Jura of Ceaee eduction 2622020) 121348 Contents liste available at ScienceDirect B Cleaner Journal of Cleaner Production r.comilocateljelepro ELSEVIER Sustaining customer engagement behavior through corporate social | responsibility: The roles of environmental concern and green trust ean Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah *, Dahlia El-Manstrly °, Ming-Lang Tseng °°", Thurasamy Ramayah ** “i ein i! ry tag 0.05)The second indirect pathway from perceived CSR-brand fit to SCEB, through self-brand integra- tion, is significant (9 = 0.05, p < 0.001). This leads us to reject I11 and support 112 Interestingly, the third indirect effect that passes ough self-cause integration and self-brand integration serially with the former influencing. the latter, reaches. significance (6 = 0007, p < 0.001), Therefore, 13 is supported. In addition, theS11, ache a jour of Caner Production 22 (2020) 21548 ° esl ofthe foie hgbeder ensues Fisher order conatucs Tormatve die Dae wea ir ontdeace neers ve ‘Se-cuuse Caren sersey om jm ono] Te " Desired seleidensity oss does oat 05 in Lie meaning and ost 1675 (04s, 059) an selebrand Cunent se sdetsy oss ou 027,042) 108 " Desired sf idetiny oss sn05 as, 06n1 106 Life meaning and 056 eas rs.osa nas susaimble easter ‘Transactional (pe-envtonnesta 056 ass 052,050), 135 fenaagement bane: Nopwtansachonal pro-communty 058 aa 155.054), 136 stoner havecsey bat oma 1035.0501, vat ‘zentip Feedback baz tise 035,050), 1a benawer Beiping 030, oer 025.035), 2s Teleronce ot 4 108,021, as Tipotiees_Paraneces TSE tvalee ase conheence nervals_ Remo a ‘etelved Siebrand ft ~ Sei-ause integration — 5 201 02 181 (000,009) Supported a Perceived CSk-rand ft Sebrand integration =» SCEB os 60 331 [aos 009) suppose i Pereved SR-band ft Selbcnuetntegision ~ Selcbrand integration + SCEB 067 Get 480 [004 010) Supported 8 eral ance ~ Sel-case integration 10 ae2 296 (002,016) Supported Lowe -15D(Envronmentl ence), au ars a7 (040,031) otsgncnt Moderate eon fEronmena oper) 037 005 679 joae ae) Sieipeae igh “150 (emuronmentl ences) ss aoe Sse faze oss) Snes ay ——_“Seleause integration» Enienmencl concern + SCEB bes 047 [-or2.007) et supported towe-150 (Enuronnentl concer), 037 tae fore.aas} ot signe Neer her frome ene) 06 20 favo. 024) Signore (amtincal janet et svcd with sce nkgrtion 4 Ferceved Strand Wt Selbcawse negation — 5 ot aca 192 (000,008) ‘Not supported {owe -150(Enronnentl once) M005 008 075 [017 008) Not secont Moderate; Mean fEtonmenta oper) aoe” ons 195 joan om) Not cnt sx Peterived Siebrand HT Gree rust Sel-brand snteration oot aos ast (04.013) Not supported owe =15D (Green ra) 033 070 349 (012.050) Siipeat Moderate, Meon {een it} os aos ear fas 34) Sent igh ISD (Gren tt) 057 ao 356 jou. 0sa) Snicant Hsp _Selrand inception» Green ust -+ SCS 09 004 205 foo. 018) Stpposee ee -18D (Cree rar) Oi ays 148 (038.041) Rot sgfcant Moderate Meon free st) 029 aos 530 jars aan) Senet gh 150 (oreen " oss 01s 345 fous. ns) Seitcant ondblanalindcect ect xscated wit sel-brand iteration Hs Fercevee Strand it > Seitirand nteation > CEB 013 002 55? (008.017) supponee e150 (reen ra) oe 05 fo [oon 013) Natrgicont Moderate Meon free st} 013 aos ase [ove 019) Sener igh “150 Gren st) 056 00s 259 fo0s.025) Senitcant Pereevee Strand ft SCER 037 aot sor (029,045) Senieans SCEE = Customer yey 036 God 822 [oan 044) Sones " SCEB — Customer ezenhip behavior as cot tae [oats o3¢) Snes Fetes Reis wee based on Boosraping with 5000 sbrampes (wo-aled results show that the direct effect of perceived CSR-brand fit on perceived CSR-brand fit and SCEB is partially mediated by two SCEB is both positive and significant (8 = 0.37, p < 0.001). Taken pathways: (1) the pathway through self-brand integration and (2) together, it can be concluded that the relationship between the serial pathway through self-cause integration and self-brandintegration. 55, Moderated mediation analysis (19-H!5) Moderated mediation, also known as conditional indirect effect, ‘means thatthe indirect effect of an independent variable (X) on a dependent variable () through a mediator variable (M) is contin- sent upon the value of a moderator variable (W) (ayes, 2018) s recommended by lair et al. (2019), We used the two-stage approach to create the interaction terms, since the exogenous and endogenous variables, such as self-cause andjor brand integration, and SCEB were measured formatively. 