1. Introduction
There is an increased interest from companies to learn about the role of sustainability in business practices in recent years [1,2,3]. This can be reflected through the formation of various sustainability-focused organizations, and departments at both practice and academic levels such as the Sustainability Consortium (it supports sustainability initiatives and offer relevant information); Global Reporting Initiatives (it keeps records of sustainable activity reports in its sustainability disclosure database); Times Higher Education incorporated United Nations’ sustainable development goals in the university ranking system [4,5], among others. Furthermore, several companies have incorporated sustainability business practices to accomplish sustainable performance in response to accelerated environmental degradation and competitive market situation [5,6]. For example, Apple underlined that it uses 100% recycled aluminum to manufacture its products and gives free recycling service for old devices. This might upsurge the customers’ perception of Apple’s products’ sustainability [7].
Correspondingly, customer engagement, a critical concept in the marketing literature that explains the idea of non-transactional customer relationships thru brand content has received great attention among managers [8,9]. Customer engagement is considered one of the hottest and most prominent research topics in contemporary marketing due to its importance in improving customers’ non-transactional contribution towards a brand [10,11]. Customers with greater engagement levels participate in several activities concerning a brand other than purchase behavior, for example, advocating, assisting other customers [12], writing online reviews [13], and/or participating in the process of new product development [14]. Customer engagement is usually understood as a customer’s attitudinal and behavioral investment in the non-transactional interaction with a focal object (i.e., a product, a brand, or a firm) [15,16]. The increased competition in the online market and the presence of brands across various platforms make up the customer engagement concept of the utmost relevance to firms. Hence, it is crucial to comprehend whether the firms’ efforts in investing in sustainability practices can be able to convince customers and improve their interest and engagement towards the brands [3]. There are very few studies that exist that looked at the investigation of sustainability practices in improving consumer response toward the brand [17]. A call for more studies on sustainability practices in connection with marketing variables is also stated in the literature [5,18,19].
The competitive market and consumers’ awareness due to the growing internet and related advanced communication technologies (such as search engines, social media, etc) enforces brands to integrate sustainability into marketing practices [17,20,21]. Because sustainable initiatives appeal to customers that are aware and conscious of sustainability and offer an edge over competitors [22]. Notably, the unification of sustainable practices in marketing strategies has attracted a lot of attention in marketing practice [3]. Managers have come to realize that understanding how consumers’ perceived sustainable initiatives is crucial for the development of marketing strategies for goods and services. Most previous sustainability research has stressed the fit of the company instead of customer perspectives [23]. Few studies have identified that customers are more likely to relate themselves to organizations that embrace sustainable practices consistent with their values [3]. These studies either investigate the role of sustainable practices in a single sector e.g., airlines [24], or just studied the effect of perceived sustainability practices on customer satisfaction [7]. The idea of understanding perceived sustainability comprehensively, and in association with customer engagement and trust formation has been the subject of sparse scrutiny in the marketing and sustainability literature. The present study attempts to fill this void in the literature by examining the role that perceived sustainability plays in engaging customers, loyalty, and trust formation across various goods and services, in a general manner. The study put forth that a brand’s sustainability initiatives, which may include environmental practices, can have an impact on the customer’s loyalty and trust towards the brand through their engagement with the brand. To date, very few scholars have provided comprehension of the role of perceived sustainability in engaging the customer with the brand and their subsequent effect on customer loyalty and trust [25]. By doing so, the research is a novel attempt toward an empirical examination of said relationships. Thus, this study adds to the present sustainability and customer engagement literature. As marketers as very much interested in engaging customers to achieve competitive advantage and customers’ favor for their brand, this study offers them crucial knowledge for how the products’ sustainability practices are useful in developing effective marketing and branding strategies.
The study research aims to assess the influence of perceived sustainability on customer engagement with the brand in the online environment. Importantly, we examined the mediation role of customer engagement in the relationship that perceived sustainability shares with customer loyalty and trust in the brand. The remainder of the study is structured as follows. First, we review the literature on perceived sustainability and customer engagement. Second, the study proposes a conceptual model and discusses the related set of hypotheses formation. Third, the research method used in the study is discussed followed by the results. Finally, we conclude our study by discussing its implications for academics and managers, followed by study limitations and further research opportunities.
2. Literature Background
2.1. Perceived Sustainability
Defining sustainability more than 30 years ago, the Brundtland report underscored it as a development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” ([26], p. 8). Studies viewed perceived sustainability as social, economic, and environmental sustainability [27,28]. Social sustainability assessed corporate roles toward social well-being; economic sustainability measures corporate financial performance by examining transparency in governance, business management, and accounting; and environmental sustainability assessed corporates’ care for natural resources [27,28]. Scholars establish the vital role of social, economic, and environmental sustainability in improving marketing performance outcomes such as customer equity, brand equity, and relationship equity [28,29,30]. Social, economic, and environmental sustainability practices; are beneficial to brands/organizations from a marketing strategy perspective [30].
