Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
August 2014
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I am bound to express my heartfelt gratitude to my husband for his
encouragement and forbearance as well as my lovely kids who have been extremely patient
with me during this challenging task. The successful completion of this work is actually
dissertation.
Alireza Nazarian, whom I am forever indebted for the immense advice and guidance he has
given me. I would also like to sincerely thank the study participants who took the time to
Seven years on from the tumultuous events of 2007 financial crisis (FC), yet, many aspects
of the banking industry are unrecognisable when compared to the pre-crisis era despite the
growth in the UK economy that seems finally to be gaining traction. One consequence of the
ethical violations and corporate excess malfeasance of many banks that brought UK banking
industry into the firing line (Herzig & Moon, 2011; Bouvain et al, 2013) has been the call for
reforms concerning its responsibilities towards the society (Williams & Elliott, 2010; Sun et
al, 2010).
This study attempts to get to the heart of much of the debate about CSR development in
light of that FC. It is concerned with the perception of CSR activities in the post FC, the
likelihood of the convergence between banks CSR activities and its customer-stakeholder
needs and the implications of CSR on their attitudes as well as on Corporate Reputation
(CR).
The study reviews various works of literature concerning the topic at hand. The
hypothesised relationships between CSR and respectively customer satisfaction, customer
purchasing decision and CR were evaluated using a quantitative method based on a
positivist research paradigm. Primary data was sourced from 92 usable questionnaires
(response rate 46%) from UK banks customers.
Drawing from the analysis, it was found that there is a significant positive relationship
between perceived CSR activities and customer-stakeholder satisfaction in the post FC
which is in line with literature of stakeholder model and supports the views of Luo &
Bhattacharya (2006). With reference to CSR practices and customer purchasing decision, the
results revealed a positive significant relationship between them, also consistent with the
results of the study of Klein & Dawar (2004).
Moreover, the analysis of this relation contributed to CSR literature by investigating the
multidisciplinary domain of CSR on customer purchasing intention. CSR was also found to
have a significant positive relationship with Corporate Reputation which shares the view of
Reputation Institute (2009, cited in Trotta et al, 2011). Remarkably, the findings indicated a
partial mediation effect of CSR on the relationship between CR and customer behavioural
intention. Concluding remarks highlight further theoretical development of CSR and
managerial implications as well as limitations for future research.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3. THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... 9
1.4. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 11
1.5. SCOPE OF THE DISSERTATION........................................................................................................... 12
1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION.................................................................................................... 14
1.7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 15
2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.2. FRAMING CSR .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.3. STRATEGIC CSR ............................................................................................................................. 28
2.4. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 38
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 39
3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 39
3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY .................................................................................................................. 39
3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 46
3.4. DATA TREATMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES.......................................................................... 65
3.5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 71
Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of Findings .................................................................................... 72
4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 72
4.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................................................................................. 72
4.3. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS OF PARAMETRIC DATA ...................................................................................... 75
4.4. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 87
4.5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 92
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................... 93
5.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 93
5.2. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 93
5.3. PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTIONS ....................................................................................................... 94
5.4. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS......................................................................................................... 95
5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND RESEARCH LIMITATIONS .............................................. 96
References ............................................................................................................................................ 98
Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX A SURVEY EMAIL INVITATION ................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX B1 SURVEY FIRST REMINDER.................................................................................................... 107
APPENDIX B2 SURVEY FINAL REMINDER ................................................................................................... 108
APPENDIX C SURVEY ............................................................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX D ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ 118
APPENDIX E RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 1 ................................................................ 119
APPENDIX F RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE FACTOR ANALYSIS (BEFORE COMPONENT EXTRACTION) .................... 134
APPENDIX G RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE- FACTOR AND RELIABILITY ANALYSES ................................................ 225
APPENDIX H RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE REGRESSION ANALYSIS................................................................. 239
APPENDIX I RESEARCH OBJECTIVE TWO FACTOR AND RELIABILITY ANALYSES................................................ 241
APPENDIX J RESEARCH OBJECTIVE THREE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND REGRESSION ANALYSES ................. 258
APPENDIX K RESEARCH OBJECTIVE FOUR HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS ........................................... 264
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. INTRODUCTION
To some, 2013 has showed modest improvements in the banking industry, making 2014 the
year that banks might see their best profits since the beginnings of the financial crisis (FC)
according to S&P (Standard & Poor) credit rating agency (Croucher, 2014). To others, the UK
banking industry entered the global lexicon of infamy whereby the ten leading banks have
cost the industry hefty fines of nearly 148bn according to the LSEs (London School of
Economics) report with a string of scandals since the FC. Notwithstanding, the study by the
LSE did not include the Standard Chartered settlement of 407 million last year with the US
authorities for the violation of breaching the sanctions with Iran. Still, the fines and financial
penalties of 148bn are, ironically, larger than the economic output of a country such as
Ireland (Davies, 2013). The partial nationalisation and bail out of two of the countrys
biggest banks Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) using the UK
taxpayer funds have exacerbated the industrys reputation to the extent that the FC is
As 2014 unfolds, the preceding controversial state of the UK banking industry in the post FC
the dynamic demands of the social system. That is, the tenet of CSR has resurged to figure
prominently in the academic and business community debate. Yet, to date, there is a dearth
of academic literature about CSR in the financial services which spans a wide range of areas
from its characteristics and nature to its implications on corporate performance and
customers attitudes (Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010; Bennett & Kottasz, 2011; Bouvain et al,
2013). Drawing from these remarks, this study intends to pinpoint key insights in this field
and shed the light on issues impeding its development, hence offer a managerial agenda to
identify and stimulate practices consistent with commonly recognised norms and ethical
behaviour.
1.2. BACKGROUND
Although the CSR credo has been with the business world for centuries (Ahenkora et al,
2013), little is known of CSR literature prior to the 1950s. Some substantial writings can be
traced back as early as the 1776 manifested in the notion of the invisible hand published in
Adam Smiths vintage book titled The Wealth of Nations. This view holds that exigencies of
profit justify self-interest pursuit and, in tandem, respond to societal demands insofar free
market mechanism is allowed. Smith had set a precedent to the neoliberal advocates of
shareholder principles in which the sole fiduciary duty of business is wealth creation for its
owners (Garriga & Mele, 2004; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). On the other hand, Andrew
Carneige, in his seminal publication, The Gospel of Wealth (1889), argued fervently that
business has a broader role towards society at large given the credence nature of managers
as public trustees (Pearce II & Doh, 2005). As such, CSR intensified as of 1960s with the
emergence of academic and managerial interests (Garriga & Mele, 2004; Carroll & Shabana,
2010) to contribute either to the expansion of business broad role towards society or the
The dichotomy between the narrow wealth creation for shareholders and the holistic view
of business societal role towards society is mirrored in the current state of banking industry.
The line of thinking developed in this thesis belongs to the latter stream clustered around
interactions. In this context, business seeks to integrate both explicit and implicit societal
concerns in its DNA (its strategy and culture) (EU Commission, 2001 cited in Decker, 2004).
explicit claims together with evolving proactive strand from addressing implicit concerns
(Wood, 1991).
By doing so, some empirical researches, in particular since last decade, consent that the
obligations can reap many tangible advantages; in essence, this can lead to stimulate
durable relationships with broader constituency (e.g. Maignan & Ferrell, 2001;
Bhattarcharya & Sen, 2001). Although these endeavour to bring CSR from ideology to
reality, extant studies lack analytical rigour given the tendency to justify CSR in terms of a
direct link to corporate financial performance as the critical criterion (e.g. McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). By doing so, academic
that business should strive to uphold at any given time (Carroll, 1979). This has contributed
to equivocal results of the CSR effects on the corporate financial performance in which
empirical support falls short by directly measuring a non-economic construct CSR using
economic metrics. Given the nature of CSR as based on a qualitative relationship between
business and society, measurement should employ mediating variables to gauge this
relationship.
Accordingly, the empirical research was primarily produced from the corporate perspective
whereas the effects of CSR on customers were under-researched (Chomvilailuk & Butcher,
2010). While, Bhattacharya & Sen (2001) called for exploring CSR outcomes from customers
perspective, most of academic research addressed consumer goods with little investigation
Noting these gaps in the CSR academic literature, this study tends to fill this void and put
forward propositions for verifiable criteria for business success voiced by customer
stakeholder.
The increased public scrutiny of business behaviour since the near-death experience of the
global FC has borne witness to radical change in the bank industry by espousing societal
implementations to align its institutional activities with its stakeholder demands. In this
sense, it can regain the lost trust in business while also avert new regulations of closer
scrutiny of its conduct (Bouvain et al, 2013). In other words, it can be argued that banks
have rethought their role in society in which parity has once again reverted to this industry
(Condosta, 2012).
Recalling Charles Dickens quotation, the state of the banking industry is the worst of times
and the banking community has not learnt the lesson from the FC. Seemingly, this is
attributed to many issues that remain unresolved whereby a series of jaw-dropping scandals
are in flux. Cynically, in 2013, Lloyds was fined 28million for exploiting customers by
introducing a flawed incentive scheme between 2010 and 2012 (Shannon, 2013), while RBS
has been accused of pushing 'viable' businesses into default in order to seize their
properties and make a profit for the bank (Parker & Moore, 2013). A large portion of these
big losses were incurred in the subsequent years of the FC in 2007, hence the CSR practices
of the banking sector were called into question. There is doubt that these causalities lie in
the irresponsible behaviours of these practices, associated with the inability of either these
Against this backdrop, this studys fundamental question emerged as whether the current
CSR activities in the UK banking industry have acquired accepted resonance through the
inclusion of societal expectations in the years that followed the FC, in particular:
Has the financial crisis been a wake-up call for CSR activities to resonate with customer-
The following hypotheses were developed to help answer the aforementioned question.
The dominant debate on favouring CSR or refuting it has populated the literature that there
CSR to conceive the dynamics of business and social systems is apparent in Bennett &
Kottasz (2012) claim that the British publics evaluation of both the integrity and calibre of
banking industry has declined. On the other hand, there is the proposition that banks have
in the post FC of 2007. This formulated the assumption first hypothesis as:
H01: There is a relationship between perceived banks CSR activities and customer-
The other hypotheses suggested pinning down a management agenda that elicit favourable
customer attitudes. The recent surge of ethical and social screened investment acknowledge
the possibility that there are customers who support socially responsible practices (Peters,
2007) and are likely to influence their behavioural intention (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2001).
intention.
advantages. In this vein, Porter & Kramer (2006) argue that satisfying the economic and
marketplace by gaining society confidence. More so, it is considered the single most
important commodity which all transactions and trade are based upon in the banking
industry and, in the absence of it, the banking system reputation is on the line (Rothschild,
H03: There is a relationship between CSR fit practices and bank reputation.
The last hypothesis ascribed whether CSR practices mediate the link between customer-
H04: There is a mediation effect of CSR practices in the relationship between customer-
This study aimed to contribute towards a dynamic evolution of the CSR literature that is
2007 within the context of UK banking sector. This research sought out to investigate the
emerging expectations.
investigate whether perceived CSR activities in the post FC of 2007 have an impact
determine whether there is a relationship between CSR fit practices and bank
reputation.
analyse pertinent literature underlying the CSR and Corporate Reputation (CR) link
Corresponding to the research aim, the scope at hand was articulated around the normative
factor of social perceived value of the banking CSR activities in the post FC and the strategic
potential of CSR to create value for both the corporate entity and its constituencies. In this
setting, the analysis was derived from customer stakeholder-based views of CSR in which
fourfold of expectations namely economic, ethical, legal and philanthropic of the so-called
Carrolls CSR pyramid model (1979) were used as a proxy for these views.
The studys theoretical framework and analysis incorporated a pragmatic approach to CSR
by reconciling the emergent post FC normative views of customer stakeholder and business
socially accepted activities obtained from the empirical analysis into a consolidative
financial well-being or, in other words, developing a strategic CSR that yields value-creation
to both ends. Building on this distinction, this thesis contributed to the literature of CSR by
responsibilities. Furthermore, it scrutinized the case for strategic CSR to justify the
pragmatic approach to CSR activities in the banking industry based on the mediation effect
et al, 2012; Peters, 2007). The notion of CR is rooted in perceptions. Hence, it is argued that
carried out by business to render valued results to various constituents (Caruana, 2008) and
therefore provide signals to that reduce uncertainty when customers choose among
products (Bouvain et al, 2013). This is particularly evident for services segment as it is
To accommodate this research scope, a web-based questionnaire was conducted for which
followed a deductive research strategy in which collected quantitative data was produced
by customers resident in the UK against the banking industry. The rationale for this
approach is considered justifiable as the UK banking sector is dominated by a few very large
banks making Britain one of the most concentrated banking systems in the world (Chalabi,
2014).
Moreover, it is also based on the collective identity elicited by the impact of the FC and
mainly in the present context of collective culpability (Bennett & Kottasz, 2012). In addition,
the intensity of the banking scandals, since the acute crisis broke out in summer 2007, made
it apparent that it is not just one part of banking that has problems; it is probably the whole
sector.
1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
This introductory chapter underpins the foundation of the study. Chapter 2 critically
methodology is outlined through the adoption of a quantitative method where a survey was
developed through which customers voiced their opinions on banks CSR activities in the
post FC of 2007.
Chapter 4 furnished the set of analyses that were utilised to form the study findings in order
to answer the Research Question. The final chapter, Chapter 5, brings it all together
1.7. CONCLUSION
This first chapter introduced the topic of the research, setting the foundation by
demonstrating CSR background and history. It then shed light on the formulation of the
Problem Statement leading to the Research Question. This was elaborated by discussing the
development of the Research Hypotheses. The Research Aim, Objectives and Scope were
then presented and, finally, the structure of this dissertation was then laid out.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an overview of distinct but integrated realms of literature. These
include CSR and CR. The opening section starts with critically recounting the genesis of CSR.
Afterwards, it synthesises key arguments to pursue insights into the role of business in
society to evaluate CSR construct in the twenty-first century. Guided by Carrolls (1991) CSR
model, the definition of CSR is then discussed. The second section explores the literature
addressed to determine what has been proposed and found regarding the theoretical
framework on the relationship between CSR and CR. A discussion of the mediation effect of
The high profile scandals and ethical violations of some corporate entities of the early 1980s
and mid 2000s coupled with many new age problems manifested in terms of poverty,
artificial market bubbling and the like (Louche et al, 2010, Sun et al, 2010) have brought
contemporary business under siege by critical public scrutiny of its behaviour and its raison
d'tre in society (Pendse, 2012). Underpinning these issues is the lack of a socially
casual glance back over mid-20th century in business management reveals the upward surge
of the quest for businesses to embrace a responsible ethical behaviour in response, most
likely, to the negative externalities of its operations and activities (Pomering & Donicar,
2009) and the recurring repercussion of the capitalism model. Beyond this proposition,
cynics of CSR posit that it implies a risk to modern corporations of damaging them through
the discussion of their weaknesses instead of praising their strengths (Blowfield & Murray,
2008).
A contrasting view holds that sane corporations have responsibility towards society to
ameliorate the adverse impacts which they create to adhere to their ascribed role in society
and apply ethical and social standards to their business (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Lindgreen
& Swaen, 2010). In support, Hay & Gray (1974) opined that the development of CSR is
touted as Quality of Life Management. Furthermore, the flurry of literature about CSR in
1960s and 1970s has promoted the theoretical context for corporate responsibility
(Blowerfield & Murray, 2008). However, it also spawned an array of overlapping concepts
that demonstrates the quest to incorporate CSR agendas that acknowledge the interests of
constituent groups in society (Maon et al, 2009) and the discernibly changes in businesss
relationship with other elements of society (Branco & Rodrigues, 2007; Smissen, 2012).
This rather a concise sketch of the variation dominated the CSR premise since the second
half of the 20th century in which a philosophically and economically intriguing debate on
the proper role of CSR has been taken place (Garriga & Mele, 2004).
Set against this outlook, the notion of CSR is regarded as an immensely contested construct
that convey vividly the long-standing debate between two discernible streams of thought
characterised as the neoliberal classic perspective of shareholder sovereignty and the neo-
Keynesian model that champions the stakeholder paradigm (Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010;
Mullerat, 2010). To illustrate this dilemma, key arguments around a bundle of questions
surrounding the determinants and dimension of CSR emerged with regards to the
fundamental purpose and responsibilities of businesses. Questions were raised about the
role of the business in society, its legitimate goal, the motives of CSR, the scope of the
managerial responsibility, the rationales concerned with business pursuing doing good to do
well and whether businesss primary endeavour to maximise the wealth creation of its
stockowners is synonymous to greed. The answers given have been forged by a proliferation
of theories and approaches that contributed to the development of CSR analysis (Garriga &
corporate citizenship, sustainable business and business ethics have been developed in an
effort to justify arguments for why management needs to align corporation and societal
values to reap long-term prosperity (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Herzig & Moon, 2011). While
2009). Despite the rise of these new concepts that are vying to supplant CSR to be the
descriptor of the field, the term Corporate Social Responsibility still serves as the reference
Yet the development of CSR unfolded in uneven ways, albeit the theoretical context for CSR
is evolving, the practitioner communities might lag behind for the lack of cut-clear vision of
reliable guidance and standards to evaluate and control the actions of corporations
(Frederick, 2006). McWilliams & Siegel (2001) and McWilliams et al (2006), on the other
hand, contend that CSR became a mainstream in many business practices whereas others
might eschew the inclusion of societal values into their practices concerned about such
efforts being portrayed as dereliction of their duty to the business owners or subvert
corporate resources.
Notwithstanding, the abundant literature on CSR yet to date there is no definite consensus
exits on the definition of CSR given the complexity and the competing challenges expressed
by key stakeholders (Duarte et al, 2010; Nilsen, 2010). In this vain, it is argued that CSR
remit range from a narrow functionalist vision of business that involves economic and legal
responsibilities to a broader stance of enhancing the welfare society (Crane & Matten,
2010). Votaw (1972, cited in Garriga & Mele, 2004) summed up the multitude of meanings
tantamount to corporate liability and abiding by the law; to still others it is synonym for
philanthropic contributions. Votaw proceeded to critique the term for being a bewildering
premise leading to a high level of heterogeneity in how it is depicted. Sun et al (2010) help
to end on a positive end that CSR per se is a dynamic and contextual term bound up to its
The CSR thrust rooted in the two controversy views amid the classical view based on the
shareholder view imposed by neoliberal economist adherents and the stakeholder view for
the role of business within society (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2001; Jamali, 2007; Sweeney, 2009).
The former is attributed to the invisible hand metaphor coined by Adam Smith (1776), the
18th century pioneer of political economics and is credited as the founder of capitalism
model and free market system. It implies that self-interest pursuit of business to create its
wealth spurs, de facto, societys prosperity that is promoted by such acts (Carroll &
Buchholtz, 2009). The central claim of the free enterprise system is conceived as immoral or
unethical-free predominantly driven by the forces of free competition. The latter view was
brought forward and developed by R. Edward Freeman (1984) building on the inducement
contribution of Howard Bowen (1953, cited in Carroll & Shabana 2010) which was the initial
point in the field of CSR. Bowen (1953) in his landmark book, Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman, argues that the business community has moral obligations to society arises
from the impact of their decisions and activities whilst he goes on claiming that business
should conduct in line with the values of its society (Bartscht, 2013).
Along with the rise of CSR, detractors of CSR exemplified by Theodore Levitt (1958) warned
business to take heed of the adverse impacts of CSR on their business (Carroll & Shabana
2010; Cheers, 2011). Nobel laureate Milton Friedman (1970) the originator of the
shareholder view- furthers Adams line of thinking whereby the main credo entails that
the rules of the game which is to say the justifications of Adams invisible hand view in
terms of unfettered competitive market (Crane & Matten, 2010; Bartscht, 2013). Frideman
concurs with Levitts view that social responsibility is subversive to business in terms it
diverts management from pursuing its legitimate goal of increasing the economic value of
stockholders who are considered the primary constituent in business. Friedman (1970)
problem. In this context, he contemplated engaging into such social activities as a betrayal
of managers fiduciary duty to the owners. He notoriously proclaimed that acting for any
other purpose is tantamount to fraud and political subversion (Margolis et al, 2009; Crane &
Matten, 2010).
The well-established credence of shareholder primacy in the latter part of the twentieth
century sparked what has become a watershed debate on the role of business. Shareholder-
centric came under attack from a number of quarters for serving the interest of one cohort
with no regards to other stakeholders (Samy et al, 2010). A contrasting thinking emerged
epitomising the relationship between business and many stakeholder groups who have
stake and legitimate interest in the business. Providing an interesting slant on stakeholder
acknowledged that the narrow view of maximising shareholder profit embodies a myopic
stance (Cheers, 2011). This incorporates taking the risk of producing short-term profit which
Clarkson (1995, cited in Lech 2013) proposes two typologies of stakeholders termed as
primary and secondary stakeholders. The former ascribes to prominent participants whose
support is pivotal for the existence and survival of business. It encompasses shareholders,
employees, customers, suppliers and local communities. On the other hand, the secondary
stakeholders are the non-participants who can have an impact on business and in a same
vein businesss actions can have an impact on them. The consideration of the interest of
In essence, business and society are inextricably intertwined as Wood (1991) argues; hence
business has three roles to address the expectations of society. She proposes three
in society and as individual managers. The level of analysis for these roles comprises three
principles of CSR in terms of legitimacy, public responsibility and managerial discretion. The
viewed as a social institution adheres to social norms of society. Furthermore, the principle
of public responsibility ultimately promotes actions that attuned to the societal needs of its
environment, whereas detrimental impacts of business practices involve admonishing its
failure. The last principle comes as a realisation of Wood (1991) that business managers are
not by some abstract actors but are individuals who have moral and ethos and need to
straddle the demands of both the shareholder and other stakeholders (Sexty, 2010).
Carroll (1979, cited in Carroll & Shabna 2010) an authoritative and progressive advocate of
CSR has proposed a four-fold concept of CSR which manifests a set of interrelated
responsibilities that business is beholden to society at any given time. In essence, Carrolls
analysis assimilates both the classical model and the social values underpinning CSR creed
(Carroll, 1991). Given this, Carrolls concept entails an entire spectrum of economic and non-
the provision of products and services with economic and technical values to society, while
business is also expected to abiding by the law, by the ethical norms and standards and to
strive to promote the betterment of society (Carroll, 1999; Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009).
