Exploring the Impact of Corporate Philanthropy on Brand Authenticity in the Luxury Industry: Scale Development and Empirical Studies

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the concept of perceived corporate philanthropy (PCP) among consumers of luxury goods and examine the differences these consumers perceive in terms of philanthropic actions, particularly within the luxury sector. To address this question, we adopted the following approach: (1) Defining the concept of PCP through an extensive analysis of 2590 articles using GEPHI methodology. (2) Developing a measurement scale for the PCP construct. (3) Exploring the impact of PCP on perceived brand authenticity by comparing consumers of luxury hotels and standard hotels. The results of our multigroup analysis indicated a significant difference among consumers. Corporate philanthropic strategies had a notably stronger influence on the perception of PCP among luxury hotel consumers. This finding underscores the substantial divergence within the luxury marketing literature. These consumers seek brands that align with their desire to associate themselves with robust and authentic brands that carry symbolic significance, which allows them to identify and connect with these brands. By consuming these brands, they are able to attain their desired status. This study sheds light on a significant variable in contemporary marketing, namely, PCP, which provides new avenues for differentiation and leverage within the luxury goods industry. As a result, this study provides valuable managerial recommendations to companies and NGOs, aiming to assist them in tailoring their philanthropic strategies to effectively resonate with their target audiences and bolster their brand reputation.

1. Introduction

The Hilton Foundation recently disbursed USD 207 Million in grant making, of which a large part was contributed towards helping homeless people and disaster recovery. This example highlights the attention given by stakeholders in the tourism industry [1], and more specifically those in the hotel luxury sector, to various social and environmental causes [2,3]. Recently, Refs. [4,5,6,7] called for research on corporate philanthropy because, according to them [2,8,9]: (1) there is no consensus in the literature on how to understand the meaning of this concept; (2) the associated measures are, therefore, difficult to use; and (3) there is a lack of empirical studies that can help managers to understand athe impact of these practices in the services industry.

In the present research, we investigated the concept of PCP and proposed a valid scale to measure it. In so doing, we considered the context of the tourism luxury industry to analyse the effect of PCP on brand authenticity and cause involvement. These elements are all the more pertinent in light of the recent results found by [8], p. 21, who proposed a new definition of “luxury” as “being able to make significant improvements in the lives of distant others by providing them with economic, cultural, and/or social capital and, simultaneously, transforming the self of the giver”. From this perspective, through their purchases, consumers of luxury brands not only benefit from a social status marker via the purchased item but also contribute to the causes supported by the product or service brand [10,11]. By consuming luxury brands, they can, therefore, be called philanthropists. This approach may be nuanced, given that corporate philanthropy exists outside the luxury industry as well (WalMart gave USD 65 million in local grants in 2021), and not all luxury consumers are likely to appreciate this. However, some specificities of the luxury sector are directly linked to PCP: Firstly, PCP reduces consumer guilt linked to the purchase of nonessential products at a high price. Indeed, “the altruistic utility offered by charitable incentives may be more complementary with the feelings generated by luxury goods than with the more functional motivations associated with practical goods” ([12], p. 444). These authors provided strong evidence that consumers of luxury goods are more sensitive to cause-related marketing campaigns. Secondly, the high prices associated with the high-value creation of the luxury industry make it possible for them to make bigger donations through their product or service than other industries. Finally, Ref. [13] underlined an important point for studying sustainable luxury regarding the trickle-down effect elite luxury individuals have on less affluent mainstream individuals.

To our knowledge, little research has investigated consumers’ perceptions of philanthropic actions [4,14,15], while the effects of PCP are unclear among individuals and may lead some people to be sceptical [16,17]. Indeed, some companies intend to be publicly perceived as environmentally and socially responsible, even though this might not necessarily be the case [17]. Thus, stakeholders may become suspicious and the company can be perceived as hypocritical [18]. At the scholarly level, examining such questions requires a grasp of the concept of philanthropy. Corporate philanthropy has been examined in several fields: societal impacts ([19,20,21]), company performance ([22,23,24]), altruism and ethics [25], and stakeholders [26,27]. The diversity of analytical perspectives and the multitude of studies this has given rise to have contributed to the debate; however, these studies have been unable to move towards a holistic definition and empirical measure(s) to understand what corporate philanthropy is [28].

This research seeks to fill this gap in the literature by defining corporate philanthropy through a study of the prior literature and consumers’ perceptions before highlighting the marketing interest of luxury companies with respect to PCP. Our study aimed to pinpoint the concept of PCP in order to propose a valid scale for its measurement. To do so, rigorous scale development steps were followed. This first step of reviewing and summarising the literature was based on 2590 articles, which facilitated the definition of four dimensions of PCP. Thereafter, a qualitative study with expert reviews was conducted to generate 29 items associated with these four dimensions (Study 1). A quantitative study (Study 2) was then undertaken to purify the scale, followed by a further quantitative study to finalise it and perform a nomological test [29,30]. Study 3, involving 550 hotel consumers, highlighted the strong connection between PCP and brand authenticity. The findings provided a two-dimensional scale that is stable from the standpoint of the statistical criteria typically used in management science. The obtained result enabled us to propose the following definition of PCP: “Perceived corporate philanthropy (PCP) refers to consumers’ perception of a company’s voluntary commitment to social causes, separate from its commercial activities. This perception is shaped by stakeholders’ altruism, as well as the company’s philanthropic actions that contribute to society and impact both its performance and social well-being”. Further, this study provided a comparison of the differences between the perceptions of luxury consumers and nonluxury consumers in the field of tourism research. A discussion of the managerial contributions made by our research concludes this paper.

