Social Responsibility Journal

How CSR and Overall Service Quality Lead to Affective Commitment: Mediating Role of Company
Reputation
Nil Engizek Bahar Yain
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nil Engizek Bahar Yain , (2017)," How CSR and Overall Service Quality Lead to Affective Commitment: Mediating Role of
Company Reputation ", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0135
Downloaded on: 29 January 2017, At: 03:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2017*
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 HOW CSR and Overall Service Quality Lead to Affective Commitment: Mediating Role of
Company Reputation

Introduction
Increasing competition in todays world has made companies to search factors that help to achieve
sustainable competitive advantages. These factors do not only include tangible ones but also
intangibles have got attention. Corporate reputation is one of the intangible features that make firms
available to obtain sustainable competitive advantage in the market (Dierickx and Cool, 1989 cited in
Keh and Xie, 2009; Boyd et al., 2010; Roberts and Dowling, 2002; Shamsie, 2003; Capozzi, 2005;
Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). According to researchers (Boyd et al., 2010; Keh and Xie, 2009) it is
difficult for competitors to imitate company reputation. Consumers are likely to judge the companys
product or services based on company reputation if they face with a lack of information about a
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

product or a company (Schinietz and Epstein, 2005). Moreover, corporate reputation is especially
important for service firms because their intangibility, or the lack of physical evidence, make difficult
for consumers to assess the quality of services (Bromley, 2001; Hardaker and Fill, 2005; Walsh et al.,
2014). It is also emphasized that Reputation plays an especially important strategic role in service
markets because the pre-purchase evaluation of service quality is necessarily vague and incomplete
(Wang et al. 2003, p. 76). Corporate reputation has received much research attention and the
antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation have been studied by scholars (e.g. Nguyen
and Leblanc, 2001; Walsh et al., 2009; Keh and Xie, 2009). However, recent reputation studies have
focused explicitly on how reputation affects current customers attitude and behaviours (e.g.
Bartikowski et al., 2011; Grunwald and Hempelmann, 2011). Existing research in the marketing
literature do not say much about whether corporate reputation can contribute to relationship among
corporate social responsibility (CSR), affective commitment and service quality which we address in
this study.
The outcomes that CSR has on consumer behaviour and responses have been studied by many
researchers (Arkan and Gner, 2013, p. 304) such as, customer satisfaction (e.g., Carvalho et al.,
2010; He and Li, 2011; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006) or customer loyalty (e.g., Lee et al., 2012; Marin
et al., 2009; Salmones et al., 2005, Stanaland et al., 2011), brand equity (Lai et al., 2010; Hur et al.,
2014) and product responses (e.g., Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Gurhan-Canli and
Batra, 2004). However, some researchers argue that CSR is not the most dominant criteria in
purchase behaviour (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Marin et al., 2009) and traditional criteria such
as price, quality and brand familiarity are still the most significant choice criteria in many buying
situations. Especially considering the significant role that quality can play in the context of services
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1991 cited in Arkan and Gner, 2013, p. 305), this
study identifies how both CSR and service quality may have effect on company reputation and
 affective commitment. Affective commitment was chosen as an outcome since the relationship
marketing perspective sees customer commitment, with the service quality, as the key determinant
of customer retention and loyalty to the service provider (Gundlach et al., 1995; Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Fullerton, 2005). So, it is important for marketing managers to understand whether customer
loyalty in their firm is largely driven by consumer evaluations of service quality or customer
commitment to the service provider. Fullerton (2005, p. 108) referred that In the absence of this
knowledge, they may embark on expensive relationship or quality enhancement programs that will
be doomed to failure if customer loyalty in their firm and industry is in fact driven by the neglected
construct.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

To sum up, the major research question explored in this paper is whether service quality or CSR is the
primer driver of affective commitment. The study also investigates the mediating role of company
reputation, whether or not it can serve as a strategic tool for enhancing the effect that CSR and
service quality have on affective commitment. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews the literature to understand the main constructs. Section 3 presents the methodology that
used in the study. Section 4 shows the results of analysis. Finally, in section 5 the results of the study
are discussed with a particular emphasis on both theoretical and managerial contributions of the
study.

2. Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses

2.1 CSR based Identity and Corporate Reputation

This study follows the societal approach related to CSR which implies that an organization should
operate in a way that serves and satisfies the needs of society (Van Marrewijk, 2003, p. 97; Hay and
Gray, 1974, p. 138). Many companies today are also following this approach and making a conscious
effort to behave in a socially responsible manner. CSR adoption of companies is growing and it can be
explained with the increasing importance of social and environmental criteria in consumers
purchase decisions (Perez, 2009). In 2014, Nielsen surveyed 30,000 consumers in 60 countries to
find out if consumers really care about CSR efforts of brands when it comes to buying decisions.
Results of the Nielsens corporate social responsibility survey showed that more than half (55 %) of
global respondents are willing to pay extra for products and services from companies that are
committed to positive social and environmental impact. When Nielsen compared the results with the
previous years it was seen that the rate was 50 % in 2012 and 45 % in 2011. Regional results also
showed a similar trend that the percentages for respondents in Asia-Pacific (64 % are willing to pay
extra), Latin America (63 % are willing to pay extra) and Middle East/Africa (63 % are willing to pay
 extra) both exceed the global average and have increased nine, 13 and 10 percentage points,
respectively, since 2011 (Nielsen, 2014). Besides, the results of empirical studies show that investing
to societys well-being as a whole not only help the society also create goodwill for the reputation of
the company and contribute positively to the brands performance (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001).
Reputation is defined as the public's perception regarding the organizations consistency,
trustworthiness and reliability qualities that are formed over a long period (Bennett and Rentschler,
2003). Walsh and Beatty (2007), argue that a firm can have multiple reputations, with a different set
of attributes for different stakeholder groups (Wartick, 2002) whereas reputation may also be
considered from a more global perspective, associating it with the credibility of the organization
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