The four-part concept was depicted as a pyramid after been revised in 1991, as illustrated in
Figure 1. Carroll portrayed a multi-layered CSR model comprised of economic, legal, ethical
and philanthropic responsibilities that society expects business to meet. At its basis the
economic responsibility is ingrained for being the bedrock for business, hence, it undergirds
the other responsibilities (Crane & Matten, 2010), which are built upward through legal,
ethical while philanthropic responsibilities are at the tip of the pyramid. The crux of fusing
ethical and philanthropic responsibilities springs from McGuires (1963, cited in Carroll &
Shabana, 2010) arguing that CSR has other obligations than the growth of economic value
profitable business while Carroll asserts that sufficient profit is the acceptable perception as
legitimate to align the rest of the other three responsibilities, hence, the precept of
maximisation profit of neoliberal theme is unfeasible (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Park et al,
The underlying economic imperative is derived from its high relative weighting, as Crane &
Matten (2010) claims, in achieving the other three responsibilities and its importance for
business to strive for stimulating innovation, promoting fair work practices, creating jobs
The second category is the legal responsibilities; in essence, it addresses generating profit
within the local and international compulsory regulatory framework under which business
must operate. By doing so, Carroll asserts that the legal responsibilities are mandatory
whereas if business breaches them they do that at their peril on the one hand by revoking
its social contract to continue and by becoming ostracised. On the other hand, these legal
violation and illicit practices can transcend society reproach to a conviction, herein the first
two of what dubbed as a triple-tier Whos Who for officials under investigations those
who are jail bound, those who might be sentenced and those who have the good luck
merely to be embarrassed, as coined by Hahn (2002, cited in Sims 2003) have given
By and large the promulgated laws and regulations by governments are touted as codified
ethics of acceptable and unacceptable obligations placed on the business, as Carroll (1991)
suggests. To some extent, they constitute the minimum tolerable business behaviour, given
its deficiency they do not explicitly covering many morally contestable issues of newly
emerging values and still amorphous responsibilities, therefore Jamali (2007) concludes that
Ethical dimension refers to the expected or prohibited business behaviour that is not
codified into the letter of the law. Respectively, Daviss (1973, cited in Sun et al, 2010) goes
further acknowledging that responsible ethical behaviour can be said to embody the
periphery of values that situated beyond the legal obligation confines. These
responsibilities incorporate business values and those notions of justice, integrity, honesty,
trust, incorporeal rights of stakeholders and fairness into its practices, policies and decision
making (Crane & Matten, 2010). Sun et al (2010) argue that this dimension implies two
aspirations. First inspiration is cultivated in the Kantian deontological ethics which comprise
the fundamental principles of moral philosophy, whereby the second one emanates from
emerging values and changes in social norms, which may later lead to the creation of new
laws under the pressure of NGOs or civil groups or other stakeholders, however, most
regulations are enacted over time once some kind of consensus is reached (Carroll, 1991;
Cheers, 2011).
Lastly at the apex of the pyramid, the fourth dimension of responsibility refers to actively
engaging in local community through financial and non-financial contributions for a good
cause, promoting the quality of life of employees and the sponsorship of art or education
(Carroll, 1991)
Carrolls four-part definition of CSR has been the most durable and widely quoted model for
its relevant analysis of CSR (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), for its significant contribution of
demonstrating the false status quo concerning the paradox between economic and social
objectives, hence, this model bridges the gap between the two contradictory views.
Moreover its considerable value is associated with the identification of issues in the sphere
Depicting the responsibilities in four separate building blocks, on the one hand Carrolls
emphasises the multiplicity of responsibilities that business should strive to uphold. On the
other hand this separation sheds light on a constant and dynamic tension amid these
obligations whereby this can help management accommodating an agenda that redresses
these issues (Jamali, 2007; Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009). Despite this separation, a true CSR
paradigm should compose the fulfilment of these four responsibilities at the same time
Taken together the foregoing discussion and Carrolls (1979, 1991) four-fold definition and
analysis of CSR, there is a set of philosophical and normative management concerns to the
duty of business in society addresses opposite ends of a continuum. In other words, the
business of business is business that Friedman (1970) argues fervently for only maximising
depressing the financial value of the business. On the other hand, consideration of social,
legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities in business mission, values and strategy to
satisfy the burgeoning demands of these societal attributes can yield strategic advantages to
business. Some of the prominent supporters of this strand are Fombrun et al (2000),
Drucker (2002), Porter & Kramer (2006) and others. To this regard, CSR became a
CSR activities to reconcile both the economic and the social objectives and achieve suitably
significant return to outweigh the expenditure (Vogel, 2005). Porter & Kramer (2006)
elaborate that business should stray from implying a reactive CSR strategies to a more
proactive CSR that spur the whole ambit of business operations such as value chain activities
and the like (Bartscht, 2013; Bouvain et al, 2013). This view came complementing on Davis
(1973) stance that CSR activities are deemed as institutionalised commitments of business
(Haynes et al, 2012; Idowu & Filh, 2008). Building on this distinction, CSR has moved from
ideology to be an integral part of business canvas (McDonald & Thiele, 2008; Sexty, 2010).
Using this view as a context, Mintzberg (1983, cited in Pomering & Dolnicar, 2008) calls this
cited in Samy et al, 2010). In this regard, businesss growth and continuity are subject to
consumers rewarding and punishing influence, thereof managers should honour their
duties both the implicit social and explicit contracts (Isaksson, 2012).
On reflection, Carroll & Shabana (2010) present the business case for CSR corresponding to
predisposing it to be criticised by the shareholder camp. The reasoning for the business case
based on its contribution to nurture business economic bottom line as a result of businesss
behaviour, social and legal manner. The imperative to engage in CSR activities is to produce
direct and clear link to corporate financial performance (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010;
Blowfield & Murray, 2008). Given its narrow perspective to link CSR to corporate financial
performance as a rationale for the business case for CSR, Vogel (2005) adapts a holistic view
coined as doing good to do well that he argues to be the essence of new CSR premise.
The high profile of CSR in the contemporary business is afforded to the support of
multilateral institutions such as the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum
CSR means open and transparent business practices that are based on
ethical values and respect for employees, communities and the
environment. It is designed to deliver sustainable value to society at large,
as well as to shareholder.
financial sector in its Sixth Environmental Action Program to improve transparency of their
reporting that:
One of the striking initiatives was HSBC reporting its CSR in 2003 to communicate its
manifestation to promote social voluntary obligations in financial sector social is the Equator
social risks in project financing. It was signed by 30 major international banks such as
JPMorgan, Citibank, HSBC, Barclays and others (McDonald & Thiele, 2008) some of which
were involved in the financial meltdown of 2007 onwards. In turn, this has been faced with
cynicism and scepticism about businesss motivations and amount to discrepancies between
CSR rhetoric and practices. Given this, it is argued that banking industry is dominated by the
shareholder paradigm (Mayer, 2013). The views of Dicken (2011) and Relao (2011) are
quite similar to those of Mayer, they claim that UK economy market deliver on the
By contrast, at the heart of Blowfield & Murrays (2008) claim is that stakeholder view is the
feature of the modern corporate responsibility. Louche et al (2010) claim that a wide-
ranging CSR namely economic, ethical, altruistic and strategic has come to prominence
in the twenty first century. More interestingly, Friedman has alluded in part the importance
of the pertinent ethical custom embedded in discharging businesss function (Carroll &
Buchholtz, 2009). Thus, there are valid reasons to argue that the gaze turned towards
finding guidepost to implement and meet stakeholders expectations (Griseri & Seppala,
2010).
At the heart of the preceding controversies, an important question lingering in the public or
a segment of the public that have the practices of the banking industry after the jaw
dropping scandals and fiascos of the FC of 2007 adhering to a cohesive CSR to meet their
One consequence of this contentious situation is the claim that CSR analysis remains in an
embryonic stage which on one hand creates a perplexing influence on practitioners and
elude further development. On the other hand, it might be argued that the unclear
Mayer, 2013
Contemporarily, the stimulus for business to jump on the CSR bandwagon varies along a
continuum ranging from reactivity to proactivity mainstreams (Boomhill, 2007; Lindgreen &
Swaen, 2010). Likewise, Kurucz et al (2008, cited in Carroll & Shabana, 2010) have
articulated four generic impetuses of the business strategic case for CSR relative to a) cost
legitimacy; d) seeking win-win outcomes through synergistic value creation. While it is wise
for a business to adopt a CSR approach, there is no concrete correlation between CSR and
corporate financial performance as such finding has not yet been conclusively established
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2001; Pearce II & Doh, 2005; Smissen, 2012).
The three decade quest for the business case legitimate hinges on CSR direct link in boosting
the economic bottom line of the business (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). By contrast, Vogels
(2005) syncretic stewardship model for a consolidative framework is based on both direct
and indirect CSR-firm performance relationship. In this view, business can create value to its
stakeholders and capture that value in the form of an enduring and beneficial relationship
with their stakeholders and long term profitability (Freeman & Liedtka, 1997).
Substantively, stakeholder model can be thought of as the acid test of CSR for its application
interplay between business and diverse constituents, however its manifestation hinges on
the spelt out societal responsibility by identifying the interests of businesss key
stakeholders to integrate them into CSR strategies. Yet, the apparent strength of
stakeholder model might, at least in part, be its major weakness concerning the competing
needs and challenges for each cohort (Mostovicz et al, 2011). To help avert the threatened
conflict of these challenges, management should identify and balance the competing
interests of various stakeholders (Broomhill, 2007). In this regard, one of the key
business conduct and behaviour can engender a vigorous criterion for the businesss
dominated by the multifaceted debate on the feasibility of CSR to business. To illustrate, the
opening quotation marks how much the views of different premises can be contradictory.
As regards the foregoing CSR debate, it has only accommodated the views of both
contemporary economists and business practitioners alike with no regards to one justifiable
avenue pertaining to the quintessential role that customers play in the marketplace which,
arguably, can shed further light on the possible rationales of CSR benefits in terms of
activities. Mulling CSR through the lens of marketing discipline can add another dimension
The marketing literature of CSR has emerged since the 1960s-1970s with a limited focus on
(Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Beckmann, 2007). Prior research results are generally though
not completely - supportive of the idea that there is positive association between CSR
behaviours and customers responses and attitudes (e.g. Brown & Dacin, 1997; Berens et al,
2007). However, research investigations of others such as Boulstridge & Carrigan (2000) and
Cardigan & Attalla (2001) cast doubt upon the link between CSR and customers behaviour
intentions or attitudes.
Most studies have focused on either limited customers attitudinal measures including
satisfaction, recommendation, loyalty, trust and the like or behavioural intentions relative
others (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). These studies sought to answer important questions
raised regarding the customers likelihood of engaging in an evaluation of CSR and if so the
extent of it, moreover, the direct and indirect effects of CSR on the evaluation of both
companys CSR actions and its specific product offering, customers purchase intensions,
his/her motivations to pick one brand with CSR attribute over the other and the effects of
making, signalling theory and social identity theory. Customer inference making theory
implies that when customers form a purchase decision about a new product/service, they
may lack information about it. Whereas, they may know that this business incorporate a
social dimension into its behaviour and actions, hence, they may infer positively about the
product (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). Congruent with this, McWilliams & Siegel (2001)
conclude that the likelihood of a business with ethical standards and norms to offer quality
customers purchase decision making. For example, CSR attribute may act as a signal to
external parties about business attributes such as quality, genuine commitment, hence,
customer can distinguish between businesses with high attributes salience to those inferior
(Lech, 2013).
The last conceptual framework of social identity theory relates to customer's degree of
affinity with not just the corporation attributes but also the producing corporation. Hence,
they may identify with a business that enhances their self-esteem when buying from a
business that contributes to worthwhile cause. Building on this, the congruence between
customer characteristics and that of the business is likely to create both positive businesss
evaluation and positive recommendation about the business (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). In
this context, Vershoor (1997, cited in Bouldstridge & Carrigan, 2000) claims that the
In effect, such business ethical contributions can have positive influence on customers
attitudes towards the business in the form of purchase intention as an ethical behaviour can
act as a transceiver of a differentiated strategy as well as a basis for trust, that is, it can
result in favourable evaluation of the business and in turn can create favourable attitude
towards its products (e.g. Brown & Dacin, 1997; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2001).
Furthermore, Choi & La (2013) suggest that cause-related marketing is allied with
response whereas the unconditional scenario has positive influence on their responses
(Dean, 2003-2004, cited in Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010). The conditional donations incur
Express card donated a penny on each use of the card while contributed a dollar for issuing
a new card. Just over four month, it collated two USD million as a donation and boosted its
In another sense, business can be effective into two different patterns of philanthropic
activities by maintaining a low engagement pattern such as cash donations and/or a high
commitment which addresses a collaboration approach to assist the efforts of external non-
Moreover, a proactive CSR strategy can increase customer loyalty, as Maignan et al (1999,
cited in Maignan & Ferrell, 2001) claim, that is, business social values can directly influence
customers loyalty whereby their moral cognition works as a normative guideline that
It is acknowledged that the sincerity of a companys CSR motives can help building durable
customers responses (e.g. Bernes et al, 2005); purchase intention (e.g. Klein & Dawar,
2004); customer satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006); product evaluation (e.g. Brown &
Dacin, 1997); overall evaluation of service quality (e.g. Salmones et al, 2005). Conversely, if
the motives behind pursuing CSR are perceived to be dubious and with ulterior endeavours,
in turn, this may leave the company with negative evaluations and run the risk of consumer
Another avenue in the research strand of CSR marketing relates to investigating customers
responses to a multiple CSR domains. Prior research suggests that combined CSR program of
customers overall company evaluation (e.g. Brown & Dacin, 1997). Consistent with this, are
the findings of Murray & Vogel (1997, cited in McDonald & Thiele, 2008) research in which a
battery of CSR activities such as socially responsible workplace, worthy causes and
attributional reasoning which can reduce the likelihood of falling prey to the critics of
investigating a single domain of CSR which belies the nature of its broad spectrum, there is
scant research in the extant studies. Thus, some academics call for more studies into this
Taken together these studies presumptions and empirical implications, the argument put
forward is that CSR is likely to influence customers attitude in which a multiple CSR domain
In analogy with the study of CSR, the CR has an array of definitions addressing different
disciplines which results in myriad dimensions that are meant to capture its analytical
framework (Caruana, 2008). In the light of the daunting challenges arising from the thorny
issues of the globalising knowledge economy era and from the mounting public scrutiny,
firms have become cognizant of the importance of building and nurturing a good business
reputation that signifies its ability to deliver valued outcomes to its stakeholders (Fombrun
& Shanley, 1990). In their review, Bennett & Kottasz (2000, cited in Trotta et al, 2011)
expectations and personal opinions that developed over time about a business know-how
and capacity to fulfil stakeholders interests. In this view, stakeholders future expectation is
and the intrinsic values of its products CR to the stakeholder groups (Gatti et al, 2012), on
the other hand its multidimensional perspectives articulated upon the different perceptions
Underlying these vantage points are the similarities and differences between CSR and CR. it
can be well argued that both concepts are cultivated within corporate behaviour
heeded to their interests, both concepts would be seen as merely abstract concepts (Trotta
et al, 2011). With reference to the differences, it is acknowledged in some studies that CR is
of multidimensional nature while CSR has a descriptive-objective nature (Trotta et al, 2011),
Emerging from this remark is that strengthening businesss social bonds with stakeholders
can be considered a form of reputation building and maintenance which in turn undergirds a
competitive advantage in the market place (e.g. McWilliams et al, 2006; Peloza & Shang,
2011) and ultimately reaps long-term prosperity and viability of the business especially in
Subsequently, one instrumental that has widespread application for many companies
seeking to bolster their reputations is the surge up of reputation index ranking of accredited
institutions such as Reputation Institute, Fortune index of CR and Britains Most Admired
Companies wherein amid the rated criteria is quality of management as well as community
and environmental performance (Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Peters, 2007). In one sense,
business uses these tools to heighten business accountability and constructively influence
its social behaviour. In another sense, it uses them to communicate its social commitment
and the different facets it is engage in to convey to stakeholders its coalescence with its
The eminence of businesses reputation for deploying socially responsible practices and
social attributes to their offering can enhance business financial posture through cost
reduction that accrues from customer satisfaction and productivity of employees (Isaksson,
2012). In turn, such positive outcomes accumulate a stock of a firms reputational capital. In
other words, if CR is not maintained negative outcomes incur translated into impoverished
intangible assets. Under this reasoning, Accenture - a global consulting firm draws
attention to the upsurge in businesses intangibles from 38 per cent of total business value
Furthermore, a reactive CSR strategy, as Broomhill (2007) claims, embodies the adoption of
potentially regain legitimacy. By doing good, arguably, business can mitigate the risk of
reputational losses which if not wisely treated can rigorously damage the consumers
confidence and trust in business (Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000) and even worse by having a
This could be, at least in part, because it takes decades to build up a reputation, however, it
can be ruined in a split second by incidents such as the corruption scandals or the
environmental accidents, hence, causing a bottom line backlash for these businesses.
Moreover, Park et al (2014) claim that there is a direct positive link between economic and
legal CSR and CR, though an indirect impact of ethical, philanthropic CSR on CR was found in
which customer trust fully mediated this relationship. Regarding economic CSR and CR, the
product safety and its quality have a positive impact on CR, whereby the wrongdoings of
some companies for their illegal acts lead to a tarnished CR and to public resentments. With
respect to the latter two CSR activities, the logic behind this is that the perception of the
sincerity and trust surrounding CSR motives are the factors of creating positive corporate
evaluation.
From the aforementioned review, the argument put forward is that CSR can influence the
impact on customer behavioural intentions through the effect of CSR. In this regard, many
authors pinpoint a positive association between CSR reputation and customers responses.
It is worth noting that reputation is likely to lead to customer engaging in positive word of
mouth, emotional attachment to the store and repeat patronage (e.g. Lichtenstein et al,
As alluded to in the foregoing sections, the prevailing assumptions insofar yield customers
support to and favouring of social responsible businesses. The well-documented CSR effects
on customers responses and behaviour spring from the ensemble of CSR social attributes
that inculcate customers confidence and trust into business which go hand in hand with
bolstering its reputation as a social responsible business. Drawing from this, it could be said
that CSR activities mediate the relationship between CR and customer behaviour intentions
This chapter is articulated around the multifaceted debate on CSR justifications either on
affairs surrounding the debate on CSR as both would argue, vehemently, at times that it is
shareholder and stakeholder could be seen as the unattuned strings of a violin. Hence, the
composed CSR mantra is one of dissonant as the violins bow sometimes hits only the
shareholder string to reflect the domination of the neoclassical economists view; another
time it would only hit the stakeholders one. Thus, the tune composed is missing a sharp
stroke to create a well-tuned mantra the rationale behind justifying the adaptation of CSR.
To gain a dynamic articulation of this mantra, there is a need to calibrate the two strings
into a vibrant theme that strikes the listeners the businesss constituent groups including
Hence, to unveil whether the presumption of an untuned theme is the status quo or the
current CSR activities have been tuned after the FC of 2007 to meet its stakeholders needs
and expectations, the research will seek the voice of customer-stakeholders. Set against this
Has the FC been a wake-up call for CSR activities to resonate with customer-stakeholder
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter is built upon the pillars of formulating a coherent research design. It sheds light
on the adopted philosophical stance concerning the nature of the research enquiry which is
dovetailed with the formation of the research methodological choice and related strategy
(or strategies). That is, it implies the rationale behind the chosen methodology, the verified
research approach and data collection techniques that are developed to answer the
research question with reliable results and to fulfil its objectives. Finally, the data analysis
valid and reliable findings had a profound influence on the constitution of the three
phases, illustrated in Figure 2, that were used to help achieve the objectives of the research
(Saunders et al, 2012). To leverage a coherent research process, the two latter phases
execution and analytical were informed and guided by the development of the research
question and objectives in the formulation phase Introduction and Literature Review.
Figure 2 Research Process
To address this, the formulation phase provided the theoretical framework for the proposed
hypotheses that aimed at answering the research question. Embedded within this
framework is the philosophical perspective which maintains the study worldview about the
nature of what we seek to know and the process by which acceptable knowledge is
developed. Thereof, the research philosophy constitutes the assumptions that relate these
theoretical ideas to the real world (Figure 3) through two lenses relative to the issues of
what is the nature of the social entity to be researched (ontology) and how can (or should)
we develop our knowledge in this discipline (epistemology) (Creswell, 2003; Bryman & Bell,
2011).
Figure 3
Ontology comprises the substantial precepts for every research blueprint which is anchored
in our beliefs about the nature of reality and the constituents of the object of investigation.
The ontological assumptions are related to what is out there to know about the social
entities. To this regard, the central point of orientation stems from whether these social
entities can or should be regarded as objective entities that have a reality independent of
the social actors or whether they can or should be constructed by them (Bryman & Bell,
2011; Camilleri, 2012). These contrasting views are respectively referred to as objectivism
and constructionism (or subjectivism) (Porta & Keating, 2008) which portray opposite ends
of continuums polar to which researcher embarks upon one end that would enhance the
understanding and the justification of the research strategy and data collection techniques.
While researchers who adopt the objectivist approach hold the view that social phenomena
is independent of their perceptions of it, the subjective stance views reality as being socially
constructed for which individuals develop subjective meanings of their own experiences and
backgrounds. As such, these meanings are formed through active involvement of people in
reality construction and through historical and cultural norms of the context (Creswell,
The ontological stance entails the point of departure from which the core assumptions
concerning epistemology initiated (Lee & Lings, 2008). In this context, epistemology is
concerned with the relationship between the researcher and reality. Ultimately, it underlies
the nature of knowledge, the most appropriate ways of pursuing, acquiring and/or creating
that knowledge as well as the limits of knowledge (Porta & Keating, 2008; Camilleri, 2012).
Notably, given the propositional claim of this knowledge, it needs to rest on a body of
substantiated findings, thus this knowledge can be well justified (Lee & Lings, 2008).
The underlying epistemological assumption draws on how one comes to know reality
(Camilleri, 2012). In turn, it informs the choice of research methods ranging from the
research design.
At a broad level, the epistemological considerations render into the research work plan of
how to go about generating this knowledge, that is, these processes that govern the
methods by which research is carried out form the research methodology. Building on this,
what Lee & Lings (2008) term as the ologies, which are derived from research ontology,
(2000, cited in Le Roux, 2012) purport. This framework forms the so-called research
paradigm; in effect these ologies directly or indirectly outline the research paradigms. More
interestingly, the word paradigm origin Greek paradeigma symbolises a pattern. In this
view, research paradigm is a pattern of scientific and academic ideas, key issues,
The most prevalent paradigms embody a long standing tension about whether the social
world should be studied according to the application of the methods of the natural sciences.
