Corporate social responsability and loyalty in services sector - Esic

Corporate social responsability 

and loyalty in services sector 

García de los Salmones, M.M. (2011). “Corporate social responsability and loyalty in services 

sector”, EsicMarket, Vol. 138, pp. 199-221. 

Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2011). “Corporate social responsability and loyalty in services sector”, 

EsicMarket, Vol. 138, pp. 199-221. 

Abstract 

The current paper analyses the influence of corporate social responsibility 

on consumer behaviour, since it brings up new questions related to the 

effect of this issue on traditional loyalty models. Starting from a literature 

review about the concept, several hypotheses about the influence of corporate 

social responsibility on the traditional antecedents of loyalty, image 

and valuation of services are formulated. Using a methodology support in 

personal surveys, the study is able to verify a direct effect of corporate 

social responsibility on service valuation and , therefore, an indirect influence 

on loyalty and image. 

Key words: corporate social responsibility, commercial responsibility, 

service evaluation, switching cost, perceived quality, loyalty, image, mobile 

phone. 

JEL codes: M1, M3, M14, M30, M31. 

Mª del Mar García de los Salmones 

Universidad de Cantabria 

gsalmonm@unican.es 

Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque 

Universidad de Cantabria 

rbosquei@unican.es 

january · april 2011 · esic market 

11 

199 

[199]

200 11 

[200] 

corporate social responsability and loyalty in services sector 

1. Introduction 

In the 60s the idea that companies had responsibilities towards their environment 

beyond their legal and economic obligations was advocated; the 

concept of social responsibility arose and several currents of study tried to 

give it some content and to analyse its real influence. We find ourselves in 

a new stage, where companies are aware of the need to act responsibly. 

Consequently, the analysis of widely studied marketing variables have to 

be reset. 

The objective of this research is to study the concept of corporate social 

responsibility and to verify if behaviour guided by legality, honesty and 

social orientation should be included as an additional variable in the study 

of the user’s loyalty to a service. Concretely, its influence on the perception 

of the service quality and global image of the company is analyzed; variables 

that, together with switching cost, have been traditionally included 

in loyalty models. 

Interest in carrying out this work comes from various aspects. On the 

one hand, good social behaviour has proven to have an influence on 

image (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), although 

these studies are only centred on corporate philanthropy. The consideration 

of social responsibility as a multi-dimensional concept thus limits 

those papers analyzing social matters only (Seifert, Morris and Bartkus, 

2003). On the other hand, the lack of research on the effect of social 

responsibility in the consumers’ segment is still evident. For instance, in 

the service sector there is a greater implication with consumers, therefore 

the perception of responsible behaviour is liable to acquire great 

importance and have direct consequences on the evaluation of service 

and perceived quality (Sureshchandar, Rajendran and Kamalanabhan, 

2001). 

Finally, many conclusions have been extracted using experimental 

methodologies (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Berens, Van Riel and Van 

Bruggen, 2005), although in a real context the results may vary. For this 

reason, in this work the methodology of surveys is used to collect direct 

measurements of the knowledge and opinion of consumers on the social 

responsibility of companies. 

january · april 2011 · esic market



2. Concept and content of socially responsible behaviour 

The creation of value within a company is related with the maintenance of 

responsible behaviour with all stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995); this fact 

implies developing honest business practices, offering safe and quality 

products, taking good care of employees, respecting the environment and 

getting involved in social causes (Esroch and Leichty, 1998). All this without 

forgetting that companies have economic obligations, related with 

being productive, obtaining profit and improving their efficiency (Carroll, 

1991; Maignan, et al., 1999). These ideas are related to the philosophy of 

social responsibility, which leaves aside the idea that organizations should 

only be shareholder-oriented, to incorporate other matters in corporate 

strategy planning. According to Carroll (1979), companies have economic, 

legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities with respect to all their 

stakeholders, and these four dimensions give shape to the structure of 

social responsibility. 

This model has become a reference to explain responsible behaviour 

(Lewin et al., 1995; Maignan et al., 1999); however, in some studies, 

doubts are introduced in the inclusion of economic matters (Maignan and 

Ferrell, 2001). Actually, Aupperle et al. (1985) observe that this dimension 

is inversely correlated with the remaining associations; this result leads 

them to consider the categories “concern for society” and “concern for 

economic outcome”. In the same way, García de los Salmones et al. (2005) 

verify that consumers do not include the economic dimension in the global 

construct of corporate social responsibility, and Bigné et al. (2006) 

notice that economic issues are weakly associated with corporate social 

responsibility practices. 

This matter is resolved with the contribution of Graafland et al. (2004). 

According to these authors, economic dimension is related with product 

merchandising. Equally, following De la Cuesta and Valor (2003), economic 

responsibility, from the consumer perspective, is related to train and 

motivate the personnel who take part in the sales process, and to innovate 

and improve rhe production process in order to offer quality products. 

This fact leads us to consider a “commercial responsibility” concept, leaning 

on the concepts of quality and perceived value, variables that are tra- 

11 

201 

[201]

202 11 

[202] 


ditionally studied in marketing literature (Bloemer et al., 1999; Hellier et 

al., 2003). 

