Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Organizations have been increasingly paying attention to their myriad economic, ethical, social, and environmental responsibilities, partly driven by consumer pressure. It is imperative for organizations to identify who these socially responsible consumers are so that they can respond appropriately to their demands. Adopting the theoretical lens of hypermodernity, this study sought to develop a measurement to identify socially responsible consumers by their personality traits and behavioral intentions along five dimensions of hypermodernity. The study combined a systematic review of journal articles within business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication studies to propose a measurement, which was subsequently tested and refined. This study first offers a set of theoretically grounded psychographic variables that give robust insights into socially responsible consumers with high corporate social responsibility expectations. Second, the article offers practitioners a toolkit to identify socially responsible consumers.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility hypermodernism hyperindividualism stakeholder identification ethically responsible stakeholders ethical consumer

Introduction

Companies have been increasingly addressing their environmental, social, governance, and even political responsibilities, often within the ambit of corporate social responsibility (CSR). They advocate for political issues and take a public stance on controversial issues, including immigration and human rights. More examples have surfaced, especially during the Corona pandemic, in which companies crafted responsible measures, including frequent empathetic leadership communication and employee well-being programs. Ample research in business and corporate ethics has shown that one of the critical drivers of CSR has been pressure from consumers who want to buy products from, join, and invest in organizations that contribute positively to society (Porter Novelli, 2021). Who are these consumers with rising expectations of CSR? It is essential to identify and understand what impels them to demand CSR, as such insights can help companies customize their CSR strategies to the continually evolving needs of these consumers. Not knowing who these consumers are and being out of sync with their growing expectations of CSR could cause companies reputational and relational harm.

Most research on socially responsible consumers has occurred in business and consumer ethics, wherein scholars have defined ethically, socially, and ecologically responsible consumers and discussed the factors that drive their ethical behavior and CSR expectations (e.g., Mohr et al., 2001). Previous findings on the antecedents for ethical and socially responsible consumer behavior and consumers’ expectations of CSR are diverse and partly contradictory. Thus, it is difficult to identify a comprehensive profile of socially responsible consumers. Although attitudinal variables, such as individuals’ concerns, have had more consistent results (Han & Stoel, 2017), research has found contradictory evidence regarding the effect of consumer demographics. Furthermore, what is significantly lacking is a measurement to identify these consumers who are ethically driven and socially responsible and are assumed to have rising expectations of CSR.

In this article, we build on the concept of hypermodernism (Lipovetsky, 2005), used to describe people in advanced data-driven societies, to explain the phenomenon of rising CSR expectations amongst consumers (Armitage, 2001; Dhanesh, 2020; Morsing et al., 2017). According to this strand of research, characteristics of hypermodern individuals, such as a simultaneous focus on the self and others, their need to create a humane and caring world, and their love of experiential consumption, make them ideal CSR stakeholders. We assume that hypermodern individuals are more likely to have high CSR expectations, that is, expect companies to act socially responsible, than others. Thus, developing a measurement model that builds on hypermodern characteristics allows for the identification of consumers with high CSR expectations.

By conducting a systematic review of empirical studies in business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication, we propose, test, and validate a measurement that allows us to identify hypermodern individuals. Finally, we empirically show that the dimensions of hypermodern individuals are related to their CSR expectations. Our findings have theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. By investigating the characteristics of consumers with rising expectations of CSR, we contribute to consumer ethics and communication research on CSR, which is significantly lacking in identifying socially responsible consumers. Furthermore, combining a philosophical approach with studies in business ethics, communication, and consumer psychology offers a robust measurement that can help to identify consumers with high CSR expectations.

Defining CSR and the Relevance of CSR Expectations

Although many terms continue to jostle for dominance when referring to companies’ engagement with their myriad economic, social, and environmental responsibilities, the term CSR continues to be popular in practice and research. According to one of the most widely cited definitions of CSR, “the total CSR of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities” (Carroll, 1991, p. 43). According to this definition, the first domain of economic responsibility implies that society expects businesses to produce goods and services and sell them profitably (Carroll, 1979, 1991). Legal responsibility refers to how society expects companies to meet their economic responsibilities within legal boundaries. Ethical responsibility is slightly more nebulous and includes various evolving ethical norms and practices that individuals expect businesses to follow. Ethical norms and practices could transform across time and contexts of practice, and companies need to respond to these changing norms and expectations. Philanthropic responsibility refers to the discretionary aspect of responsibilities and could include support for various social and environmental causes (Carroll, 1979, 1991).

One of the most frequent theoretical approaches researchers apply to understand CSR is stakeholder theory, which delineates the diverse responsibilities of companies that target different stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). The theory posits that organizations must balance the multiple claims of (conflicting) stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). Following this perspective, CSR efforts are understood as obligations companies have toward their stakeholders, including consumers (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Scholars noted that one of the drivers of CSR efforts has been increasing consumers’ awareness and expectations about environmental degradation, climate change, and the pervasiveness and power of multinational enterprises (Auger & Devinney, 2007). Expectations have been shown to play an essential role in consumer decisions (Creyer & Ross, 1997), and their fulfillment can affect corporate reputation (Ijabadeniyi & Govender, 2019).

However, so far, it is unclear who these highly socially and ethically conscious people with high expectations toward companies to engage in CSR are and how we can identify them. Understanding and identifying these socially responsible consumers would allow companies to successfully customize their CSR programs to meet their continually evolving expectations of CSR. In turn, meeting the consumers’ demands concerning social responsibility is relevant for companies to maintain their legitimacy and contribute to society (Marschlich & Ingenhoff, 2021) and can have implications for corporate reputation and purchase behavior (Ijabadeniyi & Govender, 2019).

Socially Responsible Consumers and Drivers of CSR Expectations

The socially responsible or conscious consumer is most often used to refer to consumers with high social and environmental consciousness (e.g., Han & Stoel, 2017; Lee & Cho, 2019). Related to the concept of socially responsible or conscious consumers are the terms ethical consumer to refer to social and environmental consumption (e.g., Crane, 2005) and environmentally conscious consumer behavior (Heo & Muralidharan, 2019) to refer exclusively to the environmental dimension of ethical consumption. Mohr et al. (2001) discussed the linkage between CSR and the socially responsible consumer. They defined a socially responsible consumer as “a person basing his or her acquisition, usage, and disposition of products on a desire to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects and maximize the long-run beneficial impact on society” (p. 47). According to Mohr et al. (2001), socially responsible consumers are committed to socially responsible consumption. This means they make a purchase decision based on socially responsible principles and expect companies to take social responsibility.

Consumer ethics researchers have offered various classifications of drivers of ethical consumers’ behavior and CSR expectations. For instance, Tripathi and Singh (2016) classified drivers into demographic characteristics, attitudes, and beliefs, such as the level of environmental concern, beliefs about autonomy, and values. Drawing on organizational justice and CSR literature, Caruana and Chatzidakis (2014) pointed out that the motivations of consumers to have a high awareness of social responsibility or engage in socially responsible behavior can be instrumental (i.e., maximizing personal objectives), relational (i.e., demonstrating care), and moral (i.e., personal norms and altruism).