2. Literature Review

Why does corporate philanthropy continue to be a topic of discussion? This theoretical concept gives rise to debate due to its abstract nature, varying interpretations, and associated definitions.

Table 1. Examples of corporate philanthropy definitions and measures in the literature.

Definition	Measures	Authors
A transfer, of a charitable nature, of corporate resources to recipients at below-market prices.	Annual IRS statistics for industry groups.	[31] (p. 95)
The oldest form of corporate social behaviour.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[32] (p. 49)
Corporate philanthropy—part of the marketing objectives for increasing product sales or enhancing corporate identity.	Philanthropic motivation composed of two dimensions: three items to assess the aesthetic pleasure dimension and four items for the cultural tradition dimension.	[33,34]
Corporate philanthropy is defined as the discretionary part of a company’s social responsibilities, which “encompasses those corporate actions that are in response to society’s expectation that businesses are good corporate citizens. This includes actively engaging in acts or programs to promote human welfare or goodwill”.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[35] (p. 42)
Corporate philanthropy is an unconditional transfer of cash or other assets to an entity or a settlement or cancellation of its liabilities in a voluntary, nonreciprocal transfer by another entity acting other than as an owner.	Financial accounting and reporting standards.	[33,34] (p. 6)
A discretionary responsibility of a firm involving choosing how it will voluntarily allocate its slack resources to charitable or social service activities that are not business-related and for which there are no clear social expectations as to how the firm should perform.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[22]
A discretionary responsibility of a firm that involves choosing how it will voluntarily allocate resources to charitable or social service activities in order to reach marketing and other business-related objectives for which there are no clear social expectations as to how the firm should perform.	Two experiments examining the effects of different types and implementation strategies of philanthropy on consumer perceptions. One item to investigate the philanthropy strategy.	[36]
Corporate philanthropy is the first and least advanced stage of collaboration between businesses and nonprofit organisations.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[37]
The venture philanthropy model emphasises long-term funding commitments designed to help organisations develop and grow.	Financial and consulting data.	[38]
Philanthropy strategy is presented as one of the main practices in CSR which is able to simultaneously meet the social and economic objectives of local communities and businesses.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[39]
A discretionary manifestation of CSR that differs in kind (not merely in degree) from the obligatory conformance with economic, legal, or moral/ethical dimensions of CSR (p. 778).	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[40]
Corporate philanthropy can be defined as an instrument of social regulation that aims to stabilise interactions between businesses and society, and to facilitate the long-term integration of businesses and societal goals.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[41]
Corporate philanthropy is mainly made up of unstructured donations based on the leaders’ personal values and interests.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[17]
Philanthropic activities, such as giving to charity, represent an early stage of social responsibility.	Financial and consulting data.	[42]
Corporate philanthropy comprises voluntary donations of corporate resources to charitable causes.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[5]
Altruistic philanthropy refers to the commitment to making the world a better place.	Data included in reports and websites centring on supporting the community in terms of corporate philanthropy were used.	[4]
Corporate philanthropy depends on emotional drive: guilt of leaders which will condition corporate philanthropy.	Corporate philanthropy is measured by the total dollar amount of grants given to charities by a firm, either directly or through a corporate foundation.	[43]
Three types of corporate responsibility exist, which can be viewed as three consecutive steps along a corporate responsibility continuum: – Philanthropy, with a strong focus on charity, corporate giving, and so on. Typically, philanthropic activities are extra activities outside the core business; – CR integration, with the firm aiming at more responsible management of company operations; – CR innovation, where corporate social responsibility is considered a source of innovation for the firm.	No measure. Conceptual paper.	[44]

presents a nonexhaustive overview of definitions found in the literature.

Furthermore, this concept has been thoroughly examined in relation to other perspectives. Regarding the distinction between the concept of philanthropy and CSR, an initial line of research showed that corporate philanthropy is a subdimension of CSR [17,32,45,46,47,48,49,50]. CSR is defined as a company’s obligation to exert a positive impact and minimise its negative impact on society [51]. According to [45], CSR can be divided into four components (economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropical), with corporate philanthropy falling within the discretionary category. A second approach considered corporate philanthropy as a research theme that is separate from CSR [52,53]. In the latter approach, CSR is increasingly regulated and taxed, while corporate philanthropy remains a voluntary element [35]. It is the “icing on the cake” ([35], p. 42). CSR corresponds more closely to a reduction in the negative impact of corporate operations, while corporate philanthropy is a way for a company to contribute to a cause. Finally, the authors of [49] highlighted that each type of responsibility dimension outlined in [45] and perceived by consumers stands on its own and is not a dimension of an underlying, encompassing construct. In this research, as [5,40,49] have stated, we consider corporate philanthropy as a discretionary action which differs in kind from the obligatory conformance of economic, legal, or moral/ethical dimensions of CSR.

