Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of pricing and corporate social responsibility on consumer reactions. To examine the impact of corporate social responsibility on pricing, a set of hypothetical situations was devised, focusing on two specific domains: the environment and charitable activities. An extensive analysis of the nation's population reveals that corporate social responsibility spans all of these areas of operation. This factor significantly influences both the assessment of a company's value and the intention to make a purchase. Moreover, with regard to the environment, the impact of corporate social responsibility on the inclination to make a purchase was significantly stronger than the influence of cost.

Key Words

Social Responsibility, Consumer Responses, Price

Introduction

Before the Enron event gained significant notice, there were indications that the American public was becoming more dissatisfied with the manner in which companies managed their internal matters. This image portrays the cover page of BusinessWeek magazine from the year 2000, as indicated by Bernstein. The narrative portrays the inhabitants of the United States as being "troubled or disturbed by large corporations." The discovered value is 145. Based on the results of a study done by BusinessWeek and Harris, a significant majority of Americans, specifically 72 percent, hold the belief that the business sector exerts excessive control over the government and society in the United States. A majority of over 66% of poll respondents perceive that companies emphasize profit maximization above product safety, reliability, and exceptional quality. Simultaneously, there is an increasing demand for firms to embrace a greater degree of responsibility within the communities where they conduct their business. According to a global study conducted in 1999, 66% of customers expressed a desire for firms to actively contribute to the achievement of broader societal goals (Isa 2003). This conclusion was derived from the results of a worldwide survey. Based on the findings of the Cone Corporate Citizenship Study (2002), a significant majority of American citizens, 89 percent to be precise, hold the belief that, given past corporate scandals, it is now more crucial than ever for companies to demonstrate social responsibility. According to a 1999 survey done by Cone and Roper, over 50% of the world's most prosperous companies are presently involved in initiatives targeted at resolving societal problems. This suggests that a substantial proportion of businesses have already taken measures. Cone (2002) concluded, following an extensive eight-year study, that cause marketing had become a widely acknowledged and established corporate strategy. This can be attributed to the transformation of the strategy from a focus on quick revenue growth to one that emphasizes the creation of brand value and enhancement of the organization's reputation. Corporations often have challenges in achieving a harmonious equilibrium between the interests of shareholders and the broader goals of society, with the ultimate objective of maximizing profits. In their 2001 study, Margolis and Walsh examined 95 research studies and concluded that the impact of socially responsible programming on performance is ambiguous and may not be immediately observable. However, most research on the topic has consistently discovered a substantial and beneficial correlation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the financial performance of organizations. Due to this reasoning, a significant proportion of managers still perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a cost rather than a chance for advancement. If empirical evidence demonstrated a positive correlation between heightened corporate social responsibility and enhanced sales performance, firms would be compelled to actively seek out and prioritize higher social responsibility. Undoubtedly, the residents of those locations will greatly profit from increased corporate social responsibility. The study was based on two separate research inquiries: (1) To what extent is it crucial for customers to comprehend a commercial enterprise's track record in terms of social responsibility? Can individuals still buy products from socially responsible companies even if the prices are elevated? We established controlled parameters and disseminated them, together with questionnaires, to a subset of individuals from the United States who were demographically typical of the overall population. This was undertaken in order to examine the matters at hand.