Regarding theory, consumer ethics research has often employed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Values-Beliefs-Norms (VBN) theory to examine drivers of ethical consumer behavior, often considering other variables in conjunction with the main variables in these theories. In a meta-analytic review of studies on socially responsible consumer behavior employing TPB, Han and Stoel (2017) found that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were positively correlated with ethical purchase intentions. They also found that moral norms, self-identity, and environmental consciousness were positive predictors. More recently, Hosta and Zabkar (2020) expanded the TPB by adding predictor variables such as environmental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, personal norms, and social norms for environmental/social behavior.

Researchers have also employed the normative VBN theory (Stern et al., 1999) and found that consumer values (biospheric, altruistic, egoistic) affected their beliefs (new ecological paradigm, awareness of consequences, and ascription of responsibility) (Saleem et al., 2021). The beliefs, in turn, impacted the personal norms of individuals to act in prosocial and environmental ways, which finally predicted eco-socially conscious consumer intentions (Saleem et al., 2021). As an integral part of VBN theory, values have been a highly researched antecedent of ethical consumer behavior as they are considered fundamental drivers of a person’s attitudes and actions. Scholars have mostly employed Schwartz’s (1992) circular theory of human values in consumer ethics, which encompasses power, achievement, hedonism, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, stimulation, and self-direction. These values are summarized into two orthogonal dimensions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence and openness versus conservation. Research has found that the more importance a person attaches to conservation compared to openness to change, the more likely he or she is to be idealistic, which will lead to positive evaluations of ethical consumption. Furthermore, the more importance a person attaches to self-enhancement relative to self-transcendence, the less likely she or he is to hold idealistic values, leading to negative evaluations of ethical consumption. Thus, socially conscious purchasing is expected to align with conservation and self-transcendence (Knechel & Mintchik, 2022; Lee & Cho, 2019; Vanhamme et al., 2021). Similarly, for CSR expectations, Golob et al. (2008) analyzed the role of consumers’ value orientation and showed that consumers with high self-transcendent values have higher CSR expectations. Moreover, studies showed that cultural and national values (Maignan, 2001) and consumers’ prosocial behavior (Basil & Weber, 2006) affect CSR expectations.

In addition to personal values, demographics are a significant predictor of ethical consumption and CSR expectations. Lee and Cho (2019) found evidence that personal traits, including collectivism, age, and gender, affect socially and environmentally responsible consumption behavior. As for gender, women are more likely than men to view and respond to CSR practices favorably (e.g., Bissonnette & Contento, 2001). Likewise, Cheah et al. (2011) investigated demographic variables of socially responsible investors and their link to CSR perceptions. They found that female investors with higher incomes have higher expectations of a company to engage in social and environmental efforts than focusing solely on financial performance. Regarding age, however, previous findings offered contradictory insights. Although some studies indicated that older age groups perceive socially responsible businesses more positively than younger age groups (e.g., Haski-Leventhal et al., 2017), another set of studies revealed that Generations Y and Z are avid ethical consumers (Bucic et al., 2012; Hancock, 2017). In addition, one study found no relationship between age and ethical behavior (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005).

As evident from this literature review, human values have been found to be a significant driver of ethical consumer behavior, in addition to attitudes, personal, social, and moral norms, religious affiliation, beliefs, environmental concerns, environmental knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, etc. However, critiquing the inordinate focus on the cognitive and rational drivers of ethical consumption, scholars considered the impact of emotions and intuitions in the ethical decision-making process. For instance, Shobeiri et al. (2016) highlighted the need to account for emotions given that the modern economy is regarded as experiential, where consumers’ consumption decisions and choices are shaped not only by traditional rational reasons but by their love of experiences (Rendtorff, 2018). According to this experiential perspective, the traditional conceptualization of the goal-oriented consumer, who rationally compares different products/services based on their features and benefits, has been replaced by an experience seeker who craves sensory-emotive experiences, fantasies, pleasure, and cognitive stimulation (Rendtorff, 2018).

Overall, the literature covers various antecedents that conceptualize and predict socially responsible consumer behavior and CSR expectations, and scholars employed two main theoretical frameworks of TPB and VBN to explain the effects of these predictors. However, we argue that the research could benefit from a broader philosophical approach to explain how these various predictors work together to drive CSR expectations. Furthermore, although researchers have developed scales to measure ethical and socially responsible consumption, there are hardly any measurements to identify socially responsible consumers with CSR expectations. For this reason, we build on previous work (e.g., Dhanesh, 2020; Morsing et al., 2017; Rendtorff, 2018) proposing that the sociological theoretical lens of hypermodernity can offer a holistic understanding of socially responsible consumers and help to identify them.

Hypermodern Individuals

According to French scholarship, contemporary, data-driven societies are experiencing a second modern revolution, characterized by excessive paradoxical tendencies, wherein extreme narcissism, materialism, and cynicism are counterbalanced by a penchant for sociability, voluntary work, charity, and moral indignation (Lipovetsky, 2005). The following section discusses five dimensions of hypermodern individualism relevant to the discussion of CSR—(1) focus on self versus others, (2) experiential over material consumption, (3) autonomy and the need for constructing identities, (4) obsession with hyperspectacles, and (5) focus on present and future (Dhanesh, 2020; Lipovetsky, 2005; Rendtorff, 2018).

Focus on Self Versus Others

Hypermodern individuals are obsessed with themselves and their well-being, both in the immediate present and the distant future. However, this does not mean they are bereft of concern for others. Ethical ideals persist despite the individualist focus, evident in the proliferation of aid and charitable organizations or in the rise of social movements that demand recognition for those whose voices have been erased or marginalized. “The reign of the hypermodern present is, to be sure, that of the immediate satisfaction of needs, but it is also that of a moral demand for recognition broadened to identities based on gender, sexual orientation, or historical memory” (Lipovetsky, 2005, p. 65). Although the heightened focus on individualism might also trigger hyperconsumption, wherein individuals consume ever more, consumerism has not overpowered their lives, and strong values and prosocial orientations persist. These values are evident in hypermodern individuals’ righteous reactions to modern forms of slavery, climate change, and environmental degradation. Moreover, these values are manifested in the slew of social movements such as #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, and #StopHateForProfit.

Experiential Over Material Consumption

The hypermodern individual is devoured by hyperconsumption, driven by anxieties about an uncertain future, and continually relives the pleasure and novelty associated with consumption. “In fact, the escalation of consumption is nourished both by existential distress and by the pleasure associated with change, by the desire to intensify and reintensify, without end, the course of daily life” (Lipovetsky, 2005, p. 52). However, the objects of consumption have shifted from material to qualitative, emotional, and sensual experiences—live performances, traveling, staying in strangers’ homes, learning to cook ancient cuisines with locals, voluntourism, and yoga retreats are a few examples. Hyperconsumption is often driven by relational, intimate, and ethical motivations as hypermodern individuals seek “agreeable sensations, for a high-quality ambience and environment” (Lipovetsky, 2005, p. 61). Hyperconsumption becomes an “emotional rejuvenating experience” (p. 52) wherein hypermodern individuals fleetingly experience pleasure at every instance of consumption. The hypermodern individual’s love of experiential consumption could drive their participation in experiential CSR initiatives such as rebuilding housing in disaster-affected areas or using charity as an experience (Dhanesh, 2020; Rendtorff, 2018).

