sustainability

Article
The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer
Trust and Loyalty
Achilleas Barlas 1 , Aggeliki Valakosta 1 , Christos Katsionis 2, * , Anastasios Oikonomou 2 and Vasiliki Brinia 2

1 Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, 382 21 Volos, Greece

2 Teacher Education Program, Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business,
104 34 Athens, Greece
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been the subject of various studies
in recent decades. The purpose of this research was to study the Corporate Social Responsibility
of companies, in combination with customers’ perspectives, in terms of their trends regarding
their trust and loyalty. In this study, the business sector of the Greek mobile telecommunications’
companies was selected, where research on issues related to CSR is not considered extensive, to
analyze customers’ attitudes towards a company that emphasizes its social responsibility. To complete
the theoretical framework, questionnaires were collected to empirically investigate correlations
and highlight, ultimately, the importance of having socially responsible companies in the mobile
telecommunications sector in Greece. The present research proved that both at the bibliographic and
practical level, successful companies are the ones that are concerned not only with increasing their
sales and profitability, but also with enhancing and emphasizing their social impact and returning
value to society.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; corporate responsibility; customer loyalty; customer trust

1. Introduction
Citation: Barlas, A.; Valakosta, A.;
In the international bibliographic quiver, there are various definitions of Corporate
Katsionis, C.; Oikonomou, A.; Brinia,
Social Responsibility (CSR). The study of their evolution strengthens the understanding of
V. The Effect of Corporate Social
the prevailing trends, which create changes and harmonize with the role of businesses.
Responsibility on Customer Trust
The impact of the different dimensions of CSR performance on the financial perfor-
and Loyalty. Sustainability 2023, 15,
mance is indisputable regardless of the nature of the organization [1,2]. The CSR is needed
1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/
to understand the customers’ perceptions for future corporate profitability [3]. In addition,
su15021036
such activities are not only implemented to involve corporate social contributions, but they
Academic Editor: Flavio Boccia are also considered as strategic elements of the company’s sustainable growth. They are rec-
Received: 5 December 2022
ognized as an essential element for corporate management activities [4] and an important
Revised: 2 January 2023
component of the dialogue between companies and their stakeholders as well [5].
Accepted: 3 January 2023 The concept of CSR is complex and dynamic, hence the determination of its multidi-
Published: 5 January 2023 mensional character by several definitions, each of which reflects its various characteristics.
In a generalized context, CSR includes a set of social and environmental concerns that
determine the measures and policies to be taken by a business or an organization in a
voluntary pattern and with the contribution of all interested parties [6]. The concept of
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. CSR has been defined by the International Business Council for Sustainable Development
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (IBSDA) in 1998 as “the ongoing commitment by a business to behave ethically and contribute to
This article is an open access article economic development, while at the same time improving the quality of life of employees and their
distributed under the terms and families, as well as the local community, but also society in general” [6]. Having considered the
conditions of the Creative Commons
existing trend of using Corporate Responsibility policies and practices, this paper aims to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
investigate the relationship and especially the influence that CSR has on the loyalty and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
trust of the consumer public.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021036 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 2 of 14

A literature review on this topic currently does not exist to a sufficient extent to draw
a clear, comprehensive, and final conclusion, while at the same time the research opinions
differ regarding the correlation or not of the above concepts. The investigation becomes
complex due to the multidimensional nature of CSR and its various approaches.
There is little research on CSR that has covered its relationship with consumers’ atti-
tudes extensively; for this reason, our attention was focused on this direction. The mobile
telecommunications services sector was chosen because the companies’ penetration rate
in the market is high and the three telecommunications’ providers in the Greek area have
strong socially responsible activity. The purpose of this research was, initially, bibliographic
—to identify and describe the concept and approaches of CSR. Following this, we investi-
gated whether the consumers’ perceptions about CSR affects the evaluation of the service
and their tendency for trust and loyalty, while simultaneously examining the existence of
relationships between consumer demographics and their perceptions of CSR. The main
stimulus for the selection of this research are previous studies such as Pérez & Rodríguez
del Bosque [7] and Salmones et al. [8], who analyze and examine the models of CSR pro-
posed by Freeman and Carroll [9], respectively, and explore the multidimensional nature of
this concept, as we will describe below in the bibliographic part of the paper. Through the
adoption of Freeman’s [10] stakeholder model in the developed questionnaire, we aimed
to explore, at the same time, the opinion of consumers regarding the Corporate Social
Responsibility implemented by mobile companies.
According to Carroll [11], Eells and Walton formulated the opinion that the subject
of CSR focuses on the problems that arise when a company overshadows society with its
actions, as well as the ethical principles that are necessary to characterize relationships
of a company within society. Carroll also argues that the legal, economic, ethical and
philanthropic expectations of a society from a business at a particular time are included
in its social responsibility [12]. For Kotler and Lee [13] CSR is a “commitment to improve
the welfare of society through philanthropic corporate practices and the contribution of corporate
resources”. At the same time, CSR is related to the discussion about the role of the company
in the social environment, the related obligations and the political perceptions which should
delimit these obligations. It is a way to identify common benefits for both the company
and society and shapes the company’s relationships with its stakeholders.
Davis’s insights into the dynamics of a business in relation to CSR made him widely
known. Carroll [11] points out that for Davis, CSR is a type of long-term investment in the
part of the business with the ultimate goal of profitability, which confirms the relevance
of corporate responsibility and power. To understand the degree of Davis’s contribution
both in terms of the definition of CSR and the existence of a close relationship between
CSR and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP), it is sufficient to mention that Carroll
considers him equal to Bowen in terms of the fatherhood of CSR. Carroll [14] argues that
the company’s objectives both at the economic and social levels are included in its overall
responsibility. A more detailed explanation of his ideas will be given below.
Additionally, Carroll [11] points out that Wartick and Cochran contributed decisively
to the evolution of his model, re-formulating three aspects of it regarding corporate social
responsibilities, corporate social responsiveness and the management of social issues [15].
This reformulation is related to defining the network of procedures, principles and policies.
On the other hand, an important point of reference should also be the study of Choi &
Lee [16], which has established a significant and positive relationship between CSR and
organizational performance [16]: a study which is aligned with Carroll [14] and Wartick and
Cochran [15], to combine corporate social performance with organizational theories, such as
organizational institutionalism, the management theory of interested parties (stakeholder
management) and the management theories of social issues. This aforementioned study
aimed to establish the model that would be useful both from a practical and managerial
point of view. Thus, as Moir argues, the weakness of this model was that it could not be
measured and tested empirically [17].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 3 of 14

