Content uploaded by Muhammad Tanveer Awan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Tanveer Awan on Jun 17, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Role of Ethical Marketing in Driving Consumer Brand
Relationships and Brand Loyalty: A Sustainable
Marketing Approach
Muhammad Tanveer 1, *, Abdul-Rahim Ahmad 2, Haider Mahmood 3and Ikram Ul Haq 4
Citation: Tanveer, M.; Ahmad, A.-R.;
Mahmood, H.; Haq, I.U. Role of
Ethical Marketing in Driving
Consumer Brand Relationships and
Brand Loyalty: A Sustainable
Marketing Approach. Sustainability
2021,13, 6839. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13126839
Academic Editor: Shervin Hashemi
Received: 6 June 2021
Accepted: 12 June 2021
Published: 17 June 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
2KFUPM Business School, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; abdulrahim.ahmad@kfupm.edu.sa
3Department of Finance, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University,
Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia; h.farooqi@psau.edu.sa
4King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, College of Dentistry,
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia;
ikram34439@yahoo.com
*Correspondence: mtanveer@psu.edu.sa
Abstract:
This research is focused on studying the impact of ethical marketing practices on value-
adding product sustainability and customer brand relationship sustainability. It further investigates
the consequent effects of value-adding product sustainability and customer brand relationship
sustainability on brand loyalty. Data for this study were collected from a sample of 1500 customers
having multiple interactions with goods and brands of retail organizations in Pakistan. We employed
structural equation modeling (SEM) using SPSS 24.0 to analyze our data. The findings of this paper
provide empirical support to the proposed relationships. More specifically, ethical marketing practices
were found to have a significant impact on value-adding product sustainability and customer-
value brand relationship sustainability. The findings also support a positive impacts of value-
adding product sustainability and customer-value brand relationship sustainability on brand loyalty.
This study provides some valuable implications for the theory and practice in that it identifies
and empirically validates key ethical marketing factors affecting loyalty in business-to-consumer
interactions. Besides, this study advocates implications for firms regarding some key aspects of
ethical marketing practices that should be strengthened to achieve sustained brand loyalty.
Keywords:
ethical marketing; extended marketing mix; consumer brand relationships; brand loy-
alty; sustainability
1. Introduction
Building strong customer relationships and loyalty is increasingly important for
companies in today’s rapidly changing marketing environment [
1
,
2
]. Developing sustained
brand loyalty has attained such a staggering attention because it helps firms in developing
advantages that are viable in the markets [
3
]. It has been observed that the attainment of
brand loyalty is based on programs related to the corporate marketing [
4
–
7
]. Typically,
brand loyalty is reflected in how customers evaluate the company’s outlook towards the
product evaluation and consumer-brand relations [
8
–
10
]. Certain studies have argued that
companies should give their brand message while considering social and environmental
problems, and sell their products to consumers [
11
,
12
]. Strategies focused on common
issues increase the interest of consumers in buying the products or services from such
companies. Given that modern societies require companies to be responsible and ethical to
their stakeholders. Therefore, the maintenance of consumer relationships and brand loyalty
are not easy to attain and pose major challenges to firms in today’s marketing environment.
Ethical marketing strategies have been studied for nearly all business areas which
are formulated to gain a competitive advantage [
13
–
17
]. A company’s ethical marketing
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126839 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 2 of 17
practices affect the daily routine of consumer activity. Every company’s ethical marketing
practices are closely related to the purchase of products or services, regardless of whether
it is conscious of consumer purchasing power strengths and weaknesses. The importance
of ethics in the advancement of business sustainability, and general marketing issues
(including product safety, price tags and advertising) has duly been recognized by corporate
managers and vendors [
18
]. As an outcome, an economic behavior, whether ethical or
non-ethical, is inherently linked with a company’s overall reputation and assessment, and
stresses the fundamental factors in keeping the company competitive on the market [
19
–
21
].
Despite the apparent significant role of ethical marketing practices on relationship
building, product evaluation, and high-brand loyalty, only a few studies have examined the
effects of extended marketing mix elements (viz. product, price, place, promotion, person,
physical evidence, and packaging) on consumption and brand loyalty [
22
–
26
]. Moreover,
ethical marketing practice plays a significant role in improving consumer-firm ties, product
assessment, and brand loyalty [
27
–
29
]. Only a few studies have examined the role of
ethical marketing mix elements on such attitudinal and behavioral outcomes [
18
,
30
,
31
].
Moreover, the literature has explored the effects of extended marketing mix elements on
value-adding product sustainability and customer-brand relationship sustainability in B2C
transactions from an ethical marketing perspective [
32
,
33
]. Nevertheless, the focus of the
literature was on the 4Ps of the marketing mix in this regard. Hence, the present study
highlighted this literature gap and contributed by exploring the role of extended marketing
mix with the 7Ps approach from an ethical marketing perspective. The findings of this
study would be attractive for the companies to build an ethically rich culture, adopting
the proposed extended marketing mix with the 7Ps approach that offers fair and trust-
oriented transactions. Such an ethically sound approach can help companies facilitate
strong relationship building and brand loyalty, which eventually offers them a competitive
advantage to survive and sustain for the long term.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Ethical Marketing
In the literature, “ethics” describes concepts like good and evil, correct and false,
virtue and sin, justice and crime [
33
–
36
]. Ethics seeks to address the human moral issues.
The fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, as well as value theory are all connected
to ethical philosophy [
37
]. The words “ethics” or “morals” in the literature refer to a
collection of moral standards [
38
], values and beliefs and moral principles, such as moral
decisions, standards, norms and laws, and the essence and motivations that direct people to
behave a certain way [
39
–
44
]. Gaski [
45
] defined ethical marketing as “a code of morals and
conduct used in marketing practices”. Ethical marketing drives companies make marketing
decisions that are morally acceptable in terms of ties between marketing managers and
other stakeholders including customers, employees, competitors, and general public [
39
].
Ethical marketing is an important subject for both academia and practitioners because
ethical principles require companies abide by the minimum standards of liability and
conduct their marketing activities in ways that make business transparent and acceptable
to all [46–51].
The significance of ethical marketing is further highlighted by the fact that consumers
in modern societies continue to require high-quality products and prefer socially renowned
brands even though they may aquire those products at higher prices [
52
]. Ethical marketing
typically contributes to a more culturally sensitive and socially conscious business culture.
Given that marketing is a big part of any business model, ethical marketing forms an
integral part of corporate ethics [
53
–
56
]. Built on the theoretical underpinnings of ethical
marketing, ethical practices should be applied while analyzing whether the product or the
service is portrayed accurately and factually in terms of cultural and social values. Ethical
marketing practices provide directions to managers and marketers on how to deal with an
ethical issue [
57
]. Certain researchers consider the use of moral principles in marketing
decisions a systematic approach.