Advocates of the natural sciences ethos to the study of social reality cultivate the precepts
of positivist research paradigm. On the other end of the spectrum is the interpretivist
understanding of human behaviour and subjective meaning of social action through the
3.2.3.1. POSITIVISM
The tenets of the positivist stance emanate from the philosophical ideas of the French
Philosopher August Comte (1798-1857, cited in Neuman, 2006) which implies that valid
knowledge (truth) exists, is already there waiting to be revealed, and is independent of the
human mind. Hence, the researchers task is to uncover truth using quantitative and
facts that exist objectively which are directly observable and measurable (e.g. Walsham
through empirical testing of deduced hypotheses which are only considered meaningful if
they are empirically verified, thereof this leads to the discovery of universal laws of human
relationships and predict general patterns of human activity (Neuman, 2006). However, the
detached epistemological stance of the positivism and reducing the world to observable
objects and facts, in the view of critics, are not very justified. Critics attribute this to the
positivism also reject the application and interpretation of science to the study of social
prominent than developing subjective meanings of the social actions in terms of providing
adequate explanations of human thought and action which is the manifestation of direct
observation of realities and regularities (Camilleri, 2012). Positivists hold the view that
social reality, a rational logic of decision making and prediction would be impossible.
3.2.3.2. INTERPRETIVISM
which holds that social life is underpinned by social interactions and socially constructed
meanings stem from peoples subjective experiences. Given the complexity of the
contemporary social world, the focus of this tradition is to develop inferential generalisation
to capture insights of this complex world rather than reducing this world into a series of law-
like generations of the positivist stance. In this sense, a qualitative analysis (versus
quantifiable) is employed in the domain of interpretive research whereby meaning-oriented
(Saunders et al, 2012). As such, the nature of the interpretive methodology and the context-
specific orientation make generalizability which is concerned with the results of the
undertaken research being transferrable to other situations far more difficult. Hence,
these results cannot be widely generalisable instead they generate local understanding (Lee
Owing to the ontologys tendency towards exploring reality through meaningful actions, this
results in forming multiple realities whereby there is no single correct route to knowledge
(Alvesson, 2009).
Emerging from the preceding remarks of the two paradigms, the framework of this study
adopted the positivism tradition. The crux of this reasoning lies in some propositions shaped
in the multifaceted debate on CSR that gripped the banking sector with regards to its
ascribed role in the post FC of 2007. Also, this study is set out to capture the social reality
pertaining to the CSR streams that gauge customer-stakeholders attitudes towards CSR that
symbolises its development to meet their demands. In line with this reasoning, the
positivism philosophy maintains that there is one reality that is observable and meaningful
based on a proper treatment of empirical data which is not the case with interpreivism
(Holden & Lynch, 2004). Given this, adopting a positivistic stance is consistent with the
studys aim to find out a consensus on CSR activities that is likely to address customers
stemming from the causal analysis of the operationalised concepts that constitute the
research variables resembles the study aim. This approach would equip the study with
pseudo or there is a real issue in this discipline which if confirmed would provide legitimate
grounds for the next implications of adhering to the positivist stance. In this context, the
causal analysis can help in promoting a management agenda by gaining insights into the
Albert Einstein
In light of Einstein quotation, a crucial tool in the social researchers armoury is the research
design which is regarded as the recipe for carrying out the project as Hair et al (2007)
pinpoints. From the outset, the researcher needs to devise a coherent research strategy
The research approach indicates how data can be collected by delineating the relationship
between theory and research. There are three different approaches based upon the
reasoning adopted through the research paradigm: deductive, inductive and abductive
(Table 1).
With regards to deductive approach, the emphasis is on the development of a theory for
which an empirical scrutiny is deployed to test a hypothesis(ses) (Bryman & Bell, 2012;
Saunders et al, 2012). These hypotheses will need to be translated into operational terms
(Bryman & Bell, 2012) in the form of independent variables that can be active variables
that the researcher can manipulate or attribute in contrast with the active ones as they
relate to gender, race and the like (Newman & Benz, 1998).
The point is that the independent variables are the measurable characteristics which cause
effects on the dependent variables. Hence, these measured concepts can be formed into
quantifiable data collected through quantitative instruments such as a survey questionnaire.
As such, after the rigorous evaluation based on testing the reliability and validity of the
measures of concepts, the hypotheses can then be tested using an appropriate statistical
technique and will only be accepted if they survive the ordeal (Sohail et al, 2008).
which the aim is theory testing. Hence, it is contrasted with the other two approaches:
inductive and abductive (Hair et al, 2007). The notion hypothetico-deductive first emerged
from the perceptions of philosopher Karl Popper (1959, cited in Juma'h, 2006) which rely on
the logic of testing falsifiable hypotheses for which the scientific approach is driven by
systemising the search for conflicting information. The falsification principle contrasts the
empirical verification in which hypotheses are either verified or refuted by the observed
effects. The last characteristic of deductive reasoning is the embedded causal explanation
that incorporates a sufficient level of generalisation to apply findings of the research study
With inductive reasoning, the outcome is the formulation of a theory which entails
generating inferences out of observations. By its very nature, inductive research employs
qualitative methods and often uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of data and
to the generation of theory (Porta & Keating, 2008; Saunders et al, 2012). On the other
hand, the abductive stance involves weaving back and forth between data and theory. In
effect, it leverages a complementary approach which entails a process that iterates between
Research designs are mapped based on distinguishing between two salient typologies
fixed and flexible. One of the differences between them comes from the degree of pre-
specification of procedures that characterises the requirements for the most suitable design
to be employed such as the use of pilot testing in the quantitative approach. Another
difference is the nature of the data. The former fixed is characterised by data collection
techniques and analysis procedures that generate or use numerical (hard) data, thus
researchers deploy the positivism paradigm. Conversely, the latter design collects
qualitative (soft) data in the form of words, impressions and so forth which means that
Quantitative research is most likely constructed using a deductive approach whereby the
focus is on collecting data to test theory. Hence, the strength of its implication capitalises on
the consistency of the research results and assesses whether the indicators devised to
gauge the concepts the building blocks of theory that can be observed and measured to
explain variations when testing hypotheses really do reflect those concepts. These sketch
respectively the research reliability and validity (Bryman & Bell, 2012).
With regards to causality, its importance is driven by the researchers ability to impute it in
their findings. In terms of quantitative research, the daunting challenge is to explain the
causal relationships that are responsible for some phenomena by identifying the possible
correlation between its dependent and independent variables. Moreover, this causal
explanation strives for generalising findings from a sample to a wider population. Given this,
the sample has to be as representative as possible in order to be applicable to other settings
generalisations or making theoretical generalisations that are concerned with the empathic
understanding of human actions rather than with the explanation of these actions as in the
with inductive approach for which limited or no prior specification of variables of interest is
required (Creswell, 2003; Bryman & Bell, 2012). Moreover, flexible can coincide with mixed
Drawing on the fixed and flexible research design typologies as sketched by Robson (2011),
the fixed designs can constitute experimental and non-experimental strategies. The typical
form of the experimental strategy owes its nature to the quantitative research design that
implies manipulating the independent variable to assess its influence on the dependent
variable whereby the researcher conducts quantitative comparisons between control and
On the other hand, the non-experimental strategy for the fixed research design includes
survey study and secondary data collection methods. With reference to flexible design, it is
carried out by one of the following approaches: case study which could be conducted
using qualitative, quantitative or mixed as Robson (2011) argues whereas the remaining
strategies embody only qualitative data collection such as ethnography, interview study and
discourse analysis.
Guided by the adopted positivistic stance, a fixed survey study was used. In light of the
deductive approach of this research, the generalisability property of the quantitative survey
study, its causal analysis and condensed data fit its descriptive and explanatory nature.
Descriptive Research is designed to provide an accurate profile of what has been observed.
The outcome is a detailed sketch that can be an extension of exploratory research or, more
likely, a piece of explanatory research. Accordingly, this social research focuses on questions
as how, who, when and where to present a snapshot of events over time longitudinal
explanatory studies. Such studies are so-called descripto-explanatory (Saunders et al, 2012).
With reference to explanatory research, the primary purpose is to seek explanation of how
Given the multidimensional nature of the CSR paradigm, the rationale behind conducting a
descriptive study is to obtain data that identifies and describes the characteristics of
multiple CSR domains relevant to the level of importance concerning CSR activities to
customer-stakeholders.
Moreover, at the heart of this research lies a systematic quest to reveal enlightening
insights by explaining the likelihood of a bundling of CSR activities that can influence
customers attitudes and behaviours as well as the possibility of CSR to affect the reputation
of the business.
3.3.4. THE DATA COLLECTION PHASE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire instrument is the most widely used data gathering technique within the
(Lee & Lings, 2008; Saunders et al, 2012) that represents a snapshot of a situation at a single
point in time cross-sectional study or that is captured over a longer period time at a
Respondents are asked to respond to a consistent set of clear and unambiguous statements
or questions that might comprise open-ended questions in which respondents provide their
predetermined mutually exclusive and exhaustive responses are formed (Babbie, 2004; Hair
Framing relevant questions convey a set of interrelated activities that must be considered to
develop an efficient and well-structured survey. In this sense, a good design of these
which the questionnaire is administrated and a rigour of its pilot testing would foster an
adequate reliability of the data collected and acceptable or even sometimes significant
With reference to the methods of administration to sample, there are wide-ranging means
using self-administrated (or completion) methods which include postal and electronic
surveys whereby they are completed without a researcher present. Hence, this type of
survey requires a highly structured questionnaire with an easy-to-follow design and a clear
(Bryman & Bell, 2012). Saunders et al (2012) point out that a feasible length of
questionnaire should be between six to eight A4 pages for postal survey or the equivalent of
them for the online. A covering letter should accompany the questionnaire introducing it
and its content along with ethical commitment. This implies avoiding confusion and
vagueness of the research purpose as well as building up trust and confidence to induce
for being cheap and quicker to administer, more convenient to respondents in terms of the
time and speed of completing them and, most importantly, eliminating the social
desirability bias due to the absence of an interviewer. However, this type of questionnaire
has some drawbacks such as that it can be read as a whole without control over the
sequence in answering the questions; it could suffer from a low response rate and greater
To elicit the benefits from using a self-administrated questionnaire whilst overcoming and
minimising its pitfalls, the survey devised for the research in question took the format of a
self-completion questionnaire that was administrated via the Internet using the Survey
Monkey software. Notably, the internet is having a substantial impact upon research within
which the use of web-delivered surveys is growing for a multitude of reasons that include
quick and direct form of access to sample, the economical collection of large amounts of
data, the moderate response or return rate compared to lower rates associated with postal
questionnaires, and its technical features that help spreading out questions over a number
of pages, having questions answered in a sequence and help avert the risk of missing data
by not progressing through before answering all questions on each page (Babbie, 2004;
To operationalise the Total Design Method purported by Dillman (1978, cited in Babbie,
2004), the preceding considerations were taken into account to exhort valid findings
confined by the specifications of the quantitative scientific research e.g. being logical,
objective, value-free and empirical verification. Drawing on these insights, the web-based
covering letter tapping on the aim of the study, the structure of the questionnaire,
real-life examples to illustrate the responsibilities in order to make it easier for the
respondents to relate to the questions and statements and, at the end, a thank you note for
The questionnaire had a clear layout and care was taken to avoid leading questions, double-
barrelled statements and unbalanced responses. By using the features of the Survey
Monkey software, the survey was programmed so that respondents could not proceed to a
new page before answering all questions on a given page which is used to control missing
data. Another feature was used to lock the questionnaire so that at completion it would not
The survey comprised four sections over five pages and consists of 23 close-ended
questions. The justifications for that over open-ended questions are that less time is needed
for answering them which justifies the twenty minutes estimated for its completion in the
introduction, maintaining uniformity in the data gathering process and making it easier to
compare the answers of different respondents whereas open-ended questions are most
In section A, eight list questions (e.g. tick the appropriate box) requested background
information concerning age, education and so forth. These questions are of a factual nature
characteristics about the sample. Even though it is preferable to have this section at the end
of the questionnaire so that the participant does not break off early, it was placed at the
circumscribe progressing into the questionnaire if the participant does not have a UK
account.
perceived CSR following the FC of 2007. The participants were asked to respond using a
five-point Likert scale to a range of questions, some of which were constructed into a matrix
The Likert rating scale was used to assess the strength of agreement or disagreement about
their banks adhering to four dimensions of CSR activities adapted from Carrolls CSR
framework which deal with economic, ethical, legal and philanthropic dimensions in the
post FC of 2007. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) was used. Using the same five-point scale, respondents were also asked to indicate
their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement relevant to their trust into
their banks after 2007. They were requested to divulge their level of expectations of the
bank sector aligning with their demands and needs after 2007 by interpreting the Likert five-
point interval scale 1 (Substantially below expectations) to 5 (Substantially exceed
expectations).
Since the sequence of the questions have a major influence on the accuracy of the collected
data, the logical flow of questions geared to capture respondents perceptions of their bank
CSR activities first and then their overall perceptions of the bank sector. This sought to get
their brain primed for the more salient questions gauging their satisfaction of the banking
sector.
Section C delved into the level of importance of Carrolls CSR four dimensions to influence
their purchase decision of banks financial products in which the five-point Likert scale is
coded from 1 (Not at all important) to 5 (Very important). Finally, Section D catered to
The statements and variables in the research instrument are derived from and built upon
the analysis of secondary sources constitute of literature that are based on a number of
critical theoretical threads presented in Chapter 2 and other items from earlier
questionnaires that were culled or adapted to reflect the objectives of the current study.
Question 9 was partly derived from Choi & La (2013). Question 14 was adapted from Mulki
& Jaramillo (2011). Question 21 was adapted from Ellen et al (2006) and Osterhus (1997).
Incorporating items from previous research allowed reliability and validity in the sense that
these questions have already been pilot-tested; hence, they are empirically founded
Guided by the Total Design Method of Dillmans (1978) proposition and the insights of
Oppenheum to ensure that the research instrument as a whole functions well and evaluate
its feasibility, the developed questionnaire should be pilot-tested prior to administrating the
final survey study to the sample. This evaluation is in the form of a small scale replica of the
actual survey to be carried out to reveal issues related to wording, sequencing, questions
duplication, the adequacy of the range of responses to each question and any weaknesses in
the design. As this would suggest, calibrating the questionnaire draft in accordance to these
revealed insights will help enhancing the validity of the questions and the reliability of the
data that will be collected. It will also acquaint the researcher with an indication of the
response rate to be expected of the final study (Sweeney, 2009; Barton, 2010).
The first draft of the questionnaire was presented to the research supervisor and then pre-
tested among academics and professionals. The feedback received reported duplication in
some questions and some wording errors. Hence, the draft of 26 questions was refined to
23 questions and some examples of CSR activities in the banking sectors were given for
more clarity. The survey was redrafted and then tested with a sample of ten respondents of
bank customer-stakeholders. The number of ten participants in the pilot is acceptable which
was attached was for a pilot study and they were encouraged to provide their feedback on
scale items.
Concerns over the usage of American terms for describing the types of bank accounts were
voiced during the second stage and also the pilot indicated a low response to few
statements that needed to be associated with examples of these CSR activities in the
banking sector. Accordingly, typographical changes were made and these statements with
low response contained an example related to these CSR undertaken in the banking sector.
These recommendations were incorporated into the survey before the final administration
of the survey.
After adjusting the second draft of the questionnaire following the pilot study, the survey
was fielded from the 14th of July until 12th of August 2014 and included two reminders. An
invitation email including the URL link was sent to respondents who can click-thru
sequences on Survey Monkey web site to complete the questionnaire online (Appendix A).
The email was sent to all 200 email addresses on the researchers list. Within the first five
days 38 responses were collected. Using a feature of the Survey Monkey software, the non-
respondents were located. Thereof, the first follow-up email was sent after six days to all
recipients. It included a thank you note to early respondents and the located non-
The first reminder produced only 26 additional responses (Appendix B1). Therefore, ten
days later, a final reminder was sent with the closing date for the survey to highlight the
urgency of completing it (Appendix B2). This resulted in a further 62 responses and the
Guided by the techniques used during the data collection analysed and synthesised in the
methodology literature, sufficient response rate for the research in question was achieved
whereby 127 questionnaires were returned thus yielded an initial response rate of 63%. Of
these, 4 questionnaires were disqualified by using the filter criteria for allowing only
were excluded from analysis as they were only partially completed. Although the survey was
programmed for not advancing to the next page if a question is skipped, the 31
uncompleted questionnaires were incurred by exiting the website of the survey. The final
response rate is 46% for the 92 usable questionnaires that were accepted as valid for the
data analysis.
The setting for this empirical study was the UK banking industry given its vital role to the
development of the countrys economy based stemming from its part in bridging surpluses
and deficits in the economy. Within this context, the study population and sample elements
were drawn.
Sampling constitutes a key step in the social research process. It is the method by which
specific cases or events are selected for participation in a study whereby the gist of it is to
estimate some unknown characteristics of the population (Zhowa, 2010). As its name
conclusion regarding the whole population (Bryman & Bell, 2012). Accordingly, a population
or universe is that aggregation of the units in a study which have some homogeneous
characteristics that may influence the variables of interest (Lee & Lings, 2008; Zhowa, 2010).
The method of selection was articulated by one of two approaches namely: probability and
random-selection mechanisms are employed in which the chance of each unit being
selected from the population is known, thus each case has an equal possibility of being
from which it is drawn (Babbie, 2004; Neuman, 2006; Han, 2006; Bryman & Bell, 2011). The
aim of recruiting this technique is to keep sampling error to a minimum. This error refers to
the degree of deviation between a sample and its population (Neuman, 2006).
A target population embodies the specific pool of sampling units that the researcher aspires
to generalise the results of. Obtaining a sampling frame is essential for providing a working
definition of the target population as it encompasses all units in the population from which
the sample will be drawn (Saunders et al, 2012). Another critical factor in creating a
representative sample is contingent on its size. In essence, the larger the size of the sample,
the higher the likelihood of the precision and accuracy of data collection from it because
that is more likely to reduce error in generalising to the population. Moreover, the type of
analysis that is intended to be used will determine the threshold of the sample size. Another
two constrains that can affect the choice of the sample size are the amount of time and cost
that are needed to collect, check and analyse the data (Bryman & Bell, 2012, Saunders et al,
2012).
random and cluster sampling. The choice between these techniques depends on which is
most appropriate to answer the research question and address its objectives. The first
technique entails randomly selecting the sample elements from the list of all units of the
population. A slight modification is systematic sampling, where every Kth (e.g. 15th) unit in
the sampling frame is selected at regular intervals (Babbie, 2004; Hair et al, 2007).
With stratified random sampling, the sampling frame is divided into relevant strata
these strata. Thus, each of the strata is represented proportionally to accurately mirror the
population (Hair et al, 2007). As for cluster sampling, it involves breaking the population into
discrete groups (clusters) and then samples are drawn from the aggregated units or clusters.
In this criterion, the sampling frame comprises a complete list of clusters rather than
The fundamental idea behind employing probability sampling techniques is that it is more
likely to yield a representative sample that allows for drawing a statistical generalisation
from it to its population. To achieve a perfect representative sample, a sampling frame of all
units must be available which can hardly ever be achieved for some research inquiries. In
addition, it is considerably more expensive and time-consuming which does not fit with
limited research sources. However, there are other ways that could be considered to
evaluate the worth of a good sample strategy such as sample size, the level of response rate
and the construction of the instrument questions (Lee & Lings, 2008).
terms of safeguarding the use of non-random techniques in which units of the sample are
snowballing and quota sampling. Given this, non- probability samples can be used for such
quantitative studies where it is not possible to establish a clear frame (Turner, 2003; Brown,
2012). On the other hand, the subjective judgement involved with selecting such samples is
population- effect generalisation (Lee & Lings, 2008; Lynchi, 2011). Subsequently drawing a
representative sample is not necessarily required since the significance of the research
findings relates to its relevance to the research question and objectives; that is, statistical
generalisation of findings is not the goal (Neuman, 2006; Lee & Lings, 2008). The canons of
In convenience sampling (or availability sampling), sampling units are selected out of
convenience (Babbie, 2004; Bryman & Bell, 2012). Whilst the main drawback for using
selection bias of participants being different from the target population, it is widely used in
social research inquiries because of benefits such as accessibility and a low non-response
the initial respondents to help identify other cases relevant to the research topic and then
repeats the process again until it reaches a saturation point where there are no new names
given. However, the danger of using such a technique is embedded in the problems of bias
as respondents are most likely to identify others based on interrelationships (Saunders et al,
2012).
A purposive technique involves selecting units for a specific purpose on the basis of the
researchers judgement. These units are the ones that will be the most useful to answer the
research question or representative of the target population (Babbie, 2004). However, the
views of Hair et al (2007) are quite similar to those voiced by Neuman (2006) and Lee &
Another non-probability technique is the quota sampling that resembles stratified random
sampling, however the selection of units is entirely non-random (Bryman & Bell, 2012;
Saunders et al, 2012). Although this technique may reflect a population in terms of the
The economic havoc wreaked by most UK banks that were the catalysts of the FC in 2007
has induced a collective identity for this sector. In turn, this FC has yielded certain common
perceptions amid public, as Bennett & Kottasz (2012) argue. Moreover, the UK banking
sector is dominated by few very large banks which, after the FC of 2007, became even more
concentrated with the merge of some banks together such as that between Halifax Bank of
Scotland (HBOS) and Lloyds TBS to create the Lloyds Group (Chalabi, 2014). These factors
spurred conducting the research for the UK entire banking sector given the temporal effect
of the FC that has created a collective identity for the whole sector (Bennett & Kottasz,
2012).