Two scholars applied this theory in the context of CSR and these were Clarkson [18]
and Jones [19]. The former attempts a separation between the social issues concerning busi-
nesses and those related to their stakeholders. Going a step further, it divides stakeholders
into primary and secondary. In the first category, he classifies those whose involvement is
deemed necessary for the viability of the company, i.e., investors, staff, customers, suppli-
ers, the government and the social groups in which they operate. On the other hand, the
second category characterizes those who in some way influence or are influenced by the
company, while they do not trade with them, and their participation is not necessary for
their survival.
Edward Freeman advocated the “stakeholder theory” by reconstructing Friedman’s
view [9]. Therefore, according to his opinion, a company’s stakeholder is considered “any
group or individual that can affect or be affected (positively or negatively) by the achievement
of the organization’s goals” [10]. According to Freeman, stakeholders can come from the
direct or indirect environment of an organization. The immediate environment includes
shareholders, labor, lenders and customers, etc. The indirect environment concerns the
bodies of the state or local societies in which a company operates, pressure groups (e.g.,
activists, local associations) and the environment, etc.
In addition to Freeman, there were other supporters of this theory. Werther and
Chalder attempted a different grouping of an organization’s stakeholders [20]. Thus,
according to their point of view, the interested parties are divided into 3 categories:
a. Organizational (owners, human resources, company executives, trade unions);
b. Finances (shareholders, consumers, competing companies, suppliers);
c. Social (governmental schemes, local communities, non-governmental organi-
zations, environment).
De Chernatony and Harris provided their own view of stakeholder classification,
supporting the existence of two categories [21]:
a. Internals (individual cases of people who interact within the organization affecting its
operation, e.g., workforce, leadership);
b. Externals (individual cases of people not involved in the organization’s environment,
e.g., consumers, suppliers, etc.).
Based on this categorization, the definition of CSR was formed, which describes
internal and external CSR [22]. Internal CSR concerns the adoption of ethical behaviors by
the company towards its internal stakeholders, while external CSR relates to the adherence
to ethical principles in the external actions of companies, including philanthropy and
contributions to the local community. Also, in some articles, such as Arora P. [23] and
Heinze [24], there is a consensus on the effect of CSR on the performance of a company in
terms of the financial aspects and the causes related to both production and consumption.
Other studies, such as Ullmann [25], Andayani, W. [26] and Roberts [27] support the
view that companies adopt CSR practices, which is due to and caused by the CFP. This is
because when a company undertakes costly CSR programs it is affected by the CFP. This
means that companies that have a high performance in the financial sector and a low risk,
can respond when they undertake social actions and initiatives.
Several researchers identify the important role played by corporate reputation around
productivity. According to Greening & Turban [28], a higher educated workforce will
prefer firms that have acquired a good reputation. McGuire et al. [26] and Khan, S.Z.,
Yang, Q. and Waheed, A. in their most recent research [29] argue that the corporate rep-
utation can contribute to increasing employee loyalty to the company, thus improving
its financial performance. Apart from the corporate reputation, which is built when a
company follows a socially responsible policy, the company’s own investment in CSR is
also a decisive factor for increasing productivity. According to one of the latest works of
Haseeb, M., Hussain, H.I., Kot, S., Androniceanu, A. and Jermsittiparsert, K. [30], Russo
& Fouts [31] and McWilliams & Siegel [32], the investment in CSR brings to a company
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 4 of 14

