The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

  • 제9권5호
  • /
  • Pages.177-186
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2288-4637(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-4645(eISSN)
한국유통과학회 (Korea Distribution Science Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Societal Participation on Customer Satisfaction: Economic-Environmental Analysis from Saudi Banks

  • SOMILI, Hassan M. (Department of Advertising & Marketing Communication, Faculty of Media and Communication, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University)
  • 투고 : 2022.01.20
  • 심사 : 2022.04.25
  • 발행 : 2022.05.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aimed to measure the impact of societal participation of Saudi banks on customer satisfaction and determine the statistical differences in customer satisfaction according to sex, age, income, education, and work type. Societal participation has economic and environmental dimensions. The study population includes all Saudis in the government, military, and private sectors reaching 3.58 million in 2021. The unit of analysis is Saudi customers of commercial banks. The 12 banks have societal programs. The research tool is a "Questionnaire," It is distributed face-to-face at places of work. The study concludes that economic participation has no impact on customer satisfaction; however, the impact of environmental participation on customer satisfaction is proved. The study shows no statistical differences in customer satisfaction according to mediators (sex, age, income, education, and work type). Despite the environmental participation being the tangible product by Saudi banks in the local market, the study concludes the positive relationship between societal participation and customer satisfaction. The study presents a set of recommendations for enhancing societal participation in the Saudi businesses environment.

키워드

1. Introduction

The concept of societal participation has evolved since 1950, taking a prominent place in communication and marketing literature. It has become one of the most mature automated tools of many businesses in the last decade (Bello, Jusoh, & Md. Nor, 2016). These institutions have demonstrated their social responsibilities more seriously in their communication strategies (Wu & Shen, 2013; Badia et al., 2013). We have published numerous social figures realted to stakeholders and society to take into account the outdoor activities of the institution. In addition to achieving the profitable objective, creating the concept of social interdependence, and strengthening the foundations of partnership by community-oriented policies (Paulik, Kombo, & Ključnikov, 2015).

Societal participation has a set of different designations in the theoretical literature as social accountability, organizational ethics, organizational citizenship, and organizational obligations (Tandon & Kaur, 2017). However, many of these designations go towards “voluntary activities of the project, which are part of the obligations to the community and the project’s owners (Habibi et al., 2013). The concept of community participation also proceeds from the voluntary basis of enterprises. It includes in their operations some of the social and environmental activities and programs that serve their stakeholders (Al-Nsour, 2019). In addition to different activities that focus on achieving care and well-being for stakeholders in the business (Bello, Jusoh, & Md. Nor, 2016).

Finally, societal participation is an open and transparent practice and business model (Pérez & del Bosque, 2015) based on ethical principles that respect staff, society, and the environment and establish sustainable values for society at large (Habibi et al., 2013). Community responsibility in this way constitutes an obligation for the organization to the society in which it operates, as a way in which it contributes to the development of several collective activities for poverty alleviation, improving health services, combating pollution, generating jobs, and solving housing and transportation problems, for example (Christopher & Luke, 2013), with emphasis on environmental and human sustainability (Homburg, Stierl, & Bornemann, 2013).

Societal participation has many benefits for the business as improving the image and reputation of the community, especially among clients and employees. Commitment to collective participation improves financial return and performance (García-Madariaga & Rodráguez-Rivera, 2017). Societal participation is an essential pillar for social stability (Lee & Jung, 2016). It is providing the bases of social justice and faireness. It can improve social services awareness and political stability (Lee & Jung, 2016; Lee et al., 2012). The commitment to societal participation also maximizes returns at the country level, sharing social costs and technological development, reduces unemployment, and shares the environmental, social, and economic burdens (Chung et al., 2015).

