Measuring the Impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Purchase Decision in Turkish Furniture Industry

Nadin ÖZÇELİKMüge YALÇIN

INTRODUCTION

• Corporate social responsibility (CSR)strategy has become an important topic in both academic and business world. Firms have started to use CSR strategy to influence consumers (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, &Hill, 2006; Panwar and Hansen, 2008; European Commission, 2011).

Definition of CSR

• “For a definition of social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations businesses has to society, it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business performance” (Carroll, 1979, pg 499).

• CSR “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (E.U. Commission, 2001, p. 6).

AIM &IMPORTANCE

• Aim: Measure the impacts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies on Y-generation consumers’ purchase decision in Turkish furniture industry.

• Importance: Many studies focus CSR in different industries such as telecommunications or forest products industry however no specific focus on furniture industry.

Focus: Furniture Industry, WHY?

• The main consumer of nature and perceived as having the greatest impact on environment (Bhambri, &Sonnenfeld, 1988; Panwar, Hansen, &Anderson, 2009)

• In 2011, furniture industry used 30 thousands m3 of industrial wood per day and 15 million m3 industrial woods per year (TOBB, 2012).

• Important position both in global economy and Turkish economy (MÜSİAD, 2012).

• End product-end users

Focus:Y-Generation, WHY?

• 1979-2001 (Cone, 2006),• Turkey holds highest rate of young population

with 16.6% among other EU countries in 2013• Trustful, • tolerant, • globalized, • social networking consumers support social

causes and socially responsible companies (Park, &Gursoy, 2012; Valentine, &Powers, 2013).

Research Design

• Sample: Y-generation (undergraduates, graduates, post-graduates and young professionals),

• Sample size: 341 people,• Sampling technique: Convenience snowball• Data Collection: Questionnaire, 5 point Likert

scale

Method

Conceptual Framework Hypotheses Development

Factor Analysis

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

ANOVA

Participants’ Demographics

<20 21 22 23 24

25 26<

StudentBoth students and employeesEmployees

Undergrads and lower degree

Graduates

Postgraduate students and upper degree

<500501-10001001-20002001-30003001<

Age Occupation Education Level

Income

Dimensions of CSR

Carroll (1991) Dahlsrud (2008)Economic X XLegal XEthic X XPhilanthropic X XSocial XEnvironmental X

Source: Developed by the Author, 2015

Conceptual Framework(Before Factor Analysis)

Source: Developed by theAuthor, 2015

Hypotheses Development

• H1: There is a relationship between economic responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

• H2: There is a relationship between legal responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

• H3: There is a relationship between ethical responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

• H4: There is a relationship between philanthropic responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

• H5: There is a relationship between social responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

• H6: There is a relationship between environmental responsibilities of CSR and consumer purchase decision.

Factor Analysis

Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0,917

Bartlett Test of Sphericity Chi Square 4127,028

df 300

Sig. ,000

Corporate Social ResponsibilityEthic

Legal and Economic Efficiency

Environmental / GreenVoluntarism

Societal

Consumer PurchaseDecision

Customer Loyalty

Conceptual Framework(After Factor Analysis)

Source: Developed by the Author, 2015

Hypothesis Development

• H1: There is a relationship between ethic factor of CSR and customer loyalty.

• H2: There is a relationship between legal and economic efficiency factor of CSR and customer loyalty.

• H3: There is a relationship between environmental / green factor of CSR and customer loyalty.

• H4: There is a relationship between voluntarism factor of CSR and customer loyalty.

• H5: There is a relationship between societal factor of CSR and customer loyalty.

• H6: There is a significant difference between various demographic groups in terms of CSR perception.

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Results

DependentVariable:CustomerLoyalty

IndependetVariables: Beta t pEthic 0,047 0,681 0,497

Legal and Economic Efficiency 0,175 2,667 0,008*Environmental/Green 0,076 1,117 0,265

Voluntariness 0,113 1,539 0,125Societal 0,178 2,504 0,013*

Legal and Economic Efficiency-Societal factors of CSR has an affect on Y-Generation Customer Loyalty

Correlation Analysis Results

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

1 ,470a ,221 ,209

22,1% CSR factors are able to explain customer loyalty.Low to medium-correlation

ANOVA Test Results

• H6: There is a significant difference between various demographic groups (Education, Occupation and Income) in terms of CSR perception.

ANOVA Test Results

CSR-Education Level

Factor Education Level N Mean F p

Ethics

Undergraduates and lower degrees 192 3,9852

3,904 0,021Graduate Students 50 4,1133

Postgraduate Students and

Higher Degrees87 4,2337

Legal and Economic Efficiency

Undergraduates and lower degrees 192 4,0095

7,38 0,001Graduate Studendts 50 4,2133

Postgraduate Students and

Higher Degrees87 4,3257

ANOVA Test Results

CSR-Occupational Groups

Factor Occupation N Mean F p

Ethics

Students 1833,9800

5,993 0,003Both students

and employees

734,3105

Employees 674,0846

Legal and Economic Efficiency

Students 1834,0310

4,901 0,008Both students

and employees

734,3037

Employees 674,2065

ANOVA Test Results

CSR-Occupational GroupsFactor Occupation N Mean F p

Environmental / Green

Students 183 4,0055

3,836 0,023Both students

and employees

73 4,3105

Employees 67 3,9900

Societal

Students 183 3,7060

3,103 0,046Both students

and employees

73 3,7863

Employees 67 3,4716

CONCLUSION

1. CSR has an affect on consumer purchase decision,

2. CSR perception depends on culture (Hofstede 1986);

Developing country vs Developed country

3. Education matters in CSR (Cone, 2006; Furlow, 2011; Too, Bajracharya, 2015)

SUGGESTIONS

1. Collaboration between industry and university in Y-Generation CSR education

2. Practices on university campuses3. Certified furniture products education,