Autonomy and the Need for Constructing Identity

Hypermodern life has witnessed the loosening hold of collective institutions on individual lives. Family, religion, political parties, or social class no longer exert the regulative power they enjoyed, handing out pre-cast identities such as Muslim, Jewish, British, or Spanish. Instead, individuals are now more autonomous, uninhibited by group and collective diktats, which had imposed order in life from the outside. This autonomy and freedom imply more open, fluid, and socially independent lives. At the same time, it has led to a psychological vulnerability that manifests in psychosomatic symptoms and instances of anxiety and depression (Lipovetsky, 2005). Faced with a dissolution of social collective institutions, hypermodern individuals encounter new needs for security and belonging and reflexively construct a new and unique sense of identity. Hypermodern individuals actively fashion new identities by belonging to nouveau communities, such as minimalists, vegans, and eco-warriors. This potentially prompts them to join CSR initiatives around social, political, and environmental causes that could offer them a sense of community (Rendtorff, 2018).

Obsession with Hyperspectacles

In hypermodern societies, individuals are bombarded with messages from the media and advertising industries. Far from causing mass homogenizing effects, the logic of fashion and consumption ensures that while hypermodern society has become indifferent to a constant stream of advertising messages, individual personal autonomy has increased with more choices and sources of information. This has led to a hypermodern individual who “is more the master and possessor of his own life, albeit basically unstable, without any deep-rooted attachments, and with a personality and tastes that are always fluctuating” (Charles, 2005, p. 23). For messages to stand out, appeal to, and move hypermodern individuals to action, messages must be presented as spectacles. According to Charles (2005), hypermodern society “fascinated by all that is frivolous and superfluous has entered its flexible and communicative period, characterized by the love of spectacle and the mutability of opinions and social formations” (p. 22). The media has responded to this trend by creating messages that foreground seductiveness and entertainment value, playing on emotions rather than well-reasoned arguments. Given the role of visuality and emotions in effective CSR communication (Chung & Lee, 2019), it is likely that hypermodern individuals will be drawn to CSR as a site for hyperspectacles.

Present Versus Future

Following the postmodern culture of unbridled hedonism that celebrated the immediate pursuit of pleasure with no thought for tomorrow, hypermodern individuals face second-generation presentism racked by anxiety for the future. Neo-liberal globalization and advancement in information and communication technologies have compressed time and space, led by the logic of speed and acceleration. Hypermodern organizations, propelled by a logic of urgency and intense short-termism, chase time and money, aiming for excessive short-term profits. Demanding much more with less time and resources incites anxiety, stress, and uncertainty among hypermodern employees who fear for their precarious incomes, health, and future (Armitage, 2001). Although hyperconsumption continues to exert its grip, it is tempered by anxieties about an uncertain future. The present becomes a site of planning for the future, evident in hypermodern individuals’ obsession with health and longevity, dieting, exercising, and eating healthy—activities aimed at prevention. In the hypermodern age, the “carefree culture of carpe diem is on the retreat: under the pressure exerted by the norms of prevention and health, it is not so much the plenitude of the instant which predominates but rather a divided and anxious present, haunted by viruses and the ravages of time” (Lipovetsky, 2005, p. 47). Considering that CSR initiatives are primarily aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of businesses on society to ensure a sustainable future, it is highly likely that hypermodern individuals’ love of the present and anxiety for the future will drive their expectations of CSR.

The above review of literature on hypermodern individuals offers a rich, theoretical conceptualization of socially responsible consumers with rising CSR expectations. However, there is still the need to create a measurement to identify these consumers based on these characteristics. Hence, the following research questions were posited:

RQ1: How can socially responsible consumers be identified based on their hypermodern characteristics?

RQ2: How are hypermodern characteristics related to CSR expectations?

Method

Scale Development Procedure

Several steps were involved in developing a scale to identify hypermodern individuals, starting with a systematic review. This included literature from business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication research. The result of the systematic review was a pool of 60 items suitable to measure hypermodern individuals in five dimensions (Table 1). In the next step, the initial items were discussed with three academic experts in the relevant fields to assess the items’ accuracy and relevance in measuring hypermodern individuals (DeVellis, 2003). The experts were given the conceptualization of hypermodern individuals and the five dimensions of the model of hyperindividualism (Dhanesh, 2020) and a questionnaire with open-ended and closed-ended questions, through which they assessed the appropriateness of each item to measure the given dimension. This step sought to increase the face validity of our instrument. We deleted several items (SI2, SI4, SI9, OI1, OI5, OI7, Soc1, Soc4, Pers1, Fut8, Pres1, Pres4, Hyp6, Hyp8 from the initial items, see Table 1) as the experts judged these items as less appropriate for measuring the respective variable or as not being distinct and clear enough. Subsequently, an online survey was conducted to further reduce the number of items, analyze the dimensionality of the model of hypermodern individualism, and test the model’s reliability and validity. This was realized through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha values were used to determine reliability. In the following, each step will be explained in more detail. Finally, the relationship between the dimensions and CSR expectations was tested.

Table 1.

Hypermodernity Characteristics Scale Development.

