model

4.1. Descriptive statistics
Results of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis are presented
in Table 3. Bivariate correlation analysis revealed that retailer CSR was
positively related to perceived consumer effectiveness (r ¼ 0.41, p <
0.01), consumer trust (r ¼ 0.03, P < 0.01), and consumer citizenship
behavior (r ¼ 0.13, p < 0.01). Furthermore, perceived consumer effec­
tiveness was positively related to consumer citizenship behavior (r ¼
0.20, p < 0.01). Finally, consumer trust was positively related to con­
sumer citizenship behavior (r ¼ 0.49, p < 0.01).
4.2. Measurement model
Following Kline’s (2011) suggestion, a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was conducted in this study. Thresholds of goodness-of-fit indices
require that the ratio χ2/d.f. is less than 3, GFI is greater than 0.90, CFI is
greater than 0.90, NFI is greater than 0.90, TLI is greater than 0.90, and
RMSEA is less than 0.08 (Kline, 2011). Results in Table 4 show that all
criteria meet the benchmark fit indices. Thus, our hypothesized model
fits well to the data.
According to Hair et al. (2010), convergent validity was tested using
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).
Convergent validity is accepted if the value of CR is greater than 0.70
and the value of AVE is greater than 0.50. Results in Table 5 show that
CR values and AVE values of all variables met these requirements. Thus,
convergent validity was satisfactory in this study. Furthermore, Hair
et al. (2010) stated that discriminant validity is acceptable if all values of
To test the impact of the control variables and the proposed hy­
potheses, we performed a structural equation model (SEM). Results in
Fig. 2 show that, among the control variables, age and education had
positive and significant effects on CCB. That is, older consumers and
those with higher education are more engaged in CCB. In addition,
retailer CSR was positively related to CCB (β ¼ 0.322, p < 0.001),
providing support for hypothesis H1.
Furthermore, retailer CSR was positively related to PCE (β ¼ 0.741,
p < 0.001), and PCE was also positively related to CCB (β ¼ 0.296, p <
0.05). To test the indirect effect of retailer CSR on CCB through PCE, we
followed Preacher et al. (2007) suggestions and conducted a bootstrap
analysis with 5,000 bootstrap samples. This indirect effect was statisti­
cally significant (β ¼ 0.312, p < 0.001, 95% CI¼ [0.221, 0.396]). Given
this result and the earlier finding that retailer CSR was directly and
positively associated with CCB, H2 was supported. That is, PCE partially
mediates the relationship between retailer CSR and CCB.
In addition, retailer CSR was positively related to consumer trust (β
¼ 0.703, p < 0.001), and consumer trust was positively related to CCB
(β ¼ 0.219, p < 0.001). Bootstrap analysis with 5,000 bootstrap samples
shows that the indirect of retailer CSR on CCB through consumer trust
was statistically significant (β ¼ 0.260, p < 0.001, 95% CI¼ [0.183,
0.345]). This result together with the aforementioned direct and sig­
nificant association between retailer CSR and CCB provided support for
H3. That is, consumer trust partially mediates the relationship between
retailer CSR and CCB.
Model comparison using multigroup SEM (Hair et al., 2010) was
conducted to assess the potential differences between consumers who

Table 3
Means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlations.
Constructs Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender 1.67 0.47 1

2. Age 2.19 0.96 -.47** 1
3. Education 2.05 0.45 -.31** .17** 1
4. Income 1.36 0.71 -.21** .31** .31** 1
5. Retailer CSR 4.15 1.10 -.02 .28** .02 .30** 1
6. Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 4.06 1.12 -.05 .34** .07 .28** .41** 1
7. Consumer Trust 4.32 1.00 -.08 .29** .12** .28** .03** .18** 1
8. Consumer Citizenship Behavior 3.89 1.15 -.05 .30** .07 .38** .13** .20** .49** 1

Note: n ¼ 407; **p < 0.01.

6
V.T. Dang et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082

Table 4
Goodness-of-fit indices.
Constructs/model χ2/d.f. p-value GFI CFI NFI TLI RMSEA

Thresholds <3 >0.05 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 <0.08

Hypothesized Model 2.98 .000 0.91 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.07

Note: n ¼ 407.

5. Discussion and implications

Table 5
Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between
Construct Item Standardized CR AVE √AVE Cronbach’α retailer CSR and CCB with the mediating roles of PCR and consumer
estimates
trust. The results show that retailer CSR was positively related to CCB.