5.51, Environmental cancern First, we created two interaction terms to determine whether environmental concern moderates perceived CSR-brand fit—+self- cause integration —+SCEB link, As indicated in Table 5 and Fig 4 the first interaction term, perceived CSR-brand fit x environmental concer (with self-cause integration serving as the endogenous vatiable), was significant (H4a: B = 010, p < 001). We then examined whether the effect of perceived CSR-brand fit on self cause integration varied at three different levels of environmental concern. The three levels were as follows: the mean (M — 5.03 SD = 0.93), which is equivalent to moderate levels of environ- ‘mental concern among the sample; the mean minus ane standard deviation (~1 SD; ie. 4.10), which is equivalent to low levels of environmental concern; and the mean plus one standard (+1 SD; ie, 5.95), which is equivalent to high levels of environmental concer. Consistent with H4a in Table 5, the results show that the effec of perceived CSR-brand fit on sef-cause integration is sig- nificant and positive when the level of environmental concern is high (B = 045. p < 0.001), but is insignificant when the level of environmental concern is low (B = 0.1. p> 0.05). ‘To interpret this moderating effect, we plotted the relationship «one standard deviation above and below the mean of envizon- ‘mental concer. As evident in Fig. 2 the upper green line which represents the slope at 2 high level of environmental concern is steeper than the lower red line which represents the slope at alow level of environmental concern, This suggests that the effect of perceived CSR-brand fit on self-cause integration is stronger when the level of environmental concer is high and weaker when the level of environmental concer is low. ea joa of Caner Production 22 (2020) 121348 On the other hand, the second interaction term, self-cause Integration x environmental concern (with SCEB serving as the endogenous variable). was insignificant (H14b: 8 = -0.02, p > 0.05). Contrary to our expectation, the results in Table 5 show that the effect of self-cause integration on SCEB is significant and positive only when the level of environmental concern is moderate (B = 012, p < 005). In addition, the mediating effect of self-cause Integration remains insignificant after including environmental concer as a moderator in the model (H4: 8 = 0.04, p > 0.05). “Therefore, we arrived at a conclusion that environmental concern moderates only the linkage between perceived CSR-brand fit and sellecauise integration, but not the indirect effect of perceived CSR- brand ft on SCEB (via self-cause integration), rejecting Hi, 552. Green trust “Two interaction terms were also created to determine whether areen trust moderates perceived C5R-brand fit—vself-brand inte- sration—+SCEB link As indicated in Table 5 and Fig. 4, the first Interaction term, perceived CSR-brand fi x green trust (with self= brand integration serving as the endogenous variable), was insig- nificant (H5a: B = 0.04, p> 0.05).We further examined whether the effect of perceived CSR-brand ft on self-brand integration varied at thtee different levels of green trust. The three levels were a8 fol- lows: the mean (M — 453 SD — 118), which is equivalent to moderate levels of green trust among the sample: the mean minus fone standard deviation (—1 SD; ie, 3.35), which is equivalent to low levels of green srust; and the mean phus one standard (1 SD; 4, 5.71), which is equivalent to high levels of green trust. Table S showed that perceived CSR-brand fit has the strongest effect on seltbrand integration when the level of green trust is moderate (8045, p <0.01) rather than high (B ~ 037, p< 001), Thus, HSais ‘ot support. (On the other hang, the second interaction term, self-brand Integration x green trust (with SCEB acting as the endogenous variable), was significant (HSb: B = 0.08, p < 0.05) Consistent with LSD in Table 5, the results show that the effect of self-brand inte- sration on SCEB is significant and positive when the level of green {rusts high (B = 043, p < 0.001), butis insignificant when the level of green trust is low (8 0.18, p > 0.05). To interpret this moder- ating effect, we plotted the slope ofthe relationship at one standard deviation above and below the mean of green trust. As evident in Fig. 3, the upper green line which represents the slope at