CSR Perceptions and Brand Attitudes in Chinese Luxury Hospitality: The Moderating Effect of Ads vs. Media Reports

Abstract

The fit between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and luxury is a debated topic and there is limited understanding regarding how the CSR initiatives of a luxury hotel are differently perceived and responded to by customers. The present study analysed the fit between CSR and luxury in China’s luxury hospitality industry by investigating customers’ CSR perceptions as well as their brand attitudes. According to the attribution of CSR motives, this study classified consumers’ four CSR perceptions, including CSR washing, corporate hypocrisy, corporate citizenship, and shared value creation. An experimental study was implemented with 400 luxury customers. It was found that when the CSR information of a hotel was disclosed by advertisements, participants reported stronger perceptions of CSR washing and corporate hypocrisy as well as weaker perceptions of corporate citizenship and shared value creation than when the CSR information was disclosed by media reports. Different CSR perceptions were found to differently influence customers’ brand attitudes. Their brand attitudes were positively influenced by the perceptions of corporate citizenship and shared value creation and were negatively influenced by the perceptions of CSR washing and corporate hypocrisy. In view of this, the present study argued that the fit between CSR and luxury in the hospitality industry is associated with whether consumers perceive CSR initiatives positively or negatively.

1. Introduction

The luxury sector is under growing social pressure to embrace corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives as the sector represents a kind of excessive consumption of resources [1,2]. Luxury brands are now responding to this pressure. For instance, The Ritz-Carlton is the first Founding Partner of IMPACT 2030, an initiative in collaboration with the United Nations and other global stakeholders to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The hotel has integrated environmental sustainability throughout its business. Aman Resorts have also integrated SDGs into their corporate strategy and are committed to project the local culture, local heritage, natural environment, and community welfare. Prior research has identified a lot of financial and non-financial benefits gained by being socially responsible, e.g., improved corporate reputation, stakeholder engagement, reduced legitimacy risks, and enhanced financial performance [3,4,5,6].

However, there is a debate over whether luxury firms could gain such benefits by engaging in CSR initiatives because it is unclear whether there is a fit between CSR and luxury [7,8]. Torelli et al. [8] indicated that CSR activities undermine consumers’ evaluations of luxury brands. Meanwhile, many consumers view luxury and CSR as conflicting concepts [9]. Achabou and Dekhili [10] further argued that CSR commonly evokes the perceptions of sobriety, moderation, and ethics, whereas luxury commonly evokes the perceptions of hedonism, excess, and ostentation. However, some scholars claimed that CSR can be integrated with luxury. Amatulli et al. [11] believed that luxury goods are sustainable because they are always durable and produced in a small amount to ensure rareness and exclusivity. Amatulli et al. [1] found that legal and philanthropic CSR expresses a sense of status, which enhances the luxuriousness of a brand perceived by consumers.

To reconcile the above debate, it is important to investigate how luxury consumers perceive and respond to CSR initiatives. Prior research has suggested that stakeholders can differently perceive CSR initiatives, which lead to different attitudinal and behavioural outcomes [12,13,14]. Such perceptions are not necessarily positive and can be sometimes negative. For instance, CSR initiatives can be perceived as CSR washing [15] and corporate hypocrisy [4]. However, existing research has rarely investigated luxury consumers’ different types of CSR perceptions. With this in mind, the present study extends existing knowledge by considering four types of CSR perceptions based on Attribution Theory [16], including shared value creation, corporate citizenship, corporate hypocrisy, and CSR washing. This study investigates the linkages between the four CSR perceptions and consumers’ attitudes towards luxury brands. The study expects to contribute new knowledge regarding how luxury consumers’ different CSR perceptions lead to different attitudes towards luxury brands. In addition, this study manipulates two scenarios, i.e., CSR communication via media coverage and CSR communication via advertising. The two scenarios lead to different CSR perceptions and attitudes.

This study is situated in the luxury hospitality industry and this choice is motivated by three reasons. First, hotels are resource-intensive, and it is important for hotels to be environmentally responsible [17]. It is likely that luxury hotels consume more resources than non-luxury hotels in satisfying customers, and hence they produce more environmental impacts. Second, some CSR initiatives implemented in luxury hotels such as energy saving, the reduction of wastes, and cyclic utilisation, are closely associated with the customer experience [18,19], and it is hence important to find out customer CSR perceptions towards these practices. Third, the fit between CSR and luxury has been rarely investigated in the hospitality industry [20]. The existing research suggested that the appeal of sustainability increases luxury customers’ perceived integrity of hotels, and subsequently their booking intention [21]; Barber and Deale [18] reported that mindful customers support luxury hotels’ social and environmental initiatives; Hang et al. [20] further evidenced that luxury hotel customers positively respond to CSR guided by binding moral foundations. However, there is limited knowledge regarding luxury customers’ different types of CSR perceptions and their attitudinal responses to these perceptions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Luxury