Variable	Item		Source
Hypermodernity dimension 1: Focus on self vs. others
Self-interest	SI1	I am constantly looking for ways to get ahead.	Gerbasi and Prentice (2013)
	SI2	Hearing others praise me is something I look forward to.
	SI3	Doing well in my pursuits is near the top of my priorities.
	SI4	I try to make sure others know about my successes.
	SI5	I look for opportunities to achieve higher social status.
	SI6	Success is important to me.
	SI7	Having a lot of money is one of my goals in life.
	SI8	I keep an eye out for my own interests.
	SI9	I am constantly looking out for what will make me happy.
Other interest	OI1	I am constantly looking for ways for my acquaintances to get ahead.	Gerbasi and Prentice (2013)
	OI2	Hearing others praise people I know is something I look forward to.
	OI3	I want to help people I know to do well.
	OI4	I try to help my acquaintances by telling other people about their successes.
	OI5	I look for opportunities to help people I know achieve higher social status.
	OI6	The success of my friends is important to me.
	OI7	I look out for ways for my friends to have more money.
	OI8	I keep an eye out for other’s interests.
	OI9	It is important to me that others are happy.
Hypermodernity dimension 2: Experiential over material consumption
Materialism	Mat1	In general, when I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a material item.	Howell et al. (2012)
	Mat2	When I want to be happy, I am very likely to spend money on material goods.
	Mat3	I enjoy my life by buying physical objects that I can keep in my possession.
Experientialism	Exp1	In general, when I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a life experience.	Howell et al. (2012)
	Exp2	When I want to be happy, I am very likely to spend money on activities and events.
	Exp3	I enjoy my life by taking part in daily activities I personally encounter and live through.
Hypermodernity dimension 3: Autonomy and the need for constructing identities
Social orientation	Soc1	The similarity I share with others in my group(s).	Nario-Redmond et al. (2004)
	Soc2	My family nationality or nationalities.
	Soc3	The memberships I have in various groups.
	Soc4	The places where I have lived.
	Soc5	My sense of belonging to my own racial group.
	Soc6	My gender group.
	Soc7	The color of my skin.
	Soc8	Me being a citizen of my country.
Personal orientation	Pers1	My rebelliousness	Nario-Redmond et al. (2004)
	Pers2	My need to be completely distinct and unique from everyone else
	Pers3	My creativity
	Pers4	My sense of being different from others
	Pers5	My complete individuality
	Pers6	My boldness
	Pers7	My nonconformity
	Pers8	My sense of independence from others
Hypermodernity dimension 4: Obsession with the hyper-spectacular
Hyperspectacle	Hyp1	I would like to explore strange places.	Hoyle et al. (2000)
	Hyp2	I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables.
	Hyp3	I get restless when I spend too much time at home.
	Hyp4	I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
	Hyp5	I like to do frightening things.
	Hyp6	I would like to try bungee jumping.
	Hyp7	I like wild parties.
	Hyp8	I would like to have new and exciting experiences, even if they are illegal.
Hypermodernity dimension 5: Present vs. future
Present-positive	Pres1	I believe that getting together with one’s friends to party is one of life’s important pleasures.	Orkibi (2015)
	Pres2	Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring.
	Pres3	I take risks to put excitement in my life.
	Pres4	I like my close relationships to be passionate.
Future-negative	Fut1	I think that I do not have time for everything I have planned to do in 1 day.	Carelli et al. (2011)
	Fut2	Usually, I do not know how I will be able to fulfill my goals in life.
	Fut3	At night, I often reflect on tomorrow’s challenges.
	Fut4	I often feel that I cannot fulfill my obligations to friends and authorities.
	Fut5	If I have to make a quick decision, I am often worried that it was wrong.
	Fut6	I feel pressure to finish different projects on time.
	Fut7	To think about my future makes me sad.
	Fut8	The future contains too many boring decisions that I do not want to think about.

Systematic Review

The authors systematically reviewed literature in business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication research as the method allows identifying, analyzing, and synthesizing previous research to determine how personal traits within the five dimensions of hyperindividualism can be measured most suitably. Our procedure followed the approach by Moher et al. (2009), which includes identifying the review scope, screening identified material by the inclusion and exclusion of set criteria, assessment of eligibility, and synthesis.

Identification of Review Scope

In the first step, the review scope included research articles from business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication research. We identified the most relevant database for each of these research fields, considering the database selection from previous systematic reviews with an interdisciplinary focus (e.g., Ingenhoff & Marschlich, 2019; Lock & Seele, 2017). As a result, we decided to search systematically using the following three databases: Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, and Communication and Mass Media Complete. The search period began whenever each database started and lasted until September 30, 2020. The keywords were developed, building on the five dimensions of the model of hyperindividualism (Dhanesh, 2020). The keywords had to be named in the title or the abstract or stated as separate keywords. This procedure led to 21,754 articles across all databases and dimensions.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In the next step, we applied our inclusion and exclusion criteria to reduce the number of articles. The articles had to be in English, of empirical nature, and focus on personality aspects or traits related and thematically related to at least one of the hypermodern dimensions. Moreover, we excluded editorial and book reviews since we only aimed to focus on research articles. Using the “thesaurus” and “subject” selection functions of the databases, we narrowed down the search thematically. We selected those categories that allow reviewing studies with a focus on personal and social psychology (including communication and consumer psychology), such as the categories “personality traits” or “personality scales and inventories.” For the remaining 1,805, we manually scanned the title and the abstract to identify those studies that focused on phenomena that fall into at least one of the five dimensions of hyperindividualism. Therefore, we excluded those studies that only marginally dealt with phenomena relevant to our research. As a result, 705 articles were identified, and the full articles were examined to decide whether they contributed substantially to the current study’s research interest. Articles for further consideration had to be empirical articles that developed and tested a measurement model or scale to measure the constructs relevant to one of the five dimensions of hypermodern society. Ultimately, 354 research articles were identified as appropriate for the deeper analysis. See Figure 1 for an overview of the entire selection process.

Figure 1.

Selection of articles for the systematic review.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

For the final sample of 354 articles, we extracted the data by including (1) information about the study’s authors, (2) the name of the scale, (3) the operationalization of the measured construct, including the items of the measurement, (4) the reliability of the scale, (5) the used sample and sample size, (6) the self-report measurement with a Likert scale, (7) the applicability of the measurement to different cultures and age groups, and (8) the availability of scale, including all items, were assessed for each research article. Two researchers coded the articles and discussed the research instrument’s usability for this study’s purpose.

Survey: Measurement

Building on the systematic review, we created a measurement of the characteristics of hypermodern individuals to identify socially responsible consumers. Table 1 gives an overview of the subscales and items. Table 2 shows the final measurement after the deletion of items based on the feedback from academic experts and the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (see “Results” section on “Scale Purification and Validation”). The final measurement includes items from the “Self- and other-interest inventory” (Gerbasi & Prentice, 2013) for measuring the first dimension of hypermodern individuals (Dhanesh, 2020), the “Experiential buying tendency scale” (Howell et al., 2012) for the second dimension, the “Social and personal identities scale” (Nario-Redmond et al., 2004) for the third, the “Brief sensation seeking scale” (Hoyle et al., 2000) for the fourth dimension, and the “Present hedonistic” and “Future-Negative” dimensions of the adapted “Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory” (Carelli et al., 2011; Orkibi, 2015) for the fifth.

Table 2.

Final Scale of Socially Responsible Consumers in Hypermodern Times.