a high level of green trust is steeper than the lower red line which rep- resents the slope ata low level of green trust, This suggests that the Environmental concern Paranes sR [caso —ecawen— Ca 6] Fg 2. Mocetatng eet f envionment cee 2 the hip betwen peceved Kean nd selec aerationS11, lucha joaral of Caner Production 22 (2020) 21548 0 settean igen [or a1 sD — ofatwean — oT ai-1 80 Fig 3. Moderating efecof see uta he laos between eran integration and CER Frinton ofthe references a celui this ire lege the eer ti sre) I ——— Sc effect of seltbrand integration on SCEB is stronger when the level of green trust is high and weaker when the level of green trust is Tow. Thus, H5b is validated In addition, the significant mediating effect of selebrand inte- sation remains after including gieen tust as a moderator in the mode (15:8 = 033, p < 0001). Consistent with 1 in Table 5 the results show thatthe indvect effect of perceived CSK-brand fit on SCEB (via elf-brand integration is significant and positive when the level of green trust is high (8 = 016, p< 0.01), buts insignit= icant when the level of green trust is iow (B = 006, p > 005). 56. Main effects (116-17) In line with the hypothesized main effects, SCEB is positively felated to both customer loyalty (6 = 036. p < 0.001) and CCB (G = 048, p < 02001) (see Table 5 and Fig. 4, Thus, 119 and 117 are supported. poor | D reste 6. General discussion In reconciling the conflicting views on the effect of CSR pro- {grams on customer outcomes and in response to calls by previous studies on examining how CSR-brand fit works (eg. Green and Peloza, 2011; Kim and Ferguson, 2019; Mostafa and FlSahn, 2016), the current study develops and empirically tests a framework encompassing both psychological mechanisms and. boundary conditions that underlie consumers’ reactions to perceived CSR- brand fit. The findings endorse Peloza and Shang’s (2011) thatthe effect of CSR-brand fit on consumer responses isnot simple and straightforward. While sell-brand integration is shown to ‘mediate the relationship between perceived CSR-brand fit and SSCEB, self-cause integration only influences ths relationship when itis coupled with sel-brand integration as a serial mediator, Such serial mediation effects are contingent on the individuals’ level of, perceived environment concer and green trust. While the positive Influence of SCEB on customers’ in-tole, loyalty behavior is ex- pected, this stuéy found that its effect on customers’ extra-role,2 SH. hace aj Joa f Cane Production 282 (2020) 121548 citizenship behavior is even more salient. These Findings provide important theoretical and managerial implications. 61. Theoretical implications In terms of theoretical implications, our study conteibutes to the literature on CSR by arguing that the effectiveness of CSR programs hinges not only on how well t matches/its the firms’ core busi- nesses, but also on consumers’ values, Prior research has paid litle attention to consumers’ fit perceptions of the CSR with their per- sonal values and lifestyles (Lee etal, 2012). Moreover, there is a dearth of study on the psychological mechanisms and boundary factors that underlie consumer responses to CSR-brand ft, with only 7% of existing CSR articles focusing on the mediating effect (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Although Abbas etal. (2018) have linked (CSR to customer engagement in the banking context. they fail to account for CSR-brand fit, along with psychological mechanisms and individual values, which may limit our understanding. To broaden the knowledge in this stream. we introduce con- sumers’ self-brand andjor cause integration as new psychological ‘mechanisms that influence SCEB in the context of CSR. We also shed further light on this psychological process by identifying two diferent but converging boundary conditions, namely environ- mental concern and green trust. Thus, our study provides novel insights into the understanding of how and when perceived CSR- brand fit drives SCEB, constituting. viable explanation for the inconsistent findings on the CSR-customer outcomes relationship (ex, Amatulli et al, 2018; Loureiro et ab. 2012; Park et al, 2014; Pino et al, 2016). Consumers are increasingly factoring environ~ rmental_and societal criteria into their consumption decisions (Perez, 2005), yet we know very litle about the interplay between