Literature Review

Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001, 47) define corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a company's dedication to mitigating the adverse impacts of its actions while simultaneously enhancing its positive influence on society in the long term. Given this circumstance, social responsibility encompasses ethics, generosity, and fair treatment of employees.  Minimize the ecological footprint. A socially responsible organization examines the impact of its actions on all individuals, irrespective of their affiliation. Hence, it is imperative for socially responsible companies to adhere to stakeholder theory. There is an ongoing debate within the academic community regarding whether stakeholder theory or shareholder theory should govern organizations.  As per the stakeholder theory, businesses are obligated to take into account the impact of their actions on various stakeholders, including shareholders, consumers, employees, suppliers, the environment, and the community, even if it results in financial losses. As per the shareholder theory, the main objective of a firm is to generate lawful profits for its shareholders. Smith (2003) asserts that this principle enhances the credibility of the stakeholder paradigm. In 2001, Mitchell noted that the shareholder model was becoming increasingly prevalent among American corporations. The predicament is worsened by the organization's primary objective of maximizing stock value. The total grows by 122 percent. According to The Journal of Consumer Affairs, investors utilize time-sensitive data when engaging in share trading. According to Mitchell, firms must prioritize profitability, but they should not excessively focus on stock prices or engage in extensive future planning. The premise is that it is advantageous for corporations. Should the company fail to create adequate profits for its shareholders, the managers face the possibility of losing their positions and the company being acquired (Martin 2002).  The acknowledgment and compensation of corporate social responsibility endeavors may require a significant amount of time. The precise timing of these actions is essential in order to establish trust within the community and increase customer awareness of a company's social initiatives. Consequently, a company that focuses on short-term goals may not give priority to corporate social responsibility. Organizations with a longer time horizon may exhibit greater patience in predicting the advantages of corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to Martin (2002), managers tend to prioritize the interests of shareholders over the communal commitments of the firm, especially when the well-being of the community could impact the shareholders. Consequently, he developed the virtue matrix to assist chief executive officers in spotting opportunities for social responsibility that could lead to financial benefits. Moreover, he asserts that the majority of corporate endeavors focused on social responsibility lead to a rise in shareholder value. These methods largely satisfy legal, regulatory, or standard requirements. Companies that violate societal norms suffer financial losses. Merely adhering to the accepted societal standards for these enterprises. Managers perceive socially responsible corporate practices as ethically permissible. This is not only rare, but it also has the ability to do financial harm. Research can offer predictions on non-societal financial rewards for conscientiousness. Martin contends that the absence of visionary thinking among executives is the primary reason why corporations are hesitant to undertake such risks. Due to the significance of the research. One of the problems related to risk aversion is the notion that increasing expenses could negatively impact sales. Primarily, the bulk of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives necessitate substantial financial backing. Corporate America seems to have a strong dependence on low pricing, as seen by the widespread presence of advertisements promoting deals, bargains, and discounts throughout the nation. Crawford, Mathews, and Graham (2001) term this occurrence as the price-focused customer fallacy. Walmart has established its business by providing affordable products to budget-conscious customers. Customers do not consistently choose the optimal offer over other factors. As per Crawford and Mathews (2001, 23), customers prioritize "fair and honest" rates over finding the most favorable deal. This outcome was generated through client surveys and conversations. Auger et al.'s (2003) choice experiments revealed that both students and Amnesty International supporters were willing to pay a higher price for products that were created in an ethical manner. Berry (1999) states that corporations extensively employ pricing as a marketing tactic because of its simplicity in implementation and perceived advantages for buyers. Efforts to reduce costs by lowering prices may lead to a decline in product quality and sales. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) found that consumers who have a strong brand identification exhibit higher levels of loyalty, advocacy, and resistance to unfavorable information. They contend that customers are more inclined to develop a sense of connection with a firm that possesses a robust social identity. Assuming a proactive role in addressing a societal issue is a commendable approach to establishing a distinct corporate-consumer identity. The Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign by Avon has been widely recognized for its efforts to promote awareness of breast cancer. According to Berger and Drumwright (1998), this improves customer and employee loyalty. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as defined by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), enhances the value of a product. According to Zeithaml (1988), value is the total of all the advantages that a customer gains by buying and utilizing a product. Consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) can either enhance or diminish the value of a product, contingent upon the level of social responsibility demonstrated by the company. If the commodities possess the same quality, a consumer does not require a substantial additional value in order to favor the product of a highly accountable company over the product of a less accountable company. In order for customers to be willing to pay a higher price, CSR must provide tangible benefits. The investigation of how corporate social responsibility (CSR) impacts customer responses to pricing was highly valuable. We aim to enhance consumer acceptance of corporate social responsibility (CSR). If client answers were constant and emphatic, it is quite probable that the majority of corporations have already implemented Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As