(Casalo et al., 2008). In the latter approach, consumers compare what the company promises and
what it eventually fulfils (Doney and Cannon, 1997). In other words, global reputation reflects the
extent to which external stakeholders see the firm as good and not bad (Roberts and Dowling,
2002). The main aim of this study is to understand the mediating role of reputation, rather than
examining the dimensions of reputation so this study follows the global perspective of reputation.
Past research has demonstrated that socially responsible actions enhance corporate reputation and
image (Turban and Greening 1997; Stanaland et al., 2011). By acting in a socially responsible manner,
a firm can induce a belief among customers that the organization is honest and concerned about its
customers (Doney and Cannon 1997). Porter and Kramer (2002) also stated that the accomplishing
corporate social responsibilities can be a strategic device for corporate reputation building (Park et
al., 2014). Based on the findings of these previous studies it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: CSR-based perceived identity positively influences company reputation.

2.2 Service Quality and Corporate Reputation

In order to sustain and improve profitability, managers must consider how to allocate resources to
enhance a companys reputation (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). One way in which a firms reputation is
established is through increasing the quality of its services (Gjerde and Slotnick, 2004). Although a
substantial amount of research has been done in the field of service quality (Bolton and Drew, 1991;
Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991) there is no consensus on its measurement. Some researchers follow
the overall evaluation whereas the others take the multi-dimensional approach. Overall service
quality is different from specific service quality (Brady et al., 2002), it is the result of a long-term
accumulated perception so it refers to consumers overall perception of the gap between
expectations and actual service performance. Whereas, specific service quality refers to the major
service related drivers such as tangibles, reliability and responsiveness. Based on the disconfirmation
 of the perceptions and expectations related to these specific quality indicators, consumers judge the
quality of the service. Either SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991) or SERVPERF (Cronin and
Taylor, 1992, 1994) can be used to measure specific service quality. In this study, overall service
quality is measured, since past research confirms that overall service quality is a more immediate
antecedent to the outcomes of service quality (Brady et al., 2002; Tam, 2004; He and Li, 2011).
Many studies have revealed that high service quality leads to reduced costs, an enhanced corporate
image, differentiation from rivals and ultimately competitive power and enhanced profitability.
(Bowen and Schneider, 1988; Parasuraman et al., 1988; Shemwell et al., 1998; Reichheld and Sasser,
1990; Cronin et al., 2000; Kang and James, 2004; Yoon and Suh, 2004). In addition, providing high
quality services increase competitiveness through the establishment of a good reputation which
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

helps to attract and retain customers (Wang et al., 2003; Julian and Ramaseshan, 1994). Referring
these findings, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2: Overall service quality positively influences company reputation.

2.3 Corporate Reputation and Affective Commitment

As mentioned previously, corporate reputation refers to the overall assessment of a firms standing
from stakeholders viewpoint (Fombrun, 1996). Recent reputation studies have mostly focused on
how reputation affects current customers attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Bartikowski et al., 2011;
Grunwald and Hempelmann, 2011) especially for service firms (Davies et al., 2010; Keh and Xie,
2009). The prominent characteristics of services are the lack of tangibility and difficulty of
standardization of the service offered. When evaluating the services company, customers rely heavily
on cues, including the reputation of the service firm (Walsh et al., 2014). Strong reputation signals
trustworthiness to customers which motivate them to attach themselves to the firm (Bartikowski et
al., 2011; Hennig-Thurau and Klee, 1997). Several authors also suggest that those customers, who
attribute a good reputation to a specific company, have belief-consistent feelings of commitment,
favorable intentions to continue doing business with the same company, or other forms of goodwill
(Zeithaml et al., 1996). Furthermore, a firms good reputation signals its reliability in all market
transactions, as a result both levels of commitment and loyalty intentions enhance (Bartikowski et
al., 2011)
Customer commitment, as a key psychological force that links the consumer to the selling
organization, is seen as a central construct in the development and maintenance of marketing
relationships (Bansal et al., 2004; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Moorman et al. (1992, p.316) defines
commitment as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship. In the marketing literature
commitment is acknowledged as affective and calculative commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990;
Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Pritchard et al., 1999). Affective commitment reflects the
 consumers sense of belonging and involvement with a service provider or a brand. (Rhoades et al.,
2001; Fullerton, 2003). Affectively committed customers identify themselves with the brand hence
have positive feelings and spread these feelings to others about the brand or firm (Harrison-Walker,
2001). Briefly, customers with strong affective commitments identify, trust and are more emotionally
connected with the brand or organization than do non-committed customers (Evanschitzky et al.,
2006). On the contrary, calculative commitment builds from cost-based calculations. High switching
costs and scarcity of alternatives (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Meyer and Allen, 1997) motivates
customers to continue their relationship with the brand or firm. This study investigated only the
affective commitment of bank customers because there are many options for Turkish consumers
when they are deciding on which bank to work with.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