In light of this lack of consensus regarding definitions and measures (see Table 1) and in order to accurately pinpoint the concept of corporate philanthropy and its dimensions, a review of the literature was conducted. A total of 2590 articles on the topic were found and analysed using Gephi software (see Appendix A for details regarding the Gephi methodology). Four dimensions of corporate philanthropy emerged from the Gephi modularity analysis [54], namely, society, ethics, performance, and stakeholders. These various dimensions are presented below.

2.1. Societal Impacts

Semantically, “philanthropy” (derived from the Greek words “philos,” meaning “love,” and “anthropos,” meaning “human race”) means “love for humanity”. When applied to a company, it means that the organisation wants to contribute to the welfare of humanity; thus, tax advantages alone do not explain philanthropic behaviour [55]. For [21], philanthropy plays a role in filling gaps and improving the lives of citizens when government programs are cut. For example, Ref. [19] (p. 135) showed that during the previous round of US federal budget cuts in community development support, nonprofit organisations, “[were] increasingly looking to the private sector for funds and other resources to improve the quality of community life”. According to [56], voluntary corporate contributions act as social contracts—a set of implicit obligations and rights between companies and society [57]. As social contracts, the distribution of contributions should follow each society’s guidelines, thus endowing the companies with a certain legitimacy. In this manner, social contracts are the vectors by which company behaviour conforms to social standards; in addition to maximising profits, this approach makes companies responsible for participating in the ongoing improvement of the human condition. In this regard, studies have focused on the donations made since “corporate charitable contributions can teach us how social, political, and cultural contexts influence corporate behaviour” [58] (p. 445). For [59], local corporate attitude towards contributions significantly determines the amount of a company’s donations, as the business community develops separate approaches to giving among its members. Thus, irrespective of the company’s turnover or board commitment, if the local business community deems it generous for a company to donate to a community, it will be more reactive. To summarize, this dimension represents the core of philanthropy, which is to create a positive influence on society. These impacts can now be quantified using various indicators that align with the specific cause being supported. For instance, indicators could include the amount of waste collected, literacy rates, life expectancy among vulnerable populations, working conditions, health and safety standards, employee relationships, diversity, human rights, and community engagement. These indicators serve as benchmarks to evaluate the desired objectives of the study [60].

2.2. Company Performance

Many authors have drawn attention to the fact that corporate philanthropy must be very strategic, for example, to maximise political return on investment [20,27,61]. One question has driven a lot of research and practise with regard to corporate philosophy: are the concepts of corporate philanthropy and performance compatible? Ref. [62] showed that the relationship between corporate philanthropy and financial performance can be represented by a reversed U; as the amount of philanthropy increases, performance increases, finally reaching a ceiling that reverses the trend if the amount of philanthropy continues to increase [62]. The reason behind this inconsistency in the literature lies, in large part, in the lack of adequate, clear, and shared measurement tools, which has led researchers to use an array of very different methodologies to measure performance [2,63,64,65,66]. Ref. [64] exposed these methodological inconsistencies, showing that for 80% of the financial performance measurements, over 70% had only been used once.

Among the researchers who have found negative correlations, the main reasons provided are related to donations: If a company makes donations, this lowers its profits. Inversely, researchers who found positive correlations mentioned the tax advantages and the fact that a company’s financial success depends on the economic success of the environment in which it operates [39,67]; thus, a company’s philanthropic actions are a long-term investment in its performance [47,61,68]. Likewise, a company may turn to philanthropy to improve its competitive situation [69,70] and its reputation [71,72]. To summarise, the main mission of the company is to be efficient regarding shareholders, employees, and consumers. This performance dimension highlights how corporate philanthropy helps the company to be efficient. The literature examining financial performance is extensive, revealing a lack of consensus regarding the relationship between the social performance and financial performance of companies ([66,67,71,73], for example).

2.3. Ethical Dimension

The ethical dimension of corporate philanthropy has been investigated on several occasions [45,74,75]. Indeed, a corporation is not purely an economic actor but neither is its giving program entirely socially driven, and it would be a mistake to view a firm’s giving program entirely in terms of one or the other [56]. Ref. [76] indicated that moral philosophy includes unacceptable behaviour, morally neutral behaviour, and supplementary behaviour. This supplementary behaviour corresponds to contributions that exceed what is expected by society, and it is in this latter category that corporate philanthropy is found. It should be mentioned that these are not closed categories, that is, the same company may demonstrate several behaviours [76]. However, is it then possible to refer to ethical behaviour when a company behaves in both a supplementary and an unacceptable manner? The authors explained that this category can include both “cynical” companies (using philanthropy to clean up their image) and “repented” companies (sincerely trying to repair past mistakes). Additionally, this is still the case; for example, recently, [77] revealed that environmentally unfriendly enterprises have been exhibiting more altruistic behaviour to counterbalance the negative image that has resulted from their massive emission of pollutants.

