Next Article in Journal
Tractors, Talk, Mindset, Mantras, Detachment, and Distraction: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Coping Strategies Used by Farmers in Canada
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of General Manager’s Responsible Leadership and Executive Compensation Incentive on Enterprise ESG Performance
Previous Article in Journal
A Literature Review on the Application of Digital Technology in Achieving Green Supply Chain Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118567
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Customer Value Co-Creation and Perception in the Digital Context: A Case Study of Taiwan Bank Industry

by
Shu Yang
1,
Yidan Huang
1,*,
Hsin-Yi Chan
2 and
Cheng-Hsueh Yang
2
1
Business School, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou 362000, China
2
Department of Business Administration, Minghsin University of Science and Technology, Hsinchu 30401, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8567; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118567
Submission received: 10 April 2023 / Revised: 19 May 2023 / Accepted: 23 May 2023 / Published: 25 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Transformation and Corporate ESG)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rapid development of digitalization has introduced greater variability and trust-related risks to the banking industry. Enhancing customers’ perception of value co-creation with banks is a critical issue that requires attention. This study aims to explore the impact and mechanism of a bank’s social responsibility practices on its customers’ value co-creation in the digital context. A cross-level analysis model was developed and analyzed based on in-depth surveys of 30 bank managers and 262 valid customers. The results reveal that (1) CSR practices have no impact on customer value co-creation in the digital context; (2) CSR practices have a positive impact on customers’ perception of a company’s social responsibility; (3) customers’ perception of a company’s social responsibility has a positive impact on customer value co-creation; and (4) customers’ perception plays a mediating role between CSR practices and customer value co-creation. Although corporate social responsibility is becoming increasingly important in the current digital economy, our study found that it does not necessarily lead to more customer value co-creation. Banks must enable customers to perceive their CSR practices in order to foster value co-creation. This study has important implications for banking practitioners seeking to strengthen their social responsibility practices and create value with their customers in the digital era.

1. Introduction

The development of Internet technology has fundamentally altered the relationship between businesses and consumers. In addition to facing competition from new players, businesses now face greater challenges from increasingly informed, capable, and active consumers. In a world where value is negotiated between individual consumers and businesses, it is essential for businesses to carefully study the convergence between production and consumption, and the co-creation of value by producers and consumers if they wish to maintain sustainable competitiveness. Fulfilling social responsibility is an integral part of this effort for businesses. With the application and popularization of 5G technology, enterprises are gradually digitizing and automating their production and operation. They are using Internet technology to build modern intelligent systems, improve their green innovation capabilities, strengthen relationships with customers, increase revenue and benefits for shareholders, and ultimately enhance corporate social responsibility [1].
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) was initially proposed by Sheldon (1923) [2], who believed that businesses should have a concept of commercial morality, which means that they have a responsibility to enhance social benefits while pursuing their own interests [3]. In recent years, the discussion on CSR has evolved from past definitions of corporate social responsibility and promotion of corporate operational responsibilities to include multiple topics, such as CSR practice and effect analysis [4,5]. With the promotion of digital technology, the effects and benefits of fulfilling social responsibilities have become increasingly clear, and CSR has been valued and recognized for its benefits [6]. Many business owners have listed CSR as part of their business strategy in various ways to establish a closer relationship between the enterprise and society [7]. Therefore, some scholars believe that CSR will be a new competitive strategy in the future [8].
Luu (2019) [9] believes that CSR is a concept of push–pull, in which enterprises encourage customers to contribute to their organizational mission and values. Through digital means, this can further extend the relationship between enterprises and customers. When customers perceive that the values reflected in the activities promoted by the enterprise are consistent with their own values, it will enhance their recognition of the enterprise. When customers perceive that the enterprise’s operations have surpassed established moral requirements, they may feel proud and exhibit positive behavior to recognize the organization. This behavior demonstrates that customers are co-creating value with the organization [10,11]. Based on previous research, it has been found that investment in CSR by enterprises will have a positive impact on customers’ attitudes, commitments, loyalty, trust, positive word-of-mouth, purchase intentions, and reputation [12,13]. Therefore, in the digital age, the fulfillment and promotion of CSR are indispensable and important components.
The customer-oriented approach is the foundation of value creation, highlighting the importance of customer interaction in value co-creation behavior [14,15,16]. Customers are partners and co-producers of value, services, and products (Mubushar et al., 2021) [10]. They not only have certain requirements for services but also contribute to the service delivery process. In addition, customers can have a significant impact on a company’s social responsibility activities [17,18]. When customers are skeptical about a company’s social responsibility practices, it can hinder the success of those activities [19,20,21]. With the influence of digital information, customers receive information about different brands and compare their services. As services are intangible in nature, a single company may find it difficult to understand how customers perceive service quality, leading to what is called a “service gap”. If a company regards its social responsibility practices as additional, non-essential services, the service gap may widen. To avoid significant cognitive errors between companies and customers, it is important for companies to ensure that their social responsibility practices are not seen as unnecessary strategies.
Taiwan’s banking industry is a franchised industry and has its own unique characteristics compared to other service industries, making the relationship between companies and customers particularly strong. Customer relationships are important resources for banks [22]. Both sides are involved in money lending and borrowing, requiring a high degree of trust [23]. Good relationships between companies and customers can only be achieved through high levels of trust [24,25]. With the emergence of digital Internet finance, the relationship and trust between banks and customers have become even more important [26].
The rapid development of digitization has increased the variability and riskiness of banking operations and has also led to the rapid transmission of individual or small risks within the banking system to cause significant financial panic, which in turn raises questions about the bank’s operational capability and ability to effectively safeguard customers’ interests. Therefore, how to practice social responsibility to make customers believe in the continuous value co-creation between the bank and its customers is an essential issue. Moreover, what factors transmit the belief in this win-win situation? These questions are the main focus of this study.
In summary, this study uses a cross-level research method to explore the self-evaluation of corporate social responsibility under the digital background. At the customer level, it evaluates the perception of customers towards the company’s social responsibility practices, clarifying the impact of a company’s social responsibility practices on customer perception and whether it can lead to value co-creation behavior among customers.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Social Capital Theory

