The literature identifies four primary dimensions of CSR motives: value-driven, stakeholder-driven, egoistic-driven, and strategic-driven. Value-driven motives reflect a firm’s commitment to ethical principles and social responsibility, prioritizing societal well-being over profit. Stakeholder-driven motives emphasize the importance of addressing the needs and concerns of various stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, and the local community. In contrast, egoistic-driven motives suggest that the firm engages in CSR primarily to serve its interest, often aiming to enhance its reputation. Finally, strategic-driven motives indicate that the firm adopts CSR initiatives to gain a competitive advantage and improve financial performance.

The effectiveness of perceived CSR motives can vary significantly depending on the cultural, industrial, and market context. Studies have shown that value-driven and stakeholder-driven motives are generally well-received in markets where corporate ethics and social impact are highly valued, such as Europe and North America, where customers prioritize environmental and social sustainability (Taliento and Netti, 2020). However, in emerging markets, such as some Asian regions, strategic-driven motives may resonate more with customers, as CSR activities that demonstrate financial gain and competitive advantage align with market expectations (Engizek and Yaşin, 2018). Moreover, the industry in which a company operates can influence how these motivations are perceived. For instance, in sectors like finance, where trust is paramount, egoistic-driven motives can lead to significant reputational damage, while in industries like technology or fashion, these motives may not result in such adverse outcomes (Fatma and Khan, 2023). Therefore, it is crucial to consider the context in which CSR initiatives are implemented, as the effectiveness of different motives can be highly dependent on the socio-economic and industrial backdrop.

This research proposes to examine the impact of customers’ perceived CSR motives on two critical outcomes: corporate hypocrisy and customer skepticism. By analyzing how different motives influence these perceptions, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of how customers interpret CSR activities.

Corporate hypocrisy is the perceived inconsistency between a company’s expressed commitments, particularly in CSR initiatives, and its values, principles, commitments, and actions (Wagner et al., 2020). This perception arises when stakeholders notice a disconnect between what a company claims to support and what it practices, leading to judgments that the firm is not genuinely committed to its stated values. Recent studies define corporate hypocrisy as a form of moral inconsistency that damages trust and erodes a company’s credibility. For example, Chen et al. (2020) discuss how perceived corporate hypocrisy intensifies when stakeholders believe that a company’s CSR efforts are merely symbolic rather than genuine, particularly when CSR and corporate actions do not align. Similarly, Wang et al. (2022) explain that perceived hypocrisy often emerges when companies adopt CSR strategies but fail to act consistently with them, especially in times of crisis.

Over the past years, corporate hypocrisy has been increasingly examined for its adverse effects on customer trust, brand loyalty, and corporate reputation. Scholars have found it particularly relevant in industries where ethical behavior is critical, such as banking (Hur and Kim, 2020; Jung and Hur, 2023). Studies have also used corporate hypocrisy with a mediating role between CSR initiatives and consumer attitudes, demonstrating that when customers perceive hypocrisy, their trust in the brand significantly declines, often leading to reduced loyalty and increased skepticism (Babu et al., 2020).

Customers scrutinize corporate action more closely during economic crises or hardship, expecting companies to contribute meaningfully to societal well-being rather than pursuing self-serving agendas. Research suggests that in times of financial instability, value-driven and stakeholder-driven motives become more critical, as customers are more likely to support companies that prioritize community welfare and ethical behavior over profit (Ashraf et al., 2017). Conversely, egoistic-driven or strategic-driven motives can backfire, as they are seen as opportunistic and insincere, leading to a loss of trust and customer loyalty (Engizek and Yaşin, 2018).

When companies engage in CSR activities that appear self-serving, such as those driven by egoistic or strategic motives, customers are more likely to view these actions as hypocritical, especially during periods of hardship (Wang et al., 2022). This perception of hypocrisy can severely damage a company’s reputation, as customers expect organizations to prioritize community welfare and ethical behavior during crises rather than focusing on profit or image-building (Chen et al., 2020). As such, we propose the first set of research hypotheses:

On the other hand, CSR efforts driven by genuine concern for stakeholders and aligned with ethical values can strengthen trust, as customers are more inclined to support companies that contribute meaningfully to societal well-being during difficult times (Zhao et al., 2020). Therefore, maintaining authenticity in CSR initiatives is crucial to mitigate negative perceptions such as corporate hypocrisy.

This first section will examine how different CSR motives influence perceptions of corporate hypocrisy. Later, we will explore how these perceptions shape customers’ beliefs about CSR initiatives.