In 2014, Walsh et al., examined the role of reputation on monetary and non-monetary outcomes.
Researchers also examined the mediating role of commitment in these relationships. Results of their
study showed that reputation drives commitment. Referring the study of Walsh et al., (2014), it is
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Company reputation positively influences affective commitment.
2.4 CSR and Affective Commitment
As mentioned above, affective commitment is affected by corporate reputation. However, some of
the studies on CSR showed that CSR directly influences consumers commitment to the firm. For
example, Bartikowski and Walsh (2009) have suggested that social responsibility, as a sub-dimension
of customer-based corporate reputation, directly affects the consumers affective commitment.
Another study about the impact of CSR efforts on customer relationships was done by Lacey and
Hansel (2010). According to the results, customers CSR perceptions are positively linked to their
commitment to the firm. Therefore, the perception of socially responsible behaviour can strengthen
commitment toward a brand. Referring the findings of previous studies, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: CSR-based perceived identity positively influences consumers affective commitment.
2.4 Overall Service Quality and Affective Commitment
Even though in literature, there is no conceptual or empirical evidence for the relationship between
service quality and commitment, except Gruen et al.s (2000) study, it is hypothesized that the
overall service quality has a direct and positive effect on affective commitment. The reason for this
assumption is as because commitment can be viewed and indeed has been operationalized as a
proxy for loyalty (Assael (1987) cited in Wetzels et al., 1998, p. 410) defines loyalty as commitment
toward a certain brand) and strong positive associations between service quality and loyalty have
been reported extensively in the services marketing area.
Hypothesis 5: Overall service quality positively influences consumers affective commitment.
 CSR Based
Identity

Affective
Reputation Commitment

Overall Service
Quality
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Figure 1: Proposed Model

3. Method

3.1 Data Collection and Participant Characteristics

The proposed model (Figure 1) is tested in the context of retail banking industry in Turkey.
Questionnaires were initially given to participants who are the frequent customers of the retail banks
listed at the beginnig of the quastionnaire. These banks were selected on the basis of frequency and
number of CSR campaigns regularly they conducted or supported (Medyaloji.net, 2011). In order to
ensure that all the respondents know the at least two CSR campaign of the bank they are working
with, additional question was asked to respondents. In that question, all the CSR campaigns for each
bank were listed and the participants were asked whether or not they know any of the campaigns.
The options were I heard, I did not heard and I heard it but I do not know which bank it belongs
to. The people who said I did not heard or I heard it but I do not know which bank it belongs to
were eliminated from the further analysis. 522 usable questionnaires were collected through
convenience sampling between the 13th and 26th of April, 2015. The final sample consists of 202
female (38.70%) and 320 male (61.30%); 95 at the ages of 18-25 (18.20%), 157 at the ages of 2633
(30.10%), 79 at the ages of 3441 (15.10%), 92 at the ages of 42-49 (17.60%), and 99 over the age of
50 (18.90%). The latest degree of the almost half of the respondents (47.9%) is a bachelors degree,
while the latest degree of 30.8 % of the respondents is a high school. Only 3.1 % of the respondents
report monthly income less than 1000 TL (Turkish Liras), whereas 24.9 % report monthly income in
excess of 5001 TL. Approximately 72 % of the reported monthly incomes fall between 1001 TL and
5000 TL. In terms of current working status, half of the respondents (42.1%) are employed in the
private sector, 16.5 % are state workers, 10.7 % are student and 2 % are students.
 3.2 Measurement Scales
Existing well-established multiple-item 5-point Likert scales, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5), were adopted to measure most of our variables.
Affective commitment was measured with four items adapted from Allen and Meyers (1990)
affective commitment scale. Corporate reputation was measured by four items from Ponzi et al.s
(2011) scale. The measure of CSR-based perceived identity has six items that selected from studies of
Dean (2002), Lichtenstein et al. (2004) and Menon and Kahn (2003). These items were also used in
the study of Perez (2009). Finally, SQ was measured by three items (Wang et al., 2004), which had
been used to measure the OSQ perception of a telecommunication service brand.
4. Analysis and results
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