Variable	Item
Hypermodernity dimension 1: Focus on self and others
Self-interest	Dim1_1	I am constantly looking for ways to get ahead.
	Dim1_2	I look for opportunities to achieve higher social status.
	Dim1_3	Success is important to me.
	Dim1_4	Having a lot of money is one of my goals in life.
Other interest	Dim1_5	Hearing others praise people I know is something I look forward to.
	Dim1_6	I want to help people I know to do well.
	Dim1_7	I try to help my acquaintances by telling other people about their successes.
	Dim1_8	The success of my friends is important to me.
	Dim1_9	I keep an eye out for others’ interests.
	Dim1_10	It is important to me that others are happy.
Hypermodernity dimension 2: Experiential over material consumption
Materialism	Dim2_1	In general, when I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a material item.
	Dim2_2	When I want to be happy, I am very likely to spend money on material goods.
	Dim2_3	I enjoy my life by buying physical objects that I can keep in my possession.
Experiential	Dim2_4	In general, when I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a life experience.
	Dim2_5	When I want to be happy, I am very likely to spend money on activities and events.
	Dim2_6	I enjoy my life by taking part in daily activities I personally encounter and live through.
Hypermodernity dimension 3: Autonomy and the need for constructing identities
Social identity orientation	Dim3_1	My family nationality or nationalities
	Dim3_2	My sense of belonging to my own racial group
	Dim3_3	My gender group
	Dim3_4	The color of my skin
	Dim3_5	Me being a citizen of my country
Personal identity orientation	Dim3_6	My need to be completely distinct and unique from everyone else
	Dim3_7	My creativity
	Dim3_8	My sense of being different from others
	Dim3_9	My complete individuality
Hypermodernity dimension 4: Obsession with hyperspectacles
Hyperspectacle	Dim4_1	I would like to explore strange places.
	Dim4_2	I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables.
	Dim4_3	I get restless when I spend too much time at home.
Hypermodernity dimension 5: Present and future
Present-positive	Dim5_1	Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring.
	Dim5_2	I take risks to put excitement in my life.
	Dim5_3	I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
	Dim5_4	I like to do frightening things.
	Dim5_5	I like wild parties.
Future-negative	Dim5_6	Usually, I do not know how I will be able to fulfill my goals in life.
	Dim5_7	I often feel that I cannot fulfill my obligations to friends and authorities.
	Dim5_8	If I have to make a quick decision, I am often worried that it was wrong.
	Dim5_9	To think about my future makes me sad.

Note. For all items except for the items in dimension 3, participants are asked to state the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statements (1 = “I strongly disagree.” . . . 5 = “I strongly agree”). For the items measuring dimension 3, the participants are asked to indicate how important the aspects are for them (1 = “Not at all important to who I am.” . . . 5 = “Extremely important to who I am.”).

In addition, to assess the relationship between hypermodern characteristics as proposed by our model and the individuals’ expectations toward CSR, we used six items by Kolodinsky et al. (2010), including “Business ethics and social responsibility are critical to the survival of a company.” The reliability of the measurement is good (Cronbach’s alpha = .74; M = 3.73, SD = .55). The 5-point Likert scale measured all items, ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.”

Survey: Data Collection and Sample

An online survey was conducted in April and May 2021, with 308 participants from the United Kingdom recruited through Amazon mTurk. The United Kingdom is an excellent example to test our scale as we can find several aspects in the United Kingdom that align with our assumptions about a hypermodern society. The United Kingdom can be regarded as a data-driven society, as reflected in the national data strategy (UK Government, 2020) and the high internet penetration of 95% (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2023). Furthermore, the country is ethnically and religiously diverse (Office for National Statistics, 2023a, 2023b), characterized by individualism (Hofstede Insights, n.y.), a feature of hypermodern societies. In addition, CSR plays a vital role in companies and society in the United Kingdom (Tan & Yu, 2019). CSR has a long tradition in the country, and the United Kingdom is considered a pioneering nation in CSR and the United States (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019). Recent data show that United Kingdom consumers are becoming more socially and ethically conscious (Deloitte, 2022), influencing which brands they choose and consume (GlobalWebIndex [GWI], 2023). For example, 84% of respondents in a study by the market research institute GlobalWebIndex said that a company’s poor environmental track would lead them to stop buying products and services from that company (GWI, 2023). It can, therefore, be assumed that there are many socially conscious people in the country, which is necessary to study psychographic variables as predictors of CSR perceptions.

Before beginning the survey, informed consent was obtained from all participants. When data collection was finished, the data were cleaned, and outliers were removed. The final sample consisted of 292 respondents, of which 134 were female (45.9%), 153 were male (52.4%), and five did not identify as male or female (1.7%). The participants had an average age of 34.9 years (N_min = 18; N_max = 70; SD = 11.25). Of the participants, 20.3% had no formal, lower secondary or upper qualification (N = 59), 15.8% had university entry qualification or post-secondary qualification below bachelor’s level (N = 46), 44.9% were on a bachelor’s level (N = 131), and 17.1% achieved master’s level or above (N = 50). Finally, 73.5% identified with a white ethnicity, 13.9% with a mixed ethnicity, 6.6% as Asian/British Asian, 3.5% as Black/African/Caribbean/Black British, and 2.4% as “Other.”

Results

Scale Purification and Validation

In addition to the interviews with academic experts to increase face validity (see explanations in the “Method” section), exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to analyze further the quality and suitability of the measurement of the dimensions and the corresponding items. The nine latent constructs were analyzed, with the remaining 46 items resulting from the experts’ feedback. An EFA (principal component analysis, varimax rotation) was performed using SPSS 27 to reduce the number of items further. The EFA (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .827, Bartlett: chi² = 5726.766, p < .01) largely confirmed our nine-factor solution (latent constructs, see Table 3) with an explained variance of 56.81%. EFA further revealed that four items were removed (Soc3, Pers6, Fut1, and Fut3, see Table 1) due to insufficient factor loadings (<.50). Furthermore, a factor reflecting the construct hyper spectacle was found to consist of only three items (Hyp1, Hyp2, and Hyp3). One factor could be identified, which consist of the five other items (Hyp4, Hyp5, Hyp7, Pres2, and Pres3). The composition of those five items makes sense from a conceptual point of view, as Hyp4, Hyp5, and Hyp7 add to the present positive variable.

Table 3.

Final Measurement Model.

Factor	Item	Factor loading	M	SD
Hypermodernity dimension 1: Focus on self and others
Self-interest: Cronbach’s alpha = .75	Dim1_1	.62***	3.79	0.91
	Dim1_2	.75***	3.05	1.16
	Dim1_3	.71***	3.95	0.93
	Dim1_4	.56***	3.62	1.12
Other interest: Cronbach’s alpha = .83	Dim1_5	.60***	3.55	0.97
	Dim1_6	.73***	4.05	0.87
	Dim1_7	.59***	3.60	0.93
	Dim1_8	.67***	3.90	0.90
	Dim1_9	.71***	3.74	0.81
	Dim1_10	.73***	4.10	0.87
Hypermodernity dimension 2: Material vs. experiential consumption
Experientialism: Cronbach’s alpha = .72	Dim2_1	.82***	3.42	1.10
	Dim2_2	.78***	3.46	1.02
	Dim2_3	.51***	3.72	0.92
Materialism: Cronbach’s alpha = .86	Dim2_4	.74***	3.20	1.14
	Dim2_5	.89***	3.15	1.17
	Dim2_6	.82***	3.08	1.16
Hypermodernity dimension 3: Autonomy and the need for constructing identities
Social identity orientation: Cronbach’s alpha = .89	Dim3_1	.66***	3.04	1.37
	Dim3_2	.84***	2.69	1.37
	Dim3_3	.82***	2.88	1.32
	Dim3_4	.82***	2.49	1.37
	Dim3_5	.76***	3.13	1.28
Personal identity orientation: Cronbach’s alpha = .79	Dim3_6	.68***	2.97	1.16
	Dim3_7	.59***	3.70	.987
	Dim3_8	.79***	3.38	1.07
	Dim3_9	.72***	3.66	1.05
Hypermodernity dimension 4: Obsession with hyperspectacles
Hyperspectacle: Cronbach’s alpha = .70	Dim4_1	.73***	3.91	1.05
	Dim4_2	.78***	3.64	1.25
	Dim4_3	.51***	3.16	1.27
Hypermodernity dimension 5: Present and future
Present-positive: Cronbach’s alpha = .84	Dim5_1	.84***	3.04	1.20
	Dim5_2	.86***	2.95	1.23
	Dim5_3	.60***	3.04	1.14
	Dim5_4	.68***	2.66	1.22
	Dim5_5	.62***	2.78	1.37
Future-negative: Cronbach’s alpha = .73	Dim5_6	.71***	3.42	1.15
	Dim5_7	.68***	3.02	1.13
	Dim5_8	.52***	3.28	1.19
	Dim5_9	.65***	2.85	1.31

Note: ***p < .001.