Consumer skepticism regarding CSR refers to the doubt or disbelief that consumers express towards a company’s social responsibility initiatives and commitment, often questioning the sincerity and motivation behind these efforts (Skarmeas and Leonidou, 2013). According to Ham and Kim (2020), consumer skepticism can emerge when consumers perceive CSR activities as mere crisis response strategies rather than genuine commitments to societal well-being. Similarly, Dalal (2020) emphasizes that consumer skepticism is influenced by the motives behind CSR initiatives, mainly when companies act out of self-interest rather than social responsibility. Joireman et al. (2018) added that consumer skepticism is particularly strong when CSR claims are vague or unsupported by concrete evidence, reinforcing the importance of transparency in CSR communication.

Consumer skepticism has recently gained significant attention, especially as companies increasingly adopt CSR into their marketing strategies. Research consistently shows skepticism can negatively impact customer trust, purchase intentions, and brand loyalty, making it a critical variable in understanding consumer behavior (e.g., Ham and Kim, 2020). For instance, Arli et al. (2019) highlight the role of skepticism in mediating the relationship between corporate hypocrisy and perceived CSR efforts, demonstrating that customers are less likely to trust companies whose CSR actions appear insincere. Meanwhile, Teah et al. (2023) affirm that studying customer skepticism in the context of CSR is essential for understanding the motives that shape customers’ perceptions, brand resonance, and resilience to negative information, which influence consumer advocacy. Additionally, research suggests that examining customer skepticism helps policymakers grasp CSR initiatives’ significant impact on consumer behavior and marketing outcomes (Fatma and Khan, 2023).

Since CSR skepticism arises as a consumer response to their perceptions of the underlying motives behind CSR initiatives, this research seeks to establish the relationship between different CSR motives and customer skepticism by exploring how various motives, such as egoistic, strategic, value-driven, and stakeholder-driven, impact customer CSR skepticism, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of how these perceptions shape consumer trust, attitudes, and behaviors toward CSR efforts in the banking industry.

Egoistic-driven and strategic-driven CSR motives are often seen as self-serving, with companies prioritizing their interests, such as enhancing their image or financial performance, over genuine social or environmental concerns. When consumers perceive CSR initiatives as primarily egoistic, they tend to believe that the company engages in CSR purely for self-promotion (Jeon and An, 2019). Similarly, strategic motives, which emphasize gaining competitive advantage, can also lead customers to view CSR efforts as opportunistic. This perception of self-serving intentions directly increases consumer skepticism, as consumers question the authenticity of the company’s CSR initiatives (Ham and Kim, 2020; Teah et al., 2023). Therefore, both egoistic and strategic motives are expected to heighten skepticism toward CSR efforts:

On the other hand, value-driven and stakeholder-driven CSR motives are perceived as more authentic by customers, as these motives reflect a genuine commitment to ethical principles and the welfare of various stakeholders rather than self-serving objectives. When CSR initiatives are perceived as value-driven, consumer skepticism tends to decrease because these actions align with societal expectations of ethical responsibility (Dalal, 2020). Jeon and An (2019) found that value-driven CSR motives positively impact perceptions of authenticity, reducing consumer doubt about a company’s intentions. Similarly, Teah et al. (2023) highlight that values-driven motives lead to lower consumer skepticism, particularly when consumers feel that the company prioritizes social good over profit. Therefore, we propose that both value-driven and stakeholder-driven motives are expected to lower consumer skepticism toward CSR initiatives:

According to Osakwe and Yusuf (2021), CSR beliefs refer to customers’ attitudes and perceptions about a firm’s CSR initiatives and activities. These beliefs play a significant role in shaping customers’ attitudes, behaviors, and loyalty toward the organization, especially during times of hardship when corporate actions are subject to heightened scrutiny (Sharma et al., 2022). CSR beliefs originate from the broader notion of corporate social responsibility, first in the early 20th century as a social obligation for businesses to address social and environmental concerns (Amin-Chaudhry, 2016). Over time, CSR has evolved into a more integrated business practice supported by various theories and frameworks (Księżak and Szkolmowska, 2018). In the 1980s, the stakeholder and business ethics theories became pivotal in supporting and complementing CSR research, further embedding CSR into modern business strategy (Carroll, 1999).