4.1 Reliability, Validity and Common Method Bias

Before testing the hypotheses measurement scales were assessed based on their reliability and
validity through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The reliability of the scales was evaluated by
using Cronbachs alpha coefficient. As it is seen on Table 2, Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the
constructs ranges between 0.83 and 0.90 and it is considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010).
In order to determine the convergent and discriminant validity, suggestions by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) were followed. The item loadings all exceeded threshold value which is 0.50 with the
significant t values. All the constructs have acceptable average variance extracted (AVE) and
composite reliability (CR) values which are above 0.50 and 0.70. These results provided evidence for
the convergent validity. Support for discriminant validity is gathered if the AVE for a latent construct
is larger than the shared variance with other latent constructs. AVEs and shared variances for all the
constructs were calculated and a correlation matrix was created (Table 1) to assess the discriminant
validity. As it is seen on Table 1, the squared correlation between REP and CSR, which is 0.61, is
greater than the AVE of REP (0.51) and the AVE of CSR (0.52). In addition, the squared correlation
(0.55) between REP and SQ is greater than the AVE of REP (0,51) which provides evidence for an
insufficient discriminant validity. If a discriminant validity issue keeps on, Farrell (2010) suggested
that CFA can be used to examine modification indices (MI) or correlated error terms. When the MIs
checked between the variables it was seen that REP3, CSR1 and CSR2 variables have high MIs
between other variables and constructs (REP3-AC: 101.9; REP3-CSR: 27.6; CSR2-REP2: 21.80; CSR1-
REP: 13.96). For this reason REP3, CSR1 and CSR2 variables were deleted and the analysis was
repeated. After that the results showed the measurement scales have both convergent and
discriminant validity (Table 2 and Table3).
Table 1: Correlations between Constructs
AC REP CSR SQ
AC 0,69 0,40 0,38 0,30
 REP 0,64 0,51 0,61 0,55
CSR 0,62 0,78 0,52 0,38
SQ 0,55 0,74 0,62 0,74
Bold numbers on the diagonal show the (AVE) average variance
extracted. Numbers below the diagonal show correlations among
each construct, numbers above the diagonal show shared variance
among each construct

Table 2: Scale items and construct evaluation

Item No Construct Factor Loading t Value Reliability
= .90
AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT (AC)
AVE= ,694; CR= ,901
AC1 I feel like part of a family as a customer of X 0,803 21.47
AC2 I feel emotionally attached to X 0,851 23.45
AC3 X has a great deal of personal meaning for me 0,838 22.91
AC4 I feel a strong sense of identification with X 0,839 22.93
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

=.83
REPUTATION (REP)
AVE= ,578; CR= ,845
REP1 X is a company I have a good feeling about 0,796 20.79
REP2 X has a good overall reputation 0,646 15.73
REP3 X is a company that I admire DELETED
REP4 X is a company that I trust 0,779 20.21
REP5 X is a company that I respect 0,809 21.29

=.87
CSR IDENTITY (CSR)
AVE= ,556; CR= ,883
CSR1 X is aware of environmental issues. DELETED
CSR2 X fulfils its social responsibilities. DELETED
CSR3 X gives back to society. 0,717 17.32
CSR4 X acts in a socially responsible way. 0,723 19,02
CSR5 X makes philanthropic contributions in its 0,784 19.78
business activities.
CSR6 I think that X acts with societys interests in mind. 0,756 20,04

= .90
OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ)
AVE= ,744; CR= ,897
OSQ1 X deliver excellent overall service 0,839 22,92
OSQ2 The offerings of X are of high quality 0,894 25,29
OSQ3 X deliver superior service in every way 0,853 23,53

Goodness-of-fit indexes
2 2
X = 215,64 df= 83 X /df= 2,60 NFI= 0,98 CFI= 0,99 GFI= 0,94 AGFI= 0,92 RMSEA= 0,058 SRMR= 0,043
Note: AVE= Average variance extracted; CR= composite reliability; CSR= corporate social responsibility.

Table 3: Correlations between Constructs (After deleting the REP3, CSR1 and CSR2)
AC REP CSR SQ
AC 0,69 0,35 0,41 0,30
REP 0,59 0,58 0,50 0,52
CSR 0,635 0,71 0,56 0,38
SQ 0,55 0,72 0,62 0,74
Bold numbers on the diagonal show the (AVE) average variance
extracted. Numbers below the diagonal show correlations among
each construct, numbers above the diagonal show shared variance
among each construct
 The absence of common method variance (CMV) was also tested. First, the Harmans single-factor
test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) by using EFA was employed. The results of the unrotated factor
solution were examined and three factors emerged accounting for 67,568 % of the total variance.
The first factor accounted for only 27,057% of the total variance. Second, a CFA approach was also
applied in addition to the Harman method, which is more complicated and precise than the EFA test
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). In this manner, the four factors and 15 construct items used in the
measurement model was loaded on a single factor. The fit statistics of this model indicated a very
poor model fit (X2= 1465,03 df= 90 X2/df= 16,278 NFI= 0,69 CFI= 0,71 GFI= 0,66 AGFI= 0,55 RMSEA=
0,17 SRMR= 0,098). The results of the analyses indicated that CMV is not a problem in this study.

4.2 Estimation of structural relationships

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

In order to test the proposed model (Figure 1) LISREL VIII (Jreskog and Srbom, 1993) was used. The
LISREL analysis showed an acceptable fit of the proposed model (X2= 241,01 df= 84 X2/df= 2,87 NFI=
0,98 CFI= 0,99 GFI= 0,94 AGFI= 0,91 RMSEA= 0,062 SRMR= 0,045) First, the direct effects of the CSR
and OSQ on AC were examined. Results (see the proposed model estimation in Table 4) revealed that
the firms CSR based identity and OSQ had positive effects on AC (1 = 0.37, t= 4.989, p= 0.000; 2 =
0.186, t= 2.87, p= 0.004), supporting H1 and H2.
H3 and H4 indicate the effects of CSR based identity and OSQ on reputation. The CSR based identity
had a positive effect on reputation (3 = 0.45, t= 7.85, p= 0.000). OSQ similarly showed a significant
positive impact on reputation (3 = 0.44, t= 8.340, p= 0.000).
Another hypothesis (H5) tested the effect of reputation on AC. Findings confirmed that reputation
had a positive effect on AC (3 = 0.18, t= 2.204, p= 0.028).