to the report, clients exhibit variations. The level of transparency exhibited by their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts. Webb and Mohr (1998) found that a significant proportion of participants selected institutions primarily based on factors such as cost, quality, or convenience, rather than social considerations. This finding was uncovered over the course of the investigation. Multiple studies have shown the advantages of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Lafferty and Goldsmith employed advertisements and newspaper articles in their 1999 study to manipulate the perception of both the company and the speaker. The corporation's standing has been enhanced due to its community and environmental endeavors. The company's reputation was tarnished due to inadequate quality control and violations of SEC regulations. Studies indicate that the credibility of a firm has a significant impact on both the likelihood of making a purchase and the perception of the brand. The spokesperson prioritized influence over believability. The 1997 study conducted by Brown and Dacin developed a comprehensive evaluation and description of corporate social responsibility through the creation of a report card and profile. This endeavor evaluated the extent of corporate generosity and the level of employee engagement in community activities. Companies that placed a higher importance on corporate social responsibility achieved superior performance. The company's assessment impacted the product's appraisal. Hoeffler and Keller (2002) argue that brand equity can be enhanced through the use of corporate societal marketing that focuses on social welfare objectives. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argue that non-product variables, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), have an impact on consumer loyalty and other advantages that occur after a purchase. Given these findings, we suggest utilizing the theoretical frameworks outlined below.A higher degree of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is associated with a more favorable perception of the company and an increased probability of making a purchase, in comparison to a lower level of CSR. This is due to the positive correlation between higher levels of CSR and increased success. Researchers from the college conducted a study on the impact of positive and negative information on a corporation's social performance. Folkes and Kamins (1999) found that negative behavior has a greater impact on decreasing ratings compared to good behavior. Inadequate elucidation was provided. Unanimous consensus exists that unethical conduct is a more accurate indicator of morality than ethical conduct. The reason is that individuals and companies own moral values. The veracity of this idea was assessed by employing fabricated verbal recommendations from a trustworthy authority for a particular mobile phone brand in order to influence both its quality and ethical standards. The utilization of child labor has detrimental effects on the company's reputation. This is applicable irrespective of the quality of the product. The ethical depictions were significantly impacted by the quality of the product. It was ethically acceptable to refrain from enlisting youngsters or individuals affected by natural calamities. Their data revealed a negative bias. Creyer and Ross (1996) employed hypothetical scenarios to emphasize the magnitude and emphasis of product innovation in cereal companies. Subsequently, these producers were categorized as either ethical, exemplified by promptly reimbursing customers for cereal boxes containing insufficient cereal, or unethical, demonstrated by making fraudulent assertions about their products' ability to reduce the likelihood of heart disease. A comparative analysis was conducted between the responders and the control group, wherein the latter was solely furnished with rudimentary information. The investigations revealed that the respondents exhibited a reluctance to allocate additional funds towards the purchase of ethical business goods. Conversely, individuals responded positively to the deceitful corporation's more affordable cereal prices. Sen and Bhattacharya conducted a study in 2001 where they contrasted control groups with individuals who were provided information about the company's endorsement of women and minorities. Regarding the company's corporate social responsibility (CSR), customers exhibited heightened sensitivity towards negative information.  Our proposition posits that positive and adverse information have the potential to impact a corporation's social performance. This investigation was carried out by a group of specialists from different universities. In 1999, Folkes and Kamins found that negative behavior had a more pronounced detrimental impact on ratings compared to positive behavior. Both explanations were illogical. Unethical behavior is the most reliable indicator of morality. The phenomenon can be elucidated by considering both business and personal ethics. In order to verify this hypothesis, the researchers collected firsthand testimonies from a reliable source regarding a specific brand of telephone. Testimonials have a significant impact on the ethical standards and quality of a product. The company's reputation was tarnished due to its engagement in unethical practices, such as the hiring of underage workers. This is applicable irrespective of the quality of the product. Diverse ethical methodologies resulted in diverse outcomes, contingent upon the quality of the product. It was ethically justifiable to decline individuals below the age of 18 and those affected by natural calamities. Their inquiry uncovered a bias on their part. In 1996, Creyer and Ross illustrated the attributes of cereal producers by employing hypothetical scenarios. These included the producer's scale and the focus on product development. These producers demonstrated ethical behavior by promptly compensating customers who received cereal boxes with inadequate contents. Conversely, they breached ethical standards by making fraudulent assertions regarding their cereal's capacity to prevent cardiovascular disease. Researchers found that participants exhibited a lack of willingness to pay a higher price for ethically produced cereal compared to the control group, which only received limited information. Their inclination was to decrease the cereal prices offered by the untrustworthy company. Sen and Bhattacharya conducted a study in 2001 where they contrasted control groups with individuals who were provided information about the company's endorsement of women and minorities. Negative CSR information had a greater impact on consumers' perceptions of the company than positive information did.  After the initial study was published, we would like to express our support for it.