Social capital theory posits that social relationships and networks can facilitate cooperation and mutual support between individuals and organizations [27]. Recent literature has also explored the relationship between social capital theory and bank behavior [28,29]. In this study, corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices can be viewed as a means for banks to establish social relationships and networks that can promote interaction and trust with customers. Customer perception reflects how customers view a bank’s CSR practices and their level of trust in the bank. Ultimately, value co-creation can be seen as a relationship and network established between banks and customers based on mutual interests and trust, which can be achieved through CSR practices and customer perception.
Therefore, this study employs social capital theory to explain the relationship between CSR practices, customer perception, and value co-creation between banks and customers. This theory emphasizes the importance of trust, interaction, and mutual interests, which align well with the goal of establishing a strong relationship between banks and customers.

2.2. The Uniqueness of Taiwan’s Banking Industry

The control over deposit and loan product prices has led to the flourishing of Taiwan’s banking industry. However, the large number of banks has brought about fierce competition, with a peak of 53 banks in 2000. As the market size in Taiwan is not large, the excessive number of banks and their small sizes led to the removal of restrictions by the government on banks’ crossing different financial sectors. This was achieved through bank mergers and cross-industry operations to improve operational performance [30], ultimately reducing the number of banks to 38 in 2008.
Compared to other service industries, the banking industry is an enterprise endorsed by credit. The establishment of a good image can increase depositors’ confidence in it and increase the scale of the bank’s business. The products sold by the banking industry are also different from those sold by the traditional service industries, and its operations have their own unique characteristics. Therefore, this study believes that the relationship between banks and customers has more obvious differences compared to other service industries. This study revealed that there is a significant difference between the relationship between the banking industry and customers compared to other service industries. Banks have a role as financial intermediaries, creating revenue through financial lending. Banks’ own capital accounts for about 10% of their assets, and they also use debt to run their businesses, with most of the investment risks borne by creditors [31]. Banks attract customers’ deposits by lowering interest rates, which increases interest income. The increase in deposit amounts reduces the overdue loan ratio, leading to an increase in bank accounting profits [32,33]. The unique nature of the banking industry makes its operations highly risky [34]. For example, a bank in Taiwan launched a credit card with no loan threshold for loans to boost its performance and share price. Within a year, the credit card loan balance surged, leading to a deterioration of bad debts and triggering a credit card debt crisis. The bank could not create corresponding value, leading to a change in ownership. Therefore, we found that the banking industry’s past operating strategies mainly focused on how to make a quick profit without seriously considering incorporating CSR issues into their business strategy.