new resources, abilities and possibilities regarding its organization, culture, technology
and human potential. Consequently, it can gain a significant competitive advantage.
As previously stated, the consumer public shows a preference for companies that
follow practices harmonized with CSR. This preference is also confirmed in the field of
mobile telecommunications. Not many studies have been identified in this specific field.
Specifically, there are two related studies, by Salmones et al. [8] and Vlachos et al. [33],
from which we can draw evidence. Following Carroll’s [11] four-dimensional model,
Salmones et al. [8] investigated the views of mobile phone customers related to the attitude
of companies along four axes, ethical, economic, legal and philanthropic. The research
sample of 689 people targeted Spain and the criteria used were each company’s market
share, as well as the gender and age of the respondents. Based on the research, it appears
that customers do not connect the company’s policy in the financial sector with CSR,
while this is true with the other dimensions. The second objective of the investigation
was whether the social responsibility of the company had a direct and positive effect on
the consumers’ devotion, with the findings that the service evaluation greatly influences
consumer loyalty.
The effect of CSR on consumer loyalty is indirect, since the criterion for customers is
the evaluation of the services provided. According to the scholars’ point of view, the best
financial performance of a company can be achieved if it adopts clear ethical rules, if its policy
is harmonized with social commitments, if it respects the environment and if it has built
relationships of trust with the interested parties. In their own research Vlachos et al. [33] used
a sample of 830 people from large Greek cities and the response rate was 15%. The object
of their study was whether, in what way and in which cases the opinions of customers can
influence the adoption of CSR practices by the companies studied.
Based on the findings of their study, consumers hold a positive attitude only when the
value motivation for adopting CSR practices is valid. This specific motivation is related
to the philanthropic behavior and the disposition for social contribution of each company
and in fact, as they emphasize, motivates consumers to recommend the brand to other
customers. It is also highlighted that the degree of customer loyalty to the company is of
great importance to the way in which CSR policies influence consumers to support the
company and recommend it to others.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Method
The present quantitative research was conducted during the months of November and
December 2021 using a short electronic questionnaire as a tool which was distributed to mo-
bile owners from various regions of Greece that were customers of at least one of the three
main mobile communications’ providers in the country. This method ensures the objective
collection of numerical data from many people and leads to a statistical analysis [34]. The
questionnaire consisted of five main sections which were: (a) The information letter about
the data collection purpose, ensuring the anonymity and confidentiality of participants’
answers; (b) the demographics questions; (c) the participants’ perceptions about Corporate
Social Responsibility; (d) The participants’ perceptions about trust in the company,; and the
participants’ perceptions about loyalty to the company.
The questions belonging to the three last sections had to be answered based on a
7-point Likert scale: (1) Strongly Disagree–(7) Strongly Agree. The sample was collected
using the convenience sampling method, while the collection of data was followed by the
appropriate processing through IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0, to extract the valuable findings of
the research, which are presented in detail below.

2.2. Sample
Before, however, proceeding to the presentation and analysis of the findings, it is
worth highlighting some qualitative characteristics of the population that took part in the
research. First, the total number of people (N) who participated in the research amounted
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 5 of 14

to 330, while 132 (40%) of them were men and 198 (60%) were women. It is also worth
noting that a significant percentage of the sample (57.3%) were employees; almost the half
of the participants (53.9%) were single; and finally, the average age of the participants was
34.4 years. The following Table (Table 1) shows the demographic data of the sample.

Table 1. The sample demographics.

Variable Options f %
Gender Man 132 40.0
Woman 198 60.0
Education Level Junior High School 4 1.2
High School 44 13.3
Post-Secondary 4 13.1
Higher Education 137 41.5
Master’s Degree 93 28.2
PhD 9 2.7
Profession Student 46 13.9
Employee 189 57.3
Freelance 53 16.1
Retired 5 1.5
Household 4 1.2
Unemployed 33 10
Family Status Single 178 53.9
Married without children 45 13.7
Married with children 93 28.2
Divorced 14 4.2
Age Mean S.D. Min Max
34.4 9.8 11 67

2.3. Data Analysis

As previously mentioned, the data collected have been analyzed with IBM SPSS
Statistics 25.0. To reveal the main purpose of the paper, which is to investigate the level of
correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and the customers’ trust and customers’
loyalty, our analysis has been based on two research questions, as follows:
1. What’s the impact of a company’s CSR on customers’ trust in the company?;
2. What’s the impact of a company’s CSR on customers’ loyalty to the company?

3. Results
Before diving deeper into participants’ answers to the questionnaire, it’s important to
highlight that the coefficient of internal reliability Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each
dimension/subdimension of the questionnaire. The intervals, based on which the results
were evaluated, were (a) [0.7–0.79], which is associated with satisfactory internal reliability,
(b) [0.8–0.89] which corresponds to good internal reliability, and (c) [0.9–1], which results in
excellent internal reliability for the questionnaire.
Regarding the dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility, the Cronbach’s alpha
index was 0.976, while the dimension of customers’ trust index was 0.968, and customers’
loyalty was 0.862.
In the following Table 2 the reliability for all the dimensions as well as the sub-
dimensions of the Corporate Social Responsibility dimension are presented.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 6 of 14

Table 2. Reliability indices for the dimensions and subdimensions of the questionnaire.

Dimension/Subdimension Cronbach’s Alpha

Corporate Social Responsibility 0.976
Customers 0.976
Shareholders and Supervisory Board’ 0.954
Employees 0.951
Society 0.969
Customers’ Trust 0.968
Customers’ Loyalty 0.862