From the marketing perspective, many studies emphasize the importance of societal participation as a communication and marketing tool to gain customer loyalty and improve the mental image of the institution (Salazar, 2017); the literature even looks at the strong positive relationship between corporate community participation and customer satisfaction, where these studies view community participation programs as a marketing influence on consumer behavior (Fan et al., 2018; Terpstra & Verbeeten, 2014), other studies have also confirmed the impact of community responsibility programs on customer loyalty management, improving the company’s mental image, and achieving a competitive advantage in its labor market (Al-Nsour, 2019). The results of previous studies support the importance of such programs in shaping buying intentions (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and the degree of involvement in the purchase decision (Srivastava, 2017). Such studies confirm the impact of social performance of companies on customer thinking. This impact may improve business reputation, competitiveness, loyalty (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), and positive WOM (Pérez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2015).

Nowadyas, societal participation has become an emblem of successful businesses that concerned with social strategies and the integratation between functional mechanisms and marketing performance requirements. This business orientation become a measure of profitability and performance at different levels of management whithin company (Lee et al., 2012). Recent literature considers societal participation to be predominantly economic, thus focusing on creating new industries, creating innovative business models, and redistributing available resources between neglected and disadvantaged societies (Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001; Carroll, 1999). It is, therefore, necessary to link social, economic, and environmental objectives in development plans, to maximize the benefit and better meet the needs of disadvantaged or poor groups in society (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016).

This study measured the impact of societal participation by Saudi banks on customer satisfaction. These banks have a high profits, assests, and liquidity indicators that may lead to contribute effectively in local communities. Societal participation will be expressed in economic and environmental terms, where a few studies have attempted to distinguish the dimensions of such a concept. Many kinds of the literature suggest that economic development includes an inadequate commitment to environmental and social standards (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), as well as the significant impact of purchasing decisions on societal participation activities (Romani, Grappi, & Bagozzi, 2013; Castaldo et al., 2009; Smith, 2003).

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. The Societal Participation

Bowen (1953) is one of the first researchers to develop societal participation and has shown that there are policies and regulations within companies; It will increase the added value of society, and it has focused on the importance of ethical principles in the business of companies, maximizing their public good (Pretty, 1995). Manne (1973) added that the corporate community orientation gives individuals more comfort and trust in the company. Drucker and Noel (1974) pointed out that this idea increases interest and relationships between society and corporates.

Over time, societal participation has expanded to include new concepts related to environmental awareness. It becomes a tool for distinguishing between companies and a friendly environment and improving the long-term perception (Nochai & Nochai, 2014). The high correlation between societal participation and financial performance proved (Hull & Rothenberg, 2008). The literature confirms the relationship between the success of businesses and societal participation; and any distortion may threaten the power of business and legitimacy in the market (Davis, 1973).

The end of the twentieth century in 1999 is the official date of the societal participation framework. It became a sustainable, organized process that fit the needs of the company, community, and its brand image. This process involves social initiatives and programs that combine many parties to the environment, consumers, employees, and shareholders (Carroll, 1999; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). They argue that the financial results of societal participation may lead to better performance in the long term. Petkus and Woodruff add that societal participation ensuring good work for the community (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). The scholar Jensen (2001) added a new track of societal participation based on human rights, the environment, and society.

There is a formal consensus that societal participation rules and regulations are not defined, although several studies classify them as legal and ethical (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013), Environmental and Human Rights (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013; WBCSD, 2004; Valor & De la Cuesta; 2003). They as part of ethical and moral practices (Boateng & AbdulHamid, 2017). Carrol1 (1999) is a scholar who has provided a more acceptable framework for societal participation. He added new aspects of economic, legal, ethical, and charitable responsibilities (Nochai & Nochai 2014). For this study, there is arguably broad support that societal participation in the economic and environmental aspects of the organization looks to maximize the value of shareholders (Kiran & Sharma, 2011).

2.2. Research Hypothesis

Banks are the most visible instruments contributing to economic growth. For a long time, their development role has been confined to capital markets, focusing on the productive aspects of the financial function (Khan & Fasih, 2014). Recent studies in the banking industry give ethical considerations in the societal participation initiatives (Chatterjee & Lefcovitch, 2009; Chang & Yeh, 2017). Such trends focus on the integration between the financial and social functions of banks. So it may give the customers equal importance in employment and the social presence of banks (Chung et al., 2015).