The underlying reasons for corporate philanthropy may be more or less altruistic and ethical, and there can be multiple and overlapping reasons: “The motivations for such projects seem to us to be an amalgam of altruism, good citizenship, prudence, and sound investment strategy” ([25] p. 1). This strategic use of philanthropy can be partially explained by the growing social pressure on companies to increase their charitable contributions [78,79] and the need to justify these expenses as “legitimate giving” [78] to their shareholders [79]. The goal of corporate philanthropy is to do good, both from the corporate standpoint and that of the company as a whole [25]; the company’s individual interest, thus, does not conflict with the community’s. As stated in [39] (p. 68), “There is no inherent contradiction between improving competitive context and making a sincere commitment to bettering society”. For [67], and later [39], despite the fact that companies derive their own advantages from corporate philanthropy, society also benefits. As these are the companies’ underlying reasons for performing altruistic acts, a distinction must be made between ethical egoism (being concerned with only one’s own interests, with no consideration for anything else) and utilitarianism (which concerns the “greatest good for the greatest number”) [25]. However, [26] upheld the idea that any type of corporate philanthropy—outside of any notion of motivation—is anti-ethical because, in fact, it spends resources that do not belong to the individual behind the decision. While Friedman’s argumentative logic is valid, this article, written 50 years ago, does not take into account the changes that have occurred in the realm of corporate social responsibility, where corporate philanthropy has become a real social expectation: “Corporate philanthropy is not only viewed as socially desirable but is expected if a firm is to be perceived as a good corporate citizen” ([76], p. 72).

To summarize the main points, while philanthropy is not necessary for ethics, ethics are the basis of corporate philanthropy [45]. Companies can morally seek to maximise the collective welfare while serving their own interests [79] by keeping in mind that ethical philanthropy is nonegotistical philanthropy, that is, it takes all stakeholders into account [25,35].

2.4. Stakeholder Dimension

When a manager decides to donate to charity in the name of their company, they are denying the decision-making rights of the various stakeholders to whom the donated money should have belonged [80]. Ref. [35] emphasised the need to take into account the interests and well-being of different stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, consumers, and local communities, which highlights the following question: Have consumers agreed that part of the added value of their purchased products and services can be redistributed to philanthropic causes? Likewise, [81] considered that a company is not a person and that, consequently, “the personalisation of the firm implied by asking questions such as (…) ‘Does the firm have a social responsibility’ is seriously misleading” (p. 311). From shareholders’ perspectives, [27] and more recently [82] highlighted reluctance towards corporate philanthropy and encouraged reductions in expenditures in this area.

To understand the relationship between corporate philanthropy and financial performance, all stakeholders’ satisfaction must be considered [43]. Stakeholders have a certain amount of power over a company [65], since their set expectations are affected by the company’s decisions and actions, and they assess the outcomes of these decisions and actions [83]. In this respect, every company should “create and distribute increased wealth and value to all its primary stakeholder groups, without favouring one group at the expense of others” ([84], p. 112). However, there are many stakeholders, and they may have divergent interests [85]. According to agency theory, this means that each stakeholder aims to maximise their own profits [81]. As a result, it is important to understand shareholders’, employees’, buyers’, consumers’, and local communities’ expectations with regard to corporate philanthropy and the advantages that each may receive from it [68].

Stakeholders’ diverging interests can be seen by examining their behaviour according to whether or not they hold shares in a company. The literature has revealed that the mere holding of stock negatively influences company philanthropy [86]. More recently, [87] found that “a 10% rise in CEO ownership reduces the likelihood and amount of corporate giving by 40% and 3%, respectively” (p. 593). On the other hand, Wang and Coffey’s (1992) results previously demonstrated that the presence of women and minorities on the board of directors, as well as an insider shareholding, were positively and significantly linked with philanthropy. The same authors notably discussed the fact that shareholders themselves may have individual interests in the charitable causes [88], although these interests do not appear to have an impact when the share amounts held exceed 5% of the company’s total shares [86]. However, corporate philanthropy does not only serve other stakeholders and can, in the end, also prove interesting for shareholders. Ref. [89] proposed the strategic management of stakeholder relations and identified two relationships that are decisive—that is, they have a direct and statistically significant impact—with regard to the financial performance of a company: employee relations and customer relations [89,90]. The literature also reveals that assessments of corporate social performance are linked to the company’s reputation for being an attractive employer [91]. Likewise, philanthropy could help maintain better relations with various stakeholders and develop political resources [92] while generating positive moral capital among the stakeholders, which would have a consequential effect on the financial results and benefit the shareholders [40]. Corporate philanthropy must, therefore, be strategically considered in order to benefit all stakeholders [93]. Indeed, by strategically investing in charitable causes, a company meets consumer and community expectations [94]. Indeed, corporate philanthropy may influence consumers to develop a positive attitude towards the company, becoming loyal to its products and services, leading to increased sales. Moreover, it can encourage consumers to become involved in a cause and therefore become a relevant lever for NGOs [59]. However, the opposite can also be true. Scepticism among consumers is common since poorly designed philanthropic strategies may be perceived by consumers as “cause-exploitative marketing” [47,80,95]. For [18], this suspicion can lead to accusations of hypocrisy regarding the firm’s actions. They define corporate hypocrisy as “the belief that a firm claims to be something that it is not”. To examine these issues, in this research, we introduced the concept of perceived corporate hypocrisy and investigated its dynamics as a key psychological mechanism through which inconsistent PCP information could affect consumers’ perceptions of philanthropic actions.