Regarding the participants’ perceptions about the Corporate Social Responsibility

of the companies, and more specifically regarding the “Customers” factor, most of the
customers believed that the mobile telephone provider they use establishes procedures
to respond to customer complaints (Mean = 4.40, S.D. = 1.74), it is however not clear for
them if the company is treating its customers honestly (Mean = 4.16, S.D. = 1.77). One more
finding to highlight is the participants’ perceptions about the level that companies use for
their customers’ satisfaction as a guide to improve the marketing of their products/services
(Mean = 4.51, S.D. = 1.83).
On the other hand, with regards to the “Shareholders and Supervisory Board”, it
is clear that the majority of the customers think that companies try to maximize their
profits (Mean = 5.98, S.D. = 1.54) and that they aim to ensure survival and long-lasting
success (Mean = 5.62, S.D. = 1.64). The questions based on the “Employees” factor have
also revealed important findings such as the fact that customers disagree that companies
are paying fair wages to their employees (Mean = 3.85, S.D. = 1.74), while it seems diffi-
cult for them to agree that the companies offer security to employees during their work
performance (Mean = 4.30, S.D. = 1.75), as well as that companies are treating employees
fairly without discrimination or verbal and other abuse (Mean = 4.28, S.D. = 1.72). Finally,
and more specifically, concerning the “Society” related questions, participants were not
sure if the mobile telephone provider they use contributes to solutions for social problems
(Mean = 4.12, S.D. = 1.89), as well as whether the company is interested in the improvement
of social welfare (Mean = 4.16, S.D. = 1.89). However, customers agreed at some level that
the companies contribute through sponsorships to cultural and social events (e.g., music
and sports).
In the following Table 3 the data that are related to the Corporate Social Responsibility
aspect of the companies are presented in detail.
Regarding the participants’ perceptions about the trust they show in the company, the
following Table (Table 4) shows in detail the Mean and S.D. of the answers in this section of
questions. A first point to highlight is that the participants agree at some level, that they
feel secure while making use of the companies’ services (Mean = 4.53, S.D. = 1.88), while it
is not clear to them if the company either cares for its customers (Mean = 4.31, S.D. = 1.85)
or if it is honest with them (Mean = 4.21, S.D. = 1.90).
The results relating to the participants’ perceptions about the loyalty they show to the
company are presented in Table 5. More specifically, most of the customers agree that they
usually use one mobile telephone company as the first option in comparison with the rest
of companies (Mean = 5.17, S.D. = 1.95), while they consider that it is marginally costly in
terms of money, time and effort to break off the existing collaboration they have with the
company (Mean = 4.70, S.D. = 2.00).
Table 6 shows that all the variables follow the normal distribution, i.e., Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility (p = 0.200), Trust (p = 0.196), Loyalty (p = 0.141), Customers (p = 0.192), Shareholders
and supervisory boards (p = 0.136), Employees (p = 0.128) and Society (p = 0.200).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 7 of 14

Table 3. The mean and S.D. of participants’ perceptions about “Corporate Social Responsibility”.

I Think That the Mobile Telephone Company I Use: Mean ± S.D.

“Customers” Factor
1. Establishes procedures to respond to customer complaints 4.40 ± 1.74
2.Treats its customers with honesty 4.16 ± 1.77
3. Provides through its employees detailed and
accurateinformation to its customers about the products/services 4.65 ± 1.78
it offers
4. Uses the satisfaction of its customers as a guide to improve the
4.51 ± 1.83
marketing of its products/services
5. Tries to understand its customers’ needs 4.44 ± 1.76
“Shareholders and Supervisory Board” Factor
6. Tries to maximize its profits 5.98 ± 1.54
7. Carries out strict cost controls of its operation 4.67 ± 1.81
8. Tries to ensure survival and a long-lasting success 5.62 ± 1.64
9. Honestly informs the shareholders/partners aboutits financial
4.40 ± 1.65
situation
“Employees” Factor
10. Pays fair wages to its employees 3.85 ± 1.74
11. Offers its employees security during their work performance 4.30 ± 1.75
12. Treats its employees fairly without discrimination or verbal
4.28 ± 1.72
and other abuse
13. Offers its employees training and career opportunities 4.36 ± 1.66
14. Offers a pleasant working environment (e.g., flexible work
4.20 ± 1.63
schedule)
“Society” Factor
15. Contributes to social problems’ solution 4.12 ± 1.89
16. Uses part of its budget for donations and social projects, to
4.25 ± 1.86
improve the lives of underprivileged social groups
17. Contributes through sponsorships to cultural and social
4.69 ± 1.74
events(e.g., music, sports)
18. Aims not only at financial profit but at social benefit too 4.18 ± 1.88
19. Is interested in social welfare improvement 4.16 ± 1.89
20. Respects the natural environment and is interested in its
4.20 ± 1.86
protection

Table 4. The mean and S.D. of the participants’ perceptions about “Trust in the Company”.

Statement Mean ± S.D.

1. I feel secure while making use of the companies’ services 4.53 ± 1.88
2. I trust the quality of the services that the company is providing 4.60 ± 1.87
3. Buying this company’s services is quality guarantee 4.51 ± 1.88
4. The company cares for its customers 4.31 ± 1.85
5. The company is honest with its customers 4.21 ± 1.90

In Table 7, the correlations between the resulting scores (the means of the responses)
based on the sub-dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility in relation to the subcom-
ponents of Trust and Loyalty as described in the questionnaire have been presented.
Using the Pearson-test, positive relationships are obtained by correlating the variable
“Customers” with that of Trust (R = 0.872) and with Loyalty (R = 0.764). In more detail, the
relationships between the variable ‘Customers’ and the variables of “Trust” and “Loyalty”
were statistically significant, while the increases in the values of the first variable have
triggered the increase in the second. Positive relationships are also obtained by correlating
the rest of the variables (“Shareholders and Supervisory Boards”, “Employees”, “Society”)
with both “Trust” and “Loyalty”.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 8 of 14

Table 5. The mean and S.D. of the participants’ perceptions about “Loyalty to the Company”.