CSR CSR1 0.78 0.85 0.59 0.77 0.85 Perceived consumer effectiveness mediated the relationship between
CSR2 0.68 retailer CSR and CCB. Furthermore, consumer trust also mediated the
CSR3 0.77
CSR4 0.83
link between retailer CSR and CCB.
PCE PCE1 0.79 0.87 0.64 0.80 0.83
PCE2 0.77
5.1. Theoretical implications
PCE3 0.82
PCE4 0.81
CT CT1 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.93 0.90 Research on the impact of retailer CSR on noneconomic outcomes of
CT2 0.89 consumers (i.e. perceptions, attitudes) has been scarce (Ailawadi et al.,
CT3 0.85 2014; Anastasiadou et al., 2019; Diallo and Lambey-Checchin, 2017).
CCB CCB1 0.51 0.88 0.56 0.75 0.87
The influence of retailer CSR on CCB is even absent in prior literature. To
CCB2 0.69
CCB3 0.73 extend social identity theory, this study found that retailer CSR has a
CCB4 0.85 positive effect on CCB. This result indicates that consumers are more
CCB5 0.83 likely to favor and identify themselves belonging to socially responsible
CCB6 0.81 retailers (Teng, 2017; Singh, 2016). When consumers admire and
Note: n ¼ 407, CSR ¼ retailer corporate social responsibility, PCE ¼ perceived perceive themselves as members of these retailers, they will behave in a
consumer effectiveness, CT ¼ consumer trust, CCB ¼ consumer citizenship more socially responsible manner and engage in citizenship behavior
behavior. (Edwards et al., 2019; Ashforth and Mael, 1989). In other words, when
consumers identify themselves as members of socially responsible re­
tailers, they tend to engage in CCB that bring benefits for retailers.
Consumers may share their positive experiences with friends, being
tolerant if the service does not satisfy their needs, help service em­
ployees, provide valuable suggestions for retailers, and assist other
consumers, etc. (Kim et al., 2019; van Tonder et al., 2018). Our findings
support Iglesias et al.’s (2018) research, who found that CSR enhances
consumer willingness to engage in co-creation activities. Although
empirical evidences on antecedents of CCB are abundant and plentiful
(Kim and Choi, 2016; Kim et al., 2019; Revilla-Camacho et al., 2015; van
Tonder et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016), none of previous
studies has examined the influence of retailer CSR on CCB. Thus, our
findings provide new evidence and new insights to our understanding of
the link between retailer CSR and CCB. This study also suggests that the
theoretical foundation of social identity theory is logical to link the ef­
Fig. 2. The path coefficient of full model. fect of retailer CSR on CCB.
Furthermore, our findings shed light on the mediating role of PCE in
participated in the first stage and second stage of the data collection the link between retailer CSR and CCB. Socially responsible behavior is
process. The total sample was divided into two groups: (1) consumers of critically important to build an ideal society (Haller and Hadler, 2006).
retailers who publicly stated their CSR (n ¼ 280) and those of retailers Retailer CSR helps to trigger consumer’s perceptions and motivation to
who did not publicly claim their CSR (n ¼ 127). The configural invari­ build an ideal society and a better world (Palihawadana et al., 2016).
ance model (GFI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.95, NFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.94, and RMSEA Consumers may believe that retailers and individuals together engaging
¼ 0.07) ensured that the same number of constructs and items in socially responsible behavior will bring the best for society (Haller
measuring each construct existed in the two consumer groups (Byrne, and Hadler, 2006). As a result, retailer CSR enhances consumer’s per­
2004). Chi-square difference test indicated a nonsignificant difference ceptions about their ability to affect environment and society, which in
between the two samples (Model 1: n ¼ 280, χ2 ¼ 362.190; Model 2: n ¼ turn motivates consumers to engage in citizenship behavior. Our finding
127, χ2 ¼ 362.748; Δχ2 ¼ 0.558, p > 0.05). This confirmed full metric also suggests the need to further examine social ideal theory (Young,
invariance, indicating that the factor loadings were equivalent across 1986). The logic underlying this theory is that consumers may perceive
the two consumer groups (Byrne, 2004). Structural invariance analysis socially responsible behavior of individuals, retailers and any entity in
was also performed to assess if the model paths are statistically different society as an important part of an ideal society (Young, 1986). There­
across both groups. Results indicated that all the Chi-square differences fore, consumer’s perceptions and behavior are influenced and motivated
(Δχ2) for the paths between the constructs are insignificant (p > 0.05). by socially responsible behavior from other individuals and retailers in
Therefore, the relationships between the constructs did not significantly society (Solomon, 2018). We provide initial evidence to justify the
differ across consumers of retailers who announced CSR polices and mediating mechanism of PCE in the relationship between retailer CSR
those of retailers who did not state their CSR initiatives. and CCB. Furthermore, this will advance knowledge and provide a
foundation for researchers who may be interested in studying the issue

7
V.T. Dang et al.
of retailer CSR and its effect on consumer’s ability to influence envi­
ronmental and social issues.