4.3 Mediation Analysis

In order to test the mediating role of reputation, Baron and Kennys (1986) procedure was followed.
According to the researchers, to have significant mediation effects, four conditions need to be met:
(1) the independent variable (CSR and OSQ) should affect the mediator (reputation) (2) the mediator
(reputation) should affect the dependent variable (AC) (3) independent variable (CSR and OSQ )
should affect the dependent variable (AC) (4) the effect of the independent variable on the
dependent variable should not be statistically significant or be reduced after taken into account the
effects of the mediator variable.
The first two conditions were tested by estimating Model 3 (the fully mediated model) in Table 4
which specifies that CSR based identity and OSQ can influence AC indirectly through reputation.
Model 3 showed an acceptable fit (x2= 243,529 df= 73 x2/df= 3.32 NFI= 0,95 CFI= 0,96 GFI= 0,93
AGFI= 0,90 RMSEA= 0,067 SRMR= 0,060). Each of the independent variables showed a significant
impact on reputation and reputation also had a significant effect on AC. Therefore, the first two
 conditions were met. In order to test the third condition Model 2 was used. According to the results
CSR and OSQ had significant positive effects on AC.
Table 4: Results of model testing

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

(Proposed Model) (Simple direct Model) (Fully mediated model)
CSR based identity AecWve Commitment 0,374*** 0,456***
Overall Service Quality AecWve Commitment 0,186*** 0,266***
CSR based identity ReputaWon 0,453*** 0,481***
Overall Service Quality ReputaWon 0,443*** 0,445***
Reputation AecWve Commitment 0,181** 0,634***
** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

In order to test the fourth condition, Model 1 (proposed model) and Model 2 (the simple direct
model) were compared based on the magnitudes of the independent variables path coefficients. As
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

the fourth condition imply after the mediator variable was involved in the Model 1, path coefficients
of the independent variables on the dependent variable should be smaller or insignificant compared
to Model 2. As seen on Table 4 the path coefficients of all the independent variables are smaller than
those in Model 2. This result means that all conditions were fulfilled and this makes certain the
existence of significant mediating effect of the reputation.

After the mediation effect was confirmed, the next step is to determine whether the mediation
effect was the full or partial. In order to have full mediation, two additional conditions need to
be met. The first one is that the fit of the Model 3 should be better than Model 1 and the second
condition is that the path coefficients of the independent variables on the dependent variable should
be insignificant in Model 1. The estimated X2 statistics for Model 1 and Model 3 were 206.72 (df= 71)
and 243.3 (df= 73), respectively. The X2 difference value of 36.58 for two degrees of freedom was
significant (p= 0.00). This implies that Model 1 fits the data better than Model 3. Also, the path
coefficients of the independent variables were significant. Therefore, reputation partially mediated
the effects of CSR based identity and OSQ on affective commitment.
5. Discussion and Implications
The aim of this study is to analyse the mediating role of corporate reputation in the influence of CSR
and OSQ on affective commitment. With this aim, a causal model has been proposed that explains
the influence of CSR and OSQ on affective commitment through the role played by company
reputation.
This study makes a number of contributions to the literature. First, it tests and confirms that
corporate reputation plays a central role along the paths from CSR and OSQ to affective
commitment. Specifically, our study expands the traditional view of CSRs and OSQ effect on
customers and suggests that CSR and OSQ do not only affect company reputation, but also affective
 commitment. This study adds further empirical evidence to the recent observation of the positive
effect of CSR on company reputation (Turban and Greening 1997; Stanaland et al., 2011; Doney and
Cannon 1997; Porter and Kramer, 2002) and affective commitment (Bartikowski and Walsh, 2009;
Walsh et al., 2009; Sung and Yang, 2009). Moreover, except Gruen et al.s (2000) study, it tests and
supports for the first time, that OSQ have an effect on affective commitment.

According to the results of the study, adapting CSR can make marketing managers apply interesting
implications. For example, this study has broken up the traditional view about the service quality
and loyalty relationship which says that service quality improvement efforts were key to the
improvement in customer loyalty rates (Zeithaml, 2000). Even though this view is still accepted the
findings of this study indicate that both OSQ and company reputation are important determinants of
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

affective commitment. The implication is that service marketers do not only focus on OSQ if they
want to have high affective commitment. They should also concentrate on CSR and company
reputation. However, as Fullerton (2005) refers it is important for marketing managers to know
whether affective commitment in their firm or industry is largely forced by customer evaluations of
service quality or their perceived CSR identity about the service firm. In the absence of this
knowledge, they may embark on expensive relationship or quality enhancement programs that will
be doomed to failure if customer loyalty in their firm and industry is in fact driven by the neglected
construct (Fullerton, 2005, p108). Given that, CSR has stronger effect than OSQ on affective
commitment, whereas both have similar amount of effect on reputation, companies assign their
resources carefully to use the positive effects of CSR and OSQ. Also, it is encouraging for managers to
know that CSR enhances both affective commitment and company reputation, which suggests they
should devote more in social initiatives. This result supports the view of Luo and Bhattacharya (2006)
as they reported that in todays competitive service market environments, corporate social
responsibility (CSR) represents a high profile view.

