ON TIME BUSINESS MANAGEMENT A+ WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARIZING; ON TIME

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Journal of Business Ethics (2020) 163:151–166 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4015-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer Loyalty

Oriol Iglesias1 · Stefan Markovic2  · Mehdi Bagherzadeh3 · Jatinder Jit Singh4

Received: 22 April 2018 / Accepted: 5 September 2018 / Published online: 14 September 2018 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract In an ever more transparent, digitalized, and connected environment, customers are increasingly pressuring brands to embrace genuine corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and co-creation activities. While both CSR and co-creation are social and collaborative processes, there is still little research examining whether CSR can boost co-creation. In addition, while previous research has mainly related co-creation to emotional outcomes (e.g., customer affective commitment), lim- ited empirical research has related it to rational (e.g., customer trust) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., customer loyalty). To address these shortcomings in the literature, this paper examines the influence of CSR on customer loyalty, considering the mediating roles of co-creation and customer trust. It also investigates the influence of co-creation on customer trust. The data were collected in Spain in late 2017 using an online survey, and the sample contained 1101 customers of health insurance services brands. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized relationships simultaneously. The results show that CSR influences customer loyalty both directly and indirectly through co-creation and customer trust. However, the indirect impact is the stronger of the two, implying that embracing co-creation activities and developing customer trust can make it easier for CSR practices to enhance customer loyalty. In addition, co-creation has a direct effect on customer trust.

Keywords Co-creation · Corporate social responsibility · Customer loyalty

Introduction

According to the 2016 Global RepTrak 100 report (Reputa- tion Institute 2016), corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important precursor of corporate reputation and is linked to better financial performance in terms of stock value. Accordingly, some 64% of the CEOs surveyed in the 19th annual global CEO survey by PwC (2016) reported that CSR is at the heart of their corporate strategy and actions. Further, some 45% agreed that their investors would expect them to make more socially responsible investments dur- ing the next 5 years. These managerial perceptions and intentions are a response to the growing importance that customers are giving to socially responsible consumption, and to their increasing expectations regarding brands’ social engagements (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Shaw and Shiu 2002).

This growing customer pressure for brands to act in a more socially responsible manner has been largely driven by the rapid development of information technologies, which have fostered a much more connected and transparent envi- ronment (e.g., Iglesias et al. 2017; Lindfelt and Törnroos

* Stefan Markovic [email protected]

Oriol Iglesias [email protected]

Mehdi Bagherzadeh [email protected]

Jatinder Jit Singh [email protected]

1 Marketing Department, Universitat Ramon Llull, ESADE, Av. Torre Blanca, 59, 08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

2 Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

3 Strategy and Entrepreneurship Department, NEOMA Business School, 59, rue Pierre Taittinger, 51100 Reims, France

4 Department of Marketing, Operations and Supply, EADA Business School, C. Aragó 204, 08011 Barcelona, Spain

152 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

2006; Markovic et al. 2018). In this context, public opinion and customers are increasingly aware of poor brand practices and punish those brands whose actions harm the environ- ment and society (Nyilasy et al. 2014). Likewise, superficial (Maxfield 2008) or insincere (Pope and Wæraas 2016) CSR actions that merely aim to repair a brand’s reputation (Vla- chos et al. 2009), are also increasingly criticized on social media. Consequently, some strong brands have started to place social responsibility genuinely at the heart of their business strategies (Markovic et al. 2018; Sierra et al. 2017), becoming true brands with a conscience (Iglesias and Ind 2016) that can portray their social responsibility sincerely when interacting with customers (Balmer 2001; Ind 1997; Rindell et al. 2011). When customers perceive this, their loy- alty to the brand is likely to increase, as they tend to reward those brands that demonstrate to be beneficial to society and the planet (Eisingerich et al. 2011; Walsh and Beatty 2007).

At the same time, the new digitized and connected envi- ronment also offers customers the possibility of interacting much more directly with brands (Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2016; Ind et al. 2013, 2017; Markovic Markovic 2016). Brands, such as Lego and Adidas, have built much of their recent success on a greater openness to the outside world, aiming to develop relationships of trust and true partner- ships with their customers, making themselves more rel- evant in an ever more competitive marketplace. For exam- ple, Mindstorms, one of the best-selling products in Lego’s history, was co-created with customers. Co-creation can be defined as an active, creative, dynamic, and social process aimed at developing new relevant product or service inno- vations through collaborative brand-customer interactions and relationships (e.g., Ind et al. 2013, 2017; Markovic and Bagherzadeh 2018). Embracing co-creation is attractive for brands, because it can lead to a plethora of organiza- tional advantages, including cost efficiencies, risk reduction, speed-to-market, better insights, and competitive advantage (e.g., Hatch and Schultz 2010; Ind et al. 2013, 2017; Kazadi et al. 2016; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000). In addition, engaging in co-creation is a stimulating experience for many customers (Ind et al. 2017). First, customers can establish a warm, deep relationship with the brand and the other mem- bers of the co-creation community (Nambisan and Baron 2007). Second, when taking part in a co-creation project, customers often feel that they grow as individuals, learn together with the community, and become more creative (Ind et al. 2013). In essence, co-creation offers customers opportunities for self-development, as well as social and hedonic benefits (Carù and Cova 2015; Schau et al. 2009) that lead them to feel more closely connected to the brand (Ind et al. 2013).

Thus, co-creation is a social and collaborative practice (Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2016; Ind et al. 2017). Curiously, so is CSR, which also consists of trying to provide value for

a social ecosystem in which multiple stakeholders interact (Vitell 2015; Singh et al. 2017). Socially responsible brands are thus open to listening to and understanding the needs and challenges of their stakeholders (Pour et al. 2014), as well as to seeking relevant solutions for them. Similarly, co-creation consists in engaging customers, as well as other possible stakeholders, in innovation processes that enable the devel- opment of relevant solutions (Nysveen and Pedersen 2014). From this perspective, it is plausible to expect that when cus- tomers perceive brands as socially responsible, they would also perceive them as more open to co-creation projects. However, while several authors have shown that CSR can influence a multitude of firm/brand and customer outcome variables, such as corporate/company evaluation (Brown and Dacin 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), firm-idiosyncratic risk (Luo and Bhattacharya 2009), firm market value and financial performance (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006), brand equity (Sierra et al. 2017), customer affective commitment (Markovic et al. 2018), customer purchase intention and behavior (Carrigan and Attalla 2001), and customer per- ceived service quality (Sierra et al. 2017), little research has investigated whether engaging in socially responsible prac- tices can help brands boost their co-creation activities (e.g., Lindfelt and Törnroos 2006; Williams and Aitken 2011).

In contrast, several studies have suggested that co-crea- tion activities make customers develop positive emotions and feelings toward a brand, and thus be more affectively committed to it (e.g., Ind et al. 2013, 2017). Nevertheless, there is still scarce research relating co-creation to rational and behavioral outcome variables, such as customer trust and customer loyalty. This is surprising, because customers’ cognitions and behavioral intentions can result in various significant organizational benefits, including increased sales and positive word-of-mouth (e.g., Markovic et al. 2018).