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 3 of 17
This study has considered practices encompassing ethics related to the extended
marketing mix elements, viz. product, price, place, promotion, person, physical evidence,
and packaging. Several scholars have highlighted the ethics approach of a marketing com-
bination. Ethics related to product decisions offer a competitive advantage and determine
if such products are detrimental to customers. The concept of proportion and justice is in-
cluded in price-related ethics. Ethical pricing should be equivalent to the advantage gained
from the product by the consumer [
58
]. Unreasonable pricing may influence the structure
of competition. Ethics related to place-specific decisions emerge largely in relationships
along distribution channels as some organizations sometimes follow ethical actions, in-
cluding abuse of power [
59
,
60
]. Promotional ethics issues can be analyzed in marketing
and personal sales. Promotional ethics covers questions of marketing, sales and public
relations [
61
]. Other examples of person-specific ethical issues include difficulties with
sales advertisements for customers by brokers and suppliers as well as conflicts with ad-
vertising media organizations. Physical evidence and packaging specific ethical approach
are directed towards a more socially conscious way of thinking; wherein adjustments are
made because of its concerns about the ethical issues such as child labor, working climate,
ties with third-world countries and environmental problems [62–64].
Considering these arguments, this study intends to build a theoretical framework that
explains the relationship of the above discussed extended marketing mix elements from an
ethical perspective with some specific consumer behavioral outcomes, which we discuss in
the following sections.
2.2. Consumer-Value Brand Relationship Sustainability
To illustrate the common elements of relationship sustainability (RS) which have
evolved over the past few decades are relationship marketing and branding [
65
–
67
]. There-
fore, it is important to analyze the recent branding context description for consumer product
identification (CPI). The questions arising with respect to its nature and its connection to
RS are equally important. The significance of the relationship between brand and customer
are reflected by various terms viz. brand influence, brand identity, personal relationships,
brand trust, brand interdependence, and brand loyalty. From a sustainable relationship
perspective, if customers are happy, it leads to an increase in the potential of the brand in
particular as well as the company in general [
68
,
69
]. Previous models of this relationship
provide hierarchical aspects of the cognitive, affective and conative elements. This means
that connections between customers and brands are formed and maintained over a period
of time. The main factors influencing the quality of brand relations between customers
include acquisition experience, emotional experience, experience in action, cognitive con-
victions, and brand commitment [
70
]. Prior research suggests that in order to enhance the
consumer-brand relationship and strengthen the moral aspect and ethical relationships of a
business with its consumers, factors specific to the quality of a consumer-brand connection
need to be considered [
71
–
74
]. Consumer brand partnership sustainability is an alliance
created through a mechanism in which customers and brands play their part and engage on
a marketplace, as two equal parties. Relationship marketing theory further propounds that
a product can longer win a customer’s favor through just quality, rather customers often
look for brands that focus on building an engaging and sustainable relationship with them.
2.3. Brand Loyalty
Scholars have investigated the concept of brand loyalty across contexts extensively
over the past few decades [
75
,
76
]. The concept of loyalty is used in different situations
and, therefore, varies across contextual dimensions. Different conceptualizations of brand
loyalty have been offered by scholars over time. For instance, brand loyalty is “the proba-
bility that a consumer will purchase or recommend a particular product or service” [
77
,
78
].
Similarly, the 1999 Oliver in defined loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or
repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future, despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” [
79
].
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 4 of 17
Furthermore, some scientists consider brand loyalty to be a strong commitment to dispos-
ing, contributing to customers avoiding situational pressures and marketing strategies that
may help to brand change. The commitment to action is demonstrated by the customer ’s
true buying conduct towards a certain brand. Products may have the potential to engage
customers and to make them feel emotionally attached [
80
,
81
]. Customer beliefs and
perceptions build brand images, and this has an effect on the way they view brands they
come in contact with. Therefore, companies cannot just rely on informing customers about
their products/services, rather they also have to provide exceptional customer experiences
to make them sustainably loyal over a period of time [
2
]. This loyal base of customers will
serve as a sustainable competitive advantage for companies across industries.
2.4. Contribution of the Present Study
The literature has signified the role of ethics in basic marketing principles [
33
–
36
].
Hence, marketing ethics should satisfy all business stakeholders [
39
]. Therefore, a majority
of the literature has investigated the role of ethical marketing in satisfying the business
stakeholders [
46
–
51
]. The literature has also integrated ethical marketing with overall
corporate ethics [
53
–
56
]. Ethical marketing may win the customer’s confidence, which
would help develop a sustainable relationship between brand and customer [
68
–
74
]. A
vast literature has investigated the role of ethical standards in extended marketing mix
elements on brand loyalty [
22
–
29
], on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes [
30
,
31
], and
on the customer-brand relationship sustainability in B2C transactions [
32
,
33
]. However,
the literature has investigated the ethical marketing in limited marketing mix elements.
This present study extended the scope of empirical literature, focusing on the 7 Ps, i.e.,
product, price, place, promotion, person, physical evidence, and packaging, in the extended
marketing mix to improve consumer brand relationship sustainability. The literature
has floated the ethical marketing implications for a limited extended marketing mix.
However, the present study provided more holistic view of the extended marketing mix
in the theoretical debate of ethical marketing. Moreover, it also opens the doors for
practitioners to adopt the greater dimensions of managerial and marketing tools to win
the customer loyalty in the campaigns of their brands to accelerate the consumer brand
relationships sustainability.
3. Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development
Marketing mix strategy explains how a company offers services and products to
satisfy the requirements of divisions of the target market [
82
]. Marketing strategy with
ethical perspectives concern with the righteous behavior and high minded beliefs that
enlighten the venture which is marketable so that marketing strategies are applicable
for ethical deliberations. Problems in ethical marketing take place further continually in
such zones where legitimate acts can be sometimes immoral or in which the lawfulness or
morality of actions is undetermined [
1
]. In order to create positive effects on consumers and
brands relationship sustainability, the role of marketing ethics has become progressively
important because of this uncertainty in those regions [
82
,
83
]. For increasing the trust
between multiple stakeholders of the company (including customers), the superior level of
ethical authority leads [80,81].
Consumers and brands interact with each other continually [
84
]. The relational value
that a company offers through ethical marketing practices determinses the intellectual and
psychological procedure that enhances the interaction between customers and the brand on
a sustainable basis. Correspondingly, in this study we deal with a proximity point between
the ethical marketing practice and customer value-brand relationship sustainability because
consumers estimate the brand and builds the relationship sustainability through some
processes in which experience and interaction with the brands occur. Extended marketing
mix often serves as the first contact impression through which customers know a brand and
come in terms with it [11,16]. Consumers observe the ethical marketing practices because
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 5 of 17
it is the most visible in a brand’s manifold schemes and play important role in shaping
consumer perceptions towards a brand [85–88].