The economic function of banks has expanded (Belás et al., 2014). The Code of ethics for banking has instructions as human rights, environmental policy, and social projects. Such ethics reflect the importance of environmental orientation in the local societies and social practices (Yeung, 2011). Banks have functions in the economy like, finance, assets management, financial flows, and risk-taking. So economic and environmental participation may improve the relationship with stakeholders (Belás & Gabčová, 2014). Environmental practices significantly affect consumer behavior, especially in generation Z (Nguyen et al., 2022).

Societal participation affects the performance and reputation of banks (Birindelli et al., 2013; Scholtens, 2009). The studies have linked societal participation with assets and equity rates of return. (Kim & Kim, 2016), and increased retention of shareholder rights (Birindelli et al., 2013). Studies have explained the importance of a positive correlation between return on assets, shareholders’ rights, and net income with societal participation programs (Dimitriadis & Zilakaki, 2019).

On the level of consumer behavior, studies have confirmed the importance of customer loyalty as a marketing asset of banks. It employs as a strategic goal of the bank, with other structural and marketing benefits (Vilanova, Lozano, & Arenas, 2009). Loyalty heavily depends on social, political, and economic interaction between the customer and the business (Manohar & Palanisamy, 2016). It includes several impressions, judgments, and perceptions of the customer on company or brand. These actions become motives for post behavior in the local society (Zhou, Hongda, & Qian, 2022).

Therefore, the societal participation of banks is an effective strategy for social service, social presence, and business reputation. These factors can attract new customers and increase market shares (Hammed et al., 2017). Successful banks have a high power to work with societal participation to achieve customers loyalty, retention, and active dialogue with the local society (Sindhu & Arif, 2017). Over time, especially given the low efficiency of advertising drivers, the role of societal participation has increased as a marketing tool to get customers satisfaction, loyalty, frequency of purchase, and retention (Cho & Hong, 2011).

Studies add that the concept of societal participation improves financial measures, and productivity and reduces costs. The studies conclude that the satisfaction of customers and employees improved in the Bank (Loureiro et al., 2012).This satisfaction refers to the trust of customers, the profitable relationship, and the positive feelings with banks. Satisfaction is also a strategy to increase purchases and customer engagement with the bank (Humaidan, 2016).

According to Palmatier (2006), satisfaction is a commitment by a customer to frequent purchases and brand preference (Moura-Leite & Padgett, 2011). The literature says that a satisfied customer buys more products while dissatisfaction reduces the rate of purchase (Terpstra & Verbeeten, 2014). The happy customer has a positive WOM (Munari et al., 2013). Griffin (2013) says that customers satisfaction is a key reason for frequent purchases, buying offered products, and positive recommendations to others. It is a defensive-strategy that pulls demand from competitors (Grigoroudis et al., 2012). The research hypothesis is derived as follows:

H1: There is a statistically significant impact of societal participation programs on customer satisfaction in Saudi banks. Two sub-hypotheses emerged.

H011: There is a statistically significant impact of economic participation programs on the customer satisfaction of Saudi banks.

H021: There is a statistically significant impact of environmental participation programs on the customer satisfaction of Saudi banks.

H2: There are statistically significant differences in customer satisfaction according to sex, age, income, education, and work type.

3. Research Method and Materials

3.1. The Population and Sampling

The study population represents all Saudi customers of local banks. The main criteria to select the banks is the societal participation programs, and such banks reached 12 (Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, 2021). There is no information about the real number of customers of Saudi banks, but there is a logical assumption says that all employees are committed to opening accounts in such banks. The figures in Table 1 describe research population. It has Saudi employees in the government, military, and private sectors reached 3.58 million in the third quarter of 2021 (General Authority of Statisitces, 2021) .The proportional stratification method sampling technique. It divides the population into segments, categories, and classes according to the sector. It means that the selected segment is proportional to the actual size. Sample calculations show that the recommended sample size is 387 persons (Sekaran & Boogie, 2010). The researcher adopted the study tool “Questionnaire” and distributed it in the workplaces.