Marketing literature has paid less attention to studying perceived sustainability from the consumer’s viewpoint [25]. Particularly concerning customer engagement, the research is limited [24]. Sustainability from consumer perception is explained as the customers’ cognitive-affective assessment of sustainability practices adopted at a particular brand/organization [7]. A perceptual assessment of sustainability portrays the diversity of customers’ perceptions of the sustainability of a given product [3]. Perceived sustainability is a vital concept in differentiating brands and its examination from consumers’ perspective assists in the development of sustainable practices in strategic brand management [5,31]. This suggests a dire need to study the role of sustainability practices adopted by various firms concerning their marketing and branding practices [25,30]. Consequently, to fill this void the current study is an attempt to investigate the role that customers’ perceived sustainability plays in their engagement with the brand and in fostering loyalty and trust.
2.2. Customer Engagement and Sustainability
The interest in the idea of customer engagement developed over the past three decades in the wake of the non-transactional relationship between the brand and its customers [32]. Literature offers several definitions of customer engagement. For instance, customer engagement is understood as a unidimensional construct that goes ahead of purchase, simply involvement and participation [33]. On the other hand, Brodie et al. [34] considered customer engagement as a psychological activity that “occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., brand) in a focal service relationship” (p. 260). Defining it more comprehensively, Hollebeek [35], (p. 790) explains customer engagement as “the level of an individual customer’s motivational, brand-related, and context-dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral activity in direct brand interaction”.
The rise of internet-based technologies and social media has offered marketers unique opportunities as a medium to engage with customers to strengthen customer-brand relationships [35,36,37]. Moreover, compared to an average customer, highly engaged customers are 23% more profitable for a firm in terms of share of wallet, revenue, and lasting relationship [38]. While relating customer engagement to sustainability, studies emphasized that customer engagement with the firms’ sustainable practices enables them to both “give back” to society and gain a competitive advantage [5,39,40]. Customer engagement behavior towards sustainable practices is understood as customers’ “behavioral manifestations toward a firm that moves beyond the transaction, contributing to the sustainability of both environment and online brand community” [24] (p. 4). Though scholars argue that sustainable practices affect customer brand engagement [29], the subject has received scant attention in the customer engagement literature [7,24].
3. Theoretical Background and Conceptual Model
The study proposed a conceptual model comprising perceived sustainability, customer engagement, customer loyalty, and trust constructs. The model posits that customers’ perception of sustainable products can create customer loyalty and trust directly as well as indirectly through customer engagement (see Figure 1). We argue that customer engagement mediates the effect of perceived sustainability on customer loyalty and trust.
Studies suggest that sustainability initiatives of firms can have an impact on marketing endowments [3,5,41]. Consumer responses toward a brand can be influenced by a brand’s sustainability practices and can enhance the firm value [39,42]. Scholars put forth that a brand’s concern for the environment increases customers’ preferences for the brand [43]. Moreover, the consumer’s preference to purchase from firms that care about sustainability issues is growing [23,44,45]. Sustainability, in general, is understood from three dimensions, namely, society, economy, and environment [24]. Studies focus on the corporate social responsibility concept to explain and understand sustainability from the viewpoint of society i.e., social sustainability [46]. Economic sustainability revolves around on financial performance of firms [46]. The environmental aspect of sustainability is based on the idea of natural environment preservation [46]. The current research study on ‘perceived sustainability’ i.e., customer’s perception of the environment-related characters and performances of a product offered by a brand [47,48]. Literature offers support that the sustainability of products as perceived by customers influences their attitudes, and behavior toward the brands [49].
Studies posit the role of a brand’s sustainable practices in building customer loyalty [50,51]. Customer loyalty is a “deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future despite situational influences and marketing efforts” [52], (p. 392). Products’ sustainable features attract customer attention due to the increased social consciousness in recent times [53]. The use of environmentally friendly materials can be a vital factor in differentiating a brand from others, which may also drive favorable consumer responses [52,54]. With similar prices and quality, brands using more sustainable materials in their products leads to greater customer loyalty [45,55]. Given the arguments, the study proposes that-
Customer-perceived sustainability has a significant positive effect on customer loyalty.
Scholars admit that consumers’ perception of environmentally sustainable products or brands (e.g., recycled plastic, recycled packaging boxes, organic foods, and ingredients, etc.) develop a favorable attitude towards the brand and build trust [56,57,58]. Correspondingly, integrating sustainability into a business and marketing strategy enhances the level of product and brand credibility, which consequently results in a stronger and deeper association between the brand and customers [3,5,59]. Based on the above arguments, the current study proposes that a product’s perceived sustainability can affect brand relationships i.e., brand trust. Hence, we propose that-
Customer-perceived sustainability has a significant positive effect on customer trust.