In addition, we found that consumer trust mediates the link between
retailer CSR and CCB. To extend signaling theory, our finding shows that
retailer CSR acts as a signal to public and society (Oberseder et al.,
2014). This signal indicates that retailers are socially responsible firms.
They will take actions to bring the best for consumers and society
(Vlachos et al., 2009). Signals of CSR help to build trust and positive
reputation in the eyes of consumers and community. Consequently,
consumers who trust socially responsible retailers are more likely to
engage in citizenship behavior, because they tend to care, echo, and
support retailers who involve in ethical and moral behavior (Mohr et al.,
2001). Our finding is consistent with the results of Vlachos et al. (2009),
which reported that consumers who trust in CSR tend to engage in
recommendation behavior. Thus, our finding extends CSR literature by
revealing the important role of consumer trust in the link between
retailer CSR and CCB. In other words, this study helps to explain the
mediating mechanism of consumer trust in the link between retailer CSR
and CCB. Our finding also provides foundation for researchers who may
interesting studying the role of trust in association with retailer CSR
issue.
This study sheds a new light on our understanding of the relationship
between retailer CSR and CCB and advances knowledge of the mediating
mechanism of PCE and consumer trust in the link between retailer CSR
and CCB. As such, this study provides important implications for re­
searchers who may be interested in studying the issue of retailers CSR
and its influence on consumer’s ability to affect environmental and so­
cial problems as well as consumer trust and their citizenship behavior.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study also provides implications for business managers. Result
shows that retailer CSR was positively related to CCB. This result sug­
gests that managers should design CSR programs that remind and
reinforce consumer’s perceptions about socially responsible behavior.
This will motivate consumers to engage in citizenship behavior that
benefits retailers and society. For example, retailers may use marketing
strategy to encourage consumers spread positive information and
discuss about retailers’ CSR. Retailers may also invite consumers to
participate in their environmental and social activities. When consumers
participate and interact with retailers’ employees, they will better un­
derstand retailers’ CSR. Consequently, consumers may act to help re­
tailers and engage in citizenship behavior because they know that
retailers are good citizens in society. Thus, retailer managers should use
CSR as an effective strategy to encourage consumers engage more in
citizenship behavior.
Furthermore, understanding how consumer’s perceptions of retailer
CSR relates to PCE and CCB can help managers enhance consumer
outcomes through marketing programs. Retailer managers can launch
marketing campaigns that emphasize socially responsible behaviors of
individuals and retailers to build a better world. These marketing pro­
grams will enhance consumer’s perceptions of their ability to improve
environmental and social problems and motivate consumers to take
actions to bring positive outcomes for retailers (e.g. recommend retailers
to friends, say good things about retailers, or help other customers…).
For example, retailers may plan and launch advertising programs to
shape and influence consumer’s perceptions about an ideal society.
Advertising will emphasize that retailers and consumers are the major
factors influencing environmental and social problems. Specifically,
through using CSR advertising to trigger consumer’s perceptions about
retailers’ CSR, managers may encourage consumers get involve in so­
cially responsible behavior and provide support for socially responsible
retailers by engage in citizenship behavior.
Results also indicate that business managers should engage in CSR
and use marketing strategy to disseminate information about their CSR
to public and society. Signals of CSR help retailers build reputation and
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082
trust from consumers. When consumers trust retailers with strong
reputation about CSR, consumers will respect and care about retailers.
They are also willing to engage in citizenship behavior that benefits
retailers. For example, retailer managers may use social media and
advertising campaigns to deliver information about their CSR. Use social
networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WeChat, Weibo,
etc.) to obtain and build consumer’s interests and encourage consumers
discuss about retailers’ CSR activities. By using social media and mar­
keting campaigns to send CSR signals to consumers, retailers may in­
fluence consumer’s feeling and image about retailers. Furthermore,
because consumers gradually care more about green products and so­
cially responsible behavior of retailers in today’s environment, man­
agers should combine CSR activities into their products and services. By
integrating CSR element into retailers’ business, mangers can build
positive reputation for their retailers and gain more trust from
consumers.