Consumers’ motivational factor (environmental concern) and their DeliefS about the firms’ environmental performance (green trust) Our study shows that the relationship between perceived CSR- brand ft and SCEB is serially mediated by self-cause andjor brand integration. The magnitude of this effect is greater for individuals with high levelsof environmental concern and green rust Given that the main purpose of CSR programs isto contribute to social better- ‘ment, CSK participation can make consumers'lfe more meaningful rather than just reinforce their self-identity (Batra et al, 2012), For CR scholars, we encourages them to shift from focusing only on consumer-company identification to focusing on other meaningful psychological mechanisms such as self-cause andjor brand integra~ tion (seeeg, Chae al, 2016;Deng and Xu, 2017) Ourstudy’s findings also lend support to Viachas and Vrechopoulos's (2012) contention ‘that CSR. programs can influence consumer behavior through ‘entiching the self mechanism and provide the first empirical evi- dence forthe spillover effect of self-cause integration to the brand level. Furthermore, our study supplements the literature on CSR with more holistic view of ft—the interplay between cause, brand, and consumer. Specifically, we show that customers’ personal values (environmental concern) interacts with their perceptions of CSR- brand fin order to integrate the cause into their sense of self Unlike prior research that has historically focused on in-role loyalty behavior (eg, Abbas et al, 2018; Dessart et al, 2015; Harrigan et al, 2017), our study explores extra-role CCB as 2 Key outcome of SCEB'The widespread use of technology and various social media channels has granted customers a new role, sich that ‘they can make significant contributions by recommending, the environmental programs to others, contributing new ideas to the environmental practices and supporting other customers online. in addition to other discretionary behaviors that go beyond their prescribed role By highlighting this understudied but managetially highly relevant construct; namely, CCB, our study contributes tothe burgeoning literature on customer engagement behavior. 62, Managerial implications Despite the preponderance of catbon offsetting in achieving sustainable development goals, the uptake rate among air avelers purchase is very low. The findings suggest that aiilines should evaluate the extent to which their CSR programs (e.g. carbon off- setting programs) are aligned with thei line of business and target market if they are to reap the expected benefits of their CSR en- ddeavors. To create the fit perceptions, managers should explain the purpose of their CSR programs and provide adequate information to support the company-cause alliances. Given that a one-size-fits- all approach is unlikely, airlines should target their CSR programs at Specific groups of consumers who share similar values, For example, carbon offset programs should be perceived as more attractive by consumers who are environmentally conscious, ‘making it easy for environmental causes to be incorporated into their intimate space. For a highly environmental-conscious group. the focus of communication strategies should be on the CSR's ability to satisfy consumers’ psychological needs, thereby helping them express their self-identity and making their life worth living ‘Another Way to encourage customer participation in CSR programs is tohighlight the co-benefits delivered by carbon offsetting such as supporting human capital and poverty reduction, along with their environmental benefits, which will increase the cause meaning- fulness. To enhance the preferences of this group of consumers, they should be allowed to choose the types af carbon offset pro~ grams (eg, renewable energy and forest restoration) they would like to fund. In short the best communication strategy for airines is to frame the messages around the relevance of CSR programs tothe firms’ core businesses as well asthe consumers’ values. Interestingly, we found that consumers’ desire to engage in sus- tainable engagement behavior—both pro-environmental and pro- community—are not strong even ifthe CSR activity has won their alinity and successfully integrated into their sense of self Instead. higher levels of SCEB are only achieved when consumers’ self-cause integration is transferable tothe brand