To address the aforementioned gaps in the literature, this paper examines the influence of CSR on customer loyalty, considering the mediating roles of co-creation and cus- tomer trust. It also investigates the influence of co-creation on customer trust. The data were collected in Spain in late 2017 using an online survey, and the sample contained 1101 customers of health insurance services brands. Establishing strong brands is especially important in the services sec- tor, because services are intangible and heterogeneous (e.g., Berry 1980; Zeithaml et al. 1985). From the organizational perspective, this means that it is difficult for services brands to deliver a uniform level of quality (Berry 1980; Booms and Bitner 1981). From the customer perspective, it implies a higher degree of perceived purchase risk, when compared to the goods sector (Choudhury 2014; Eiglier and Langeard 1977; Markovic et al. 2018). Furthermore, services brands generally have a greater number of touchpoints and interac- tions with their customers than product brands (Grönroos 2006). This creates significant challenges because services

153Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

brands need to consistently portray their social responsibility at each of these touchpoints if they want to develop various positive brand and customer outcomes, such as enhanced brand equity and improved customer loyalty (Sierra et al. 2017; Singh et al. 2012). It has thus become increasingly important for services brands to show their societal com- mitment at the corporate level (Balmer 2001; Ind 1997). The health insurance services industry in particular was cho- sen because it has invested heavily in CSR since the recent global financial crisis in order to regain customer trust and rebuild its reputation (Iglesias et al. 2017). Moreover, lead- ing brands in the health insurance services industry have begun to engage in co-creation activities, intended in many cases to improve customer experience (Chazal 2008). For instance, since 2016, the health insurance brand AXA has developed a CSR standard that must be met in all of its con- tracts to ensure that the brand and its products comply with 15 ethical standards, ranging from data privacy to environ- mental issues. At the same time, AXA is fostering co-crea- tion as a key tool to improve customer experience (Chazal 2008). Another interesting example is the health insurer DKV, which has developed a program called Health4good aimed at improving health by co-creating relevant solutions with organizations specialized in new technologies. DKV has also invested in CSR for many years, and is one of the benchmarks in the health insurance services industry (DKV 2018).

Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypoth- esized relationships simultaneously. The results show that CSR influences customer loyalty both directly and indirectly through co-creation and customer trust. However, the indi- rect impact is the stronger of the two, implying that embrac- ing co-creation activities and developing customer trust can make it easier for CSR practices to enhance customer loy- alty. In addition, co-creation has a direct impact on customer trust. These results imply that embracing co-creation can play a key role in developing customer trust in a brand and allow brands genuinely committed to CSR to differentiate themselves from brands that resort to selective disclosure and greenwashing.

The remaining sections of this paper contain the theoreti- cal background and hypotheses development, the methodol- ogy, the data analysis and results, and finally, the discussion and conclusion.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

CSR and Co‑creation

According to Singh (2014), CSR is often used interchangea- bly with corporate ethics, sustainability, citizenship behavior

and corporate conscientiousness, but the essence of CSR reflects the fact that brands are part of a social system and are expected to act responsibly (Singh 2014). In his seminal article on CSR, Carroll (1979) proposed that CSR encom- passes four types of responsibilities: economic, legal, ethi- cal, and social. In a content analysis of 37 previously devel- oped definitions of CSR, Dahlsrud (2008) concluded that the definitions represent five, generally congruent, underlying dimensions: environmental, societal, stakeholder, economic, and voluntariness. A definition of a socially responsible business proposed by Vitell (2015) captures the essence of CSR by highlighting two key underlying dimensions: proac- tive participation in activities offering social benefit or pub- lic service, and voluntary engagement in avoiding practices that can harm society, even without any legal obligation. Overall, it could be argued that the underlying social or col- lective essence of CSR relates to the activity of co-creation, as it is interactional in nature (e.g., Hatch and Schultz 2010; Ind et al. 2017; Singh et al. 2017). In this line, Nysveen and Pedersen (2014, p. 811) conceptualize co-creation as the “degree to which consumers actively participate with companies in improving existing solutions or find new solu- tions to create more value both for the consumer and the company.”

Co-creation is not a novel phenomenon (Bendapudi and Leone 2003). Its origins date back to preindustrial times, during which customers decided what was to be created by the craftsperson and how (Wikström 1996). However, in the industrial period, co-creation lost its prevalence in favor of mass production, as products became more standardized to achieve greater cost advantages (Harwood and Garry 2010). Nevertheless, with the emergence of the postindustrial era, brands have started to inhabit an environment characterized by fast, flexible new production facilities, decentralized organizations, and rapidly evolving information technolo- gies (e.g., Füller et al. 2009). In such an environment, con- sumption patterns are becoming increasingly heterogene- ous, unpredictable, and uncontrollable by brands (Ind et al. 2017). This has limited the ability of mass production to satisfy the idiosyncratic needs and desires of customers. Consequently, in the early 2000s, co-creation reemerged and started to be considered as the future of product and service innovation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000). Accordingly, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) proposed that the tradi- tional company-centered approach has become customer- oriented, characterized by enhanced customer involvement in the joint creation of products and services.

The literature has shown that CSR boosts customer satis- faction (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006), and when customers are satisfied with a specific brand, they are more likely to engage in the co-creation activities of that brand (Ind et al. 2013, 2017). Moreover, Sen et al. (2006) found that when customers are aware of the company’s CSR practices, they

154 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

identify more strongly with the company and become more willing to commit personal resources (e.g., money, labor) to benefit the company, which enables co-creation activities. In this line, Martínez-Cañas et al. (2016) proposed that, in addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors, cus- tomer willingness to co-create also depends on transcendent motives, including the benefit that their collaboration pro- vides for others in society. Thus, it is plausible to expect that customers will be more likely to participate in co-creation activities with brands/companies that they perceive to be socially responsible. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

H1 CSR will have a positive effect on co-creation.

CSR and Customer Trust

The brand and its customers can be considered business partners, whose dyadic exchange relationships are influ- enced by their respective perceptions of mutual trust (Singh et al. 2012). Therefore, trust can be defined as the confi- dence that each business partner will act with integrity and reliability during their interactions (Delgado-Ballester et al. 2003; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Traditionally, various schol- ars have proposed integrity and reliability (e.g., Mayer et al. 1995; Ring and van de Ven 1992) as key antecedents of trust. Moreover, business partners are likely to develop trust by being honest, benevolent, and altruistic (e.g., Larzelere and Huston 1980; Mayer et al. 1995). The perception of lack of opportunistic behavior among business partners is also essential for trust development, as is the perception that the brand behaves fairly, accountably, and responsibly toward its customers (Singh et al. 2012).

Multiple scholars have shown that customer perceptions that the brand/company behaves in a socially responsible manner are positively related to customer trust in such brand/ company (e.g., Lin et al. 2011; Martínez and Rodríguez del Bosque 2013; Swaen and Chumpitaz 2008). Examining cus- tomer perceptions of CSR, Vlachos et al. (2009) proposed a model relating customer perceptions of the company’s motives for undertaking CSR actions (i.e., stakeholder, stra- tegic, egoistic, and value-driven motives) to customer trust. Overall, socially responsible behavior is important, because a brand/company that is perceived as socially responsible is more likely to be trusted by its customers (Swaen and Chumpitaz 2008).

Accordingly, in a manufacturing context, Kennedy et al. (2001) found that manufacturers’ ethical concerns positively influence customer trust. Similarly, in a pharmaceutical set- ting, Lagace et al. (1991) showed that ethical behavior by the salesperson has a positive effect on customer trust. Likewise, in the field of services, García de los Salmones et al. (2009) found that the ethical behavior of a services company has a positive impact on trust. Meanwhile, in the context of fair

trade product, Castaldo et al. (2009) showed that customer perceived CSR is positively related to customer trust in the retailer. Similarly, in a number of service industries (e.g., restaurants, airlines, financial services), Choi and La (2013) found that customer perceived CSR has a positive impact on customer trust. Likewise, in the hotel industry, Martínez and Rodríguez del Bosque (2013) provided empirical evidence of a positive effect of CSR on customer trust. In this line, in the organic food sector, Pivato et al. (2008) showed that CSR is positively related to customer trust. Finally, in the car industry, Lin et al. (2011) found that negative CSR percep- tions can reduce customer trust. In accordance with these findings from different areas, and aiming to shed more light in the services sector, where trust plays a key role (e.g., Mar- tínez and Rodríguez del Bosque 2013), we postulate that:

H2 CSR will have a positive effect on customer trust.

