Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2021

Contemporary CSR Model: Conceptualization, Scale Development,

and Validation to Measure Consumer Perceptions

Karpal Singh Dara Singh

Graduate School of Business,

Universiti Sains Malaysia

11800, Penang, Malaysia

Email: kirpal005@yahoo.com

Munir A. Abbasi

BSB, Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University

Lyari, Karachi, Pakistan

Email: munir.ahmed@bbsul.edu.pk

Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi

Labuan School of International Finance,

Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Labuan, Malaysia

Email: ghazanfar.abbasi@hotmail.co.uk

Azlan Amran

Graduate School of Business,

Universiti Sains Malaysia

11800, Penang, Malaysia

Email: azlan_amran@usm.my

Essia Ries Ahmed

College of Economics, Management and Information Systems,

University of Nizwa

Birkat Al Mouz, Nizwa, Sultanate of Oman.

Email: e.ahmed@unizwa.edu.om

Abstract

The objectives of this article are twofold. The first objective is to review three CSR models to propose a new

contemporary model of CSR, representing the significant commitments and practices organisations should undertake

in their quest to become socially responsible. The second objective is to develop and validate a new CSR scale to

measure consumer perceptions of organizations' CSR performance-based Drawing on Carroll’s CSR, Vissers’ CSR

2.0 models, and the Bursa Malaysia CSR framework, the research proposes a conceptual framework. A CSR scale

was developed and validated through a large-scale empirical study measuring consumer perceptions involving 909

respondents from Malaysia. The CSR scale items were tested and validated via exploratory factor analysis and

reliability analysis. As a result, the new CSR model consisted of six main dimensions representing key CSR

commitments, and a 27 item CSR scale was validated. The conceptual framework adds value by providing managers

and policymakers with a new way of looking at CSR holistically and comprehensively, enabling the development of

effective CSR initiatives and strategies. In addition, the contemporary scale provides a reliable and valid instrument

to measure consumers' perceptions of their CSR initiatives.

Keywords: Contemporary CSR model, scale development, consumer perceptions

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1. INTRODUCTION

Organisations are increasing their expenditures on CSR related activities (Paluri and Mehra, 2018) because

such investments can help organisations achieve sustainable competitive advantages (Hult, 2011) in terms of

improved corporate reputation (Fan, 2005), brand image (Melo and Galan, 2011), employee satisfaction (Lee &

Chen, 2018; Jiang and Wong, 2016), and positive consumer behaviours (Chung et al., 2015; Planken et al., 2013).

Undoubtedly, CSR has become an essential part of an organisation’s strategy devised to fulfil various stakeholders'

requirements (Freeman, 1984; Post, 2003) through various CSR initiatives and practices. However, one of the

limitations organisations experience in CSR implementation is the complexity of current-day CSR models and

practices pressing for multiple goals on various fronts across economic, social, and environmental areas (Bhardwaj,

2016; Maon et al., 2015). The current study has proposed a new CSR model after comparing two widely used

theoretical models and one practical CSR model through benchmarking (Lucertini, M., Nicolò, & Telmon, 1995).

Among the theoretical models, one is Carroll’s CSR model, which is considered as CSR 1.0 (Munro, 2020; Visser,

2011), and the other is Visser’s CSR model, which has been recognised as CSR 2.0 (Visser, 2011).

Carrol's (1979) and Visser's (2010) CSR models are widely used and considered as a baseline to measure an

organization's CSR performance, especially from a consumer perspective (Fatima, Rehman & Khan, 2016).

However, they face certain limitations when it comes to measuring CSR performance's emerging facets in today's

corporate world. For example, Carroll's model, considered as the best CSR model, originally had a four-dimensional

manifestation of CSR, as follows: "economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic)," is criticised for not

being able to adequately explain the complex relationships between business, society, and the environment (Jamali

& Abdullah, 2015). Likewise, Claydon (2011) argued that the model somehow fails to explain how a healthy bottom

line can ensure that CSR is achieved and vice-versa. Because Visser (2005) raised a similar question, he pointed out

that Carroll's CSR model lacks consideration for environmental management and corporate sustainability. In

addition to that, Aras and Crowther (2009) assert that sustainability is essential as environmental performance is

linked with organisations' financial performance because an environmentally conscious but bankrupt business is not

good for anyone (Armstrong, 1977).

Visser (2010), addressing the implementation issues of Carrol's CSR model, developed a CSR 2.0 model,

which outlines four dimensions (value creation, good governance, societal contribution, and environmental

integrity). Despite the usefulness of Visser's (2010) CSR 2.0 model, regarding its implementation as it is embedded

with specific goals and clearly defined vital indicators associated with each CSR dimension, its empirical research

adoption is limited (Moratis, 2016; Golja, 2019). It also falls behind on growing aspects of CSR such as workplace

issues and legal compliance, because aspects of CSR such as workplace concerns or workplace ethics are attracting

more consumer attention in today's business environment. The workplace concerns dimension of CSR has been

addressed in the CSR framework proposed by Bursa Malaysia (a corporate regulatory body) for Malaysian

organizations in their pursuit of taking CSR initiatives (Bidin, 2008). Although the Malaysian CSR framework

includes workplace concerns, it could not consider value creation, legal compliance, or good governance

considerations. (See Table 1)

Table 1: Limitations of CSR 1.0, CSR 2.0, and BM CSR Framework

Contemporary CSR Dimension

Strategic Goal

CSR 1.0

CSR 2.0

BM CSR

Framework

Value Creation

Economic Development

Legal Compliance

Legitimate Operations

Good Governance

Institutional Effectiveness

Philanthropic Engagement

Stakeholder Orientation

Workplace Concern

Employee Wellbeing

Environmental Integrity

Sustainable Ecosystem

N=No, Y=Yes

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Since the two widely practiced CSR models (CSR 1.0 & CSR 2.0) and one practical CSR framework do not

provide a complete story for the practising organizations about CSR implementation and reporting, the fruits of CSR

have not been materialized to gain strategic advantage for the practising organizations because they could not

communicate and measure the feedback of stakeholders, especially the consumers. As a result of combining CSR

1.0, CSR 2.0, and a practical framework, this study proposes a modern model of CSR that incorporates all aspects of

CSR activities presented by these models into a single model in this study. Once the model of contemporary CSR is

developed, it will need a scale to measure the perception of stakeholders, especially the consumers, to gauge the

benefits of contemporary CSR practices for the organizations. Therefore, this study serves two objectives. One is to

develop a model for contemporary CSR, and the second is to develop a scale of contemporary CSR for measuring

consumers' perceptions. The significance of this study can be judged from its contribution to the literature as it

offers a contemporary CSR model that highlights the emerging facets of CSR and the key characteristics or

organizational actions that correspond to each of the facets. Moreover, developing a new multidimensional scale for

measuring consumer perception of firms' CSR initiatives would be a significant addition to the CSR literature. From

the pragmatic perspective, the new model can certainly be used as a guideline and reference by decision-makers in

developing various CSR initiatives and practices in their respective organisations. The present study may be

considered as a baseline for firms to develop relevant CSR strategies.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

An orthodox view, termed the neo-classical approach (Gardiner et al., 2003; Moir, 2001), was developed by

Milton Friedman, who asserted that a business's social responsibility is to increase its profits. Companies are

accountable exclusively to shareholders (Friedman, 1971). This could perhaps be termed the shareholders' theory of

CSR. Conversely, Freeman (1984) introduced the term stakeholder theory and argued that systematic attention to

stakeholder interest is critical to the firm's success. According to Stark (1994), this is probably the most influential

theory to emerge within CSR's ambit. Argandona (1998) and Post (2003) argued that organisations' CSR related

investments should prioritize their various stakeholders, while Pirsch et al. (2007) suggested the need for striking a

balance between satisfying both profit concerns and societal concerns when reaching out to various stakeholders.