and they perceive the green environmental initiatives ofthat brand as trustworthy. Therefore, the key challenge for aislines’ CSR communication is to reduce public skepticism by improving the transparency and credibility of their carbon offset programs. One way to do soisto provide more in-depth ‘information on how the carbon emissioniscalcuated and the price of the carbon credits to offset thase emissions. Notably, the methods ‘used in measuring and quantifying the carbon emissions reduction need tobe standardized in order to avoid consumer confusion, ‘To increase CSR credibility, airlines should partner with climate and sustainable development bodies to assure consumers that their ‘carbon offset programs are accredited to high international stan- ddards, such as the Gold Standard and Carbon Standard, Upon the completion ofthe carbon offseting process, atlines should provide customers with relevant certificates as proof that their target of zero-catbon travel is achieved. To reassure customers, aitline ‘managers need to adopt some evidence-based marketing tactics in support of their environmental/green claims. Examples include expert witness statements, testimony from previous customers, {quotations from magazines, and reports on the achievement of, carbon offsets projects by the third-parties. To avoid customers just passed on the costs’ perceptions airlines should announce the steps that have been taken to reduce carbon emissions, For example, replacing old airplanes with more fuel-efficient ones, betver optimizing ground operations and flight planes. 63. Implications for theory and practice for cleaner production/ sustainability Airlines are confronted with increasing pressure to mitigateSH, ache a oar of Caner Producto 22 (2020) 21548 B carbon emissions, yet air travel continues to rise in popularity over the world, Airplane pollution, which has increased by almost wwo- third since 2005, is projected to surge sevenfold by 2050, propelled bya proliferation of low-cost aifines and an increase in per capital income in developing countries (Wilkes, 2018) Therefore pollution reduction, a crucial element of sustainability, has become a great concern to airlines (Elleuch et al, 2018). Cleaner production is a concept that aims at improving overall efficiency while reducing risks tothe environment and human by continuously applying in- tegrated pollution prevention andjor control strategies to pro- cesses, products, and services (UNEP, 2005), Our study focuses on voluntary carbon offsetting as 2 part of environmental CSR to control the air pollution caused by travel, However, the goal of cleaner production cannot be reached if customer participation in suich schemes is low. While the importance of CSR-bran fit re- ‘mains, we found that its effectiveness ultimately depends on the extent to which a CSR program is aligned with customers’ values. For example, environmental CSR may be particularly relevant 0 customers who care about the environmental issue and hence, aren value in CSR programs can be better embedded in message directed at them. Environmental concern and green trust can further serve as impactful forees to activate SCEB. Our study adds the psychological (self-cause andjor brand integration) and indi- vidual diference factors (environmental concern and green trust) into cleaner production and sustainability discussion, Practically, four study suggests airline managers to better target their envi- ronmental CSR programs at consumers who are environmentally conscious and improve their green trust perceptions. Improve- iments in CSR strategies should help to reduce air pollution and promote sustainable travel ur study contributes tothe sustainability literature by linking SCEB to their citizenship behavior. Customer citizenship behavior is the pro-organization behaviors where customers exhibit behaviors beneficial for the organization and its initiatives to protect the environment, including recommending the environmental pro- grams to others, helping others to enact green values, and sug- gesting environment improvements (Boiral sind Paillé, 2012) Inthe tourism context, Tuan (2018) showed that CCB for the environment promotes the organizational citizenship behavior among em- ployees, thereby intensifying the effect af CSR on organizational ‘itizenship behavior, Employees’ organizational citizenship behavior has become a