Co‑creation and Customer Trust

Several scholars have acknowledged that customers are no longer passive recipients of product and service innovations, but that they have the skills and expertise to undertake an active role in co-creation (e.g., Cova and Dalli 2009; Von Hippel 2005). Co-creation consists of inviting customers to comment on current brand offerings (products and/or ser- vices), and to contribute their ideas and knowledge to the development of new offerings (e.g., Füller et al. 2008; Gouil- lart 2014; Markovic and Bagherzadeh 2018). Thus, instead of trying to discover what customers may want by analyzing market research data or organizing focus groups, brands are now able to gather customer input directly from co-creation projects (Ind et al. 2013, 2017). In addition, co-creation can help brands build and maintain trusting relationships with their customers (Iglesias et al. 2013; da Silveira et al. 2013; Vallaster and von Wallpach 2013). In this line, multiple scholars have suggested that favorable brand-customer inter- actions and relationships, on which co-creation initiatives are based, are a key driver of customer trust (e.g., Delgado- Ballester and Munuera-Alemán 2005; Fournier 1998; Wong and Sohal 2002).

Accordingly, Madhavan and Grover (1998) proposed that rich interpersonal interactions during the co-creation of new products increase participant trust. Likewise, in a cross-sectorial study, Massey and Kyriazis (2007) showed that a high level of communication among participants dur- ing the joint development of new products increases trust. Similarly, in the context of innovative firms, García Rod- ríguez et al. (2007) found that cooperation in new product development improves trust. In the healthcare services sector, Banytė et al. (2014) showed that patient engage- ment in co-creation heightens their trust in the clinic. In the travel industry, Rajah et al. (2008) showed that dyadic

155Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

firm-customer co-creation of services enhances customer trust. Finally, in online brand communities, where custom- ers actively take part in co-creation processes, Brodie et al. (2013) found that engaged customers trust the brand more, and Ind et al. (2013) showed that customer participation in co-creation generates customer trust in the brand. In line with these previous findings from diverse settings, including services, we posit that:

H3 Co-creation will have a positive effect on customer trust.

Co‑creation and Customer Loyalty

Developing and sustaining customer loyalty is the holy grail of business activity (Singh et al. 2012). In the context of services marketing, customer loyalty can be defined as the customer’s willingness to build a long-term relationship with a specific brand, and recommend such brand to other people (Lovelock and Wirtz 2011; Markovic et al. 2018). Schol- ars have proposed that customer loyalty drives profitability, because of repeat transactions, referrals, willingness to pay a higher price, and reduced cost-to-serve (e.g., Lovelock and Wirtz 2011). Moreover, research has established vari- ous antecedents of customer loyalty, being customer trust and customer affective commitment among the most com- mon ones (e.g., Leonidou et al. 2013; Markovic et al. 2018; Singh et al. 2012). However, while previous research has widely linked rational (e.g., customer trust) and emotional (e.g., customer affective commitment) variables to customer loyalty, it has not extensively studied interactional variables (e.g., co-creation) as antecedents of customer loyalty.

Among this scarce research, in a study on personal care services firms, Cossío-Silva et al. (2016) found that cus- tomer co-creation behavior boosts customer loyalty. Like- wise, in the context of brand communities, Kaufmann et al. (2016) proposed that when customers actively engage in co-creation, their loyalty to the brand increases. Similarly, Hajli et al. (2017) found that co-creation enhances customer loyalty, through participation in online brand communities, where customers develop trust in the brand. In the area of banking services, Hosseini and Hosseini (2013) and Nys- veen and Pedersen (2014) showed that involving customers in co-creation positively influences customer loyalty to the bank. In the same vein, in the healthcare services sector, Banytė et al. (2014) found that patients’ involvement in co- creation has a positive effect on their loyalty to the clinic. Finally, in the tourism sector, Peña et al. (2014) showed that involving customers in the co-creation of travel services positively influences customer loyalty. In accordance with these findings from multiple settings, we hypothesize that:

H4 Co-creation will have a positive effect on customer loyalty.

Customer Trust and Customer Loyalty

While scarcely linking co-creation with customer loyalty, multiple scholars have argued that trusting relationships between the customers and the brand make the former more likely to become loyal to the brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Fournier and Yao 1997), adopting both a positive attitude toward it and the intention to repurchase its products or services (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera- Alemán 2005). Developing trusting relationships with cus- tomers is important because, according to some estimates, acquiring a new customer could be anywhere between five and 25 times more expensive than retaining an existing one (Gallo 2014). Accordingly, a substantial body of literature considers that customer trust relates positively to customer loyalty (e.g., Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Delgado-Bal- lester and Munuera-Alemán 2005; Delgado-Ballester et al. 2003; Kumar and Advani 2005).

For example, in the field of retailing, Sun and Lin (2010) showed that customer trust in a department store positively influences customer loyalty to the store. Also in the field of retailing, Stathopoulou and Balabanis (2016) provided empirical evidence of a positive effect of customer trust on customer loyalty to the store. Similarly, in the travel indus- try, Setó-Pamies (2012) and Rajah et al. (2008) found that customer trust in the travel services provider has a positive effect on customer loyalty. Likewise, in the area of business- to-business services, Hannan et al. (2017) provided empiri- cal evidence of a positive influence of customer trust on cus- tomer loyalty. In this line, in the healthcare services sector, Banytė et al. (2014) showed that patients’ trust in the clinic boosts their loyalty to the clinic.

Moreover, the link between customer trust and customer loyalty has been widely researched in the fields of business ethics and CSR. For instance, in a study on retail business ethics, Diallo and Lambey-Checchin (2017) found that cus- tomer trust in a retailer increases customer loyalty to that retailer. Similarly, in a research on customer perceived ethi- cality of product brands, Singh et al. (2012) showed that customer trust has a positive effect on customer loyalty. Likewise, in a study on corporate unethicality, Leonidou et al. (2013) found that the less customers trust a firm, the less they are loyal to that firm. In a study on CSR conducted in the United States, Kang and Hustvedt (2014) provided empirical evidence of a positive impact of customer trust in a corporation on customer intentions to purchase the products of that corporation. In this line, in the context of CSR and fair trade products, Castaldo et al. (2009) found that cus- tomer trust positively impacts customer loyalty. In a study on ethical sales behavior in the financial services industry, Román (2003) showed that customer trust in a financial services company positively influences customer loyalty to that company. Also in a study on ethical sales behavior,

156 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

but in the health insurance industry, Chen and Mau (2009) found that customer trust in the health insurance company has a positive effect on customer loyalty to that company. In line with all this previous research linking customer trust to customer loyalty, especially in the fields of business ethics and CSR, and in the health insurance services industry, we postulate that:

H5 Customer trust will have a positive effect on customer loyalty.

CSR and Customer Loyalty

In addition to establishing customer trust as a key antecedent of customer loyalty, several scholars have argued that CSR is a key element of corporate success that can shape customer evaluations of a brand, and determine customer intentions to repurchase the brand’s products and services (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006) and to form a long-term relationship with the brand (Markovic et al. 2018; Singh et al. 2012). In fact, a wide body of research has acknowledged that follow- ing socially responsible principles can help brands build and maintain long-term relationships with their customers (e.g., Gundlach and Murphy 1993; Iglesias et al. 2017). Accord- ingly, research has widely related CSR to customer loyalty from an empirical standpoint (e.g., Castaldo et al. 2009; Diallo and Lambey-Checchin 2017; Park et al. 2017).