Table 1: Sample Size Calculators

Source: General Bureau of Statistics, Yearbook, 2021. Riyadh.

3.2. Research Instrument and Measurement

The measurement tool was adopted by literature and previous studies. A five-point scale was used for all questionnaire dimensions. The responses between 1-5 reflected the degree of compatibility between the item and the response. The value (5) given to the “strongly agree” response level, and the value (4) to the “agree” response level. The value (3) to the moderate response level, the value (2) to the disagree response level, and (1) to the very low response level. Responses use descriptive measures such as arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and relative frequencies. The data analysis technique is Structural Equation Modelling SEM.

3.2.1. Construct Validity and Reliability

It consists of three construct tests: Individual Item Validity measures the level of consistency between a set of items in the same construct. The acceptable value is above 0.7, and table 2 indicates that all items are statistically reliable. Composite Reliability (CR) says that the values are above 0.7 for the latent variables. Table 3 shows that all latent variables accepted (Hair et al., 2016). Average Variance Extracted (AVC) says that the minimum acceptable value is 0.5, and table 2 indicates that test values are statistically accepted (Henseler et al., 2009).

Table 2: Summary of Results of Measurement Model

Table 3: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

3.2.2. Discriminant Validity

It indicates that the power of explanation for each item in the current latent variable is better than other variables (Fornell & Lacker, 1981). Table 3 shows that discriminant validity for each item in the latent variable is distinctive and unique.

3.2.3. Fornell-Larcker Criterion

It indicates that the correlation of the independent variable in the current place is above the other coefficients in the matrix (Esposito, Chin, Henseler, & Wang, 2010.). Table 3 shows the correlations between latent variables, it is more than the permitted value 5%. So, there is no latent relationship between one variable and the other variable in the matrix.

4. Empirical Results

The first hypothesis consists of the independent variable that expresses the societal participation programs of Saudi banks and the dependent variable measured by customer satisfaction. societal participation programs consist of economic and environmental programs. Table 4 shows the results of statistical analysis using SEM technique. The P-value is used to accept or reject the structural model’s directional relationship between independent and dependent variables. The statistical decision rule indicates that if the P-value is less than 5%, it means accepting the directional relationship between the two variables (Hair, Hult, Ringle,& Sarstedt, 2016). The results show that the statistical significance of the relationship between economic programs and customer satisfaction (0.062) is less than 5%, which means that there is no directional relationship between them.

Table 4: Path Coefficients of First Hypotheses

*Significant at P0 < 0.01. **Significant at P0 < 0.05

On the contrary, there is a significant relationship between environmental participation and customer satisfaction due to a significance level of less than 5%. The directional relationship between societal participation and customer satisfaction is positive and moderated. Environmental participation has more explanatory power than economic programs to customer satisfaction in Saudi banks.

Societal participation programs can explain customer satisfaction in Saudi banks. The f2 can determine the power of community participation programs on customer satisfaction. The statistical rule decides that the f2 between 0.02 and 0.15 means low impact, while the value between 0.15–0.35 means moderated. A value of more than 0.35 means a strong impact (Cohen, 1988). The power of societal participation through economic and environmental programs is weak. The f2 for economic programs = 0.013, and for environmental programs = 0.022. The economic programs are not clear for customers according to the f2 value - less than 0.02– while the environmental programs have a poor impact on customer satisfaction. In conclusion, Saudi banks are not able to build and improve customers’ satisfaction through community participation programs. It is found that societal participation programs of Saudi banks are moderated. R2 refers to the power of the independent variable to explain variations in the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2016). The statistical decision-making rule is that values below 0.12 mean a weak explanation power, and a value between 0.12 and 0.26 means moderated (Chin, 1998). Societal participation based on economic and environmental programs has moderated power to explain the customer satisfaction in Saudi banks.