Statement Mean ± S.D.

1. I usually use this mobile telephone company as the first
5.17 ± 1.95
option in comparison with the rest of companies
2. It would be costly to me in terms of money, time and effort to
4.70 ± 2.00
break off my collaboration with the company
3. I will keep on considering the company, I’m collaborating
5.05 ± 1.87
with, my first option for the next few years
4. I would suggest this company to another customers 4.79 ± 1.97

Table 6. The Normal Distribution Test for the dimensions and subdimensions of the questionnaire.

Dimension/Subdimension Statistic Df Sig.

Corporate Social Responsibility 0.011 329 0.200
Customers 0.016 329 0.192
Shareholders and Supervisory Board 0.043 329 0.136
Employees 0.057 329 0.128
Society 0.010 329 0.200
Customers’ Trust 0.013 329 0.196
Customers’ Loyalty 0.049 329 0.141

Table 7. The correlations of the sub-dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Trust and Loyalty.

Dimension/Subdimension Trust Loyalty

R 0.872 0.764
Customers
P 0 0
R 0.647 0.682
Shareholders and Supervisory Boards
P 0 0
R 0.758 0.708
Employees
P 0 0
R 0.791 0.716
Society
P 0 0

Another perspective that enhances the analysis of our results is the predictive ability of
the CSR subdimensions for the two variables (Trust and Loyalty). For the “Trust” variable,
the predictive ability of the CSR subdimensions for this is presented through revealing the
possible linear relationships between them in Table 8a,b.

Table 8. (a) Regression Overview—Dependent Variable: Trust. (b) Predictive Ability Analysis—Depen-
dent Variable: Trust.

(a)
St. Error of the
R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
0.800 0.641 0.636 0.98895
(b)
Subdimension Coefficent b 95% Sig.
Constant 0.023 −0.327–0.373 0.898
Customers 0.720 0.614–0.826 0
Shareholders and Supervisory
0.056 −0.041–0.154 0.255
Boards
Employees −0.014 −0.146–0.117 0.830
Society 0.232 0.117–0.347 0
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 9 of 14

The estimates for b0, b1 and b4 are 0.023, 0.720 and 0.232, respectively, while the
hypothesis Ho: b1 = 0 and b4 = 0 is rejected given that the corresponding p-value is
equal to 0. Also, the rate for the variability of Yi, which is explained by the model, is
R2 = 0.780. It is, therefore, to conclude that significant predictors are those in the subdimen-
sions “Customers” and “Society”, for the “Trust” variable.
For the “Loyalty” variable, the predictive ability of the CSR subdimensions is presented
through revealing the possible linear relationships between them in the following Table 9a,b.

Table 9. (a) Regression Overview—Dependent Variable: Loyalty. (b) Predictive Ability Analysis—
Dependent Variable: Loyalty.

(a)
St. Error of the
R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
0.800 0.780 0.777 0.83413
(b)
Dimension/Subdimension Coefficent b 95% Sig.
Constant 0.675 0.259–1.090 0.002
Customers 0.419 0.293–0.545 0
Shareholders and
0.295 0.179–0.410 0
Supervisory Boards
Employees 0.039 −0.117–0.195 0.621
Society 0.166 0.030–0.303 0.017

The estimates for b0, b1, b2 and b4 are 0.675, 0.419, 0.295 and 0.166, respectively, while
the hypothesis Ho: b1 = 0, b2 = 0 and b4 = 0 is rejected given that the corresponding
p-value is equal to 0. Also, the percentage for the variability of Yi, which is explained by
the model, is R2 = 0.641. As a result, it is noteworthy that significant predictors are those of
the subdimensions “Customers”, “Shareholders and supervisory boards” and “Society” for
the “Loyalty” variable, which in fact describes it at 64.1%.

4. Discussion
The evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) had a great impact on the
research. This is a well-covered topic in the literature; however, the relationship of CSR to
the Trust and Loyalty of the customers of mobile telecommunications companies in Greece
has not been adequately developed. The analysis of the results showed that companies’
Corporate Social Responsibility is placed at medium to higher levels on average.
Regarding the variable ‘’Customers”, the average score of the participants was 4.43,
on a 1–7 scale, with the standard deviation being 1.64. A bivariate analysis extracted
statistically significant results correlated to the variables ‘’Trust” and ‘’Loyalty”. In more
detail, the variable “Customers” was positively related to the variable ‘’Trust” (R = 0.872,
p = 0.000), which means that an increase in one variable is linked to the increase in others.
Similarly, the correlation of the variable in question with the variable ‘’Loyalty” is at
(R = 0.764, p = 0.000).
In addition, the statistically significant relationship of the variable ‘’Customers” with
both ‘’Trust” and ‘’Loyalty” was depicted on a linear regression. The correlation was
presented with ‘’Trust” at (p = 0.000, b = 0.720) and with ‘’Loyalty” at (p = 0.000, b = 0.419).
It is evident that the increase to the value of the first variable can cause an increase in the
value of the following two variables [35].
For the analysis based on the variable ‘’Shareholders and Supervisory Board” the
average score of the participants was 5.17, on a 1–7 scale, with the standard deviation being
at 1.39. The variable ‘’Shareholders and Supervisory Board” was positively related to the
variable ‘’Trust” (R = 0.647, p = 0.000), which means that an increase in one variable was
linked with the increase in the others. Equally, the correlation of the variable in question
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 10 of 14