Luxury is difficult to define because its meanings vary between cultures and between individuals [22]. On account of the absence of a widely acknowledged definition, scholars turned to identify attributes that distinguish non-luxury from luxury. Dubois et al. [23] suggested that luxury differs from non-luxury in terms of six attributes from the perspective of customer perceptions, which are (1) superfluousness, (2) ancestral heritage, (3) aesthetics and poly-sensuality, (4) scarcity and uniqueness, (5) expensiveness, and (6) excellent quality. Similarly, Berverland [24] indicated that six attributes distinguish non-luxury brands from luxury brands, including (1) endorsements, (2) culture, (3) history, (4) marketing, (5) value-driven emergence, and (6) product integrity. Further, Tynan et al. [25] believed that luxury brands are characterised by eight attributes, including (1) expensiveness, (2) authenticity, (3) hedonism, (4) symbolism, (5) exclusivity, (6) security, (7) rarity, and (8) quality excellence. Rovai [26] noted that luxury consumption is more closely associated with wealth, prestige, status, hedonism, symbolism, exclusivity, uniqueness, power, rarity, and conspicuousness than non-luxury consumption. As a result, there are some vague boundaries between luxury and non-luxury.

Nevertheless, a general consensus is that luxury is perceived by consumers as more valuable than non-luxury and such perceived values are the sources of the desirability and price premium of luxury goods [27]. Stathopoulou and Balabanis [28] summarised that the value of luxury perceived by consumers can be divided into four dimensions, including social, quality, uniqueness, and usability values. Such values are created by the interaction between a consumer and a brand [29]. CSR is an important approach for a firm to engage its consumers [30], and it hence has the power to influence consumers’ perceived values and subsequently their attitudes towards luxury brands/goods.

2.2. CSR

CSR was differently defined by prior scholars as it can be understood from different theoretical perspectives. According to Carroll [31], CSR refers to a business organisation’s obligation to meet the philanthropic, legal, moral, and economic expectations of society and stakeholders at a given period. Brown and Dacin [32] defined CSR as a set of corporate behaviours and the status with connection to a firm’s perceived social and stakeholder obligations. McWilliams and Siegel [33] believed that CSR is defined as corporate behaviours that create social good, beyond the legal and economic requirements. Moreover, CSR is somewhat overlapped with corporate citizenship, business ethics, and sustainability [34]. Although CSR is differently defined by scholars, there are two general consensuses. On the one hand, CSR initiatives can be mandatory, voluntary, or both, which vary between countries. On the other hand, a firm shall not solely pursue economic interests and it should create benefits for society and diverse stakeholders and reduce its negative externalities [35]. Moreover, firms can implement CSR initiatives both passively and proactively. On the one hand, they have to respond to stakeholder and institutional pressure and hence passively implement CSR initiatives. On the other hand, CSR can be a strategic approach for a firm to gain a lot of benefits, e.g., improved corporate reputation, stakeholder engagement, reduced legitimacy risks, and enhanced financial performance [3,4,5,6], which drive the firm to proactively embrace CSR [36,37].

2.3. The Fit between CSR and Luxury

It is widely acknowledged in the literature that consumers positively respond to firms’ CSR initiatives [30,38,39]; however, this does not necessarily stand in the luxury sector because it is unclear whether CSR is compatible with luxury [1]. First, it is debated over whether customers’ CSR perceptions are a significant driver of luxury purchase decision-making [9,10,40]. Achabou and Dekhili [10] even reported that CSR reduces customers’ perceived quality of luxury goods because the incorporation of recycled materials may bring inferior quality. Second, the connotations of luxury are somewhat conflicted with CSR. While CSR highlights sobriety, moderation, and ethics, luxury highlights hedonism, excess, and ostentation [10]. Third, CSR initiatives may reduce consumers’ luxury experience. According to the research of Barber and Deale [18] and Peng and Chen [19], in the hospitality industry, consumers hesitate to visit luxury hotels that implement environmentally friendly initiatives because they are concerned that these initiatives may reduce the comfort of the luxury experience.