The previous results confirmed the power of the structural model to predict the satisfaction of Saudi customers, according to the statistical rule that a Q2 value of more than 0.00 implies a predictive capability for the model (Cohen, 1988). The Q2 (0.240) is greater than 0.00, therefore a high predictive capacity for community participation programs. In the current study, the customer satisfaction depends on the low level of community participation programs of Saudi banks. Finally, GoF results have been used as an indicator to measure the goodness of fit in the structural model, and the test value of more than 0.36 means that the regression model is highly appropriate (Wetzels, Odekerken-Schroder, & Van Oppen, 2009). Thus, the GoF value (0.907) indicates that the regression model is highly fit.

To test statistical differences in the second hypothesis, the four demographics (sex, age, level of education, type of occupation) were used as mediators. The results in Table 5 show that the P-value can determine the statistical differences in customers’ satisfaction. The P-values for all four mediators were more than the permitted value of 5%. So, there are no statistically significant differences in customers’ satisfaction according to the four demographic variables.

Table 5: Path Coefficients of Differences Hypotheses

*Significant at P0 < 0.01. **Significant at P0 < 0.05

5. Discussion and Recommendations

The findings of this study are consistrnt with letratures on the relationship between societal initiatives and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is intrinsically tied to economic and environmental participation. As a result, a positive correlation between the latent variables was proved. Environmental and economic involvement is primarily motivated by profit, and the literature suggests that a market position may influence profitability metrics, profit maximization, and operational efficiency. According to the literature, these economic participation measures are motives for societal participation in the enterprise (Moisescu,2015). Furthermore, according to the research, environmental participation in enterprises is a half-moon of economic participation in businesses. The schools of thought discuss the importance of ecological (Williamson, Lynch-Wood, & Ramsay, 2006), environmental management practices, and sustained strategies (Munari et al., 2013).

Both economic and environmental projects may significantly affect selling prices, buying intent, and brand image (Loureiro et al., 2012; Pérez & Rodríguez, 2015). Societal participation initiatives have an indirect impact, especially if they are involved in a larger framework of the business policies (Ali & Rahman, 2017). For example, environmental policy has improved living conditions, increasing the company’s and brand’s positive image (Saleem & Gopinath, 2015). The business reputation, competitiveness, customer satisfaction, and loyalty, as well as positive WOM, are confirmed (Mashhadi & Hashemiamin, 2021; Machyani et al.,2017; Vahdati et al., 2015; Nochai & Nochai, 2014; Hartmann, et al., 2013; Kolkailah et al., 2012; Lee & Shin, 2010; Yeung, 2011; 1Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Many studies studies conclude that the principal function of banks is economic participation in the society.

It is assumed that involvement manifests itself in meeting affordable societal needs, creating valuable commercial products, and maximizing shareholder value. Customers are still confused and unsure about its function, and they have a negative opinion of it. This situation reduces the ability to improve positive behavioral attitudes towards banks. More attention to environmental participation is an alternative. In any case, ecological participation is a component of a company’s commitment to the community in which it operates (Chung et al., 2015).

Banks are strong players in the financial markets and play an important role in the local economy, resulting in high levels of efficiency and employment (Khan & Fasih, 2014). According to studies, banks place a greater emphasis on professional and functional issues in the economy, which diminishes public knowledge of banks’ perceived economic role (Chatterjee & Lefcovitch, 2009; Chochoľáková et al., 2015). Banks believe in the financial industry’s ethical standards. Between depositors and borrowers, these institutions act as agents and mediators. The commercial banks are risk-takers in the economy. This finding implies that banks’ social functions are just as important as their commercial success in the Saudi market (Agrawal & Sahasranamam, 2016).