with the variable ‘’Loyalty” was at (R = 0.682, p = 0.000). Furthermore, the statistically
significant relationship of the variable ‘’Shareholders and Supervisory Board” with ‘’Trust”
and ‘’Loyalty” were presented on a linear regression. The correlation was presented with
the variable ‘’Loyalty” at (p = 0.000, b = 0.895). This denotes that the increase in the value
of the first variable can cause an increase in the value of the other variable [36].
The analysis of the variable ‘Employees” shows that the average score of the par-
ticipants was 4.20 on the scale, with the standard deviation at 1.55. A bivariate analysis
resulted in the significant correlation of this variable with ‘’Trust” and ‘’Loyalty”. The
variable ‘’Shareholders and Supervisory Board” was positively related to the variable
‘’Trust” (R = 0.758, p = 0.000), while the correlation of the variable in question with the
variable ‘’Loyalty” was at (R = 0.708, p = 0.000). On that occasion, the statistically significant
relationship of the variable ‘Employees” with ‘’Trust” and ‘’Loyalty” could not be shown
on a linear regression. The correlation with the variable ‘’Trust” was (p = 0.830, b= −0.014)
and with ‘’Loyalty” (p = 0.621, b = 0.039). This means that the ‘’Employees” variable had
no effect on the other two, confirming an older study by Tsouvrakas and Yfantidou [37].
Regarding the analysis of the variable ‘’Society”, the average score of the participants
was 4.27, on a 1–7 scale, with the standard deviation being at 1.72. The variable ‘’Society”
was positively related to the variable ‘’Trust” (R = 0.791, p = 0.000), which means that an
increase in one variable was linked with the increase in the other. Similarly, the correlation
of the variable in question with the variable ‘’Loyalty” was at (R = 0.716, p = 0.000).
Moreover, the statistically significant relationship of the variable ‘’Society” with ‘’Trust”
and ‘’Loyalty” was displayed on a linear regression. The correlation was presented with
the variable ‘’Trust” at (p = 0.000, b = 0.232) and ‘’Loyalty” at (p = 0.017, b = 0.166). This
shows that the increase in the value of the first variable could cause an increase in the value
of the other variable [12]. The outcome of this research has shown that Corporate Social
Responsibility has significantly affected the trust and loyalty of the participants. Former
studies [38] have investigated customers’ responses to the adoption of Corporate Social
Responsibility from businesses with positive results. Similar research has indicated that
customers’ reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility has an impact on the image of the
firm and to its attractiveness [39].
According to Highhouse et al. [40], the sample selected for each study might be
responsible for the correlation between loyalty and responsibility with CSR. The value
of adopting Corporate Social Responsibility is reflected in customers’ views about the
organization. Using CSR is a step towards ‘’Philanthropia” Charity, that allows companies
to operate transparently [41]. Therefore, by incorporating CSR as a policy, companies
can assure themselves of clients’ trust and loyalty along with that of the various social
stakeholders [10].
There has been an effort to create new policies and redefine existing ones for Corporate
Social Responsibility from the EU since 2010 [42]. These policies are aiming to promote
correct CSR practices, increase consumers’ trust levels, and create rewarding programs for
companies implementing such policies. Furthermore, another goal of the new policies is to
oblige companies to publish non-financial reports and to include CSR in the training and
research of businesses, and for businesses to present a more positive image publicly away
from any customers’ suspicions [43].
Given that the CSR can embrace corporate social activities for the benefit of the whole
society, it can at the same time be a key marketing tool in the hands of businesses, which
can boost a firm’s performance and reputation. Building a company’s reputation is a
fundamental element for every organization that can assist with the establishment of the
business, the recognition and the loyalty of customers and its ability to attract valuable
human resources and funds. Consequently, the future corporate profitability [3] is always
a great incentive for companies to implement CSR projects and give their customers the
chance to get to know them through a more social perspective. By increasing customers’
trust and loyalty, companies will achieve a long-lasting relationship and conduct a more
effective dialogue with them to receive feedback on their services and products [5].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 11 of 14

This research demonstrates that companies with high levels of social activities are
more popular with consumers in contrast to firms that do not adopt such activities [35].
The creation and adherence of an intrinsic policy plan on CSR is necessary for companies
not only to attract new customers, but to keep existing ones [44]. Clearly, most customers
prefer to buy products and services from companies that reflect their personal values and
respect their own cultures, therefore, showing their loyalty. The implementation of CSR
gives companies the chance to enhance their reputation, maintain consumers’ loyalties and
build strong relationships with suppliers, customers and the State. It is widely admitted
that a company’s social activities are rewarded by customers in positive ways, even in cases
where products or services are at higher prices or suffering from negative information [45].
Consequently, the image that companies are trying to promote to the public is quite
important. They are oriented not only toward customer service or transparency, but also to
different fields such as social and environmental protection. Under these circumstances,
companies offer a different image showing an ethical and responsible entity, that increases
the customers’ satisfaction and the company’s ‘’word of mouth” connections, resulting in
greater sales and profitability [46]. Recent marketing research revealed that consumers’
expectations are high in terms of businesses’ legitimation, ethics and charity [47]. In
addition, it has been noted that CSR holds a prominent role in each company’s strategy, that
in turn can affect customers’ behaviors [48]. In that sense, companies do not only build a
good reputation, but lay the foundation for the customers’ trust realized in ‘’brand loyalty”.
Modern managers clearly understand that building a good image can take a long time, but
destroying that can take moments [49]. Finally, good social relationships can create a safety
net for the business, especially in unforeseen events that can have a vital impact on the
company [50].
This research can improve the implementation of CSR as well as raise customers’ trust
and loyalty. CSR is a great opportunity for businesses to redefine their relationship with the
public, employees and customers, especially during this turbulent period of the COVID-19
crisis. The current insecure business environment requires actions for economic growth
and for society’s and companies’ prosperity. Businesses must take the measures necessary
to support social cohesion and communication among employees, customers, and the
community as a whole [12]. In that way, companies can be more effective in tracing their
strategies and achieve sustainable development.