H1: A small level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) will have a greater impact on the evaluation and intention to purchase than a big level of CSR.

Academic scholars investigated the impact of positive and negative information on a company's social performance. Folkes and Kamins (1999) found that negative behavior has a greater impact on decreasing ratings compared to good behavior. Inadequate elucidation was provided. Unanimous consensus exists that unethical conduct is a more reliable indicator of morality than ethical conduct. The reason is that individuals and companies possess ethical principles. The veracity of this theory was examined by employing fabricated verbal recommendations from a trustworthy authority for a particular mobile phone brand to influence both its quality and ethical standards. Child labor detrimentally affects the company's reputation. This is applicable irrespective of the quality of the product. The ethical depictions were significantly impacted by the quality of the product. It was ethically acceptable to refrain from enlisting youngsters or individuals affected by natural calamities. Their data revealed a negative bias. Creyer and Ross (1996) employed hypothetical scenarios to emphasize the magnitude and concentration of product innovation in grain firms. Subsequently, these producers were categorized as either ethical, exemplified by promptly reimbursing customers for cereal boxes containing insufficient cereal, or unethical, demonstrated by making fraudulent assertions about their products reducing the likelihood of heart disease. A comparative analysis was conducted between the respondents and the control group, who were solely furnished with fundamental information. The investigations revealed that participants exhibited a reluctance to allocate additional funds toward ethical company products. Conversely, individuals responded positively to the deceitful corporation's more affordable cereal prices. Sen and Bhattacharya conducted a study in 2001 where they contrasted control groups with individuals who were provided information about the company's endorsement of women and minorities. Regarding the company's corporate social responsibility (CSR), customers exhibited more sensitivity towards negative information. Our hypothesis posits that both positive and negative information have the potential to impact a corporation's social performance. This investigation was carried out by a group of specialists from different universities. In 1999, Folkes and Kamins found that negative behavior had a more pronounced detrimental impact on ratings compared to good behavior. Both explanations were illogical. Unethical behavior is the most reliable indicator of morality. The phenomenon can be elucidated by considering both business and personal ethics. In order to verify this idea, the researchers collected personal experiences from a reliable source regarding a certain brand of telephone. Testimonials have a significant impact on the ethical standards and quality of a product. The company's reputation was tarnished due to unethical actions, such as the hiring of underage workers. This is applicable irrespective of the quality of the product. Different ethical approaches resulted in different outcomes, depending on the quality of the product. It was ethically justifiable to decline individuals below the age of 18 and those affected by natural calamities. Their inquiry uncovered a bias on their part. In 1996, Creyer and Ross illustrated the attributes of cereal producers by employing hypothetical scenarios. These included the producer's scale and the focus on product development. These producers demonstrated ethical behavior by swiftly compensating customers who received cereal boxes with inadequate contents. Conversely, they breached ethical principles by making fraudulent assertions regarding their cereal's capacity to prevent cardiovascular disease. Researchers found that participants in the study were not prepared to pay a higher price for ethically produced cereal compared to the control group, which only received limited information. They strongly favored reducing the food prices offered by the unreliable corporation. Sen and Bhattacharya conducted a study in 2001 where they contrasted control groups with individuals who were provided information about the company's endorsement of women and minorities. Negative CSR information had a greater impact on consumers' impressions of the company than positive information did. After the initial study was published, we would want to express our support for it.

H2: A small level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) will have a greater impact on the evaluation and purchasing intention than a big level of CSR.

Several business executives contend that consumer reactions can be influenced by both crucial product attributes and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The absence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) may lead to the devaluation of other product qualities, such as quality and convenience. Furthermore, the individuals and Kamins (1999) improved the quality of the product by incorporating telephone voice quality, in addition to their research on customer service. After evaluating corporate social responsibility (CSR), it was found that sound quality had no impact on individuals' perception of the organization. Conversely, when there was a rise in corporate social responsibility (CSR), the assessment of quality had a positive influence on perspectives. Handelman and Arnold (1999) assessed the effects of a new store on product variety, pricing, convenience of location, and corporate social responsibility through the use of hypothetical scenarios. Subsequently, they examined the impact of these modifications on customer support, including factors such as purchase intention, word-of-mouth marketing, boycotting, and the municipality's approval of residential building licenses. A study revealed that a store's positive reputation did not result in increased consumer support compared to a store with negative features in terms of being family-friendly, supporting local charities, and promoting domestic products (low corporate social responsibility). The elevated CSR enhanced both the store's reputation and customer experience. Upon conducting a thorough investigation, community members will exclusively purchase products or services from companies that surpass the basic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) guidelines. Once a company's performance dips below a certain threshold, all of its achievements become futile. In order to broaden the scope of our investigation, we suggest incorporating cost as a ubiquitous product feature. Should there be a substantial decrease in corporate social responsibility (CSR), consumers will assign less importance to price.

H3: There is a relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and pricing, where a lower level of CSR will lead to a reduced influence of price on the intention to purchase, in comparison to a higher level of CSR.