key driver to the success in the environ- ‘mental management practices, which is critical for the corporate sustainability and its environmental performance (Paillé ec al, 2013). Our study matks the convergence between sustainability, customer engagement, and CCB research streams, Italso opens new avenues for future study to examine the synergy between the engagement and citizenship behaviors of customers and that of employees, which could lead to better outcomes 7. Limitations and future research ‘This study is subject to some limitations. Fist, the generaliz- ability of this study’s findings is constrained by the fact that one type of OCB (e.g. Facebook fan pages) is examined within a single sector (eg. airline), Future research could replicate this model on different social networks (eg, Twitter) and product or service categories (eg. fashion retail, restaurants, Nospitality). to see Whether the results stil hold. Second, this study’s cross-sectional design impedes causal inferences. While cross-sectional data can help clarify the temporal relationship between perceived CSR- brand fit and SCEB, some links, such as the Tarof? relationship between SCEB and in-role loyally and extra-role CCB behaviors. is best validated with longitudinal, time-lagged data. Third, this study evaluates perceived CSR-brand fit without attending to the impact of ciflerent types of CSR eause-brand fit (Giizmsn and Davis, 2017). Analyzing the eifferential effects of multiple CSR-brand fit (es. functional vs. valuelimage) on mukiple self-integration objects (cause vs, brand) would be an interesting topic for future research, Declaration of competing interest ‘This manuscript is fre of conflict of interests, (CRediT authorship contribution statement Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah: Writing - original draft, Dahlia El- “Manstrly: Writing - review & editing, Ming-Lang Tseng: Writing - review & editing, Thurasamy Ramayah: Methodology. Acknowledgements ‘ean erased epee, va wy shoul nat to Carbonfun al wares sas, sing sea levels ai deceased sow ae ce cover ur ecosysems, seloconami seco han belt Ri Tasd and at se Such ange ould have 2 Foundation leading eno ie ae partnering wi bo shethane CN rom andl ad conver iit etic thal can bed for amin hres Your dealon alls potion of you lights COD: Cereby ensuring & Deay plane and stable cate To lp eacutage th eort. we Wl pulchse te equalet ots wh wil be wed tf se tive i expected to proce several min arbon aes ave the nef Yeas Thin ‘iten booting online you have the option of setting You ight which case a charge wil be added othe cost of your ight Akenatvey you ca oe your ight ahve by entering your name ane booking number onthe ot paze of ut webs4 SH, hace aj Jour f Caner Producto 22 (2020) 121548 References soutien ean sea ‘Acuns ,ius A3E1S Wat we new and dest to abt caper seal iepeny ee deca agenda} Manag 380 90-98 ‘ats Mohan eli eS, 208 Rey eeu pe cae ji eve ge bur Totty Manag ae 8-8 avout’. Yontn, CM. Hola 208, Corpor seca spent htery:vesipne fe snfeedets and aucomes 1 Buc fer 8 GY ‘smatl.De Aages M. Kahu. Raman S208, conser percepts tty bande Cx bates: anvesteaion of he eof Sar sb Conic convmpin Ges oe 194277 2 ‘nc a0 Fas 8 ee alien aac ert ees “Recesred 1s one 2018) ‘ow Caer Bi, 20, Rede teaming SR company en shgnateeendsties | Marae 26019008, sabiecctabesn ME Stland 0) 210 The setinship betwen eae J. Psychol. 144 (3), 313326, “ aes Ny Pinto, 207 Te 207 Fate $00 go vin nd ice of Teagan ach and VsTebe Arlen perms) Semana tse Dandy J Pets. Soc. Psyehol. 51 (6), 1173-1182. “ 7 - sade hi Melk ADs Tj, Ea 2000, he lnfance of caueseied go ince’ fe a es am | earth, G21 nveseing mediators betwen comer rep Tate sd cum cient betiots [Be Res 646) 29 sas Avs Bata Rr S082 Brand oe Mae 2) feces Mackey, fant Wat fle for ftetingavacen rea rnstans ns dep-au eon wore?) Taner Manag 83,715 sec Ke Ke cM 2018 terre en ae meses PLS Sth gainer une recewesermave pe moe feng Tange Pan cal iponnty on ersme ioe | bse 9 0 tiatives. |. Bus. Ethics 85 (2), 257-272, ~ bigness Ae Maat J 2072 Dl ate oes and sou 6 ul 201, ornetonl ze bev rhe enna pentetre an sin, sh 0 : ea joensen 0 camer Gale) lees A, Cook, 208 Enisin Recon Tages for Tnematonal iiteyand Shipping” sy frie SN” cutee Decorator ral Poke. Saopen aie on Raman M Yols Oe Ves NB, Cer engage be= fin ac me acing nnvatan oppor se ear A 11 The yam of ort sc responsi