Prior studies reveal that ethical problems in marketing have involved issues pertaining
to product safety and quality, price fixing, deceptive promotions, illegal product placement,
child labor and unfair person treatment, misleading information provided through fake
physical evidence and packaging [
7
,
11
,
12
,
63
]. Such ethical issues revolving around fairness
and human resource management affect subjective evaluations of product, and relationship
value of customers [
11
]. Fraudulent prices are main cause of misleading the consumer’s
basic features to purchase, so that is why to improve the relationship between brands
and consumers, right prices are needed to be set in the marketplace. Information about
product should be truthful to maintain the relationship with customer because negative
effects of displays could lead to unreasonable decisions by consumers [
11
,
37
,
40
]. It is
suggested that ethical marketing practices related to the marketing mix elements could
lead to favorable decisions by consumers which may further derive positive outcomes for
the company/brand. Ethical marketing practices results in a more socially responsible
and sensitive business community which eventually has the potential (in both the short
and long run) to benefit the society as a whole [
55
,
71
]. Building upon these arguments,
it is suggested that positive relationship occurs through a company’s/brand’s ethical
marketing practice and their customer value-brand relationship sustainability. Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
Product-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-brand
relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
Price-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-brand
relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c).
Place-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-brand
relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1d (H1d).
Promotion-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-
brand relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1e (H1e).
Person-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-brand
relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1f (H1f).
Physical evidence-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer
value-brand relationship sustainability.
Hypothesis 1g (H1g).
Packaging-associated ethics shows a positive effect on customer value-brand
relationship sustainability.
Value-adding product sustainability should persuade customer’s wishes and demands
in which safety of the product, well-being levels and habitats take place. The brands that
convey ethical values with responsible behavior are the brands which are surrounded
by high quality products and are chosen by the customer. Regarding the idea of product
sustainability, this is referred to as the personalized sustainability that customers expect
in the product. The brand that organizes the responsible actions for marketing in their
products and services, receive warm respect and trust from their customers as well as
from their shareholders [
89
–
91
]. Companies can achieve sustained benefits and trust from
their customers only when their deals and agreements are based on the ethical marketing
practices with their interested parties. As an outcome, customers prefer brands that are
perceived to deliver ethical values and behave responsibly [
89
]. Based on these arguments,
we suggest a positive association between a brand’s ethical marketing practices with their
value adding product sustainability. So, we propose the following hypotheses:
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 6 of 17
Hypothesis 2a (H2a).
Product-associated ethics shows a apositive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b).
Price-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c).
Place-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2d (H2d).
Promotion-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2e (H2e).
Person-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2f (H2f).
Physical-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Hypothesis 2g (H2g).
Packaging-associated ethics shows a positive effect on value adding product
sustainability.
Customers always observe the brand’s marketing strategies because it is one of the
most perceptible fields [
92
–
94
]. Moreover, customers nudge the brand by applying mutual
and emotional standards to activities, companies and stories when they chose a brand.
Later on, a customer value-brand relationship builds up. Customers mostly evaluate the
brand and prefers based on their experiences rather than the particular characteristics
of the product. Brand loyalty also has a major role in the establishment of the brand’s
asset. Previous studies show that the brand loyalty and sustainability improve focusing
with the B2C connection perfectly [
67
,
79
]. Maintaining the high quality of customer-brand
relationship is a major aim of branding because relationship between customer and brand
provides a sustainable competitive advantage to the companies.
Previous studies reveal that customers are always satisfied with the positive effects
of product quality [
11
,
38
]. Also, the value of the product is intimately significant to the
customer’s contentment and trust because product’s value can be seen as the dissimilarity
between general and unexplored standards. When customers build a relationship with
the brand due to its favorable brand experience and the sustained product value, it drives
customers to develop loyalty intentions and stay with the brand for a longer period
of time [
2
,
54
,
60
]. Therefore, value-brand relationship sustainability and value adding
product sustainability play a dominant role on brand loyalty [
89
]. Hence, we propose the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Customer value-brand relationship sustainability have a positive effect on
brand loyalty.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Value adding product sustainability has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
Based on the above hypotheses, we developed our research model as shown in
Figure 1below.
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 7 of 17
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17
more than once. After researchers and professors checked whether there is any conceptual
errors or limitations in our questionnaire, we distributed our survey. The questionnaire
consisted of two parts; the first part comprised the demographic questions and the second
part was about the ethical marketing practices and other constructs under consideration.
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.
The demographic profile of the participants in which their gender, age, education
and household income is shown is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The demographic profile.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Gender
Valid
Male 762 50.8 50.8 50.8
Female 738 49.2 49.2 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Age
Valid
20–29 years 332 22.1 22.1 22.1
30–39 years 461 30.7 30.7 52.9
40–49 years 442 29.5 29.5 82.3
50 or above 265 17.7 17.7 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Education
Valid
school 418 27.9 27.9 27.9
college 673 44.9 44.9 72.7
university 409 27.3 27.3 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.
4. Methodology
4.1. Questionnaire Development and Data Collection
The questionnaire in this study was based on independent and dependent variables.
We use a non-probability snowball sampling technique. We use this technique for two
reasons. First, we did not know the exact size of the population at the start of sampling.
Secondly, we expected to have more respondents once we contacted any respondent. We
collected 1500 participants from Islamabad—the capital city of Pakistan—who answered
the questions. These participants were contacted and asked to participate in the survey by
telephone calls. The participants in this survey were any brand’s customers who have an
understanding of the brand’s ethical practices and had involvement with their outcomes
more than once. After researchers and professors checked whether there is any conceptual
errors or limitations in our questionnaire, we distributed our survey. The questionnaire
consisted of two parts; the first part comprised the demographic questions and the second
part was about the ethical marketing practices and other constructs under consideration.
The demographic profile of the participants in which their gender, age, education and
household income is shown is presented in Table 1.