Given the above reasoning, along with the infeasibility to identify and create a sampling
frame due to the confidentiality policies in the banking sector, a non-probability sampling
method in the form of convenience and purposive sampling were recruited. The underlying
of completed questionnaire economically through sample units that are most readily
In this setting, response rate techniques with a screening feature were planned to achieve a
high response rate with controlled missing data to minimise non-sample errors. On the
other hand, purposive sampling was also used in conjunction with the requirements of the
research question to collect data from participants with low income less than 14,999 to
The proposed hypotheses were tested on a sample of 127 participants who are current
customers at one or more of UK banks. The respondents participating in the survey were
selected on the basis of varied demographic characteristics, such as age being within a wide
range from below 25 to 55 and above years, both male and female customers were invited
from different education backgrounds, income categories and diversity in the type of
The data set was exported from Survey Monkey into Excel format and then imported into
the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS Version 22.0) to analyse the data. Data
preparation constituted coding the data and adjusting the level of measurements to the
variables. To this point, the measurements were allocated in accordance with the data type
There are four levels of measurements are depicted in ascending power order as following
first nominal scales which represent variables with numeric labels whereby having no order
of magnitude classifies them as the least powerful scales. Variables measured using this
scale, hence, cannot be placed in rank order. These are non-metric scales that suited non-
parametric statistics such as Chi-square statistic (Hair et al, 2007). In this sense, nominal
scale is used as a level of measurement to classify the gender and relationship status
The inability of ranking variables on nominal scales contrasts with ordinal scales. As its name
implies, variables can be ranked. However, the distance between scale points is not equal
across the range (Bryman & Bell, 2012). The ranking characteristic of this scale allows for
higher level of analysis than with nominal data relevant to non-parametric statistics such as
Spearmans correlation. Given this, ordinal scale was allocated to the education and the
The interval and ratio scales address the arithmetic quality that differences between points
on the scale are identical. Whilst ratio scales incorporate the qualities of the other three
scales, they diverge from interval for stating the relative difference between any two values
for a particular variable, that is, this scale is the highest level of measurement (Lee & Lings,
2008).
While Likert scale is characterised as an ordinal scale, it can be argued that Likert scale can
be treated as an interval scale given the justification that the gaps between its points are
equal in magnitude across the whole range of the scale (Han, 2006; Lee & Lings, 2008; Hair
et al, 2007). In addition, this scale is characterised as a metric scale employed with
parametric statistics such as Correlation Analysis, Multiple Regression (Hair et al, 2007)
which this study implemented to analyse the collected data. Based on this, the independent
variables (IVs which are the predictors) and dependent variables (DVs - also known as
outcome variables) of this study are measured using Likert five-point scale which is assumed
to be interval whereby the gaps between its points are equidistant as illustrated in Figure 5.
1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Agree
(Han, 2006)
One way of testing internal reliability is the Cronbachs alpha method which was used in this
research to assess whether the items that make up the scale were internally consistent.
Cronbachs (coefficient) alpha is the most common measure of scale reliability that ranges
from 0 to 1 within which a value of 0.7 to 0.9 indicates good reliability and 0.7 is the
accepted benchmark for Cronbachs alpha. However 0.60 can be an acceptable level of
that the items measuring the scale have very little in common (Hair et al, 2007; Bryman &
Bell, 2012).
Aggregating a group of interrelated variables into a smaller set of factors is one of the main
preliminary solution for multivariate data analysis. Two methods can be used in factor
analysis, Principle Component Analysis (PCA) and Common Factor analysis. PCA allows for
the analysis of both the common and unique variance of a score hence used for data
reduction whereas Common Factor analysis is only concerned with the common (shared)
The initial step in the preliminary analysis is concerned with checking R-matrix for any
extreme scenarios such as multicollinearity of highly correlated variable and low singularity
correlation. The suitability of the sample size has to be considered by assessing the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic and Bartletts Test of Sphericity. The threshold of 0.6 for KMO
indicates an adequate sample size, also Barletts test signals the significance of the overall
Using PCA, the number of components is extracted based on the Kaiser criterion of Eigen
values over one, also scree plot aides in the decision by visually spotting where the point of
inflexion occurs to retain only components to the left of this point. Regarding rotation, two
methods can be used to improve factor solution by maximising the loadings of some of the
items. An oblique rotational method allows factors to correlate whereby the other method
orthogonal does not. Thus, the former rotation was sought for the analysis for which
This analysis gauges the degree of covariation between two variables. It can be conducted
correlation coefficient (PMCC) and Spearmans rho. While the latter deals with ordinal data,
the former calculates interval/ratio data which is the level of measurement assigned for the
studys IVs and DVs. Hence, this is the used statistic to quantify the strength of the linear
Pearson r assesses the strength and direction of association between two variables such as
CSR fit and CR in which the correlation coefficient ranges between -1 and +1. A Pearson r
value between +0.9 and +1 denotes a very strong positive correlation, whereby a value
between -0.9 and -1 still indicates a very strong correlation but negative which means when
one variable increases, the other variable decreases. Moreover, the correlation has no
meaning if it is not statistically significant whereby the p-value is less than 0.05. This implies
that the relationship is statistically significant hence the null hypothesis is rejected (Bryman
It is closely connected to Pearsons r with regards that correlations between variables are
linear, however, this analysis allows to predict an outcome variable from one predictor
2009). The coefficient of determination or R squared entails the amount of variability in one
variable explained by the other variable. It can have any value between 0.00 to 1.0 whereby
the greater the R2 the stronger the association. The F- statistics and its associated
probability in the ANOVA table assess the statistical significance of the overall regression
In the coefficients table, the regression coefficients (b values) point out the amount of
change in the outcome variable resulting from a one unit increase in the predictor. To
evaluate the statistical significance of betas (b vales), the t-statistic tests the null hypothesis
for the value of b, whereby less than 0.05 it is rejected and b-value is statistically significant.
A predictor variable with insignificant beta is not a good predictor of the dependent variable
and should be removed from the regression model (Hair et al, 2007).
Baron & Kenny's mediation approach involves following four steps (Figure 6) to analyse
Step 1: Involves portraying a structural model to estimate path c in which the IV is assessed
whether it correlates significantly with the DV. Based on the existence of a significant
Step 2: Establishes path a in which the direct relationship between the IV and mediator is
tested whereby mediator is regressed on the IV. They must correlate to validate next step.
Step 3: Includes testing path b by performing a hierarchical regression whereby, in first step,
the DV is regressed on the mediator while, in second step, DV is regressed on the IV.
Step 4: Tests path c by assessing the relationship between the independent and outcome
variables. If it becomes insignificant, then there is full mediation while if this relation
Mediator
Independent Dependent
variable variable
C (Path c)
(Janice, 2012)
Within the realm of conducting a research, there are some obligations that revolve around
ethical concerns starting from the appropriateness of the research to issues emerge in each
phase of the research process. This includes not avoiding any risk of causing harm or
intruding on privacy to access data, disclosure about the nature of the research and
data and anonymity of participants identities (Hair et al, 2007; Bryman & Bell, 2012). In
compliance with this continuum of ethical principles, this dissertation is also regulated by
the Code of Research Practice of The University of West London which sets out researchers
broad responsibilities.
In doing so, a disclosure of the nature and purpose was encapsulated in the introduction of
the online questionnaire as well as the invitation email sent to take part in the study. This
invitation stated explicitly that participants privacy will be protected and that their
participation is voluntary whereby they have the right to decline or not to participate in the
study (see Appendix II). Confidentiality and anonymity of all participants were dealt with as
questionnaires were anonymous and participants were informed that all data collected will
remain confidential and are protected according to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
Data will be processed and analysed objectively and a summary of the research findings can
be obtained if requested.
3.5. CONCLUSION
questionnaire survey was designed as the primary data source. The collected dataset was
analysed using rigorous relevant methods to get the most out of the data in order to have a
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Given the baseline for the research design to collate the data and methods of analysing it in
the methodology chapter, this chapter explores the empirical findings of descriptive and
parametric statistics.
conducted via frequency distributions and diagrams to explore the data of one variable at a
time. With regards to age distribution, most of the respondents 41 out of the 92 were
aged 35-44 years (44.6%). The younger age group (less than 25 years) contributed with only
5 respondents (5.4%) while 22 (23.9%) belonged to the middle age group (26-34 years).
There were 14 respondents (44.6%) from the older age group (45-54 years) with the
remaining 10 (10.9%) belonging to oldest one (55 years and above). As illustrated in Table 2,
the figures in the Percent and Valid Percent are the same as there is no missing data.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Figure 8 presents the relationship status of respondents, about 50 (54.4%) are married while
the remaining 45.65% are spread out over the other different relationships.
Regarding the type of employment, 66 respondents were in full time employment (66.30%)
followed by 18.48% of being self-employed. Only 1.09% are on retirement (Figure 9).
Figure 9 Respondents Type of Employment (Questionnaire Section A- Q5)
A large group of respondents (35.9%) has an annual income of 75,000 and above. The
breakdown of the responses shows that 8.9% earn less than 14,999. The deployment of
the purposive sampling technique helped in the inclusion of this segment to ensure covering
all relevant questions that address the research objectives. Equally, around 13% of
respondents earn within the income brackets of 30,000 - 44,999 and 45,000 - 59,999.
which makes up almost 59% of the sample, while only 16.30% have been with their banks
Figure 10 Respondents relationship duration with their banks (Questionnaire Section A- Q8)
Before analysing the dataset, the data was prepared pertaining to editing, coding and data
transformation as appropriate; the data was also examined for anomalies. The research
question and objectives were addressed through the statistical analysis of the data in four
reliability analysis to test for the level of consistency among the items within each
framework. It was followed by conducting a Factor Analysis for each of the first and the
second frameworks. The rationale behind using the Factor Analytic approach is to reduce
the large dataset into a smaller set of salient items, hence producing a more manageable
(Multivariate analysis) in the analysis of each of the aforementioned frameworks. For the
third framework, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was performed. The last
analytical framework tapped on the mediation effect of CSR on customer-stakeholder
purchasing decision (behavioural intention) and banks corporate reputation. This was
tested by using Baron & Kenny's Mediation procedure (1986, cited in Aggarwal, 2004).
Investigate whether perceived CSR activities in the post FC of 2007 has an impact on banks
customer-stakeholders satisfaction
Initially, the Cronbachs alpha was checked to assess the interrelatedness of items that
gauge customers perception of CSR activities. The estimation of the intercorrelation among
these items came satisfactory as 0.96 which reflects a reliable scale (Table 4). Although the
scale met the criterion of a very good coefficient alpha, yet, according to Hair et al (2007),
an alpha of 0.95 should be inspected to eschew a limited breadth of items focus if they do
not measure difference aspects of the concept. To address this, the inter-item correlation
matrix was visually scanned for high correlation where r 0.85 (Ioannou, 2009) or r 0.80
The preliminary test of multicollinearity revealed that correlation coefficient was within the
acceptable margins. Given this, there was not any multicollinearity of perfect linearly
relationship between the items. Another investigation was sought pertaining to checking
the determinant of the correlation matrix whereby if it is greater than 0.00001 then
multicollinearity is not a problem. Thus the determinant value was 1.615E-13- which is
Two items with low correlation where r is less than threshold 0.3 were detected in the inter-
item correlation matrix. However, by deleting these items, alpha value will not change. This
was seen as an early stage to eliminate these items because more rigorous analysis can be
sought by checking their level of significance in next stage to consider discarding them from
the analysis if they have an adverse effect. Consequently, it was decided not to exclude
them as they may contribute differently to the content coverage of the subscale.
The overall coefficient alpha was 0.96 thus the scale was adequately reliable. It reflected
that all items are positively contributing to the overall reliability. The justification of such
value can be a function of the scale length for which factor analysis was used as a remedy to
cluster the 33 items into a small set of components with efficient traits to explain as much of
the variance in the original data set which would be sufficient enough to perform the
The calculated KMO statistic on the 33 items gave a result of 0.896 which verified the
sampling adequacy. A KMO in the region of 0.8-0.9 is considered perfect and indicated that
the sample size was adequate for the factor analysis solution. Furthermore, the Bartletts
test of sphericity (528) = 2331.783, p < .005 (Table 5) indicated that correlations between
items were sufficiently large for factor analysis. While, items Q16 and Q18 have high p-value
(> 0.05) with some other items in the R-matrix, overall there was a positive strong
correlation among the residual items of the matrix (Appendix F). Moreover, the Bartletts
test was highly significant, hence, before deciding to exclude these two items, their
communalities were considered. The values came as 0.717 and 0.583 respectively which
reflected that both items contribute fairly well to the factor structure and should not be
discarded in order not to lose important information. The yardstick was to compare
communalities before and after extraction in following steps. Overall, this allowed for
factorising the 33 items using PCA to investigate these relationships further and gain deeper
insight.
An initial analysis was performed to obtain Eigen values for each component in the data. Six
components had Eigenvalues over Kaisers criterion of 1. The first component explained
46.86% of total variance and, in combination, the six components explained about 69.05%
of the variance. The point of inflexion in the scree plot occurred at the second point
(component). Both Kaisers and scree plot criteria have justified retaining two components.
The second component constituted of two items which is not an adequate number of items
for providing feasible factor solution. Hair et al (1998, cited in Coleman, 2011) advocate for
more than three items to generate a reliable solution. Hence, three components with Eigen
values greater than one were extracted and oblique rotation was conducted to optimise the
factor structure by maximising the loadings of some of the items whereby a factor loading of
as Cronbachs alpha was 0.532 (Appendix G). However, deleting Q16 from the construct
would improve alpha value to 0.802, excluding this item hence was corroborated. After
deleting Q16, PCA was rerun then the previous analytical approach of extracting and
rotating was reiterated. This led to two components retained. They together accounted for
54.02% of the total variance and therefore the factor extraction results were generally
satisfactory.
The first component was labelled Economic & Legal focus (EC&LG) given the salience of
those items with the higher loadings. The second component emerged from Philanthropic &
Ethical statements and was named as PH&ET. Moreover, through this process Q18 proved
to be inadequate as it has low communality (0.91), thus it was not calculated within any of
The final two components intercorrelated with r value of 0.634 whereby an r of 0.40 to 0.69
is mediocre as recommended by Cohen & Holliday (1982, cited in Bryman & Cramer, 2005)
thereof, overall, there was a positive association between the two components (Appendix
H).
Based on the findings of factor analysis, the original hypothesis that investigated the
relationship between the perceived CSR activities and customer satisfaction was
reformulated as follows:
H1.a: There is a relationship between perceived CSR EC&LG activities and customer-
H 1.b: There is a relationship between perceived CSR PH&ET activities and customer-
Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between the DV
customer satisfaction and the two IVs EC&LG and PH&ET. Enter method was used to
bring both IVs into the model. The results incorporated that correlation matrix reported a
significant positive relationship among all the variables with one-tailed significance of 0.000.
Within the R-matrix, the highest correlation was between EC&LG and customer satisfaction
(r=0.712). The matrix also did not cast any doubt on multicollinearity issues which was in
line with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) benchmark as being less than ten according to Field
(2009) and did not exceed the warrant point of five which is the borderline of diagnosing
some multicollinearity (Appendix I). Furthermore, the R-squared showed that EC&LG and
PH&ET approximately accounts for 57.7% of the variation in customer satisfaction. The
level=0.000.
It transpired that EC&LG (beta=0.496, p<0.05) and PH&ET (beta=0.341, p<0.05) are
positively and significantly related to customer satisfaction. From the magnitude of the b-
values, the 0.496 is the estimated increase in likelihood to have a satisfied bank customer-
stakeholder associated with a one-unit increase in EC&LG CSR activities. Likewise, customer
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.109 .061 51.370 .000
EC&LG .438 .079 .496 5.564 .000
PH&ET .301 .079 .341 3.829 .000
Taken together, these figures provide evidence of model fit, revealing that the null
and PH&ET CSR activities is rejected, that is, this confirmed supporting the alternative
hypothesis of a relationship. Moreover, the findings from the regression model embodied a
statistically significant positive relationship between these variables. Based on this, H1.1 and
Find out whether there is a relationship between CSR practices and bank customer-
The Cronbachs alpha value for CSR practices was 0.923 which reflected a good degree of
reliability. Four items were very highly correlated with r0.80 (Field, 2009; Ioannou, 2009).
Rhese items were Q19Compliance with more than minimum regulation, Q19Welfare and
from 0.807 to 0.893 were detected and deleted from the analysis to avoid multicollinearity.
Coefficient alpha value was still good after the removal of these items (Cronbachs
deleting any other items would not substantially increase the coefficient.
Table 8 Reliability Estimates of CSR practices subscale
Scale Scale
Mean if Variance Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Item if Item Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates 35.36 44.540 .411 .496 .884
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency 35.29 43.243 .615 .592 .871
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality 35.28 41.590 .691 .679 .865
Q19CEO_Cuts 36.39 42.263 .431 .490 .887
Q19Financial_Inclusion 36.37 41.818 .492 .407 .881
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating 35.22 41.842 .761 .742 .862
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice 35.26 41.602 .755 .754 .862
Q19Compliance_With_Law 35.34 41.127 .737 .669 .862
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts 35.85 39.471 .646 .546 .868
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport 35.63 39.752 .745 .673 .860
Both the KMO (0.878) and Bartletts test of sphericity (45)=556.572, p<0.05 indicated the
suitability of the data for performing factor analysis. Next step involved determining a set of
components which had Eigenvalues over Kaisers criterion of 1. The suitable factorial
method incorporated using Oblique (Direct Oblimin) rotation with factor loading of 0.4.
Two components were constructed which explained about 16.28% of the variance in the
customer purchasing decision of banks products and services. From the pool of ten items,
component one included six items within the domain of Economic & Legal practices in
accordance to their loading magnitude, thus labelled ECP&LGP. On the other hand, the
other four items portrayed the traits of Ethical & Philanthropic practices hence named
ETP&PHP. The two components have an adequate correlation (r=0.346). The coefficient
alpha for ECP&LGP was 0.898 while alpha for ETP&PHP came as 0.809. That is, both had
reliable scales with meaningful indices that gauged customers behavioural intention.
4.3.2.3. REGRESSION ANALYSIS
A multiple linear regression analysis was performed for which ECP&LGP and ETP&PHP
articulated the IVs to assess whether they have an impact on customer purchasing decision.
decision is explained by IVs. The F-statistic (19.929) in the ANOVA table transpired that the
Furthermore, ECP&LGP had beta=0.301, p<0.05 and ETP&PHP had beta=0.375, p<0.05
indicated that both were significant predictors of customer purchasing decision (Appendix
I). The IVs of CSR practices on purchasing decision (DV) were statistically significant in the
decision and CSR practices. As such, this lent support to the research hypothesis where
Determine whether there is a relationship between CSR fit practices and bank reputation.
The Cronbachs alpha for the subscale items of CSR fit practices was 0.879 after deleting
Q23 which had a negative r value in the R-matrix. According to Hair et al (2007), all items
must be positively correlated. Consequently, the deletion of this item was shown to improve
the overall coefficients value from 0.781 to 0.879 which is regarded as a very good value
that has exceeded the recommended threshold limits of 0.6. Cronbach alpha coefficient
The correlation coefficient analysis showed that there was a significant linear association
between bank reputation (DV) and the subscale of CSR practices (IV). According to Table 9,
bank reputation was positively correlated at the 1% level of significance with CSR subscale
Table 9 Correlation Coefficients for bank reputation and CSR fit practices subscale
Most CSR subscale items had moderate positive correlation with bank reputation, while high
CSR rating criteria had strong as advocated by Field (2009) when r is higher than .50
associative relationship with bank reputation. Moreover, Table 9 revealed that the means
for all the items were above the mid-point (3.0) of the five point scale.
From the positive correlation of the variables and the statistically significant level, the null
hypothesis of no relationship between CSR fit practise and bank reputation was rejected
Investigate whether CSR practices mediates the relationship between bank reputation the
variable (Y).
The procedure of Baron & Kenny (1986, cited in Aggarwal, 2004) used designate CSR
practices as the mediator denoted as M between bank reputation (X) and stakeholders'
A Linear regression analysis was performed between bank reputation and customer
variables. Meeting this criterion, three models were constructed to test the mediation effect
of CSR practices.
The results for Model 1 (path c) emerged from the verified relationship between bank
reputation and purchase behaviour (b=0.609 and p<0.05). This model entailed the direct
relationship between these two variables. Likewise, Model 2 (path a) was constructed from
the statistically significant positive relationship between bank reputation and CSR practices
(b=0.549, p<0.05). By performing hierarchical regression analysis, the last Model 3 (path c)
stemmed from the significant positive relationship between CSR practices, bank reputation
and purchase behaviour. This model unveiled the effect of CSR practices variable whereby a
significant positive regression coefficient of 0.310 (p<0.05) between bank reputation and
purchase behaviour was indicated. Also CSR practices remained significant with p<0.05
when it was added into the relationship. On the other hand, when comparing the beta of
Model 1 with that of Model 3, b values had a significant drop from 0.609 to 0.310 (29.9%)
which indicated that CSR practices influenced the relationship. Results of the mediation
analysis confirmed a partial mediating role of positive CSR practices in the relation between
The analyses of the collected data have revealed key findings that could be explicated within
the ambit of the research aim of contributing towards a dynamic evolution of the CSR
construct. The discussion draws out on the empirical findings in relation to the study
literature.
The empirical results with regards to Research Objective One supported the hypothesised
positive relation indicates that banks have been accountable for the failures of their
practices around the FC of 2007 which emanated from adhering to satisfying shareholders
at the expense of other stakeholders. This is in line with the argument of Carroll & Shabana
(2010) that businesses accountability for their impact should extend beyond the narrow
view of shareholder model to incorporate the interests of other stakeholders by integrating
The fact that a good number of customers have been found to contribute to this study
indicates that banks perceive them as an important segment of stakeholders. As this study
interests and meeting their expectations. Hence, the argument made by Freidman
the claim of Windsor (2001, cited in Garriga & Mele, 2004) that the paradigm of short-
termism gain and shareholder primacy is still the leitmotiv in business lacks credibility.
Barry 2000, Henderson, 2005 and Jensen, 2001 are not opposing social responsibility actions
business stakeholders to spur efficiency as the exclusion of any stakeholder might affects its
This stakeholder view challenged the single-minded focus of shareholder primacy pointing
that the interests of shareholders and stakeholders are aligned rather than in conflict. In this
context, the societal values alleged by stakeholders are expected to be satisfied as business
functions by the consent of society, thereof these expectations are justifiably attested by
business (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). The studys statistical results reveal that the jointly
As it has been reported in the literature review, business has sprung up as an economic unit
whereas its driver is a profit motive. It also has an obligation to produce valuable goods and
services that meet consumers needs at a fair price (Branco & Rodrigues, 2007; Duarte et al,
2010). The salient embodiment of this category is relating business economic objectives to
producing goods and services of value to society in tandem to thriving to generate profit.