Due to the increased customers’ environmental concerns, firms started paying attention to sustainable products [48,58]. Though several studies have discussed the role of product sustainability on the brand-customer relationship but are limited to the transactional context [45]. Very few studies have investigated the influence of perceived sustainability on non-transactional relationships, such as customer engagement [24].
Customer engagement involves a subject (e.g., the customer) and an object (e.g., a brand and community), with differing intensity (low vs. high) and valence levels (positive and negative) [32,34]. Instead, sustainability behavior focuses on the actions needed to protect the socio-physical assets on this globe such as reducing electricity consumption, including recycling waste and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [24,27,57]. Viewing these two areas together, the study puts forth that customers’ engagement with the brands’ sustainable products may foster customers’ loyalty toward the brand. Specifically, when brands engage their customers, it leads to interactions, which are more likely to improve trust and loyalty toward the brand [9]. Accordingly, customers’ perception of the product’s sustainability possibly plays an important role in engaging the customers [24,60], which subsequently results in customer loyalty and trust in the brand that was offering sustainable products.
Customer engagement explains customers’ beyond-purchase associations with the brand [7,10]. Whereas loyalty is understood as a deeply held commitment to repurchase from a chosen brand consistently [61]. Scholars argued that customer engagement improves purchase decisions and loyalty via a convincing psychological relationship supplemented by interactive experiences beyond purchase [62]. Further, customer engagement stimulates trust due to highly valued positive relations and mutual exchange between a brand and a firm [9,63]. Though few studies put forth that trust may be generated along with the process of customer engagement and see it as an antecedent rather than being the outcome of customer engagement [34]. On the contrary, most of the studies argued trust as an outcome of customer engagement [63,64] because trust in the customer-brand relationship develops over time as both sides feel the continuation of beneficial mutual exchange [62]. Hence, engaged individuals are more likely to form trusting associations with a brand and foster loyalty toward the brand [62]. Thus, the study proposes that-
Customer engagement mediates the association between perceived sustainability and customer loyalty.
Customer engagement mediates the association between perceived sustainability and customer trust.
4. Research Method
The study investigated the proposed model for the brands that offer sustainable products in India. Participants were reached using a random intercept survey at various locations (such as malls, busy streets, etc.) [65]. The survey commenced with a description of common sustainable business practices, or the sustainable practices commonly adopted by firms across various market offerings to make respondents familiar with the concept. Besides, the study has screened the respondents for their ‘sustainability’ knowledge. Two screening questions were presented to ensure whether respondents are appropriate to answer the survey questions. For this purpose, we asked respondents; (a) How would you rate yourself in terms of having knowledge of sustainable business practices in general on a 5-point Likert scale, and (b) Have you purchased any product having a sustainability aspect/feature in it in the last three months? Respondents with a rating greater than 3 for the first question; and have answered ‘yes’ to the second question were included in the survey. Respondents who passed the above screening criterion were included in the study. After this exercise, the respondents were asked to recall one of their known brands (in any product category) that offer sustainable products in the market. Subsequently, we have given them a copy of the questionnaire and requested them to fill out the survey for the perceived sustainability of the brand’s products, their engagement with the brand, loyalty, and trust towards the brand in a self-administered manner. The study used scale items available in the existing literature and measured them on a 7-point Likert-type scale. All the construct, items, and sources are detailed in Annexure A.
The study tested the questionnaire for its clarity and readability before performing the actual survey. The survey questionnaire was prepared in English language. A group of experts comprising both academics and practitioners assessed the used questionnaire. We also conducted a pre-test with a group of 41 participants to pre-test the questionnaire. Based on the expert panel opinion and pre-testing the study has included items that were found appropriate in the current study context as well as clear and readable. The survey mentions the aim of conducting the research and ensuring the respondents about their anonymity to motivate participation in the survey. For the main survey, the study contacted 560 individuals and received 349 filled responses. The data was cleaned for outliers, missing responses, etc. before doing the data analysis. As a result, the study left with 330 usable responses. Among the 330 participants, 58 percent (191) were males and 42 percent were females (139). The ages of respondents ranged from 22 to 65 years with a mean of 41 years. Most of the participants were working professionals. Regarding educational qualifications and degrees: 36 percent (119) participants had a master’s or above degree, 49 percent (162) candidates had bachelor’s degrees, remaining 15 percent (49) had education less than a bachelors.