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 8 of 17
Table 1. The demographic profile.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Gender
Valid
Male 762 50.8 50.8 50.8
Female 738 49.2 49.2 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Age
Valid
20–29 years 332 22.1 22.1 22.1
30–39 years 461 30.7 30.7 52.9
40–49 years 442 29.5 29.5 82.3
50 or above 265 17.7 17.7 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Education
Valid
school 418 27.9 27.9 27.9
college 673 44.9 44.9 72.7
university 409 27.3 27.3 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
Household income
Valid
up to 30,000 273 18.2 18.2 18.2
30,000–39,000 444 29.6 29.6 47.8
40,000–49,000 485 32.3 32.3 80.1
above 50,000 298 19.9 19.9 100.0
Total 1500 100.0 100.0
4.2. Research Instrument
This study borrowed items from previously developed scales (for example, [
11
,
31
])
and made minor modifications to fit to the context. Ethical marketing practices are a
base in this study which is set up on the righteous and behavioral standards in expressed
marketing practices in the marketplaces [
94
,
95
]. In this study, the marketing mix strat-
egy from ethical perspectives, is categorized as product-ethics, price-ethics, place-ethics,
promotion-ethics, person-ethics, physical-ethics, and packaging-ethics. Questions pertain-
ing to marketing mix elements were based around product-related ethics such as product’s
package, branding, and warranty of the product (e.g., the sample item is whether the
company/brand offers a warranty to cover any faults). Price-related ethics comprises
the pricing policy which shows if illegal prices or false prices are being used (the sample
item includes if the company/brand refrains from using predatory pricing). Place-related
ethics comprises the sales strategy, extent of collaboration and the transactions degree with
sample item reading as “the company/brand refrains from controlling transactions by
abusing its status”. Promotion-related ethics based on the advertising companies with legal
notices or with the leading and non-deceptive aspects (e.g., the company/brand refrains
from providing false and exaggerated advertisements). Person-related ethics promotes
the righteous principles that control the person’s behavior and their activities (e.g., the
employees of the company/brand treat its customers well). Physical-related ethics refers to
the physical ambiance and workplace-related decor that promotes the service experience
as well as human rights (e.g., the company/brand offers a great physical presence and
environment). Packaging-related ethics is a role of company’s branding and marketing
policies in the message sent by company through packaging (e.g., the company/brand uses
environmentally friendly materials for packaging its products and refrains from making
fake promises through its packaging). There were a total of 25 items related to ethical
marketing mix elements with five questions on product ethics, four questions on price
ethics, four questions on place ethics, three questions on promotion ethics, three questions
on person ethics, three questions on physics ethics, and three questions on packaging
ethics [92,93,96,97].
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 9 of 17
We measured customer value-brand relationship sustainability with 12 questions with
sample items like: “I really like to talk about the company/brand with others” [
58
,
63
,
64
].
Value-adding product sustainability defines the perception of the customer regarding
products and its overall supremacy and leadership, which was measured using four
questions, with a sample item reading as “this company’s/brand’s product has a unique
design” [
93
]. Brand loyalty was measured with five questions (e.g., I am loyal to this
company/brand). We used 5-point Likert-scales range from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree to measure the various constructs of this study.
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Measurement Model
In our study we used the SPSS software version 22nd IBM for all the analysis. We
tested the hypotheses, the goodness of fit test and also verified the exploratory factor
analysis of the proposed measurement model. We also examined the relationship between
each construct employing structure equation modeling. First, we performed an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) which showed the validity and reliability of the ethical marketing
constructs. Cronbach’s alpha was used for this purpose because it is the most commonly
used method when researchers have multiple Likert questions in a questionnaire. Cron-
bach’s alpha determines the covariance between constructs [
98
], the relationship should be
greater the 0.7 because it shows that the relationship is sufficiently reliable. Tables 2and 3
below show the results.
Table 2. Results of consistency on the construct.
Constructs Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Product ethics 5 0.751
Price ethics 4 0.769
Place ethics 4 0.810
Promotion ethics 3 0.799
Person ethics 3 0.902
Physical ethics 3 0.658
Packaging ethics 3 0.973
CVBRS 12 0.836
VAPS 4 0.817
BL 5 0.796
Note: CVBRS = Customer value brand relationship sustainability, VAPS = Value adding product sustainability,
BL = Brand loyalty and sustainability.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity.
PRODUCT PLACE PROMOTION PERSON PRICE PHYSICAL PACKAGING CVBRS VAPS BL
PRODUCT 1.000 0.026 −0.027 0.018 0.001 −0.013 −0.071 0.051 −0.018 −0.016
PLACE 0.026 1.000 0.010 0.018 0.003 −0.033 −0.027 −0.003 −0.040 0.004
PROMOTION −0.027 0.010 1.000 0.024 −0.038 −0.025 −0.018 0.030 0.019 −0.018
PERSON 0.018 0.018 0.024 1.000 0.012 −0.049 0.013 −0.003 −0.024 −0.041
PRICE 0.001 0.003 −0.038 0.012 1.000 0.024 −0.056 −0.015 0.048 0.010
PHYSICAL −0.013 −0.033 −0.025 −0.049 0.024 1.000 −0.014 0.011 0.045 0.567
PACKAGING −0.071 −0.027 −0.018 0.013 −0.056 −0.014 1.000 −0.017 −0.005 0.019
CVBRS 0.051 −0.003 0.030 −0.003 −0.015 0.011 −0.017 1.000 0.031 0.017
VAPS −0.018 −0.040 0.019 −0.024 0.048 0.045 −0.005 0.031 1.000 0.069
BL −0.016 0.004 −0.018 −0.041 0.010 0.567 0.019 0.017 0.069 1.000
The Cronbach’s alpha results show that all the constructs are reliable, which means
there is a good probability that the constructs will perform in a defined environment
without failure. The correlation coefficients are between 0.567 and
−
0.071 in the table
of discriminant validity. The systematic assessment of discriminant validity shows that
these constructs are not highly correlated to each other. As the correlation of constructs are
between
−
0.071 and 0.567 it means there is a negative relationship between each construct
with other construct, although the correlation of any construct with itself is 1.000, which
shows that the data used in this study is valid and can be used for further analysis.
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 10 of 17
In Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha values of all constructs are greater than 0.7 which
clearly shows that the reliability is sufficient. We also performed principal component
factor analysis which is used to diminish the dimensionality of the constructs, it is used
to simplify the data like reducing the number of variables. We performed principal factor
analysis with varimax rotation on the constructs, where 0.50 was taken as the minimal
cutoff value. The items could be deleted from the further analysis because of the cross
loading. Results of factor loadings of dependent and independent constructs are shown in
the Tables 4–7.
Table 4. Independent variables factor analysis.
Constructs Items Factor Loadings
PROD1 0.695
PROD2 0.701
Product ethics PROD3 0.683
PROD4 0.662
PROD5 0.709
PRICE1 0.882
Price ethics PRICE2 0.796
PRICE3 0.763
PRICE4 0.851
PLACE1 0.765
Place ethics PLACE2 0.721
PLACE3 0.893
PLACE4 0.812
PROM1 0.699
Promotion ethics PROM2 0.701
PROM3 0.687
PER1 0.851
Person ethics PER2 0.799
PER3 0.837
PHYS1 0.712
Physical ethics PHYS2 0.735
PHYS3 0.802
PCKG1 0.871
Packaging ethics PCKG2 0.865
PCKG3 0.797
Tables 6and 7show that the eigenvalues of each construct are higher than 1.00, which
shows that the data which is selected in this study has no common method bias.