Using the software IBM SPSS AMOS 27, a CFA was conducted to purify the scale and to test the validity of the final measurement model. The CFA of the nine-factor solution from the EFA led to an insufficient model fit (Chi²/df = 1.75, Comparative Fit index (CFI) = .87, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .86, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05, standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = .065) as the indices for the goodness of fit were partly not met (Byrne, 2001). Therefore, the factor loadings and the modification indices were considered. As a result, we extracted additional items (SI3, SI8, Pers3, Pers7, Pers8, and Fut6) due to low factor loadings (Hair et al., 2014). The nested model showed a significant improvement compared to the first model, having a good model fit (Chi²/df = 1.64, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, and RMSEA = .047, SRMR = .060).

Testing the Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Model

Discriminant and convergent validity were assessed to test the measurement model’s validity. Discriminant validity explores whether the items indicating one factor correlate more with each other than those of the other factors in a measurement model. Convergent validity analyzes whether each item indicating a factor represents the factor well (MacKenzie et al., 2011). Our analysis showed that the items indicating one factor correlate higher with each other than those of the other factors, indicating discriminant validity (Kline, 1998). Since all items loaded significantly (p < .001) on their respective factor, a good convergent validity could be asserted (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Finally, we assessed the final measurement model’s validity by calculating Cronbach’s alpha for each factor. The analysis revealed that all Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7 (see Table 3), indicating satisfactory levels of reliability.

Assessing the Relationship Between Hypermodernity and CSR Expectations

To assess the relationship between the five dimensions of the hypermodern scale, we calculated Pearson correlations between expectations toward CSR and each category from the hypermodern scale (see Table 4). In addition, we calculated the effect size, which is provided as a percentage. The analysis revealed that six hypermodern categories across the five dimensions correlate significantly positively with CSR expectations, with an effect size between 1% and 10%. In the hypermodern dimension “focus on self and others,” the analysis shows that both self-interest (r = .16, p < .05) and other interest (r = .31, p < .01) correlate significantly positively with CSR expectations. This means that the higher a person’s focus on individual or others’ interests, the higher the person’s belief that companies need to take social and ethical responsibility. In other words, the more people care about themselves (e.g., looking for progress) or about others (e.g., it is essential for them that others are happy, and they want to help them), the more these people believe that corporations need to take social responsibility. In the second hypermodern dimension, “Material versus experiential consumption,” the results reveal that the more experiential-emotional individuals are, the higher their perceptions about CSR expectations (r = .23, p < .01). However, materialism does not significantly correlate with CSR (r = .09, p = .12). This means that the individuals who are more experiential-emotional (e.g., enjoying their lives by spending time and money on life experiences) believe more that companies have a social role to play than the less experiential ones. Individuals with higher materialistic values do not differ in their CSR expectations compared to those with lower materialistic values.

Table 4.

Correlations with Attitudes About CSR.

Hypermodern dimension	Variable	Pearson’s r	Effect size in %
Focus on self and others	Self-interest	.163**	2.66
Focus on self and others	Other interest	.309***	9.55
Material vs. experiential consumption	Experientalism	.232***	5.38
Material vs. experiential consumption	Materialism	.091	0.83
Autonomy and the need for constructing identities	Social orientation	.056	0.31
Autonomy and the need for constructing identities	Personal orientation	.099*	0.98
Obsession with hyper-spectacles	Hyperspectacle	.121**	1.46
Present and future	Present positive	.146**	2.13
Present and future	Future negative	.087	0.76

Note: CSR = corporate social responsibility.

p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

For the third dimension, “Autonomy and the need for constructing identities,” the analysis shows that personal orientation of oneself to an autonomous identity is significantly positively correlated with CSR expectations (r = .10, p < .01). This result indicates that people feeling the need to construct a unique identity (e.g., being distinct and unique is essential for them) believe more that companies need to be socially responsible than the ones that do not feel that need. In contrast, the degree to which they feel a need to demonstrate their social identity (e.g., belonging to a gender or racial group) does not significantly correlate with CSR expectations (r = .06, p = .23). For the fourth dimension, “Obsession with hyperspectacles,” we found that it significantly positively correlates with CSR expectations (r = .12, p < .05). This means that people who feel they want to be adventurous or explore unique places are more likely to attribute social responsibility to corporations, that is, have higher expectations toward companies to demonstrate their CSR efforts. Finally, for the fifth dimension, “present versus future,” the analysis shows a positive significant correlation between present-positive and CSR expectations (r = .146, p < .05). This means that people who tend more to have positive beliefs about their present life (e.g., they live in the moment) have higher CSR expectations. However, future-negative does not significantly correlate with CSR perceptions (r = .09, p = .15), which means that people worried about their future are not more likely to have high expectations toward companies to engage in social responsibility efforts.

Overall, comparing the effect sizes, the results show that the variables “other interest” (r² = .96) and “experientialism” (r² = .54) have the largest effect sizes (see Table 4), implying that these variables are the most predictive of how individuals think about CSR.

Discussion

This study aimed to propose and validate a measurement model to identify socially responsible consumers to overcome shortcomings of previously applied theories and conceptualizations of ethical consumers or similar terms. We adopted the sociological theoretical lens of hypermodernity (Lipovetsky, 2005), systematically reviewed business ethics, consumer psychology, and communication literature, and offered a new measurement of socially responsible consumers who expect companies to engage in CSR. We propose individuals who load high on the dimensions of focus on self and others’ interests, high on the experiential dimension, high on social and personal identity orientation, high on obsession with the hyper spectacular, and high on the focus on the present and negative toward the future can be categorized as socially responsible consumers. This offers a holistic, richly nuanced cross-situational psychographic profile of socially responsible individuals. Empirically, we could show that most dimensions correlate significantly with CSR expectations. Those individuals focusing on individual and others’ interests, loving experiential consumption, aiming to create new and unique personal identities, seeking hyperspectacles, and being present-positivistic can be determined as socially responsible consumers with high CSR expectations. Materialism, the need to create a socially oriented identity, and future negativity did not significantly correlate with CSR expectations.