This societal and organisational interdependence should not be overlooked as organisational decisions may affect

society the same way societal decisions may affect the organisation (Quazi, 2003). CSR must be seen as a business

strategy that creates value and protects both the company and society (Singh et al., 2021). It calls for a shift of

attention from shareholders to stakeholders. Instead of focusing on maximising shareholder returns alone, an

organisation needs to adopt a pluralist view and ensure that it is also creating value and is seen as successful by its

stakeholders.

Plethora of previous researches have focused on the role, nature, and dynamics of CSR. Lately, an emerging

body of literature has been examining the need for regulating CSR and the role of law (Malesky & Taussig, 2019;

Idemudia & Kwakyewah, 2018; Situ, Tilt, & Seet, 2018; Dentchev, Haezendonck, & van Balen, 2017; Malesky &

Taussig, 2017). However, the imposition of regulation on corporations for CSR faces several challenges in the

absence of consensus on the nature of the obligations that businesses have under current CSR models. As Dentchev

et al. (2017) suggest, some researchers emphasize the fact that managers of an organization have duties towards the

stakeholders as they are agents of the organization, but they do not go beyond that point. Thus, CSR lacks legal

accountability for the non-performance of social obligations by organizations. This has steered CSR as an

instrument more to advance strategic interests than as a required obligation for an organization (Carroll and Shabana

2010; Lamarche & Bodet, 2018).

As discussed in the introduction section, Carroll's CSR (1979; 1991) model, labelled CSR 1.0, is considered the

first framework to provide a holistic and structural conceptualization of the CSR facets (refer to Figure 1).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Figure 1: Carroll’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid

Source: Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: towards the moral management of organizational

stakeholders. Business Horizons, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 42.

According to Carroll (1991), economic responsibilities refer to society's expectation that organisations will

produce and market goods and services needed and desired by the customers at affordable rates in a profitable

manner. At the second tier lies the legal responsibility, whereby organisations must comply with all laws and by-

laws affecting the industry within which they operate. The third tier is the ethical layer, where organisations are

expected to do more by going beyond the minimum extent of the law and conduct their affairs in a fair and just way

and make proactive efforts where necessary to meet society's norms, which may not be formally enacted by law.

Finally, at the philanthropic level, the last tier requires organisations to exemplify behaviours consistent with being a

good citizen by contributing time, effort, and resources where they are needed (Carroll, 1991). Following the CSR

1.0 model, Elkington (1998) proposed a triple bottom line model of CSR. However, this model did not get wider

acceptance to measure the stakeholder perception within the corporate world because it was considered merely a

compliance apparatus for seeking recognition in sustainability indices (Hubbard, 2009). Similarly, Aras and

Crowther (2009) proposed a sustainable development model of CSR Though it was considered comprehensive, it

still could not earn acclaim to be CSR 2.0 because of its abstract (rather than pragmatic) nature (Claydon, 2011).

Visser (2010) stresses that there is still no CSR model that has enabled the genuinely successful

implementation of CSR. He argued that the global ecological footprint has tripled in 40 years and CSR 1.0 needs to

be converted into an actionable strategy for the organization (Visser, 2010). Therefore, he proposed a new CSR

model, which happens to be known as CSR 2.0.

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Table 2: The Characteristics of CSR 2.0 Model

DNA CODE

STRATEGIC

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS

VALUE

CREATION

Economic

Development

Capital investment (financial, manufacturing, social, human and natural

capital.

Beneficial products (sustainable & responsible goods and services)

Inclusive business (wealth distribution, bottom of the pyramid markets)

GOOD

GOVERNANCE

Institutional

Effectiveness

Leadership (strategic commitment to sustainability & responsibility)

Transparency (sustainability & responsibility reporting, government

payments)

Ethical practices (bribery and corruption prevention, values in business)

SOCIETAL

CONTRIBUTION

Stakeholder

Orientation

Philanthropy (charitable donations, provision of public goods and services)

Fair labour practices (working conditions, employee rights, health & safety)

Supply chain integrity (SME empowerment, labour& environmental

standards)

ENVIRONMENTAL

INTEGRITY

Sustainable

Ecosystems

Ecosystem protection (biodiversity conservation & ecosystem restoration)

Renewable resources (tackling climate change, renewable energy and

materials)

Zero waste production (cradle-to-cradle processes, waste elimination)

Source: Visser, W. (2011) The DNA Model of CSR 2.0: Value Creation, Good Governance, Societal Contribution and Ecological

Integrity, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 9.

The CSR 2.0 model has four DNA responsibilities: value creation, good governance, societal contribution, and

environmental integrity. The value creation base indicates the goal of economic development, which means

enriching the shareholders and executives and improving the business in which a company operates, such as creating

more jobs, providing skills development, etc. The good governance base denotes institutional effectiveness, which is

as important as the social and environmental ideals. The CSR efforts would be wasted if the institution is not

transparent and fair. Thirdly, the societal contribution addresses the goal of stakeholder orientation. The

philanthropy is placed at its correct position in CSR. Finally, environmental integrity sets the goal of sustainable

ecosystems, which does not mean minimising the negative effect on the environment; yet it states some sense of the

ambition in terms of renewable energy and zero waste (Visser, 2011). It calls on organisations to protect ecosystems

and play a part in preserving and restoring the environment. Unfortunately, the model has not been subjected to

much research by scholars; hence its empirical robustness is yet to be ascertained (Claydon, 2011).

Other than these theoretical models of CSR, the practical CSR framework of Bursa Malaysia is designed with

the objective of simplifying the implementation of CSR initiatives for the corporate sector (Biden, 2008). The Bursa

Malaysia CSR model includes employee wellbeing, which seems to be missing in CSR 1.0 and CSR 2.0. The

framework looks at four main focal areas for CSR practice: environment, community, marketplace, and employee

well-being (Bidin, 2008).

Table 3: Bursa Malaysia’s CSR Framework

DIMENSIONS

ACTIONS

Environment

Climate Change, Energy (Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Biofuel), Waste Management,

Biodiversity, and Endangered Wildlife;

Community

Employee Volunteerism, Education (Schools Adoption Scheme), Youth Development,

Underprivileged, Graduate Employment and Children;

Marketplace

Green Products, Stakeholder Engagement, Ethical Procurement, Supplier Management, Vendor

Development, Social Branding and Corporate Governance; and

Workplace

Employee Involvement, Workplace Diversity, Gender Issues, Human Capital

Development, Quality of Life, Labour Rights, Human Rights and Health & Safety.

Source: Shirley, C., Suan, A., and Leng, C. (2009). CSR reporting in Malaysia: An analysis of website reporting of second

board companies listed in Bursa Malaysia. SEG Review, 2 (2), 85 – 98.

However, it appears that the model above is practical in stating the dimensions and the corresponding actions. It

provides Malaysian organisations with a framework and acts as a guideline as to the type of CSR commitments and

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

actions they should be undertaking in their quest to become socially responsible. This model, much like Visser's

(2010) model, could also be subject to more empirical studies to assess its effectiveness, relevance, and validity in a

Malaysian context.

Despite the usefulness of these models, each of these three models is lacking in one or another aspect. Though

the CSR 1.0 model has pioneering status in the CSR literature, it lacks manifestation of contemporary CSR practices

because of its old and conservative nature, which tilts it towards the theory of shareholders rather than stakeholders.