For example, in the context of grocery shops, Ailawadi et al. (2014) found that positive customer perceptions of retailers’ CSR initiatives have a positive influence on cus- tomer loyalty. Similarly, in the hotel industry, Martínez and Rodríguez del Bosque (2013) provided empirical evi- dence of a positive relationship between CSR and customer loyalty. In this line, in the banking sector, Mandhachitara and Poolthong (2011) showed a positive effect of CSR on customer loyalty. Also in the banking industry, Pérez and Rodríguez del Bosque (2015) found that CSR is positively

related to customer repurchase intentions. Likewise, in the footwear industry, Kang and Hustvedt (2014) showed that the brand’s social responsibility positively influences cus- tomer purchase intentions. In the context of fair trade prod- ucts, Castaldo et al. (2009) found that customer perceived CSR is positively related to brand loyalty. Similarly, in the retail industry, Park et al. (2017) showed that customer per- ceptions of a company’s commitment to CSR have a positive effect on customer loyalty to that company. In a number of service industries (i.e., restaurants, airlines, financial ser- vices), Choi and La (2013) found that customer perceived CSR positively influences customer loyalty. Likewise, in an empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of CSR, Stanaland et al. (2011) provided empirical evidence of a positive effect of customer evaluations of a firm’s CSR activities on customer loyalty. In line with this research from various contexts, we posit that:

H6 CSR will have a positive effect on customer loyalty.

Methodology

Survey and Measures

The survey contained constructs measured using and adapt- ing existing scale items in the literature (see Table 1). All responses were recorded by means of a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” A double-blind back-translation process was applied to the survey to translate the items into Spanish.

The survey was pre-tested in two ways. First, to avoid potential misinterpretation by respondents, several experts from the fields of brand management and business ethics assessed the conceptual adequacy of the questions and their formulation. Second, several target respondents assessed the ease of comprehension of the survey.

Table 1 Constructs and items used in the questionnaire

Constructs Items Reference(s)

CSR The brand is a socially responsible brand The brand is more beneficial to society’s welfare than other brands The brand contributes to society in positive ways

Eisingerich et al. (2011)

Co-creation I often express my personal needs to the brand I often find solutions to my problems together with the brand I am actively involved when the brand develops new solutions for me The brand encourages customers to create new solutions together

Nysveen and Pedersen (2014)

Customer trust The brand keeps its promises The brand can be trusted The brand is trustworthy

Mende and Bolton (2011) Dagger et al. (2009)

Customer loyalty I consider the brand my first choice when I purchase the services they supply I am willing to maintain my relationship with the brand I am loyal to the brand

Dagger et al. (2011)

157Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

Data Collection and Sample

Data collection was conducted in Spain through an online survey in late 2017 by an external company, Eurus e-i, which is specialized in performing market studies. This external company was responsible for recruiting target respondents, using two online customer panels (i.e., Encuestón and Cint), and for executing the survey (i.e., distributing it and manag- ing respondent incentives). The target population comprised Spanish individuals between 18 and 65 years old who had health insurance. Respondents were selected using several filtering questions to ensure that they belonged to our target population. Regarding the sampling procedure, we created stratums, based on socio-demographic variables including gender, age, habitat size, and geographical location, and cal- culated the number of individuals we needed in each stratum to have a representative sample of the Spanish population (according to census data from the Spanish National Institute of Statistics). Then, individuals from the above-mentioned customer panels were randomly invited by email, which included a link to the survey. The recruitment process con- tinued until each stratum was filled. In the email invitation, respondents were also informed about the objectives of the survey and that they would get paid €1.50 as compensation for the time taken to complete it. This process produced a sample of 1101 customers (useable completed surveys) with an average age of 39.9, and a median age of 39. Some 52% of respondents were female.

Data Analysis and Results

Construct Analysis

We evaluated the factor structure and convergent and discri- minant validities of the constructs by conducting a confirma- tory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood method with AMOS 22.0. To assess goodness of fit, we used the Chi square (χ2), goodness of fit index (GFI), compara- tive fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approxima- tion (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The results showed that all the fit indices were within their acceptable cut-off values, confirming that the hypothesized four-factor measurement model fits the data well (χ2 = 215.813 with df = 59 (χ2/df = 3.66); GFI = 0.969; CFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.049; SRMR = 0.030) (Hu and Bentler 1999).

In addition, the hypothesized four-factor measurement model provided a significant Chi square improvement over other more parsimonious models. For instance, we evalu- ated a three-factor measurement model, where the items of the following constructs were set to load on a single factor: co-creation and customer loyalty (Δχ2 = 1095.131,

Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001); customer trust and customer loy- alty (Δχ2 = 429.425, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001); CSR and customer loyalty (Δχ2 = 690.306, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001); customer trust and co-creation (Δχ2 = 1025.925, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001); CSR and customer trust (Δχ2 = 567.372, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001); and CSR and co-creation (Δχ2 = 534.626, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001). In addition, the GFI, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR fit indices were better for the hypothesized four-factor measurement model than for the three-factor model. Overall, these results support the hypothesized four-factor measurement model.

Thereafter, we analyzed the factor loadings of the items (see Table 2). All standardized factor loadings were sig- nificant and higher than the recommended threshold value of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The average variances extracted (AVEs) of all four constructs were greater than the cut-off value of 0.50 (see Table 2) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). These results support the convergent validity of all the constructs. Following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) dis- criminant validity test, the square root of the AVE of each construct was greater than its correlation with all the other constructs (see Table 3), providing evidence for the discrimi- nant validity of all four constructs. Finally, Table 2 presents the composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach alpha coeffi- cients computed to evaluate the reliability of the constructs. The Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.88 to 0.90, and the CR values from 0.88 to 0.91, providing evidence of the reliability of all four constructs in the hypothesized model (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Overall, these results indicate that each of the four constructs has good psycho- metric properties.

Finally, to check item distribution, we calculated their skewness and kurtosis. The results indicated that all of them were normally distributed (skewness ranged from − 1.106 to -0.435, and kurtosis from − 0.603 to 1.689) (West et al. 1995).

Common Method Variance

This study is subject to common method variance (CMV), as the data for all constructs were collected from a single respondent (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). To reduce the potential CMV effect, the dependent, mediating, and inde- pendent variables were proximally separated in the survey (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This prevented respondents from linking the variables in this study, and thereby limited the chance that their responses to one set of questions would affect those to the other questions.

Nevertheless, to test whether CMV could bias our results, we first conducted the CFA-based Harman single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff and Organ 1986), using the maximum likelihood method. We set all the items in the study to load on a single factor. This single-factor

158 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

measurement model did not provide the fit indices within their acceptable ranges (χ2 = 2027.463 with df = 65 (χ2/ df = 31.19); GFI = 0.714; CFI = 0.824; RMSEA = 0.166; SRMR = 0.078). Our hypothesized four-factor measurement model significantly improved the Chi square (Δχ2 = 1811.65, Δdf = 6, p-value < 0.001), and also provided better fit indices than the single-factor measurement model (ΔGFI = 0.255; ΔCFI = 0.162; ΔRMSEA = 0.117; ΔSRMR = 0.048).

Second, following Lindell and Whitney (2001), we applied the marker variable technique, using psychologi- cal risk (Keh and Pang 2010) as our marker variable (i.e., a variable theoretically-unrelated to the others in this study). The lowest absolute correlation between psycho- logical risk and our four constructs was considered as the CMV estimate (rs). Psychological risk was correlated with CSR (r = 0.009); co-creation (r = 0.215); customer trust (r = − 0.161); and customer loyalty (r = − 0.144). Accord- ingly, the CMV estimate (rs) was 0.009, showing a low common variance shared between constructs. To control for potential CMV, the correlation coefficients between all four constructs were adjusted based on rs = 0.009 (see

Table 4). All significant unadjusted correlation coefficients remained significant after adjusting for CMV. All these results imply that CMV is not great enough to bias the results of our study.