Altogether, retailer managers should understand that CSR not only
leads to economic outcomes but also creates noneconomic conse­
quences. As demonstrated in this study, CSR will directly and indirectly
enhance CCB. These behaviors will lead to positive outcomes for re­
tailers. Therefore, retailer managers should plan and execute marketing
strategy and use different social media to convey retailer CSR to public
and consumers. By using marketing strategy to build reputation for re­
tailers and obtain trust from consumers, managers should also empha­
size the important role of consumers in influencing environmental and
social problems. Furthermore, retailer managers should use different
strategies to encourage consumers engage in citizenship behavior.
6. Conclusions and future research
This study makes an important contribution to the literature by
presenting and testing a model that proposes the direct and indirect
influences of retailer CSR on CCB. Findings confirm the positive asso­
ciation between retailer CSR and CCB and also the positive mediating
roles of PCE and consumer trust in this relationship. This sheds light on
the complexity of relationships informing the impact of retailer CSR on
CCB. It also extends knowledge about CSR and CBB in the context of
Asian emerging markets as well as encouraging retailers to engage in
CSR activities.
The present study, however, has several limitations, which can be
addressed by future research. First, the convenience sampling method
may limit the representativeness of the sample in this study. It would be
therefore desirable to obtain a customer database from retailers, which
can serve as sampling frame for probability sampling techniques. Sec­
ond, the data were collected from consumers who visited supermarkets
and department stores with different CSR policies in one country, i.e.
China. Future research should gather data from consumers of other types
of retailing stores and from those in other emerging economies (e.g.
India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.). Also, future studies can clarify how
consumers react to different retailers’ CSR activities and policies. Third,
this study focuses on single industry, i.e. retailing; hence, the results may
be not applied to other industries. Future research should use other in­
dustries as sample data to determine CSR issues. Fourth, although the
measures of CSR including 4 items and CCB including 6 items showed
good reliability and validity, these scales can be expanded in future
research. In this regard, additional items for operationalizing CSR can
include care about customers and vulnerable groups, while more items
for measuring CCB should reflect ethical behaviors in self-service pay­
ments and helping other customers. Fifth, this study used the cross-
sectional survey method which can be addressed by conducting longi­
tudinal study to examine changes in consumer perception relating to
CSR and CCB. Finally, future research should modify and extend this
study’s research model by including more potential mediators (e.g.,
customer loyalty, word of mouth or brand identification) or by testing
the moderating role of PCE in the association between CSR and CCB.
V.T. Dang et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082

References G€ossling, T., 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Performance. Theories
and Evidence about Organizational Responsibility. Edward Elgar, London.
Groth, M., 2005. Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet
Abu Bakar, A.S., Ameer, R., 2011. Readability of corporate social responsibility
service deliveries. J. Manag. 31 (1), 7–27.
communication in Malaysia. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 18 (1), 50–60.
Gruen, T.W., Summers, J.O., Acito, F., 2000, July. Relationship marketing activities,
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A., Luan, Y.J., Taylor, G.A., 2014. Does retailer CSR enhance
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. J. Market. 64,
behavioral loyalty? a case for benefit segmentation. Int. J. Res. Market. 31, 156–167.
34–49.
Ambrose, S.C., Schnitzlein, N., 2017. What makes for the best rivalries in individual
Guenzi, P., Johnson, M.D., Castaldo, S., 2009. A comprehensive model of customer trust
sports and how can marketers capitalize on them? Sport Market. Q. 26 (4), 223–234.
in two retail stores. J. Serv. Manag. 20 (3), 290–316.
Ambrose, S.C., Matthews, L.M., Rutherford, B.N., 2018. Cross-functional teams and social
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
identity theory: a study of sales and operations planning (S&OP). J. Bus. Res. 92,
Global Perspective, seventh ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
270–278.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Buckley, M.R., 2004. Managing customer as employees of the firm.
Anastasiadou, E., Lindh, C., Vasse, T., 2019. Are consumers international? A study of
Person. Rev. 33 (3), 351–372.
CSR, cross-border shopping, commitment and purchase intent among online
Haller, M., Hadler, M., 2006. How social relations and structures can produce happiness
consumers. J. Global Market. 32 (4), 239–254.
and un-happiness: an international comparative analysis. Soc. Indicat. Res. 75,
Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z., Aspara, J., 2014. Cause marketing effectiveness and the
169–216.
moderating role of price discounts. J. Market. 78 (6), 120–142.