Our study has significant implications for business ethics and communication in research and practice. So far, little is known about identifying socially responsible consumers with high CSR expectations, with most literature being conceptual. Existing research has shown that demographic variables do not consistently predict socially responsible behavior. We significantly contribute to previous CSR research that explored drivers of CSR expectations and determining CSR stakeholders (e.g., Kolk et al., 2015; Mohr et al., 2001) and prior research on socially responsible and ethical consumers (e.g., Crane, 2005; Han & Stoel, 2017) by offering a rich set of theoretically grounded psychographic variables that can give robust insights into socially responsible consumers with CSR expectations. Our study also has societal implications. Consumer expectations toward CSR reflect societal expectations. With our measurement, companies and other organizations can identify socially conscious consumers with high CSR expectations and, in turn, address their expectations. By engaging with this socially conscious consumer group, companies can positively impact society, for instance, through co-creating initiatives that aim to contribute to society or ultimately promote societal change.

Using this scale can help to identify socially responsible consumers on a continuum of hypermodernity. Organizations can customize CSR strategies according to one or more of the five hypermodernity dimensions adapted to socially responsible consumers. Three core recommendations are outlined subsequently and summarized in Table 5.

(1) Hypermodern individuals focus on themselves; that is, they want to be successful, do enjoyable things, and be able to express this to the rest of the world. At the same time, hypermodern individuals are focused on the welfare of others and want to help and support people around them. CSR communication professionals can facilitate this by creating communication campaigns that engage individuals, get them involved, and make them part of a campaign. Social media are particularly suitable for this, as they invite people to get involved by offering suggestions, commenting, liking, etc., for social causes. High levels of CSR engagement can promote good consumer relationships and even increase stakeholder identification with the company.

(2) Hypermodern individuals care deeply about having exciting and pleasurable experiences and pursuing activities that make them feel alive. They live in the moment, and adventure is essential to them. For companies, this means that CSR communication must be exciting, emotional, and visually appealing, for example, through audiovisual elements, emotional storytelling, and testimonials that stand for adventure and have an exciting life/role that allows individuals to identify with them. It is vital to ensure that emotions are initiated by the visuals rather than the CSR content being too emotional, as this could arouse skepticism and reduce the message’s credibility. Athletes, artists, or influencers who communicate CSR messages are suitable for this purpose. Individuals can build para-social relationships with influencers, often increasing the message’s credibility, which benefits companies.

(3) Hypermodern individuals want to be autonomous, create a unique identity, and express it to the outside world. Social media play a decisive role, inviting self-expression through their affordances and facilitating group formation and demarcation from groups. This plays a significant role for people who have CSR expectations. Companies can take advantage of this by tailoring CSR messages to the affordances of social media, that is, increasing the messages’ shareability: Concise messages, high visuality, statements on controversial topics inviting people to take a stand, and trending hashtags. This can increase the likelihood that users will like or share the corporate posts, and thus, CSR communication becomes part of the individuals’ feed and outward presentation—provided that the individuals can identify with the CSR topics. These are of current relevance, for example, (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer, Intersex), health, employee well-being, diversity, and sustainability. In addition, personalization of CSR communication may be beneficial; that is, companies are represented by the company’s personalities, for instance, Chief Executive Officers, and speak about CSR topics, thereby enhancing identification with the company.

Table 5.

Recommendations for Managers to Address Hypermodern Socially Responsible Public.

Recommendations	Examples
CSR as engagement: Create CSR initiatives that engage individuals, that is, involve them and make them part of the campaign. By getting involved, they can satisfy their need to help others and, at the same time, express their own identity.	Creating opportunities for individuals to vote on a specific measure, share their opinion on a socially relevant issue such as gender equality, or get involved through volunteering. Social media such as Instagram and TikTok are beneficial for this purpose, as they encourage to comment or participate in polls (e.g., using “Instagram Stories”).
CSR as an experience: Through storytelling, (audio)visual elements, and testimonials, CSR communication should become an experience; that is, individuals feel pulled along. The focus is less on individual CSR actions but rather on the emotional presentation of CSR.	Sharing dynamic videos on various platforms, including YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, presenting CSR efforts as a living experience. For instance, employees who engage in volunteering or popular athletes or artists can act as testimonials, sharing their stories.
CSR as part of an individual’s identity: With social media, CSR communication should encourage users to relate to CSR actions and topics and invite users to comment, like, and share corporate posts. This gives users the chance to express their thoughts and values concerning social issues and CSR and demonstrate their own identity.	Engaging in current issues that address moral values, for example, gender equality, diversity, climate change, sustainability, and peace. Increasing the “shareability” and “likeability” of CSR communication on social media through the use of trending hashtags, which are much associated with a specific topic.

Note: CSR = corporate social responsibility.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study has limitations related to the concept of hypermodernity and the methodological approach. We embedded this study within the concept of hypermodern society (Lipovetsky, 2005). However, hypermodernity is only one concept that emphasizes changes in modern society, such as postmodernism (Inglehart, 1997). Due to the dynamic changes and the heterogeneity in society, concepts that build on values and attitudes are limited in time and space. However, we believe that the value of the concept of hypermodern society (Lipovetsky, 2005) allows us to strengthen our cross-situational understanding of socially responsible consumers. Moreover, our study’s methodological approach is limited due to the chosen research fields and databases for the systematic review. However, given that dimensions of hyper-individualism build on psychological traits, consumption, and communicative behavior, our search strategy and choice for the databases seem most appropriate. In addition, one limitation is related to the sample used in this study, which relies on participants from one specific country, namely the United Kingdom.

This article has offered a new measurement for identifying socially responsible consumers with CSR expectations. The next step would be to test scale applicability in and across different cultural contexts, issues, and organizational types. Hypermodernity has been theorized to be a feature of advanced, data-driven societies. Research could help to determine the various contexts in which it might hold. Future research can also identify possible antecedents of socially responsible consumers and their CSR expectations, such as digitalization, globalization, and societal culture. How does the extent of digitalization affect the creation of socially responsible consumers? Will societal culture determine the extent of their expectations toward CSR? Research using our conceptualization and scale can also examine the consequences of hypermodernity and social responsibility as a driver of (a) prosocial behavior, (b) hyperspectacles on social media, (c) identity-building on social media, (d) focus on employee well-being, (e) engagement with organizations through stakeholder identification, and (f) higher cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement with organizations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Sarah Marschlich is an Assistant Professor of Corporate Communication at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam. In her research, Sarah Marschlich focuses on the role of strategic communication and public relations in building organizational reputation and legitimacy and organizations’ social and political roles, including corporate social responsibility and public diplomacy.

Ganga Dhanesh is an Associate Professor of Public Relations at the Department of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, USA. Dhanesh’s prior experience in corporate and non-profit sectors has informed her extensive research program on how public relations and strategic communication contribute to articulating the roles of business in society across issues, publics, cultures, and geographies.

References

Armitage

(2001). Project(ile)s of hypermodern(organ)ization. Ephemera, 1(2), 131–148.

Auger

Devinney

T. M.

(2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361−383.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Basil

D. Z.

Weber

(2006). Values motivation and concern for appearances: The effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.38

Bissonnette

M. M.

Contento

I. R.

(2001). Adolescents’ perspectives and food choice behaviors in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: Application of a psychosocial model. Journal of Nutrition Education, 33(2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60170-X

Bucic

Harris

Arli

(2012). Ethical consumers among the millennials: A cross-national study. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 113–131.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carelli

M. G.

Wiberg

(2011). Development and construct validation of the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventor. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 220–227.

Carroll

A. B.

(1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

10.

Carroll

A. B.

(1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

11.

Caruana

Chatzidakis

(2014). Consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Toward a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of the “Other CSR.” Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 577–592.

12.

Charles

(2005). Paradoxical individualism: An introduction to the thought of Gilles Lipovetsky. In Lipovetsky

(Ed.), Hypermodern times (pp. 1–28). Polity Press.

13.

Cheah

E.-T.

Jamali

Johnson

J. E. V.

Sung

M. C.

(2011). Drivers of corporate social responsibility attitudes: The demography of socially responsible investors: Drivers of corporate social responsibility attitudes. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00744.x

14.

Chung

Lee

S. Y.

(2019). Visual CSR messages and the effects of emotional valence and arousal on perceived CSR motives, attitude, and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 46(7), 926–947.

15.

Crane

(2005). Meeting the ethical gaze: Challenges for orienting to the ethical market. In Harrison

Newholm

Shaw

(Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 219–232). Sage.

16.

Creyer

Ross

W. T.

(1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421–432.

17.

De Pelsmacker

Driesen

Rayp

(2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.

18.

Deloitte (2022). How consumers are embracing sustainability. Retrieved September 08, 2023, from https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/sustainable-consumer.html

19.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.

20.

Dhanesh

G. S.

(2020). Who cares about organizational purpose and corporate social responsibility, and how can organizations adapt? A hypermodern perspective. Business Horizons, 63(4), 585–594.

21.

Freeman

R. E.

(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

22.

Gerbasi

M. E.

Prentice

D. A.

(2013). The self- and other-interest inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 495–514.

23.

Golob

Lah

Jančič

(2008). Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856525

24.

GlobalWebIndex (GWI). (2023). CSR Trends 2020. Retrieved September 08, 2023, from https://blog.globalwebindex.com/marketing/csr-trends-2020/

25.

Inglehart

(1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10vm2ns

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

27.

Han

Stoel

(2017). Explaining socially responsible consumer behavior: A meta-analytic review of theory of planned behavior. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 91–103.

28.

Hancock

(2017). Younger consumers drive shift to ethical products. Financial Times. www.ft.com/content/8b08bf4c-e5a0-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

29.

Haski-Leventhal

Pournader

McKinnon

(2017). The role of gender and age in business students’ values, CSR attitudes, and responsible management education: Learnings from the PRME International Survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 219–239.

30.

Heo

Muralidharan

(2019). What triggers young millennials to purchase eco-friendly products? The interrelationships among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and environmental concern. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(4), 421-437.

31.

Hofstede Insights (n.y.). Country Comparison tool. Retrieved September 28, 2023, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=united+kingdom

32.

Hosta

Zabkar

(2020). Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 171, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0

33.

Howell

R. T.

Pchelin

Iyer

(2012). The preference for experiences over possessions: Measurement and construct validation of the experiential buying tendency scale. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(1), 57–71.

34.

Hoyle

R. H.

Stephenson

M. T.

Palmgreen

Lorch

E. P.

Donohew

R. L.

(2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 401–414.

35.

Ijabadeniyi

Govender

J. P.

(2019). Coerced CSR: Lessons from consumer values and purchasing behavior. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(3), 515–531.

36.

Ingenhoff

Marschlich

(2019). A systematization of corporate diplomacy and political CSR: Similarities, differences and theoretical implications. Public Relations Review, 45(2), 348–371.

37.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

38.

Knechel

W. R.

Mintchik

(2022). Do personal beliefs and values affect an Individual’s “Fraud tolerance”? Evidence from the world values survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(2), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04704-0

39.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Madden

T. M.

Zisk

D. S.

Henkel

E. T.

(2010). Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 167–181.

40.

Kolk

van Dolen

(2015). Consumer perceptions of CSR: (How) is China different? International Marketing Review, 32(5), 492–517.

41.

Latapí Agudelo

M. A.

Jóhannsdóttir

Davídsdóttir

(2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y

42.

Lee

Cho

(2019). New insights into socially responsible consumers: The role of personal values. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(2), 123–133.

43.

Lipovetsky

(2005). Hypermodern times. Polity Press.

44.

Lock

Seele

(2017). Measuring credibility perceptions in CSR communication: A scale development to test readers’ perceived credibility of CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917707592

45.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Podsakoff

(2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.

46.

Maignan

(2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities : A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006433928640

47.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

(2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 32, 3–19.

48.

Marschlich

Ingenhoff

(2021). Stakeholder engagement in a multicultural context: The contribution of (personal) relationship cultivation to social capital. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102091.

49.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

, & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880.

50.

Mohr

L. A.

Webb

D. J.

Harris

K. E.

(2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(1), 45–72.

51.

Morsing

Christensen

L. T.

Thyssen

(2017). Between smoke and crystal: CSR communication in hypermodern times. Paper presented at International Public Relations Research Symposium (BledCom), Bled, Slovenia.

52.

Nario-Redmond

M. R.

Biernat

Eidelman

Palenske

D. J.

(2004). The social and personal identities scale: A measure of the differential importance ascribed to social and personal self-categorizations. Self and Identity, 3(2), 143–175.

53.

Office for National Statistics. (2023a). Religion by age and sex, England and Wales: Census 2021. Retrieved September 08, 2023, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religionbyageandsexenglandandwales/census2021

54.

Office for National Statistics. (2023b). Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021. Retrieved September 08, 2023, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021

55.

Orkibi

(2015). Psychometric properties of the Hebrew short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 38(2), 219–245.

56.

Porter Novelli (2021). Purpose perception: Implicit association study. https://www.porternovelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Porter-Novelli-Purpose-Perception-Implicit-Association-Study.pdf

57.

Rendtorff

J. D.

(2018). Managing authentic experience in the hypermodern economy: Sociological and philosophical foundations. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 19(1), 92–103.

58.

Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. (2023). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023. Retrieved September 08, 2023, from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf

59.

Saleem

M. A.

Eagle

Low

(2021). Determinants of eco-socially conscious consumer behavior toward alternative fuel vehicles. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(2), 211–228.

60.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.

61.

Shobeiri

Rajaobelina

Durif

Boivin

(2016). Experiential motivations of socially responsible consumption. International Journal of Market Research, 58(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2016-007

62.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Abel

Guagnano

G. A.

Kalof

(1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.

63.

Tan

J. Y.

(2019). Corporate social responsibility: Consumer perception for the UK apparel companies. Journal of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, 2(4), 32–45.

64.

Tripathi

Singh