twat mor Castro-Gonzalez, $.. Bande, &, Femandez-Ferrin. P. Kimura, 2019, Corporate. Cann ana moral ier} Gea. foe 9,6, acs eps {C3 mops on ne CSR rad and bond ay chen V5 200 The deers a given rad rand Sublcon snd gent j hr ie 0 2) oP sp ste usw Ss ped a es 4S cho AS, Riche BW, Relig. KS, 208, A melon modeler aes etait prnane wake ainda dation 6A Cone Corunicatons, 2017 CSR study Aaa at wweoneconin com) coutverdga Basen cacti 2010 taseduc tt ‘Aementa M, Garca-Caéena, C. (E45), Psytholegial Approaches to Susta billy Nova Scence Publishers: New York pp, 3-8 Copersmizh A. De Cosbos. D. 201 The adopon of corporate soda re “ponsibity pacts In the ane industry.) usta Tourism 19 (1) 38-77, crazreen Re signees. E, Akazadeerreca A. 2008. The rle of st fetal pene In consume: sence witha scaly resonable Company) Bus thc 94 9-904 babhotkar #A. Bageze KP. 2002, An atidnal mode of echnelogy bases eric: modern eects of conser trate ane stations far} AC Maret, 530 (3184-201, De Ves, Catan) 201 Examining the erivers and brand perfrmance r= Dlesions af ester engagement sith angen the socal mein ene trent) brand Manag 21 (6) 385-595, betado-alster hamuer-Aiemn JL; 2005, Des brand tra mate ‘ony? f Pred Bane Monae 182 189-196, Detaosallester & aazon Me Flaes-Man, 2007. Ths aneeapemorpivee Sra olovese tele accion pa) Mae le 3) Dest Vee Menem 6205, ese epg Dela Cond, Meshey-Senthan, C fay. J. Goodman. 5, 2019 Sell media fhgagementbehaviet a arbewsik for engaging castors Hough och fred content He | Market 9310) 2213-2205 bu, Ssanattacharya CB, ses. 2007 Reaping veltoal rewards fom corporate Seca tesponsbiy the fol of compestive postaning | Res Maret 24 (3) ‘bu, S. Bhattacharya, CB. Sen, S, 2011 Corporate social responsibilty and competitive abantgs: overcoming the tht baer, Monge S39 (8. ismues. In: Dunlap, R, Michelron, W (Bas) Handbook of Environmental Sac leach B. Houamed Fosse, Jghbi M. 2018 rvtenmental se Fortier NS. Wiseman, £. Sweet SN” OSulvan TL, Blanchard CM, Sigal. RI. HG: ood i 629-638 cashing 5. Haun alee, Reval HJ 200. Sed a tena vale? Cute ates Touran 2 (1) 1-8 ree Peoza, 2011 How cos corporate saa responsibly creae value for consumers?) Consim, Malet 8 1) 48-35 Groh 2005, customers as goed sold: eaminingctzenship behaves in Incerne sence delenesj Manag 3) 1. 7-2 ‘cummeres J. Lanes V Weman, E Pbetom M2012. Cason engagement Ins Facebook brand communty, Manag Res ev 35 (9), 8572877 Ccurmsn ans, 2017 The impact a corporate sol espns on brine ay ene epost we pe a | Pr rand Mang 26 Hate Jr Hi GTA. Ringe, CM, Sarstedt. ML 20174 Frimer on Fat Lest Hate J Riser. arte M, ingle CM, 20:9 When tows and howto repart ihe ests af PLS. Es Rew 3 (1) 2-2 Tormatng of cstrer lol pct of environmental once Aa, Pa Teltoaship between involvement engagement serand coasecton abe Brand wage ent Bus. Res 88 588395 Hayes AF_ 2015 An inde an et of near moderateé meclaon Multia Beha. Hayes AF 201h Induction te Mediation, Medertion, and Conitinal Process Raat: A Regressmsased Approach Calla Pes New Yk Heime:Culzo, A: Magnont F, 2019 Consumer Brand engagement an its secaS11, ache a jour of Caner Production 22 (2020) 121548 8 ‘J Markee Manag. 35 (7-8), 716-74 ‘bbour. C1. Santos, FCA. 2008, The central role of human resource management ‘commenting behaviors, | Res Interact Market # (3), 203-22). oct i ign So ae cline and mieding este 8 vce ee. EM, Park, SY. Rapest, ML. Newman, CL. 2012, Dees perceived consumes fit See Sen ne at Ae tan 8 yl eb ele raw a ee action. and market vai, J. Market, 70 (4). 118, ~ men cident Savi Sta toe aT ae Reena me mt Tari a te acetate tt change perspective. Int, Hum. Resour. Manag. 24 (18), 3552-3575, ~ ‘Ritchie, BW. Sie, L Cesslng. 5. Dwyer, L 2019. Eifects of climate change policies suited PRE a he et rts toe wei md aR Ge Ors fro ts ieee eee Smith AK, Bolton, RN. Wagner, ). 1999. A mode! of customer satisfaction with ‘with green practices as mediator. |. Clean. Prod. 232, 739-750, . ‘Work engagement as mediator between job characterises ané positive and roles of CSR and rontine employees citizenship Denavir forthe environment wwe ee tf rl shuhceaner-podvction (Aeessed i January 2020), ws ee RE ree at vt eee el a Nr a rie toes tae alo ee ree ‘rections. J Set. Res. 13 (3), 253-266. J Retailing Consum. Serv 45. 230238, wb tt ne ian we et wf eet ame raecrena ‘hang. B-Riteve 8. Mair J.D 5.20181 the ane trustworthy? The impact seal development ané