5. Limitations of Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research

In addition to the useful implications that our research highlights, there were some
limitations, which should be addressed. The main limitations of the research are related
to the period during which this was conducted. Due to the COVID-19 circumstances the
questionnaires had been sent through Google Forms and there was no chance to meet
the participants in-person; therefore, the quantitative method was preferred. Due to the
convenience methodology that was followed, the sample can be considered as sufficient;
however, if answers from a wider range of people could have been collected, the sample
would be even more representative. The aspect of the timeframe can also be considered as
a limitation, since the research was conducted over a short period, which means that over
a longer period the findings could be different [51]. Finally, situating the research in the
Greek context limits the generalizability of the findings to a larger number of countries.
Regarding any suggestions for future research, a more qualitative approach to the topic
would also be useful, by conducting in-person interviews with participants and evaluating
their perceptions about CSR in a more holistic way. Such an investigation would potentially
need to be longer than a quantitative one, and during the post COVID-19 period this option
could be considered. Additionally, quantitative research could also be conducted, but with
a larger number of participants and a wider representation of the respondents. A random
sample would provide us with further impartial findings in comparison to a convenience
sample such as the one used in the current study. Furthermore, future research could focus
on studying similar industries, which consist of smaller numbers of larger firms, such as
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 12 of 14

the energy and/or heavy industry sector. Under these conditions, it would be possible
to compare the application of corporate social responsibility between different industries,
such as the environmental actions implemented by energy and heavy industry companies,
comparing them with the telecommunications companies.

6. Conclusions
In conclusion, Corporate Social Responsibility is a critical factor to a company’s
connection to society. Utilized correctly CSR can help a company to succeed and develop
their activity, by retaining social cohesion. It is remarkable that both in Greece and globally,
CSR remains intrinsically linked to the trust and loyalty of the customers, even with the
changes resulting from COVID-19 and the lockdowns. Nevertheless, the outcome of this
investigation in connection with previous ones can be considered important, there is still
room for additional research in the realization of CSR in a way that can support the current
findings.
This research contributes to the existing literature by offering a better understanding of
customers’ reactions to the Corporate Social Responsibility of mobile telecommunications
companies in relation to their trust and loyalty, proving that there is a positive relationship
between them as explained by the findings of the present study. The implementation
of CSR activities gives companies the chance to share their vision with a wider number
of people and for them to build a long-lasting relationship that would not only have a
future profitable impact, but motivate companies to keep on improving their products and
services based on both their social circumstances and customer needs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B. and V.B.; Data curation, A.V. and C.K.; Formal
analysis, A.V. and A.O.; Investigation, A.V. and A.O.; Methodology, A.B., A.V., C.K. and V.B.; Project
administration, A.B. and V.B.; Resources, C.K. and A.O.; Supervision, A.B. and V.B.; Writing—original
draft, A.V., C.K. and A.O.; Writing—review and editing, A.V., C.K. and A.O. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality and anonymity of
research participants.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Omidi, F.; Shafiee, M.M. The impact of corporate social responsibility on social performance, financial performance and customer
reactions in the food industry. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2018, 17, 249. [CrossRef]
2. Han, G.Q.; Tang, X.F. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance—A
Case Study of the Pharmaceutical Industry. DEStech Trans. Soc. Sci. Educ. Hum. Sci. 2020. Available online: https:
//www.researchgate.net/publication/341752811_An_Empirical_Study_on_the_Impact_of_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_
on_Financial_Performance-A_Case_Study_of_the_Pharmaceutical_Industry (accessed on 4 December 2022). [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Kim, M.; Yin, X.; Lee, G. The effect of CSR on corporate image, customer citizenship behaviors, and customers’ long-term
relationship orientation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102520. [CrossRef]
4. Kim, S.; Lee, H. The Effect of CSR Fit and CSR Authenticity on the Brand Attitude. Sustainability 2019, 12, 275. [CrossRef]
5. Servera-Francés, D.; Piqueras-Tomás, L. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Loyalty through Consumer
Perceived Value. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2019, 32, 66–84. [CrossRef]
6. Vaxevanidou, M. Corporate Social Responsibility; Stamouli Publications: Athens, Greece, 2011.
7. Pérez, A.; Rodriguez del Bosque, I. Measuring CSR Image: Three Studies to Develop and to Validate a Reliable Measurement
Tool. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 265–286. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 13 of 14