Various individual characteristics are likely to impact customers' responses to a company's level of social responsibility, as well as their level of engagement with that level of accountability. A customer's conscientious or considerate attitude is an example of a characteristic that sets one product or service apart from another. According to Webster (1975, 188), social consciousness is defined as follows. A consumer is an individual who conscientiously evaluates the impact of their consumption on society and utilizes their purchasing power to bring about social transformation. Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001, 47) define socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) as the deliberate action of obtaining, utilizing, and discarding goods with the aim of reducing or eliminating any adverse effects while promoting long-term beneficial outcomes for society. This idea pertains to activities that are seen to be socially responsible. Alternatively, SRCB can be regarded as an enduring component of an individual's self-perception that is connected to their buying behavior. Here is another perspective on the subject. Individuals who have a strong inclination towards this characteristic would want to alter their buying habits in various situations to help enhance the overall quality of life in society. Antil (1984), Leigh, Murphy, and Enis (1988), and Roberts (1995) are among the scholars who have examined this characteristic. Other researchers have endeavored to understand it. The aforementioned scholars developed assessment instruments and performed research on population characteristics and attitudes pertaining to the topic at hand. Roberts (1995) employed cluster analysis to ascertain a cohort of conscientious customers. This client segment comprises around 32% of the overall population in the United States. Based on his findings, this group exhibits significantly higher levels of political liberalism and environmental consciousness compared to the majority of Americans. Moreover, they possess an elevated perception of consumer effectiveness, indicating their belief in exerting a substantial influence on environmental matters as individual consumers. Nevertheless, as far as we know, no studies have been carried out to examine the influence of this attribute on customers' perception of commercial enterprises' social responsibility. In relation to this subject, we would like to propose the subsequent hypothesis:

H4: When the measured feature of SRCB has a high value, CSR will have a stronger impact on the assessment and intention to purchase, as contrasted to instances where SRCB has a low value.

Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found a positive correlation between social responsibility and increased brand loyalty. Employed for the purpose of achieving business goals. Consumer identification is enhanced when a company mirrors the consumer's personality. They contend that consumers prioritize a company's corporate social responsibility (CSR) over its business performance. Customers who endorse a company's corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are more inclined to reach a consensus. The presence of diversity and an immigrant workforce led to modifications in corporate social responsibility in two separate experiments. We sought to comprehend the impact of the modifications on the company's performance. The study found that the positive impact of CSR on evaluation was diminished when customers endorsed it. The hypotheses derived from this research

H5: Consumer Social Responsibility (CSR) in a field will have a greater impact on assessment and intention to purchase for those who believe firms have many obligations in that field than for those who believe they have few.

Methodology

An experiment was conducted to examine the hypothesis. Multiple scenarios were devised to examine the impact of low and high levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on pricing in two specific CSR domains: the environment and charity. A complete randomization of a full factorial design has been implemented, consisting of eight treatment groups and two control groups. Categories (absence of CSR information; distinction between low and high pricing). Under these conditions, you will be seeking athletic performance footwear. Due to its popularity among both genders, this product was selected for purchase. The participants were instructed to simulate the experience of shopping for athletic shoes or trainers in a store that offers a range of brands and to choose one from the "Company" category. The brand has gained a reputation for producing superior footwear. An endeavor was made to manipulate the price perception by presenting the shoes as either more costly or less costly compared to other shoes under consideration by the respondent. A supplementary line was incorporated in the experimental treatment groups to denote the corporate social responsibility status of the organization. We have observed significant variations in corporate social responsibility (CSR) levels in two specific domains: environmental practices and charitable contributions. This enables us to conduct hypothesis testing. We devised scenarios including several domains to evaluate concepts and enhance their applicability to various forms of corporate social responsibility. Company A demonstrated the ability to influence CSR ratings by achieving either the highest or lowest scores in the industry for environmental impact or corporate philanthropy. This was undertaken with the aim of acquiring additional clientele. Three criteria exist for evaluating any intervention. The respondents were able to trust the information because it was provided by a reputable and impartial institution that conducts annual business evaluations. In order to obtain a sample that accurately represents the entire population, a cover letter, and questionnaire were delivered by mail to a total of 1,997 individuals. Each participant received a questionnaire and was randomly assigned to either the experimental or control treatment conditions. Furthermore, scales were employed to analyze the pertinent components. A decision was made to dispatch a mailer to a subset of Americans who were picked at random. The adults were obtained from a company specializing in marketing intelligence. The cover letter was designed to captivate readers' interest in the research topic, highlight the credibility of the researchers and the financial support provided by the university, and guarantee the confidentiality of the responses. Dillman (1978, 1998) outlined a range of strategies employed in the formulation of cover letters. The organization's official letterhead was used to print each letter, and a researcher signed the letter with blue ink during the production process. The attached questionnaire, apart from its brevity, consisted of only three or four pages and included a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. Subsequently, the recipient received a postcard the subsequent week as a prompt. A grand total of 1,997 questionnaires were dispatched, out of which 51 were reported as undelivered upon return. Out of the total of 1,946 questionnaires distributed, all of them were filled out and sent back, resulting in a response rate of 10%. A total of 144 questionnaires were filled out and returned. The cell diameters exhibited a suitable distribution, ranging from 15 to 23 accordingly.