Recent research on CSR beliefs has increasingly focused on understanding how these beliefs influence consumer behavior, particularly regarding purchase intentions and brand loyalty (Osakwe and Yusuf, 2021; Harrison and Huang, 2023). CSR beliefs have been shown to significantly impact consumers’ support intentions and their subsequent purchasing behavior. Studies have demonstrated that positive CSR beliefs can increase consumer support for a company’s initiatives, enhancing customer loyalty and trust. For instance, research has found that CSR beliefs not only foster greater consumer confidence in firms but also serve as a critical mediator between CSR initiatives and consumer behavior, such as repeat purchases and word-of-mouth recommendations (Fatmawati and Fauzan, 2021; Zasuwa and Stefańska, 2023). This emerging body of literature underscores the utility of CSR beliefs in guiding companies to design CSR strategies that resonate deeply with consumers, reinforcing their brand image and sustaining long-term customer relationships (Harrison and Huang, 2023).

Traditional relationship marketing literature has demonstrated that CSR initiatives can contribute to forming long-term commercial relationships between customers and companies, leading to desirable outcomes like trust, loyalty, and commitment (Zhang et al., 2021). These customer-company relationships are critical during economic crises, as they can help firms weather the adverse effects of such events on their performance (Morgeson et al., 2024). To understand the impact of customers’ CSR beliefs on these desirable outcomes for the firms, it is essential to explore the customer perceptions of brand trust, attitude, and commitment.

Understanding customer trust, attitude, commitment, and the influence of CSR beliefs is essential for long-term business success. Trust, built on the perception of responsible and ethical actions, encourages customer loyalty and brand preference (Singh et al., 2012; Raza et al., 2020). A positive attitude, fostered by identifying with a company’s CSR values and practices, may drive brand advocacy and recommendation (Xie et al., 2019). Finally, commitment, reinforced by trust and a favorable attitude, may lead to lasting and profitable relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In today’s increasingly competitive and socially conscious business environment, cultivating these elements through authentic and meaningful CSR practices is a competitive advantage and strategic imperative.

Before the pandemic (2019), we conducted a study on the co-creation of value in bank customers in five countries, according to the growth of electronic platforms and cultural similarities and differences. Thus, we were working with a base of more than 2,000 clients born and raised in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Spain, who had at least one financial product with a bank in their country and used two or more platforms to interact with their clients.

When the pandemic hit, we extended the study to understand how the financial relief proposed by the banks had affected customers’ perceptions of their commitment to the financial well-being of their customers.

Thus, we asked these 2,000 clients to tell us which financial relief had been offered and what type. The most common are:

Considering only those clients who were aware of some bank initiative, we asked them about their CSR beliefs about their banks. A structured questionnaire was developed using scales found in the literature, obtaining 525 valid and complete surveys.

We used scales previously validated in the literature to measure the variables proposed in the study. The CSR beliefs and corporate hypocrisy measures were adapted from Wagner et al. (2009). The work of Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013) was used to measure egoistic-driven, value-driven, strategic-driven, stakeholder-driven motives, and skepticism. Trust and commitment were measured based on the work of Merz et al. (2018). Finally, attitudes toward the bank were adapted from Peña-García et al. (2020) work. Items are shown in Table 1.

with standard hyperpriors ξ1~Nξ1|,0|,τξ and ξj≠1~Gaξj≠1|,τξ|,τξ.

for j = EGO, VAL, STRA, STAKE, HYP, SKEP, CSR, TRS, ATT and CMM.

MN(X|a,b,c) = Multinomial density with a observations of b categories occurring with probability vector c

Φ = (C-1)-dimensional Gaussian cumulative density function (Φ:RC−1→01C−1)

Nd (X|a,b) = d-dimensional Gaussian density with mean a and precision parameter b

Ga(X|a,b) = Gamma distribution with parameters a and b

i = index for the individuals in the sample

j = construct of interest (EGO, VAL, STRA, STAKE, HYP, SKEP, CSR, TRS, ATT, and CMM, respectively, in our model)

k(j) = 1,…,K(j) measurement items about construct j

Yi,j,kj = Likert-based observation of individual i, for the k-th measurement item about construct j

T = Number of questionnaires per individual (T = 1)

C = Number of Likert categories per construct (C = 7, although the assumption of an equal number of Likert scales can be easily relaxed)

Pi,j= (C − 1)-dimensional latent probability vector for each Likert scale for individual i and construct j, with Pi,C=1−∑j=1C−1Pi,j

ζj=(C − 1)-dimensional vector of latent thresholds for construct j, mapping the space of a latent mean into probability areas

μi,j= Latent mean perception of individual i about construct j (μi is the vectorized form)

τμ,τβ,τξ = Precision factors (fixed vague hyperparameters)

ξj= Hyperpriors for the distances between latent thresholds

We allow each of the observed measurement items to follow a multinomial ordered probit structure, with underlying latent probability vectors that are construct- and individual-dependent, and those will be linked with a latent individual-dependent mean, representing the standings of each individual about each construct. The Bayesian construct is completed with hyperpriors for each of the parameters, and the model is estimated using a standard Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, taking advantage of the conjugacy of the core construct. We allow for a 20,000 iteration burn-in and run the model for another 40,000 iterations, with no thinning necessary for this chain, as seen in Table 2.