Concerning the inclusion of social matters, there are not many doubts 

on this matter. In fact, corporate social responsibility was intended on 

some occasions to be a one-dimensional variable, centred on the company’s 

orientation towards society and environment (Brown and Dacin, 

1997; Handelmann and Arnold, 1999). However, considering that responsible 

behaviour includes all moral obligations that maximize the company’s 

positive impact on the social environment and minimize its negative 

one (Pride and Ferrell, 1997), it is more correct to widen the concept and 

regard it as multidimensional (Maignan, 2001; Graafland et al., 2004). 

3. Socially responsible behaviour in loyalty models: 

literary review and foundation of research hypotheses 

The purchase of some products can be risky for consumers, a fact that 

should encourage marketing managers to analyze the perceptions of their 

products and brands and the strategies used on the part of clients when it 

comes to buying (Pérez, 2008). The same analysis must be done in order 

to identify the key attributes to create customer loyalty. In this sense, the 

first one is to define the true loyalty, differentiating on this matter two 

approaches: behavioural and attitudinal. The behavioural perspective considers 

consumers to be loyal when they rebuy the product or use a service 

continually (Jones et al., 2000). However, this approach has been criticized 

because it does not take affective issues into account. The second perspective 

overcomes this limitation defining loyalty as “the degree to which a 

customer exhibits repeat purchasing behaviour from a service provider, 

possesses a positive attitudinal disposition toward the provider, and considers 

using only this provider when a need for this service arises’’ (Gremler 

y Brown, 1996). Therefore, the role of attitude in customer loyalty is 

vital, since a previous positive attitude is required to consider repetitive 

behaviour as true loyalty (García et al., 2006). 

Taking into account this second perspective, it is common to include 

perceived service quality, image and switching costs as independent variables 

in the loyalty models. On the one hand, and considering that true 




loyalty is based on satisfaction (Day, 1969), the global evaluation of the 

service offered undoubtedly holds prevalence, and there is a consensus in 

affirming a direct and positive relationship between both concepts (Zeithaml 

et al., 1996; Joneset al., 2000; Aydin et al., 2005). We link this evaluation 

with the perception of commercial responsibility, which includes 

aspects related to technical quality, interpersonal relationships (Parasuraman 

et al., 1988; Grönroos, 1994) and perceived value (Parasuraman et 

al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). 

Brand image is another variable with positive influence on loyalty 

(Selnes, 1993; Nguyen y LeBlanc, 2001; Flavián y Guinaliu, 2007). Image 

is an overall evaluation of the company, a subjective and intangible judgment 

relating to emotional connections between consumer and the brand 

(Rust et al., 2000). It includes feelings and associations (Barich y Kotler, 

1991) and it is created as a result of a process generated by the perception 

of a company’s concrete attributes and global impressions (Zimmer and 

Golden, 1998). 

Finally, together with commercial behaviour and perceived image, 

switching costs are liable to play an important role (De Ruyter et al., 1998; 

Aydin et al., 2005). They encompass any factor that makes it difficult for 

consumers to change their suppliers, for example the mental effort 

required to search for information from other alternatives (De Ruyter et 

al., 1998). When these barriers appear, consumers become less sensitive to 

levels of satisfaction when they show their loyalty towards a brand 

(Hauser et al., 1994). We can therefore say that: 

Hypothesis 1: The perception of the commercial responsibility of a company 

has a direct and positive influence on loyalty towards the service. 

Hypothesis 2: The image of a company has a direct and positive influence 

on loyalty towards the service. 

Hypothesis 3: The existence of switching costs has a direct and positive 

influence on loyalty towards the service. 

The antecedents of image become factors indirectly influencing loyalty. 

Firstly, experience with a company itself influences the process of image 

11 

203 

[203]

204 11 

[204] 


formation, and as long as consumers are satisfied with the service offered, 

the company image improves (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998). Actually, 

one can expect that commercial responsibility will have a strong impact on 

consumers when forming corporate image. Each target audience will be 

interested in different aspects of the company activity (Fombrun, 1996), 

and will use different cognitive filters as well as giving more or less weight 

to the different attributes according to its relationship and interests with 

the organization (Caruana, 1997). As far as consumers are concerned, the 

quality of the product and service received will be key factors in image creation, 

since an important source in generating an impression is the shopping 

experience, and global evaluation is a function of that experience 

(Aydin et al., 2005). Therefore it is considered that: 

Hypothesis 4: The perception of the commercial responsibility of a company 

has a direct and positive influence on the corporate image. 

On the other hand, perceptions of social responsibility can also give 

substance to the image. Linking a brand with ethical and social matters 

enforces its brand value (Berry, 2000; Rust et al., 2000), in so far as how 

values that communicate respect towards the customer and enforce confidence 

towards a company are transmitted (Maignan et al., 1999). The 

relationship that exists between philanthropy and corporate reputation 

has already been verified in previous studies. In some cases, company 

rankings compiled by managers themselves are used, such as lists from 

Fortune (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990) or Management Today (Brammer 

and Millington, 2005). In others, experimental scenarios and methods are 

worked on (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; 

Mohr and Webb, 2005; Ricks 2005). In a real-life context the results may 

vary, since communication on social responsibility is still at an initial 

phase (Bigné et al., 2005) and there may be a lack of knowledge by consumers 

which may explain that social and ethical matters are not taken 

into consideration when the company is evaluated (Maignan and Ferrell, 

2004). Nevertheless, with reference to experimental work, it is considered 

that: 




Hypothesis 5: The perception of corporate social responsibility has a direct 

and positive influence on the global image of a company. 