Some scholars argued that CSR is compatible with luxury. Janssen et al. [41] believed that if luxury goods elicit the perceptions of scarcity and ephemerality, consumers perceive a match between luxury and CSR, which leads to positive evaluations. Similarly, Kapferer [42] argued that sustainability can be compatible with luxury because both concepts focus on rarity. Meanwhile, luxury goods are characterised by their excellent quality, and they are hence more durable than non-luxury goods [11]. Moreover, since luxury goods are characterised by rarity, they are commonly produced by a limited volume. In this way, the production of luxury goods restricts the use of materials [1]. Hang et al. [20] argued that it is important to investigate customer perceptions of CSR to evaluate whether there is a fit between luxury and CSR. This is because if luxury customers perceive CSR initiatives positively, engaging in CSR initiatives could bring financial benefits to luxury firms, resulting in a virtuous circle.

2.4. Attribution Theory

Stakeholders can respond differently to a firm’s CSR initiatives and such differences can be explained by the Attribution Theory [16]. The theory posits that individuals have an inherent desire to infer and assign a cause to an action or behaviour. They expect to figure out why some people or organisations engage in something, and they attribute one or several causes to these actions or behaviours. Different attribution outcomes lead to individuals’ different attitudes and behavioural responses [16]. Mohr et al. [14] indicated that consumers are likely to attribute a firm’s CSR initiatives to either egoistic motives (e.g., profit-making and image management) or altruistic motives (e.g., helping others). They negatively (or positively) respond to egoistic (or altruistic) motives. In this way, the same CSR initiative may trigger consumers’ different attitudes [13]. Barone et al. [12] found that consumers positively evaluate a brand if they believe the brand’s CSR initiatives are driven by altruistic motives, whereas perceived egoistic motives undermine a brand’s image. Likewise, Pharr and Lough [43] reported that if consumers attribute a firm’s cause-related marketing to an egoistic motive, their loyalty would be reduced. Moreover, Youn and Kim [44] found that consumers are willing to engage in a firm’s cause-related marketing activities if they perceive an altruistic motive. Consequently, luxury consumers’ responses to CSR initiatives are likely to be influenced by their attribution of these initiatives.

Research has shown that consumers’ attribution processes are influenced by several factors. The first is CSR fit, i.e., the extent to which a firm’s CSR initiatives are consistent with its characteristics [45]. A low level of CSR fit is likely to lead to the attribution of an egoistic motive because of the absence of a logical relation between corporate behaviours and social issues [46]. The second is the CSR history of a firm [47,48]. The CSR history provides consumers with information for inferring the motives of a firm’s current CSR activities. If a firm’s current CSR initiatives are consistent with prior ones and/or if a firm has a good CSR reputation, consumers are likely to perceive an altruistic motive [47]. The third is the credibility of CSR information. Many firms whitewash their CSR information in their sustainability/CSR reports and advertisements to pretend to be socially responsible, which triggers consumers’ skepticism of CSR information [15]. If they perceive CSR information as not credible, they are likely to transfer this distrust from the CSR information to the firm and subsequently perceive an egoistic motive [49]. The fourth is firms’ CSR communication. The research of Kim [50] evidenced that CSR communication factors, e.g., CSR informativeness, consistency, transparency, promotional tone, factual tone, and personal relevance, shape consumers’ perceived corporate reputation by influencing their CSR knowledge and trust in CSR commitment. Viererbl and Koch [51] found that a firm’s CSR communication characterised by an imbalance between the actual extent of CSR activities and the amount of CSR communication causes consumers’ negative CSR perceptions. Lee et al. [52] reported that consumers’ CSR awareness is positively influenced by the degree of using several communication channels, including mass media, firm offline, firm online, and interpersonal communication, but is not influenced by the degree of using CSR reports.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

As mentioned above, the credibility of CSR information is a determinant of consumers’ attribution processes. Commonly, consumers understand a firm’s CSR initiatives from advertisements, media reports, and their past interactions with the firm. It is reasonable to infer that CSR information disclosed by media reports is more credible than advertisements because third-party information sources are perceived by receivers as more credible [53]. Empirical research also reported that media reports outperform firms’ offline and online information as CSR reports in terms of influencing consumers’ awareness [52].

Correspondingly, the following research hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Consumers perceive the CSR information disclosed by media reports more positively than by the advertisement of a luxury hotel.