Hence, these responsibilities are required in order to secure their license to operate. The
studys relevant analysis has shared this view whereby customers satisfaction of perceiving
the economic value from their dealings with businesses precedes the other activities.
The second category in Carroll model is the legal responsibilities which captures playing by
the rules of the game of Friedmans metaphor, thence, it is presupposed that they coexist
with the economic responsibilities as a rationale to the free market paradigm. This activity
shared the same weight of importance with Carrolls model to achieve customer
satisfaction in the research findings. Carroll (1991) pinpoints that ethical responsibilities
imply doing what is right and taking into account the moral duty that business has to
society. Philanthropic activities are allied to the idea of giving back to society as the
The study results have reported a discrepancy in the order of the last two CSR activities
where perceived philanthropic activities had higher weighting with regards to customer
satisfaction than ethical activities. On that point, for both the economic and legal
responsibilities Carroll (1991) asserts that they are required while the ethical responsibilities
are expected and the philanthropic is desired. By doing so, his model provides insightful
assessment of the relative weighting of these responsibilities to set priorities upon them.
However, Visser (2005) rigidly criticises the relative importance that Carroll has assigned to
each responsibility for being biased towards USA context. He has emphasised on the culture
context for these assigned priorities giving the example of the high importance of
Carroll & Buchholtz (2009) argue that the responsibilities are not mutually exclusive nor
theoretical clouding with regards to the order of these activities can be cleared out based on
the practical outcome of this study in which the relative order of these activities adheres to
the attribute attached to it. In this context, the perceived CSR activities that have caused
customer satisfaction were economic, legal, and philanthropic with ethical as last domain.
This might be as a result of business being recovering from the ethical issues provoked by
the FC of 2007. Moreover, it could also be derived from the ill-defined characterisation of
newly emerging values which can result in an equivocal stance in which there may not be a
definitive right answer to resolve many of these ethical issues and result into conflict with
The research findings revealed a significant relationship between CSR practices and
customer purchasing decision. These outcomes have rekindled Forte & Lamonts (1998,
cited in Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000) claim that the societal role of the business influences
the customers criterion in purchasing decision. In a conjunctive scenario, Mohr & Webb
(2005, cited in Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010) point out that customers purchasing decision
and company evaluation are positively influenced by CSR initiatives. The study results
confirm these arguments and shed light on the importance of different multiple CSR
practices which were labelled as ECP&LGP while ETP&PHP on customer purchase decision.
These practices built on Carrolls CSR model in the foregoing discussion. The order of CSR
practices is congruent with Carrolls model. This may be attributable to the different
dimensions that have been gauged using the model. In the analysis of perceived CSR
activities and customer satisfaction, the dimension measured the level of satisfaction of the
perceived CSR. Within the CSR practices and purchasing decision, the dimension measured
This study shares the view of Pirsch et al (2006, cited in Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010) that
societal attributes which are woven into business operations and core competences can
elicit significant positive customers behavioural and attitudinal measures such as patronage
intention. The high level of economic importance that was highlighted in the research
findings tap on the core competencies of business as CSR economic practice induce cost
The emergence of a significant positive relationship between CSR and bank reputation is
congruent with the findings of Reputation Institute (2009, cited in Trotta et al, 2011)
whereby a positive direct relationship between CSR and CR is reported in the sense that
when the commitment to CSR is augmented, the value of CR would be boosted. Moreover,
Martin & Ruiz (2007, cited in Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010) conjecture a direct link between
a customers liking for the bank and the bank CSR reputation.
The second statement in Q21 with regards to customers confidence in business had a
significant good correlation with r= 0.464. This came in line with previous studies (Fombrun,
1996; Trotta et al, 2011) in which CR is regarded as an indicator of businesss legitimacy
The mediation effect emerged from the data is consistent with the findings of Lichtenstein
et al (2004, cited in Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2010). The study findings showed that there is a
partial mediation effect of CSR on the relation between CR and customer purchasing
behaviour. This would provide a new understanding of the role of CSR for its mediation
effect on such relation. This approach would facilitate CSR role in developing business
sustainability through its indirect effect on the business economic bottom line.
While Carroll & Shabana (2010) argue that the justification of the business case for CSR is
based on a direct link to economic ends, the findings add credence to the business case by
justifying it on more plausible indices based on the indirect effect of CSR on business
economic value.
4.5. CONCLUSION
The findings of the four analyses supported the alternative hypotheses of a positive
correlation between CSR and customer satisfaction, customer purchase behaviour and CR
respectively. The findings for the CSR mediation effect also revealed a partial mediation of
CSR on the relationship between CR and customer purchase behaviour. The discussion of
these findings was compared with findings of pertinent studies from the literature review.
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter evolved around the critical discussion of the study findings in the
context of the literature. This involved comparing the empirical findings to the results of
previous studies. The discussion was guided by four research objectives that were geared
towards the empirical testing of the hypothesised relationships. Consequently, the objective
of this chapter is to draw conclusions from these findings to answer the research question
and address the research objectives. This is followed by demonstrating the theoretical and
practitioner contributions that this research makes. It also discloses recommendations for
5.2. CONCLUSION
At the outset, this studys objectives aimed at investigating the likelihood of CSR
development in the post FC of 2007 with regards to two avenues. The first was customer-
stakeholders satisfaction of perceived CSR activities in the FC whereas the second was
As illustrated in the analytical framework, using Carrolls (1991) CSR four dimensions to
assess whether these dimensions affect customer satisfaction and their purchasing decision,
the empirical outcomes highlighted some similarities as well as an angle of difference with
Carroll model. The similarity pertains to the order of the economic and legal CSR
dimensions. The findings showed that these two dimensions came in the same order as
Carroll model.
Aligned with Carrolls model in terms of designating CSR economic activities as the base for
the other three activities, the findings demonstrated the banks commitment to deliver
highly satisfactory economic value to their customers. This manifests their recognition of
As for the legal dimension, it has been argued that while business is obliged to perform in a
keep at bay more legalisations (Freeman & Liedtka, 1997). In support, the perceived CSR
legal activities seemed to encounter high level of customer satisfaction, indicating how most
banks have been able to seize the advantages of adhering to CSR by maintaining a plausible
Some key findings have emerged from the preceding remarks pertaining to banks
discerning CSR practices that elicit high satisfactory levels for the activities that are
findings support the view of a win-win scenario exhorted via the value creation perspective
Accordingly, this reveals that the dynamics of banks CSR practices are in line with
customers expectation. As such, CSR has evolved whereby practitioners have developed
CSR activities by sustaining value-creation for their customer-stakeholders. This, along with
the four verified hypotheses, unveiled the answer to the research question. And the study
was able to establish that the FC of 2007 has been a wake-up call for banks CSR activities to
While the inclusion of stakeholders interests into business strategies can act as a point of
them accordingly. This was the case with regards to the difference in the order of the ethical
and philanthropic dimensions between Carroll CSR model and the empirical outcomes. For
the satisfaction avenue, philanthropic had preceded the ethical dimension, but was the
other way around for the case of the purchasing decision. In this context, while the level of
ethical CSR activities had a moderate importance on customer purchasing decision, the level
of customer satisfaction of perceived CSR ethical activities was the least fulfilled dimension.
This discrepancy can provide insights on the level of CSR efforts that need to be maintained
to, on one hand, capitalise on the core competences in how to be active in this dimension
and, on the other hand, achieve competitive advantage by attaching attributes favoured by
customer-stakeholders.
Furthermore, the mediation effect that CSR exerts on banks reputation to influence
customers purchasing decision can enhance their respective financial well-being and hence
achieve a pragmatic approach to CSR. While CSR can provide competitive advantages to a
business, if banks CSR motives are questionable, they could have far detrimental effects on
means of punishing them. Taken together, CSR can be considered the businesss compass
guiding them to develop societal activities that create value to both ends when fulfilling the
These contributions are threefold. As emphasised in the introduction, CSR literature on the
financial sector is under-researched and, with regards to CSR marketing, there is a distinct
lack in investigating the effect of multiple CSR activities on customers attitudes. Given this,
the studys intended contribution was to provide empirical findings to fill this void and
contribute to better understand one of the most contestable fields in contemporary
management. The application of strategic CSR can yield sustainable competitive advantages
The second contribution stems from the study findings showing positive significant CSR-
customer relationships. This stresses that CSR became a management mainstream which
adhering to stakeholder approach resulted in the significant findings of this study from
which emerged the indirect impact of CSR on CR and hence customer purchase behaviour.
The debate on whether CSR should be abandoned is no longer valid. However, the focus
should be on what kind of benefits businesses can capitalise on to leverage efficient CSR
practices and adoption. As for the third contribution, the stakeholder modus operandi
attribute provides a systematic framework approach to the CSR literature which helps
This study provided new insights in CSR topics by arguing the indirect effect of CSR in
yielding competitive advantage that gives credence to the business case for CSR. As the field
of banking and CSR-CR is relatively a new one, research in many avenues on CSR can be
unlocked. One interesting area in investigating the business case for CSR is that of CSR
customer attitudes as, so far, most extant studies offer very limited insights into customers
Regarding stakeholder approach, the focus-to-date has been limited to customers and
Nevertheless, the results are quite robust. The studys drawback stems from the
terms of generalizability. However, the response rate was 46% which led to in-depth
As a final remark, all of the research objectives, as stated in Chapter 1, were met.
References
Aggarwal, P (2004) The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87101
Ahenkora, K, Banahene, S & Quartey, J (2013) Societal Value Antecedent of Corporate Social
Responsibility and Business Strategy. Journal of Management and Strategy, 4(4), 5864
Alvesson, M (2009) (Post-) Positivism, Social Constructionism, Critical Realism: Three Reference
Points in the philosophy of science [Accessed 10 Jul 2014] http://www.sagepub.com/upm-
data/28039_02_Alvesson_2e_Ch_02.pdf
Babbie, E (2004) The Practice of Social Research, 10th ed. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Barry, N P (2000) Controversy: Do Corporations Have Any Responsibility Beyond Making a Profit?
Journal of Markets and Morality, 3(1), 100-107
Barth, R & Wolff, F (2009) Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe: Rhetoric and Realities. Edward
Elgar Pub
Barton, C E (2010) Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement In Small And Medium
Tourism Businesses. Bachelor Thesis, Faculty of Business, University Of Technology, Sydney
Bartscht, M (2013) Corporate Social Responsibility In The Information Technology Sector A Focus
Group Study On How European Consumers View CSR And Corporate Behavior. Master Thesis,
Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Beckmann, S C (2007) Consumers and corporate social responsibility: matching the unmatchable?
Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(1), 27-36
Bennett, R & Kottasz, R (2012) Public attitudes towards the UK banking industry following the global
financial crisis. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(2), 128147
Berens, G, Van Riel, C B M & Van Rekom, J (2007) The CSR-quality trade-off: when can corporate
social responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics. 74(3),
233252
Bhasker, R A (1978) Realist Theory of Science. Harvester Press
Bhattacharya C B & Sen, S (2001) Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225243
Blowfield, M & Murray, A (2008) Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University
Press
Blumberg, B, Cooper, D R, Schindler, P S (2008) Business Research Methods, 2nd European ed.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Bouldstridge, E & Carrigan, M (2000) Do consumer really care about corporate responsibility?
Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4(4), 35568
Bouvain, P, Baumann, C, Lundmark, E (2013) Corporate social responsibility in financial services: A
comparison of Chinese and East Asian banks visvis American banks. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 31(6), 420439
Bowen H (1953) Social Responsibility of the Businessman. Harper & Row: New York
Brammer, S, Millington, A & Rayton, B (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to
organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10),
170119
Branco, M C & Rodrigues, L L (2007) Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate
social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 515
Broomhill, R (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility: Key Issues and Debates, The Dunstan Papers
Brown, L E (2012) Corporate Social Responsibility in NCAA Athletics: Institutional Practices and
Decision Makers. PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University
Brown, T & P A Dacin (1997) The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer
Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 6884
Bryman, A & Bell, E (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press
Camilleri, M A (2012) Creating Shared Value through Strategic CSR in Tourism. PhD Thesis, University
of Edinburgh Business School, The University of Edinburgh
Cardigan, M & Attalla, A (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour? Journal of Customer Marketing, 18(7), 56078
Carroll, A B (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of
Management Review, 4(4), 497505
Carroll, A B (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral Management
of Organisational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 3948
Carroll, A B (1999) Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and
Society, 38 (3), 26896
Carroll, A B & Shabana, K (2010) The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of
Concepts, Research and Practice, 12(1), 85105
Carroll, A B & Buchholtz, A (2009) Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder
Management, 7th ed. Cengage Learning
Caruana, A (2008) Facets of corporate identity, communication and reputation. Edited by T. C.
Melewar
Chalabi, M (2014) UK banks: how powerful are they? [Accessed 10 Jun 2014]
www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/17/uk-banks-how-powerful-are-they-ed-
miliband-labour
Cheers, Z (2011) The Corporate Social Responsibility Debate. Senior Honours Thesis, School of
Business, Liberty University
Choi, B & La, S (2013) The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the
restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 223
233
Chomvilailuk, R & Butcher, K (2010) Enhancing brand preference through corporate social
responsibility initiatives in the Thai banking sector. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
22(3), 397418
Condosta, L (2012) How banks are supporting local economies facing the current financial crisis: An
Italian perspective. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(6), 485502
Crane, A & Matten, D (2010) Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in
the Age of Globalization, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press
Creswell, J (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th
ed. SAGE Publications, Inc
Croucher, S (2014) S&P: UK Banks Face Best Profits Since Financial Crisis in 2014 [Accessed 10 Jun
2014] www.ibtimes.co.uk/sp-uk-banks-face-best-profits-since-financial-crisis-2014-1432390
Cruijsen, C, Haan, J & Jansen, D (2013) Trust and Financial Crisis Experiences. DNB Working Paper
389. De Nederlandsche Bank
Davies, R (2013) Banks cost investors almost 150billion after string of scandals since the financial
crisis, says report [Accessed 10 of Jul 2014] www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-
2529203/LSE-Banks-cost-investors-150billion-string-scandals-financial-crisis.html
Davis K (1973) Social Responsibility is Inevitable. California Management Review, 14(1), 1420
Decker, O S (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility and structural change in the financial services.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(6), 712728
Dicken, P (2011) Global Shift, Sixth Edition: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy,
6th ed. The Guilford Press
Drucker, P (2002) Managing in the Next Society
Duarte, A P, Mouro, C & Neves, J (2010) Corporate social responsibility: Mapping its social meaning.
Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 8 (2), 101122
Dusuki, A W (2008) What does Islam say about corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Review of
Islamic Economics, 12(1), 528
Edelman (2014) Trust In Financial Services [Accessed 15 Aug 2014]
www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2014-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-in-
business/trust-in-financial-services/
Ellen, P S, Webb, D J & Mohr, L A (2006) Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for
corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2),
147158
Field, A (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd
Fombrun, C J (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Harvard Business School
Press
Fombrun, C J & Shanley, M (1990) Whats in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy.
The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233258
Fombrun , C J, Gardberg, N A & Sever, J (2000) The Reputation Quotient: A multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 24155
Freeman, E & Liedtka, J (1997) Stakeholder capitalism and the value chain. European Management
Journal, 15(3), 286296
Freeman, R E (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Frederick, W C (1994) From CSR1 to CSR2. Business and Society, 33(2), 150166
Frederick, W C (2006) Corporation, Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility. Dogear
Publishing
Friedman, M (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits [Accessed 10 Mar
2014] www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
Garriga, E & Mele, D (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory, Journal
of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 5171
Gatti, L, Caruana, A & Snehota, I (2012) The role of corporate social responsibility, perceived quality
and corporate reputation on purchase intention: Implications for brand management. Journal of
Brand Management. 20(1), 6576
Griseri, P & Seppala, N (2010) Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, 1st ed. Cengage
Learning
Hair, J F Jr, Money, A H, Samouel, P, Page, M (2007) Research Methods for Business. John Wiley &
Sons
Han, Y (2006) Impact of Brand Identity on Perceived Brand Image of the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University. Master Thesis, Faculty of Business and Economic Sciences, Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University
Hay, R & Gray, E (1974) Social responsibilities of business managers. Academy of Management
Journal, 17, 135143
Haynes, K, Dillard, J & Murray, A (2012) Corporate Social Responsibility - A Research Handbook,
Routledge
Henderson, D (2005) The role of business in the world today. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17,
30-32
Herzig, C & Moon, J (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility, the Financial Sector and Economic
Recession. Financial Services Research Forum
Holden, M & Lynch, P (2004) Choosing the Appropriate Methodology: Understanding Research
Philosophy (RIKON Group). The Marketing Review, 4(4), 397409
Iatridis, K (2011) The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Business Practice: The Case of
International Certifiable Management Standards. PhD Thesis, Lancashire Business School, University
of Central Lancashire
Idowu, S & Filh, W (2008) Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer
Ioannou, A (2009) Development and Initial Validation of a Satisfaction Scale on Diversity, University
of Connecticut
Isaksson, L (2012) Corporate social responsibility :a study of strategic management and performance
in Swedish firms. PhD Thesis, School of Business, Bond University
Ismail, R, Boye, C & Muth, A (2012) Customer Brand Relationship An empirical study of customers
perception of brand experience, brand satisfaction, brand trust and how they affect brand loyalty.
Bachelor Thesis, Linnaeus University, School of Business and Economics.
Jamali, D (2007) The Case for Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries.
Business and Society Review, 112(1), 127
Janice, W (2012) The study of Consumer Perception on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Towards
Consumers Attitude and Purchase Behavior, BA Thesis, Institute of Textiles & Clothing, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University
Jensen, M C (2001) Value maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function.
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21
Juma'h, A H (2006) Empirical And Realistic Approaches Of Research. Inter Metro Business Journal,
2(1), 88108
Karlsson, F (2013) CSR In China For China: A qualitative study of how National Business System
influences Corporate Social Responsibility in China and its implications for Swedish firms. Master
Thesis. Copenhagen Business School
Kotler, P & Lee, N (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility Doing the Most Good for Your Company
and Your Cause. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc
Lantos, G P (2001) The Boundaries of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(7), 595630
Lantos, G P (2002) The Ethicality of Altrustic Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 19(3), 205232
Lech, A (2013) Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Theoretical and Empirical
Aspects. Comparative Economic Research, 16(3), 4962
Le Roux, C (2012) An Assessment Of The Role Of Corporate Brand Identity In Corporate Brand Image
Formation. PhD Thesis, University of South Africa
Lee, N & Lings, I (2008) Doing Business Research: A Guide to Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications
Ltd
Levitt T (1958) The Dangers of Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5), 4150
Lewis, S (2003) Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management,
7(4), 356366
Lindgreen, A & Swaen, V (2010) Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 17
Louche, C, Idowu, S O & Filho, W L (2010) Innovative CSR: From Risk Management to Value Creation.
Greenleaf Publishing
Luo, X & Bhattacharya, C B (2006) Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market
value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 118
Lynchi, G (2011) Research Methods for the study of religion: Sampling. University of Kent
Maden, C, Arkan, E, Telci, E E & Kantur, D (2012) Linking Corporate Social Responsibility to
Corporate Reputation: A Study on Understanding Behavioral Consequences. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 58 (1), 655664
Maignan, I (2001) Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 5772
Maignan, I & Ferrell, O C (2001) Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument Concepts,
evidence, and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 457484
Maignan, I & Ferrell, O C (2004) Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 319
Mandhachitara, R & Poolthong, Y (2011) A model of customer loyalty and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 122133
Maon, F, Lindgreen, A & Swaen, V (2009) Designing and implementing corporate social
responsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics,
87(1), 71-89
Margolis, J, Elfenbein, H & Walsh, J (2009) Does it pay to be goodAnd Does it matter? A meta-
analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance [Accessed 1 Jul
2014] http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371
Martin, J, Petty, J W & Wallace, J S (2009) Value Based Management with Corporate Social
Responsibility (Financial Management Association Survey and Synthesis), 2nd ed. Oxford University
Press
Mayer, C (2013) Firm Commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust in it,
Oxford University Press
McDonald, L M & Thiele, S R (2008) Corporate social responsibility and bank customers satisfaction:
A research agenda. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(3), 170182
McWilliams, A & Siegel, A D (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective.
The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117127
McWilliams, A, Siegel, A D & Wright, P (2006) Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications.
Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.
Mittal, R (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility Consumers Perspective. Master Thesis, University
of Nottingham
Mostovicz, E, Kakabadse, A & Kakabadse, N (2011) The four pillars of corporate responsibility: ethics,
leadership, personal responsibility and trust. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Effective Board Performance, Vol. 11 (4), pp. 489500.
Mulki, J P & Jaramillo, F (2011) Ethical reputation and value received: customer perceptions.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 29(5), 358372
Mullerat, R (2010) International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations, Kluwer
Law International
Newman, I & Benz, C (1998) Qualitative-quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the
Interactive Continuum, Southern Illinois University Press
Neuman, W (2006) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed.
Pearson Education Inc
Nilsen, H (2010) CSR in banking: The pursuit toward repairing legitimacy and reputation. M.Sc.
Thesis, Copenhagen Business School
Osterhus, T L (1997) Pro-social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do They Work?,
Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1629
Park, J, Hanjoon, L & Chankon, K (2014) Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and
corporate reputation: South Korean consumers' perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 67(3),
295302
Parker, G & Moore, E (2013) RBS faces accusations on client treatment [Accessed 1 Apr 2014]
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8da353e-5515-11e3-a321-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xbuZpHVB
Pearce, J A II, & Doh, J P (2005) The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46(3) 3038
Peloza, J & Shang, J (2011) Investing in CSR to enhance customer value. Director Notes of the
Conference Board, 3(3), 1-10. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1843308
Pendse, S (2012) Ethical Hazards: A Motive, Means, and Opportunity Approach Curbing Corporate
Unethical Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 265279
Pomering, A & Dolnicar, S (2009) Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are
consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (2s), 285301
Porta, D D & Keating, M (2008) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist
Perspective. Cambridge University Press
Porter, M E & Kramer, M R (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard
Business Review, 80(12), 57-68
Porter, M E & Kramer, M R (2006) Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 115
Reinhardt, F, Stavins, R & Vietor, R (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Economic Lens.