Table 2 Item descriptive and measurement model assessment

Standardized factor loadings are reported. All factor loadings are significant at 0.1% level (two-tailed)

Construct Items Mean SD Loadings Cronbach alphas CR AVE

CSR 0.89 0.89 0.73 CSR1 5.25 1.28 0.869 CSR2 4.94 1.35 0.818 CSR3 5.12 1.28 0.872

Co-creation 0.88 0.88 0.64 CO1 4.42 1.70 0.755 CO2 4.73 1.54 0.833 CO3 4.49 1.68 0.771 CO4 4.63 1.54 0.833

Customer trust 0.90 0.91 0.76 T1 5.39 1.22 0.841 T2 5.66 1.16 0.900 T3 5.67 1.16 0.873

Customer loyalty 0.90 0.90 0.76 L1 5.41 1.35 0.866 L2 5.50 1.30 0.867 L3 5.30 1.42 0.876

Table 3 Construct descriptive and discriminant validity

Square roots of AVE on the diagonal are given in bold. All Pearson correlations between constructs are significant at 1% level (two-tailed)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. CSR 5.11 1.18 0.85 2. Co-creation 4.57 1.38 0.70 0.80 3. Customer trust 5.58 1.08 0.73 0.60 0.87 4. Customer loyalty 5.40 1.24 0.69 0.58 0.76 0.87

Table 4 CMV-adjusted correlation coefficients

CMV-adjusted estimates using rs = 0.009. All Pearson CMV-adjusted correlation coefficients between constructs remain significant at 1% level (two-tailed)

Unadjusted correlation coef- ficients

CMV-adjusted cor- relation coefficients

CSR—co-creation 0.698 0.695 CSR—customer trust 0.729 0.727 Co-creation—customer trust 0.597 0.593 Co-creation—customer

loyalty 0.579 0.575

Customer trust—customer loyalty

0.764 0.762

CSR—customer loyalty 0.694 0.691

159Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

Hypothesized Structural Model Analysis

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correla- tions of the four constructs in this study. The correlations between the constructs provided preliminary support for all six hypotheses, with customer loyalty being significantly associated with CSR (r = 0.69), co-creation (r = 0.58), and customer trust (r = 0.76). CSR is also significantly correlated with co-creation (r = 0.70) and customer trust (r = 0.73). Finally, there is a significant correlation between co-creation and customer trust (0.60).

To test the hypothesized relationships between CSR, co- creation, customer trust, and customer loyalty (see Fig. 1), we applied covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM), using the maximum likelihood method, in AMOS 22.0.

All the fit indices showed that our hypothesized struc- tural model has an acceptable fit (χ2 = 215.813 with df = 59 (χ2/df = 3.66); GFI = 0.969; CFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.049; SRMR = 0.030). Some alternative models (models 1, 2, and 3) to our hypothesized structural model (model 4) were specified, and we calculated all their fit indices (see Table 5).

In model 1, we only specified the direct impacts of CSR, co- creation, and customer trust on customer loyalty. In model 2, we specified the direct effect of CSR on both co-creation and customer trust, as well as the direct effects of co-creation and customer trust on customer loyalty. Alternative model 3 reproduces the hypothesized structural model, but without the direct impact of CSR on customer loyalty. As the χ2/df ratio of the hypothesized structural model (3.66) is smaller than the χ2/df ratios of the alternative models 1 (29.47), 2 (3.80), and 3 (3.81), the hypothesized structural model fits the data better than alternative models 1, 2, and 3. Moreover, to compare the hypothesized structural model with alter- native models 1, 2 and 3, we applied the Chi square dif- ference test. The hypothesized structural model provided a significant improvement in χ2 over model 1 (Δχ2 = 1611.033, Δdf = 3, p-value < 0.001), model 2 (Δχ2 = 15.678, Δdf = 2, p-value < 0.001), and model 3 (Δχ2 = 12.967, Δdf = 1, p-value < 0.001). Furthermore, the hypothesized structural model had greater GFI and CFI, and smaller RMSEA and SRMR than alternative models 1, 2, and 3. All these results confirm that the hypothesized structural model fits the data better than the alternative models.

Tests of the hypothesized relationships between the constructs empirically supported all six hypotheses (see Table 6). In addition, the bootstrap procedure using 5000 bootstrapping samples supported all six hypotheses. CSR has significant and positive effects on co-creation (β = 0.79), customer trust (β = 0.74), and customer loyalty (β = 0.20), supporting H1, H2, and H6, respectively. In addition, co- creation has a significant and positive effect on customer trust (β = 0.10) and customer loyalty (β = 0.09), which sup- ports H3 and H4, respectively. Finally, customer trust has a significant and positive influence on customer loyalty (β = 0.63), supporting H5.

These significant direct effects point to a potential par- tial mediating effect of co-creation and customer trust in the relationship between CSR and customer loyalty. To test the significance of this potential partial mediating

CSR

Co-creation

Customer Trust

Customer Loyalty

H6

H 3

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model

Table 5 Fit indices comparison between hypothesized structural model and alternative models

CO co-creation, T customer trust, L customer loyalty

1 CSR, CO, T → L

2 CSR → CO, T CO, T → L

3 Hypothesized model without direct link between CSR and L CSR → CO, T CO → T CO, T → L

4 Hypothesized model CSR → CO, T, L CO → T CO, T → L

χ2 (df) 1826.846 (62) 231.491 (61) 228.78 (60) 215.813 (59) χ2/df 29.47 3.80 3.81 3.66 GFI 0.809 0.968 0.968 0.969 CFI 0.842 0.985 0.985 0.986 RMSEA 0.161 0.050 0.051 0.049 SRMR 0.369 0.031 0.031 0.030

160 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

effect, we performed the bootstrap procedure using 5000 samples to develop bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effect. The indirect effect (0.57) was sig- nificant at a 95% confidence level (95% Bias-corrected bootstrap CI = [0.46; 0.69]), indicating that the relation- ship between CSR and customer loyalty is partially medi- ated by co-creation and customer trust. Some 74% of the total effect of CSR on customer loyalty (0.77) occurs through the two mediators of co-creation and customer trust.

Finally, we analyzed three possible indirect effects of CSR on customer loyalty via co-creation and customer trust (i.e., partial mediators) using the bootstrap proce- dure suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2004). We per- formed this bootstrap procedure using the PROCESS macro 2.16.2 (Hayes 2017) in SPSS 23.0. Table 7 presents the three possible indirect effects, their bootstrap standard errors, and the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 5000 bootstrapping samples. The three indirect effects are significant. Therefore, CSR has a significant and positive effect on customer loyalty via co-creation (indirect effect 1 = 0.07), customer trust (indirect effect 3 = 0.33), and following the path through co-creation and then customer trust (indirect effect 2 = 0.06).

Discussion and Conclusion

Theoretical Contributions

This research has some important theoretical contribu- tions. First, we show that CSR can boost customer loy- alty. This is because when brands genuinely invest in CSR, sincerely strive to generate social benefits, and avoid prac- tices that might harm society and the environment (Vitell 2015), they can connect with their customers emotionally, and thus generate greater customer loyalty. This finding reinforces the growing importance of responsible and sus- tainable consumption to customers, and of brand involve- ment in societal causes (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Shaw and Shiu 2002). Nonetheless, brands still face a significant challenge, namely, customers who have become increas- ingly skeptical of CSR practices (Nyilasy et al. 2014). The reason is that, all too often, customers perceive these practices as insincere (Pope and Wæraas 2016). In fact, accusations of greenwashing have intensified over the last few years (Marquis et al. 2016), as has the perception that CSR is only a means to repair corporate reputation (Vla- chos et al. 2009). In short, some customers see CSR as an insincere response (Maxfield 2008) that brands use only superficially and cosmetically (Narth et al. 2007), or as a rhetorical ploy to strengthen their reputation (Nyilasy et al.