We ran the model with a 40,000-run with a burn-in of 20,000 and no thinning; we gathered the following 20,000 MCMC iterations. All the posterior densities for the β parameters have a negligible mass below zero, indicating strong evidence of the significance of the relationships between the constructs, as seen in Figure 1 (Green strong, Yellow moderately strong). There was good evidence of good mixing of the Markov Chain from the R̂ statistic, which is close to 1 for all model parameters and means that the MCMC converged well (please see Gelman et al., 2013). In Table 1, we see strong significance in green color (negative or positive), moderately strong in yellow, and next to the parameter is the word (Positive or Negative) when it is significantly different from zero and has a positive or negative relationship, respectively.

The results presented in Table 2 confirm the strength and significance of the relationship between the examined variables, supporting all proposed hypotheses.

To further explore the relationships between CSR beliefs, trust, commitment, and attitude, we conducted a Bootstrap analysis with 5,000 iterations to estimate the 95% confidence intervals of the key coefficients in an alternative model where trust acts as a mediator. The results provide robust evidence supporting the mediating role of trust in the relationships between CSR and customer commitment (CMM) and attitude (ATT).

The results of the Bootstrap analysis confirm the mediating role of trust in the relationship between CSR beliefs and customer commitment and attitude. Specifically, CSR beliefs significantly positively affect trust (β = 0.681, 95% CI [0.614, 0.743]), indicating that customers who perceive CSR initiatives as genuine are more likely to trust their bank. In turn, trust strongly predicts commitment (β = 0.751, 95% CI [0.701, 0.802]) and attitude toward the bank (β = 0.702, 95% CI [0.630, 0.769]). These findings suggest that trust serves as a key psychological mechanism through which CSR beliefs translate into deeper customer relationships.

This result provides an alternative perspective on the direct effects initially tested in our primary model. While our original model considered commitment and attitude as direct outcomes of CSR beliefs, this alternative analysis suggests that trust plays a crucial mediating role. These findings align with prior research emphasizing the foundational role of trust in relationship marketing (Riza and Santoso, 2023). Thus, this study reinforces the idea that CSR initiatives primarily strengthen customer-brand relationships by fostering trust, subsequently enhancing commitment and positive brand attitudes.

To evaluate the impact of various bank initiatives on customers’ CSR beliefs, we analyzed six specific factors: payment deferral, financial advice, access to loans, low interest on late payments, positive messages, and lower credit card interest rates. Each of these initiatives was examined for its influence on customer beliefs regarding the bank’s CSR efforts.

The analysis utilized a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach, which is particularly effective in understanding the relationships between observed variables and latent constructs like CSR beliefs. SEM allows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple pathways and can accommodate the complex interrelations among the variables. The path coefficients generated from the SEM analysis indicate the strength and direction of the relationship between each initiative and CSR beliefs. The significance of these coefficients was determined using T-statistics and corresponding p-values, where a lower p-value indicates a statistically significant effect. PLS-SEM was used to assess the strength and significance of the relationship between each CSR initiative and CSR beliefs. The path coefficients (original sample values) indicate the direct influence of each factor on CSR beliefs. At the same time, the T-statistics and p-values were used to test the significance of these relationships. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant, indicating that the corresponding CSR initiative has a statistically meaningful impact on CSR beliefs.

The results revealed that financial advice and lower credit card interest rates had statistically significant positive effects on CSR beliefs, as indicated by their p-values of 0.03 and 0.008, respectively. This suggests that these specific initiatives resonate strongly with customers and positively shape their perceptions of the bank’s CSR efforts. On the other hand, other initiatives, such as payment deferral and positive messaging, did not show significant effects, implying that these actions may be seen as standard customer service rather than impactful CSR efforts in this context.

This analysis underscores the importance of selecting CSR initiatives that resonate with customers’ needs and concerns, particularly during economic hardship. The significant influence of financial advice and credit card interest management suggests that customers value practical financial support, thereby positively influencing their perception of the bank’s CSR efforts. This finding aligns with existing research emphasizing the importance of providing tangible benefits to customers to foster positive CSR perceptions (Ahn et al., 2021; Islam et al., 2021).