5.2. Structural Model
We test the hypotheses between constructs by using SEM [
99
], to test the casual
relationship between each construct we made the hypothesis path casually to estimate what
kind of relationship is present in these constructs, the results are presented in
Table 8
below:
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 11 of 17
Table 5. Dependent variables factor analysis.
Constructs Items Factor Loadings
CVBRS
CVBRS1 0.758
CVBRS2 0.893
CVBRS3 0.776
CVBRS4 0.852
CVBRS5 0.763
CVBRS6 0.892
CVBRS7 0.781
CVBRS8 0.741
CVBRS9 0.861
CVBRS10 0.771
CVBRS11 0.773
CVBRS12 0.796
VAPS
VAPS1 0.821
VAPS2 0.854
VAPS3 0.743
VAPS4 0.861
BL
BL1 0.736
BL2 0.751
BL3 0.763
BL4 0.811
BL5 0.835
Table 6. Eigenvalues in factor loadings (independent variables): total variance explained.
Component Initial Eigenvalues
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Product 7.105 15.785 15.785
Price 6.092 15.597 31.382
Place 6.007 14.384 45.765
Promotion 4.997 14.246 60.011
Person 4.975 13.930 73.941
Physical 3.942 13.451 87.391
Packaging 2.883 12.609 100.000
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 7. Eigenvalues in factor loadings (dependent variables): total variance explained.
Component Initial Eigenvalues
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
CVBRS 6.084 36.126 36.126
VAPS 2.987 32.908 69.034
BL 2.929 30.966 100.000
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 12 of 17
Table 8. Hypothesis test results.
Hypothesis Sig. Values Results
H1a (PROD-CVBRS) 0.251 Significant
H1b (PRICE-CVBRS) 0.135 Significant
H1c (PLACE-CVBRS) 0.119 Significant
H1d (PROM-CVBRS) 0.047 Not significant
H1e (PER-CVBRS) 0.310 Significant
H1f (PHYS-CVBRS) 0.227 Significant
H1g (PCKG-CVBRS) 0.094 Not significant
H2a (PROD-VAPS) 0.310 Significant
H2b (PRICE-VAPS) 0.026 Not significant
H2c (PLACE-VAPS) 0.222 Significant
H2d (PROM-VAPS) 0.300 Significant
H2e (PER-VAPS) 0.119 Significant
H2f (PHYS-VAPS) 0.273 Significant
H2g (PCKG-VAPS) 0.303 Significant
H3 (CVBRS-BL) 0.481 Significant
H4 (VAPS-BL) 0.396 Significant
6. Discussion
This study aimed at investigating the elements of marketing mix and brand rela-
tionship from an ethical marketing perspective. To empirically validate our proposed
conceptual model, sixteen hypotheses were tested in the current study, of which thirteen
revealed a positively significant relationship and were supported. The remaining three
hypotheses were not supported by our results. Hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1e, and H1f
specifying the areas of ethical marketing practices i.e., product, price, place, person and
physical ethics have a positively significant effect on the customer value-brand relationship
sustainability. However, H1d was not supported, revealing that promotion ethics has no
significant effect on customer value-brand relationship sustainability. (
γ
= 0.047 < p= 0.05).
Similarly, H1g also revealed a non-significant effect of packaging ethics on customer value-
brand relationship sustainability (
γ
= 0.094 > p= 0.05). In a similar vein, H2a, H2c, H2d,
H2e, H2f and H2g identify that the ethical marketing practices in terms of product, place,
promotion, person, physical evidence, and packaging are significantly affecting the value
adding product sustainability, whereas H2b shows that price ethics has no significant effect
on value adding product sustainability (
γ
= 0.026 < p= 0.05). Lastly, both H3 identifying
the positive relationship between customer value-brand relationship sustainability and
brand loyalty and H4 examining the effect of value adding product sustainability on brand
loyalty were supported by the results.
The current study studies the role of ethical marketing practices to build positive
relationships between customers and brands. Hypotheses testing shows the relationship
between these variables and the findings show that, except for promotion ethics and
packaging ethics, all other ethical marketing practices have a positive effect on customer
value-brand relationship sustainability. Similarly, except for price ethics, all other ethi-
cal practices have a significantly positive effect on value-adding product sustainability,
which is in sync with some prior studies in different geographic and industrial contexts
(
e.g., [11,100–102]
). Our results suggested that product, price, place, person, and physical
ethics are very important for customer value-brand relationship sustainability. This shows
that products should be free of harm for users and environment. This concept would
increase the value to the customer. In the same manner, the ethical place is also equally cru-
cial as a place should not harm any inhabitant in the environment. Moreover, physical and
person ethics are essential to customer value-brand relationship sustainability. Neverthe-
less, ethical price is also essential for the customer, which can be achieved by avoiding any
fraudulent or illegal practices in pricing. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the ethical
marketing practices regarding product, place, promotion, person, physical evidence, and
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 13 of 17
packaging significantly affect the value-adding product sustainability. Our results reveal
that product ethics significantly affect customer value-brand relationship sustainability and
value adding product sustainability, suggesting that customers are inclined to purchase the
product with the highest level of product safety and quality. Also, the product’s packaging
and branding affect customer’s trust and satisfaction, which is why it is important to evalu-
ate the product ethics regarding customer value-brand relationship and sustainability and
value-adding product sustainability. Besides, value-adding sustainability is established
when the company hones authentic communication under legal legislation and leading
abilities, i.e., truthfulness and accurate information about the product, which exhibits
trustworthiness in the brand. Packaging ethics has an insignificant effect on customer
value-brand relationship sustainability as customers want to see beyond the message the
company is sending through their packages. However, packaging ethics have a positive
effect on value-adding product sustainability, so it is worthwhile for companies to build
up a strong relationship with customers. If a company enhances its relationship quality
through product, price, place, promotion, person, physical and packaging ethics, we expect
more effectiveness on brand loyalty through exciting relationships with customers.