This literature review and Gephi modularity analysis helped to circumscribe the concept of philanthropy through four dimensions (societal impact, company performance, ethics, and stakeholders). The following definition of PCP is proposed: “Perceived corporate philanthropy (PCP) refers to consumers’ perception of a company’s voluntary commitment to social causes, separate from its commercial activities. This perception is shaped by stakeholders’ altruism, as well as the company’s philanthropic actions that contribute to society and impact both its performance and social well-being”. To our knowledge, no measure of PCP based on these four dimensions has previously been developed.

3. Studies

This article follows the process presented below (

Table 2. Study development process.

Stages of Scale Development Process	Details
Literature review—construction of a definition and content domain.	· A total of 2590 research articles are analysed. · Gephi is used for a literature network analysis to clarify the construct and its dimensions. The Gephi methodology is presented in Appendix A. · This process results in the confirmation of the four-dimensional construct according to the literature review, and it provides novel insights about the organisational dimensions of a successful corporative philanthropy strategy. · Operational definitions of the construct and its dimensions are provided.
Study 1—item generation and expert review.	· Five marketing practitioners and three frequent travellers generate 29 items based on four dimensions. · Four marketing professors judge the items for content and face validity. · A total of 29 items are retained for the next step. · Items are presented in Appendix B.
Study 2—scale purification and item refinement with a principal component analysis. Table 3: Framework matrix; Table 4: Total variance explained; Table 5: Convergent validity and reliability.	· A survey of 158 tourists is performed. · Eight items are found to meet the psychometric criteria and are retained for the next and final step.
Study 3—finalization of the scale. Table 6: Convergent reliability and validity of PCP’s scale; Figure 1: Testing model of PCP (nomological validity).	· A survey of 550 tourists is performed. · Eight items are found to meet the psychometric criteria and are retained for the validity tests. · Validation of the scale is conducted. · Nomological validity is established.
Study 4—multigroup analysis. Figure 1: Testing model of PCP (standard consumers versus luxury Consumers); MICOM procedure, Table 7 and Table 8; multigroup analysis, Table 9.	· A survey of 422 tourists is performed (128 respondents—midrange hotels were removed from the sample). · Eight items are found to meet the psychometric criteria and are retained for the validity tests. · Validation of different philanthropy corporative perceptions for luxury consumers is completed.

).

3.1. Study 1: Scale Development—Item Generation and Expert Review

Through an extensive literature review (2590 searches—see the Gephi methodology in Appendix A), this study identified four dimensions related to the concept of PCP, presented above. The next task was to generate items to measure this construct. Based on the deductive approach to item generation [96], we began with a guide created from the four previously identified PCP dimensions to generate a further 29 items, each related to one of the dimensions. Interviews lasted an average of 40 min and were conducted with three foundation managers, two fundraising managers, and three frequent travellers. Thereafter, a panel of experts comprising two marketing professors reviewed and modified a few items to improve clarity and ensure that they properly reflected the construct [97,98]. In the third step, all items were again presented to four experts; as is usual in the Gephi method, these experts gave feedback on the modified items to confirm the validity of the content (Krippendorff alpha = 0.7639). Items are presented in Appendix B.

3.2. Study 2: Scale Purification and Item Refinement

To assess the scale’s validity and reliability, we conducted a formal pretest with 158 travellers. Ref. [99] (p. 201) mentioned in the introduction of their symposium that “luxury consumption also includes luxury services and experiences, […] they have to be considered in addition to traditional luxury purchases”. Thus, the luxury hotel sector was selected as a field of research for three reasons: the strong presence of corporate philanthropy strategies in this sector [6,100]; the presence of luxury hotels in almost all countries of the world, which allowed the phenomenon to be studied independent of cultural differences [2,3]; and an academic need for further research to better understand the role of corporate philanthropy in the luxury hotel sector [4,101]. Additionally, luxury hotel brands undertake more philanthropic activities in which customers are involved (customer cash donations, cause-related marketing, and volunteering).

Half of the participants were given a screenshot of the Hilton Foundation website and a corresponding link (see the advertisement in Appendix C), after which they evaluated the website’s quality and rated the 29 items. The other half of the survey panel performed the same evaluation of the Accor Foundation (these two foundations are different, thus improving external validity). This study identified the potential factor structure of PCP by applying calibration procedures. Items were evaluated using five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).

Findings

A principal component analysis (PCA) followed by varimax rotation enabled dimensionality to be examined and items to be suggested for deletion. Like [102], an iterative process eliminated items that had a factor loading below 0.50, high cross-loadings above 0.40, and low commonalities below 0.30 [103]. A two-factor solution was the most appropriate, based on a variety of commonly applied criteria: inspection of scree plot, interpretability, and eigenvalues greater than unity (

Table 3. Framework matrix.

	Component
Impact4	0.877
Impact1	0.862
Impact2	0.836
Impact3	0.824
Altruism4	−0.266	0.906
Stake1	0.112	0.749
Altruism3	0.215	0.671
Stake3	0.235	0.590

and

Table 4. Total variance explained.