The CSR initiatives implemented by a luxury hotel can be negatively perceived by customers as a kind of CSR washing, referring to the action of deceiving or misleading consumers in terms of a firm’s CSR performance [15]. CSR washing is majorly driven by a firm’s egoistic motives, i.e., dishonestly or selectively disclosing CSR information in order to respond to stakeholder and institutional pressure and/or gain some benefits, e.g., positive evaluations from stakeholders, mitigated institutional pressure, and positive corporate images [54,55,56]. CSR washing is prevalent, and an international survey reported that the majority of consumers believed that firms’ CSR initiatives were implemented superficially, and these firms failed to fulfil their promises [57]. A survey made in the U.S. reported that two-thirds of consumers believed that firms exaggerated or overstated their CSR performance [58]. Such perceptions are likely to negatively influence consumers’ attitudes because they believe that firms are trying to mislead or deceive them [59]. Luxury consumption is closely associated with prestige, authenticity, and social status [24,25,26], and the value of luxury hotels perceived by customers can be reduced by the perception of CSR washing because CSR washing represents a dishonest behaviour and reduces social reputation. In view of this, the following hypothesis is provided:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Consumers’ attitudes towards a luxury hotel are negatively influenced by the perception of CSR washing.

The CSR initiatives implemented by a luxury hotel can be negatively perceived by customers as a kind of corporate hypocrisy, referring to the absence of a firm’s sincerity in their motivation when carrying out altruistic activities [60] or the implementation of egoistic activities in the name of an altruistic motive [61]. CSR activities are perceived as corporate hypocrisy when stakeholders attribute these activities to an egoistic motive [62]. Corporate hypocrisy differs from CSR washing because the former emphasises the motives of CSR activities, whereas the latter emphasises the credibility of CSR information. Past research has shown that consumers hold a negative attitude towards corporate hypocrisy as they do not expect firms to utilise social issues to create profits [63], and they perceive that firms are deceiving them to make profits [64,65]. It can be inferred that the perception of corporate hypocrisy will reduce luxury customers’ perceived prestige, authenticity, and social status, which subsequently lead to a negative attitude. Thus, the following research hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Consumers’ attitudes towards a luxury hotel are negatively influenced by the perception of corporate hypocrisy.

The CSR initiatives implemented by a luxury hotel can be positively perceived by customers as a kind of corporate citizenship, referring to the extent to which a firm has fulfilled its legal, economic, moral, and philanthropic responsibilities expected by stakeholders and society [66]. Perceived corporate citizenship reflects stakeholders’ interpretations of a firm’s social and environmental contributions, in addition to its economic contribution [67]. Firms cannot gain direct economic benefits from corporate citizenship behaviours, and such behaviours are fully driven by altruistic motives [68]. Research has shown that perceived corporate citizenship improves customers’ brand trust, perceived corporate reputation, and brand image because corporate citizenship signals a firm’s competence, honesty, and benevolence [69,70]. The corporate citizenship behaviours of a luxury hotel are expected to increase customers’ perceived authenticity, rareness, exclusivity, status, and prestige, which subsequently lead to a positive attitude. Correspondingly, the following research hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Consumers’ attitudes towards a luxury hotel are positively influenced by the perception of corporate citizenship.

Customers may attribute a luxury hotel’s CSR initiatives to both altruistic and egoistic motives, and hence these initiatives can be perceived as a kind of shared value creation, referring to a win–win scenario between a firm and society achieved by co-creating values with society and stakeholders [71]. Porter and Kramer [72] conceived of the big idea of creating shared value and suggested that a firm can collaborate with society to jointly deal with social and environmental issues that are relevant to competitive advantages. Malik [73] further indicated that a firm could proactively implement CSR initiatives and these initiatives can engage stakeholders by satisfying their needs. Subsequently, stakeholders would return to the firm by positive behaviours, e.g., employee engagement and customer loyalty. Correspondingly, CSR initiatives can be driven by dual motives, e.g., altruistic and egoistic motives. Xiong et al. [74] suggested that if the CSR initiatives of a firm are financially rewarded, the firm will be motivated to engage in CSR initiatives, resulting in a virtuous circle. Radzi et al. [75] indicated that firms are not fully self-interested, and they have altruistic motives to create social and environmental benefits and reduce their negative externalities. It is expected that luxury customers positively respond to luxury hotels’ value co-creation practices. In these practices, their consumption behaviours create values for both luxury hotels and society. Taken together, the following research hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Consumers’ attitudes towards a luxury hotel are positively influenced by the perception of shared value creation.