Table 6 Direct effects results

a Bias-corrected bootstrap CI based on 5000 bootstrapping samples b Hypothesis is also significant based on 99% bias-corrected CI

Standardized coefficients

Standard error p-value 90% bias-corrected CIa Result

H1: CSR → co-creation 0.79 0.036 < 0.001 [0.76; 0.82] Supportedb

H2: CSR → customer trust 0.74 0.043 < 0.001 [0.65; 0.82] Supportedb

H3: co-creation → customer trust 0.10 0.035 0.033 [0.002; 0.19] Supported H4: co-creation → customer loyalty 0.09 0.036 0.033 [0.006; 0.17] Supported H5: customer trust → customer loyalty 0.63 0.051 < 0.001 [0.54; 0.70] Supportedb

H6: CSR → customer loyalty 0.20 0.057 < 0.001 [0.09; 0.31] Supportedb

Table 7 Indirect effects results

Bootstrap standard errors are in parentheses a Bias-corrected bootstrap CI based on 5000 bootstrapping samples b Indirect effect is also significant based on 99% bias-corrected CI

Standardized indirect effect

95% bias-corrected CIa

(1) CSR → co-creation → customer loyalty 0.07 (0.021) [0.02; 0.11]b

(2) CSR → co-creation → customer trust → customer loyalty

0.06 (0.013) [0.04; 0.09]b

(3) CSR → customer trust → customer loyalty 0.33 (0.024) [0.28; 0.38]b

161Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

2014). In these cases, brands tend to implement a selective disclosure strategy, designed to inform about and empha- size the benign impacts of their actions while hiding their negative effects and thus their true performance (Marquis et al. 2016). The ultimate aim of this strategy is to create a false image of transparency and social responsibility (Mar- quis et al. 2016). This, of course, raises concerns about the corporate motivations and ethics behind CSR (Joyner and Payne 2002). This is a complex and dangerous situation for brands that do genuinely believe in CSR (brands with a conscience) (Iglesias and Ind 2016), and have included CSR as a core element of their strategy and business activ- ity. The challenge for these brands is to find ways of trans- mitting their authentic and sincere commitment to CSR, and of clearly differentiating themselves from brands that resort to selective disclosure and greenwashing.

In this regard, co-creation represents an especially great opportunity for services brands, as it can help them to trans- late their CSR practices into enhanced customer loyalty. Our results support this by showing that the indirect effect of CSR on customer loyalty (via co-creation and customer trust) accounts for some 74% of the total impact of CSR on customer loyalty. This means that when brands involve their customers in co-creation activities and are trusted, they can more easily translate their CSR practices into greater customer loyalty. This is because by embracing co-creation initiatives, brands inevitably open themselves to the out- side world and listen to their customers (Ind et al. 2017). They also tend to foment strategic partnerships through which employees and customers jointly define beneficial solutions for both parties (Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2016). Consequently, co-creation is capable of generating customer trust (Nambisan and Baron 2007), as customers perceive that brands are genuinely concerned about their needs and desires, and that they listen to them, and act accordingly (Ind et al. 2013).

Additionally, the currently prevalent approach to CSR, in line with the stakeholder theory (Freeman 1999), argues that any organization should balance the interests of its dif- ferent stakeholders (Van Marrewijk 2003). This turns stake- holder opinions and the promotion of stakeholder dialog into key concerns for brands (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2008). Moreover, this explains why brands that adopt an authentic and genuine approach to CSR are likely to devote signifi- cant efforts to listening to and understanding the needs and desires of their customers (Pour et al. 2014). Interestingly, co-creation is based precisely on a philosophy of dialog, openness, listening, and a real commitment to customer needs and desires. This philosophy is also the complete opposite of selective disclosure and greenwashing. Thus, co-creation may enable brands to generate customer trust and to more effectively translate their CSR activities into enhanced customer loyalty.

This research also shows that customer trust plays a key role in the ability of CSR practices to improve customer loyalty. Thus, services brands need to act with honesty and integrity regarding CSR for it to make a stronger impact on customer loyalty (Delgado-Ballester et al. 2003; Mor- gan and Hunt 1994). In addition, services brands have to manage many more touchpoints with their customers (Grön- roos 2006) than, for example, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) brands. Consequently, in a service industry’s com- petitive context, brands can not only instill trust through sin- cere, transparent, non-manipulative communication efforts, but also need to generate trust at every single touchpoint that makes up the customer experience, especially when cus- tomers interact directly with frontline employees (Markovic et al. 2018). Therefore, services brands have to develop and portray their commitment to CSR strategies and initiatives carefully at all the different touchpoints forming the cus- tomer journey (Iglesias et al. 2017).

Overall, the results of our study contribute to the literature on CSR by establishing a new and still largely unexplored connection with the emerging field of co-creation, and by linking both CSR and co-creation with the key customer outcome variables of customer trust and customer loyalty in the context of health insurance services brands, which currently have high levels of customer distrust (2018 Edel- man Trust Barometer) and whose CSR initiatives are often perceived by customers as insincere and manipulative (Hsu 2012; Lock and Seele 2015).

Managerial Implications

In addition to its theoretical contributions, this research has important implications for managers. First, if managers want to increase the customer loyalty deriving from their CSR activities, they need to promote an authentic dialog with cus- tomers. In fact, the literature on CSR already recommends managers to make stakeholder dialog a key priority in their agendas (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2008). The results of our study build on this literature by suggesting that managers should embrace co-creation to increase customer trust and to more effectively translate their CSR activities into enhanced customer loyalty. This is a novel perspective, because the majority of brands that embrace co-creation do so to produce better innovations, but do not realize that co-creation can also be used to boost customer trust and loyalty.

Second, although co-creation can make it easier for CSR practices to enhance customer loyalty, managers should understand that not all brands embracing co-crea- tion do so as effectively as possible. In fact, based on an empirical research on brands from different sectors and geographies, Ind et al. (2017) introduced a co-creation continuum that has a tactical and a strategic end, and found that most brands understand co-creation from a tactical

162 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

perspective, which impedes them to realize its potential. These brands are much more akin to use co-creation as a market research tool than to build strategic partner- ships with customers through joint innovation projects (Ind et al. 2017). In these cases, the brands’ underlying assumption is that customers can provide useful informa- tion and insights, but do not have the required knowledge and expertise to generate substantial service innovations (Nambisan and Nambisan 2008). As a result, brands that adopt this tactical view of co-creation only involve cus- tomers on an ad-hoc basis to test and refine internally- generated ideas (Ind et al. 2017). This could significantly limit the capacity of co-creation to boost the effect of CSR on customer loyalty. However, if managers want to real- ize the full potential of co-creation, they have to foment a much more open and participatory corporate culture (Igle- sias et al. 2013) that genuinely appreciates and recognizes customer knowledge and expertise (Prahalad and Ramas- wamy 2000) and authentically takes into account customer idiosyncratic needs and desires. Additionally, they need to build long-term, trustworthy collaborative relationships with customers and treat them as true strategic innovation partners (Kazadi et al. 2016; Markovic and Bagherzadeh 2018). This strategic approach to co-creation, which is at the opposite end of the continuum (Ind et al. 2017), is that with the greatest potential to translate CSR practices into enhanced customer loyalty.

Third, the capacity of CSR practices to generate customer trust and loyalty in the services sector does not depend solely on communication efforts. It also depends on how well ser- vices brands embed them at the different touchpoints with customers, especially those involving direct customer con- tact with frontline employees (Markovic et al. 2018). Sub- sequently, managers should ensure that they develop human resource management policies that support their CSR strate- gies (Iglesias and Saleem 2015). In this regard, they should hire employees whose values are aligned with their brand’s CSR practices, and design training programs to encourage socially responsible behavior among employees. In addition, promotion opportunities should also depend on employees’ CSR performance and ability to embody and enact societal values.