Moreover, the CSR pyramid appears to be more normative and presents an aspiration of the CSR responsibilities the

organisations should undertake and it is short of descriptions on the nature and types of practices organisations

should be committing themselves to to be deemed socially responsible (Edmondson & Carroll, 1999; Maignan 2001;

Amaeshi et al., 2006; Visser, 2006; Ramasamy and Yeung, 2009; Pederson, 2010; Baden, 2016). In addition to that,

the CSR 1.0 pyramid has missed the corporation's responsibilities towards environmental integrity, employee well-

being, good governance, and the comprehensive concept of economic development, which demands value creation

for all stakeholders rather than just shareholders ((Jamali & Abdullah, 2015). Similarly, the CSR 2.0 model has a

competitive edge over CSR 1.0 in exhibiting CSR through comprehensive economic development in the form of

value creation, with a higher focus on environmental integrity and good governance, but it failed to shape the

organization's CSR actions towards employee wellbeing and philanthropic engagement (Claydon, 2011; Kristina

Johnson, 2019).The Bursa Malaysia CSR framework looks to have addressed employee well-being in an actionable

CSR framework, yet there are a number of areas where it falls short. . See table 1 for comparative analysis. Based on

the above discussion, this study has proposed a new CSR model which will take into account contemporary CSR

facets in a single model; the organization can translate them into actionable strategies to reap the benefits of CSR

spending. (See table 1)

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Carroll (2021) suggests that organizations' CSR manifestations are different in today's corporate world from

what they were 40 years ago, especially during the Covid 19 pandemic. As a result, in order to meet the study's first

goal was to assess the current CSR models in order to establish a modern model of CSR, thus, the CSR 1.0, 2.0, and

Bursa Malaysia were chosen for benchmarking. (Carroll, 1979; 1991; Visser, 2010). Accordingly, a contemporary

model of CSR has been proposed to provide a guiding lens to the organization in pursuit of implementing CSR

initiatives (See Table 4).

Table 4: Proposed Contemporary Model of CSR

CSR DIMENSIONS

SOURCES

Value Creation

(Carroll, 1991; Visser, 2010)

Legal Compliance

(Carroll, 1991)

Good Governance

(Visser, 2010)

Philanthropical Engagements

(Carroll, 1991; Bursa Malaysia)

Workplace Concerns

(Bursa Malaysia)

Environmental Integrity

(Visser, 2010: Bursa Malaysia)

The proposed model of CSR has taken into account the shortcomings of the three discussed models in the

context of extant manifestations of CSR initiatives, which include value creation, legal compliance, good

governance, philanthropic engagement, workplace concerns, and environmental integrity. Each manifestation is

discussed in the following section.

3.1 Value Creation

The value creation base indicates the goal of economic development, which means enriching the shareholders

and executives and improving the business in which a company operates, such as creating more jobs, providing

skills development, etc. This is partially in line with Carroll's (1991) view that economic responsibility is the

fundamental commitment of an organisation, based on which the organisation continues to grow and expand for the

greater good (Carroll, 2016).

3.2 Legal Compliance

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Visser's (2010) model does not explicitly mention legal compliance as an essential construct. This could be

based on the assumption that legal compliance is automatically required and enforced by regulators. Secondly,

Visser's model assumes that legal compliance is generally embedded within the excellent governance construct,

which could lead to confusion and improper interpretation to the disadvantage of organisations. Carroll (1991), on

the other hand, placed the legal as the second most crucial construct after the economic construct on the basis that

complying with all laws and by-laws set down by the society to govern an organisation is essential as it protects and

promotes the interest of all stakeholders in general.

3.3 Good Governance

All CSR efforts will be futile if organisations are not governed, transparent and fair (Visser, 2010). Good

governance is enforced by law for all public limited corporations in Malaysia under corporate governance and

accountability. However, this may not be the case for private limited firms and sole proprietors. Being transparent,

with ethical conduct, responsible management, and leadership are essential aspects of good governance. Although

not clearly stated, this dimension is embedded within the ethical responsibilities of Carroll's CSR pyramid (Feltus &

Petit, 2009).Moreover, good governance enables corporate openness, allows stakeholders to analyse business-

specific information (Bushman et al., 2004) and increase firm trust (Jensen, 2002). ).

3.4 Philanthropical Engagement

Referred to as philanthropical responsibility in the CSR 1.0 model, philanthropical engagement includes

engaging in societal issues by supporting programs benefiting a community or the nation. It also includes

involvement in charitable activities, donations, sponsorship, or providing employee expertise and time to noble and

worthy causes. In Visser's (2010) model, this was embedded and grouped within the societal contribution, which

addresses the goal of stakeholder orientation. The philanthropy and the importance of fair labour practices, grouped

under societal contribution in the CSR 2.0 DNA of the CSR model, could be misleading and lead to conflicting

priorities. Organisations may reach out to society through various programs at the expense of their employees, who

may be ignored and vice versa. Given this shortcoming of Visser's Model, philanthropical engagement is proposed,

and issues concerning employees and fair labour practices amongst other relevant practices are placed under the

workplace concern dimensions discussed below.

3.5 Workplace Concerns

This dimension is part of Bursa Malaysia's CSR framework. It is crucial to distinguish philanthropical from

employee-related concerns clearly. There have been far too many organisations involved in cases relating to

employees, ranging from a harsh working environment, discrimination, and poor treatment of workers, which has

invited a considerable amount of media attention. Leading organisations renowned for CSR commitments, such as

Starbucks and Bodyshop, have clear written codes and values towards their employees. It will be imperative to

specify employee concerns as an important dimension of CSR if organisations are keen on adopting CSR. Neither

Carroll (1991) nor Visser (2010) depicted this construct as important within their models. Visser (2010) instead

grouped this within the societal contribution construct. It is equally important to reach out to stakeholders before an

organisation can engage in philanthropical engagements with stakeholders outside the organisation because 'charity

begins at home'.

3.6 Environmental Integrity

This dimension was not clearly depicted in the CSR 1.0 model but is generally lumped within ethical

responsibilities. However, the CSR 2.0 model spells out the need for an organisation to do its part for the

environment, which sets the bar higher than just minimising damage but maintaining and improving ecosystem

sustainability (Aras & Crowther, 2009; Visser, 2010). Even Bursa Malaysia depicts this requirement in its CSR

Model, which shows the growing environmental consciousness amongst society and governments. This dimension

requires organisations to take a proactive stance in playing their part for the environment through environmentally

friendly practices while pursuing business operations. A comparison of the proposed model with CSR 1.0 and 2.0 is

presented in detail in table 5.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 5 Comparison of Proposed Model with CSR 1.0 & 2.0 Models

No.

Proposed Model

Carroll’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid

Vessar 2010 Model

CSR

DIMENSIONS

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

CSR

DIMENSIONS

Goal

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

DNA

CODE

STRATEGIC

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS

VALUE CREATION

Economic Development

Capital investment

(financial, manufacturing,

social, human and natural

capital.

Beneficial products

(sustainable &

responsible goods and

services)

Inclusive business

(wealth distribution,

bottom of the pyramid

markets)

Economic Responsibility

Be profitable

The foundation upon which all others

rest.

VALUE CREATION

Economic Development

Capital investment

(financial,

manufacturing, social,

human and natural

capital.

eneficial products

ustainable &

responsible goods and

services)

Inclusive business

(wealth distribution,

bottom of the pyramid

markets)

LEGAL COMPLIANCE

Legitimate Operations

Compliance to all laws

and by laws affecting the

industry and the

organizat

ion, including

statut

ory requirements,

employment laws,

product safety laws,

environmental protection

laws, safety and health

legislations, and etc.

Legal Responsibility

Obey the law

Law is society's codification of right

and wrong. Play by the rules of

regime.

NA NA NA

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

No.

Proposed Model

Carroll’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid

Vessar 2010 Model

CSR

DIMENSIONS

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

CSR

DIMENSIONS

Goal

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

DNA

CODE

STRATEGIC

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS

GOOD GOVERNANCE

Institutional Effectiveness

Leadership (strategic

commitment to

sustainability &

responsibility)

Transparency

(sustainability &

responsibility reporting,

government payments)

Ethical practices (bribery

and corruption

ention, values in

business)

NA NA NA

GOOD GOVERNANCE

Institutional Effectiveness

Leadership (strategic

commitment to

sustainability &

responsibility)

Transparency

(sustainability &

responsibility reporting,

government payments)

Ethical practices

(bribery and corruption

preven

tion, values in

business)

WORKPLACE CONCERNS

Employee Wellbeing

Fair labour practices

(working conditions,

employee rights, health &

safety, employee

Involvement, workplace

diversity, gender Issues,

human capital

development, quali

ty of

life, equal opportunities,

non – discrimination).