5. Data Analysis and Results
The study ensured the reliability and validity of the used measures through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and tested the hypothesis using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) [66]. SPSS and AMOS software (version IBM SPSS Amos 22) packages were used for the analysis purpose. Before testing the model, the study checked multicollinearity, the study assessed the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) [67]. Results suggest that VIF values ranged from 1.55 to 2.14, well less than the recommended threshold of 5 [67]. Then, we assessed the data normality based on the skewness and kurtosis statistics [67]. The skewness and kurtosis values of every item were identified in the range of ± 2.58 (i.e., Skewness from −0.104 to 1.33 and kurtosis from −0.818 to 1.90) [67]. Hence, the data qualified for the normality test.
5.1. Measurement Model Results
The results of CFA and Cronbach alpha statistics indicate the reliability and validity of the data. The composite reliability and Cronbach alpha values were found above 0.70, which supports adequate reliability and internal consistency of the employed measures [67,68] (See Appendix A). All the factor loadings of items exceeded the threshold limit of 0.60 (Appendix A), and average variance values were observed greater than 0.50 (Table 1). This establishes the convergent validity of the used constructs [69,70]. Next, we compare the intercorrelation among the construct and the square root of average variance values, and through this comparison, the discriminant validity was established [69]. All the used items were already examined for content validity during the pre-testing phase. Finally, the study employed well-recommended model fit statistics to examine our measurement model, namely, chi-square statistic, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Tucker-Lewis Index, and Normed Fit Index (NFI) [70]. The model fit indices: χ2 = 189.710, χ2/df = 2.258, GFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.0 NFI = 0.95; IFI = 0.96; and RMSEA = 0.06 are reasonably well thus implying acceptable model fit. In general, the results indicate satisfactory reliability and validity of the proposed model.
5.2. Common Method Bias
We checked for common method bias. To do so, the study followed the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. [71]. The study first performed Harman’s single-factor test to ensure that the majority of variance (i.e., above 50%) is not accounted for by a single factor. The results of exploratory factor analysis indicate that the first factor accounts for only 30.29% of the total variance. Second, the CFA analysis suggests that the model fit for the single-factor model has a poor fit, and thereby unacceptable in comparison to the multi-factor model. Hence, the above results indicate no issue of common method bias problem.
5.3. Hypothesis Testing
Both direct (H1 and H2) and mediation (H3 and H4) hypotheses were tested using SEM. In particular, the study used a bias-corrected bootstrapping method with 5000 bootstrap samples at a 95 percent confidence interval to examine the mediation hypothesis [72,73] i.e., the effect or perceived sustainability on loyalty and trust thru customer engagement.
5.3.1. Main Effect (Direct)
The results showed a significant and positive effect of perceived sustainability on loyalty (β = 0.29, t = 5.14, p < 0.001) and trust (β = 0.24, t = 4.41, p < 0.001) (Table 2). Hence, supporting both direct effect hypotheses i.e., H1 and H2. To examine the proposed model’s explanatory power, we calculated the R2 values, with R2 greater than 0.10 being the suggested criterion benchmark [74]. The R2 values for customer engagement (0.46), customer loyalty (0.55), and trust (0.52) indicate that exogenous constructs account for a significant portion of the variation in endogenous constructs.
5.3.2. Mediation Analysis
The bootstrapping results indicate that the indirect effect of perceived sustainability on loyalty thru customer engagement is not significant (β = 0.01, p > 0.05, BClower = −0.011, BCupper = 0.012). This showed that customer engagement does not mediate the relationship between perceived sustainability and brand loyalty; therefore, H3 was rejected. The results suggest a significant and indirect positive effect of perceived sustainability on trust via customer engagement (β = 0.05, p < 0.05, BClower = 0.004, BCupper = 0.067). Thus, we find support for H4, which states that customer engagement mediates the relationship between perceived sustainability and brand trust. Overall, H1, H2, and H4 are accepted and H3 is rejected (Table 2).
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The present study is an attempt to assess both the direct and indirect effects (via customer engagement) of perceived sustainability, customer loyalty and trust toward the brand. The findings suggest the significant and positive direct effect of perceived sustainability on both loyalty and trust. Besides, we found that customer engagement mediates (partial mediation) the relationship between perceived sustainability and trust but does not mediate the relationship between perceived sustainability and loyalty. This aligns with the existing studies about the mediation role of customer engagement [60,75]. The next sub-sections discuss our key contributions to the theory and implications for the practitioners.