He, X., Zhan, W., 2018. How to activate moral norm to adopt electric vehicles in China?
Anser, M.K., Zhang, Z., Kanwal, L., 2018. Moderating effect of innovation on corporate
An empirical study based on extended norm activation theory. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
social responsibility and firm performance in realm of sustainable development.
3546–3556.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25 (5), 799–806.
Higueras-Castillo, E., Li�ebana-Cabanillas, F.J., Mu~noz-Leiva, F., García-Maroto, I., 2019.
Ashforth, B.E., Mael, F., 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag.
Evaluating consumer attitudes toward electromobility and the moderating effect of
Rev. 14 (1), 20–39.
perceived consumer effectiveness. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 51, 387–398.
Balachander, S., 2001. Warranty signalling and reputation. Manag. Sci. 47 (9),
Ho, C., 2014. Consumer behavior on Facebook. EuroMed J. Bus. 9 (3), 252–267.
1282–1289.
Hultman, J., Elg, U., 2018. Developing CSR in retail–supplier relationships: a stakeholder
Balaji, M.S., 2014. Managing customer citizenship behavior: a relationship perspective.
interaction approach. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 28 (4), 339–359.
J. Strat. Market. 22 (3), 222–239.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., Singh, J.J., 2018. Co-creation: a key link
Behling, O., Law, K.S., 2000. Translating Questionnaires and Other Research
between corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty. J. Bus.
Instruments: Problems and Solutions. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Ethics (September), 1–16.
USA.
Jaiswal, D., Kant, R., 2018. Green purchasing behaviour: a conceptual framework and
Bennett, D.A., 2001. How can I deal with missing data in my study? Aust. N. Z. J. Publ.
empirical investigation of Indian consumers. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 41, 60–69.
Health 25 (5), 464–469.
Keh, H.T., Teo, C.W., 2001. Retail customers as partial employees in service provision: a
Bettencourt, L.A., 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in
conceptual framework. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 29 (8), 370–378.
service delivery. J. Retailing 73 (3), 383–406.
Kim, H.S., Choi, B., 2016. The effects of three customer-to-customer interaction quality
Bloom, P.N., Reve, T., 1990. Transmitting signals to consumers for competitive
types on customer experience quality and citizenship behavior in mass service
advantage. Bus. Horiz. 33 (4), 58–66.
settings. J. Serv. Market. 30 (4), 384–397.
Boccia, F., Malgeri Manzo, R., Covino, D., 2019. Consumer behavior and corporate social
Kim, K.A., Byon, K.K., Baek, W., Williams, A.S., 2019. Examining structural relationships
responsibility: An evaluation by a choice experiment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
among sport service environments, excitement, consumer-to-consumer interaction,
Manag. 26 (1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1661.
and consumer citizenship behaviors. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 82, 318–325.
Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., Shiu, E., 2009. Service worker role in encouraging
Kim, Y., Choi, S.M., 2005. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: an examination of
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 62, 698–705.
collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. NA Adv. Consum. Res. 32, 592–599.
Byrne, B.M., 2004. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less
Kinnear, T.C., James, T.R., Sadrudin, A.A., 1974. Ecologically concerned consumers: who
traveled. Struct. Equ. Model.: Multidiscip. J. 11 (2), 272–300.
are they? J. Market. 38, 20–24.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Kirmani, A., Rao, A.R., 2000. No pain, no gain: a critical review of the literature on
Acad. Manag. Rev. 4 (4), 497–505.
signaling unobservable product quality. J. Market. 64 (2), 66–79.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., Tencati, A., 2009. The missing link between
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford
corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: the case of fair trade products.
Press, New York.
J. Bus. Ethics 84, 1–15.
Komiak, S.X., Benbasat, I., 2004. Understanding customer trust in agent-mediated
Celani, A., Singh, P., 2011. Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Person.
electronic commerce, web-mediated electronic commerce, and traditional
Rev. 40 (2), 222–238.
commerce. Inf. Technol. Manag. 5 (1–2), 181–207.
Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
Lee, J., Lee, Y., 2015. The interactions of CSR, self-congruity and purchase intention
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Market. 65, 81–93.
among Chinese consumers. Australas. Market J. 23 (1), 19–26.