Supply chain integrity

(SME empowerment,

labour & environmental

standards)

NA NA NA

SOCIETAL CONTRIBUTION

Stakeholder Orientation

Fair labour practices

(working conditions,

employee rights, health

& safety)

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

No.

Proposed Model

Carroll’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid

Vessar 2010 Model

CSR

DIMENSIONS

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

CSR

DIMENSIONS

Goal

KEY INDICATORS /

PRACTICES

DNA

CODE

STRATEGIC

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS

PHILANTHROPICAL ENGAGEMENTS

Community Outreach

Employee Volunteerism,

Education (Schools

Adoption Scheme), Youth

Development,

Underprivileged,

Graduate Employment

and Children, charitable

donations, sponsorships,

scholarships, support for

socially beneficial events

and causes, provision of

public goods and

services)

Philanthropical Responsibility

Be a good corporate

Contribute resources to the

community. Improve Quality of life

SOCIETAL CONTRIBUTION

Stakeholder Orientation

Philanthropy (charitable

donations, provision of

public goods and

services)

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY

Sustainable Ecosystems

Ecosystem protection

(biodiversity conservation

& ecosystem restoration).

Renewable resources

(tackling climate change,

renewable energy and

materials

). Zero waste

production (cradle-to-

cradle processes, waste

elimination)

NA NA NA

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY

Sustainable Ecosystems

Ecosystem protection

(biodiversity

conservation &

ecosystem restoration)

Renewable resources

(tackling climate

change, renewable

energy and materials)

Zero waste production

(cradle-to-cradle

processes, waste

elimination)

7 NA NA NA

Ethical Responsibility

Be ethical

Obligation to do what is right, just

and fair. Avoid harm

NA NA NA

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Table 6 summarizes the proposed CSR Model, outlining the CSR dimensions, its goals, and its characteristics

or key practices.

Table 6: Proposed Contemporary Model of CSR: Dimensions and Characteristics

Source: Author’s own based on Adaptations made from: -

Visser, W. (2011) The DNA Model of CSR 2.0: Value Creation, Good Governance, Societal Contribution and Ecological

Integrity, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 9

Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: towards the moral management of organizational

stakeholders, Business Horizons, July – August, 39 – 47

Shirley, C., Suan, A., and Leng, C. (2009), CSR Reporting in Malaysia: An Analysis of Website Reporting of Second Board

Companies listed in Bursa Malaysia, SEG Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 85 – 98

The second objective of this study is to develop and validate a scale of the proposed model of contemporary

CSR to measure consumers' perceptions. Various scales measure the perception of consumers of CSR either based

on the CSR 1.0 or CSR 2.0 models (Aupperle, 1984; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Chow & Chen, 2011; Perez et al.,

2013). To enhance the usefulness of the proposed CSR model, it would be required to develop a new scale because

the lack of a unified scale would make it challenging to get consistent results across the studies in various contexts

(Coles et al., 2013).

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Item Generation

The study's second objective involves developing a new CSR scale aligned with the proposed contemporary

CSR model. Items for the value creation, legal compliance, and philanthropical engagement dimensions were

CSR DIMENSIONS

GOALS

KEY INDICATORS / PRACTICES

VALUE CREATION

Economic

Development

Capital investment (financial, manufacturing, social, human and natural

capital.

Beneficial products (sustainable & responsible goods and services)

Inclusive business (wealth distribution, bottom of the pyramid markets)

LEGAL COMPLIANCE

Legitimate

Operations

Compliance to all laws and by laws affecting the industry and the

organization, including statutory requirements, employment laws, product

safety laws, environmental protection laws, safety and health legislations,

and etc.

GOOD GOVERNANCE

Institutional

Effectiveness

Leadership (strategic commitment to sustainability & responsibility)

Transparency (sustainability & responsibility reporting, government

payments)

Ethical practices (bribery and corruption prevention, values in business)

WORKPLACE

CONCERNS

Employee

Wellbeing

Fair labour practices (working conditions, employee rights, health &

safety, employee Involvement, workplace diversity, gender Issues, human

capital development, quality of life, equal opportunities, non –

discrimination).

Supply chain integrity (SME empowerment, labour & environmental

standards)

PHILANTHROPICAL

ENGAGEMENTS

Community

Outreach

Employee Volunteerism, Education (Schools Adoption Scheme), Youth

Development, Underprivileged, Graduate Employment and Children,

charitable donations, sponsorships, scholarships, support for socially

beneficial events and causes, provision of public goods and services)

ENVIRONMENTAL

INTEGRITY

Sustainable

Ecosystems

Ecosystem protection (biodiversity conservation & ecosystem restoration)

Renewable resources (tackling climate change, renewable energy and

materials)

Zero waste production (cradle-to-cradle processes, waste elimination)

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

adapted from Aupperle et al. (1984) and Herrera et al. (2017). In contrast, items for good governance, environmental

integrity, and workplace concerns were constructed by referring to past literature making references to the key

indicators specified in the contemporary model as seen in table 5, and focus group interviews with professionals. A

total of 37 items were initially developed and screened based on Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) key elimination

criteria, comprising (i) double argument, (ii) connotations conditioning the respondent's answer, (iii) ambiguous

items, (iv) implicit assumptions, and (v) relation to more than one CSR dimension. After examining the 37 items,

seven items were eliminated based on the outcome of the discussion with a focus group of professionals working in

the corporate sector of Malaysia (El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck & Igalens, 2018), leaving 30 items for the

screening phase.

4.2 Screening

To establish the content validity of the remaining 30 items, a panel of experts scrutinised the list of items

(DeVellis, 1991). In line with Ouellett’s (2007) recommendations, the panel comprised six experts, including four

academicians and two corporate leaders. Of the academicians two were professors. One professor was from the CSR

cluster and used to be an industry consultant and CSR strategist, and the other professor was from the management

cluster. The remaining two academicians were full-time Ph.D. students and used to be on the teaching faculty in

their countries with more than five years of teaching experience in business ethics and corporate governance. One of

the corporate leaders was a CEO of a multinational manufacturing plant in Malaysia, and another one was a senior

manager of CSR initiatives in a US multinational based in Malaysia. The experts reviewed each item based on the

criteria of redundancy, uncorrelation, content ambiguity (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004), and item representativeness

for each dimension (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The experts' reviews resulted in 2 items being dropped and they

recommended changes in sentence structure and choice of words for some of the remaining items, resulting in a list

of 28 items.

4.3 Pilot Testing

The 28 items were incorporated into a questionnaire anchored on a 5-point Likert scale and pretested in a pilot

study on 40 respondents as students on an evening program designed for professionals. The eligibility criterion for

this MBA program is a minimum of five years' work experience. The students were full-time employed, and active

consumers selected through convenience sampling. Their consumerism was ensured by including a screening

question at the beginning of the survey. Although the numbers of respondents was small, it gave a general idea

about the internal consistency of all the questionnaire items. Using Cronbach's alpha coefficient values, all collected

questionnaires were assessed via reliability analysis to ensure that all items were consistent and reliable (Abbasi et

al., 2020; Moon et al., 2018). Nunally (1978) suggested that the Cronbach alpha should be set at 0.70 and above.

Sekaran (2003), on the other hand, suggested that Cronbach's alpha should be within the range of 0.60 to 0.80. The

Cronbach’s alpha (as seen in Table 6) for all the variables was above 0.70 and hence was considered to have an

acceptable level of reliability (Nunally, 1978; Sekaran, 2003).