Results

The experiment's results demonstrate that corporate social responsibility (CSR), manifested through charitable initiatives and environmental efforts, significantly and positively influences both business evaluation and purchase intention. The findings confirm the premise that a company's qualities, such as its reputation, have an impact on how the organization is perceived and affects buying decisions. The results of our study showed that individuals were more responsive to negative corporate social responsibility (CSR) when compared to the control groups who were not provided with any CSR information. However, their response to robust corporate social responsibility was mostly subdued. Additional studies, such as those conducted by Creyer and Ross (1996), Folkes and Kamins (1999), and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), have confirmed the previously documented negative bias based on the data. Nevertheless, the finding that companies lacking information on corporate social responsibility (CSR) received the same positive ratings as companies with strong CSR practices challenges the assumption that respondents held equal positivity towards companies that were inactive in social responsibility compared to those actively engaged in it. The low-CSR treatments were designed with the objective of portraying corporations as lacking any dedication to social responsibility. This was achieved by intentionally excluding efforts to reduce pollution, refraining from utilizing recycled materials in the production process, and avoiding substantial contributions to philanthropic organizations. Without any information regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR), respondents either disregarded CSR or inferred (based on the notion of "no news is good news") that the firm was functioning adequately. The control groups evoked a moderately favorable reaction, suggesting that respondents either disregarded CSR or presumed that the company was operating adequately. Individuals with elevated scores on social responsibility and behavior (SRCB) measure, which encompasses attitudes towards organizations and products in relation to social responsibility, exhibited greater susceptibility to the impact of environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR) when assessing companies. Such was the scenario when the participants were requested to evaluate enterprises. The presence of SRCB did not have a substantial effect on the correlation between philanthropic corporate social responsibility and evaluation, nor did it influence the connection between CSR in any domain and purchase intent. However, the data confirmed the anticipated pattern. Collectively, these findings substantiate the idea that individuals who perceive themselves as actively contributing to the betterment of society through their purchasing, consumption, and disposal behaviors are more inclined to have a strong response to information regarding a company's degree of social responsibility compared to individuals who do not hold this belief. Stronger support for the link between SRCB and consumer responses to CSR may have been obtained if the SRCB metric had achieved a more balanced distribution among environmental and other socially responsible activities. This would have been a favorable progression. An excellent illustration of this is the notion of philanthropic corporate social responsibility. It is not surprising that the interaction effects were much higher for the more specific attitude variable, domain support. Individuals who exhibit a high level of support for the organization's environmental duties exert a greater impact on both their assessment and willingness to make a purchase compared to those who do not endorse these responsibilities. Likewise, a company's generous corporate social responsibility had a substantial influence on how its value was perceived, especially among individuals who strongly endorsed corporate philanthropy. Moreover, the impact on their inclination to make a purchase remained consistent, however, it did not reach statistical significance. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that customers' perception of a firm's social objective enhances their affiliation with the brand. The findings given in this study offer substantiation for this presumption. Moreover, this bond contributes to enhancing positive responses towards the corporate organization. The study's findings did not verify the hypothesis that purchase intent would be less influenced by pricing when corporate social responsibility (CSR) was low. Although customer satisfaction was generally low, the price significantly and adversely affected the likelihood of our respondents making a purchase. When the customer satisfaction rating (CSR) was low, the influence of pricing was significantly greater compared to when the CSR was high. CSR is an acronym that stands for Customer Satisfaction Ratio. This statement is in direct opposition to the hypothesis, which had anticipated a different result. What are the results of this study, considering the opposite findings of Folkes and Kamins (1999) and Handelman and Arnold (1999) about the impact of product quality and store image qualities on low-CSR companies? Corporate social responsibility (CSR), specifically in the environmental domain, had a more significant impact on purchase intent compared to pricing in this study. However, the negative information regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) was not enough to negate its influence on price. Considering that the discussion of CSR occupied a whole paragraph, while the discussion of pricing was limited to only one sentence, it is plausible that the manipulation of CSR holds greater influence than the manipulation of price, thereby accounting for the observed impact. The proposed architecture for rigorous CSR manipulation seeks to ascertain if CSR may outperform pricing in terms of performance. Furthermore, we assert that in order to effectively educate individuals on the intricate subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR), it is imperative to present information from various viewpoints. Regarding pricing arrangements, we advocate for a straightforward and practical disclosure. This experiment, to the best of our knowledge, is the sole instance with a substantial nationwide sample that demonstrates the superior influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information on purchase intentions compared to pricing. The major objective of this study was not to determine the comparative effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in relation to other research domains. The research effort utilized the two domains of environment and philanthropy as replication factors. Conversely, it is evident that the company's rating was greatly impacted by the implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the environmental domain. Contributions made to philanthropic organizations serve as a prime illustration. The main cause of the observed differences is the varied reactions of individuals to minimal degrees of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The main cause of this can be primarily ascribed to the inherent discrepancies in the level of responsibility that prevails within each of these groupings. In other words, it is often accepted that not donating money to charitable organizations has a little less harmful effect on the community compared to causing negative effects on the environment, such as pollution.