2.3. CSR Practices at the Organizational Level

Bowen (1953) [35] proposed CSR that the bottom line for managers to execute any corporate policy, decision, or activity is to establish it based on fulfilling societal values and goals. Subsequently, many researchers proposed their personal opinions based on this foundation [36,37,38]. Turker (2009) [36] believed that the main focus of a company’s CSR behavior is to positively and proactively influence society and its stakeholders, making its actions go beyond economic interests. Dahlsrud (2008) [39] discussed and classified the definition of CSR, including voluntary, stakeholder, social, environmental, and economic responsibilities.
Based on the summary of existing literature, CSR has many positive impacts on organizational operation. Maintaining a good relationship with stakeholders can sustain wealth/long-term value growth [40] and maintain a good reputation for the company [13]. As an incentive mechanism, corporate social responsibility (CSR) drives companies to innovate in product design, processes, management, and policies, thereby promoting a shift in their profit and growth models. By improving production efficiency, changing production methods, expanding innovation domains, enhancing the business environment, and developing a circular economy, companies can increase their profits. While undertaking certain social responsibilities may increase short-term operating costs, it undoubtedly contributes to the establishment of a good corporate image, creating intangible assets and ultimately forming a competitive advantage, which brings long-term potential benefits to companies.
As a trust-based industry, the banking sector is particularly vulnerable to negative impacts on depositor confidence caused by news or announcements, especially in today’s digitized and economically challenging environment. Such events may lead to asset fluctuations or even bank runs. Therefore, this study considers that examining the CSR practices of banks is crucial for exploring their development.
Customers also respond with loyalty [41,42]. The relationship between enterprises and customers is essentially an exchange relationship, governed by the principle of reciprocity. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices can meet customers’ needs in terms of value, satisfaction, approval, and other dimensions, thus encouraging customers to actively engage in value co-creation with socially responsible enterprises [43]. Customer-perceived value (CPV) refers to the overall evaluation of the benefits customers perceive and the costs they incur when obtaining a product or service. Customers mainly consider the external characteristics of products, such as quality, packaging, and color, as part of the value they receive. In addition, higher-level abstract benefits, such as enterprise reputation, convenience, and image, also contribute to CPV, which fall within the scope of CSR [44].
In general, this study demonstrated that CSR is not just about being accountable to shareholders or economic practices. Instead, it is a voluntary effort by organizations to contribute to multiple levels, including stakeholders, society, and the environment. The following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: 
Organizational CSR practices have a positive impact on co-creating customer value.
H2: 
Organizational CSR practices have a positive impact on customers’ perception.

2.4. Customer Value Co-Creation at the Customer Level

Based on the customer-oriented logic, customers are co-creators of value [14]. The concept of value co-creation stems from the sharing of resources, knowledge, and technology, allowing the entire value chain to have participants [17]. Customer value co-creation mainly emphasizes the role of customers as co-producers, participating in the design of products or services, the entire process from production to consumption, and the customer experience in the design, production, and consumption processes [45].

2.5. Customer Perception at the Customer Level

When providing services and fulfilling social responsibilities, banks expect their services and business philosophy to influence customer perception and create perceived value through the transaction process [46]. Zhang Shuqing (2006) [47] found that when customers perceive value, they can influence customer behavioral intentions through customer value and satisfaction. Scholars have divided the practice of CSR into six dimensions [48]: CSR perception and support, CSR consistency, motivational attribution, corporate reputation, customer collectivism, and customer novelty, and hope that customers can perceive the company’s practices and further influence their consumption or behavior. In the era of digitalization and the Internet, this influence has become even more accessible. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: 
Customer perception of CSR has a positive impact on the co-customer of customer value.

2.6. The Mediating Effect of Customer Perception between CSR Practice and Co-Creation of Customer Value

The motivation behind corporate social responsibility behavior is often ambiguous [49]. Ahen and Zettinig (2015) [50] believe that the strategic decision-making of the organization is the main bridge that determines whether the enterprise fulfills corporate social responsibility. In the past cases of corporate management, it can be found that enterprises often do not practice corporate social responsibility voluntarily and sincerely. Some enterprises still question and adopt a passive attitude towards the concept of corporate social responsibility.
Butz and Goodstein (1996) [51] believe that customer value is an emotional bond established by customers after using products or services and discovering the additional value provided by the products. Kotler (2003) [52] believes that customer value is the overall evaluation of the customer’s ability to satisfy consumer needs with the product. When customers evaluate, they will generate perceived value and a weighted concept [53] and seek the overall customer value of the product from many choices, showing fully rational behavior [54]. This study revealed that customers are prudent and judgmental when engaging in co-creation of customer value. Before customers engage in value co-creation behavior, they must perceive the strategy of the enterprise’s corporate social responsibility practice. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: 
Customer perception has a mediating effect between corporate social responsibility practice and the co-creation of customer value.
The research structure of this study is shown in Figure 1. The study includes organizational-level variables such as corporate social responsibility practice, and customer-level variables such as customer perception and co-creation of customer value. The main focus is to test the mediating effect of customer perception on the relationship between corporate social responsibility practice and co-creation of customer value.

3. Methodology

This study mainly adopted a cross-level research method to explore the utility pathways of corporate social responsibility in the banking industry under the digital background. The data collection was conducted through a combination of online and offline methods in the form of a questionnaire survey, mainly targeting banks and their customers in Taiwan. The data collection period lasted for four months.
Three software programs, SPSS 20, AMOS 21, and HLM 6.08, were used for data analysis. The statistical analysis methods included descriptive statistics analysis, factor analysis, reliability and validity analysis, and hierarchical linear modeling analysis. The analysis content includes basic data analysis, hypothesis testing, and cross-level analysis.

3.1. Data Collection

This study selected 30 banks that practice corporate social responsibility based on the list of Taiwan banks provided by the Banking Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan. Questionnaires were distributed to these banks in groups. Prior to distributing the questionnaires, the banks were contacted by email or phone to inquire about their willingness to participate in the study, and purposive sampling was used to select the banks that agreed to participate. The cross-sectional survey (for both the organization and the customers) was conducted for a month, and a total of 265 questionnaires were distributed to 31 branches (i.e., groups) of the 30 banks. Of these, 30 questionnaires were valid at the organizational level, and 262 were valid at the customer level. During the data matching process, if a branch refused to respond or fewer than three customers responded, the entire sample was considered invalid.