Based on the above research hypotheses, a conceptual framework is constructed and shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Method

3.1. Design, Stimuli, and Procedures

To test the above five research hypotheses, this study adopted a between-subjects experimental design that manipulated the source of CSR information (advertisements vs. media reports). It was expected that participants would respond differently to CSR information from different sources, which would subsequently lead to different CSR perceptions. In the experiment, participants were asked to read about the CSR information of a hypothetical luxury hotel brand, called Honour. The use of a hypothetical brand ensured the absence of any prior brand knowledge. The CSR information described what CSR initiatives the hotel brand had implemented. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups. Although the two groups read about the same CSR information, one group was informed that the CSR information was reported by authoritative media while the other group was informed that the CSR information was reported by the advertisement of the brand. The experimental stimuli can be found in Appendix A. After reading the CSR information, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their perception of the brand’s CSR initiatives as well as their evaluations of the brand. The questionnaire ended with participants’ socio-economic characteristics.

3.2. Measures

Research variables were measured by Likert five-point scales adapted from previous research, where 1 denotes totally disagree and 5 denotes totally agree. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which a set of statements actually described their perceptions and attitudes. The dependent variable was brand attitude and was measured by four items (BA1~BA4) modified from Putrevu and Lord [76]. A sample item is “Honour has a lot of beneficial characteristics”. CSR washing was measured by four items (CSRW1~CSRW4) modified from De Jong et al. [77] and Laufer [78]. A sample item is “Honour misleads with words in its social and environmental features.” Corporate hypocrisy was measured by three items (CH1~CH3) modified from Wagner et al. [79] and Wang and Zhou [80]. A sample item is “These CSR initiatives are driven by a profit-making purpose”. Corporate citizenship was measured by four items (CC1~CC4) modified from Ramasamy and Yeung [81]. A sample item is “These initiatives are implemented in order to adhere to ethical norms”. Shared value creation was measured by three items (SVC1~SVC4) adapted from Ham et al. [82] and Porter et al. [83]. The above survey items can be found in Appendix B. In addition, four variables were controlled in the analysis, including sex, age, educational level, and monthly income.

The questionnaire was transferred into Chinese via a back-translation method [84], and a pilot test was implemented with 100 Chinese undergraduate students. Through analysing initial data and collecting feedback from the participants, the Chinese questionnaire was revised to ensure its reliability and validity.

3.3. Sample

Since this study involved the luxury hospitality industry, the recruitment of participants focused on upper- and upper-middle-class consumers who were experienced in visiting luxury hotels. A recruitment advertisement was posted and shared on Weibo (one of the most popular microblog platforms in China). Weibo users who met the sampling criteria were selected and they voluntarily determined whether to take part. To increase responses, the researchers forwarded the advertisement five times within a month. In the advertisement, there was a URL to a survey website. Participants were also encouraged to share the advertisement on social media. On the survey website, participants were asked to report their monthly income and whether they had the experience of visiting a luxury hotel. This study used the criteria of “monthly income > CNY8000 ” to rule out unqualified participants and exclude participants without the experience of visiting a luxury hotel. The sampling process was completed in October 2021 after 400 valid questionnaires were returned and 46 invalid questionnaires were excluded from the sample. Ethical issues were fully addressed in the process of collecting and using the primary data, and this study adhered to the principles of anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent, and minimised harm.

These 400 participants were randomly assigned into two groups according to the source of CSR information, and each group had 200 participants. Independent sample tests were performed, and it was found that there was no significant difference in the age, sex, educational level, and monthly income between the two groups (p-value > 0.05). The socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics (n = 400).

	Frequency	Percent
Sex
Male	221	55.3%
Female	179	44.8%
Age
18–26 years	24	6.0%
27–35 years	120	30.0%
36–44 years	121	30.3%
44–52 years	81	20.3%
Above 52 years	54	13.5%
Educational level
Less than Associate’s degree	42	10.5%
Associate’s degree	162	40.5%
Bachelor’s degree	166	41.5%
Master’s degree or above	30	7.5%
Monthly income (CNY; after tax)
8001–12,000	11	2.8%
12,001–16,000	29	7.2%
16,001–24,000	135	33.8%
24,001–30,000	136	34.0%
Above 30,000	89	22.3%

. The sample was sex-unbalanced with a sex ratio of 55.3% (males vs. females). The sample covered different age groups and the majority of participants were aged between 36 and 52 years. Most of the participants had received higher education (89.5%) and most of them were middle- and high-income individuals.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity

This study performed reliability and validity tests using Smart PLS, and the major results are presented in

Table 2. Item loading, validity, and reliability.