NBER Working Paper 13989, National Bureau of Economic Research
Relao, F (2011) Maximizing social return in the banking sector. Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society, 11(3), 274284
Robson, C (2011) Real World Research, 3rd ed. Wiley
Roig , J, Guillen, M, Coll, S & Saumell, R (2013) Social value in retail banking. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 31(5), 348367
Rothschild, E (2013) Banking must pursue the holy grail of confidence [Accessed 1 Apr 2014]
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d7b490-dcbb-11e2-b52b-
00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2oqsNxq00
Samy, M, Odemilin, G & Bampton, R (2010) Corporate social responsibility: a strategy for sustainable
business success. An analysis of 20 selected British companies. Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society, 10(2), 203217
Saunders, M N K, Lewis, P, Thornhill, A (2012) Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.
Financial Times/ Prentice Hall
Sexty, R (2010) Canadian Business and Society: Ethics and Responsibilities, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill
Ryerson Higher Education
Shannon, L (2013) Give your bank its marching orders - Why you should ditch the giants such as
Lloyds and RBS for a tiny building society [Accessed 1 Apr 2013]
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2527524/Give-bank-marching-orders-Why-ditch-
giants-Lloyds-RBS-tiny-building-society.html
Sharma, A & Kiran, R (2013) Corporate Social Responsibility: Driving forces and challenges.
International Journal of Business Research and Development, 2(1), 1827
Sims, R (2003) Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall, Praeger
Smissen, L V D (2012) The value of Corporate Social Responsibility for consumers. Master Thesis,
Faculty of Economics & Management, Hogeschool - Universiteit Brussel
Smith A (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. W. Strahon and T.
Cadell: London
Sohail, A, Shahzad, K & Din, I A (2008) The role of corporate social responsibility to create positive
positioning in the branding of a country and particular to Pakistan. Master Thesis. School of
Management, Blekinge Institute of Technology
Sun, W, Stewart, J & Pollard, D (2010) Reframing Corporate Social Responsibility: Lessons from the
Global Financial Crisis. Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Sternberg, E (1997) The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance, 5(1), 310
Sweeney, L (2009) A Study of Current Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and an
Examination of the Relationship Between CSR and Financial Performance Using Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM). PhD Thesis, College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology
Tam, K K (2007) Effect of Brand Image on Consumer Purchasing Behaviour on Clothing: Comparison
between China and the UKs Consumers. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham
The Telegraph (2014) Economy growing at fastest pace since financial crisis [Accessed 1 Apr 2014]
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10600424/Economy-growing-at-fastest-pace-since-
financial-crisis.html
Thomas, P (2010) Research Methodology and Design [Accessed 2 Jul 2014]
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20a
nd%20design.pdf
Trotta, A, Lannuzzi, A, Cavallaro, G & Dellatti, S (2011) Banking reputation and CSR: a stakeholder
value approach. In Gummesson E., C. Apples, Polese F. Service Dominant logic, Network & System
Theory and Service Science: Integrating Three Perspectives for a New Service Agenda, Giannini
Editore, The 2011 Naples Forum On Service, Napoli, Italy
Turner, A (2003) Sampling strategies. United Nations Secretariat, Statistics Division, Expert Group
Meeting to Review the Draft Handbook on Designing of Household Sample Surveys
Visser, W (2005) Revisiting Carrolls CSR Pyramid: An African Perspective. In Corporate Citizenship in
a Development Perspective, edited by Esben Rahbek Pedersen & Mahad Huniche, Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business School Press
Visser, W (2010) The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business. Journal of Business
Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5 (3), 722
Vogel, D J (2005) Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility.
California Management Review, 47(4), 1945
Walsham, R (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of
Information System, 4(2), 7481
Williams, R & Elliott, L (2010) Crisis and Recovery: Ethics Economics and Justice. Palgrave Macmillan
Wood D (1991) Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance.
Journal of Management, 17(2), 383406
Yelkikalan, N & Kose, C (2012) The Effects of The Financial Crisis on Corporate Social Responsibility.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3), 292300
Zhowa, T (2010) Corporate social responsibility As A Competitive Advantage Strategy by
Community Banks in Tshwane. Master Thesis, Faculty of Management Sciences, Tshwane University
of Technology
Appendices
I am writing to you requesting the completion of a survey on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). It
is part of my MBA Dissertation at University of West London Business School.
The research aims to investigate Customer attitudes to the role of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) in the UK Banking Sector since the financial crisis in 2007. The respondents need to have a UK
Bank Account and the survey ensures that before continuing.
The survey is administered using Survey Monkey and, to complete the survey, you need to go to the
following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YL28TTG
The connection is secured and the survey ensures the confidentially of the information received. All
data will be anonymous and no inferences regarding any individual will be made.
If you require more information or assistance or would like to receive a copy of the results please do
not hesitate to contact me on my email address below.
Best Regards,
_______________________
Amany Hamza
Email: amany@student.uwl.ac.uk
APPENDIX B1 SURVEY FIRST REMINDER
Thank you very much for those who completed the survey sent out on the 14th of July.
This is a reminder for those who havent been able to complete it yet. Wed appreciate it very much
if you can complete it as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
_______________________
Amany Hamza
Email: amany@student.uwl.ac.uk
APPENDIX B2 SURVEY FINAL REMINDER
Thank you very much for those who completed the survey sent out on the 14th of July.
This is a reminder for those who havent been able to complete it yet. There is still a chance to
complete and contribute to a research that could benefit of all us.
Wed appreciate it very much if you can complete the survey as soon as possible as we will be
closing it by the 12th of August.
Best Regards,
_______________________
Amany Hamza
Email: amany@student.uwl.ac.uk
APPENDIX C SURVEY
APPENDIX D ACRONYMS
CR Corporate Reputation
DV Dependent Variable
FC Financial Crisis
IV Independent Variable
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.961 .962 33
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .407 .512 .503 .579
Q9Transparency .467 .478 .503 .502
Q9Financial_Statements .215 .365 .434 .240
Q9Offers .291 .328 .490 .330
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .566 .468 .537
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .566 1.000 .609 .557
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .468 .609 1.000 .455
Q9Social_Attachment .537 .557 .455 1.000
Q9Confidentially .388 .415 .520 .230
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .457 .385 .614 .396
Q9Honest_Relationship .584 .504 .595 .345
Q9Being_Accountable .600 .398 .605 .463
Q9legal_Obligations .516 .341 .438 .344
Q9Combating_Bribery .471 .319 .427 .384
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .474 .382 .561 .588
Q9Financial_literacy .538 .448 .431 .645
Q9Environmentally_branches .486 .385 .392 .529
Q10 .572 .584 .573 .575
Q11 .445 .521 .694 .527
Q12Financial_Stability .489 .442 .592 .450
Q12Withdraw_Money .329 .385 .441 .335
Q12Treated .398 .434 .679 .406
AQ12Advice_Quality .451 .529 .666 .452
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .431 .293 .370 .259
Q12Fees .442 .490 .568 .442
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .380 .413 .492 .430
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .378 .455 .524 .483
.383 .459 .403 .357
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .579 .520 .413 .559
Q9Transparency .502 .390 .484 .605
Q9Financial_Statements .240 .452 .363 .473
Q9Offers .330 .371 .383 .414
Q9Executive_Remuneration .537 .388 .457 .584
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .557 .415 .385 .504
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .455 .520 .614 .595
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .230 .396 .345
Q9Confidentially .230 1.000 .506 .623
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .396 .506 1.000 .700
Q9Honest_Relationship .345 .623 .700 1.000
Q9Being_Accountable .463 .626 .624 .670
Q9legal_Obligations .344 .538 .494 .607
Q9Combating_Bribery .384 .522 .510 .492
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .588 .439 .629 .457
Q9Financial_literacy .645 .298 .489 .359
Q9Environmentally_branches .529 .356 .402 .384
Q10 .575 .492 .410 .573
Q11 .527 .383 .474 .577
Q12Financial_Stability .450 .587 .427 .531
Q12Withdraw_Money .335 .529 .393 .509
Q12Treated .406 .559 .675 .646
AQ12Advice_Quality .452 .421 .677 .672
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .259 .416 .375 .508
Q12Fees .442 .385 .464 .575
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .430 .472 .462 .531
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .483 .390 .448 .470
.357 .344 .351 .484
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .446 .457 .410 .514
Q9Transparency .374 .455 .341 .329
Q9Financial_Statements .376 .215 .113 .198
Q9Offers .290 .333 .202 .169
Q9Executive_Remuneration .471 .474 .538 .486
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .319 .382 .448 .385
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .427 .561 .431 .392
Q9Social_Attachment .384 .588 .645 .529
Q9Confidentially .522 .439 .298 .356
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .510 .629 .489 .402
Q9Honest_Relationship .492 .457 .359 .384
Q9Being_Accountable .596 .627 .459 .504
Q9legal_Obligations .554 .345 .335 .318
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .542 .332 .379
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .542 1.000 .590 .594
Q9Financial_literacy .332 .590 1.000 .441
Q9Environmentally_branches .379 .594 .441 1.000
Q10 .398 .411 .479 .455
Q11 .321 .438 .538 .343
Q12Financial_Stability .385 .492 .452 .477
Q12Withdraw_Money .464 .411 .355 .399
Q12Treated .472 .493 .462 .465
AQ12Advice_Quality .421 .487 .469 .502
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .395 .318 .235 .370
Q12Fees .329 .445 .346 .377
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .409 .396 .326 .397
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .352 .435 .328 .501
.275 .352 .286 .442
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q9Environment Q12Financial_S
ally_branches Q10 Q11 tability
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .514 .633 .492 .592 .448
Q9Transparency .329 .660 .578 .539 .433
Q9Financial_Statements .198 .450 .408 .528 .442
Q9Offers .169 .492 .498 .395 .302
Q9Executive_Remuneration .486 .572 .445 .489 .329
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .385 .584 .521 .442 .385
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .392 .573 .694 .592 .441
Q9Social_Attachment .529 .575 .527 .450 .335
Q9Confidentially .356 .492 .383 .587 .529
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .402 .410 .474 .427 .393
Q9Honest_Relationship .384 .573 .577 .531 .509
Q9Being_Accountable .504 .595 .513 .600 .399
Q9legal_Obligations .318 .608 .416 .505 .503
Q9Combating_Bribery .379 .398 .321 .385 .464
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .594 .411 .438 .492 .411
Q9Financial_literacy .441 .479 .538 .452 .355
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .455 .343 .477 .399
Q10 .455 1.000 .670 .657 .530
Q11 .343 .670 1.000 .608 .486
Q12Financial_Stability .477 .657 .608 1.000 .546
Q12Withdraw_Money .399 .530 .486 .546 1.000
Q12Treated .465 .647 .705 .567 .681
AQ12Advice_Quality .502 .561 .623 .498 .560
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .370 .380 .371 .549 .552
Q12Fees .377 .664 .721 .625 .540
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .397 .591 .542 .561 .466
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .501 .623 .543 .546 .441
.442 .587 .488 .494 .478
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q12Withdraw_ AQ12Advice_Q
Money Q12Treated uality
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .448 .474 .510 .423
Q9Transparency .433 .616 .578 .338
Q9Financial_Statements .442 .455 .461 .455
Q9Offers .302 .453 .427 .260
Q9Executive_Remuneration .329 .398 .451 .431
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .385 .434 .529 .293
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .441 .679 .666 .370
Q9Social_Attachment .335 .406 .452 .259
Q9Confidentially .529 .559 .421 .416
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .393 .675 .677 .375
Q9Honest_Relationship .509 .646 .672 .508
Q9Being_Accountable .399 .599 .595 .348
Q9legal_Obligations .503 .497 .528 .361
Q9Combating_Bribery .464 .472 .421 .395
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .411 .493 .487 .318
Q9Financial_literacy .355 .462 .469 .235
Q9Environmentally_branches .399 .465 .502 .370
Q10 .530 .647 .561 .380
Q11 .486 .705 .623 .371
Q12Financial_Stability .546 .567 .498 .549
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .681 .560 .552
Q12Treated .681 1.000 .777 .432
AQ12Advice_Quality .560 .777 1.000 .410
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .552 .432 .410 1.000
Q12Fees .540 .706 .598 .491
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .466 .599 .518 .428
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .441 .598 .506 .450
.478 .528 .487 .365
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q12Personal_I
nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra Q12Interest_Ra
e Q12Fees tes_Accounts tes_Loan
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .423 .523 .667 .513 .549
Q9Transparency .338 .761 .583 .529 .480
Q9Financial_Statements .455 .519 .503 .450 .376
Q9Offers .260 .403 .392 .274 .355
Q9Executive_Remuneration .431 .442 .380 .378 .383
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .293 .490 .413 .455 .459
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .370 .568 .492 .524 .403
Q9Social_Attachment .259 .442 .430 .483 .357
Q9Confidentially .416 .385 .472 .390 .344
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .375 .464 .462 .448 .351
Q9Honest_Relationship .508 .575 .531 .470 .484
Q9Being_Accountable .348 .525 .488 .393 .474
Q9legal_Obligations .361 .426 .479 .423 .519
Q9Combating_Bribery .395 .329 .409 .352 .275
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .318 .445 .396 .435 .352
Q9Financial_literacy .235 .346 .326 .328 .286
Q9Environmentally_branches .370 .377 .397 .501 .442
Q10 .380 .664 .591 .623 .587
Q11 .371 .721 .542 .543 .488
Q12Financial_Stability .549 .625 .561 .546 .494
Q12Withdraw_Money .552 .540 .466 .441 .478
Q12Treated .432 .706 .599 .598 .528
AQ12Advice_Quality .410 .598 .518 .506 .487
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .491 .428 .450 .365
Q12Fees .491 1.000 .762 .735 .670
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .428 .762 1.000 .792 .627
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .450 .735 .792 1.000 .631
.365 .670 .627 .631 1.000
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q12Open_Or_
Close_Branche
s Q13 Q14 Q16 Q17
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .549 .482 .490 .115 .492 .245
Q9Transparency .480 .595 .458 .094 .448 .266
Q9Financial_Statements .376 .415 .448 .241 .472 .219
Q9Offers .355 .357 .360 -.075 .368 .174
Q9Executive_Remuneration .383 .566 .553 -.217 .411 .171
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .459 .598 .444 -.049 .370 .186
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .403 .518 .540 .093 .412 .222
Q9Social_Attachment .357 .607 .393 -.028 .525 .141
Q9Confidentially .344 .368 .388 .185 .364 .253
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .351 .534 .474 -.056 .350 .185
Q9Honest_Relationship .484 .562 .544 .042 .452 .225
Q9Being_Accountable .474 .533 .561 .075 .545 .193
Q9legal_Obligations .519 .519 .463 .119 .360 .177
Q9Combating_Bribery .275 .423 .442 .073 .409 .208
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .352 .528 .526 .074 .421 .241
Q9Financial_literacy .286 .557 .404 -.095 .405 .145
Q9Environmentally_branches .442 .400 .327 .122 .472 .192
Q10 .587 .701 .531 .105 .458 .255
Q11 .488 .604 .424 .082 .430 .140
Q12Financial_Stability .494 .548 .492 .178 .471 .299
Q12Withdraw_Money .478 .407 .373 .303 .297 .205
Q12Treated .528 .559 .478 .150 .509 .290
AQ12Advice_Quality .487 .523 .514 .118 .534 .264
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .365 .301 .334 .108 .248 .171
Q12Fees .670 .562 .465 .204 .375 .139
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .627 .442 .460 .126 .388 .126
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .631 .540 .416 .142 .330 .144
1.000 .466 .473 .154 .357 .035
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q18
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .245
Q9Transparency .266
Q9Financial_Statements .219
Q9Offers .174
Q9Executive_Remuneration .171
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .186
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .222
Q9Social_Attachment .141
Q9Confidentially .253
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .185
Q9Honest_Relationship .225
Q9Being_Accountable .193
Q9legal_Obligations .177
Q9Combating_Bribery .208
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .241
Q9Financial_literacy .145
Q9Environmentally_branches .192
Q10 .255
Q11 .140
Q12Financial_Stability .299
Q12Withdraw_Money .205
Q12Treated .290
AQ12Advice_Quality .264
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .171
Q12Fees .139
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .126
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .144
.035
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .383 .459 .403 .357
Q13 .566 .598 .518 .607
Q14 .553 .444 .540 .393
Q16 -.217 -.049 .093 -.028
Q17 .411 .370 .412 .525
Q18 .171 .186 .222 .141
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .357 .344 .351 .484
Q13 .607 .368 .534 .562
Q14 .393 .388 .474 .544
Q16 -.028 .185 -.056 .042
Q17 .525 .364 .350 .452
Q18 .141 .253 .185 .225
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .275 .352 .286 .442
Q13 .423 .528 .557 .400
Q14 .442 .526 .404 .327
Q16 .073 .074 -.095 .122
Q17 .409 .421 .405 .472
Q18 .208 .241 .145 .192
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q9Environment Q12Financial_S
ally_branches Q10 Q11 tability
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .442 .587 .488 .494 .478
Q13 .400 .701 .604 .548 .407
Q14 .327 .531 .424 .492 .373
Q16 .122 .105 .082 .178 .303
Q17 .472 .458 .430 .471 .297
Q18 .192 .255 .140 .299 .205
Q12Withdraw_ AQ12Advice_Q
Money Q12Treated uality
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .478 .528 .487 .365
Q13 .407 .559 .523 .301
Q14 .373 .478 .514 .334
Q16 .303 .150 .118 .108
Q17 .297 .509 .534 .248
Q18 .205 .290 .264 .171
Q12Personal_I
nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra Q12Interest_Ra
e Q12Fees tes_Accounts tes_Loan
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .365 .670 .627 .631 1.000
Q13 .301 .562 .442 .540 .466
Q14 .334 .465 .460 .416 .473
Q16 .108 .204 .126 .142 .154
Q17 .248 .375 .388 .330 .357
Q18 .171 .139 .126 .144 .035
Q12Open_Or_
Close_Branche
s Q13 Q14 Q16 Q17
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .466 .473 .154 .357 .035
Q13 .466 1.000 .639 -.091 .413 .110
Q14 .473 .639 1.000 .010 .573 .158
Q16 .154 -.091 .010 1.000 .195 .254
Q17 .357 .413 .573 .195 1.000 .339
Q18 .035 .110 .158 .254 .339 1.000
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q18
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .035
Q13 .110
Q14 .158
Q16 .254
Q17 .339
Q18 1.000
Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Item-
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 101.18 396.570 .732 .
Q9Transparency 100.87 395.631 .728 .
Q9Financial_Statements 100.63 402.214 .596 .
Q9Offers 100.96 402.504 .528 .
Q9Executive_Remuneration 101.58 401.983 .630 .
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 101.46 404.229 .626 .
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 101.30 394.214 .740 .
Q9Social_Attachment 101.62 401.051 .621 .
Q9Confidentially 100.75 400.717 .639 .
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 101.26 396.700 .674 .
Q9Honest_Relationship 100.99 395.000 .761 .
Q9Being_Accountable 101.21 392.363 .760 .
Q9legal_Obligations 100.90 399.540 .669 .
Q9Combating_Bribery 101.11 403.219 .592 .
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 101.60 400.573 .658 .
Q9Financial_literacy 101.66 403.962 .559 .
Q9Environmentally_branches 101.48 401.483 .584 .
Q10 101.21 396.869 .790 .
Q11 101.21 391.792 .727 .
Q12Financial_Stability 100.78 394.919 .754 .
Q12Withdraw_Money 100.39 401.779 .648 .
Q12Treated 100.70 391.203 .800 .
AQ12Advice_Quality 101.02 393.252 .767 .
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 100.64 402.628 .542 .
Q12Fees 100.84 394.687 .762 .
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 100.87 394.950 .710 .
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 101.03 398.977 .688 .
101.14 398.298 .635 .
Item-Total Statistics
Squared Cronbach's
Multiple Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings . .959
Q9Transparency . .959
Q9Financial_Statements . .960
Q9Offers . .960
Q9Executive_Remuneration . .960
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking . .960
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs . .959
Q9Social_Attachment . .960
Q9Confidentially . .960
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition . .959
Q9Honest_Relationship . .959
Q9Being_Accountable . .959
Q9legal_Obligations . .960
Q9Combating_Bribery . .960
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community . .960
Q9Financial_literacy . .960
Q9Environmentally_branches . .960
Q10 . .959
Q11 . .959
Q12Financial_Stability . .959
Q12Withdraw_Money . .960
Q12Treated . .959
AQ12Advice_Quality . .959
Q12Personal_Information_Safe . .960
Q12Fees . .959
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts . .959
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan . .959
. .960
Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Item-
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 101.14 398.298 .635 .
Q13 101.52 403.615 .709 .
Q14 101.35 397.746 .656 .
Q16 100.48 418.296 .132 .
Q17 101.51 395.923 .615 .
Q18 101.80 408.313 .293 .