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
The study has made substantial contributions to the sustainability and marketing literature. First, the study improves our knowledge that the effectiveness of sustainable practices adopted by brands in their products not only benefits the environment but also accompanies branding and marketing strategies. Previous studies have paid less interest to consumers’ perception of sustainability practices and their consequent effect on engagement, loyalty, and trust toward the brand [24,43]. The study contributes by proposing and examining a model that depicts the effect of customers’ perceived sustainability on customer engagement, loyalty, and trust. Second, although Chen et al. [7] have linked perceived sustainability to customer satisfaction, they did not determine the effect of perceived sustainability on engagement behavior. More importantly, our study evaluated the indirect effect of perceived sustainability on loyalty and trust via customer engagement, which was not studied in the literature before this research. To broaden the knowledge in the customer engagement literature, the study establishes customer engagement as a new psychological mechanism that influences trust in the context of product sustainability practices adopted by brands, which were established earlier in settings other than sustainability [76]. Contrary to past studies, we did not find the effect of perceived sustainability on customer loyalty toward the brand via customer engagement [24]. These findings support the notion that customers may develop trust towards the brand by engaging with the perceiving sustainability practices but do not develop loyalty behavior when they engaged with the brands’ sustainability practices. Lastly, researchers have suggested perceived sustainability as a possible antecedent of customer engagement [5,7]. Extending this claim further, the study put forth that perceived sustainability not only engages a customer but develops customer trust for the customers who get engaged with the sustainability initiatives of the brand. Thus, establishes customer engagement as a mediating variable in the relationship that perceived sustainability shares with consumer responses. Further, previous studies have tested customer engagement as a mediator variable in the association between consumer perception of corporate social responsibility and customer citizenship behavior [60]. The present study establishes customer engagement as a mediator between perceived sustainability and trust, which is a novel contribution to the theory. With these results, the study contributes to our current knowledge of customer engagement and sustainability in marketing literature.
6.2. Managerial Contributions
The study has vital implications for managers. The importance of an engaged customer is widely accepted [10,35], due to its positive customer responses. The current study provides valuable insight into engaging customers with the brands. Based on our results, we advise marketers to communicate sustainable practices with their customers so that they can be engaged. As customers are paying increased attention to sustainable issues, especially environmental degradation problems. Marketers should implement and communicate sustainable initiatives to their customers for better marketing outcomes. Brands should opt for brand-positing strategies that can be characterized by associating brand elements with sustainable initiatives such as the promotion of natural resource security etc. Marketers should communicate their sustainability initiatives to increase customers’ perceived sustainability toward the brand/product and to engage customers, which can generate favorable customer responses towards their brand, as identified in our results. For instance, brands should post environmental certifications (if they have one) more evidently through different channels (such as websites, social media pages, etc.) and use green aspects to enhance customers’ perceived sustainability towards the offerings.
While the significance of sustainability initiatives in marketing programs remains unclear. Based on the findings, we advised that the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives rests on the degree to which a sustainability program is capable of engaging customers. As the results suggest, an engaged customer is more likely to develop trust in the brand. For instance, sustainable practices may be specifically important to customers who are sensitive towards sustainability issues, and thus, sustainable initiatives in marketing programs can be appropriately implanted in communication directed at them. The concern towards sustainability can further act as a critical force to foster loyalty towards the brand, as such, the direct effect of perceived sustainability on loyalty was found significant in our analysis. Practically, this research guides marketers to better target their sustainability programs at customers who have conscious of the environment and enhance their engagement, which subsequently improves trust.
7. Limitations and Further Research Avenues
The study has some limitations. First, the study has considered the environmental sustainability aspect while studying the relationships. Future scholars may examine the given model for social and economic dimensions of sustainability. Second, we studied positive customer engagement, it would be exciting to research negative customer engagement. For instance, disengagement and dissatisfaction arise due to higher prices for environmental-friendly products such as electric vehicles. Third, the study employed three items to measure perceived sustainability. Considering it as a complex phenomenon to measure, we suggest future researchers assess perceived sustainability using many scale items. Fourth, the current study examined customer engagement as a mediator in the model, future researchers may look at customer experience as a mediator variable. Besides, it would be interesting to investigate the moderating role of some demographic variables (such as age, income, gender, etc.) [77] and cultural variables (individualism vs. collectivism) [78]. Fifth, some methodology-based limitations exist in the study. The study utilized a cross-sectional research design; future scholars may think about collecting longitudinal data to understand dynamic influences in the tested relationships. We also suggest using experimental methods to examine the associations among perceived sustainability, customer engagement, loyalty, and trust. Finally, research has considered various product and service brands that signal a broad contextualization of the study. We recommend further empirical evidence before generalizing the current findings to any specific product/service brand. This could be achieved by re-assessing the proposed model in a particular setting (such as hotels, banks, retailing, and so on) [79,80].
Conceptualization, I.K. and M.F.; Validation, I.K.; Investigation, I.K.; Resources, M.F.; Writing—original draft, I.K.; Writing—review & editing, I.K. and M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Prince Sultan University for paying the Article Processing Charges (APC) of this publication.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
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.
Reliability and validity statistics.
| Variables | α | CR | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Perceived sustainability | 0.93 | 0.939 | 0.837 | 0.915 | |||
| 2. Customer engagement | 0.88 | 0.885 | 0.607 | 0.123 | 0.779 | ||
| 3. Customer loyalty | 0.93 | 0.935 | 0.783 | 0.294 | 0.400 | 0.885 | |
| 4. Customer trust | 0.92 | 0.937 | 0.832 | 0.272 | 0.260 | 0.141 | 0.912 |
Square root values of AVE are shown diagonally in Italics. α = Cronbach Alpha; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. All values are significant at p < 0.05.