8. del los Salmones, M.M.G.; Crespo, A.H.; del Bosque, I.R. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of
services. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 61, 369–385. [CrossRef]
9. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman Publications: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
10. Freeman, I.; Hasnaoui, A. The Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Vision of Four Nations. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 100,
419–443. [CrossRef]
11. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [CrossRef]
12. Carroll, A.B.; Buchholtz, A.K. Business and society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder Management, 9th ed.; Cengage Learning:
Stanford, CA, USA, 2015.
13. Kotler, P.; Lee, N. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause; Wiley & Sons: New York,
NY, USA, 2005.
14. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [CrossRef]
15. Wartick, S.L.; Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 758–769.
[CrossRef]
16. Choi, S.; Lee, S. Revisiting the financial performance—Corporate social performance link. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30,
2586–2602. [CrossRef]
17. Moir, L. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corp. Gov. 2001, 1, 16–22. [CrossRef]
18. Clarkson, M.B.E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985,
10, 92–117. [CrossRef]
19. Jones, T.M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 404–437. [CrossRef]
20. Werther, W.B., Jr.; Chandler, D. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment; Sage Publications Inc.:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010.
21. De Chernatony, L.; Harris, F. Developing corporate brands through considering internal and external stakeholders. Corp. Reput.
Rev. 2000, 3, 268–274. [CrossRef]
22. Haski-Leventhal, D. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Tools and Theories for Responsible Management; Sage Publications Inc.:
London, UK, 2018.
23. Arora, P. Incorporate Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy into Business. SIJ Trans. Ind. Financ. Bus. Manag. 2019, 7, 9–16.
[CrossRef]
24. Heinze, D.C. Financial Correlates of a Social Involvement Measure. Akron Bus. Econ. Rev. 2003, 7, 48–51.
25. Ullmann, A.A. Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social
Disclosure and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 540–557. [CrossRef]
26. Andayani, W. Factors of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2020, 12, 122–129. [CrossRef]
27. Roberts, R.W. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Theory. Account. Organ.
Soc. 1992, 17, 595–612. [CrossRef]
28. Turban, D.B.; Greening, D.W. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad.
Manag. J. 1997, 40, 658–672. [CrossRef]
29. Khan, S.Z.; Yang, Q.; Waheed, A. Investment in intangible resources and capabilities spurs sustainable competitive advantage
and firm performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 26, 285–295. [CrossRef]
30. Haseeb, M.; Hussain, H.I.; Kot, S.; Androniceanu, A.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Role of Social and Technological Challenges in Achieving
a Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Sustainable Business Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3811. [CrossRef]
31. Russo, M.V.; Fouts, P.A. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J.
1997, 40, 534–559. [CrossRef]
32. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 117–127.
[CrossRef]
33. Vlachos, P.A.; Tsamakos, A.; Vrechopoulos, A.P.; Avramidis, P.K. Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the
mediating role of trust. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2009, 37, 170–180. [CrossRef]
34. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative & Qualitative Research; Kouvarakou, N.,
Translator; Iwn Publications: Athens, Greece, 2016.
35. Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. J.
Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 225–243. [CrossRef]
36. Campbel, J.L. Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 946–967. [CrossRef]
37. Tsourvakas, G.; Yfantidou, I. Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Employee Engagement. Soc. Responsib. J. 2018, 14,
123–137. [CrossRef]
38. Metaxas, T.; Tsavdaridou, M. CSR in metallurgy sector in Greece: A content analysis. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 295–309. [CrossRef]
39. Zhang, Q.; Oo, B.L.; Lim, B.T.H. Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility
practices by construction enterprises: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 563–584. [CrossRef]
40. Highhouse, S.; Lievens, F.; Sinar, E.F. Measuring attraction to organizations. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003, 63, 986–1001. [CrossRef]
41. Kesavan, R.; Bernacchi, M.D.; Mascarenhas, O.A.J. Word of Mouse: CSR Communication and the Social Media. Int. Manag. Rev.
2013, 9, 58–66.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1036 14 of 14

42. Athens University of Economics. The Mobile Communications Industry a Dominant Pillar in the Greek Economy’s Development Strategy;
Athens University of Economics: Athens, Greece, 2015.
43. Yıldız, A.; Özerim, M.G. Corporate social responsibility in European context. In Contemporary Issues in Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity; Türker, D., Toker, H., Vural, C.A., Eds.; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 2013; pp. 43–55.
44. Rashid, A.; Gul, F.; Khalid, G.K. Internal corporate social responsibility and intention to quit: The mediating role of organizational
citizenship behavior. NUML Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2018, 13, 79–95.
45. Green, T.; Peloza, J. How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Create Value for Consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 48–56.
[CrossRef]
46. Schreck, P. Reviewing the Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: New Evidence and Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103,
167–188. [CrossRef]
47. Golob, U.; Lah, M.; Jancic, Z. Value Orientations and Consumer Expectations of Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Mark. Commun.
2008, 14, 83–96. [CrossRef]
48. Hansen, S.D.; Dunford, B.B.; Boss, D.A.; Boss, R.W.; Angermeier, I. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Benefits of Employee
Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 102, 29–45. [CrossRef]
49. Stanaland, A.J.S.; Lwin, M.O.; Murphy, P.E. Consumer Perceptions of the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Social
Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 47–55. [CrossRef]
50. Peloza, J. Using Corporate Social Responsibility as Insurance for Financial Performance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2006, 48, 52–72.
[CrossRef]
51. Giannarakis, G.; Sariannidis, N.; Litinas, N. An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Greek Telecommunications
Sector. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2011, 30, 40–49. [CrossRef]

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.