참고문헌

  1. Agrawal, A., and Sahasranamam, A. (2016). Corporate Social Entrepreneurship in India. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 5(2). 214-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-12-2014-0098
  2. Ali, E., & Rahman, M. (2017). Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customer Satisfaction: A Study on Commercial Banks in Bangladesh. Journal of Wealth Management & Financial Planning, 4, 31-44. https://mfpc.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/31-44_Original-Research_Paper-3_Accessing-CSR-Activities.pdf
  3. Al-Nsour, I. (2019). Building Customers Satisfaction Using Social Responsibility Communications of Islamic Banks in Jordan. Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism, 9(1), 441-459. https://www.academia.edu/70178899/Building_Customers_Satisfaction_Using_Social_Responsibility_Communications_of_Islamic_Banks_in_Jordan.
  4. Badia, M., Montllor-Serrats, J., & Tarrazon, M. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility from Friedman to Porter and Kramer. Theoretical Economics Letters, 3(3), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2013.33A003
  5. Belas, J., & Gabcova, L. (2014). Reasons for Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Bank Customers: A Study from Slovakia and the Czech Republic. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 1(2), 4-13. https://ijek.org/files/IJEK_1-2014v2/ijek_1-2014,v.2_belas,j.gabcova,l..pdf https://doi.org/10.15759/ijek/2014/v2i1/53759
  6. Belas, J., Chocholakova, A., & Gabcova, L. (2015). Satisfaction and Loyalty of Banking Customers: A Gender Approach. Economics and Socio5logy, 8(1), 176-188.
  7. Bello, K. B., Jusoh, A., & Md. Nor, K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and consumer rights awareness: A research agenda. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(46),134.
  8. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284
  9. Birindelli, G., Ferretti, P., Intonti, M., & Iannuzzi, A. P. (2013). On the Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility in Banks: Evidence from an Ethical Rating Model. Journal of Management and Governance, 19(2), 1-38.
  10. Boateng, H., & Abdul-Hamid, I. K. (2017). An evaluation of corporate social responsibility communication on the websites of telecommunication companies operating in Ghana: Impression management perspectives. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 15(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-01-2016-0003
  11. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x
  14. Castaldo, S., & Perrini, F. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility, Trust Management, and Value Creation. Proceedings of EGOS 2004 Trust in Hybrids, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1-3, July 2004.
  15. Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The Missing Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 1-15.
  16. Central Bank of Saudi Arabia , Annual Data. 2021. Riyadh.
  17. Chang, Y. H., & Yeh, C. H. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty in intercity bus services. Transport Policy, 59, 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.001
  18. Chatterjee, C., & Lefcovitch, A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and banks. Amicus Curiae, 78, 198.
  19. Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In: Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, 295-336. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  20. Cho, S., & Hong, Y. (2009). Netizens' Evaluations of Corporate Social Responsibility: Content Analysis of CSR News Stories and Online Readers' Comments. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 147-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.012
  21. Chocholakova, A., Gabcova, L., Belas, J., & Sipko, J. (2015). Bank Customers' Satisfaction, Customers Loyalty, and Additional Purchases of Banking Products and Services. A Case Study from the Czech Republic. Economics and Sociology, 8(3), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2015/8-3/6
  22. Christopher, E., & Luke, M. (2013). The Pivotal Role of Corporate Social Responsibility Perception on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business and Management Research, 2, 47-55.
  23. Chung, K., Yu, J., Choi, M., & Shin, J. (2015). The effects of CSR on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in China: The Moderating Role of Corporate Image. Journal of Economics, Business, and Management, 3(5), 542-547. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.243
  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the Behavioral Science (2nd ed). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing House.
  25. Davis, K. (1973). The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/255331
  26. Dimitriadis, E., & Zilakaki, E. (2019). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Loyalty in Mobile Telephone Companies. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 7(4), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/356
  27. Drucker, P. F., & Noel, J. L. (1986). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 34(1), 22-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377366.1986.10401060
  28. Esposito, V. V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods, and Applications. New York: Springer.
  29. Fan, J., Haq, S. H. I. U., Moeriera, A. G., and Virk, M. (2018). Impact of CSR Dimensions on Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty in the Formation of Purchase Intentions: Study from Pakistan livestock industry. Management, 8(2), 54-63.
  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
  31. Garcia-Madariaga, J., & Rodriguez-Rivera, F. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, Corporate Reputation, and Firms' Market Value: Evidence from the Automobile industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 21(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.2017.05.003