Conclusion

To begin, it is necessary to assess the limitations of the study and ascertain prospective areas for further research. The subsequent section will analyze the implications of our discoveries for consumers, legislators, and consumer educators. In our opinion, the most notable drawback of scenario-based studies is their inherent character. In order to enhance clarity, participants were directed to see themselves in a hypothetical scenario where they were in the midst of obtaining footwear. Since the CSR descriptions were directly sent to the respondents, it is highly probable that they devoted more attention to them compared to if they had been published in a newspaper or magazine. Moreover, individuals peruse these descriptions immediately before assessing the company and determining whether or not to make a purchase of footwear from the brand. This is accomplished prior to their arrival at a decision. Due to the convergence of these elements, it is plausible that corporate social responsibility (CSR) had a more significant influence than it would have in a conventional physical establishment. From this standpoint, carrying out a field experiment such as the one described here would offer a more prudent evaluation of the impacts of corporate social responsibility. However, our research shows that information regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) can potentially impact customer reactions. Nevertheless, further empirical investigation is necessary to ascertain the precise circumstances in which this phenomenon would occur. The sample we picked exhibited elevated levels of wealth and educational attainment in comparison to the general population. We readily accept this. Based on the survey findings, a significant proportion of customers express a desire for firms to assume greater accountability in their activities. Simultaneously, as customers place greater focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) when making purchase decisions, the impact of CSR on sales and the probability of firms adopting CSR policies are growing. Unethical marketers may be driven to exploit the opportunity for higher sales that accompanies corporate social responsibility, regardless of the inherent drawback of the scenario. Consumers want information about firms' levels of social responsibility to differentiate authentic corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts from those that only make shallow claims about social responsibility. The study's results indicate that furnishing customers with dependable information regarding a company's degree of social responsibility influences their perception of the brand and their propensity to engage in purchases. Moreover, it seems that a reduced price by itself was unable to make up for the company's deficiency in social responsibility. Based on these findings, a significant majority of customers in the United States highly prioritize corporate social responsibility (CSR) and may take it into account when making purchases, especially when the products being bought are not equal. Regrettably, this exposes clients to potential hazards. We have the ownership of it. Customers should possess the ability to thoroughly assess corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. This is supported by the fact that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) exerts a more significant impact on consumers' purchasing intentions compared to price. In order for customer service representatives (CSR) to properly respond to client concerns, it is imperative that customers have access to precise and reliable information. Consumers exhibit minimal confidence in business communications, even when numerous companies disseminate favorable aspects of their activities. Nonprofit organizations can enhance this situation by actively marketing the business sponsorships they obtain. Webb and Mohr's 1998 study revealed that consumers are inclined to place greater trust in a company that consistently exhibits a strong dedication to a specific cause, such as minimizing its environmental footprint or offering financial support to a charitable group. Gaining accurate information regarding businesses' dedication to corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be an intricate and time-consuming endeavor. Unrelated external entities have the potential to serve as reliable sources of information regarding the extent of social responsibility exhibited by enterprises. Fortune magazine conducts a yearly evaluation of firms, assessing their treatment of employees. The ranking was created by Levering et al. in 2004 and is revised on a yearly basis. Additional instances encompass the accolades bestowed by Business Ethics magazine (Asmus, 2003) and the evaluations of corporate social performance tailored for investors by companies like Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (Waddock and Graves, 1997). Dow Jones (2004) creates sustainability indices that are derived from considerations of economic, environmental, and social factors. Co-Op America and other non-profit organizations strive to fulfill their objective by assessing businesses' social responsibility and providing clients with ratings based on these criteria. Customers have the ability to access corporate profiles on the company's website. Customers have the ability to categorize these profiles based on the company, brand, or product category. Additionally, they have the ability to assess and contrast businesses within a specific product category, taking into account their social and environmental considerations. In addition, purchasers can remain well-informed of ongoing boycotts (Co-Op America 2004). In addition, the government shares statistics regarding the levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR) exhibited by firms. The website of the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, commonly referred to as ENERGY STAR (ENERGY STAR 2003), serves as a notable illustration of this phenomenon as it specifically addresses the topic of energy efficiency. This website assesses the energy efficiency of various objects and businesses, particularly those involved in home construction. The product range encompasses household appliances. Additionally, it is responsible for choosing the recipients of the ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Awards. These awards acknowledge the endeavors of individual firms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving energy efficiency. Government agencies should enhance the distribution of their enterprise ratings to facilitate broader consumer access for informed purchasing decisions. Consumer educators have the role of aiding in the creation and dissemination of catalogs that contain information enabling consumers to evaluate the social responsibility performance of businesses. Consumer educators can facilitate the objective of enhancing comprehension among customers. In addition, they can endeavor to increase the clientele who possess the adequate motivation to actively pursue such skills by engaging in discussions pertaining to important themes. The results of the company's activities in distinct Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) domains, along with the effects of mindful consumerism.