	Loading	Alpha	CR	AVE
BA1	0.923	0.937	0.955	0.842
BA2	0.916
BA3	0.879
BA4	0.953
CC1	0.836	0.913	0.939	0.795
CC2	0.903
CC3	0.879
CC4	0.929
CH1	0.887	0.910	0.937	0.787
CH2	0.823
CH3	0.880
CSW1	0.895	0.830	0.898	0.747
CSW2	0.890
CSW3	0.847
CSW4	0.932
SVC1	0.833	0.886	0.922	0.747
SVC2	0.894
SVC3	0.823
SVC4	0.904

,

Table 3. HTMT method.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Brand Attitude (1)
CSR Washing (2)	0.499
Corporate Citizenship (3)	0.548	0.421
Corporate Hypocrisy (4)	0.438	0.672	0.364
Shared Value Creation (5)	0.445	0.488	0.445	0.275

and

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Brand Attitude (1)	0.918
CSR Washing (2)	−0.463 **	0.891
Corporate Citizenship (3)	0.508 **	−0.385 **	0.887
Corporate Hypocrisy (4)	−0.386 **	0.584 **	−0.319 **	0.864
Shared Value Creation (5)	0.408 **	−0.441 **	0.400 **	−0.237 **	0.864

Notes: ** p-value < 0.01; italic fonts in the diagonal represent the square roots of AVE values.

. The Cronbach’s alpha of all subscales is greater than the threshold of 0.700, suggesting high internal consistency reliability. The composite reliability (CR) of these subscales is also high as the CR coefficients range between 0.898 and 0.955. This study performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Smart PLS, and the major results for testing reliability and validity are presented in Table 2. The factor loading of all items ranges between 0.823 and 0.953, which is greater than the threshold of 0.500. The average variance extracted (AVE) values of all subscales are greater than 0.500. Therefore, the measurement used in this study has good convergent validity.

The discriminant validity of the measurement was evaluated by the HTMT method (Table 3) and a Fornell–Larcker criterion analysis (Table 4). As shown in Table 3, all HTMT values are smaller than the threshold of 0.85. As shown in Table 4, the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) values are larger than the correlations between the construct and any others. This study also tested the cross-loading of these 19 items, and it was found that the factor loading values of all items are greater than 0.500 on their intended constructs and are smaller than 0.500 on other constructs. Thus, the discriminant validity of the measurement can be established. The above analysis also evidenced that the four CSR perceptions are four different constructs, and consumers could differently perceive the CSR initiatives implemented by a luxury hotel.

The Pearson pairwise correlations presented in Table 4 indicate some meaningful findings. Brand attitude positively correlates to corporate citizenship (r = 0.508; p-value < 0.01) and shared value creation (r = 0.408; p-value < 0.01) and negatively correlates to CSR washing (r = 0.408; p-value < 0.01) and corporate hypocrisy (r = 0.408; p-value < 0.01). Thus, the four are closely associated with consumers’ attitudes towards a luxury hotel. Meanwhile, CSR washing positively correlates to corporate hypocrisy (r = 0.584; p-value < 0.01) and negatively correlates to corporate citizenship (r = −0.385; p-value < 0.01) and shared value creation (r = −0.441; p-value < 0.01); corporate hypocrisy negatively correlates to corporate citizenship (r = −0.319; p-value < 0.01) and shared value creation (r = 0.237; p-value < 0.01); there is a positive correlation between corporate citizenship and shared value creation (r = 0.400; p-value < 0.01). As a result, it can be concluded that CSR washing and corporate hypocrisy are two closely associated and negative CSR perceptions, whereas corporate citizenship and shared value creation are two closely associated and positive CSR perceptions.

4.2. Comparative Analysis

The CSR perceptions and brand attitudes of the two groups are compared in

Table 5. Comparative analysis. The sample sizes for both groups are 200.

	Group	Mean	Std. Dev.	p-Value
CSR Washing	Advertising	3.503	1.0615	0.007
	Media reports	3.196	1.1896
Corporate Hypocrisy	Advertising	3.435	1.0595	0.016
	Media reports	3.185	1.0046
Corporate Citizenship	Advertising	3.438	1.1055	0.001
	Media reports	3.798	0.9888
Shared Value Creation	Advertising	3.566	0.9552	0.010
	Media reports	3.809	0.9174
Brand Attitude	Advertising	3.373	1.0730	0.037
	Media reports	3.589	0.9952

. It was found that the differences in the five variables between the two groups are all statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). The group of participants who were informed that the CSR information was disclosed by advertisements reported lower scores of corporate citizenship (3.438 vs. 3.798; p-value = 0.001) and shared value creation (3.438 vs. 3.798; p-value = 0.037), as well as higher scores of CSR washing (3.503 vs. 3.196; p-value = 0.007) and corporate hypocrisy (3.435 vs. 3.185; p-value = 0.010). Thus, the CSR information disclosed by advertisements triggers more negative CSR perceptions from consumers than that disclosed by media reports. In view of this, H1 is accepted. In addition, the Std. Dev. presented in Table 5 is large, suggesting that consumers can perceive differently the CSR initiatives of a luxury hotel even though they receive CSR information from the same source.