Results of hypothesis testing.
| Structural Relationships | β | SE | Bootstrap |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Main effects (direct) | |||||
| H1: Perceived sustainability[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer loyalty | 0.29 ** | 0.041 | 0.121 | 0.289 | |
| H2: Perceived sustainability[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer trust | 0.24 ** | 0.055 | 0.133 | 0.350 | |
| Mediation effects | |||||
| H3: Perceived sustainability[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer engagement[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer loyalty | 0.01 ns | 0.06 | −0.011 | 0.012 | |
| H4: Perceived sustainability[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer engagement[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]Customer trust | 0.05 * | 0.15 | 0.004 | 0.067 | |
| Measurement model results: |
|||||
Significant at ** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05; ns = non-significant; β = path coefficient; SE = standard error.
Appendix A
Constructs and measurement items.
| Construct and Measure Items | Factor Loadings |
|---|---|
Perceived sustainability (CR = 0.94; α = 0.93; AVE = 0.837) [
|
|
Customer engagement (CR = 0.88; α = 0.88; AVE = 0.60) [
|
|
Customer loyalty (CR = 0.93; α = 0.93; AVE = 0.78) [
|
|
Customer trust (CR = 0.94; α = 0.92; AVE = 0.83) [
|
Note. CR = Composite reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
References
1. Fatma, M.; Khan, I. An investigation of consumer evaluation of authenticity of their company’s CSR engagement. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell.; 2022; 33, pp. 55-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1791068]
2. Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 65, pp. 42-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039]
3. Gleim, M.R.; McCullough, H.; Sreen, N.; Pant, L.G. Is doing right all that matters in sustainability marketing? The role of fit in sustainable marketing strategies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2023; 70, 103124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103124]
4. Fissi, S.; Romolini, A.; Gori, E.; Contri, M. The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 279, 123655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123655]
5. Kumar, V.; Christodoulopoulou, A. Sustainability and branding: An integrated perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag.; 2014; 43, pp. 6-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.06.008]
6. Keszey, T. Environmental orientation, sustainable behaviour at the firm-market interface and performance. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 243, 118524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118524]
7. Chen, X.; Sun, X.; Yan, D.; Wen, D. Perceived sustainability and customer engagement in the online shopping environment: The rational and emotional perspectives. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072674]
8. Rasool, A.; Shah, F.A.; Islam, J.U. Customer engagement in the digital age: A review and research agenda. Curr. Opin. Psyc.; 2020; 36, pp. 96-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32599394]
9. Khan, I.; Rahman, Z.; Fatma, M. The role of customer brand engagement and brand experience in online banking. Int. J. Bank Mark.; 2016; 34, pp. 1025-1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2015-0110]
10. Alvarez-Milán, A.; Felix, R.; Rauschnabel, P.A.; Hinsch, C. Strategic customer engagement marketing: A decision making framework. J. Bus. Res.; 2018; 92, pp. 61-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.017]
11. MSI-Marketing Science Institute. Research Priorities 2020–2022. 2018; Available online: https://www.msi.org/articles/marketers-top-challenges-2018-2020-research-priorities/ (accessed on 21 December 2022).
12. Xiao, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Exploring the factors influencing consumer engagement behavior regarding short-form video advertising: A big data perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2023; 70, 103170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103170]
13. Thakur, R. Customer engagement and online reviews. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2018; 41, pp. 48-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.002]
14. Roy, S.K.; Shekhar, V.; Lassar, W.M.; Chen, T. Customer engagement behaviors: The role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2018; 44, pp. 293-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.018]
15. Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.S.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Mark.; 2014; 28, pp. 149-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002]
16. Rather, R.A.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Islam, J.U. Tourism-based customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Ser. Ind. J.; 2019; 39, pp. 519-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1570154]
17. Kong, H.M.; Witmaier, A.; Ko, E. Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non-luxury fashion brands. J. Bus. Res.; 2021; 131, pp. 640-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.021]
18. Shin, S.; Ki, E.J. The effects of congruency of environmental issue and product category and green reputation on consumer responses toward green advertising. Manag. Decis.; 2019; 57, pp. 606-620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2017-0043]
19. Tanveer, M.; Ahmad, A.R.; Mahmood, H.; Haq, I.U. Role of ethical marketing in driving consumer brand relationships and brand loyalty: A sustainable marketing approach. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13126839]
20. Du, S.; Yalcinkaya, G.; Bstieler, L. Sustainability, social media driven open innovation, and new product development performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.; 2016; 33, pp. 55-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12334]
21. Gazzola, P.; Pavione, E.; Pezzetti, R.; Grechi, D. Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustainability and circular economy: A gender/generation quantitative approach. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072809]
22. Papadas, K.K.; Avlonitis, G.J.; Carrigan, M.; Piha, L. The interplay of strategic and internal green marketing orientation on competitive advantage. J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 104, pp. 632-643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.009]
23. Nguyen-Viet, B. The impact of green marketing mix elements on green customer based brand equity in an emerging market. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm.; 2023; 15, pp. 96-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-08-2021-0398]
24. Chuah, S.H.W.; El-Manstrly, D.; Tseng, M.L.; Ramayah, T. Sustaining customer engagement behavior through corporate social responsibility: The roles of environmental concern and green trust. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 262, 121348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121348]
25. Sánchez-Fernández, R.; Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á.; Cervera-Taulet, A. Exploring the concept of perceived sustainability at tourist destinations: A market segmentation approach. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2019; 36, pp. 176-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1505579]
26. Brundtland Commission. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
27. Blackburn, W.R. The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving Social, Economic and Environmental Responsibility; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2012.