	Initial Intrinsic Values			Sums Extracted from the Square of the Loadings			Rotation Sums of the Square of the Loadings
Component	Total	% Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Variance	Cumulative %	Total
1	4.371	54.640	54.640	4.371	54.640	54.640	3.955
2	0.985	12.311	66.951	0.985	12.311	66.951	3.387
3	0.718	8.979	75.930
4	0.464	5.801	81.731
5	0.419	5.236	86.966
6	0.391	4.888	91.854
7	0.361	4.512	96.366
8	0.291	3.634	100.000

) [104].

Showing that corporate philanthropy is a two-dimensional concept is an important contribution of this research. This contribution helps in distinguishing the concept of PCP from CSR, as in [45]’s dimensions: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropical. Indeed, we found that the “altruism” and “stakeholder” dimensions could be combined; altruism as a basis for PCP can be associated with company stakeholders, and the economic impact of corporate philanthropy can be associated with company performance (environmental and social impacts of corporate philanthropy). Combining these three dimensions corresponded to the approach recommended in the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and the “Business for Inclusive Growth” approach initiated by several multinational corporations at the G7 meeting in Biarritz, 2019.

To improve and validate the factor structure, items with low factor loadings (b|0.50|) and/or high cross-loadings (N|0.30|) were deleted [105]. The final two-factor solution of eight items explained 60.6% of the total item variance, which is above the recommended cut-off value of 0.50. Replication using different estimation and rotation methods (e.g., promax, oblimin) led to similar solutions. A series of replications based on different subsamples, such as gender, age, or type of last hotel stay, confirmed the avoidance of biases caused by the sample distribution. To validate the psychometric qualities of the scale, the procedure in [106] was used (

Table 5. Convergent validity and reliability.

Latent Variable	Cronbach’s Alpha	Average Variance Extracted	Composite Reliability
Altruism (ethics, stakeholders)	0.70	0.52	0.81
Impacts (economic, social, environmental)	0.76	0.58	0.85

).

All average variances extracted were situated above the threshold of 50%, with reliability greater than 0.7. Discriminant validity, as per [106] and the new HTMT approach [107], was also met.

3.3. Study 3: Finalization of the Scale and Multigroup Analysis

A sample of 550 travellers (Mage = 36.01, Sdage = 12.03, 58.5% males, 79.5% Caucasian) participated in the validation study. As in Study 2, the participants completed the questionnaire after browsing the Hilton Foundation and Accor Foundation websites. For nomological validity, we wanted to measure the impact of the website evaluation on PCP and the impact of PCP on brand authenticity [108]. Mistrust and consumers’ scepticism regarding philanthropic actions still comprise an important research question [39,109], and inappropriate actions (e.g., greenwashing) have led to disenchantment with businesses [110]. In this research, we considered authenticity as it is part of the connection between business actions and society [111]. Stakeholders are more likely to trust an organisation’s efforts if they perceive those efforts to be authentic [112]. Specifically, consumers seek brand authenticity to find meaning in its consumption and to strengthen their self-identity [113]. Moreover, authenticity is one of the five dimensions of luxury brands identified by [114]. In the same way, “consumer’s need for authenticity in acquiring luxury brands is a topic within luxury branding literature that is garnering attention over the last decade” ([115], p. 5820). With regard to these previous studies, in this research, we investigated the link between PCP and brand authenticity. All these elements enabled us to propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. 

We postulate that corporate philanthropy advertising has a positive influence on PCP.

Hypothesis 2. 

We postulate that PCP has a positive influence on brand authenticity.

Findings

The revised scale showed adequate convergent reliability and validity (

Table 6. Perceived corporative philanthropy scale.

Latent Variables	Items	Outer Loadings	Outer Weights	p Value	Cronbach’s Alpha	Average Variance Extracted
Altruism (ethics and stakeholders)	Xxx demonstrate altruistic tendencies through various initiatives, such as social programs, community engagement projects, and sustainable practices.	0.866	0.331	0.000	0.777	0.531
	Xxxx spend a lot of time concerned with the well-being of humankind.	0.830	0.365	0.000
	The shareholders of Xxxx are altruistic.	0.787	0.253	0.000
	The clients of Xxxx are altruistic.	0.769	0.275	0.000
Corporative philanthropy impacts	The philanthropic actions of xxx have a positive impact on the overall performance of the company	0.858	0.309	0.000	0.861	0.706
	Beyond the constraints of its sector of activity, xxx does its utmost to have a positive social impact.	0.837	0.286	0.000
	Beyond the constraints of its sector of activity, xxx does its utmost to have a positive environmental impact.	0.855	0.293	0.000
	The philanthropist actions of xxx have a strong impact on society.	0.841	0.292	0.000

).

All items had high factor loadings that were above the cut-off point of 0.50 [103], reliability coefficients that exceeded the cut-off standard of 0.70 [116], and AVEs that were >0.50 [103,106]. Conforming carefully to the presentation guidelines set out by [117], we used the suggested criteria for the overall model fit and assessed each of the measurement and structural models. For the overall model, in keeping with recent advice from [117], we provided the SRMR for the PLSc estimates. The respective values indicated that the model had an acceptable fit, although the SRMR (0.053) was below the recommended cut-off value [118], indicating that a relatively large amount of information was being considered at the measurement and structural levels. The NFI value (0.883) was close to the cut-off value of 0.9 stipulated by [119].