Finally, the sense of confidence which a socially responsible company 

transmits can also influence the evaluation the consumer makes on the 

global quality of the service received, in so far as consumers assume that a 

company maintaining this behaviour is honest, and thus will offer quality 

products (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Corporate social responsibility 

can add value to a product (Mohr and Webb, 2005) and in fact, 

Sureshchandar et al. (2001) and Sureshchandar et al. (2002) consider that 

ethical behaviour can be seen as an extra component in service quality. 

Furthermore, a good social image has a positive effect on product evaluation 

(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Klein and Dawar, 2003). It is established 

that: 

Hypothesis 6: The perception of corporate social responsibility has a positive 

and direct influence on the perception of commercial responsibility. 

Therefore, the hypotheses shape a tri-component model: cognitive, 

affective and conative (Lutz, 1991; Nandan, 2005). The cognitive component 

refers to the consumer’s knowledge or belief system about the brand, 

in this case the perception of commercial and social responsibility, formed 

by experiences of consumers, personal characteristics and information 

received about the company. These perceptions give rise to the affective 

component, specifically an image or overall evaluation that includes emotions 

and feelings. The cognitive and affective elements, together with 

switching costs, influence the consumer behaviour with respect to the 

brand (Figure 1). 

11 

205 

[205]

206 11 

Figure 1. Model of loyalty 

[206] 

Brown and Dacin (1997), 

Klein and Dawar (2003), 

Mohr and Webb (2005, 

Sureschandar et al. 

(2002) 

Corporate Social 

Responsibility 

Fombrun and Shanley 

(1990), Brown and 

Dacin (1997), Mohr 

and Webb (2005), 

Ricks (2005) 

(1) Amena changed its 

brand name to Orange 

in October 2006. That 

year a new brand, 

Yoigo, was launched 

into the market. 

Nowadays, these 

companies compete 

with other virtual 

entities. 

(2) Ministry of 

Industry, Tourism and 

Commerce. 


H6 + 

H5 + 

Commercial 


H4 + 

Global Image 

Jones et al. (2000), Aydin 

et al. (2005) 

Fombrun (1996), 

Andreassen and Linestad 

(1998), Aydin et al. (2005) 

H2 + 

H1 + 

Loyalty 

Selnes (1993), Andreassen 

and Linestad (1998), 

Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) 

De Ruyter et al. 

(1998), Colgate y Lang (2001) 

Aydien et al. (2005) 

Switching costs 

4. Research methodology 

Research activity is applied on the mobile phone market. Three companies 

operate in this market (Telefónica Móviles, Vodafone and Orange 1 ), which 

maintain high notoriety rates (over 97% penetration in December 2005 2 ) 

and an active behaviour in social responsibility matters. 

Data is derived from marketing research carried out in Cantabria in 

April 2004. Personal surveys were carried out, obtaining a total of 689 

valid surveys, with a ±3.7% sample error, leading to a 95% confidence level 

and to the most unfavourable case (p=q=0.5). Data is processed with 

statistic software applications SPSS 14.0 and EQS 5.7b. The sampling procedure 

used is non-probabilistic. Specifically, a quota stratification is 

employed in accordance with two socio-demographic criteria: individuals’ 

age and gender. 

To measure commercial responsibility, user satisfaction with different 

service attributes is considered. Technical and functional quality is analyzed, 

as well as the perceived value, referring to the studies of Lee et al. 

(2001) and Olsen and Johnson (2003). As for the social responsibility 

H3 + 




scale, we initially follow guidelines from Carroll (1979, 1991) and we 

focus on ethical-legal and social aspects, i.e., on the “concern with the 

company” categories defined by Aupperle et al. (1985). We use the works 

of Brown and Dacin (1997) and Maignan (2001) to back up its design. 

In order to assure content validity, a previous quality 3 study was performed, 

and various pre-tests were carried out before closing the questionnaire. 

The global image is measured with items in the scale from Rust et al. 

(2000) and for switching costs the items used in the work of Jones et al. 

(2000) are considered. Finally, loyalty is measured with items derived 

from the commitment scale from Delgado and Munuera (2001) and from 

the scale from Zeithaml et al. (1996). All scales are detailed in the Appendix. 

5. Results of the research 

In the first place, reliability and validity of all constructs of the casual 

model are verified by means of confirmatory analysis 4 . The established 

model is correct (see Table 1), since all second order latent variables have 

internal consistency, as shown by the value of Cronbach α coefficient and 

the composed reliability coefficient. Moreover, the standardized coefficients 

are significant and have a value greater than 0.5, thus guaranteeing 

the convergent validity of all dimensions (Steemkamp and Van Trijp, 

1991). 

11 

207 

(3) Several focus 

groups were organized, 

with users of various 

ages, gender and 

mobile phone 

companies. 