28. Kim, J.; Taylor, C.R.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, K.H. Measures of perceived sustainability. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci.; 2015; 25, pp. 182-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2015.1015473]
29. Abbas, M.; Gao, Y.; Shah, S.S.H. CSR and customer outcomes: The mediating role of customer engagement. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10114243]
30. Lee, Y.C. Communicating sustainable development: Effects of stakeholder-centric perceived sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 27, pp. 1540-1551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1900]
31. Park, H.; Kim, Y.K. Proactive versus reactive apparel brands in sustainability: Influences on brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2016; 29, pp. 114-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.013]
32. Barari, M.; Ross, M.; Thaichon, S.; Surachartkumtonkun, J. A meta-analysis of customer engagement behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2021; 45, pp. 457-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12609]
33. Dolan, R.; Conduit, J.; Frethey-Bentham, C.; Fahy, J.; Goodman, S. Social media engagement behavior: A framework for engaging customers through social media content. Eur. J. Mark.; 2019; 53, pp. 2213-2243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182]
34. Brodie, R.J.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Jurić, B.; Ilić, A. Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res.; 2011; 14, pp. 252-271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703]
35. Helme-Guizon, A.; Magnoni, F. Consumer brand engagement and its social side on brand-hosted social media: How do they contribute to brand loyalty?. J. Mark. Manag.; 2019; 35, pp. 716-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1599990]
36. Kabadayi, S.; Price, K. Consumer–brand engagement on Facebook: Liking and commenting behaviors. J. Res. Interact. Mark.; 2014; 8, pp. 203-223.
37. Khan, I. Do brands’ social media marketing activities matter? A moderation analysis. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2022; 64, 102794. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102794]
38. Sorenson, S.; Adkins, A. Why Customer Engagement Matters So Much Now. 2014; Available online: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/172637/why-customer-engagement-matters.aspx (accessed on 29 December 2022).
39. Crittenden, V.L.; Crittenden, W.F.; Ferrell, L.K.; Ferrell, O.C.; Pinney, C.C. Market oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2011; 39, pp. 71-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0217-2]
40. Khan, I.; Fatma, M. Understanding the Influence of CPE on Brand Image and Brand Commitment: The Mediating Role of Brand Identification. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 2291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15032291]
41. Risitano, M.; Romano, R.; Rusciano, V.; Civero, G.; Scarpato, D. The impact of sustainability on marketing strategy and business performance: The case of Italian fisheries. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2022; 31, pp. 1538-1551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2968]
42. Fatma, M.; Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. CSR and consumer behavioral responses: The role of customer-company identification. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2018; 30, pp. 460-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2017-0017]
43. Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Rashid, Y.; Turi, J.A.; Waheed, T. Green brand benefits and brand outcomes: The mediating role of green brand image. Sage Open; 2020; 10, 2158244020953156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244020953156]
44. Kotler, P. Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. J. Mark.; 2011; 75, pp. 132-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.132]
45. Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 147, pp. 379-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118]
46. Dyllick, T.; Muff, K. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ.; 2016; 29, pp. 156-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176]
47. Dang-Van, T.; Vo-Thanh, T.; Wang, J.; Nguyen, N. Luxury hotels’ green practices and consumer brand identification: The roles of perceived green service innovation and perceived values. Business Strategy and the Environment; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023.