6.1. Implications
The academic literature on B2C transactions concludes that there is some evidence
of positive effects of traditional marketing practices (in the form of product, price, place
and promotion) on brand loyalty. However, our contribution to the literature is first
of its kind because an improved model for analysis has been used. The focus is on
studying the relationship between ethical marketing practices of an extended marketing
mix elements and consumer-brand relationship and brand loyalty, which is common in
B2C transactions. Our additional theoretical contribution lies in the fact that most of the
studies about ethical marketing practices have been conducted in the Western countries,
leaving a huge gap in the literature, which this study fills by conducting in a developing
economy context of Pakistan. Besides, this study proposes and empirically validates a
novel model from a sustainable marketing approach incorporating the role of relationship
marketing, which further reflects its theoretical contributions. Lastly, this study further
contributes by employing different theories (e.g., ethical marketing theory, relationship
marketing theory) to the context of marketing mix elements and brand loyalty, thereby
further generalizing the use of these theories.
As for the practical implications are concerned, managers should consider the ethical
marketing practices to ensure sustainable success through relationship building and by
facilitating long-term brand loyalty. Companies need to focus on improving product pa-
rameters like quality, safety, warranties, and eco-friendliness. Companies also need to take
price regulations seriously in building sustained loyalty towards the brand. If companies
offer a suitable price, they can attract more customers to tighten the relation between them.
Customers most probably need the products with more viable prices. If a supplier does
not pay heed to the customers with feasible price-concerned morals, the cons of brand
truthfulness can be seen at the end. Furthermore, given that promotion-related ethics signi-
fies the vital role in bringing value adding product sustainability. Therefore, firms need to
evaluate the promotion related ethics to maximize the trust-based activities to cement the
associations with firms. The summarized implication here is that companies/brands can
sustain even during the fierce market competition if they establish an ethical culture which
gives due preference to trust-based transactions, thereby strengthening customer-firm
relationships. Our findings are expected to provide valuable implications to companies so
that they support an effective marketing strategy from an ethical perspective.
6.2. Limitations and Suggestions
Regardless of its contribution and implications, this study has several limitations,
Firstly, while examining the interplay of marketing ethics and brand loyalty, we didn’t
consider B2B transactions. Moreover, our proposed relationships may vary across industrial
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 14 of 17
contexts types, therefore, future studies may further validate our model across study
settings. Moreover, future analysis should consider the more ethical practices from the point
of government ethics, culture ethics, individual ethics, and religiosity to present further
insights of the domain. Some circumstantial and individual factors (e.g., personality type)
may act as potential moderators, which future studies can also consider. A longitudinal
study may also be conducted to gauge loyalty formation over a period of time.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.T. and A.-R.A.; methodology, M.T.; software, A.-R.A.;
validation, M.T., A.-R.A. and H.M.; formal analysis, A.-R.A.; investigation, M.T.; resources, M.T.; data
curation, M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T. and A.-R.A.; writing—review and editing,
H.M. and I.U.H.; visualization, M.T. and I.U.H.; supervision, M.T. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
All authors of this article would like to thank the Prince Sultan University for
their financial and academic support and publish in “Sustainability”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z. The impact of online brand community characteristics on customer engagement: An application of
Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm. Telemat. Inform. 2017,34, 96–109. [CrossRef]
2.
Islam, J.U.; Shahid, S.; Rasool, A.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, I.; Rather, R.A. Impact of website attributes on customer engagement in
banking: A solicitation of stimulus-organism-response theory. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020,38, 1279–1303. [CrossRef]
3.
Kaur, H.; Paruthi, M.; Islam, J.; Hollebeek, L.D. The role of brand community identification and reward on consumer brand
engagement and brand loyalty in virtual brand communities. Telemat. Inform. 2020,46, 101321. [CrossRef]
4.
Andreassen, T.W.; Lindestad, B. Customer loyalty and complex services: The impact of corporate image on quality, customer
satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag.
1998
,9, 7–23. [CrossRef]
5. Dowling, G.R.; Uncles, M. Do customer loyalty programs really work? Sloan Manag. Rev. 1997,38, 71–82.
6. Utami, S. The Influence of Customers’ Trust on Customer Loyalty. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2015,3, 638–653.
7.
Alrubaiee, L.; Al-Nazer, N. Investigate the impact of relationship marketing orientation on customer loyalty: The customer’s
perspective. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2010,2, 155. [CrossRef]
8.
Kumar, V.; Sharma, A.; Shah, R.; Rajan, B. Establishing profitable customer loyalty for multinational companies in the emerging
economies: A conceptual framework. J. Int. Mark. 2013,21, 57–80. [CrossRef]
9.
Jiménez-Zarco, A.I.; Rospigliosi, A.; Martínez-Ruiz, M.P.; Izquierdo-Yusta, A. Marketing 4.0: Enhancing consumer-brand
engagement through big data analysis. In Web Services: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA,
USA, 2019; pp. 2172–2195.
10.
Tanveer, M. Analytical approach on small and medium Pakistani Business based on E-Commerce Ethics with effect on customer
repurchase objectives and loyalty. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Issues 2021,24, 1–10.
11.
Kotler, P.; Lee, N. Best of breed: When it comes to gaining a market edge while supporting a social cause, “corporate social
marketing” leads the pack. Soc. Mark. Q. 2005,11, 91–103. [CrossRef]
12.
Brunk, K.H. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. J. Bus. Res.
2010,63, 255–262. [CrossRef]
13.
David, F.R.; David, F.R.; David, M.E. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: A Competitive Advantage Approach; Pearson: Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013.
14.
Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage; Harvard Business Press:
Boston, MA, USA, 2008.
15. Weeden, C. Ethical tourism: An opportunity for competitive advantage? J. Vacat. Mark. 2002,8, 141–153. [CrossRef]
16.
Berger, L.A.; Berger, D.R. The Talent Management Handbook: Creating a Sustainable Competitive Advantage by Selecting, Developing, and
Promoting the Best People; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
17.
Papadimitri, P.; Pasiouras, F.; Tasiou, M. Do national differences in social capital and corporate ethical behaviour perceptions
influence the use of collateral? Cross-country evidence. J. Bus. Ethics 2020. [CrossRef]
18. Lee, J.Y.; Jin, C.H. The role of ethical marketing issues in consumer-brand relationship. Sustainability 2019,11, 6536. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 15 of 17
19.
Vallaster, C.; Kraus, S.; Lindahl, J.M.M.; Nielsen, A. Ethics and entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review. J.
Bus. Res. 2019,99, 226–237. [CrossRef]
20.
Rekker, S.A.; Benson, K.L.; Faff, R.W. Corporate social responsibility and CEO compensation revisited: Do disaggregation, market
stress, gender matter? J. Econ. Bus. 2014,72, 84–103. [CrossRef]
21.
Sahin, A.; Zehir, C.; Kitapçı, H. The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building brand loyalty; an empirical
research on global brands. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011,24, 1288–1301. [CrossRef]
22.
Tanveer, M.; Hassan, S.; Bhaumik, A. Academic Policy Regarding Sustainability and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Sustainability
2020,12, 9435. [CrossRef]
23.