Chu, W., Chu, W., 1994. Signaling quality by selling through a reputable retailer: an
Lee, Y.-J., Haley, E., Yang, K., 2019. The role of organizational perception, perceived
example of renting the reputation of another agent. Market. Sci. 13 (2), 177–189.
consumer effectiveness and self-efficacy in recycling advocacy advertising
Cojuharenco, I., Cornelissen, G., Karelaia, N., 2016. Yes, I can: feeling connected to
effectiveness. Environ. Commun. 13 (2), 239–254.
others increases perceived effectiveness and socially responsible behavior.
Li, H.F., Fang, Y.L., Wang, Y.W., Lim, K.H., Liang, L., 2015. Are all signals equal?
J. Environ. Psychol. 48, 75–86.
Investigating the differential effects of online signals on the sales performance of
Dagher, G.K., Itani, O., 2014. Factors influencing green purchasing behaviour: empirical
emarketplace sellers. Inf. Technol. People 28 (3), 1–26.
evidence from the Lebanese consumers. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (3), 188–195.
Li, J., Zhang, F., Sun, S., 2019. Building consumer-oriented CSR differentiation strategy.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
Sustainability 11 (2), 664.
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1–13.
Lima Cris� ostomo, V., de Souza Freire, F., Cortes de Vasconcellos, F., 2011. Corporate
Delpechitre, D., Beeler-Connelly, L.L., Chaker, N.N., 2018. Customer value co-creation
social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Soc. Responsib.
behavior: a dyadic exploration of the influence of salesperson emotional intelligence
J. 7 (2), 295–309.
on customer participation and citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Res. 92, 9–24.
Louis, D., Lombart, C., Durif, F., 2019. Impact of a retailer’s CSR activities on consumers’
Devinney, T., 2009. Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad,
loyalty. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 47 (8), 793–816.
and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 23 (2), 44–56.
Magni, M., Atsmon, Y., 2010. The power of word of mouth in China. Harvard business
DeWitt, T., Nguyen, D.T., Marshall, R., 2008. Exploring customer loyalty following
review. Retrieved from. https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-power-of-word-of-mouth-in.
service recovery: the mediating effects of trust and emotions. J. Serv. Res. 10,
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
269–281.
business. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2), 268–305.
Diallo, M.F., Lambey-Checchin, C., 2017. Consumers’ perceptions of retailer business
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, D.F., 1995. An integrativemodel of organizational
ethics and loyalty to the retailer: the moderating role of social discount practices.
trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3), 709–734.
J. Bus. Ethics 141, 435–449.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility:
Dietz, G., Den Hartog, D.N., 2006. Measuring trust inside organisations. Person. Rev. 35
international perspectives. J. Bus. Strat. 23 (1), 1–12.
(5), 557–588.
Miller, S.R., Eden, L., Li, D., 2018. CSR reputation and firm performance: a dynamic
Desrochers, D.M., Nelson, P., 2006. Adding consumer behavior insights to category
approach. J. Bus. Ethics 1–18.
management: improving item placement decisions. J. Retailing 82 (4), 357–365.
Mills, Ch, 2005. “Ideal theory” as ideology. Hypatia 20 (3), 165–184.
Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Stoll, B., Lin, X., Massey, N., 2019. Evaluations of an artificial
Mohr, L., Webb, D., Harris, K., 2001. Do consumers expect companies to be socially
intelligence instructor’s voice: social Identity Theory in human-robot interactions.
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 90, 357–362.
J. Consum. Aff. 35, 45–72.
Elg, U., Hultman, J., 2016. CSR: retailer activities vs consumer buying decisions. Int. J.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J., 2005. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on
Retail Distrib. Manag. 44 (6), 640–657.
consumer responses. J. Consum. Aff. 39 (1), 121–144.
Ellen, P.S., Wiener, J.L., Cobb-Walgren, C., 1991. The role of perceived consumer
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment trust theory of marketing
effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. J. Publ. Pol.
relationships. J. Market. 58 (3), 20–38.
Market. 10 (2), 102–117.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A., Greenland, S., 2017. Energy efficient household appliances in
Erdem, T., Swait, J., 1998. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. J. Consum. Psychol.
emerging markets: the influence of consumers’ values and knowledge on their
7 (2), 131–157.
attitudes and purchase behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41 (2), 167–177.
Godfrey, P.C., Hatch, N.W., 2007. Researching corporate social responsibility: an agenda
for the 21st century. J. Bus. Ethics 70 (1), 87–98.