  32. General Authority of Stattisitces, Annual Data, 2021. Riyadh.
  33. Griffin, J. (2013). How to Say It: Creating Complete Customer Satisfaction. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  34. Grigoroudis, E., Orfanoudaki, E., & Zopounidis, C. (2012). Strategic Performance Measurement in a Healthcare Organization: A Multiple Criteria Approach Based on a Balanced Scorecard. Omega, 40(1), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.04.001
  35. Guo, J., Sun, L., & Li, X. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment of Chinese Corporations. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(4), 54-57.
  36. Gupta, S. (2002). Strategic Dimensions of the Corporate Image: Corporate Ability and Corporate Social Responsibility as Sources of Competitive Advantage via Differentiation, Phd Dissertation, Temple University. Proquest Dissertations Publishing.
  37. Habibi, S., Azari, A., Toloue, G., Ejlali, N., and Nejadjavad, M. (2013). Customer Satisfaction and Its Impact on the Improvement of Banking Services. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(10), 998-1003.
  38. Hair, J., Hult, T., M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM). NJ: Sage Publications.
  39. Hammed, R., Rehman, K., and Ullah, I. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Evaluations with Mediating Effect of Marketing Communication: A Pakistani Telecommunication Perspective. Economics, Business, and Management, 11(3), 202-230.
  40. Hartmann, M., Heinen, S., Melis, S., and Simons, J. (2013). Consumers' Awareness of CSR in the German Pork Industry. British Food Journal, 115(1), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701311289911
  41. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
  42. Homburg, C., Stierl, M., & Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business Markets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0089
  43. Hull, C. E., and Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm Performance: The Interactions of Corporate Social Performance with Innovation and Industry Differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 781-789. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.675
  44. Humaidan, A. (2016). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customers' Satisfaction of Cellular Communications Companies: A Field Study from the Perspective of the Students of the University of Jordan. British Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(4), 1-15.
  45. Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. European Financial Management, 7(3), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00158
  46. Khan, M. M., and Fasih, M. (2014). Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: Evidence from the Banking Sector. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 8(2), 331-354.
  47. Kim, S. B., and Kim, D. Y. (2016). The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility, Ability, Reputation, and Transparency on Hotel Customer Loyalty in the U.S: A Gender-Based Approach. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1537. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3220-3
  48. Kiran, R., and Sharma, A. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Corporate Strategy for New Business Opportunities. Journal of International Business Ethics, 4(1), 10-17.
  49. Kolkailah, K., Abouaish, E., and El-Bassiouny, N. (2012). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Consumers' Behavioral Intentions in the Egyptian Market. International IJC, 36, 369-384.
  50. Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., Rapert, M. I., and Newman, C. L. (2012). Does Perceived Consumer fit Matter in Corporate Social Responsibility Issues? Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1558-1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.040
  51. Lee, K. H., and Shin, D. (2010). Consumers' Responses to CSR Activities: The Linkage Between Increased Awareness and Purchase Intention. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 193-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.014
  52. Lee, S., and Jung, H. (2016). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Profitability: The Moderating Roles of Differentiation and Outside Investment. Management Decision, 54(6), 1383-1406. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2015-0268
  53. Loureiro, S. M. C., Dias Sardinha, I. M. D., and Reijnders, L. (2012). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Satisfaction and Perceived Value: The Case of the Automobile Industry Sector in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.003
  54. Luo, X., and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001
  55. Machyani, H., Taghipour, M., Asadifard, E., and Hashemi, N. (2021). The Relationship Between Social Responsibility and Brand (Including Case Study). Management, 4(3), 41.
  56. Manne, G. H. (1972). Responsibility; the Social Role of Business Could Lead to the Market's Extinction. New York: New York Times Magazine.
  57. Manohar, S., and Palanisamy, G. (2016). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Performance and Behavioral Intention-Testing the Mediating Role of Reputation of a Private University. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 10(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0380-1330(84)71800-4
  58. Mashhadi, M., & Hashemiamin, A. (2017). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Indicators on Consumer Behavior: A Case Study: Electronic and Quasi-Electronic Customers of Persian Carpet Co. Sydney: Sydney Business School.
  59. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., and Harris, K. E. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
  60. Moisescu, O. I. (2015). The Impact of Customers' Perception of CSR on Corporate Brand Loyalty: The Case of the Romanian Mobile Telecom Industry. Central European Business Review, 4(2), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.123