Table 7: Reliability Analysis for Pilot Testing

Variables Items Cronbach Alpha

CSR DIMENSIONS

Value Creation 5 0.808

Legal Compliance 4 0.857

Good Governance 5 0.823

Philanthropical Engagements 5 0.785

Workplace Concerns 4 0.713

Environmental Integrity 5 0.757

4.4 Sample and Procedure

In this methodological stage, an empirical study was carried out for validation of the scale. The questionnaires

were then distributed to the sample population. The researcher targeted 100 respondents representing general

consumers from 12 states within the West of Malaysia, bringing the total sample size to 1200 respondents to make a

valuable and reliable contribution to this study. According to Sekaran (2000), in increasingly heterogeneous

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

societies, quota sampling can be expected to be used more frequently due to changing demographics. Given the fact

that Malaysia is a multi-racial country, there could be significant heterogeneity across consumers in their reactions

towards CSR practices (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Quota sampling would help ensure that the sample is as

representative as possible of the population being studied. The sample population would be divided into strata

according to the main ethnic groups in Malaysia (30% Malays, 30% Chinese, 30% Indians, and 10% other ethnic

minorities), gender (50% males and 50% females), and employment sectors (50% from the government sector and

50% from the private sectors). The IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 22 was

employed to analyse the data gathered in this study. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe the

demographic characteristics of the respondents. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were undertaken to test the

validity and uni-dimensionality of items of the CSR Dimensions, and finally, reliability analysis was carried out by

gauging the Cronbach's alpha coefficient in order to test the reliability of the questionnaire items (Papadas,

Avlonitis, & Carrigan, 2017). The EFA is deemed to be more appropriate in the early stages of scale development as

compared to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is not able to show how items load on non hypothesised

factors (Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, Murphy & Gruber, 2014; Joo, Miller, & Fink, 2019). Another justification for the

underlying use of EFA is that the misspecification of the number of variables during the early stages of scale

development is usually not detected by CFA (Kelloway, 1995).

5. FINDINGS

A total of 950 questionnaires were collected, out of which 41 were deemed unsuitable, bringing the total usable

questionnaires to 909. Males made up 50.9% (463 male) of the total population. The highest number of respondents

was from the 30-39 years age group, with a total of 349 (38.4%) respondents. In terms of ethnicity, the highest

respondents were Malays, with a total of 404 respondents (44.4%), the second highest respondents were Chinese,

with a total of 249 respondents (27.4%), followed by Indians, with a total of 205 respondents (22.6%) and the final

group of respondents was 41 (5.6%), representing other ethnic groups in Malaysia. Table 7 presents the socio-

demographic profile of the respondents.

Table 8: Respondents' Socio-Demographic Profile.

Frequency (N 909)

Percentage (%)

Gender

Male

463

50.9

Female

446

49.1

Age

20 – 29

284

31.2

30 – 39

349

38.4

40 – 49

179

16.9

Above 50

10.7

Ethnicity

Malay

404

44.4

Chinese

249

27.4

Indian

205

22.6

Others

5.6

5.1 Exploratory factor analysis for CSR Instrument

EFA was performed to test the validity of the scale used in measuring corporate social responsibility

dimensions, which included, value creation (VC), legal responsibility (LR), good governance (GG), philanthropical

engagement (PE), workplace concerns (WC), and environmental integrity (EI). The analysis began with the

evaluation of the appropriateness of the data or correlation matrix for factor analysis. For the data matrix to be

appropriate for factor analysis (factorability of the correlation matrix), there must be a sufficient number of

statistically significant correlations in the matrix, as indicated by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of

sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO measure should be at least 0.6, and Bartlett's test of

sphericity should be significant (p<0.05) (Abbasi et al., 2021; Tariq et al., 2021; Hair et al., 1998; Pallant, 2003)

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 8 shows that WC3 and LR1 recorded loading values below 0.45 and cross-loadings above 0.30. LR1 fell

within its factor but had a loading value of 0.369, and WC 3 did not fall within its factor and had a loading value of

0.369 with a cross-loading value of -0.373. The readings of both these items before being removed in the subsequent

factor analysis were as follows: -

Table 9: Items with Poor Loadings

Item No

LR1: The organization performs in a manner consistent with expectations of

the government and law.

.369

WC3: The organization maintains a safe and healthy working environment.

.369

-.373

Therefore, these items were deleted from the items of the CSR instrument. Table 9 summarises the result of the

analysis based on SPSS outputs. All the items for the CSR dimensions loaded onto six factors with eigenvalues

exceeding 1. All the loading values exceeded the threshold of 0.45, with cross-loadings below 0.35. Therefore, the

data matrix satisfies the conditions of factor analysis. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.940, above the

recommended level of 0.60, and Bartlett's test of sphericity is significant (p<0.01). Therefore, the items are

appropriate for factor analysis. These six factors explain 57.31% of the variance in the data.

Table 10: Rotated Factor Loadings for Corporate Social Responsibility

Variable

Item

Component

Environment

Integrity

EI3

The organization adopts green practices

when manufacturing and marketing

products.

.738 .211 .125 .165 .088 .065

EI4

The company is committed to

eliminating waste.

.723 .095 .119 .107 .185 .116

EI5

Organizations should be committed to

ensure that its activities do not harm the

environment and its biodiversity.

.715 .105 .166 .125 .144 .207

EI2

The organization tries to explore and

utilize alternative and renewable energy

sources.

.657 .175 .121 .131 .162 .031

EI1

The organization is committed to

protecting and preserving the

environment.

.589 .275 .129 .134 .229 .082

Philanthropical

Engagements

PE2

The organization should provide aid

and support the arts, cultural and

community programmes.

.121 .734 .082 .129 .203 .010

PE4

It is important to provide assistance to

private and public educational

institutions.

.144 .727 .156 .140 .114 .096

PE3

It is important that managers and

employees participate in voluntary and

charitable activities within their local

communities.

.133 .718 .065 .183 .163 .085

PE5

The organization tries to assist in

projects that enhance a community’s

“quality of life.”

.197 .664 .170 .088 .082 .238

PE1

Organizations should try to fulfill the

charitable expectations of society.

.217 .582 .179 .081 .155 .159

Legal

Compliance

LR4

Organizations should fulfill their legal

obligations.

.120 .133 .757 .216 .106 .105

LR3

It is important to be a law-abiding

corporate citizen.

.160 .148 .741 .216 .102 .102

LR5

Organizations should provide goods

and services that meet legal

requirements.

.165 .157 .673 .231 .090 .206

LR2

It is important to comply with various

.160

.166

.618

.299

.116

.071

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

federal, state, and industrial regulations.

Variable

Item

Component

Value

Creation

VC3

A successful firm should contribute towards the

society

and the country.

.174 .130 .136 .706 .082 .202

VC2

To maintain its competitive position

organizations should operate efficiently.

.163 .099 .197 .671 .047 .091

VC4

Organizations should sustain itself for greater

economic good.

.146 .123 .192 .659 .139 .158

VC5

It is important for firms to make products and

services that are value added.

.111 .095 .174 .646 .182 .182

VC1

Organizations need to be profitable to sustain

themselves.

.037 .139 .160 .547 .121 .062

Workplace

Concerns

WC1

Organizations should perform in a manner that

is consistent with the expectations of

employees.

.105 .258 .038 .161 .692 .007

WC5

It is important to have business engagements

only with those organizations that are fair to

their employees

.207 .145 .081 .064 .683 .096

WC2

Firms should be committed to preserving and

enhancing the wellbeing of employees.

.169 .183 .198 .222 .661 .059

WC4

It is important to be fair and provide equal

opportunities regardless of gender, race or status

to all employees.

.269 .099 .139 .130 .599 .205

Good

Governance

GG1

Corporate leaders should be accountable for all

their actions.

-.061 .136 -.073 .178 -.108 .629

GG5

Organizations should adopt ethical practices to

prevent corruption, bribery and any other

unethical actions.

.319 .115 .289 .107 .194 .604

GG4

It is important to have clear ethical guidelines

and policies.

.208 .147 .408 .100 .277 .585

GG2

Organizations should maintain transparency in

terms of honest disclosure of information to the

government and the public,

.295 .175 .270 .144 .259 .546

GG3

Leaders and managers should be exemplary in

their conduct in the organization.