The Turkish context of this study also provides other interesting implications. The traditional Turkish
old saying doing good and not wanting others to know it is not appropriate for this situation. As the
result showed that when consumers perceive the bank they are working with have positive CSR
based identity, they are more likely to have positive feelings about banks reputation and high
affective commitment. As a result, it is not enough for managers of retail banks to do CSR initiatives;
also they should pronounce them to the target market to gain important outcomes.

5.2 Limitations and future research

 Although all of our hypotheses are supported, this study has a few limitations that present
opportunities for further research.
First this study examines the antecedent role of OSQ only; future studies should incorporate specific
dimensions of SQ to the model. Secondly, similar to first limitation, our study did not separate the
specific dimensions of CSR (Wang, 2012); future research needs to categorize each different effect of
the specific dimensions of CSR (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic) on corporate
marketing outcomes to see whether these dimensions have similar or different effects on company
reputation and affective commitment. Thirdly, other antecedents and consequences of corporate
reputation (e.g., customer trust, and customer satisfaction) can be take into account in future studies
to figure a more comprehensive framework, and present further insights into the development,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

management and benefits of corporate reputation. Fourthly, this study tests the hypotheses with
retail banking customers based on a convenient sample from Turkey. Future research could test this
model with larger random samples or samples in other contexts, for example, in different service
sectors and in different cultures. Furthermore, because it is likely that individuals who are more
involved in the CSR will be more demanding when evaluating the company s commitment, and that
they will more actively reward (through more favourable responses) companies with a positive CSR
identity (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), measuring the degree of involvement in the CSR domain may
be logical as Perez (2009, p.188) suggested in his study.

Author Biographies

Nil ENGIZEK, PhD, is a research assistant at Istanbul University, School of Business, Department of
Marketing. She obtained her PhD degree from the same department. Her interests include
Marketing, Marketing Research, Consumer Behavior, Fashion Consumption, and Internet Marketing.

Bahar YASIN, is currently an Associate Professor at Istanbul University, School of Business,

Department of Marketing, Turkey. She obtained her PhD degree from the same department. Her
research interests are corporate marketing, healthcare marketing, tourism marketing and consumer
behavior. She has published in International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing,
International Journal of Tourism Policy and International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and
Society as well as she has attended many international and national conferences.

References
Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
 Arkan, E. and Gner, S. (2013), The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility, Service Quality and
Customer-company Identification on Customers, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99,
pp. 304-313.

Bansal, H., Irving, G. and Taylor, S. (2004), A three-componet model of customer commitment to
service providers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 234-250.

Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986), The moderatormediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173.

Bartikowski, B., Walsh, G. and Beatty, S. (2011), Culture and relationship age as moderators in the
corporate reputation and loyalty relationship, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, pp. 966972.

Bartikowski, B. and Walsh, G. (2009), Investigating Mediators Between Corporate Reputation and
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Customer Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No.1, pp. 39-44.

Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L. (1997), Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.

Bennett, R., Rentschler, R., (2003), Foreword, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 207-
210.

Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M and van Bruggen, G. H. (2005), Corporate associations and consumer
product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
69 No. 3, pp. 35-48.

Bolton, R. N. and Drew, J. H. (1991), A multistage model of customers' assessments of service quality
and value, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 375-384.

Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility?
Highlighting the attitude-behavior gap, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp.
355-368.

Bowen, D. E., and Schneider, B. (1988). Services Marketing and Management-Implications For
Organizational-Behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 10, pp. 43-80.

Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D. and Ketchen, D. J. (2010). Reconsidering the reputationperformance

relationship: A resource-based view, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 588-609.

Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J. and Brand, R. R. (2002), Performance-only measurement of service

quality: a replication and extension, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 17-31.

Branco, M. C. and Rodrigues, L. L. (2006), Corporate social responsibility and resource-based

perspectives, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75, pp. 97113.

Bromley, D. B. (2001), Relationships between personal and corporate reputation, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 316334.

Brown, T. J. and Dacin, P. A. (1997), The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68 84.
 Capozzi, L. (2005), Corporate reputation: our role in sustaining and building a valuable asset,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 290293.

Carvalho, S. W., Sen, S., Mota M. D. O. and de Lima, R. C. (2010), Consumer reactions to CSR: A
Brazilian perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 291-310.

Casal, L., Flavin, C. and Guinalu, M. (2008), The role of perceived usability, reputation,
satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation process, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 325-345.

Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., and Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments, Journal of
retailing, Vol. 76 No.2, pp. 193-218.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1994), SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-Based

and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations Measurement of Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 125131.

Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992), Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55 68.

Davies, G., Chun, R. and Kamins, M. A. (2010), Reputation gaps and the performance of service
organizations, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 530546.

Dean , D .(2002), Associating the corporation with a ciantable event though sponsorship: Meaning
the effects on corporate community relations, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1 12.

Dierickx, I., and Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage, Management Science, Vol.35, pp.15041511.

Doney, P. M. and Cannon, J. P. (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller

relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 3551.

Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G. R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J. and Meffert, H. (2006), The relative strength
of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59 No. 12, pp. 1207-1213.

Farrell, A. M. (2010), Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu
(2009), Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 324-327.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business Press,
Cambridge, MA .

Fornell C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.