Once the overall quality of the proposed model had been established, we assessed its internal consistency reliability, as well as its convergent and discriminant validity. As shown in Table 6 and

Table 7. MICOM procedure step 1.

	Original Correlation	Correlation Permutation Mean	5.00%	Permutation p Values
Ads evaluation	1	1	0.999	0.45
Altruism	1	0.999	0.997	0.665
Impacts	0.999	1	0.999	0.081
Brand authenticity	1	1	1	0.181

, the convergent validity and reliability indicators were met: the reliabilities were greater than 0.7, and the convergent validities were equal to or greater than 0.5. To assess discriminant validity, we relied on [106]’s heuristics and the HTMT criterion, which was less than 0.85. Discriminant validity was therefore met [107]. Lastly, we evaluated the structural part of the model. As shown in Figure 1, all R² values were quite good, ranging from 26 to 72%. PCP, in particular, was quite well predicted and displayed good nomological validity with brand authenticity. All path coefficients proved statistically significant, with t-values greater than 2 and 95% confidence intervals that did not include zero. As expected, evaluating the websites influenced participants’ PCP, which in turn influenced brand authenticity (Figure 1). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were, therefore, confirmed.

To go into deeper detail, a multigroup analysis compared the perceptions of luxury consumers with those of other consumers. Before completing the questionnaires, we asked the participants what types of hotels they had stayed in over the previous year and what their income was. Participants were then divided into two groups for statistical processing: a “standard hotel” group comprising those who had stayed in low-cost and midrange hotels, and a “luxury hotel” group including those who had stayed in high-end hotels. This multigroup analysis followed the testing of the structural model (Figure 1).

However, the previous guarantee of metric invariance was verified. This condition meant that consumer type (standard versus luxury) moderated PCP. The results confirmed the three types of invariances; therefore, multigroup analysis was possible [120] (see Table 7 and

Table 8. MICOM procedure step 2.

	Mean–Original Difference (Standard Hotel–Luxury)	Mean–Permutation Mean Difference (Standard Hotel–Luxury)	2.50%	97.50%	Permutation p Values	Variance–Original Difference (Standard Hotel–Luxury)	Variance–Permutation Mean Difference (Standard Hotel–Luxury)	2.50%	97.50%	Permutation p Values
Ads evaluation	−0.28	0	−0.19	0.186	0.006	0.05	−0	−0.298	0.307	0.74
Altruism	−0.24	−0	−0.205	0.203	0.021	0.26	−0.01	−0.338	0.308	0.12
Impacts	−0.22	−0.01	−0.195	0.182	0.026	0.32	−0	−0.309	0.284	0.03
Brand authenticity	−0.13	−0.01	−0.195	0.19	0.19	−0.01	−0.01	−0.337	0.33	0.95

).

Subsequently, PLS estimated the path coefficients for both subsamples (

Table 9. Multigroup analysis.

	Path Coefficients Original (Luxury)	Path Coefficients Original (Standard Hotel)	Path Coefficients Mean (Luxury)	Path Coefficients Mean (Standard Hotel)	STDEV (Luxury)	STDEV (Standard Hotel)	t-Values (Luxury)	t-Values (Standard Hotel)	p Values (Luxury)	p Values (Standard Hotel)
Ads evaluation -> altruism	0.431	0.602	0.439	0.603	0.046	0.053	9.415	11.391	0	0
Ads evaluation -> impacts	0.576	0.646	0.579	0.65	0.042	0.056	13.686	11.608	0	0
Altruism -> brand authenticity	0.323	0.308	0.33	0.312	0.07	0.06	4.61	5.133	0	0
Impacts -> brand authenticity	0.586	0.602	0.582	0.599	0.064	0.06	9.229	10.107	0	0

and Figure 1). The last step was concerned with differences between the coefficients.

To summarise, the multigroup analysis findings revealed that evaluation of the companies’ philanthropic strategies had a significantly lower impact on the perceptions of altruism of the luxury consumers than on those of the nonluxury consumers. In sum, Study 3 highlighted the differences between luxury consumers and nonluxury consumers: promoting philanthropic activities does not have the same impact on their PCP, and they do not evaluate corporate philanthropy in the same way. These findings corroborate those of previous studies that have considered the luxury market as a field of research and not a field of application.

4. General Discussion

This research holds considerable theoretical implications for the concept of PCP. Firstly, the proposed definition derived from the literature review deviates from the traditional CSR paradigm, aligning with the findings of [52,53]. This deviation is attributed to the voluntary nature of CFP (stakeholder altruism) and its positive impact on both society and corporations. Notably, the findings of Study 2 indicate that the “altruism” and “stakeholder” dimensions are interconnected, as altruism serves as the foundation for corporate philanthropy and aligns with the actions of a company’s stakeholders. This perspective builds upon the research conducted by [93], suggesting that corporate philanthropy and stakeholders are inseparable. Thus, strategically investing in charitable causes allows companies to fulfil philanthropic consumers’ and the community’s expectations, thereby motivating employees and meeting shareholders’ expectations [94]. Regarding the evaluation of corporate philanthropy’s impact, the findings of Studies 2 and 3 highlight a positive association between the economic impacts on a company and its societal impact, encompassing both environmental and social aspects. This dimension reflects the consequences of corporate philanthropic behaviour, aligning with the earlier findings of [121], which established that economically sound companies are capable of creating a positive societal impact through corporate philanthropy strategies.