Kuo, Y.F.; Feng, L.H. Relationships among community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits, community commitment,
and oppositional brand loyalty in online brand communities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013,33, 948–962. [CrossRef]
24.
Nandan, S. An exploration of the brand identity–brand image linkage: A communications perspective. J. Brand Manag.
2005
,12,
264–278. [CrossRef]
25.
Cuomo, M.T.; Foroudi, P.; Tortora, D.; Hussain, S.; Melewar, T.C. Celebrity Endorsement and the Attitude Towards Luxury
Brands for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2019,11, 6791. [CrossRef]
26.
Alwi, S.F.; Ali, S.M.; Nguyen, B. The importance of ethics in branding: Mediating effects of ethical branding on company
reputation and brand loyalty. Bus. Ethics Q. 2017,27, 393–422. [CrossRef]
27.
Hur, W.M.; Ahn, K.H.; Kim, M. Building brand loyalty through managing brand community commitment. Manag. Decis.
2011
,49,
1194–1213. [CrossRef]
28.
So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.A.; Wang, Y. The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty
development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013,34, 31–41. [CrossRef]
29.
Haryanto, J.O.; Moutinho, L.; Coelho, A. Is brand loyalty really present in the children’s market? A comparative study from
Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil. J. Bus. Res. 2016,69, 4020–4032. [CrossRef]
30.
Hem, L.E.; Iversen, N.M. Transfer of brand equity in brand extensions: The importance of brand loyalty. ACR North American
Advances. In NA—Advances in Consumer Research; Keller, P.A., Rook, D.W., Valdosta, G.A., Eds.; Association for Consumer
Research: Columbus, OH, USA, 2003; Volume 30, pp. 72–79.
31.
Sebastianelli, R.; Tamimi, N.; Rajan, M. Perceived quality of online shopping: Does gender make a difference? J. Int. Commer.
2008,7, 445–469. [CrossRef]
32.
Thirumalai, S.; Sinha, K.K. Customer satisfaction with order fulfillment in retail supply chains: Implications of product type in
electronic B2C transactions. J. Oper. Manag. 2005,23, 291–303. [CrossRef]
33.
Bostrom, N.; Roache, R. Ethical issues in human enhancement. In New Waves in Applied Ethics; Ryberg, J., Petersen, T., Wolf, C.,
Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2008; pp. 120–152.
34.
Tanveer, M.; Hassan, S. The role of new and creative ideas in developing industries of education, software and manufacturing in
Pakistan. J. Entrep. Educ. 2020,23, 1–10.
35. Floridi, L.; Sanders, J.W. Artificial evil and the foundation of computer ethics. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2001,3, 55–66. [CrossRef]
36. Connolly, W.E. Beyond good and evil: The ethical sensibility of Michel Foucault. Polit. Theory 1993,21, 365–389. [CrossRef]
37.
Cooper, J.M. Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ,
USA, 1999.
38.
Resnik, D.B. What Is Ethics in Research and Why Is It Important; National Institute of Health: Stapleon, NY, USA, 2011. Available
online: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm#:~{}:text=There%20are%20several%20
reasons%20why,the%20truth%20and%20minimize%20error (accessed on 12 February 2021).
39. Goulet, D. Development ethics: A new discipline. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1997,24, 1160–1171. [CrossRef]
40.
Lund, D.B. An empirical examination of marketing professional’s ethical behavior in differing situations. J. Bus. Ethics
2000
,24,
331–342. [CrossRef]
41. Kock, C. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 2009,23, 61–80. [CrossRef]
42.
Bowie, N.E. Business ethics as a discipline: The search for legitimacy. In The Ruffin Series in Business Ethics; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 1991.
43. Wright, C. Truth in Ethics. Ratio 1995,8, 209–226. [CrossRef]
44. Zwingli, U. Commentary on True and False Religion; Wipf and Stock Publishers: Eugene, OR, USA, 2015.
45.
Gaski, J.F. Does marketing ethics really have anything to say? A critical inventory of the literature. J. Bus. Ethics
1999
,18, 315–334.
46.
Tanveer, M.; Khan, N.; Ahmad, A.R. AI Support Marketing: Understanding the Customer Journey towards the Business
Development. In Proceedings of the 2021 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics (CAIDA),
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 6–7 April 2021; pp. 144–150. [CrossRef]
47.
Pearson, R. Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. Public Relat. Theory
1989
,
27, 111–131.
48.
Ferrell, O.C.; Harrison, D.E.; Ferrell, L.; Hair, J.F. Business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An
exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 2019,95, 491–501. [CrossRef]
49.
Aaleya, R.; Farooq, A.S.; Muhammad, T. Relational Dynamics between Customer Engagement, Brand Experience, and Customer
Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation. J. Internet Commer. 2021. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 16 of 17
50.
Domino, M.A.; Wingreen, S.C.; Blanton, J.E. Social cognitive theory: The antecedents and effects of ethical climate fit on
organizational attitudes of corporate accounting professionals—A reflection of client narcissism and fraud attitude risk. J. Bus.
Ethics 2015,131, 453–467. [CrossRef]
51.
Ferrero, I.; Sison, A.J.G. A quantitative analysis of authors, schools and themes in virtue ethics articles in business ethics and
management journals (1980–2011). Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2014,23, 375–400. [CrossRef]
52.
McGuire, J.B.; Sundgren, A.; Schneeweis, T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J.
1988
,
31, 854–872.
53. Dunfee, T.W.; Smith, N.C.; Ross, W.T., Jr. Social contracts and marketing ethics. J. Mark. 1999,63, 14–32. [CrossRef]
54.
Singhapakdi, A.; Vitell, S.J. Marketing ethics: Factors influencing perceptions of ethical problems and alternatives. J. Macromark.
1990,10, 4–18. [CrossRef]
55.
Saeed, M.; Ahmed, Z.U.; Mukhtar, S.M. International marketing ethics from an Islamic perspective: A value-maximization
approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2001,32, 127–142. [CrossRef]
56.
Nantel, J.; Weeks, W.A. Marketing ethics: Is there more to it than the utilitarian approach? Eur. J. Mark.
1996
,30, 9–19. [CrossRef]
57.
Reidenbach, R.E.; Robin, D.P.; Dawson, L. An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing
practices and marketing groups. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1991,19, 83–92. [CrossRef]
58.
Perrea, T.; Grunert, K.G.; Krystallis, A. Consumer value perceptions of food products from emerging processing technologies: A
cross-cultural exploration. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,39, 95–108. [CrossRef]
59.
Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res.
1998
,24, 343–373.
[CrossRef]
60.
Tanveer, M.; Karim, M.A. Higher Education Institutions and the Performance Management. Library Philosophy and Practice.