Fullerton, G. (2003), When does commitment lead to loyalty?, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 333-344.
 Fullerton, G. (2005), The service qualityloyalty relationship in retail services: does commitment
matter?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 99-111.

Gjerde, K. A. P. And Slotnick, S. A. (2004), Quality and reputation: The effects of external and
internal factors over time, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O. and Acito, F. (2000), Relationship marketing activities, commitment,
and membership behaviors in professional associations, Journal of marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 34-
49.

Grunwald, G. and Hempelmann, B. (2011), Impacts of reputation for quality on perceptions of

company responsibility and product-related dangers in times of product-recall and public complaints
crises: results from an empirical investigation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 13, pp. 264283.

Gundlach, G., Achrol, R. and Mentzer, J. (1995), The structure of commitment in Exchange, Journal
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 7892.

Grhan-Canli, Z. and Batra, R. (2004), When corporate image affects product evaluations: The
moderating role of perceived risk, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 197-205.

Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall.

Hardaker, S. and C. Fill (2005), Corporate service brands: the intellectual and emotional engagement
of employees, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7, pp. 365376

Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an

investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents, Journal of
service research,Vol. 4 No.1, pp. 60-75.

Hay, R. and Gray, E. (1974), Social responsibilities of business managers, Academy of management
journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 135-143.

He, H. and Li, Y. (2011), CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and
moderating effect of service quality, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 673-688.

Hennig-Thurau, T. A. and Klee, A. (1997), The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship
quality on customer retention a critical reassessment and model development, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 737765.

Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995), The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 510.

Hur, W. M., Kim, H. and Woo, J. (2014), How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating
mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 1,
pp. 75-86.

Jreskog, K. G. and Srbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Scientific Software International.

Julian, C. C and Ramaseshan, B. (1994), The role of customer-contact personnel in the marketing of
a retail bank's services, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp.
29-34.
 Kang, G. D., and James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grnroos's
service quality model, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.
266-277.

Keh, H. T. and Xie, Y. (2009), Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: the roles of
trust, identification and commitment, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38, pp. 732742.

Lacey, R. and Kennett-Hensel, P. A. (2010), Longitudinal effects of corporate social responsibility on

customer relationships, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 581-597.

Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F. and Pai, D. C. (2010), The effects of corporate social responsibility on
brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate
reputation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 457-469.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., Rapert, M. I. And Newman, C. L. (2012), Does perceived consumer fit matter in
corporate social responsibility issues, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1558-1564.

Lichtenstein, D., Drumwright, M. and Braig, B. (2004), The effect of corporate social responsibility on
customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofi ts, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 (October), pp.
1632.

Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006), Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and
marketvalue, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 1-18.

Marin L., Ruiz, S. And Rubio, A. (2009), The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social
responsibility on consumer behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Medyaloji (2011), Sosyal sorumlulukta ne kan bankalar hangileri? Published in: 10.05.2011.
http://www.medyaloji.net/haber/sosyal_sorumlulukta_one_cikan_bankalar_hangileri_.htm

Menon, S. and Kahn, G. (2003), Corporate sponsorships of philantropic activities: When do they
impact perception of sponsor brand?, Journal of Customer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 316 332.

Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1997), Commitment in the workplace: theory, research and application,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moorman, C, Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), Relationships between providers and users of
marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 29 (August), pp. 314-329.

Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 20- 38.

Nielsen (2014), Doing well by doing good, Published in 17.06.2014.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/doing-well-by-doing-good.html

Nguyen, N., &and Leblanc, G. (2001), Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers
retention decisions in services, Journal of retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 227-236.
 Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1991), Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420- 450.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.

Park, J., Lee, H. and Kim, C. (2014), Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and corporate
reputation: South Korean consumers' perspectives, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp.
295-302.

Prez, R. C. (2009), Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility: the role of
consumer identification with the company, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 177-
191.

Podsakoff, M. P., MacKenzie, B. S., Jeong-Yeon, L. and Podsakoff, P. N. (2003), Common method
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879903.

Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 531544.

Ponzi, L. J., Fombrun, C. J. and Gardberg, N. A. (2011), RepTrak Pulse: Conceptualizing and
validating a short-form measure of corporate reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 14 No.
1, pp.15-35.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2002), The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy,

Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 5768.

Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E. and Howard, D. R. (1999), Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in
service contexts, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-348.

Reichheld, F. P., and Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard
business review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 105-111.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp.
825-36.

Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002), Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial
performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077 1093.

Salmones, M. M. G., Crespo, A. H. and del Bosque, I. R. (2005), Influence of corporate social
responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 369-
385.

Schinietz, K. E. and Epstein, M. J. (2005), Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate
social responsibility during a crisis, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 47, pp. 327345.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225
243.
 Shamsie, J. (2003), The context of dominance: an industry-driven framework for exploiting
reputation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 199-215.

Shemwell, D. J., Yavas, U., and Bilgin, Z. (1998). Customer-service provider relationships: an
empirical test of a model of service quality, satisfaction and relationship-oriented
outcomes, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No.2, pp. 155-168.

Stanaland, A. J. S., Lwin, M. O. and Murphy, P. E. (2011), Consumer perceptions of the antecedents
and consequences of corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp.
47-55.