References

• Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public Policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614678400400203 

• Asmus, P. (2003). 15th Annual Business Ethics Awards. Business Ethics, 17(4), 8–16.
• Auger, P., Paul, B., Timothy, M. D., & Jordan, J. L. (2003). What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (2), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.03.005 
• Berger, I. E., & Minette, D. (1998). Social Alliances: Collaborative Efforts between Business, Government, and Non-profits. Marketing and Public Policy Conference Proceedings, 8, 1–2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654951 
• Bernstein, A. (2000). Too Much Corporate Power? BusinessWeek, September 11, 144–158. 
• Berry, L. L. (1999). Discovering the Soul of Service. New York: The Free Press.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sankar, S. (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers' Relationships with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609 
• Brown, T. J., & Peter, A. D. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
• Cone, C. (2002). Best Practices: The Evolution of Cause Branding. Holmes Report. http://www. holmesreport.com.Cone Corporate Citizenship Study. http://www.coneinc.com. 
• Crawford, F., & Ryan, M. (2001). The Myth of Excellence: Why Great Companies Never Try to Be the Best at Everything. New York: Crown Business.
• Creyer, E., & William, T. R. (1996). The Impact of Corporate Behavior on Perceived Product Value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.
• Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley and Sons.
• Dow, J. (2004). http://www.dowjones.com. ENERGY STAR. http://www.energystar.gov. 
• Folkes, V. S., & Michael, A. K. (1999). Effects of Information about Firms’ Ethical and Unethical Actions on Consumers’ Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_03 
• Graham, J. R. (2001). Myths That Menace Selling Success. The American Salesman, 11–16. 
• Handelman, J. M., & Stephen, J. A. (1999). The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300303 
• Hoeffler, S., & Kevin, L. K. (2002). Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.21.1.78.17600 
• Isa, Mohd Khairi Mohd. (2003). Applying the Triple Bottom Line Approach. Business Times. 
• Lafferty, B. A., & Ronald, E. G. (1999). Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High Versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44 (2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(98)00002-2 
• Leigh, J. H., Patrick E. M., & Ben, M. E. (1988). A New Approach to Measuring Socially Responsible Consumption Tendencies. Journal of Macromarketing, 8(Spring), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614678800800102 
• Levering, R., Milton, M., Julia, B., & Christopher, T. (2004). The 100 Best Companies to Work For. Fortune, 149 (1), 56.
• Martin, R. L. (2002). The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 80 (March), 68–75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11894384 
• Mitchell, L. E. (2001). Corporate Irresponsibility: America’s Newest Export. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Mohr, L. A., Deborah, J. W., & Katherine, E. H. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to Be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x 
• Roberts, J. A. (1995). Profiling Levels of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Cluster Analytic Approach and Its Implications for Marketing. Journal of Marketing — Theory and Practice, 3(4), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1995.11501709 
• Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838 
• Smith, H. J. (2003). The Shareholders vs. Stakeholders Debate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 85–90.
• Waddock, S. A., & Samuel, B. G. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance — Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303–319.
• Webb, D. J., & Lois, A. M. (1998). A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.
• Webb, D. J., Lois A. M., & Katherine, E. H. (2004). Defining and Measuring Socially Responsible Consumption. Working Paper.