  61. Moura-Leite, R. C., and Padgett, R. C. (2011). Historical Background of Corporate Social Responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(4), 528-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/1747111111117511
  62. Munari, L., Ielasi, F., and Bajetta, L. (2013). Customer Satisfaction Management in Italian Banks. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 5(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-11-2011-0028
  63. Nguyen, T., Nuynh, M., Le, H., Tran, N., and Doan, N. (2022). Factors Affecting Environmental Consciousness on Green Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study of Generation Z in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 9(1), 333-343. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2022.VOL9.NO1.0333
  64. Nochai, R., and Nochai, T. (2014). The Effect of Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumers' Buying Behavior in Thailand: A Case Study in Bangkok. International Conference on Economics, Social Science and Languages. Singapore, May 14-15, 2014, 42-46.
  65. Orlitzky, M., and Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate Social Performance and Firm Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000402
  66. Palmatier, R. W., Rajiv, P. D., Grewal, D., and Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136-53.
  67. Paulik, J., Kombo, F., and Kljucnikov, A. (2015). CSR is a Driver of Satisfaction and Loyalty in Commercial Banks in the Czech Republic. Journal of International Studies, 8(3), 112-127.
  68. Perez, A., & Rodriguez, I. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty: Exploring the role of identification, satisfaction, and type of company. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2013-0272
  69. Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F
  70. Romani, S., Grappi, S., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z
  71. Salazar, G. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing Strategy: Influence on the Customer's Purchase Secision. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8(2), 74-82.
  72. Saleem, F., & Gopinath, C. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Behavior: A Developing Country Perspective. Lahore Journal of Business, 4(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.35536/ljb.2015.v4.i1.a1
  73. Scholtens, B. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility in the International Banking Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9841-x
  74. Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach , 5th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons Limited.
  75. Servaes, H., and Tamayo, A. (2013). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility of Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045-1061. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630
  76. Sindhu, M. I., and Arif, M. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Loyalty: Intervening Influence of Customer Satisfaction and Trust. Cogent Business and Management, 4(1), 55.
  77. Smith, J. A. (2003). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Hoboken, NJ: Sage Publications, Inc.
  78. Srivastava, P. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Engagement: A Greater Food for a Greater Gain. GBAMS-Vidushi, 9(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.26829/vidushi.v9i01.10562
  79. Tandon, N., and Kaur, S. (2017). The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in India. International Research Journal of Commerce and Behavioral Science, 1, 29-34.
  80. Terpstra, M., & Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2014). Customer satisfaction: Cost Driver or Value Driver? Empirical Evidence from the Financial Services Industry. European Management Journal, 32(3), 499-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.001
  81. Vahdati, H., Mousavi, N., and Tajik, Z. (2015). The Study of Consumer Perception on Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Consumers' Attitude and Purchase Behavior. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 5, 831-845. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2015.5.5/102.5.831.845
  82. Valor, C., and De la Cuesta, G. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Concept, Measurement and Development in Spain. Boletin Economico, 27, 7-20.
  83. Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., and Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the Nature of the Relationship Between CSR and Competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(S1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9812-2
  84. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., and Van Oppen, C. (2009) .Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33, 177-195. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650284
  85. Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., and Ramsay, J. (2006). Drivers of Environmental Behavior in Manufacturing SMEs and the Implications for CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 317-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9187-1
  86. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations. Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD.
  87. Wu, M. W., and Shen, C. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Banking Industry: Motives and Financial Performance. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(9), 3529-3547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.023
  88. Yeung, S. (2011). The Role of Banks in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 1(2), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v1i1.6600
  89. Zhou, Z., Hongda, J., and Qian, Y. (2022). The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Business Performance: Evidence from Agricultural Enterprises in China. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 9(3), 83-94.