(4) In the first place, a 

second order 

confirmatory analysis 

with the constructs 

commercial 

responsibility and 

corporate social 

responsibility was 

carried out. The results 

were optimal in both 

cases and it was 

possible to confirm the 

discriminant and 

convergent validity and 

the reliability. 

[207]

208 11 

Table 1. Confirmatory Analysis 

[208] 

Latent variable 

Commercial 

Responsibility (CR) 


Responsibility (CSR) 

Image (IM) 

Switching Costs (SC) 

Loyalty (LOYAL) 

(5) Values are 

averaged to facilitate 

the analysis. 


Measured 

variable 

Standard 

lambda 

R 2 

TQ 0.63 0.40 

FQ 0.76 0.58 

PV 0.74 0.827 

ELR 0.90 0.82 

FR 0.81 0.67 

FEEL 0.67 0.45 

OPIN 0.85 0.73 

TROUB 0.83 0.69 

EFFO 0.94 0.88 

COST 0.83 0.70 

LOY 0.69 0.48 

BEST 0.81 0.66 

RECOM 0.89 0.80 

CHOO 0.86 0.75 

CONT 0.75 0.57 

Cronbach’s 

α 

Composite 

reliability 

0.83 0.75 

0.82 0.85 

0.72 0.67 

0.90 0.90 

0.90 0.94 

Goodness of fit 

indices 

S-Bχ 2 = 656.32 

(p=0.0000) 

BBNFI = 0.91 

BNNFI = 0.93 

CFI = 0.94 

RMSEA = 0.04 

The discriminant validity of the model is evaluated from confidence 

intervals for pairs or latent concepts (Table 2). It was verified that none of 

the calculated confidence intervals for the two-on-two variable verifications 

includes unity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) 5 . 




Table 2. Correlations and discriminat validity 

CR – 

CSR 

IM 

SC 

LOY 

Correlations and confidence intervals for the correlations 

CR CSR IM SC LOY 

0.69 

(0.294-0.506) – 

0.85 0.61 

(0.343-0.563) (0.339-0.555) – 

0.19 0.19 0.25 

(0.091 – 0.327) (0.123 – 0.439) (0.196 – 0.480) – 

0.76 0.41 0.74 0.31 

(0.46 – 0.89) (0.353 – 0.625) (0.649 – 0.965) (0.464 – 0.892) – 

The structural model that allows us to contrast the established 

hypotheses is presented below (Figure 2). The indexes of goodness of 

fit are acceptable, since the statistics values go beyond the optimal values 

6 . In the first place it is proven how the perception of commercial 

responsibility, measured through technical and functional quality evaluation 

and perceived price, influences directly, positively and significantly 

on the user’s loyalty. Kugyte and Sliburyte (2007) verify that in 

the mobile phone sector, the issues related to price, personal treatment, 

range and reliability are extremely important selection criteria. And 

from the results of the model, we can gather that they are also key variables 

to explain loyalty. In the same manner, the impressions one has 

of a company influence the loyalty shown towards it, as well as switching 

costs do. It is observed that people perceiving costs in time, effort 

and money to change brand are more loyal than individuals with an 

opposite perception. These costs condition the user’s behaviour and 

impulse the consumer to a higher preference and commitment towards 

the company providing the service. Therefore, hypotheses 1 to 3 cannot 

be refuted. 

11 

(6) BBNFI = 0.90 

BBNNFI=0.94 

CFI=0.94 

RMSEA=0.05. 

209 

[209]

210 11 

Figure 2. Model of loyalty 

[210] 

Ethical-Legal Social 

0.91 

0.81 


Technique Q. 

0.81 

0.64 

Functional Q. Perceived Q. 

0.77 

Commercial 



Responsibility Loyalty 

0.65 

Global Image 

0.37 

0.74 

Switching 

costs 

Social and commercial responsibilities are regarded as direct determinants 

of the overall evaluation of the company, and therefore, as having a 

direct influence on loyalty. With respect to this, it is proven that commercial 

responsibility is the main determinant of image (hypothesis 4 is not 

refuted), while socially responsible behaviour has no significant effect. 

Although in experimental studies the relationship did appear to be significant, 

it seems that when taking direct knowledge and evaluation measures 

the output varies. This result leads us to reject hypothesis 5. Thus, users let 

themselves be guided by their direct experiences with the service when 

called upon to evaluate a company, while social responsibility plays a secondary 

role. Perhaps this is due, as Mohr and Webb (2005) prove, to 

image being more affected by receiving information about negative practices 

than about positive ones, i.e., consumers react very negatively to 

information over irresponsible practice, while they are less sensitive to positive 

messages (Sen and Battacharya, 2001). 

0.40 

0.16 

Hypothesis supported 

Hypothesis not supported 




However, the fact that social responsibility does influence global service 

evaluation grabs our attention. The ethical behaviour of companies 

and social image have effects on the perception of commercial responsibility 

of companies, and thus hypothesis 6 is not refuted. Therefore, corporate 

social responsibility does have an influence on the consumer’s behaviour 

and must be included in loyalty models. 

6. Research conclusions 

The present research is based on the loyalty model to incorporate matters 

of corporate social responsibility. Specifically, it establishes several 

hypotheses on loyal determinants and the effect of responsible behaviour, 

answering by means of marketing research within the mobile phone market 

in Spain. 