3.2. Measurement

The questionnaires collected in this study were divided into two parts: one for the organization and one for customers. The former measures corporate social responsibility practices, while the latter includes measures of customer perceptions of corporate social responsibility and value co-creation.

3.2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices—Organizational Level

This study mainly explores the relationship between corporate social responsibility and stakeholders. Therefore, the scale developed by Turker (2009) [36] was selected, which consists of seven dimensions and a total of 17 items. In addition, this study also integrated the dimensions cited in previous studies to demonstrate that the relevant items and dimensions have good reliability and validity.

3.2.2. Customer Perception of CSR—Customer Level

The corporate social responsibility is that a company’s behavior positively and proactively influences society and stakeholders, and its business strategies go beyond economic interests [48]. This study uses a scale developed by Pérez and Rodríguez Del Bosque (2013) [48], which consists of 44 questions, to measure the customer perception of CSR.

3.2.3. Co-Creation of Customer Value—Customer Level

This study adopted the definition of customer value co-creation developed by Auh et al. (2007) [55], which refers to customer behaviors that are participatory and cooperative in the process of service creation and delivery. The value co-creation scale developed by Yi and Gong (2013) [56] is used in this study, which includes eight dimensions: information search, information sharing, responsible behavior, interpersonal interaction, feedback, advocacy, assistance, and inclusiveness, with a total of 29 questions.

3.2.4. Control Variable

According to Silva, Camacho, and Vázquez (2013) [57], customers with different demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, occupation, and education level, are likely to vary in their level of involvement in co-creation of customer value. Additionally, Clauss, Kesting, and Naskrent (2019) [58] suggest that age and income are potential factors that may influence both customer value co-creation behavior and customer satisfaction. Therefore, in this study, personal characteristics, such as gender, marital status, age, work experience, and industry of employment at the customer level, as well as organizational characteristics, such as marital status of organizational leaders, education level, work experience, and department, will be included as control variables.

3.3. Sample Data Analysis

At the organizational level, there were 30 effective questionnaires collected by the bank, of which 18 were male, accounting for 60%; 22 respondents were married, accounting for 73.3%; the main age group of the questionnaire respondents was 40–49 years old, accounting for 60%; 18 people (60%) had a university degree; the longest work experience was over 12 years, with 18 people (60%); respondents from the business department accounted for 26.7%; there were 19 people (63.3%) who had a salary of over NTD 60,000; the main respondents were basic managers of the bank (15%); the number of managed employees mainly fell within the range of 6–10 and 16–20 people, accounting for 33.3% each.
At the customer level, there were 262 effective questionnaires collected, of which 128 were male (48.9%); 117 were married (44.7%); the main age group was 30–39 years old, with 136 people (51.9%); the majority of the questionnaire respondents had a university degree, with 147 people (56.1%); the longest work experience was 7–9 years, with 62 people (23.7%); the industry with the highest number of respondents was the high-tech industry, with 54 people (20.6%); the monthly income mainly fell within the range of NTD 40,000–50,000, with 83 people (31.7%) (see Table 1).

3.3.1. Model-Fit Measures

Five confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Model-fit measures ( χ 2/df, the goodness-of-fit index, the normed fit index, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index, and the root mean square residual) were calculated to estimate the models’ overall goodness of fit, and all values exceeded their respective common acceptance levels (Hair et al., 1998) [59], indicating the overall acceptability of the hypothesized model.
The reliability and validity measurement results of this study are shown in Table 2. After analysis, the Cronbach’s α values of each dimension range from 0.946 to 0.965, which fully meet the standard threshold proposed by Nunnally (1978) [60] (α value greater than 0.7). Therefore, this study’s questionnaire has a certain degree of reliability. The validity test results are in line with the standards recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) [59], with factor loading (λ) exceeding the standard value of 0.5 for each dimension, and the results of each dimension index (CR, AVE, GFI, NFI, RMR) meeting the standards. For results, see Table 2 and Table 3.

3.3.2. Cross-Level Analysis Results

In hypothesis H1, the statistical results show (β = 0.0894, SE = 0.0498, p = 0.084), indicating no significant impact when p > 0.05, thus hypothesis H1, that corporate social responsibility practices have a positive effect on customer value co-creation, is not supported.
In hypothesis H2, organizational-level self-assessment of corporate social responsibility has a positive and significant effect on customer perception of corporate social responsibility at the customer level (β = 0.0874, SE = 0.0343, p < 0.05), supporting hypothesis H2.
Finally, using SPSS for regression analysis, we investigated the mediating effect of customer perception on the relationship between corporate social responsibility practices and customer value co-creation (H3). The result was significant (p = 0.000), indicating that customer perception of corporate social responsibility has significant predictive ability for customer value co-creation (standardized coefficient = 0.645, T-value = 13.621), thus supporting hypothesis H3.