In contrast, the lack of significant effects from initiatives like payment deferral and positive messaging may suggest that these actions are either expected as part of customer service or perceived as insufficiently impactful to be considered genuine CSR efforts. Though not statistically significant, negative coefficients for access to loans and low interest on late payments could indicate customer concerns about revenue-generating activities rather than genuine CSR initiatives.

For banks aiming to enhance their CSR strategies, this analysis suggests focusing on initiatives that offer customers clear, immediate financial benefits. Additionally, the results highlight the need to carefully consider how different CSR initiatives are perceived, particularly during economically challenging times, to avoid unintended negative perceptions that could undermine the bank’s CSR efforts.

The theoretical implications of this study are particularly noteworthy, given that several findings diverge from established literature. Traditional CSR research often posits that value-driven motives reduce skepticism and increase positive consumer perceptions. In contrast, strategic or egoistic-driven motives tend to heighten perceptions of corporate hypocrisy and skepticism. However, our results challenge these assumptions in several key areas. For example, value-driven motives increased consumer skepticism (H2b), contrary to most literature, which typically suggests that values-based CSR initiatives foster trust and authenticity (Teah et al., 2023; Fatma and Khan, 2023). Similarly, strategic-driven motives were expected to increase corporate hypocrisy (H1c). Still, our study showed a negative relationship, indicating that consumers might view strategic initiatives as acceptable and beneficial rather than hypocritical. These results suggest that consumers may respond differently to CSR efforts depending on external factors such as economic crises or socio-economic conditions in contexts like the one examined.

A critical factor influencing these results could be the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. During heightened financial uncertainty, consumers may focus more on immediate survival and practical support rather than questioning the motives behind CSR efforts. For instance, the positive impact of strategic-driven motives on reducing hypocrisy may stem from consumers being more forgiving of companies’ profit-seeking activities if they provide financial relief. Similarly, the increased skepticism toward value-driven motives could reflect a heightened sensitivity to perceived insincerity when consumers struggled and expected more direct support.

The study’s sample from developing countries may have contributed to these differing results. In developing economies, consumers often have distinct expectations and experiences with financial institutions compared to those in developed countries. Prior research on CSR is frequently based on studies conducted in more stable and developed markets, where consumers may have different thresholds for judging CSR authenticity. In developing countries, where economic hardship and instability are more prevalent, consumers may be more critical of CSR efforts that seem disconnected from their immediate financial needs, even if they are value-driven. This context could explain why initiatives focused on practical financial support, such as financial advice and lower interest rates, had a significant positive impact. At the same time, more abstract value-driven efforts increased skepticism.

These findings suggest that context matters significantly when studying CSR and consumer perceptions, particularly during times of crisis and in developing economies. They challenge the universality of traditional CSR theories and underscore the need for more research that considers economic and cultural contexts in shaping consumer responses to CSR initiatives. This opens new avenues for further exploration, particularly in how CSR is perceived in different economic climates and developing versus developed markets.

The managerial implications derived from these findings offer critical insights for banks in optimizing their CSR strategies. Financial advice and lower credit card interest rates impacted CSR beliefs significantly. Specifically, financial advice had a statistically significant effect (p = 0.030), suggesting that customers value the support that directly addresses their financial anxiety during economic hardship. Offering financial advice helps alleviate stress and uncertainty, allowing customers to feel more secure and supported by their bank. This type of initiative provides practical assistance and strengthens the perception that the bank genuinely cares about the well-being of its customers.

Similarly, the initiative to reduce credit card interest rates had an even more substantial positive effect (p = 0.008) on CSR beliefs, as many customers rely heavily on credit cards during periods of financial strain. Lowering interest rates on credit card debt was a meaningful relief, offering significant financial support to customers who may have been using credit cards as a primary means of funding during the crisis. This action was likely viewed as a tangible benefit that directly addressed an urgent customer need, further solidifying the bank’s reputation as a socially responsible institution.

On the other hand, initiatives such as payment deferral and low interest rates on late payments were not perceived positively, and this could be due to customers viewing them as self-serving. For example, payment deferral may be interpreted as an action driven by egoistic motives, where the bank’s goal is primarily to secure future repayments rather than to help customers genuinely. Similarly, lowering interest rates on late payments might be seen as a tactic to facilitate debt collection rather than a sincere effort to support struggling customers. In the same vein, although weak, the negative effect of access to loans suggests that customers may perceive this as a sales-driven initiative rather than a CSR effort, further highlighting the importance of intention and communication.