Finally, brands should adhere to a more authentic and sincere approach to CSR, which should be grounded in doing good in its own right, although this may lead to some second-order benefits for the organization, such as increased customer loyalty. Brands need to develop a conscience (Igle- sias and Ind 2016) and be committed to a consistent set of core values and principles that authentically guide all the brand’s strategic decisions and actions, taking a long-term view of CSR, and endeavoring to transform the brand inter- nally and improve its positive transformative impact on soci- ety and the environment.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite its theoretical contributions and managerial impli- cations, this study has some limitations. First, it is limited to the health insurance services industry, and therefore the external validity of the findings is a concern. Future research should replicate this study in a wider range of services contexts, to figure out whether the results are con- sistent across the whole services sector. It would also be interesting and useful to test the hypothesized model in the goods sector and compare the results with those from the services sector. Such a study might reveal key differences between services and product brands, and shed light on how they should be managed respectively. Second, as the sample is only representative of the Spanish population, the generalizability of the results is an issue. To address this issue, future research should replicate this study in other countries with relevant cultural differences. This is a relevant future research opportunity, because customers from different cultural backgrounds tend to both assess services brands differently (Imrie 2005) and define socially responsible brands differently (Iglesias et al. 2017). Third, as all the data for this study were collected using surveys, mono-method bias is a concern. Future research should triangulate this data source by gaining qualitative insights into the effect of CSR on customer loyalty, using focus groups or in-depth interviews, for example. Fourth, this study only uses attitudinal measures for CSR, co-creation, customer trust, and customer loyalty. Although, based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), measuring a customer’s attitude toward a brand is a satisfactory approx- imation of the customer’s actual behavior toward that brand, future studies can add more rigor to our research by developing and using behavioral measures along with the attitudinal ones.

Apart from addressing these limitations, there are other relevant opportunities for future research. For instance, it would be interesting to discover how employees influence customer perceptions of CSR. This is especially impor- tant in the context of services brands, because services brands generally involve a greater number of customer- employee touchpoints than product brands (Grönroos 2006), where they shape the customer experience (Iglesias et al. 2011, 2018). Moreover, while this study relates co- creation to different types of customer outcome variables, both rational (customer trust) and behavioral (customer loyalty), future research could relate it to relevant brand outcome variables, such as brand equity, one of the broad- est and most important constructs in the field of brand management (e.g., Yoo et al. 2000; Sierra et al. 2017). It would be especially interesting to figure out which type of brand equity—consumer-based or financial—co-creation boosts the most.

163Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., Luan, Y. J., & Taylor, G. A. (2014). Does retailer CSR enhance behavioral loyalty? A case for benefit segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(2), 156–167.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brand management. Journal of General Management, 27(1), 1–17.

Banytė, J., Tarutė, A., & Taujanskytė, I. (2014). Customer engage- ment into value creation: Determining factors and relations with loyalty. Engineering Economics, 25(5), 568–577.

Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.

Berry, L. L. (1980). Services marketing is different. Business, 30(3), 24–29.

Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organi- zation structures for service firms. Marketing of Services, 25(3), 47–52.

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analy- sis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer— Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of cor- porate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2015). Co-creating the collective service experi- ence. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 276–294.

Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The miss- ing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1–15.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.

Chazal, C. (2008). Co-creation: Insurance done differently. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https ://www.axa.com/en/spotl ight/story /co-creat ion-insur ance-done-diffe rentl y.

Chen, M. F., & Mau, L. H. (2009). The impacts of ethical sales behav- iour on customer loyalty in the life insurance industry. The Ser- vice Industries Journal, 29(1), 59–74.

Choi, B., & La, S. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the restoration of loyalty after ser- vice failure and recovery. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 223–233.

Choudhury, K. (2014). Service quality and word of mouth: A study of the banking sector. International Journal of Bank Market- ing, 32(7), 612–627.

Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1621–1625.

Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: The next step in marketing theory? Marketing Theory, 9(3), 315–339.

Da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simões, C. (2013). Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36.

Dagger, T. S., Danaher, P. J., & Gibbs, B. J. (2009). How often versus how long: The interplay of contact frequency and relationship duration in customer-reported service relationship strength. Journal of Service Research, 11(4), 371–388.

Dagger, T. S., David, M. E., & Ng, S. (2011). Do relationship ben- efits and maintenance drive commitment and loyalty? Journal of Services Marketing, 25(4), 273–281.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J. L., & Yague-Guillen, M. J. (2003). Development and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 35–54.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Man- agement, 14(3), 187–196.

Diallo, M. F., & Lambey-Checchin, C. (2017). Consumers’ Percep- tions of Retail Business Ethics and Loyalty to the Retailer: The Moderating Role of Social Discount Practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 435–449.

DKV. (2018). DKV, in the Merco top 20 ranking for companies with business responsibility and corporate governance. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https ://eng.dkvse guros .com/empre sa- respo nsabl e/insti tucio nal/dkv-entre -las-veint e-empre sas-con- respo nsabi lidad -empre saria l-y-gobie rno-corpo rativ o-del-ranki ng-merco -12-02-2018.

Edelman Trust Barometer. (2018). 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer Report. Retrieved August 2, 2018, from https ://cms.edelm an.com/sites /defau lt/files /2018-01/2018%20Ede lman%20Tru st%20Bar omete r%20Glo bal%20Rep ort.pdf.

Eiglier, P., & Langeard, E. (1977). A new approach to service mar- keting. In P. Eiglier, E. Langeard, C. H. Lovelock, J. E. G. Bateson & R. F. Young (Eds.), Marketing consumer services: New insights (pp.  33–58). Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Eisingerich, A. B., Rubera, G., Seifert, M., & Bhardwaj, G. (2011). Doing good and doing better despite negative information?: The role of corporate social responsibility in consumer resist- ance to negative information. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 60–75.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing rela- tionship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconcep- tualization within the framework of consumer-brand relation- ships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(5), 451–472.

Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Man- agement Review, 24(2), 233–236.

Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community mem- bers as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608–619.

164 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009). Con- sumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 71–102.

Gallo, A. (2014). The value of keeping the right customers. Har- vard Business Review Magazine. Retreived from https ://hbr. org/2014/10/the-value -of-keepi ng-the-right -custo mers [Accessed 16 January 2018].

García de los Salmones, M. D. M., Perez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2009). The social role of financial companies as a determinant of consumer behaviour. The International Journal of Bank Mar- keting, 27(6), 467–485. I.

García Rodríguez, N., Pérez, S., M.J., & Trespalacios Gutiérrez, J. A. (2007). Interfunctional trust as a determining factor of a new product performance. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 678–702.

Gouillart, F. (2014). The race to implement co-creation of value with stakeholders: Five approaches to competitive advantage. Strategy & Leadership, 42(1), 2–8.

Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 317–333.

Gundlach, G. T., & Murphy, P. E. (1993). Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing exchanges. The Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 35–46.

Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Papagiannidis, S., Zahay, D., & Richard, M. O. (2017). Branding co-creation with members of online brand communities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 136–144.

Hannan, S., Suharjo, B., Kirbrandoko, K., & Nurmalina, R. (2017). The influence of customer satisfaction, trust and information sharing on customer loyalty of professional services company: An empirical study on independent surveyor services industry in Indonesia. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 344–353.

Harwood, T., & Garry, T. (2010). ‘It’s Mine!’—Participation and ownership within virtual co-creation environments. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3–4), 290–301.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-cre- ation with implications for brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con- ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.

Hosseini, M. H., & Hosseini, V. S. (2013). The impact of co-production on customer loyalty in banking services: A case of Saman Bank. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 6(2), 105.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Hsu, K. T. (2012). The advertising effects of corporate social respon- sibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 189–201.

Iglesias, O., & Ind, N. (2016). How to build a brand with a conscience. In N. Ind & S. Horlings (Eds.), Brands with a conscience. Amsterdam: Kogan Page.