3.3.3. Cross-Level Mediating Effect

In hypothesis H4, we used RMediation analysis and found that customer perception has a significant mediating effect. The result of this path is an average of 0.06 and a standard deviation of 0.024, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.014, 0.109], as shown in Figure 2. According to the study of Tofighi and MacKinnon (2011) [61], the confidence interval does not include 0, thus supporting hypothesis H4. Therefore, to achieve value co-creation in the banking industry, it is necessary to go through customer perception, and corporate social responsibility practices alone are not enough.

4. General Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices can influence customers’ CSR perception and further lead to the behavior of value co-creation. Despite the increasing importance of CSR in the digital economy, our research finds that it does not necessarily lead to more customer value co-creation unless customers perceive the CSR practices implemented by the bank. The banking industry has its unique characteristics compared to other service industries, including the products it sells, its business model, and its credit impact. Especially in the context of the global economic downturn, the banking industry is particularly vulnerable to the challenges of declining business and investor confidence. This study can help companies rebuild trust with their customers through the practice of social responsibility, which benefits both parties.
This study assumed that the results of H1 differ significantly from past research by scholars. Most research results suggest a direct relationship between corporate social responsibility and co-creation of customer value [9,10]. However, this study focuses on the strategies of practicing corporate social responsibility in the Taiwanese banking industry and finds that there is no direct correlation between the two. Instead, the co-creation of customer value needs to be achieved through the mediating effect of customer perception of corporate social responsibility. The results do not support H1, which may be due to the unique characteristics of the banking industry. The products and services provided by banks are mainly based on unilateral institutional or strategic decisions, rather than results of negotiation with customers. Therefore, the practice of value co-creation is difficult for transactions that are not established through negotiation [62].
In a highly competitive market environment, customers are both value users and value creators in the value chain process [63]. Value creation is no longer solely the responsibility of the enterprise but requires mutual interaction between the enterprise and its customers [64]. The lending rates or interest rates provided by banks to consumers are not based on agreements reached through communication or interaction with customers. Customer–bank relationships often involve only passive behavior or accepting results. This includes the revolving interest derived from credit card fees that are not immediately settled, which is determined by banks based on the government-regulated range of revolving interest rates.
In summary, this study illustrated that the practice of corporate social responsibility in Taiwanese banks does not involve communication with customers or a true understanding of their needs. Some social responsibility measures are even requirements imposed on listed companies by the government, rather than what customers expect. Therefore, insignificant value co-creation occurs during the practice of corporate social responsibility. Banks hope to identify factors that affect customer value to develop effective competitive strategies, which will increase customers’ awareness of value and translate it into a driving force for enhancing customer loyalty [65]. This study revealed that the borrowing and lending relationship between banks and customers can create debt and even cause stress in customers’ lives. When banks practice corporate social responsibility, if customers do not feel any benefits, then there will be no value co-creation.
Assuming that in H2, customers are involved in the enterprise-led production and consumption process [66], this means that customers complete enterprise strategy activities through experiences. When the strategies executed by the enterprise can have an impact on customers, i.e., services, interactions, and systems are in the service cycle system, they can affect customers’ perception of the enterprise’s corporate social responsibility practices. Customers’ perception of a bank’s corporate social responsibility fulfillment strategy can effectively strengthen the bank’s senior management’s planning and implementation of business strategies. When the bank truly understands customer value, it can have a significant impact on customers’ perception of corporate social responsibility [67]. Based on previous research findings, consumers usually question the strategies related to corporate social responsibility practices of companies [68]. Therefore, it is commendable if companies can genuinely practice their promised corporate social responsibility-related strategies and concepts. When the company has self-enhancement and is willing to change, customers can strongly perceive the intention of the company’s corporate social responsibility practice strategy [69]. This study’s results also found that a bank’s strategic practice of corporate social responsibility has a positive impact on customers’ perception of the bank’s corporate social responsibility practice.
Assuming that in H3, previous research has shown that customers’ perception of corporate social responsibility has a positive impact on their participation in corporate social responsibility [16], this conclusion is consistent with the results of this study. When customers have a positive evaluation of the company’s corporate social responsibility practice, they will also have positive value co-creation behavior. Taking the research object S Bank as an example, S Bank has successful value co-creation cases with customers. S Bank integrates corporate social responsibility strategies into credit card marketing and uses experiential marketing to encourage consumers to use mobile payments actively. Customers can also gain professional knowledge of mobile payment technology and convenience in consumption. The company also earns transaction fee revenue and even donates a portion of the profits to needy units in a benign cycle. Both parties will continue to make efforts for the expansion of the entire social mobile payment in a value co-creation manner.
Assuming that in H4, the results of previous research also confirm this study that when companies design, produce, and sell products, they must interact with customers. When corporate social responsibility is the foundation of the strategy, relevant activities must allow customers to have a deep experience and feeling, thereby having an important impact on every aspect of the business system. Therefore, in a competitive environment, companies must rely on individual-centered value co-creation [64]. When customers have a high degree of trust in a bank’s corporate social responsibility strategy, it can strengthen customers’ perception of corporate social responsibility and even make customers willing to actively participate in relevant activities, thus achieving the behavior of value co-creation between companies and customers [16]. Therefore, this study found that customers’ perception has significant influence.