Furthermore, opinions on commercial responsibility of companies are 

collected, evaluating perceptions about quality and perceived value of service 

offered and the socially responsible behaviour of companies in ethiclegal 

and philanthropic aspects. 

It is proven that loyalty towards a service is directly influenced by the 

perception of technical quality and, above all, functional quality and perceived 

value. It is also influenced in a direct manner by the image of the 

supplying company and by the costs of change perceived by users. Therefore, 

companies must be concerned about all impressions they create, fundamentally 

those related to marketing aspects, and develop a relational 

marketing strategy that favours the creation of switching costs. This is a 

key question nowadays as attracting consumers is necessary for survival, 

but it is not enough. The important thing is to keep and to create consumer 

loyalty, stressing the long-term relationship. In order to achieve this goal, 

it is necessary to change the traditional marketing approach based on the 

generic market and to put into practice a strategy focused on a one-to-one 

relationship (García y Rodríguez, 2004). It is important to start off customer 

orientation that takes all aspects related to service quality into consideration; 

among those aspects we find corporate social responsibility. 

The perception of ethical and socially responsible behaviour brings about 

favourable associations that convert into a better evaluation of the service. 

11 

211 

[211]

212 11 

[212] 


Social responsibility and commercial responsibility are thus closely related 

with each other, the former influencing powerfully on the latter. According 

to Pérez (2007), it is advisable to spread information about the service 

offered and about the company, with arguments that reinforce the trust of 

consumers. In this sense, and due to the results of the research, commercial 

campaigns should be complemented with the company’s social orientation 

being made public knowledge, using various methods within the 

company’s reach to give implicit and explicit reference to its ethical and 

social orientation. Smart communication about the corporate social 

responsibility would support the credibility and honesty of the firm, and 

therefore would reinforce perceptions about it. 

As far as image is concerned, it turns out that opinions about the company 

are created mainly by contacts and experiences with the service. On 

this occasion, no direct influence by social responsibility was observed. 

The fact that we are considering a heavily utility-based service, of common 

and daily use, explains that in this case the perception over the way the 

company offers its service and cares about customers takes a dominant 

role. Nevertheless, we must remember that social responsibility influences 

indirectly via global evaluation of the service, and therefore companies 

must make sure that their codes of ethics and other social responsibility 

matters are reflected not only in their advertising, but also in their daily 

behaviour and in all contact with the customer. Corporate social responsibility 

is an important way of differentiation, and it is capable of creating 

affective responses which support loyalty. 

Finally we should mention limitations and future lines of research. 

Firstly, further work on the development of the social responsibility scale 

is proposed, fine-tuning it with new items. From a different angle it would 

be interesting to include moderating variables, such as the endorsement 

customers give to these measurements, knowledge perceived by companies, 

or matters of a social-demographic kind. Likewise, future research will 

develop the loyalty model and other important issues, such as commitment, 

confidence or identification with the company. The results obtained 

must be considered within the framework of the study conducted; for this 

reason, in order to generalize results, widening the study to different sec- 




tors, most of all to the ones where sensitivity to social matters is a priori 

more evident. 

References 

ANDERSON, J. and GERBING, D. (1998). “Structural Equation Modelling 

in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach”, 

Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, nº3, pp. 411-423. 

ANDREASSEN, T. and LINDESTAD, B. (1998). “Customer Loyalty and 

Complex Services”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 

Vol. 9, nº 1, pp. 7-23. 

AUPPERLE, K., CARROLL, A. and HATFIELD, J. (1985). “An Empirical 

Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility 

and Profitability”, Academy of Management Journal, June, Vol. 

28, nº 2, pp. 446-463. 

AYDIN, S., ÖZER, G. and ARASIL, Ö. (2005). “Customer Loyalty and 

the Effect of Switching Costs as a Moderator Variable: A Case in the 

Turkish Mobile Phone Market”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 

January, Vol. 23, 1, pp. 89-103. 

BARICH, H. and KOTLER, P. (1991). “A Framework for Marketing 

Image Management”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 94-109. 

BERENS, G., VAN RIEL, C. and VAN BRUGGEN, G. (2005). “Corporate 

Associations and Consumer Product Responses: The Moderating Role 

of Corporate Brand Dominance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, 

pp. 35-48. 

BERRY, L. (2000). “Cultivating Service Brand Equity”, Journal of the 

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, nº 1. , pp. 128-137. 

BIGNE, E., ANDREU, L., CHUMPITAZ, R. and SWAEN, V. (2006). “La 

influencia de la responsabilidad social corporativa en el comportamiento 

de compra de estudiantes universitarios” “Corporate social 

responsability influences on university students buying behaviour” 

ESIC Market nº 125 Septiembre-Diciembre, pp.135 – 

BLOEMER, J. and DE RUYTER, K. (1998). “On the Relationship 

Between Store Image, Store Satisfaction and Store Loyalty”, European 

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, nº5/6, pp. 499-513 

11 

213 

[213]

214 11 

[214] 


BLOEMER, J., DE RUYTER, K. and PEETERS, P. (1998). “Investigating 

Drivers of Bank Loyalty: the Complex Relationship Between Image, 

Service Quality and Satisfaction”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 

16/7, pp. 276-286. 