The second contribution of this research concerns highlighting the particular link between the luxury sector and corporate philanthropy strategies, in line with the work of [122]. Indeed, Study 4 supplemented the scholarly literature concerning luxury marketing and followed previous work such as [123]. Thus, we revealed that luxury consumers evaluate corporate philanthropy strategies differently than other consumers do. Thus, our findings show that even in the tourism industry, where the main objective is to have an enjoyable time, consumers of luxury hotel offerings will be consistent in their behaviour with respect to their chosen brand. Luxury consumers choose brands that satisfy their desire to associate with or resemble the typical user of the brand [124,125]; through their consumption, they are then able to acquire the brand symbols and interact with members of the group. The symbols conferred by luxury brands help develop the consumer’s mindset until they are able to reach the desired status [126]. The choice of a philanthropic brand will send the desired significant social messages to other consumers [127]; therefore, these elements appear in consumers’ evaluation of brand authenticity [108]. The identification of a new “ingredient” (PCP) which brings greater authenticity to luxury brands is an important contribution. Indeed, as shown in [115], on the one hand, luxury consumers are particularly sensitive to the brand’s authenticity, while on the other hand, preserving and improving brand authenticity is a challenge, which comprises many historic and highly traditional cues [108,128,129]. However, few ingredients in the luxury literature can influence authenticity (e.g., [97]); thus, empirical proof of the connection between a corporate philanthropy strategy and brand authenticity is of major theoretical and strategic interest. This positive externality of corporate philanthropy has, a priori, never been empirically demonstrated. Moreover, the risk of corporate hypocrisy due to corporate philanthropy advertising has been ruled out for luxury consumers. Additionally, by identifying the multiple components of PCP (Studies 2–4), shareholders’ altruism, and impacts, the scale enables researchers and practitioners to investigate the distinct effects of corporate philanthropy to evaluate an organisation’s strategy among its different target consumers (e.g., with different genders or ages). Further, by assessing the effects of each dimension separately, rather than treating corporate philanthropy as a composite or second-order factor, our approach allows researchers and practitioners to examine which aspects of a corporate philanthropy strategy are related to the effects of brand authenticity and how to revise such a strategy, for example, by identifying what should take priority in a communications campaign.

Our research offers significant managerial implications, thereby prompting luxury companies to effectively communicate their philanthropic endeavours. This entails the provision of transparent information about the specific actions they undertake, the intended beneficiaries, the timelines for implementation, and the approaches employed. Additionally, it is crucial for companies to showcase their past achievements in an honest manner, thereby bolstering their credibility.

Additionally, this study suggests that hotel managers should ensure that their brands continue to be evaluated in a positive and hedonic light by maintaining an authentic character. Philanthropic actions can enhance a brand’s credibility, encourage client fidelity, and enable these companies to stand out from their competitors. As [130] demonstrated, providing consumers with full information on various aspects of a brand can improve consumer attitudes, consumer behaviour, and purchasing intent.

Finally, however, this research is not without limitations. First, the Gephi methodology chosen for the literature review is partly based on the number of citations, which means that recent articles are less likely to stand out. Furthermore, research on philanthropy may be subject to cultural biases and social desirability biases. Additionally, this research may have overlooked certain antecedents and consequences of corporate philanthropy. These limitations provide avenues for further research to enhance the understanding of the concept of perceived corporate philanthropy. Therefore, it would be intriguing for upcoming research to explore additional ramifications of PCP, encompassing aspects such as brand equity, brand personality, brand attachment, and consumers’ experience in line with the work in [131], among others. Moreover, it would be worthwhile to examine a different sector, distinct from the luxury industry, in order to validate the PCP scale.

5. Conclusions

More and more companies are adopting corporate philanthropy strategies without fully understanding the impact of these strategies on their brands. Indeed, very few studies have examined the concept of perceived corporate philanthropy. To address this gap, our study demonstrated how perceived corporate philanthropy enhances brand authenticity. At the conceptual level, this research provides a comprehensive definition of the dimensions that constitute how consumers perceive corporate philanthropy: stakeholders play a crucial role in the strategy, while altruism, impact on society, and company performance serve as other fundamental pillars. By encompassing all of these elements, our study deepens the understanding of perceived corporate philanthropy and its implications for brand authenticity.

Regarding luxury companies, they offer high-value products and services, and therefore they generally have the resources to implement corporate philanthropy strategies. For these companies, this study recommends implementing such strategies and communicating to consumers about the actions and social and environmental impacts. As shown by the various studies in this research, these strategies and associated communications have significant effects on brand authenticity in terms of credibility, integrity, and symbolism among luxury consumers.

In summary, corporate philanthropy strategies are well perceived and help strengthen brands while positively impacting society.