4.1. Management Suggestions

Businesses coexist and prosper with society and the environment, and the greater the influence of a business, the greater the responsibility it bears. Balancing business development, social responsibility, environmental friendliness, and creating mutual benefits between humans and the world challenges the wisdom of business management. In today’s economy, which is suffering from slow growth due to the pandemic, businesses should be committed to sustainable development with a sense of responsibility. The banking industry should use its influence as a financial industry to lead the industry’s development in governance, environmental protection, and social responsibility, and become a positive force driving society. Compliance with regulations is necessary for the banking industry, and in the operation of listed companies, the government requires companies to issue social responsibility reports. Companies should voluntarily integrate them into their business strategies.

4.2. Research Contributions

Firstly, different from previous studies [9,10], this study found that, in the digital context, the practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the banking industry has no direct impact on customer value co-creation, and it must be mediated through customer perception to achieve the effect of customer value co-creation. This is a significant discovery and breakthrough for the banking industry, which has no substantial product sales.
Secondly, the study provides evidence that customers’ perception of CSR has a positive impact on their participation in CSR (H3). When customers have a positive evaluation of the company’s CSR practice, they will also have positive value co-creation behavior. In prior research, the assessment of CSR performance has predominantly revolved around metrics, such as stock performance, financial outcomes, corporate reputation, employee welfare, and environmental conservation [70,71,72]. This line of inquiry has made a valuable contribution to expanding the evaluative framework and incorporating diverse factors.
In the current landscape of digital transformation, a growing body of scholars is dedicating their research endeavors to enhancing the technological aspects of banking operations in order to meet customer demands and enhance overall business performance. Initiatives, such as the implementation of digital platforms for customer needs analysis and the development of mobile applications, have garnered attention [73,74]. This research underscores the significance of adopting a human-centric approach that takes into account psychological factors, including customers’ subjective perceptions, which continue to shape their cognitive evaluations of banks.

4.3. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

In terms of the behaviors that affect customer value co-creation, in addition to the perception of CSR practices by customers discussed in this study, there may be other direct, mediating, or moderating variables, which can be explored in future researchY. This study mainly surveyed branches of various banks in Taiwan. It is suggested that future research could conduct quantitative surveys targeting specific banks or increase the number of units surveyed to increase the credibility of the research.