9
V.T. Dang et al.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A., Nguyen, H.L., Phan, T.T.H., Cao, T.K., 2016. Determinants
influencing conservation behaviour: perceptions of Vietnamese Consumers.
J. Consum. Behav. 15 (6), 560–570.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., Paladino, A., 2014. Perceived greenwashing: the
interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on
consumer reactions. J. Bus. Ethics 125 (4), 693–707.
Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Murphy, P.E., Gruber, V., 2014. Consumers’
perceptions of corporate social responsibility: scale development and validation.
J. Bus. Ethics 124, 101–115.
Oghazi, P., Karlsson, S., Hellstrom, D., Hjort, K., 2018. Online purchase return policy
leniency and purchase decision: mediating role of consumer trust. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 41, 190–200.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., 2011. Strategic corporate social responsibility
and environmental sustainability. Bus. Soc. 50 (1), 6–27.
Palihawadana, D., Oghazi, P., Liu, Y., 2016. Effects of ethical ideologies and perceptions
of CSR on consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 69, 4964–4969.
Park, J., Lee, H., Kim, C., 2014. Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and
corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspectives. J. Bus. Res. 67,
296–302.
Pecot, F., Merchant, A., Valette-Florence, P., Barnier, V.D., 2018. Cognitive outcomes of
brand heritage: a signaling perspective. J. Bus. Res. 85, 304–316.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F., 2007. Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42 (1),
185–227.
Revilla-Camacho, M.A., � Vega-V� azquez, M., Cossío-Silva, F.J., 2015. Customer
participation and citizenship behavior effects on turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 68
(7), 1607–1611.
Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for
advertising. J. Bus. Res. 36, 217–231.
Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S.P., Saaeidi, S.A., 2015. How does corporate
social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of
competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 68 (2),
341–350.
Schramm-Klein, H., Zentes, J., Steinmann, S., Swoboda, B., Morschett, D., 2016. Retailer
corporate social responsibility is relevant to consumer behavior. Bus. Soc. 55 (4),
550–575.
Segev, S., 2015. Modelling household conservation behaviour among ethnic consumers:
the path from values to behaviours. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39, 193–202.
Sen, A., 2006. What do we want from a theory of justice? J. Philos. CIII (5), 215–238.
Sherwin, D.S., 1983. The ethical roots of the business system. Harv. Bus. Rev. 61,
183–192.
Singh, J., 2016. The influence of CSR and ethical self-identity in consumer evaluation of
cobrands. J. Bus. Ethics 138, 311–326.
Solomon, M.R., 2018. Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. Pearson, New
York.
Song, M., Wang, S., 2018. Market competition, green technology progress and
comparative advantages in China. Manag. Decis. 56 (1), 188–203.
Spence, M., 1973. Job marketing signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87 (3), 355–374.
Stanaland, A.J., Lwin, M.O., Murphy, P.E., 2011. Consumer perceptions of the
antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 102
(1), 47–55.
Straughan Robert, D., Roberts James, A., 1999. Environmental segmentation
alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J. Consum.
Market. 16 (6), 558–575.
Su, L., Pan, Y., Chen, X., 2017. Corporate social responsibility: findings from the Chinese
hospitality industry. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 34, 240–247.
Surroca, J., Trib�o, J.A., Waddock, S., 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial
performance: the role of intangible resources. Strat. Manag. J. 31 (5), 463–490.
Swan, J.E., Bowers, M.R., Richardson, L.D., 1999. Customer trust in the salesperson: an
integrative review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. J. Bus. Res. 44 (2),
93–107.
Tajfel, H., 1978. Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In:
Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Academic Press, London, pp. 61–76.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In:
Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-
Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7–24.
Teng, C.-I., 2017. Impact of avatar identification on online gamer loyalty: perspectives of
social identity and social capital theories. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37, 601–610.
Triandis, H.C., Brislin, R.W., 1984. Cross-cultural psychology. Am. Psychol. 39,
1006–1016.
Tucker Jr., Lewis, R., 1978. The environmentally concerned citizen: some correlates.
Environ. Behav. 10 (3), 389–417.
Utgard, J., 2018. Retail chains’ corporate social responsibility communication. J. Bus.
Ethics 147, 385–400.
Valenzuela, L.M., Mulki, J.P., Jamarillo, J.F., 2010. Impact of customer orientation,
inducements and ethics on loyalty to the firm: customers’ perspective. J. Bus. Ethics
93 (2), 277–291.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions.