2018, p. 2183. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3010/ (accessed on 20 March 2021).
61.
Dudiak, J. The Intrigue of Ethics: A Reading of the Idea of Discourse in the Thought of Emmanuel Levinas; Fordham University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2001.
62. Slade, S.; Prinsloo, P. Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. Am. Behav. Sci. 2013,57, 1510–1529. [CrossRef]
63.
Steinbock, B.; London, A.J.; Arras, J. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine: Contemporary Readings in Bioethics; McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY, USA, 2013.
64.
Zimmermann, M. Ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals. Pain
1983
,16, 109–110.
[CrossRef]
65.
Roberts, K.; Varki, S.; Brodie, R. Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer services: An empirical study. Eur. J. Mark.
2003,37, 169–196. [CrossRef]
66.
Rogge, R.D.; Fincham, F.D.; Crasta, D.; Maniaci, M.R. Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and
validation of the Positive–Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychol. Assess. 2017,29, 1028. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Athanasopoulou, P. Relationship quality: A critical literature review and research agenda. Eur. J. Mark.
2009
,43, 583–610.
[CrossRef]
68.
Crosby, L.A.; Evans, K.R.; Cowles, D. Relationship quality in service selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark.
1990,54, 68–81. [CrossRef]
69.
Krishnamurthi, L.; Raj, S.P. An empirical analysis of the relationship between brand loyalty and consumer price elasticity. Mark.
Sci. 1991,10, 172–183. [CrossRef]
70.
Thaichon, P.; Quach, T.N. From marketing communications to brand management: Factors influencing relationship quality and
customer retention. J. Relatsh. Mark. 2015,14, 197–219. [CrossRef]
71.
Hess, J.; Story, J. Trust-based commitment: Multidimensional consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark.
2005
,22, 313–322.
[CrossRef]
72.
Dwivedi, A.; Johnson, L.W.; McDonald, R. Celebrity endorsements, self-brand connection and relationship quality. Int. J. Advert.
2016,35, 486–503. [CrossRef]
73.
Van der Westhuizen, L.M. Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2018
,27,
172–184. [CrossRef]
74.
Thakor, M.V.; Lavack, A.M. Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2003,12, 393–407. [CrossRef]
75.
Khan, I.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Fatma, M.; Islam, J.U.; Riivits-Arkonsuo, I. Customer experience and commitment in retailing: Does
customer age matter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020,57, 102219. [CrossRef]
76.
Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z.; Hollebeek, L.D. The role of consumer engagement in recovering online service failures: An application of
service-dominant logic. In Handbook of Research on Customer Engagement; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019.
77.
Srinivasan, S.S.; Anderson, R.; Ponnavolu, K. Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents and conse-
quences. J. Retail. 2002,78, 41–50. [CrossRef]
78.
Yi, Y.; Jeon, H. Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
2003
,31,
229–240. [CrossRef]
79. Oliver, R.L. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 1999,63, 33–44. [CrossRef]
80.
Islam, J.U.; Zaheer, A. Using Facebook brand communities to engage customers: A new perspective of relationship marketing.
PEOPLE Int. J. Soc. Sci. 2016,2, 1540–1551. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 6839 17 of 17
81.
Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z. Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer engagement: An empirical study of
fashion apparel brands. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016,7, 45–59. [CrossRef]
82.
Nill, A.; Schibrowsky, J.A. Research on marketing ethics: A systematic review of the literature. J. Macromark.
2007
,27, 256–273.
[CrossRef]
83. Laczniak, G.R.; Murphy, P.E. The role of normative marketing ethics. J. Bus. Res. 2019,95, 401–407. [CrossRef]
84.
Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What
motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004,18, 38–52. [CrossRef]
85.
Vitell, S.J.; Lumpkin, J.R.; Rawwas, M.Y. Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly consumers. J. Bus.
Ethics 1991,10, 365–375. [CrossRef]
86. Kumar, P. Ethical marketing practices viewed through consumer spectacles. Mark. Trž. 2016,28, 29–45.
87.
Johnston, J. The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market. Theory Soc.
2008
,37, 229–270.
[CrossRef]
88.
Smith, N.C.; Cooper-Martin, E. Ethics and target marketing: The role of product harm and consumer vulnerability. J. Mark.
1997
,
61, 1–20. [CrossRef]
89. Keller, K.L. Branding and brand equity. In Handbook of Marketing; Sage Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [CrossRef]
90. Colquitt, L.; Wesson, O.B. Improving Performance and Commitment in the Workplace; McGraw-Hill: Irwin, FL, USA, 2009.
91.
Isaksson, L. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Study of Strategic Management and Performance in Swedish Firms. Ph.D. Thesis,
Bond University, Robina, Australia, 2012.
92.
Ching, A.T. Consumer learning and heterogeneity: Dynamics of demand for prescription drugs after patent expiration. Int. J. Ind.
Organ. 2010,28, 619–638. [CrossRef]
93.
Nash, J. Exploring how social media platforms influence fashion consumer decisions in the UK retail sector. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.
2019,23, 82–103. [CrossRef]
94.
Bodet, G.; Geng, H.E.; Chanavat, N.; Wang, C. Sport brands’ attraction factors and international fans. Sport Bus. Manag.
2020
,10,
47–67. [CrossRef]
95.
Cambra-Fierro, J.; Hart, S.; Polo-Redondo, Y. Environmental respect: Ethics or simply business? A study in the small and medium
enterprise (SME) context. J. Bus. Ethics 2008,82, 645–656. [CrossRef]
96.
Ross, W.T.; Robertson, D.C. A typology of situational factors: Impact on salesperson decision-making about ethical issues. J. Bus.
Ethics 2003,46, 213–234. [CrossRef]
97.
Lewenstein, B.V. What counts as a social and ethical issue in nanotechnology? In Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for
Philosophy, Ethics and Society; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2006.
98.
Gliem, J.A.; Gliem, R.R. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In
Proceedings of the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, OH,
USA, 8–10 October 2003. Available online: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344 (accessed on 26 April 2021).
99.
Koufteros, X.A. Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling.
J. Oper. Manag. 1999,17, 467–488. [CrossRef]
100.
Luchs, M.G.; Naylor, R.W.; Irwin, J.R.; Raghunathan, R. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on
product preference. J. Mark. 2010,74, 18–31. [CrossRef]
101.
Yin, J.; Qian, L.; Singhapakdi, A. Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public
bicycle-sharing scheme. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,149, 313–332. [CrossRef]
102.
Carmeli, A.; Brammer, S.; Gomes, E.; Tarba, S.Y. An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related
behaviors: A social identity perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 2017,38, 1380–1395. [CrossRef]