Author Contributions

S.Y. and Y.H. generated the idea and study design, collected data, and carried out the data analysis. H.-Y.C. and C.-H.Y. participated in the writing of the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Huaqiao University Philosophy and Social Science Young Scholars Development project (20SKGC-QG07) and Chinese Social Science Foundation, grant number 21CGL018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, Y.Z. The impact of digital transformation on corporate social responsibility. J. Cont. Econ. Sci. 2022, 44, 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sheldon, O. The Philosophy of Management; Pitman: London, UK, 1923. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yang, L.; Guo, Z. Evolution of CSR Concept in the West and China. J. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2014, 3, 819. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wartick, S.L.; Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. J. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 758–769. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited. J. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 691–718. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll, A.B. Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR Construct’s Development and Future. Bus. Soc. 2021, 1, 1258–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carroll, A.B.; Brown, J.A.; Buchholtz, A.K. Business & Society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 10, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dupire, M.; M’zali, B. CSR Strategies in Response to Competitive Pressures. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 603–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Luu, T.T. CSR and Customer Value Co-creation Behavior: The Moderation Mechanisms of Servant Leadership and Relationship Marketing Orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 155, 379–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mubushar, M.; Rasool, S.; Haider, M.I.; Cerchione, R. The impact of corporate social responsibility activities on stakeholders’ value co-creation behaviour. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1906–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Ullah, Z.; Arshad, M.Z.; Sabir, R.I.; Khan, W.A. The Nexus of CSR and Co-Creation: A Roadmap towards Consumer Loyalty. Sustainability 2021, 13, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Madrigal, R.; Boush, D.M. Social responsibility as a unique dimension of brand personality and consumers’ willingness to reward. J. Psychol. Mark. Res. 2008, 25, 538–564. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fauzan, N. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility to Corporate Reputation on Word of Mouth Toward Customer Trust. J. GMPI Conference Proc. Res. 2022, 1, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yen, C.-H.; Teng, H.-Y.; Tzeng, J.-C. Innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors: Mediating role of customer engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hur, W.-M.; Moon, T.-W.; Kim, H. When does customer CSR perception lead to customer extra-role behaviors? The roles of customer spirituality and emotional brand attachment. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 27, 421–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Biggemann, S.; Williams, M.; Kro, G. Building in sustainability, social responsibility and value co-creation. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2014, 29, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Behnam, M.; Anagnostopoulos, C.; Byers, T.; Papadimitriou, D.A. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on value-in-use through customer engagement in non-profit sports clubs: The moderating role of co-production. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2021, 2, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mohr, L.A.; Eroǧlu, D.; Ellen, P.S. The Development and Testing of a Measure of Skepticism Toward Environmental Claims in Marketers’ Communications. J. Consum. Aff. 1998, 32, 30–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, K.; Kim, J. Current status of CSR in the realm of supply management: The case of the Korean electronics industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2009, 14, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Skarmeas, D.; Leonidou, C.N. When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1831–1838. [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, C.J. Internationalization and Performance of Taiwanese Banks. J. Bus. Adm. Res. 2010, 2, 41–70. [Google Scholar]
  23. Uzzi, B. Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1999, 64, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gulati, R.; Gargiulo, M. Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? SSRN Electron. J. 1999, 104, 1439–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zucker, L.G. Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840–1920. Res. Organ. Behav. 1991, 16, 691–718. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, Y.-H.; Hsiao, C.; Chan, H.-Y.; Lee, I.-C. Explorations of employee-based brand equity in the banking industry from a perceived-leadership perspective. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020, 38, 425–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, S95–S120. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lu, H.; Wang, B.; Wang, H.; Zhao, T. Does social capital matter for peer-to-peer-lending? Empirical evidence. Pacific-Basin Finance J. 2020, 61, 101338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zheng, C.; Cheung, A.W.K.; Cronje, T. Social capital and bank liquidity hoarding. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2022, 80, 101653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ma, T.C. Industrial structure and profitability: An empirical study of the Taiwan banking market. Fair Trade Q. Fair Trade 2005, 13, 61–92. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yuting, L. Re-thinking the peculiarity of corporate governance in the banking industry—On the establishment of information disclosure mechanism. Cen. China Econ. Law J. 2007, 18, 191–241. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ertan, A. Real Earnings Management in the Financial Industry (Working Paper). Master’s Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen, C.Y.; Li, C.A. Substitution between Economic Cost Management and Real Earnings Management: Taiwan Banking Industry. Manag. Rev. Res. 2017, 26, 511–558. [Google Scholar]
  34. Riani, A.L. The Effect of Corporate Governance Mechanism to Organization (A Study of Banking). J. Int. Innov. Sci. Math. Res. 2014, 2, 2347–2905. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
  36. Turker, D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carroll, A.; Buchholtz, A. Assessing ethics education in a business, government, and society course context. J. Toward Assessing Bus. Ethics Educ. Res. 2011, 15, 263–276. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sexty, R.W. Canadian Business and Society: Ethics & Responsibilities; McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Whitby, ON, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Post, J.E.; Preston, L.E.; Sachs, S. Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. J. Calif. Manag. Rev. Res. 2002, 45, 6–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abbasi, S.; Aghakhani, H.; Azizi, S.; Peikanpour, M.; Mehralian, G. Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty during the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from pharmacy practice. Soc. Responsib. J. 2022, 19, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Au-Yong-Oliveira, M.; Sousa, M.J. Sustainable Marketing and Strategy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, E.S.-T.; Liao, Y.-T. Effects of member similarity on group norm conformity, group identity and social participation in the context of social networking sites. Internet Res. 2023. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Banik, S.; Rabbanee, F.K. Value co-creation and customer retention in services: Identifying a relevant moderator and mediator. J. Consum. Behav. 2023, 22, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. FitzPatrick, M.; Davey, J.; Muller, L.; Davey, H. Value-creating assets in tourism management: Applying marketing’s service-dominant logic in the hotel industry. J. Tour. Manag. Res. 2013, 36, 86–98. [Google Scholar]