Iglesias, O., Ind, N., & Alfaro, M. (2013). The organic view of the brand: A brand value co-creation model. Journal of Brand Man- agement, 20(8), 670–688.

Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2017). Do Cus- tomer perceptions of corporate services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles of brand heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits. Journal of Business Ethics. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-017-3455-0.

Iglesias, O., & Saleem, F. Z. (2015). How to support consumer–brand relationships: The role of corporate culture and human resource

policies and practices. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(2), 216–234.

Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 18(8), 570–582.

Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., & Rialp, J. (2018). How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy. Journal of Business Research. https ://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusr es.2018.05.043

Imrie, B. C. (2005). Beyond disconfirmation: The role of generosity and surprise. International Marketing Review, 22(3), 369–383.

Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. Oxford: Macmillan. Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Markovic, S. (2017). The co-creation contin-

uum: From tactical market research tool to strategic collabora- tive innovation method. Journal of Brand Management, 24(4), 310–321.

Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Schultz, M. (2013). Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26.

Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibil- ity. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297–311.

Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of trans- parency and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 253–265.

Kaufmann, H. R., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Manarioti, A. (2016). Explor- ing behavioural branding, brand love and brand co-creation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(6), 516–526.

Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowl- edge creation among multiple stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525–540.

Keh, H. T., & Pang, J. (2010). Customer reactions to service separation. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 55–70.

Kennedy, M. S., Ferrell, L. K., & LeClair, D. T. (2001). Consumers’ trust of salesperson and manufacturer: An empirical study. Jour- nal of Business Research, 51(1), 73–86.

Kumar, S. R., & Advani, J. Y. (2005). Factors affecting brand loyalty: A study in an emerging market on fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 4(2), 251–275.

Lagace, R. R., Dahlstrom, R., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (1991). The rel- evance of ethical salesperson behavior on relationship quality: The pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(4), 39–47.

Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(3), 595–604.

Leonidou, L. C., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C. N., & Chari, S. (2013). Business unethicality as an impediment to consumer trust: The moderating role of demographic and cultural characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 397–415.

Lin, C. P., Chen, S. C., Chiu, C. K., & Lee, W. Y. (2011). Understand- ing purchase intention during product-harm crises: Moderating effects of perceived corporate ability and corporate social respon- sibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 455–471.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

Lindfelt, L. L., & Törnroos, J. (2006). Ethics and value creation in busi- ness research: Comparing two approaches. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 328–351.

Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2015). Analyzing sector-specific CSR reporting: Social and environmental disclosure to investors in the chemicals

165Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer…

1 3

and banking and insurance industry. Corporate Social Responsi- bility and Environmental Management, 22(2), 113–128

Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: People, technol- ogy, strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198–213.

Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. The Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1–12.

Mandhachitara, R., & Poolthong, Y. (2011). A model of customer loyalty and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 122–133.

Markovic Markovic, S. (2016). 21st-century brands: An innovation opportunity and an ethical challenge. PhD dissertation. Barce- lona, Spain: Universitat Ramon Llull.

Markovic, S., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2018). How does breadth of exter- nal stakeholder co-creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88, 173–186.

Markovic, S., Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2018). How does the perceived ethicality of corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth? Analyzing the roles of empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 721–740.

Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organiza- tion Science, 27(2), 483–504.

Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the com- pany and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Man- agement, 35, 89–99.

Martínez-Cañas, R., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Linuesa-Langreo, J., & Blázquez-Resino, J. J. (2016). Consumer participation in co- creation: An enlightening model of causes and effects based on ethical values and transcendent motives. Frontiers in Psychol- ogy, 7, 793.

Massey, G. R., & Kyriazis, E. (2007). Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new product development projects. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1146–1172.

Maxfield, S. (2008). Reconciling corporate citizenship and competitive strategy: Insights from economic theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 367–377.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Mende, M., & Bolton, R. N. (2011). Why attachment security matters: How customers’ attachment styles influence their relationships with service firms and service employees. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 285–301.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62.

Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P. (2008). How to profit from a better’virtual customer environment’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 53.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and

corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.

Nysveen, H., & Pedersen, P. E. (2014). Influences of cocreation on brand experience. International Journal of Market Research, 56(6), 807–832.

O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 745–758.

Park, E., Kim, K. J., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). Corporate social respon- sibility as a determinant of consumer loyalty: An examination of ethical standard, satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 76, 8–13.

Peña, A. I. P., Jamilena, D. M. F., & Molina, M.ÁR. (2014). Value co- creation via information and communications technology. The Service Industries Journal, 34(13), 1043–1059.

Pérez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2015). How customer support for corporate social responsibility influences the image of com- panies: Evidence from the banking industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(3), 155–168.

Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business ethics: A European review, 17(1), 3–12.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza- tional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Pope, S., & Wæraas, A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 173–193.

Pour, B. S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2014). Corporate social respon- sibility: A literature review. African Journal of Business Manage- ment, 8(7), 228–234.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer com- petence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–90.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Mar- keting, 18(3), 5–14.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717–731.

PwC. (2016). Redefining business success in a changing world. Retrieved April 7, 2018, from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo- surve y/2016/landi ng-page/pwc-19th-annua l-globa l-ceo-surve y.pdf.

Rajah, E., Marshall, R., & Nam, I. (2008). Relationship glue: Custom- ers and marketers co-creating a purchase experience. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 367–373.

Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research impli- cations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93–106.

Reputation Institute. (2016). 2016 Global RepTrak 100 Report. Retrieved April 7, 2018, from https ://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo- surve y/2016/landi ng-page/pwc-19th-annua l-globa l-ceo-surve y.pdf.

Rindell, A., Svensson, G., Mysen, T., Billström, A., & Wilén, K. (2011). Towards a conceptual foundation of ‘Conscientious Cor- porate Brands’. Journal of Brand Management, 18(9), 709–719.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative rela- tionships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483–498.

Román, S. (2003). The impact of ethical sales behaviour on customer satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the company: An empirical study

166 O. Iglesias et al.

1 3

in the financial services industry. Journal of Marketing Manage- ment, 19(9–10), 915–939.

Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibil- ity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of cor- porate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

Setó-Pamies, D. (2012). Customer loyalty to service providers: Exam- ining the role of service quality, customer satisfaction and trust. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(11–12), 1257–1271.

Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2002). The role of ethical obligation and self- identity in ethical consumer choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26(2), 109–116.

Sierra, V., Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., & Singh, J. J. (2017). Does ethical image build equity in corporate services brands? The influence of customer perceived ethicality on affect, perceived quality, and equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(3), 661–676.

Singh, J., Brady, M., Arnold, T., & Brown, T. (2017). The emergent field of organizational frontlines. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 3–11.

Singh, J. J. (2014). RSC ha llegado para quedarse [CSR is here to stay]. In G. Costa & M. Casabayó (Eds.), Soul marketing (pp. 53–62). Barcelona: Profit Editorial.

Singh, J. J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541–549.

Stanaland, A. J., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47–55.

Stathopoulou, A., & Balabanis, G. (2016). The effects of loyalty pro- grams on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty toward high- and low-end fashion retailers. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5801–5808.

Sun, P. C., & Lin, C. M. (2010). Building customer trust and loyalty: An empirical study in a retailing context. The Service Industries Journal, 30(9), 1439–1455.

Swaen, V., & Chumpitaz, R. C. (2008). Impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 23(4), 7–34.

Vallaster, C., & von Wallpach, S. (2013). An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1505–1515.

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and cor- porate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

Vitell, S. J. (2015). A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Including a selected review of consumer ethics/social respon- sibility research. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 767–774.

Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180.

Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wikström, S. (1996). The customer as co-producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30(4), 6–19.

Williams, J., & Aitken, R. (2011). The service-dominant logic of mar- keting and marketing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 439–454.

Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. Interna- tional Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(1), 34–50.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Acad- emy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.