BLOEMER, J., DE RUYTER, K. and WETZELS, M. (1999). “Linking Perceived 

Service Quality and Service Loyalty: A Multidimensional Perspective”, 

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, nº 11/12, pp. 1082-1097. 

BLOEMER, J. and KASPER, H. (1995). “The Complex Relationship 

Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Economic 

Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-329. 

BROWN, T. J. and DACIN, P. A. (1997). “The Company and the Product: 

Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses”, Journal of 

Marketing, January, Vol. 61, pp. 68-84. 

BRAMMER, S. and MILLINGTON, A. (2005). “Corporate Reputation 

and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, 

Vol. 61, pp. 29-44. 

CARROLL, A. (1979). “A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate 

Social Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, 

pp. 497-505. 

CARROLL, A. (1991). “Corporate Social Performance Measurement: A 

Comment on Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct”, in L.E. 

Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 

12, pp. 385-401. 

CARUANA, A. (1997). “Corporate Reputation: Concept and Measurement”, 

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6, nº 2, pp. 109- 

118. 

COLGATE, M. and LANG, B. (2001). “Switching Barriers in Consumer 

Markets: An Investigation of the Financial Services Industry”, Journal 

of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, nº 4, pp. 332-347. 

CLARKSON, M. B. (1995). “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and 

Evaluating Corporate Social Performance”, Academy of Management 

Review, Vol. 20 (1), 92-117. 

DAY, G. S. (1969). “A Two Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty”, Journal 

of Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 29-36. 




DE RUYTER, K., WETZELS, M. and BLOEMER, J. (1998). “On the 

Relationship Between Perceived Service Quality, Service Loyalty and 

Switching Costs”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 

Vol. 9, nº 5, pp. 436-453. 

DE LA CUESTA, M. and VALOR, C. (2003). “Responsabilidad Social de 

la Empresa. Concepto, Medición y Desarrollo en España”, Boletín 

Económico del ICE, nº 2813, pp. 45-58. 

DELGADO BALLESTER, E. and MUNUERA ALEMÁN, J. L. (2001). 

“Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty”, European Journal 

of Marketing, Vol. 35, nº 11/12, pp. 1238-1258. 

DICK, A., and BASU, (1994). “Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated 

conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 

Vol. 22, pp. 99-113. 

ESROCK, S. and LEICHTY, G. (1998). “Social Responsibility and Corporate 

Web Pages: Self Presentation or Agenda Setting?”, Public Relations 

Review, Vol. 26, nº 3, pp. 305-319. 

FLAVIÁN, C. and GUINALIU, M. (2007). “Desarrollo y validación de 

escalas de familiaridad, reputación y lealtad en las relaciones a través 

de Internet”, “Development and validation of familiarity, reputation 

and loyalty scales for internet relationships”, ESIC Market nº 126 

Enero-Abril, pp. 157-189. 

FOLKES, V. and KAMINS, M. (1999). “Effects of Information About 

Firm’s Ethical and Unethical Actions on Consumers’ Attitudes”, Journal 

of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8, 3, pp. 476-481 

FOMBRUN, C. and SHANLEY, M. (1990). “What’s in a Name? Reputation 

Building and Corporate Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, 

June, Vol. 33, nº 2, pp. 233-258. 

FUNDACIÓN ECOLOGÍA Y DESARROLLO (2004). Anuario sobre 

Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en España, http:/www.ecodes.org 

GALGUERA GARCÍA, L. and MÉNDEZ RODRIGUEZ, P. (2004). “Una 

aproximación empírica al marketing de relaciones. Las tarjetas de 

fidelización de las compañías aéreas”, ESIC Market, Septiembre – 

Diciembre, pp. 511. 

GARCÍA GÓMEZ, B., GUTIERREZ ARRANZ, A. and GUTIERREZ 

CILLAN, J. (2006). “The role of loyalty programs in behavioral and 

11 

215 

[215]

216 11 

[216] 


affective loyalty”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, nº 7, 

pp. 387-393. 

GARCÍA DE LOS SALMONES, HERRERO CRESPO, A., RODRIGUEZ 

DEL BOSQUE, I. (1995). “Influence of corporate social responsibility 

on loyalty and valuation of services”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 

61, pp. 369-385. 

GRAAFLAND, J., EIFFINGER, S. and SMID, H. (2004). “Benchmarking 

of Social Corporate Responsibility: Methodological Problems and 

Robustness”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, pp. 137-152. 

GREMLER, D.D., BROWN, S.W. (1996). “Service loyalty: its nature, 

importance, and implications”, in Edvardsson, B. (Eds), Advancing 

Service Quality: A Global Perspective, International Service Quality 

Association, pp. 171-80. 

HAIR, J. Jr., ANDERSON, R., TATHAM, R. and BLACK, W. (1999). 

Análisis Multivariante, Editorial Prentice Hall. 

HANDELMAN, J. and ARNOLD, S. (1999). “The Role of Marketing 

Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment”, 

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-48. 

HAUSER, J., DUNCAN I. and WERNERFELT, B. (1994). “Customer Satisfaction 

Incentives,” Marketing Science, 13, 4, (Fall), 327-350. 

HELLIER, P., GEURSEN, G., CARR, R. and RICKARD, J. (2003). “Customer 

Repurchase Intention : A General Structural Equation Model“, 

Europe Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, nº 11/12, pp. 1762-1800. 

JONES, M., MOTHERSBAUGH, D. and BEATTY, S. (2000). “Switching 

Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services”, Journal of Retailing, 

Vol. 76, nº 2, pp. 259-274. 

KUGYTE, R. and SLIBURYTE, S. (2007). “Investigación de carácter 

nacional sobre los criterios de selección de proveedores de servicio de 

los sectores de telecomunicaciones móviles lituanos y nórdicos”, “A 

cross-national investigation of service provider selection criteria in the 

lithuanian and nordic mobile telecommunications sectors”, ESIC Market, 

nº 128, Septiembre-Diciembre, pp 513. 

KLEIN, J. and DAWAR, N. (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility and 

Consumer’s Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a Product Harm 




Crisis“, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, nº 3, 

pp. 203-217. 

LAFFERTY, B. and GOLDSMITH, R. (1999). “Corporate Credibility’s 

Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions when a High 

Versus a Low Credibility Endorser is Used in the Ad”, Journal of Business 

Research, Vol. 44, nº 2, pp. 141-159. 

LEE, J., LEE, J. and FEICK, L. (2001). “The Impact of Switching Costs on 

the Customer Satisfaction – Loyalty Link: Mobile Phone Service in 

France”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15, nº 1, pp. 35-45. 

LEWIN, A., SAKANO, T., STEVENS, C. and VICTOR, B. (1995). “Corporate 

Citizenship in Japan; Survey from Japanese Firms”, Journal of 

Business Ethics, Vol. 14, nº 2, pp. 83-101 

LILJANDER, V. and STRANDVIK, T. (1995). “The Nature of Customer 

Relationships in Services”, Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D. y Brown, S.W. 

(Eds), Advances in Consumer Marketing and Management, Vol. 4, pp. 

141-168. 

LUTZ, R. J. (1991). “The role of attitude theory in marketing”, Perspectives 

in Consumer Behaviour. Eds. H.H. KASSARJIAN and T.S. ROBERT- 

SON, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Rwer, NJ, pp. 317-339. 

MAIGNAN, I. (2001). “Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social 

Responsibility: A Cross Cultural Comparison”, Journal of Business 

Ethics, Vol. 30, nº 1, pp. 57-73. 

MAIGNAN, I., FERRELL, O. C. and HULT, G. T. (1999). “Corporate 

Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits”, Journal of 

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, nº 4, pp. 455-469. 

MAIGNAN, I. and FERRELL, O. C. (2000). “Measuring Corporate Citizenship 

in Two Countries: The Case of the United Sates and France”, 

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23, pp. 283-297. 

MAIGNAN, I. and FERRELL, O. C. (2001). “Corporate Citizen as a Marketing 

Instrument – Concepts, Evidence and Research Directions”, 

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, nº 3/4, pp. 457-484. 

MAIGNAN, I. and FERRELL, O. C. (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility 

and Marketing: An Integrative Framework”, Journal of the Academy 

of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, nº 1, pp. 3-19. 

11 

217 

[217]

218 11 

[218] 


MCDOUGALL, G.H. and LEVESQUE, T. (2000). “Customer Satisfaction 

With Service: Putting Perceived Value Into The Equation”, Journal of 

Services Marketing, 14, nº 5, pp. 392–410. 

MCWILLIAMS, A. and SIEGEL, D. (2001). “Corporate Social Responsibility: 

A Theory Of The Firm Perspective”, Academy of Management 

Review, Vol. 26, nº 1, pp. 117-127. 

MOHR. L., WEBB, D. and HARRIS, K. (2001). “Do Consumers Expect 

Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social 

Responsibility on Buying Behaviour”, The Journal of Consumer Affair, 

Summer, Vol. 35, nº 1, pp. 45-72. 

MOHR, L. and WEBB, D. (2005). “The Effects of Corporate Social 

Responsibility and Price on Consumer Responses”, The Journal of 

Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39, nº 1, pp. 121-147. 

NANDAN, S. (2005). “An exploration of the brand identity-brand image 

linkage: A communications perspective”, Journal of Brand Management, 

Vol. 12, nº 4, pp. 264-279. 

NGUYEN, N. and LEBLANC, G. (2001). “Corporate Image and Corporate 

Reputation in Customers’ Retention Decisions in Services”, Journal 

of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 227-36. 

OLSEN, N, and JOHNSON, M. (2003). “Service Equity, Satisfaction, and 

Loyalty: From Transaction-Specific to Cumulative Evaluations”, Journal 

of Service Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 184-195. 

O’MALLEY, L. (1998). “Can Loyalty Schemes Really Build Loyalty?”, 

Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Vol. 16, nº 1, pp. 47-55. 

OSTROWSKI, P.L., O’BRIEN, T. and GORDON, G. (1993). “Service 

Quality and Customer Loyalty in the Commercial Airline Industry”, 

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32, pp. 16-24. 

PARASURAMAN, A., ZEITHAML, V.A. and BERRY, L.L. (1988). 

“SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions 

of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, nº 1, pp. 12-40. 

PARASURAMAN, A., ZEITHAML, V.A. and BERRY, L.L. (1994). 

“Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring 

Service Quality: Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, 

Vol. 58, January, pp. 111-124. 




PÉREZ-CABAÑERO, C. (2007). “Estudio comparativo sobre la búsqueda 

externa de información en bienes y servicios”, “A comparative study 

on the external search for goods and services”, ESIC Market, nº 127, 

mayo –Agosto, pp. 43-61. 

PÉREZ-CABAÑERO, C. (2008). “El riesgo percibido ante la compra de 

bienes y servicios”, ESIC Market, nº 129, pp. 210-218. 

PRIDE, W. and FERRELL, O. C. (1997). Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 

Houghton Mifflin, Boston 

RICKS, J. (2005). “An Assessment of Strategic Corporate Philanthropy on 

Perceptions of Brand Equity Variables”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 

Vol. 22, nº 2/3, pp. 121-134. 

RODRÍGUEZ CORRAL, S., CAMARERO IZQUIERDO, C. and 

GUTIÉRREZ CILLAN, J. (2002). “Lealtad y valor en la relación del 

consumidor: una aplicación al caso de los servicios financieros”, XIV 

Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing, Granada, pp. 

429-443. 

RUST, R. ZEINTHAML, V. and LEMMON, K. (2000). “Driving Customer 

Equity”, The Free Press. New York. 

RUST, R.T. and ZAHORIK, A.J. (1993). “Customer satisfaction, customer 

retention and market share”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, nº 2, pp. 

193-215. 

SEIFERT, B., MORRIS, S. and BARTKUS, B. (2003). “Comparing Big 

Givers and Small Givers: Financial Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy”, 

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45, nº 3, pp. 195-208. 

SELNES, F. (1993). “An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance 

on Brand Reputation, Satisfaction and Loyalty”, European Journal of 

Marketing, Vol. 27, nº 9, pp. 19-35. 

SEN, S. and BHATTACHARYA, C. B. (2001). “Does Doing Good Always 

Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social 

Responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVII, May, 

pp. 225-243. 

STEENKAMP, J. and VAN TRIJP, H. (1991). “The Use of LISREL in Validating 

Marketing Constructs”, International Journal of Research in 

Marketing, vol. 8, pp. 283-299. 

11 

219 

[219]

220 11 

[220] 


SURESCHCHANDAR, G., RAJENDRAN, C. and KAMALANABHAN, 

T. (2001). “Customer Perceptions of Service Quality – A Critique”, 

Total Quality Management, Vol. 12, pp. 111-124. 

SURESCHCHANDAR, G., RAJENDRAN, C. and ANANTHARAMAN, 

R. (2002). “The Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer 

Satisfaction – A factor Specific Approach”, The Journal of Services 

Marketing, Vol. 16, nº 4, pp. 363-379. 

ZEITHAML, V. (1988). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: 

a Means End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, 

Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22. 

ZEITHAML, V., BERRY, L. and PARASURAMAN, A. (1996). “The 

Behavioural Consequences of Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, 

Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46. 

ZIMMER, M.R. and GOLDEN, L.L. (1988). “Impressions of Retail 

Stores: A Content Analysis of Consumer Images”, Journal of Retailing, 

Vol. 64, nº 3, pp. 265-289. 


Appendix 



CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (7 point Likert scales: 1, total disagreement; 7, total agreement) 

I believe my operating company... 

Ethical-legal 

responsibility 

Philantropic 

responsibility 

Always respects the norms defined in the law when carrying out its activities 

Is concerned with fulfilling its obligations vis-à-vis its shareholders, suppliers, distributors 

and other agents with whom it deals 

Behaves ethically/honestly with its customers 

Thinks that respecting ethical principles in its relationships has priority over achieving 

superior economic performance 

Is concerned with respecting and protecting the natural environment 

Directs part of its budget to donations and social works favouring the disadvantaged 

Is concerned with improving the general well-being of society 

COMMERCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (7 point Likert scales: 1, total disagreement; 7, total agreement) 

Technical quality 

Functional quality 

Perceived price 

Good coverage 

Good sound quality 

Good variety of additional services 

Good commercial advice to customers 

Rapid resolution of problems 

Friendly treatment from staff 

Compared with other operators offers good price level 

Prices in accordance with level of services provided 

LOYALTY (7 point Likert scales: 1, total disagreement; 7, total agreement) 

I consider myself to be loyal to my operating brand 

To me, my operating brand is clearly the best brand on the market 

I would recommend my brand if somebody asked my advice 

If I had to contract the service again, I would choose my operating brand again 

I shall continue with my operating brand in the next few years 

IMAGE (7 positions, 1 strongly disagree; 7 strongly agree) 

I have positive feelings towards my operator 

My opinion about my operator is highly favourable 

SWITCHING COSTS (7 positions, 1 strongly disagree; 7 strongly agree) 

Generally, it would be troublesome to change brand 

Changing brand would take my time and effort 

To me, costs in time, money and effort to change brand are very high 

11 

221 

[221]

Corporate social responsability and loyalty in services sector - Esic

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?