  46. Al-Sabbahy, H.Z.; Ekinci, Y.; Riley, M. Perceived Value—The Mistaken Identity: Comment on “An Examination of the Construct of Perceived Value for the Prediction of Golf Travelers’ Intention to Revisit” by Petrick and Backman. J. Trav. Res. 2004, 42, 426–428. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, S.C. The relationship among perceived value, customer value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: Empirical evidence from Penghu Tourism. Econ. Sci. 2006, 3, 169–194. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pérez, A.; Rodríguez del Bosque, I. Measuring CSR image: Three studies to develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. J. Bus. Ethics. Res. 2013, 118, 265–286. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bénabou, R.; Tirole, J. Individual and corporate social responsibility. J. Econ. Res. 2010, 77, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ahen, F.; Zettinig, P. Critical perspectives on strategic CSR: What is sustainable value co-creation orientation? Crit. Perspect. Int. Bus. 2015, 11, 92. [Google Scholar]
  51. Butz, H.E., Jr.; Goodstein, L.D. Measuring customer value: Gaining the strategic advantage. J. Organ. Dyn. Res. 1996, 24, 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kotler, P. Marketing Insights from A to Z: 80 Concepts Every Manager Needs to Know; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  53. Groth, J.C.; Dye, R.T. Service quality: Perceived value, expectations, shortfalls, and bonuses. J. Manag. Serv. Qual. Res. 1999, 9, 274–286. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ravald, A.; Grönroos, C. The value concept and relationship marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 1996, 30, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Auh, S.; Bell, S.J.; McLeod, C.S.; Shih, E. Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services. J. Retail. 2007, 83, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vega-Vazquez, M.; Revilla-Camacho, M.; Cossío-Silva, F.J. The value co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 1945–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Clauss, T.; Kesting, T.; Naskrent, J. A rolling stone gathers no moss: The effect of customers’ perceived business model innovativeness on customer value co-creation behavior and customer satisfaction in the service sector. R. D. Manag. 2018, 49, 180–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill Parasuraman: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tofighi, D.; MacKinnon, D.P. RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behav. Res. Methods 2011, 43, 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vargo, S.L.; Maglio, P.P.; Akaka, M.A. On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. J. Eur. Manag. 2012, 26, 145–152. [Google Scholar]
  63. Normann, R.; Ramírez, R. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  64. Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, N.H.; He, X.T. A study of customer value and customer relationship management performance: From the perspective of Taiwanese banking customers. J. Customer Sat. 2009, 5, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wikström, S. The customer as co-producer. J. Eur. Mark. 1996, 30, 309–566. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ramasamy, S.; Dara Singh, K.S.; Amran, A.; Nejati, M. Linking human values to consumer CSR perception: The moderating role of consumer skepticism. J. Corp. Soc. Resp. Env. Manag. Res. 2020, 27, 1958–1971. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhai, S.; Cheng, Y.; Xie, L. Digital transformation and risk-taking level of commercial banks. Beijing Technol. Bus. Univ. 2023, 38, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  69. Brun, I.; Durif, F.; Ricard, L. E-relationship marketing: A cognitive mapping introspection in the banking sector. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48, 572–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Margolis, J.D.; Elfenbein, H.A.; Walsh, J.P. Does it pay to be good... and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Harv. Bus. Sch. Work. Paper 2007, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cai, L.A. Do banks’ corporate social responsibility activities lead to a better financial performance? Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 65–93. [Google Scholar]
  73. Carranza, R.; Díaz, E.; Sánchez-Camacho, C.; Martín-Consuegra, D. e-Banking Adoption: An Opportunity for Customer Value Co-creation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 621248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Boufounou, P.; Mavroudi, M.; Toudas, K.; Georgakopoulos, G. Digital Transformation of the Greek Banking Sector in the COVID Era. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08567 g001 550
Figure 1. Structure of study.
Figure 1. Structure of study.
Sustainability 15 08567 g001
Sustainability 15 08567 g002 550
Figure 2. Mediating effect verification diagram.
Figure 2. Mediating effect verification diagram.
Sustainability 15 08567 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic information.
Table 1. Demographic information.
LevelOrganizational-LevelCustomer-Level
TypeBankCustomer
Total Effective Questionnaires30262
Gender (Male)18 (60%)128 (48.9%)
Marital Status (Married)22 (73.3%)117 (44.7%)
Age Group40–49 years old (60%)30–39 years old (51.9%)
Education (University Degree)18 (60%)147 (56.1%)
Work Experience (Years)12 years and above (60%)7–9 years (23.7%)
Business Department (%)26.7%N/A
Salary (Over 60,000 NTD)19 (63.3%)83 (31.7%)
Note: “%” indicates the percentage of the corresponding category in the total effective questionnaires.
Table
Table 2. Convergent validity.
Table 2. Convergent validity.
VariableCronbachs αλ χ 2/df CRAVEGFINFIRMR
OCSR0.9650.536~0.9459.620/110.9360.6820.9140.9540.022
CCSR0.9470.637~0.78348.554/90.8700.5290.9410.9310.018
CVCC0.9460.623~0.77984.369/170.8840.5230.9290.9200.018
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
VariableCCSRCVCC
CCSR0.529 a0.416 b
CVCC0.416 b0.523 a
Note: a means average variance extracted (AVE); b means squared correlation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, S.; Huang, Y.; Chan, H.-Y.; Yang, C.-H. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Customer Value Co-Creation and Perception in the Digital Context: A Case Study of Taiwan Bank Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118567

AMA Style

Yang S, Huang Y, Chan H-Y, Yang C-H. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Customer Value Co-Creation and Perception in the Digital Context: A Case Study of Taiwan Bank Industry. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118567

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Shu, Yidan Huang, Hsin-Yi Chan, and Cheng-Hsueh Yang. 2023. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Customer Value Co-Creation and Perception in the Digital Context: A Case Study of Taiwan Bank Industry" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118567

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop