Modeling the impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable purchase intentions: insights into brand trust and brand loyalty

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Demographic summary.

Demographics	No	%
Gender
Male	176	47.18%
Female	197	52.82%
Age
18–22 years	61	16.35%
23–27 years	45	12.06%
28–32 years	63	16.89%
33–37 years	57	15.28%
38–42 years	59	15.82%
43–47 years	43	11.53%
48 years and above	45	12.06%
Do you often buy clothing items?
Yes	361	96.78%
No	12	3.22%
Do you prefer buying?
Online	276	73.99%
Offline (Traditional shopping)	97	26.01%
CSR spreads positivity in public about the brand
Yes	299	80.16%
No	174	46.65%
Does CSR enhance green innovation performance?
Yes	210	56.30%
No	163	43.70%
	N = 373	100%

Source: Authors collection.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and measurement model outcomes.

Constructs	Code	FD	α	CR	AVE	M	SD
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)			0.910	0.933	0.736	3.868	1.021
	CSR1	0.888
	CSR2	0.850
	CSR3	0.875
	CSR4	0.799
	CSR5	0.875
Brand Trust (BT)			0.832	0.899	0.748	3.733	1.036
	BT1	0.857
	BT2	0.864
	BT3	0.873
Brand Loyalty (BL)			0.893	0.922	0.704	3.947	1.089
	BL1	0.895
	BL2	0.836
	BL3	0.844
	BL4	0.723
	BL5	0.886
Sustainable Purchase Intentions (SPI)			0.917	0.935	0.707	3.860	1.071
	SPI1	0.882
	SPI2	0.834
	SPI3	0.807
	SPI4	0.855
	SPI5	0.858
	SPI6	0.806
Green Innovation Performance (GIP)			0.879	0.913	0.681	3.931	1.071
Deleted	GIP1	0.646
	GIP2	0.89
	GIP3	0.819
	GIP4	0.891
	GIP5	0.853

Note. FD = Factor Loadings, CR = Construct Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, and α = Cronbach Alpha, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.

Source: Authors collection.

Figure 2. Measurement model.

Source: Authors collection.

Table 3. Cross loadings.

Items	BL	BT	CSR	GIP	SPI
BL1	0.895	0.620	0.741	0.743	0.826
BL2	0.836	0.654	0.700	0.724	0.768
BL3	0.844	0.612	0.681	0.719	0.729
BL4	0.723	0.553	0.570	0.595	0.664
BL5	0.886	0.679	0.758	0.764	0.858
BT1	0.600	0.857	0.658	0.710	0.608
BT2	0.664	0.864	0.696	0.692	0.705
BT3	0.665	0.873	0.711	0.715	0.649
CSR1	0.748	0.659	0.888	0.720	0.817
CSR2	0.716	0.699	0.850	0.680	0.711
CSR3	0.729	0.666	0.875	0.718	0.737
CSR4	0.613	0.693	0.799	0.657	0.651
CSR5	0.734	0.705	0.875	0.709	0.806
GIP1	0.552	0.658	0.565	0.646	0.539
GIP2	0.709	0.740	0.682	0.890	0.745
GIP3	0.689	0.665	0.648	0.819	0.659
GIP4	0.726	0.681	0.723	0.891	0.762
GIP5	0.796	0.634	0.718	0.853	0.882
SPI1	0.796	0.634	0.718	0.853	0.882
SPI2	0.737	0.612	0.672	0.720	0.834
SPI3	0.732	0.553	0.662	0.693	0.807
SPI4	0.742	0.623	0.687	0.690	0.855
SPI5	0.886	0.679	0.758	0.764	0.858
SPI6	0.734	0.705	0.875	0.709	0.806

Source: Authors collection.

Table 4. Fornell and Larcker criterion.

	BL	BT	CSR	GIP	SPI
BL	0.893
BT	0.745	0.865
CSR	0.827	0.797	0.885
GIP	0.848	0.816	0.813	0.825
SPI	0.720	0.757	0.870	0.808	0.841

Source: Authors collection.

Table 5. HTMT ratio.

	BL	BT	CSR	GIP	SPI
BL	–
BT	0.763	–
CSR	0.613	0.860	–
GIP	0.754	0.913	0.899	–
SPI	0.012	0.863	0.947	0.921	–

Source: Authors collection.

Figure 3. Structural model.

Source: Authors collection.

Table 6. Direct and indirect effects.

H	Paths	O	M	SD	T statistics	p values	R^2	f^2	Q^2
H1	CSR → SPI	0.345	0.345	0.040	8.551	0.000	0.884	0.328	0.617
H2	CSR → GIP	0.352	0.352	0.074	4.743	0.000	0.757	0.162	0.510
H3	CSR → BT	0.797	0.797	0.022	36.161	0.000	0.634	1.736	0.471
H4	CSR → BL	0.639	0.638	0.044	14.463	0.000	0.702	0.503	0.491
H5	BT → BL	0.236	0.237	0.045	5.197	0.000		0.068
H6	BL → SPI	0.635	0.635	0.040	16.076	0.000		1.111
H7	BL → GIP	0.557	0.557	0.066	8.427	0.000		0.408
H8	CSR → BT → BL	0.188	0.189	0.036	5.161	0.000
H9	CSR → BL → GIP	0.356	0.355	0.043	8.339	0.000
H10	CSR → BL → SPI	0.406	0.406	0.040	10.218	0.000
H11	CSR → BT → BL → SPI	0.119	0.120	0.024	5.056	0.000
H12	CSR → BT → BL → GIP	0.105	0.106	0.026	3.950	0.000

Note. Original Sample = O, Sample Mean M, Standard Deviation = SD, H = Hypothesis.

Source: Authors collection.