48. Leonidou, C.N.; Katsikeas, C.S.; Morgan, N.A. “Greening” the marketing mix: Do firms do it and does it pay off?. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2013; 41, pp. 151-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0317-2]
49. Park, H.; Kim, Y.K. An empirical test of the triple bottom line of customer-centric sustainability: The case of fast fashion. Fash. Text.; 2016; 3, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40691-016-0077-6]
50. Barta, S.; Belanche, D.; Flavián, M.; Terré, M.C. How implementing the UN sustainable development goals affects customers’ perceptions and loyalty. J. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 331, 117325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117325] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36706602]
51. Jung, J.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, K.H. Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion market and brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 120, pp. 294-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.019]
52. Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P. Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact of environmental actions and collaborations on firm performance. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2015; 24, pp. 413-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1828]
53. Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.J.; Lee, J.S.; Sheu, C. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2011; 30, pp. 345-355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.008]
54. Dinh, K.C.; Nguyen-Viet, B.; Phuong Vo, H.N. Toward Sustainable Development and Consumption: The Role of the Green Promotion Mix in Driving Green Brand Equity and Green Purchase Intention. J. Promot. Manag.; 2023; pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2023.2165209]
55. Tanveer, M.; Kaur, H.; Thomas, G.; Mahmood, H.; Paruthi, M.; Yu, Z. Mobile phone buying decisions among young adults: An empirical study of influencing factors. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 10705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131910705]
56. Ahmed, R.R.; Streimikiene, D.; Qadir, H.; Streimikis, J. Effect of green marketing mix, green customer value, and attitude on green purchase intention: Evidence from the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 11473-11495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22944-7]
57. Kang, J.; Hustvedt, G. Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics; 2014; 125, pp. 253-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1916-7]
58. Vázquez, J.L.; Lanero, A.; García, J.A.; Moraño, X. Segmentation of consumers based on awareness, attitudes and use of sustainability labels in the purchase of commonly used products. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2023; 38, pp. 115-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.025]
59. Schmitt, J.; Renken, U. How to earn money by doing good! Shared value in the apparel industry. J. Corp. Citizsh.; 2012; 45, pp. 79-103.
60. Fatma, M.; Khan, I. Impact of CSR on Customer Citizenship Behavior: Mediating the Role of Customer Engagement. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 5802. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15075802]
61. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
62. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.A.; Wang, Y. The role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. J. Travel Res.; 2016; 55, pp. 64-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287514541008]
63. Hollebeek, L.D.; Macky, K. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implications. J. Interact. Mark.; 2019; 45, pp. 27-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.003]
64. Hollebeek, L.D. Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus. J. Mark. Manag.; 2011; 27, pp. 785-807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132]
65. Khan, I.; Fatma, M.; Shamim, A.; Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Gender, loyalty card membership, age, and critical incident recovery: Do they moderate experience-loyalty relationship?. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2020; 89, 102408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102408]
66. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull.; 1988; 103, 411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411]
67. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis; 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
68. Nunnally, J.C. An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Handbook; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1978; pp. 97-146.
69. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
70. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods; 2008; 6, pp. 53-60.
71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2003; 88, 879. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516251]
72. Collier, J.E. Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS: Basic to Advanced Techniques; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2020.
73. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods; 2008; 40, pp. 879-891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879]
74. Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q.; 1998; 22, pp. 7-16.
75. Li, S.; Wei, M. Hotel servicescape and customer citizenship behaviors: Mediating role of customer engagement and moderating role of gender. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 587-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0656]
76. Islam, J.U.; Shahid, S.; Rasool, A.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, I.; Rather, R.A. Impact of website attributes on customer engagement in banking: A solicitation of stimulus-organism-response theory. Int. J. Bank Mark.; 2020; 38, pp. 1279-1303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-12-2019-0460]
77. Khan, I.; Fatma, M.; Kumar, V.; Amoroso, S. Do experience and engagement matter to millennial consumers?. Mark. Intell. Plan.; 2021; 39, pp. 329-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-01-2020-0033]
78. Khan, I.; Fatma, M. Online destination brand experience and authenticity: Does individualism-collectivism orientation matter?. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.; 2021; 20, 100597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100597]
79. Fatma, M.; Rahman, Z. An integrated framework to understand how consumer perceives ethicality influence the consumer hotel brand loyalty. Serv. Sci.; 2017; 9, pp. 136-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/serv.2016.0166]
80. Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. Brand experience anatomy in hotels: An interpretive structural modeling approach. C. Hosp. Quart.; 2017; 58, pp. 165-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1938965516649055]
81. Kianpour, K.; Jusoh, A.; Asghari, M. Environmentally friendly as a new dimension of product quality. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.; 2014; 31, pp. 547-565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2012-0079]
82. McLean, G.; Al-Nabhani, K.; Wilson, A. Developing a mobile applications customer experience model (MACE)-implications for retailers. J. Bus. Res.; 2018; 85, pp. 325-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.018]
83. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Mark.; 2001; 65, pp. 81-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255]
84. Schallehn, M.; Burmann, C.; Riley, N. Brand authenticity: Model development and empirical testing. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2014; 23, pp. 192-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0339]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Mobin Fatma