.230 .142 .385 .120 .280 .523

Eigenvalues

9.299

1.823

1.522

1.267

1.141

.994

Percentage of Variance Explained

33.212

6.510

5.437

4.526

4.076

3.550

Total Variance Explained (%)

57.31%

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

.940

Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity

9693.470**

5.2 Reliability Analysis

As demonstrated in table 10, all constructs exceeded the recommended 0.7 Cronbach’s Alpha value, except for

good governance. The researcher decided to drop GG1 as the value of Cronbach’s Alpha would increase by a large

degree from 0.541 to 0.829. According to DeVellis (2012), ideally, a Cronbach alpha coefficient of a scale should be

more than 0.7. Consequently, Cronbach's alpha for all the variables shows a value higher than 0.70, as suggested by

Bryman & Bell (2010), DeVellis (2012) and Nunally, (1978). Thus, it can be concluded that all the measures have

acceptable levels of reliability.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 11: Reliability Analysis

CSR DIMENSIONS Items

Initial Cronbach’s

Alpha

Number of

Items Deleted

Final

Cronbach’s Alpha

Value Creation 5 0.757 - 0.757

Legal Compliance 4 0.809 - 0.809

Good Governance 5 0.541 1 0.829

Philanthropical Engagements 5 0.811 - 0.811

Workplace Concerns 4 0.733 - 0.733

Environmental Integrity 5 0.817 - 0.817

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Theoretical Contributions: Over the years, researchers have been clinging on to Carroll's (1991) CSR pyramid

model and the forced-choice instrument by Aupperle et al. (1984) in carrying out a host of CSR related studies.

There was a need to review Carroll's (1979, 1991) model and develop a new one, leading Visser (2010) to develop

the CSR 2.0 Model. Visser's (2010) model could be considered as an evolutionary model of CSR, in which he

replaced the ethical responsibility of Carroll with good governance and renamed philanthropical responsibility as the

societal contribution, which also included fair labour practices and introduced a new dimension, environmental

integrity, to signify the increasing role organisations have towards the environment in the wake of global warming

and climate change. Visser's (2010) model was relatively new and has not been subjected to much research to teste

its empirical robustness. Bursa Malaysia (BM), formerly known as KLSE (Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange), the

governing body of the stock exchange in Malaysia, has also put forward a CSR framework that can be used as a

guideline for Malaysian corporations keen to embark on CSR. This model was also considered a normative approach

to corporate social responsibility and lacked empirical evidence about its effectiveness. The research study

benchmarked three models of CSR. It proposed a contemporary CSR model that individually depicts six dimensions

representing organisational commitments or practices..

The second contribution of the study was the development and validation of a new CSR scale based on the

proposed model. The new CSR scale is valid when it comes to measuring consumer perceptions of the CSR

practices undertaken by organisations. The scale was developed carefully by adapting the Auperle (1984) and

Herrera et al. (2017) scales and referring to key indicators of the contemporary CSR of a model proposed in the

conceptual framework. All the items were then screened based on Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) criteria, followed by

a screening process undertaken by a panel of experts (DeVellis, 1991; Ouellett, 2007), after which a pilot test was

conducted to ascertain the internal consistency of all the scales. Finally, a large-scale empirical study was carried out

to test the scale's validity, which was gauged through the exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis via the

Cronbach's alpha. The final version of the scale comprised 27 items across six CSR dimensions: 5 for value creation,

4 for legal compliance, 4 for good governance, 5 for philanthropic engagement, 4 for workplace concerns, and 5 for

environmental integrity. The contemporary model of CSR and the new CSR scale adds to the pool of knowledge and

references available to future researchers, which could be expanded and used in a different context in terms of

respondent groups, countries, and industries. To sum up, , this new emerging model certainly provides a new

platform for future CSR related research.

Managerial Contributions: It is hoped that the findings of this study will render greater motivation to

managers and organisational leaders to adopt CSR practices and search for ways to ensure that all of its CSR

practices are aligned to the requirements of the stakeholders in order to generate positive outcomes from a most

important stakeholder group, the customers. The findings have confirmed the validity and suitability of this based on

the views of consumers. This new model, together with potential CSR related outcomes, is presented in figure 2.

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Figure 2: Dimensions and Outcomes of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Given the fact that discussions about how organisations should develop their CSR activities were rather limited

in past studies (Petkeviciene, 2015), the emerging model of CSR from this study can be used as a guideline by

organisational leaders and practitioners in devising CSR related strategies and planning initiatives based on the key

indicators corresponding to each of the dimensions proposed. The key indicators indicate the type and nature of the

practices undertaken by organisations committed to embarking on the social responsibility agenda. The key

indicators can also be used as a benchmark against which all CSR initiatives undertaken can be assessed and

measured. In other words, the new model can be used both as a guideline and as a compliance tool. Hence the new

model is descriptive rather than normative due to its specific and self-explanatory nature.

Management should lead by example and cascade CSR-related objectives from top down through various

communicational means. CSR should be embedded within organizations' core values and philosophical sets and

should be exemplified in all organisational decisions and actions. CSR ideas should be nurtured continuously so that

they become a norm and part of the everyday life of an organisation or in other words organisational culture, which

will pave the way for natural CSR thinking at all levels in an organisation. This is further substantiated by Hoskins

(2005), who argues that CSR needs to be implemented by incorporating it to become a part of the management

culture and normal business process. CSR should be a part of the decision-making process, employee and

management's incentive programmes, business planning processes as well as a performance measurement process.

This study also provides practitioners with a reliable and valid instrument for measuring customers' perceptions as

well as for monitoring the effectiveness of CSR decision-making.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite targeting a relatively large sample size of customers from culturally diverse backgrounds across 12

states of Malaysia, the study's findings should be treated with caution when applied to any specific industry. The

proposed CSR scale (arising from the proposed CSR Model) was tested and validated based on consumer

perceptions in general as it intended to gauge whether organisations should undertake CSR practices. Future studies

can attempt to apply this scale to different industries and cultural contexts to determine the degree of adaptability of

the CSR scale and the new CSR model unveiled in this study.

The scale's predictive validity can also be improved with new studies relating CSR dimensions from the

emerging CSR model with other variables or outcomes established in past studies, such as consumer responses and

customer satisfaction concerning organisations CSR activities (Butt, 2016; Rahim et al., 2011; Ellen et al., 2006;

Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006), consumer – company identification (Shuh Lii, 2011; Tsao and Chen, 2011;

Lichtenstein et al., 2004), company reputation and image (Abdullah and Aziz, 2013; Vlacchos et al., 2009) brand

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

value (Tuan, 2012; Melo and Galan, 2010), financial performance (Nyongesa, 2017; Navarro and Martinez. 2009),

employee commitment and satisfaction (Lee and Chen, 2018; Jiang and Wong, 2016; Carmeli, 2005). All other

variables which have a significant relationship with CSR could also be evaluated.

Given the fact that CSR awareness among consumers and stakeholders is on the rise (Rahim et al., 2011;

Dusuki and Maimunah, 2008; Ramasamy and Ting, 2004; Dusuki and Dar, 2005), this research assumes that

Malaysian consumers have a certain degree of knowledge about CSR and its importance in general to prevent

unreliable responses. However, consumers' awareness about organisations' CSR practices is usually low (Du et al.,

2010), which could be a limitation when the scale is applied in different organisations. Therefore, when applying

this scale in future studies, researchers should consider providing consumers with prior information to bring to

memory the CSR practices undertaken by organisations to enable consumers to make reliable evaluations, an

approach that has been used in the past studies of Berens et al. (2007) and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001). The CSR

scale was tested and validated based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis using the SPSS

statistical software, more appropriate in the early stages of scale development (Kelloway, 1995). Future researchers

can consider validating the scale through an alternative EFA analysis, known as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

REFERENCES

Abbasi, G., Su-Yee, S., & Goh, Y. N. (2020). An integrative approach for determining consumers mobile

advertising related attitudes and intentions.

International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 14

(15), 95-110.

Abbasi, G. A. Khalid, J. Y-N, Goh. Nwakaji, C. Khaleel, M. (2021). Attributes tempting students’ online purchase

intention; the mediating role of pre-purchase Searching. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies,

12(2), 159-176.

Abdullah, Z. & Aziz, A.Y. (2013), “Institutionalising corporate social responsibility: effects on corporate reputation,

culture and legitimacy in Malaysia”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 344-361.

Ahamed, W. S. W., Almsafir, M. K., & Al-Smadi, A. W. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility lead to

improvement in firm financial performance? Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and

Finance, 6(3), 126-138.

Alvarado, A., & Shlesinger, W. (2008), Dimensionality of perceived business social responsibility and its effects on

firm’s image and reputation: a Carroll’s model-based approach. Estudios Gerenciales, 24(108), 37–59.

Amaeshi, K. M., Adi, B. C., Ogbechie, C., & Amao, O. O. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria”,

Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2006 No. 24, pp. 83–99.

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), The durable corporation. Farnham, England: Gower Publishing

Argandona, A. (1998), “The stakeholder theory and the common good”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No.9,

pp. 1093-1102.

Auger, P., Devinney, T., Louviere, J., & Burke, P. (2010), “The importance of social product attributes in consumer

purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study”, International Business Review, Vol.19 No.2, 140–

159.

Auger, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2007), “Using best-worst scaling methodology to

investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70 No. 3,

pp. 299-326

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. (1985), “An empirical examination of the relationship between

corporate social responsibility and profitably”, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446-463.

Baden, D. (2016), “A reconstruction of Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st Century”,

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Vol 1 No. 8.

Berens, G., Van Riel, C., & Van Rekom, J. (2007), “The CSR-quality trade-off: When can corporate social

responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other?” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 3, 233–

252.

Bhardwaj, B.R. (2016), “Role of green policy on sustainable supply chain management: a model for implementing

corporate social responsibility (CSR)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 456-468.

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, 47, pp. 9-24.

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product

responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007), Business research methods (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Bushman, R.M., Piotroski, J.D. and Smith, A.J. (2004), “What determines corporate transparency?” Journal of

Accounting Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 1 – 46.

Campbell, J.L. (2007), “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?” Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 32 No. 3

Carmeli, A. (2005), “Perceived external prestige, affective commitment and citizenship behaviors”, Organization

Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 443 – 464.

Carroll, A. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497–505.

Carroll, A. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational

stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34, pp. 39–48.

Carroll, A.B. (2016), “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking another look”, International Journal of Corporate Social

Responsibility, Vol. 1 No. 3.

Carroll, A.B., & Shabana, K.M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A review of

concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

Carroll, A. B. (2021). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the COVID-19 pandemic: organizational and

managerial implications. Journal of Strategy and Management.

Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. (2005), “Branding and corporate social responsibility rankings – doing good is not

enough”, ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility

Chortareas, G., Stavage, D., and Sterne, G. (2002), “Does it pay to be transparent? International evidence from

central bank forecasts”, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 99 – 118.

Chow, Y., & Chen, Y. (2011), “Corporate sustainable development testing a new scale based on the Mainland

Chinese context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 519–533.

Chung, K.-H., Yu, J.-E., Choi, M.-G. and Shin, J.-I. (2015), “The effects of CSR on customer satisfaction and

loyalty in China: the moderating role of corporate image”, Journal of Economics, Business and Management,

Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 542-547.

Claydon, J. (2011), “A new direction for CSR: the shortcomings of previous CSR models and the

rationale for a new CSR Model”, Social Responsibility Journal,Vol.7 No.3, pp. 405 – 420.

Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013), “Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and

research agenda”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 6, pp. 122–141.

Crowther, D, (2000), “Social and environmental accounting”, in Crowther, D. and Green, M. (Eds), Organizational

Theory, London: CIPD House.

Dentchev, N. A., Haezendonck, E., & Van Balen, M. (2017). The role of governments in the business and society

debate. Business & Society, 56(4), 527-544.

DeVellis, R. (1991), Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Du, S., Bhattacharya,C.B.,&Sen, S. (2010), “Maximising business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR):

The role of CSR communication”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8–19.

Dusuki A.W and Maimunah, T.F. (2008), “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility:

Malaysian Stakeholder Perspective”, Malaysian Accounting Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 29 – 54.

Dusuki, A.W. and Dar, H. (2005), “Does Corporate Social Responsibility Pay-Off? An Empirical

Examination of Stakeholder Perspectives”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Business

Performance and CSR – Measuring CSR effectiveness / sustainable community

development, London.

Edmondson, V., & Carroll, A. (1999), “Giving Back: An Examination of the Philanthropic Motivations,

Orientations and Activities of Large Black-Owned Businesses”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp.

171–179.

El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate

responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility

scale. Journal of management, 44(2), 619-657.

Elkington, John (1998), Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Business, Gabriola Island, BC, New

Society Publishers.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006), “Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for

corporate socially responsible programs”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol 34 No. 2, pp. 147-157

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2009), “The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalisation of Sustainability Reporting”,

Organization Science, Vol. 21, pp. 1092–1107.

Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., & Khan, I. (2016). Measuring consumer perception of CSR in tourism industry: Scale

development and validation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 27, 39-48.

Feltus, C. and Petit, M. (2009), “Building a responsibility model of including accountability, capability and

commitment”, International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Fukuoka, pp. 412 – 419.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Friedman, M. (1996), “The social responsibility of business is to increase profits”, In Rae, S.B. and Wong K.L.

(Eds). Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, pp. 241 –

245

Gardiner, L., Rubbens, C. and Boniglioli, E. (2003), “Research big business, big responsibilities”, Corporate

Governance, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 67-77

Gobbels, M. and Jonker, J. (2003), “AA 1000 and SA 8000 compared: a systematic comparison of contemporary

accountability standards”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.18 No. 1, pp. 54-58.

Goyal, P. & Kumar, D. (2017), "Modeling the CSR barriers in manufacturing industries",

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp.1871-1890.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011), “How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?” Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 48–56.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.), Upper Saddle

River: Prentice-Hall.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Hartman, L., DesJardins, J & Macdonald, C. (2018), Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity &

Social responsibility, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill Education.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004), “The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for

improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No.2,

pp. 98–107.

Herrera, A.A., Bigne, E., Manzano, J.A. & Perez, R.F. (2017), “A scale for measuring consumer perceptions of

corporate social responsibility following the sustainable development paradigm”, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 140 No. 2, pp. 243-262.

Hopkins, M. (2006), “What is corporate social responsibility all about?”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 6, pp. 298-

306.

Hopkins, Michael.,(2003). The Planetary Bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. UK

and USA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Hoskins. T. (2005). The ICSA corporate social responsibility handbook: making CSR work for business. London:

ICSA, BPP Publishing

Hubbard, G. (2009), “Measuring Organisational Performance: Beyond the Triple Bottom Line”, Business Strategy

and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp.177–191.

Hult, M.G.T. (2011), “Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus!”, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Idemudia, U., & Kwakyewah, C. (2018). Analysis of the Canadian national corporate social responsibility strategy:

Insights and implications. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 928–938.

Jamali, D. and Abdallah, H. (2015), “Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility at the core of the business

school curriculum”, Handbook of Research on Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibilities, pp. 275-296.

Jenkins, H. (2009), “A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium-sized

enterprises”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-36.

Jenkins, H. (2009), “A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium-sized

enterprises”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 21 – 36.

Jensen, H. (2002), "Optimal degrees of transparency in monetary policymaking", Scandinavian Journal of

Economics,Vol. 104, pp. 299 – 422.

Jiang, W. and Wong, J.K. (2016), “Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction

industry: a study of China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 113, pp. 850-860.

Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation

of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of Business Research, 98, 236-249.

Kelloway, E. K. (1995), “Structural equation modelling in perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16

No. 3, pp. 215-224.

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Lamarche, T., & Bodet, C. (2018). Does CSR contribute to sustainable development? What a regulation approach

can tell us. Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(1), 154–172.

Lee, L. & Chen, L.F. (2018), “Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis”, Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No.3, pp 948-160.

Lee, S.K. and Cheng, Y.Y. (2006), “Reaching Asian Americans: sampling strategies and incentives”, Journal of

Immigrant and Minority Health, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 245-250.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effects of corporate social

responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported non-profits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4,

pp. 16-32

Linnenluecke, M.K. and Griffiths, A. (2009), “Corporate sustainability and organisational culture”, Journal of World

Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 357-366.

Lucertini, M., Nicolò, F., & Telmon, D. (1995). Integration of benchmarking and benchmarking of integration.

International Journal of Production Economics, 38(1), 59-71.

Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market share

value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 1-1

Maignan, I. (2001), "Consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility: A cross-cultural comparison", Journal

of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No.1, pp. 57–73.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003), “Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and

German consumers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 55–67.

Malesky, E., & Taussig, M. (2019). Participation, government legitimacy, and regulatory compliance in emerging

economies: a firm-level field experiment in Vietnam. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 530–551.

Malesky, E., & Taussig, M. (2017). The danger of not listening to firms: Government responsiveness and the goal of

regulatory compliance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1741-1770.

Maon, F., Swaen, V. and Lindgreen, A. (2015), “One vision, different paths: an investigation of corporate social

responsibility initiatives in Europe”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Matsushita, K. (1984). Not For Break Alone: A business ethos, a management ethic, PHP Institute Inc, Kyoto,

Tokyo, Japan.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility education in Europe”, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 54 No.4, pp. 323–337.

Melo, T. & Galan, J.I. (2011), “Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value”, Journal of Brand

Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp 423-437.

Moir, L. (2001), “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?” International Journal of Business in

Society, Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 16 – 22.

Moneva, J.M. and Fortas, E. (2008), “Are stock markets influenced by sustainability matter? Evidence from

European companies”, International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 1-6.

Moon, J. (2004), “Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility”, ICSSR Research Paper Series.

Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School.

Moon, M. A., Farooq, A., & Abbasi, G. A. (2018). 3G/4G mobile network band Wagon in Pakistan: a mixed method

inquiry into consumer adoption attitude. University of Wah Journal of Management Sciences, 17.

Munro, V. (2020). The Future of CSR and the New Ecosystem for CSR 4.0. In CSR for Purpose, Shared Value and

Deep Transformation. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Nasir, N.E.M, Halim, N.A.A., Sallem, N.R.M., Jasni, N.S. & Aziz, N.F. (2015), “Corporate Social Responsibility:

An Overview from Malaysia”, Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, Vol. 4 No.10 S,

pp.82-87

Navarro, J.C. and Martinez, A. (2009), “Linking corporate social responsibility with admiration through

organisational outcomes”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No.4, pp. 499 – 511

Nunnally, J.C.(1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Nyongesa, W.R. (2017), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Case of Safaricom

Ltd”, International Journal of Finance and Accounting , Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 167-171

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., Murphy, P. E. and Gruber, V. (2014), “Consumers' Perceptions of Corporate

Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp.

101-115

Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013), “CSR practices and consumer perceptions”, Journal of

Business Research”, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 1839–1851.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate

social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 101-115.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Ouellet, J. F. (2007), “Consumer racism and its effects on domestic cross-ethnic product purchase: An empirical test

in the United States, Canada, and France”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No.1, pp. 113–128.

Papadas, K. K., Avlonitis, G. J., & Carrigan, M. (2017). Green marketing orientation: Conceptualization, scale

development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 80, 236-246.

Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual (2nd ed.), London: Open University Press.

Paluri, R.A. & Mehra, S. (2018), "Influence of bank’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives on consumer

attitude and satisfaction in India", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp.1429-1446.

Pedersen, E. R. (2010), “Modelling CSR: How Managers Understand the Responsibilities of Business Towards

Society”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 155-166.

Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011), “How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A

systematic review”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 117–135.

Perez, A., Martınez, P., & Rodrıguez del Bosque, I. (2013), “The development of a stakeholder-based scale for

measuring corporate social responsibility in the banking industry”, Service Business, Vol. 7 No.3, pp. 459–481.

Petkeviciene , M. S. (2015), “CSR reasons, practices and impact on corporate reputation”, Paper presented in the

20th International Scientific Conference Economics and Management - 2015 (ICEM-2015) Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences 213, pp 503 – 508

Pirsch, 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. 125-140.

Planken, B. Nickerson, C. & Sahu, S. (2013), "CSR across the globe: Dutch and Indian consumers' responses to

CSR", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 Issue: 3, pp.357-372

Post, F. R. (2003), “The social responsibility of management: A critique of the shareholder paradigm and defense of

stakeholder primacy”, Mid-American Journal of Business, Vol. 18, pp. 57-61.

Quazi, A.M. (2003), “Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived social

Obligations”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 822-831.

Rahim, A., Jalaludin, F. W. & Tajuddin, K. (2011), “The importance of CSR on consumer behavior in Malaysia”,

Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16 No.1, pp.119-139.

Ramasamy, B. and Ting, H.W. (2004), “A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility

awareness; Malaysian and Singaporean firms”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 13, pp. 109 – 123.

Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2009), “Chinese consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR)”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No.1, pp. 119–132.

Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2008), “Globalisation and corporate social responsibility”, In Crane, A.,

McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social

Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 413 – 431.

Sekaran, U. (2000), Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. (3rd ed.), New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

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, pp. 225 – 243.

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE”,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No.3, pp. 280–289.

Shirley, C., Suan, A., and Leng, C. (2009), “CSR reporting in Malaysia: An analysis of website reporting of

second board companies listed in Bursa Malaysia”, SEG Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 85 – 98.

Shuh Lii, Y. (2011), “The effect of corporate social responsibility initiatives on consumers’ identification with

companies”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 1642-1649.

Singh, K. & Islam , M.A. (2017), “Validating an instrument for measuring brand equity of CSR driven organisations

in Malaysia”, Management & Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-170.

Singh, K. S. D., Ravindran, S., Ganesan, Y., Abbasi, G. A., & Haron, H. (2021). Antecedents and Internal Audit

Quality Implications of Internal Audit Effectiveness. International Journal of Business Science & Applied

Management, 16(2).

Slaper, T.F. & Hall, T. J. (2011), The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?” Indiana Business

Review.

Susniene, D. and Vanagas, P. (2007), “Means for satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs and stakeholders? A systematic

review”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 117-135.

Situ, H., Tilt, C. A., & Seet, P. S. (2020). The influence of the government on corporate environmental reporting in

China: an authoritarian capitalism perspective. Business & Society, 59(8), 1589-1629.

Karpal Singh Dara Singh, Munir A. Abbasi, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Azlan Amran and Essia Ries Ahmed

Tang, Z., Hull, C.E. and Rothenberg, S. (2012), “How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy

moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp.

1274-1303.

Tariq, B., Najam, H., Han, H., Sadaa, A. M., Abbasi, A. A., Christopher, N., & Abbasi, G. A. (2021). Examining

Mobile Financial Services in Pakistan: Rural and Urban Perspective with Gender as a Moderator. Recent

Advances in Technology Acceptance Models and Theories, 225-245.

Thompson, B. (2004), Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and

applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Tsao W.C and Chen Y.H. (2011), “A study of the impact and application of cause-corporate brand alliance on

Taiwan’s tourist amusement industry”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 52 No.2, pp. 316-331.

Tuan, L.T. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility, leadership and brand equity in healthcare service”, Social

Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 347-362.

Visser, W. (2010), CSR 2.0: the evolution of corporate social responsibility, In Pohl, M. and

Tolhurst, N (Eds), Responsible Business: How to manage a CSR Strategy Successfully,

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Visser, W. (2011a), “The DNA Model of CSR 2.0: Value Creation, Good Governance, Societal

Contribution and Ecological Integrity”, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 9.

Visser, W. (2011b). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. London: Wiley.

Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility:

Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37,

pp. 170–180.

Waddock, S., Bodwell, C. and Graves, S.B. (2002), “Responsibility: the new business Imperative”, Academy of

Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 132‐48

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004),Cross-cutting themes- corporate responsibility,

Retrieved 2 June 2017 fromhttp://www.wbcsd.org

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No.3,

pp. 341–352.