Item-Total Statistics
Squared Cronbach's
Multiple Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches . .960
Q13 . .960
Q14 . .960
Q16 . .963
Q17 . .960
Q18 . .963
Appendix F - Research Objective one - Factor Analysis-before compon
ents extraction
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Borrowings_ Q9Transparenc
And_Savings y
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .559 .533
Q9Transparency .559 1.000 .553
.533 .553 1.000
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Financial_St
atements Q9Offers
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .533 .495 .407
Q9Transparency .553 .518 .467
1.000 .428 .215
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba
emuneration nking
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .407 .512 .503
Q9Transparency .467 .478 .503
.215 .365 .434
Correlation Matrixa
Q9MeetCustom Q9Social_Attac
ers_Needs hment
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .503 .579 .520
Q9Transparency .503 .502 .390
.434 .240 .452
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
y on
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .520 .413 .559
Q9Transparency .390 .484 .605
.452 .363 .473
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Honest_Rela Q9Being_Acco
tionship untable
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .559 .570 .563
Q9Transparency .605 .580 .489
.473 .421 .550
Correlation Matrixa
Q9legal_Obliga Q9Combating_
tions Bribery
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .563 .446 .457
Q9Transparency .489 .374 .455
.550 .376 .215
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Giving_Back
_To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
y eracy
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .457 .410 .514
Q9Transparency .455 .341 .329
.215 .113 .198
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Environment
ally_branches Q10 Q11
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .514 .633 .492 .592
Q9Transparency .329 .660 .578 .539
.198 .450 .408 .528
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .592 .448 .474
Q9Transparency .539 .433 .616
.528 .442 .455
Correlation Matrixa
AQ12Advice_Q
Q12Treated uality
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .474 .510 .423
Q9Transparency .616 .578 .338
.455 .461 .455
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Personal_I
nformation_Saf
e Q12Fees
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .423 .523 .667
Q9Transparency .338 .761 .583
.455 .519 .503
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Interest_Ra Q12Interest_Ra
tes_Accounts tes_Loan
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .667 .513 .549
Q9Transparency .583 .529 .480
.503 .450 .376
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Open_Or_
Close_Branche
s Q13 Q14
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .549 .482 .490 .115
Q9Transparency .480 .595 .458 .094
.376 .415 .448 .241
Correlation Matrixa
Correlation Q9Financial_St
atements Q9Offers
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .428 .215
Q9Offers .428 1.000 .291
Q9Executive_Remuneration .215 .291 1.000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .365 .328 .566
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .434 .490 .468
Q9Social_Attachment .240 .330 .537
Q9Confidentially .452 .371 .388
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .363 .383 .457
Q9Honest_Relationship .473 .414 .584
Q9Being_Accountable .421 .440 .600
Q9legal_Obligations .550 .440 .516
Q9Combating_Bribery .376 .290 .471
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .215 .333 .474
Q9Financial_literacy .113 .202 .538
Q9Environmentally_branches .198 .169 .486
Q10 .450 .492 .572
Q11 .408 .498 .445
Q12Financial_Stability .528 .395 .489
Q12Withdraw_Money .442 .302 .329
Q12Treated .455 .453 .398
AQ12Advice_Quality .461 .427 .451
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .455 .260 .431
Q12Fees .519 .403 .442
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .503 .392 .380
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .450 .274 .378
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .376 .355 .383
Q13 .415 .357 .566
Q14 .448 .360 .553
Q16 .241 -.075 -.217
Q17 .472 .368 .411
Q18 .219 .174 .171
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .000 .020
Q9Offers .000 .002
Q9Executive_Remuneration .020 .002
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .001 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000
.011 .001 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Financial_In
Correlation Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba
emuneration nking
Q9Financial_Statements .215 .365 .434
Q9Offers .291 .328 .490
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .566 .468
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .566 1.000 .609
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .468 .609 1.000
Q9Social_Attachment .537 .557 .455
Q9Confidentially .388 .415 .520
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .457 .385 .614
Q9Honest_Relationship .584 .504 .595
Q9Being_Accountable .600 .398 .605
Q9legal_Obligations .516 .341 .438
Q9Combating_Bribery .471 .319 .427
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .474 .382 .561
Q9Financial_literacy .538 .448 .431
Q9Environmentally_branches .486 .385 .392
Q10 .572 .584 .573
Q11 .445 .521 .694
Q12Financial_Stability .489 .442 .592
Q12Withdraw_Money .329 .385 .441
Q12Treated .398 .434 .679
AQ12Advice_Quality .451 .529 .666
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .431 .293 .370
Q12Fees .442 .490 .568
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .380 .413 .492
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .378 .455 .524
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .383 .459 .403
Q13 .566 .598 .518
Q14 .553 .444 .540
Q16 -.217 -.049 .093
Q17 .411 .370 .412
Q18 .171 .186 .222
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .020 .000 .000
Q9Offers .002 .001 .000
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000
.000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Valued_Cust
Correlation Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
y on
Q9Financial_Statements .452 .363 .473
Q9Offers .371 .383 .414
Q9Executive_Remuneration .388 .457 .584
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .415 .385 .504
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .520 .614 .595
Q9Social_Attachment .230 .396 .345
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .506 .623
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .506 1.000 .700
Q9Honest_Relationship .623 .700 1.000
Q9Being_Accountable .626 .624 .670
Q9legal_Obligations .538 .494 .607
Q9Combating_Bribery .522 .510 .492
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .439 .629 .457
Q9Financial_literacy .298 .489 .359
Q9Environmentally_branches .356 .402 .384
Q10 .492 .410 .573
Q11 .383 .474 .577
Q12Financial_Stability .587 .427 .531
Q12Withdraw_Money .529 .393 .509
Q12Treated .559 .675 .646
AQ12Advice_Quality .421 .677 .672
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .416 .375 .508
Q12Fees .385 .464 .575
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .472 .462 .531
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .390 .448 .470
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .344 .351 .484
Q13 .368 .534 .562
Q14 .388 .474 .544
Q16 .185 -.056 .042
Q17 .364 .350 .452
Q18 .253 .185 .225
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .000 .000 .000
Q9Offers .000 .000 .000
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000
.014 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Giving_Back
Correlation _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
y eracy
Q9Financial_Statements .215 .113 .198
Q9Offers .333 .202 .169
Q9Executive_Remuneration .474 .538 .486
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .382 .448 .385
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .561 .431 .392
Q9Social_Attachment .588 .645 .529
Q9Confidentially .439 .298 .356
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .629 .489 .402
Q9Honest_Relationship .457 .359 .384
Q9Being_Accountable .627 .459 .504
Q9legal_Obligations .345 .335 .318
Q9Combating_Bribery .542 .332 .379
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .590 .594
Q9Financial_literacy .590 1.000 .441
Q9Environmentally_branches .594 .441 1.000
Q10 .411 .479 .455
Q11 .438 .538 .343
Q12Financial_Stability .492 .452 .477
Q12Withdraw_Money .411 .355 .399
Q12Treated .493 .462 .465
AQ12Advice_Quality .487 .469 .502
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .318 .235 .370
Q12Fees .445 .346 .377
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .396 .326 .397
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .435 .328 .501
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .352 .286 .442
Q13 .528 .557 .400
Q14 .526 .404 .327
Q16 .074 -.095 .122
Q17 .421 .405 .472
Q18 .241 .145 .192
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .001
Q9Financial_Statements .020 .142 .029
Q9Offers .001 .027 .054
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000
.000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Correlation Q9Environment
ally_branches Q10 Q11
Q9Financial_Statements .198 .450 .408 .528
Q9Offers .169 .492 .498 .395
Q9Executive_Remuneration .486 .572 .445 .489
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .385 .584 .521 .442
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .392 .573 .694 .592
Q9Social_Attachment .529 .575 .527 .450
Q9Confidentially .356 .492 .383 .587
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .402 .410 .474 .427
Q9Honest_Relationship .384 .573 .577 .531
Q9Being_Accountable .504 .595 .513 .600
Q9legal_Obligations .318 .608 .416 .505
Q9Combating_Bribery .379 .398 .321 .385
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .594 .411 .438 .492
Q9Financial_literacy .441 .479 .538 .452
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .455 .343 .477
Q10 .455 1.000 .670 .657
Q11 .343 .670 1.000 .608
Q12Financial_Stability .477 .657 .608 1.000
Q12Withdraw_Money .399 .530 .486 .546
Q12Treated .465 .647 .705 .567
AQ12Advice_Quality .502 .561 .623 .498
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .370 .380 .371 .549
Q12Fees .377 .664 .721 .625
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .397 .591 .542 .561
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .501 .623 .543 .546
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .442 .587 .488 .494
Q13 .400 .701 .604 .548
Q14 .327 .531 .424 .492
Q16 .122 .105 .082 .178
Q17 .472 .458 .430 .471
Q18 .192 .255 .140 .299
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .001 .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .029 .000 .000 .000
Q9Offers .054 .000 .000 .000
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Correlation AQ12Advice_Q
Q12Treated uality
Q9Financial_Statements .455 .461 .455
Q9Offers .453 .427 .260
Q9Executive_Remuneration .398 .451 .431
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .434 .529 .293
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .679 .666 .370
Q9Social_Attachment .406 .452 .259
Q9Confidentially .559 .421 .416
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .675 .677 .375
Q9Honest_Relationship .646 .672 .508
Q9Being_Accountable .599 .595 .348
Q9legal_Obligations .497 .528 .361
Q9Combating_Bribery .472 .421 .395
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .493 .487 .318
Q9Financial_literacy .462 .469 .235
Q9Environmentally_branches .465 .502 .370
Q10 .647 .561 .380
Q11 .705 .623 .371
Q12Financial_Stability .567 .498 .549
Q12Withdraw_Money .681 .560 .552
Q12Treated 1.000 .777 .432
AQ12Advice_Quality .777 1.000 .410
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .432 .410 1.000
Q12Fees .706 .598 .491
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .599 .518 .428
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .598 .506 .450
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .528 .487 .365
Q13 .559 .523 .301
Q14 .478 .514 .334
Q16 .150 .118 .108
Q17 .509 .534 .248
Q18 .290 .264 .171
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .000 .000 .000
Q9Offers .000 .000 .006
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000 .002
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .006
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Personal_I
Correlation nformation_Saf
e Q12Fees
Q9Financial_Statements .455 .519 .503
Q9Offers .260 .403 .392
Q9Executive_Remuneration .431 .442 .380
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .293 .490 .413
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .370 .568 .492
Q9Social_Attachment .259 .442 .430
Q9Confidentially .416 .385 .472
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .375 .464 .462
Q9Honest_Relationship .508 .575 .531
Q9Being_Accountable .348 .525 .488
Q9legal_Obligations .361 .426 .479
Q9Combating_Bribery .395 .329 .409
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .318 .445 .396
Q9Financial_literacy .235 .346 .326
Q9Environmentally_branches .370 .377 .397
Q10 .380 .664 .591
Q11 .371 .721 .542
Q12Financial_Stability .549 .625 .561
Q12Withdraw_Money .552 .540 .466
Q12Treated .432 .706 .599
AQ12Advice_Quality .410 .598 .518
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .491 .428
Q12Fees .491 1.000 .762
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .428 .762 1.000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .450 .735 .792
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .365 .670 .627
Q13 .301 .562 .442
Q14 .334 .465 .460
Q16 .108 .204 .126
Q17 .248 .375 .388
Q18 .171 .139 .126
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Statements .000 .000 .000
Q9Offers .006 .000 .000
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .002 .000 .000
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000
.006 .000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Open_Or_
Correlation Close_Branche
s Q13 Q14
Q9Financial_Statements .376 .415 .448 .241
Q9Offers .355 .357 .360 -.075
Q9Executive_Remuneration .383 .566 .553 -.217
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .459 .598 .444 -.049
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .403 .518 .540 .093
Q9Social_Attachment .357 .607 .393 -.028
Q9Confidentially .344 .368 .388 .185
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .351 .534 .474 -.056
Q9Honest_Relationship .484 .562 .544 .042
Q9Being_Accountable .474 .533 .561 .075
Q9legal_Obligations .519 .519 .463 .119
Q9Combating_Bribery .275 .423 .442 .073
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .352 .528 .526 .074
Q9Financial_literacy .286 .557 .404 -.095
Q9Environmentally_branches .442 .400 .327 .122
Q10 .587 .701 .531 .105
Q11 .488 .604 .424 .082
Q12Financial_Stability .494 .548 .492 .178
Q12Withdraw_Money .478 .407 .373 .303
Q12Treated .528 .559 .478 .150
AQ12Advice_Quality .487 .523 .514 .118
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .365 .301 .334 .108
Q12Fees .670 .562 .465 .204
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .627 .442 .460 .126
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .631 .540 .416 .142
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .466 .473 .154
Q13 .466 1.000 .639 -.091
Q14 .473 .639 1.000 .010
Q16 .154 -.091 .010 1.000
Q17 .357 .413 .573 .195
Q18 .035 .110 .158 .254
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .000 .000 .000 .138
Q9Transparency .000 .000 .000 .187
Q9Financial_Statements .000 .000 .000 .010
Q9Offers .000 .000 .000 .237
Q9Executive_Remuneration .000 .000 .000 .019
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .000 .000 .000 .321
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .000 .000 .000 .190
.000 .000 .397
Correlation Matrixa
Correlation
Q16 Q17 Q18
Q9Financial_Statements .241 .472 .219
Q9Offers -.075 .368 .174
Q9Executive_Remuneration -.217 .411 .171
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking -.049 .370 .186
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .093 .412 .222
Q9Social_Attachment -.028 .525 .141
Q9Confidentially .185 .364 .253
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition -.056 .350 .185
Q9Honest_Relationship .042 .452 .225
Q9Being_Accountable .075 .545 .193
Q9legal_Obligations .119 .360 .177
Q9Combating_Bribery .073 .409 .208
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .074 .421 .241
Q9Financial_literacy -.095 .405 .145
Q9Environmentally_branches .122 .472 .192
Q10 .105 .458 .255
Q11 .082 .430 .140
Q12Financial_Stability .178 .471 .299
Q12Withdraw_Money .303 .297 .205
Q12Treated .150 .509 .290
AQ12Advice_Quality .118 .534 .264
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .108 .248 .171
Q12Fees .204 .375 .139
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .126 .388 .126
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .142 .330 .144
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .154 .357 .035
Q13 -.091 .413 .110
Q14 .010 .573 .158
Q16 1.000 .195 .254
Q17 .195 1.000 .339
Q18 .254 .339 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .138 .000 .009
Q9Transparency .187 .000 .005
Q9Financial_Statements .010 .000 .018
Q9Offers .237 .000 .048
Q9Executive_Remuneration .019 .000 .051
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .321 .000 .038
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .190 .000 .017
.397 .000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Borrowings_ Q9Transparenc
And_Savings y
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .011
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .020
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .142
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .001 .029
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .138 .187 .010
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .009 .005 .018
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Financial_St
atements Q9Offers
Q9Social_Attachment .011 .001 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .002 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .020 .001 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .142 .027 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .029 .054 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .002 .001
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .006 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .004 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .010 .237 .019
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .018 .048 .051
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba
emuneration nking
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .001 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .002 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .019 .321 .190
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .051 .038 .017
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9MeetCustom Q9Social_Attac
ers_Needs hment
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .014
Q9Confidentially .000 .014
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .002
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .001 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .006 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .190 .397 .039
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .017 .090 .007
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
y on
Q9Social_Attachment .014 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .002 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .039 .297 .345
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .007 .038 .015
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Honest_Rela Q9Being_Acco
tionship untable
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .001
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .001
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .345 .239 .128
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .015 .033 .046
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9legal_Obliga Q9Combating_
tions Bribery
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .001 .001 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .001 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .001 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .001
Q12Fees .000 .001 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .004 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .128 .246 .242
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .046 .023 .010
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Giving_Back
_To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
y eracy
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .002 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .001 .001
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .001 .012 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .001 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .001 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .003 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .001
Q16 .242 .183 .123
Q17 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .010 .084 .033
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q9Environment
ally_branches Q10 Q11
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .001 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .001 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .123 .160 .219 .045
Q17 .000 .000 .000 .000
Q18 .033 .007 .092 .002
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .001 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .045 .002 .077
Q17 .000 .002 .000
Q18 .002 .025 .002
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
AQ12Advice_Q
Q12Treated uality
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .006
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .001
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .012
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .002
Q14 .000 .000 .001
Q16 .077 .131 .152
Q17 .000 .000 .009
Q18 .002 .005 .051
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Personal_I
nformation_Saf
e Q12Fees
Q9Social_Attachment .006 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .001 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .012 .000 .001
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .000
Q13 .002 .000 .000
Q14 .001 .000 .000
Q16 .152 .026 .117
Q17 .009 .000 .000
Q18 .051 .093 .115
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Interest_Ra Q12Interest_Ra
tes_Accounts tes_Loan
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .004
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000
Q9Financial_literacy .001 .001 .003
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .000
Q10 .000 .000 .000
Q11 .000 .000 .000
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .000 .000
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000
Q13 .000 .000 .000
Q14 .000 .000 .000
Q16 .117 .088 .072
Q17 .000 .001 .000
Q18 .115 .086 .370
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Q12Open_Or_
Close_Branche
s Q13 Q14
Q9Social_Attachment .000 .000 .000 .397
Q9Confidentially .000 .000 .000 .039
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .000 .000 .000 .297
Q9Honest_Relationship .000 .000 .000 .345
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .239
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .128
Q9Combating_Bribery .004 .000 .000 .246
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .000 .000 .000 .242
Q9Financial_literacy .003 .000 .000 .183
Q9Environmentally_branches .000 .000 .001 .123
Q10 .000 .000 .000 .160
Q11 .000 .000 .000 .219
Q12Financial_Stability .000 .000 .000 .045
Q12Withdraw_Money .000 .000 .000 .002
Q12Treated .000 .000 .000 .077
AQ12Advice_Quality .000 .000 .000 .131
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .000 .002 .001 .152
Q12Fees .000 .000 .000 .026
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .000 .000 .000 .117
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .000 .000 .000 .088
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .000 .000 .072
Q13 .000 .000 .195
Q14 .000 .000 .462
Q16 .072 .195 .462
Q17 .000 .000 .000 .031
Q18 .370 .147 .066 .007
Sig. (1-tailed)
Correlation Matrixa
Initial Extraction
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .695
Q9Transparency 1.000 .681
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .693
Q9Offers 1.000 .598
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .704
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 1.000 .541
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 1.000 .701
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .774
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .653
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 1.000 .776
Q9Honest_Relationship 1.000 .742
Q9Being_Accountable 1.000 .727
Q9legal_Obligations 1.000 .690
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .641
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .705
Q9Financial_literacy 1.000 .693
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .701
Q10 1.000 .739
Q11 1.000 .762
Q12Financial_Stability 1.000 .631
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .634
Q12Treated 1.000 .843
AQ12Advice_Quality 1.000 .728
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .533
Q12Fees 1.000 .848
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 1.000 .723
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 1.000 .755
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .661
Q13 1.000 .690
Q14 1.000 .554
Q16 1.000 .717
Q17 1.000 .672
Q18 1.000 .583
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
20
15
Eigenvalue
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Component Number
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .512 .478 .365 .328 .566
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.503 .503 .434 .490 .468
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .407 .512 .503 .579
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .566 1.000 .609 .557
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.468 .609 1.000 .455
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .579 .520 .413 .559
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .557 .415 .385 .504
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.455 .520 .614 .595
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .504 .398 .341 .319
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.595 .605 .438 .427
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .446 .457 .410 .514
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .319 .382 .448 .385
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.427 .561 .431 .392
I think that my
bank's actual
social activities I feel that I am
and ethical getting an
behaviour economic value
comply with in my dealings
what they with my bank
committed to in (Good quality
the media and products that
other channels efficiently
since the satisfy my
Q9Environment Financial Crisis needs and
ally_branches of 2007 requirements)
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .514 .633 .492 .592
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .385 .584 .521 .442
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.392 .573 .694 .592
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money Q12Treated
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .592 .448 .474 .510
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .442 .385 .434 .529
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.592 .441 .679 .666
Q12Personal_I
AQ12Advice_Q nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra
uality e Q12Fees tes_Accounts
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .510 .423 .523 .667 .513
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .529 .293 .490 .413 .455
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.666 .370 .568 .492 .524
I think the
overall
approach of my
bank's social
responsibility
activities is
aligned with
customers
needs and
Q12Open_Or_ demands in the
Q12Interest_Ra Close_Branche post financial
tes_Loan s crisis of 2007
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .513 .549 .482 .490
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .455 .459 .598 .444
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.524 .403 .518 .540
I think that
banks in
general are
likely to have
learned the
lesson in terms
Overall, I think of navigating a Has your
that no ethical balance confidence
problems have between the towards the
occurred at my pursuit of profit banking
bank in the and operating industry
years following in a socially changed in the
the Financial responsible past seven
Crisis of 2007 manner years?
Correlation Q9Borrowings_And_Saving
s .490 .492 .245
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SM
Ebanking .444 .370 .186
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs
.540 .412 .222
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.572 .584 .573 .575
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.575 .492 .410 .573
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.398 .411 .479 .455
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think that my
bank's actual
social activities I feel that I am
and ethical getting an
behaviour economic value
comply with in my dealings
what they with my bank
committed to in (Good quality
the media and products that
other channels efficiently
since the satisfy my
Q9Environment Financial Crisis needs and
ally_branches of 2007 requirements)
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.455 1.000 .670 .657
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money Q12Treated
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.657 .530 .647 .561
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q12Personal_I
AQ12Advice_Q nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra
uality e Q12Fees tes_Accounts
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.561 .380 .664 .591 .623
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think the
overall
approach of my
bank's social
responsibility
activities is
aligned with
customers
needs and
Q12Open_Or_ demands in the
Q12Interest_Ra Close_Branche post financial
tes_Loan s crisis of 2007
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.623 .587 .701 .531
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think that
banks in
general are
likely to have
learned the
lesson in terms
Overall, I think of navigating a Has your
that no ethical balance confidence
problems have between the towards the
occurred at my pursuit of profit banking
bank in the and operating industry
years following in a socially changed in the
the Financial responsible past seven
Crisis of 2007 manner years?
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.531 .458 .255
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .553 .444 .540 .393
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.411 .370 .412 .525
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .393 .388 .474 .544
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.525 .364 .350 .452
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .442 .526 .404 .327
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.409 .421 .405 .472
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
I think that my
bank's actual
social activities I feel that I am
and ethical getting an
behaviour economic value
comply with in my dealings
what they with my bank
committed to in (Good quality
the media and products that
other channels efficiently
since the satisfy my
Q9Environment Financial Crisis needs and
ally_branches of 2007 requirements)
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .327 .531 .424 .492
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.472 .458 .430 .471
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money Q12Treated
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .492 .373 .478 .514
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.471 .297 .509 .534
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
Q12Personal_I
AQ12Advice_Q nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra
uality e Q12Fees tes_Accounts
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .514 .334 .465 .460 .416
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.534 .248 .375 .388 .330
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
I think the
overall
approach of my
bank's social
responsibility
activities is
aligned with
customers
needs and
Q12Open_Or_ demands in the
Q12Interest_Ra Close_Branche post financial
tes_Loan s crisis of 2007
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the .416 .473 .639 1.000
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.330 .357 .413 .573
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
I think that
banks in
general are
likely to have
learned the
lesson in terms
Overall, I think of navigating a Has your
that no ethical balance confidence
problems have between the towards the
occurred at my pursuit of profit banking
bank in the and operating industry
years following in a socially changed in the
the Financial responsible past seven
Crisis of 2007 manner years?
Overall, I think that no
ethical problems have
occurred at my bank in the 1.000 .573 .158
years following the
Financial Crisis of 2007
I think that banks in general
are likely to have learned
the lesson in terms of
navigating a balance
.573 1.000 .339
between the pursuit of profit
and operating in a socially
responsible manner
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .001 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .002 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .001 .001
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .001 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think that my
bank's actual
social activities I feel that I am
and ethical getting an
behaviour economic value
comply with in my dealings
what they with my bank
committed to in (Good quality
the media and products that
other channels efficiently
since the satisfy my
Q9Environment Financial Crisis needs and
ally_branches of 2007 requirements)
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .001 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .001 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money Q12Treated
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q12Personal_I
AQ12Advice_Q nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra
uality e Q12Fees tes_Accounts
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .001 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .012 .000 .001 .001
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think the
overall
approach of my
bank's social
responsibility
activities is
aligned with
customers
needs and
Q12Open_Or_ demands in the
Q12Interest_Ra Close_Branche post financial
tes_Loan s crisis of 2007
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .000 .000
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .004 .000 .000
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .000 .000
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .001 .003 .000 .000
Q9Environmentally_branch
.000 .000 .000 .001
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .000 .000
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
I think that
banks in
general are
likely to have
learned the
lesson in terms
Overall, I think of navigating a Has your
that no ethical balance confidence
problems have between the towards the
occurred at my pursuit of profit banking
bank in the and operating industry
years following in a socially changed in the
the Financial responsible past seven
Crisis of 2007 manner years?
Q9Being_Accountable .000 .000 .033
Q9legal_Obligations .000 .000 .046
Q9Combating_Bribery .000 .000 .023
Q9Giving_Back_To_Comm
.000 .000 .010
unity
Q9Financial_literacy .000 .000 .084
Q9Environmentally_branch
.001 .000 .033
es
I think that my bank's actual
social activities and ethical
behaviour comply with what
they committed to in the
.000 .000 .007
media and other channels
since the Financial Crisis of
2007
Q9Financial_In
Q9Executive_R clusion_SMEba Q9MeetCustom
emuneration nking ers_Needs
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
Q9Valued_Cust
Q9Social_Attac Q9Confidentiall omer_Recogniti
hment y on
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
Q9Giving_Back
Q9Combating_ _To_Communit Q9Financial_lit
Bribery y eracy
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.004 .000 .003 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
I think that my
bank's actual
social activities I feel that I am
and ethical getting an
behaviour economic value
comply with in my dealings
what they with my bank
committed to in (Good quality
the media and products that
other channels efficiently
since the satisfy my
Q9Environment Financial Crisis needs and
ally_branches of 2007 requirements)
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
Q12Financial_S Q12Withdraw_
tability Money Q12Treated
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
Q12Personal_I
AQ12Advice_Q nformation_Saf Q12Interest_Ra
uality e Q12Fees tes_Accounts
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .002 .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
I think the
overall
approach of my
bank's social
responsibility
activities is
aligned with
customers
needs and
Q12Open_Or_ demands in the
Q12Interest_Ra Close_Branche post financial
tes_Loan s crisis of 2007
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .000
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .000
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
I think that
banks in
general are
likely to have
learned the
lesson in terms
Overall, I think of navigating a Has your
that no ethical balance confidence
problems have between the towards the
occurred at my pursuit of profit banking
bank in the and operating industry
years following in a socially changed in the
the Financial responsible past seven
Crisis of 2007 manner years?
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branc
.000 .000 .370
hes
I think the overall approach
of my bank's social
responsibility activities is
aligned with customers .000 .000 .147
needs and demands in the
post financial crisis of 2007
a. Determinant = 3.25E-013
Initial Extraction
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .569
Q9Transparency 1.000 .593
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .572
Q9Offers 1.000 .346
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .576
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 1.000 .460
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 1.000 .586
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .616
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .445
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 1.000 .527
Q9Honest_Relationship 1.000 .624
Q9Being_Accountable 1.000 .638
Q9legal_Obligations 1.000 .501
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .401
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .652
Q9Financial_literacy 1.000 .649
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .465
Q10 1.000 .665
Q11 1.000 .578
Q12Financial_Stability 1.000 .601
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .486
Q12Treated 1.000 .680
AQ12Advice_Quality 1.000 .616
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .380
Q12Fees 1.000 .719
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 1.000 .652
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 1.000 .567
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .513
Q13 1.000 .599
Q14 1.000 .490
Q17 1.000 .429
Q18 1.000 .091
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component Total
1 13.962
2 11.766
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2
Q9Financial_Statements .904
Q12Fees .883
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .858
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .740
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .734
Q9Transparency .687
Q12Treated .686
Q12Withdraw_Money .684
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .647
Q12Financial_Stability .627
Q9legal_Obligations .616
Q10 .613
Q9Honest_Relationship .612
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .589
Q9Offers .572
Q9Confidentially .568
Q11 .566
AQ12Advice_Quality .520
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .465
Q9Financial_literacy .915
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .822
Q9Social_Attachment .806
Q9Executive_Remuneration .717
Q9Environmentally_branches .638
Q13 .557
Q9Being_Accountable .527
Q17 .498
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .498
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking
.461
Q14 .452
Q9Combating_Bribery .444
Q18
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.
Component Correlation Matrix
Component 1 2
1 1.000 .634
2 .634 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.
Appendix G - Research Objective One - Factor and Reliability Analyses
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .695
Q9Transparency 1.000 .681
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .693
Q9Offers 1.000 .598
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .704
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 1.000 .541
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 1.000 .701
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .774
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .653
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 1.000 .776
Q9Honest_Relationship 1.000 .742
Q9Being_Accountable 1.000 .727
Q9legal_Obligations 1.000 .690
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .641
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .705
Q9Financial_literacy 1.000 .693
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .701
Q10 1.000 .739
Q11 1.000 .762
Q12Financial_Stability 1.000 .631
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .634
Q12Treated 1.000 .843
AQ12Advice_Quality 1.000 .728
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .533
Q12Fees 1.000 .848
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 1.000 .723
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 1.000 .755
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .661
Q13 1.000 .690
1.000 .554
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q14 1.000 .554
Q16 1.000 .717
Q17 1.000 .672
Q18 1.000 .583
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Scree Plot
20
15
Eigenvalue
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Component Number
Initial Extraction
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .572
Q9Transparency 1.000 .623
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .569
Q9Offers 1.000 .322
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .630
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 1.000 .532
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 1.000 .585
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .638
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .620
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 1.000 .591
Q9Honest_Relationship 1.000 .642
Q9Being_Accountable 1.000 .698
Q9legal_Obligations 1.000 .524
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .573
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .633
Q9Financial_literacy 1.000 .619
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .419
Q10 1.000 .711
Q11 1.000 .643
Q12Financial_Stability 1.000 .608
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .550
Q12Treated 1.000 .683
AQ12Advice_Quality 1.000 .621
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .397
Q12Fees 1.000 .816
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 1.000 .675
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 1.000 .634
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .597
Q13 1.000 .693
Q14 1.000 .507
Q15 1.000 .676
Q16 1.000 .434
Q17 1.000 .431
Q18 1.000 .269
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component Total
1 14.311
2 3.280
3 11.658
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q12Fees .997
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .860
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .859
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .858
Q10 .756
Q11 .751
Q9Transparency .743
Q15 .723
Q9Financial_Statements .605
Q13 .568 -.418
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .566
Q12Treated .546
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .542
Q12Financial_Stability .536
Q9Offers .461
AQ12Advice_Quality .456 .403
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .441
Q12Withdraw_Money .431
Q14
Q12Personal_Information_Safe
Q16 .631
Q9Financial_literacy -.580
Q9Social_Attachment -.532
Q9Executive_Remuneration -.494 .402
Q9Combating_Bribery .789
Q9Confidentially .708
Q9Being_Accountable .666
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .659
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .630
Q18 .568
Q9Honest_Relationship .507
Q17 .474
Q9Environmentally_branches .473
Q9legal_Obligations .454
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.
Component Correlation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 -.191 .615
2 -.191 1.000 -.117
3 .615 -.117 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization.
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.532 .545 4
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q16 .802
Q9Financial_literacy .232
Q9Social_Attachment .173
Q9Executive_Remuneration .376
Initial Extraction
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings 1.000 .570
Q9Transparency 1.000 .599
Q9Financial_Statements 1.000 .576
Q9Offers 1.000 .346
Q9Executive_Remuneration 1.000 .578
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking 1.000 .467
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs 1.000 .584
Q9Social_Attachment 1.000 .625
Q9Confidentially 1.000 .438
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition 1.000 .520
Q9Honest_Relationship 1.000 .622
Q9Being_Accountable 1.000 .635
Q9legal_Obligations 1.000 .503
Q9Combating_Bribery 1.000 .392
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community 1.000 .642
Q9Financial_literacy 1.000 .651
Q9Environmentally_branches 1.000 .453
Q10 1.000 .668
Q11 1.000 .580
Q12Financial_Stability 1.000 .597
Q12Withdraw_Money 1.000 .481
Q12Treated 1.000 .674
AQ12Advice_Quality 1.000 .616
Q12Personal_Information_Safe 1.000 .376
Q12Fees 1.000 .721
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts 1.000 .649
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan 1.000 .560
1.000 .516
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches 1.000 .516
Q13 1.000 .610
Q14 1.000 .501
Q15 1.000 .609
Q17 1.000 .431
Q18 1.000 .089
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Total
1 14.534
2 12.143
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total Variance Explained
Component Total
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2
Q9Financial_Statements .908
Q12Fees .884
Q12Interest_Rates_Accounts .859
Q12Interest_Rates_Loan .739
Q12Open_Or_Close_Branches .735
Q12Treated .691
Q9Transparency .690
Q12Withdraw_Money .689
Q12Personal_Information_Safe .652
Q12Financial_Stability .632
Q9legal_Obligations .622
Q9Honest_Relationship .619
Q10 .616
Q9Borrowings_And_Savings .593
Q9Confidentially .576
Q9Offers .574
Q11 .567
AQ12Advice_Quality .526
Q15 .505
Q9MeetCustomers_Needs .470
Q9Financial_literacy .914
Q9Giving_Back_To_Community .812
Q9Social_Attachment .810
Q9Executive_Remuneration .714
Q9Environmentally_branches .627
Q13 .561
Q9Being_Accountable .517
Q17 .495
Q9Valued_Customer_Recognition .485
Q9Financial_Inclusion_SMEbanking .464
Q14 .455
Q9Combating_Bribery .429
Q18
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
Component Correlation Matrix
Component 1 2
1 1.000 .635
2 .635 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.
Apendix H- Research Objective One- Regression Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Correlations
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 PH&ET,
. Enter
EC&LGb
a. Dependent Variable: I think the overall approach of my bank's social responsibility efforts after the financial
crisis of 2007 are satisfactory
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 40.927 2 20.464 60.738 .000b
Residual 29.986 89 .337
Total 70.913 91
a. Dependent Variable: I think the overall approach of my bank's social responsibility efforts after the financial
crisis of 2007 are satisfactory
b. Predictors: (Constant), PH&ET, EC&LG
Coefficientsa
Standardized Collinearity
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance
1 (Constant) 3.109 .061 51.370 .000
EC&LG .438 .079 .496 5.564 .000 .598 1.672
PH&ET .301 .079 .341 3.829 .000 .598 1.672
Coefficientsa
Collinearity
Statistics
Model VIF
1 (Constant)
EC&LG 1.672
PH&ET 1.672
a. Dependent Variable: I think the overall approach of my bank's social responsibility efforts after the financial
crisis of 2007 are satisfactory
Appendix I - Research Objective Two - Factor and Reliability Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Correlation Matrixa
Q19Reasonabl Q19Payments_
e_Interest_Rate Fees_Transpar
s ency
Correlation Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates 1.000 .627 .458
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .627 1.000 .626
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .458 .626 1.000
Q19CEO_Cuts .046 .156 .261
Q19Financial_Inclusion .138 .277 .200
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .123 .351 .436
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .575 .613 .745
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .449 .623 .667
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .216 .363 .506
Q19Compliance_With_Law .326 .481 .683
Sig. (1-tailed) Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .000 .000
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .000 .000
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .000 .000
Q19CEO_Cuts .333 .069 .006
Q19Financial_Inclusion .094 .004 .028
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .122 .000 .000
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .000 .000 .000
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .000 .000 .000
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .019 .000 .000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .001 .000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q19Account_In
formation_Confi
dentiality Q19CEO_Cuts
Correlation Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .458 .046 .138
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .626 .156 .277
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality 1.000 .261 .200
Q19CEO_Cuts .261 1.000 .501
Q19Financial_Inclusion .200 .501 1.000
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .436 .406 .513
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .745 .260 .309
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .667 .167 .338
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .506 .589 .471
Q19Compliance_With_Law .683 .317 .337
Sig. (1-tailed) Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .000 .333 .094
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .000 .069 .004
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .006 .028
Q19CEO_Cuts .006 .000
Q19Financial_Inclusion .028 .000
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .000 .000 .000
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .000 .006 .001
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .000 .056 .000
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .000 .000 .000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .000 .001 .001
Correlation Matrixa
Q19Projects_W
Q19Financial_I ith_Adverse_Im
nclusion pacts
Correlation Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .138 .123 .575
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .277 .351 .613
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .200 .436 .745
Q19CEO_Cuts .501 .406 .260
Q19Financial_Inclusion 1.000 .513 .309
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .513 1.000 .462
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .309 .462 1.000
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .338 .569 .762
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .471 .646 .595
Q19Compliance_With_Law .337 .577 .631
Sig. (1-tailed) Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .094 .122 .000
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .004 .000 .000
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .028 .000 .000
Q19CEO_Cuts .000 .000 .006
Q19Financial_Inclusion .000 .001
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .000 .000
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .001 .000
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .000 .000 .000
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .000 .000 .000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .001 .000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q19ValuedCust Q19Honest_Fin
omer_Treating ancial_Advice
Correlation Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .575 .449 .216
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .613 .623 .363
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .745 .667 .506
Q19CEO_Cuts .260 .167 .589
Q19Financial_Inclusion .309 .338 .471
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .462 .569 .646
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating 1.000 .762 .595
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .762 1.000 .595
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .595 .595 1.000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .631 .743 .637
Sig. (1-tailed) Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .000 .000 .019
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .000 .000 .000
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .000 .000 .000
Q19CEO_Cuts .006 .056 .000
Q19Financial_Inclusion .001 .000 .000
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .000 .000 .000
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .000 .000
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .000 .000
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .000 .000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .000 .000 .000
Correlation Matrixa
Q19CEO_dont_ Q19Complianc
Misreport e_With_Law
Correlation Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .216 .326
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .363 .481
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .506 .683
Q19CEO_Cuts .589 .317
Q19Financial_Inclusion .471 .337
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .646 .577
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .595 .631
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .595 .743
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport 1.000 .637
Q19Compliance_With_Law .637 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .019 .001
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .000 .000
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .000 .000
Q19CEO_Cuts .000 .001
Q19Financial_Inclusion .000 .001
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .000 .000
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .000 .000
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .000 .000
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .000
Q19Compliance_With_Law .000
a. Determinant = .002
Initial Extraction
Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates 1.000 .617
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency 1.000 .680
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality 1.000 .717
Q19CEO_Cuts 1.000 .634
Q19Financial_Inclusion 1.000 .558
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts 1.000 .657
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating 1.000 .788
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice 1.000 .767
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport 1.000 .758
Q19Compliance_With_Law 1.000 .680
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Total
1 4.528
2 3.516
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
Scree Plot
4
Eigenvalue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Component Number
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce .857
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng .853
Q19Compliance_With_Law
.824
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality .806
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .784
Q19Payments_Fees_Trans
parency .722
Q19Projects_With_Adverse
_Impacts .709
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .838
Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .837
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .816
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .793
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .770
Q19Compliance_With_Law .595 .401
Q19CEO_Cuts .836
Q19Financial_Inclusion .753
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .732
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .710
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Structure Matrix
Component
1 2
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treating .874 .450
Q19Honest_Financial_Advice .849 .495
Q19Account_Information_Confidentiality .838 .404
Q19Payments_Fees_Transparency .824
Q19Reasonable_Interest_Rates .740
Q19Compliance_With_Law .734 .607
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .536 .829
Q19Projects_With_Adverse_Impacts .462 .785
Q19CEO_Cuts .784
Q19Financial_Inclusion .747
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Component 1 2
1 1.000 .346
2 .346 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.
Component Score Coefficient Matrix
Component
1 2
Q19Reasonable_Interest_R
ates .247 -.163
Q19Payments_Fees_Trans
parency .232 -.069
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality .209 .001
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng .213 .015
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce .196 .042
Component 1 2
1 1.119 .691
2 .691 1.119
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.
Component Scores.
N %
Cases Valid 92 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 92 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.898 .900 6
Item Statistics
Q19Reasonable_Interest_R
ates .627 1.000 .575 .458 .449
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng .613 .575 1.000 .745 .762
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality .626 .458 .745 1.000 .667
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce .623 .449 .762 .667 1.000
Q19Compliance_With_Law
.481 .326 .631 .683 .743
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Q19Honest_Fin Q19Complianc
ancial_Advice e_With_Law
Q19Payments_Fees_Trans
parency .623 .481
Q19Reasonable_Interest_R
ates .449 .326
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng .762 .631
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality .667 .683
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce 1.000 .743
Q19Compliance_With_Law
.743 1.000
Item-Total Statistics
Q19Reasonable_Interest_R
ates 21.38 14.304 .567 .466 .905
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng 21.24 13.613 .822 .718 .865
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality 21.30 13.247 .776 .662 .871
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce 21.28 13.568 .796 .719 .869
Q19Compliance_With_Law
21.36 13.793 .686 .622 .885
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q19Payments_Fees_Trans
parency .880
Q19Reasonable_Interest_R
ates .905
Q19ValuedCustomer_Treati
ng .865
Q19Account_Information_C
onfidentiality .871
Q19Honest_Financial_Advi
ce .869
Q19Compliance_With_Law
.885
Scale Statistics
N %
Cases Valid 92 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 92 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.809 .813 4
Item Statistics
Q19Projects_W
Q19Financial_I Q19CEO_dont_ ith_Adverse_Im
Q19CEO_Cuts nclusion Misreport pacts
Q19CEO_Cuts 1.000 .501 .589 .406
Q19Financial_Inclusion .501 1.000 .471 .513
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .589 .471 1.000 .646
Q19Projects_With_Adverse
_Impacts .406 .513 .646 1.000
Item-Total Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q19CEO_Cuts .779
Q19Financial_Inclusion .776
Q19CEO_dont_Misreport .729
Q19Projects_With_Adverse
_Impacts .762
Scale Statistics
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 REGR factor
score 2 for
analysis 1,
. Enter
REGR factor
score 1 for
analysis 1 b
a. Dependent Variable: I think that the more meaningful the social activities a bank engages in are, the more
preference will be given to them
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summaryb
ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 26.238 2 13.119 19.929 .000b
Residual 58.588 89 .658
Total 84.826 91
a. Dependent Variable: I think that the more meaningful the social activities a bank engages in are, the more
preference will be given to them
b. Predictors: (Constant), REGR factor score 2 for analysis 1, REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1
Coefficientsa
Standardized 95.0%
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Confidence ...
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound
1 (Constant) 3.543 .085 41.891 .000 3.375 3.712
ECP&LGP .291 .091 .301 3.210 .002 .111 .471
ETP&PHP .362 .091 .375 3.993 .000 .182 .542
Coefficientsa
95.0%
Confidence ...
Model Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 3.712
ECP&LGP .471
ETP&PHP .542
a. Dependent Variable: I think that the more meaningful the social activities a bank engages in are, the more
preference will be given to them
Residuals Statisticsa
Correlations
Q21CSR_strate Q21Reputable_
gy Q21Confidence Business
Q21CSR_strategy Pearson Correlation 1 .695** .543** .593**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
** **
Q21Confidence Pearson Correlation .695 1 .643 .679**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
** **
Q21Reputable_Business Pearson Correlation .543 .643 1 .732**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
** ** **
Q21High_CSR_rating Pearson Correlation .593 .679 .732 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
Q22 Pearson Correlation .327** .464** .495** .582**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
Correlations
Q21High_CSR
_rating Q22
**
Q21CSR_strategy Pearson Correlation .593 .327**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001
N 92 92
**
Q21Confidence Pearson Correlation .679 .464**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 92 92
**
Q21Reputable_Business Pearson Correlation .732 .495**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 92 92
Q21High_CSR_rating Pearson Correlation 1 .582**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 92 92
Q22 Pearson Correlation .582** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 92 92
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Q21CSR_strate Q21Reputable_
gy Q21Confidence Business
** ** **
Q21CSR_strategy Pearson Correlation 1 .695 .543 .593
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
** **
Q21Confidence Pearson Correlation .695 1 .643 .679**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
** **
Q21Reputable_Business Pearson Correlation .543 .643 1 .732**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
Q21High_CSR_rating Pearson Correlation .593** .679** .732** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 92 92 92 92
Q21CSR_strate Q21Reputable_
gy Q21Confidence Business
I think that the more Pearson Correlation
.327** .464** .495** .582**
meaningful the social
activities a bank engages in Sig. (2-tailed)
are, the more preference .001 .000 .000 .000
will be given to them N
92 92 92 92
Correlations
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 92 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 92 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.781 .800 5
Item Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q21CSR_strategy .733
Q21Confidence .692
Q21Reputable_Business .690
Q21High_CSR_rating .670
Would you recommend
your bank based on its
socially responsible .879
behaviour ?
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.879 .880 4
Item Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q21CSR_strategy .867
Q21Confidence .829
Q21Reputable_Business .850
Q21High_CSR_rating .833
Appendix K- Research Objective Four - Hierarchical
Regression Analysis
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
b
1 SectionC_final1 . Enter
b
2 Q22 . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Q20
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 57.604 1 57.604 93.733 .000b
Residual 55.309 90 .615
Total 112.913 91
2 Regression 65.185 2 32.592 60.775 .000c
Residual 47.728 89 .536
Total 112.913 91
a. Dependent Variable: I think that, when/if I switch banks, I will form my decision highly based on their social
responsibly activities
b. Predictors: (Constant), REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1
c. Predictors: (Constant), REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1, I think that the more meaningful the social activities
a bank engages in are, the more preference will be given to them
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.109 .082 38.036 .000
SectionC_final1 .796 .082 .714 9.682 .000
2 (Constant) 1.841 .346 5.328 .000
SectionC_final1 .606 .092 .544 6.600 .000
Q22 .358 .095 .310 3.760 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Q20
Excluded Variablesa
Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
b
1 Q22 .310 3.760 .000 .370 .699
a. Dependent Variable: Q20
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), SectionC_final1