J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102082
van Tonder, E., Saunders, S.G., Lisita, I.T., de Beer, L.T., 2018. The importance of
customer citizenship behaviour in the modern retail environment: introducing and
testing a social exchange model. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 45, 92–102.
Vitell, S.J., 2015. A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): including a selected
review of consumer ethics/social responsibility research. J. Bus. Ethics 130 (4),
767–774.
Vlachos, P.A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A.P., Avramidis, P.K., 2009. Corporate social
responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 37, 170–180.
Walker, K., Zhang, Z., Ni, N., 2019. The Mirror effect: corporate social responsibility,
corporate social irresponsibility and firm performance in coordinated market
economies and Liberal market economies. Br. J. Manag. 30 (1), 151–168.
Wang, E.S.T., Chen, Y.C., 2019. Effects of perceived justice of fair trade organizations on
consumers’ purchase intention toward fair trade products. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
50, 66–72.
Wang, Y., Min, Q., Han, S., 2016. Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individual
behavior toward social media platforms: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 34–44.
Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A., Harris, K.E., 2008. A re-examination of socially responsible
consumption and its measurement. J. Bus. Res. 61, 91–98.
Webster Jr., Frederick, E., 1975. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious
consumer. J. Consum. Res. 2, 188–196.
Wells, J.D., Valacich, J.S., Hess, T., 2011. What signal are you sending? How website
quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS Q. 35
(2), 373–396.
Wildt, A.R., 1977. Estimating models of seasonal market response using dummy
variables. J. Market. Res. 14 (1), 34–41.
Woo, M., 2019. Assessing customer citizenship behaviors in the airline industry:
investigation of service quality and value. J. Air Transport. Manag. 76, 40–47.
World Bank, 2019. World development report 2019. www.worldbank.org.
Wu, S.H., Huang, S.C.T., Tsai, C.Y.D., Lin, P.Y., 2017. Customer citizenship behavior on
social networking sites: the role of relationship quality, identification, and service
attributes. Internet Res. 27 (2), 428–448.
Ye, Y., Lau, K.H., Teo, L.K.Y., 2018. Drivers and barriers of omni-channel retailing in
China: a case study of the fashion and apparel industry. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.
46 (7), 657–689.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., 2008. The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer
citizenship behavior and customer dysfunctional behavior. Ind. Market. Manag. 37,
767–783.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., Lee, H., 2013. The impact of other customers on customer citizenship
behavior. Psychol. Market. 30 (4), 341–356.
Yoon, B., Chung, Y., 2018. The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm
performance: a stakeholder approach. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 37, 89–96.
Young, I.M., 1986. The ideal of community and the politics of difference. Soc. Theor.
Pract. 12 (1), 1–26.
Zhao, R., Geng, Y., Liu, Y., Tao, X., Xue, B., 2018. Consumers’ perception, purchase
intention, and willingness to pay for carbon-labeled products: a case study of
Chengdu in China. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 1664–1671.
Zhu, D.H., Sun, H., Chang, Y.P., 2016. Effect of social support on customer satisfaction
and citizenship behavior in online brand communities: the moderating role of
support source. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 287–293.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2011. Evaluating green supply chain management
among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization perspective.
Transport. Res. Part E 47 (6), 808–821.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in China: pressures,
practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (5), 449–468.
Van Thac Dang is Associate Professor in the Business School of Shantou University in
China. He received MBA and PhD from National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan. His
research interests relate to marketing, consumer behavior, strategic management, and
human resource management. He has published in a range of high-quality journals
including Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Asia Pacific Journal of Mar­
keting and Logistics, Journal of Management & Organization, Personnel Review, Chinese
Management Studies, and others.
Ninh Nguyen is a Lecturer of Marketing and Course Advisor at the La Trobe Business
School, Melbourne, Australia. He teaches and publishes in the areas of green marketing,
environmentally friendly behaviour, business sustainability and services marketing. Ninh
has published his work in journals including Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Journal of Consumer Behaviour and Asia Pacific Journal of Mar­
keting and Logistics, among others. He currently sits on the Editorial Board of the Journal
of Consumer Behaviour and the Sustainability journal.
Simon Pervan is Professor of Marketing and Department Head of Entrepreneurship,
Innovation and Marketing at La Trobe Business School. He is an expert on service workers,
brand management, consumer behaviour, scale development and professional doctoral
programs. Simon has published his work in journals including Journal of Service Research,
Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Marketing Letters, Ed­
ucation þ Training and Studies in Continuing Education. He is also a co-author of Strategic
Brand Management, OUP.