Sung, M. and Yang, S. U. (2009), Studentuniversity relationships and reputation: a study of the links
between key factors fostering students supportive behavioral intentions towards their
university, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 787-811.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

Tam, J. L. (2004), Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: an integrative model,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 No. 7-8, pp. 897-917.

Turban, D. B. and Greening, D. W. (1997), Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 658672.

Walsh, G., Bartikowski, B. and Beatty, S. E. (2014), Impact of Customer-based Corporate Reputation
on Non-monetary and Monetary Outcomes: The Roles of Commitment and Service Context Risk,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 166-185.

Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., Jackson, P. R. and Beatty, S. E. (2009), Examining the antecedents and
consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective, British Journal of Management, Vol.
20 No. 2, pp. 187-203.

Walsh, G. and Beatty, S. E. (2007), Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale
development and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 127-
143.

Wang, R. T. (2012), Modeling corporate social performance and job pursuit intention: Mediating
mechanisms of corporate reputation and job advancement prospects, Journal of business
ethics, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 569-582.

Wang, Y., Lo, H. P. and Yang, Y. (2004), An integrated framework for service quality, customer value,
satisfaction: Evidence from China's telecommunication industry, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol.
6 No. 4, pp. 325-340.

Wang, Y., H.-P. Lo and Y. V. Hui (2003), The antecedents of service quality and product quality and
their influence on bank reputation: evidence from the banking industry in China, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 13, pp. 7283

Wartick, S. L. (2002), Measuring corporate reputation definition and data, Business & Society, Vol.
41 No. 4, pp. 371-392.

Wetzels, M., De Ruyter, K. and Van Birgelen, M. (1998), Marketing service relationships: the role of
commitment, Journal of business & industrial marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4/5, pp. 406-423.
 Van Marrewijk, M. (2003), Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between
agency and communion, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 95-105.

Yoon, S., and Suh, H. (2004). Ensuring IT consulting SERVQUAL and user satisfaction: a
modified measurement tool, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp.341-351.

Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry and A. Parasuraman (1996), The behavioral consequences of service
quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 3146.

Zeithaml, V., 2000. Service quality, profitability and the economic worth of customers: what we know
and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science 28 (1), 6785.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)
 Table 1: Correlations between Constructs
AC REP CSR SQ
AC 0,69 0,40 0,38 0,30
REP 0,64 0,51 0,61 0,55
CSR 0,62 0,78 0,52 0,38
SQ 0,55 0,74 0,62 0,74
Bold numbers on the diagonal show the (AVE) average variance
extracted. Numbers below the diagonal show correlations among
each construct, numbers above the diagonal show shared variance
among each construct
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)
 Table 2: Scale items and construct evaluation
Item No Construct Factor Loading t Value Reliability
= .90
AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT (AC)
AVE= ,694; CR= ,901
AC1 I feel like part of a family as a customer of X 0,803 21.47
AC2 I feel emotionally attached to X 0,851 23.45
AC3 X has a great deal of personal meaning for me 0,838 22.91
AC4 I feel a strong sense of identification with X 0,839 22.93

=.83
REPUTATION (REP)
AVE= ,578; CR= ,845
REP1 X is a company I have a good feeling about 0,796 20.79
REP2 X has a good overall reputation 0,646 15.73
REP3 X is a company that I admire DELETED
REP4 X is a company that I trust 0,779 20.21
REP5 X is a company that I respect 0,809 21.29
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)

=.87
CSR IDENTITY (CSR)
AVE= ,556; CR= ,883
CSR1 X is aware of environmental issues. DELETED
CSR2 X fulfils its social responsibilities. DELETED
CSR3 X gives back to society. 0,717 17.32
CSR4 X acts in a socially responsible way. 0,723 19,02
CSR5 X makes philanthropic contributions in its 0,784 19.78
business activities.
CSR6 I think that X acts with societys interests in mind. 0,756 20,04

= .90
OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ)
AVE= ,744; CR= ,897
OSQ1 X deliver excellent overall service 0,839 22,92
OSQ2 The offerings of X are of high quality 0,894 25,29
OSQ3 X deliver superior service in every way 0,853 23,53

Goodness-of-fit indexes
2 2
X = 215,64 df= 83 X /df= 2,60 NFI= 0,98 CFI= 0,99 GFI= 0,94 AGFI= 0,92 RMSEA= 0,058 SRMR= 0,043
Note: AVE= Average variance extracted; CR= composite reliability; CSR= corporate social responsibility.
 Table 3: Correlations between Constructs (After deleting the REP3, CSR1 and CSR2)
AC REP CSR SQ
AC 0,69 0,35 0,41 0,30
REP 0,59 0,58 0,50 0,52
CSR 0,635 0,71 0,56 0,38
SQ 0,55 0,72 0,62 0,74
Bold numbers on the diagonal show the (AVE) average variance
extracted. Numbers below the diagonal show correlations among
each construct, numbers above the diagonal show shared variance
among each construct
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)
 Table 4: Results of model testing

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

(Proposed Model) (Simple direct Model) (Fully mediated model)
CSR based identity AecDve Commitment 0,374*** 0,456***
Overall Service Quality AecDve Commitment 0,186*** 0,266***
CSR based identity ReputaDon 0,453*** 0,481***
Overall Service Quality ReputaDon 0,443*** 0,445***
Reputation AecDve Commitment 0,181** 0,634***
** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 03:56 29 January 2017 (PT)