4.3. Structural Analysis

This study used SEM to estimate the relationship between the four CSR perceptions and brand attitude. In the model, sex, age, education, and income were controlled, and the path coefficients (standardised) are presented in

Table 6. Path coefficients (n = 400). The dependent variable is brand attitude.

Variable	Coefficient	p-Value
Sex	0.201	0.011
Age	0.168	0.000
Education	0.109	0.008
Income	0.114	0.006
CSR Washing	−0.146	0.010
Corporate Hypocrisy	−0.118	0.025
Corporate Citizenship	0.259	0.000
Shared Value Creation	0.130	0.015
Adjusted R2	0.429

. The model explains 42.9% of the variance in brand attitude. The path coefficients indicate that brand attitude is positively associated with corporate citizenship (Coef. = 0.259; p-value < 0.001) and shared value creation (Beta = 0.130; p-value = 0.015) and is negatively associated with CSR washing (Coef. = −0.146; p-value = 0.010) and corporate hypocrisy (Coef. = −0.118; p-value = 0.025). Consequently, consumers hold a positive attitude towards a luxury hotel if they perceive the CSR initiatives of the hotel as corporate citizenship and/or shared value creation; they hold a negative attitude if they perceive these CSR initiatives as CSR washing and/or corporate hypocrisy. In this way, H2–H5 are accepted, and this study evidenced that different CSR perceptions lead to different consumer attitudes. Meanwhile, the effect size of corporate citizenship (Coef. = 0.259) is greater than CSR washing (Beta = −0.146), shared value creation (Beta = 0.130), and corporate hypocrisy (Beta = −0.118). Thus, from the perspective of branding, corporate citizenship is a more positive CSR perception than shared value creation, while CSR washing is a more negative CSR perception than corporate hypocrisy.

In addition, the coefficients of all four control variables are significant, and brand attitude is positively associated with sex (Beta = 0.201; p-value = 0.011), age (Beta = 0.168; p-value < 0.001), education (Beta = 0.109; p-value = 0.008), and income (Beta = 0.114; p-value = 0.006). Thus, after receiving the CSR information, consumers who are female, older, better educated, and richer hold more positive attitudes towards a brand than other consumers. That is to say, the brand attitudes of consumers with different sex, age, educational levels, and incomes lead to different responses to the CSR initiatives of a luxury hotel.

5. Discussion

5.1. CSR Perceptions

According to the attribution of CSR motives, this study classifies consumers’ four CSR perceptions in the luxury hospitality industry, including CSR washing, corporate hypocrisy, corporate citizenship, and shared value creation. The test of discriminatory validity indicates that the four are different constructs and can be clearly distinguished by consumers. Meanwhile, the correlation analysis of this study indicates that the four CSR perceptions are closely associated. If a consumer perceives a luxury hotel’s CSR initiatives as shared value creation, these initiatives are very likely to be perceived by the same consumer as corporate citizenship and less likely to be perceived as CSR washing and/or corporate hypocrisy. Meanwhile, it can be inferred that consumers’ CSR perceptions can be complicated and are a mix of different perceptions. These perceptions jointly determine consumers’ brand attitudes. Overall, this study confirms the theoretical proposition that the CSR initiatives can be differently attributed by consumers and subsequently lead to different CSR perceptions [12,13,14].

Another contribution made by this study is that the source of CSR information is a determinant of consumers’ CSR perceptions. The disclosure of CSR information by media reports elicits more positive CSR perceptions from consumers than by advertisements. This can be attributed to the credibility of the two information sources and the attribution of CSR motives. In terms of credibility, prior research has evidenced that consumers’ skepticism of CSR information leads to the attribution of an egoistic motive and subsequently negative perceptions [15,48]. In terms of communication channels, prior research also evidenced that media reports are more closely associated with consumers’ CSR awareness than firms’ offline and online information and CSR reports [52]. The CSR information in advertisements can be manipulated by luxury hotels, and hence its credibility is lower than media reports. In terms of attribution, if the CSR information is disclosed by advertisements, consumers believe that the firm purposively discloses its CSR information, and they may try to infer the cause of such disclosure behaviour. If they attribute such disclosure behaviour to an egoistic motive, they are likely to negatively perceive CSR initiatives. By contrast, the disclosure of CSR information by media reports is the behaviour of third-party organisations and is less likely to trigger the above attribution process, thus leading to more positive CSR perceptions.

Based on the above discussion, this study argues that the fit between CSR and luxury in the hospitality industry is associated with how consumers perceive CSR initiatives, and these initiatives can be perceived positively or negatively.

5.2. CSR Perceptions and Brand Attitude

This study evidenced that different CSR perceptions lead to different brand attitudes. First, CSR washing is a negative CSR perception, and it leads to consumers’ negative brand attitudes. This negative effect can be explained by the fact that consumers believe that the firm is purposively misleading or deceiving consumers in order to make profits [15,50,51,52]. Meanwhile, CSR washing represents a kind of dishonest behaviour, which conflicts with authenticity, a key feature of luxury consumption [25].

Second, corporate hypocrisy is also a negative CSR perception, and it leads to consumers’ negative brand attitude. This negative effect can be explained by consumers’ attribution of an egoistic motive [60,61]. Meanwhile, corporate hypocrisy is likely to reduce consumers’ perceptions of prestige, authenticity, and social status, which are the key attributes of luxury [25]. Moreover, the effect size of corporate hypocrisy is smaller than that of CSR washing. This can be explained by the fact that corporate hypocrisy implies that a firm has at least implemented some CSR activities, while CSR washing implies that the firm may have not implemented any CSR activity. In this way, CSR washing leads to more negative attitudes than corporate hypocrisy.

Third, corporate citizenship is a positive CSR perception, and it leads to consumers’ positive brand attitudes. When CSR initiatives are perceived by consumers as corporate citizenship, consumers attribute these initiatives to a fully altruistic motive [67] and acknowledge the firm’s social and environmental contributions [65], which lead to positive brand evaluations [68,69]. Meanwhile, corporate citizenship signals a firm’s competence, honesty, and benevolence [69], which are compatible with some key attributes of luxury, e.g., authenticity, rareness, exclusivity, status, and prestige. In this way, corporate citizenship improves the brand attitudes of luxury hotels.

Finally, shared value creation is a positive CSR perception, and it also leads to consumers’ positive brand attitudes. Shared value creation is favoured by consumers because it engages stakeholders and jointly deals with social issues with stakeholders [70,71], and subsequently leads to positive brand evaluations. Meanwhile, the effect size of shared value creation is smaller than corporate citizenship because shared value creation is driven by both altruistic and egoistic motives [74], while corporate citizenship is solely driven by an altruistic motive [67].

5.3. Theoretical Implications

The major theoretical contribution of this study is the provision of new evidence and insights for the fit between CSR and luxury in the hospitality industry. This study suggests that the fit is associated with how consumers perceive the CSR initiatives of luxury hotels, and CSR initiatives can be differently perceived by consumers and subsequently lead to different brand attitudes. Another theoretical contribution of this study is the identification of four CSR perceptions, which can be used by future research to investigate stakeholders’ different CSR perceptions and to explain why stakeholders respond differently to CSR initiatives. Moreover, this study revealed that different sources of CSR information lead to significantly different CSR perceptions. Media reports were found to be more effective in eliciting consumers’ positive CSR perceptions than advertising, which implies that consumers depend differently on different sources to perceive a firm’s CSR initiatives.

5.4. Practical Implications

According to the findings of this study, luxury hotels can integrate CSR into their marketing strategies. In the process of CSR implementation and communication, it is important for luxury hotels to elicit consumers’ positive perceptions and reduce their negative perceptions. To this end, luxury hotels should demonstrate their altruistic motives, improve the visibility of CSR initiatives, and enhance the credibility of CSR communication. Meanwhile, it is also advisable for a luxury hotel to cooperate with media to increase the media coverage of CSR initiatives. In this way, luxury hotels could improve consumers’ brand attitudes by implementing CSR initiatives.

5.5. Limitations

The major limitation of this study is that the study was purely confirmatory. The identification of the four CSR perceptions relies on the extant literature without interviewing consumers. The four may fail to fully explain how consumers are actually perceiving CSR initiatives. Hence, in addition to the four CSR perceptions identified by this study, future research should explore more CSR perceptions to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how consumers perceive the CSR initiatives of a firm. Another limitation is that the study manipulated only one condition, i.e., the source of CSR information, which may be insufficient to reflect how consumers’ CSR perceptions are influenced by CSR communication. Future research could consider manipulating more conditions in their experiments, e.g., CSR history and linguistic style.