4.3.1. Two-Way Interaction Effects between CSR Strategy and Transparency Signaling

To test the combined effect of CSR strategy and transparency signals, a two-way MANCOVA was conducted. CSR strategy (proactive/reactive) and transparency signals (high/low) were the independent variables, and perceived integrity, perceived competence, and intention to participate in BER were the dependent variables.

The hypothesis of this study is that there would be different effects on perceived integrity (H2) and perceived competence (H3), CBI (H4), and intention to engage in BER practices (H1) at different levels of transparency signals and with different nature of CSR strategies. The effects of CSR strategy and transparency signal on perceived integrity, perceived competence, CBI, and participation intention toward BER were nonsignificant (p > 0.05). However, the MANCOVA results showed that the combined effect of CSR strategy and transparency signal was significant (Wilks’ lambda = 0.93, F (3, 206) = 5.38, pTable 5 presents the MANCOVA results.The MANCOVA results indicated that the interaction effect of CSR strategy and transparency signal on perceived integrity was significant (F = 0.753, pTable 5). According to the results, when exposed to proactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who read high transparency signal initiatives reported a higher level of perceived integrity (M proactive-high = 5.55, SD = 0.88) than those who read low transparency signal initiatives (M proactive-low = 4.26, SD = 1.32). Conversely, when exposed to reactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who received high transparency signal initiatives reported a higher level of perceived integrity (M reactive-high = 5.63, SD = 1.03) than those who received low transparency signal initiatives (M reactive-low = 4.03, SD = 1.12). Therefore, H2 was supported.

We conducted two-way ANOVAs on perceived competence to test H3. The analyses revealed a significant interaction effect of CSR strategy and transparency signals on perceived competence (F = 0.39, p < 0.05). When exposed to proactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who read high transparency signal initiatives reported higher levels of perceived competence (M proactive-high = 5.48, SD = 1.23) than those who read low transparency signal initiatives (M proactive-low = 4.73, SD = 1.43). However, when exposed to reactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who viewed high transparency information reported higher levels of perceived competence (M reactive-high = 4.95, SD = 1.46) than those who received low transparency information (M reactive-low = 4.49, SD = 1.27). Thus, H3 was supported.

Furthermore, ANOVA results indicated that there was no two-way interaction effect between the nature of CSR strategy and transparency signals on CBI (F = 0.002, p > 0.05). The results of an independent sample t-test demonstrate that consumers reported better CBI toward proactive CSR strategy messages when they received a high transparency signal than a low transparency signal (M proactive-high = 5.23, SD = 0.83 vs. M proactive-low = 4.87). Similarly, when exposed to reactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who received high transparency information reported higher levels of CBI (M reactive-high = 4.85, SD = 1.49) than those who received low transparency signal information (M reactive-low = 4.51, SD = 1.45). These results reject H4.

Finally, we examined the interaction effects between the nature of CSR strategy and the level of transparency signal on customer BER participation intention. The interaction was significant (F = 0.138, p < 0.001). When exposed to proactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who received high transparency signal initiatives reported a higher level of BER participation intentions (M proactive-high = 5.65, SD = 0.73) than those who received low transparency signal initiatives (M proactive-low = 4.64, SD = 1.62). Conversely, when exposed to reactive CSR strategy messages, respondents who received low transparency signal initiatives reported a higher level of BEC participation intentions (M reactive-low = 3.68, SD = 1.5) than those who received high transparency signal initiatives (M reactive- high = 3.53, SD = 1.42). Therefore, H1 was supported.

4.3.2. Serial Mediation AnalysisThis study hypothesized that the interaction effect between CSR strategy and transparency signaling on BER participation intention is continuously mediated by perceived integrity and CBI. We use the bootstrap method by process model 86 for mediation analysis to test this hypothesis [97]. In this study, BER participation intention is used as the dependent variable, CSR strategy as the independent variable, transparency signal as a moderator, and perceived integrity and CBI as mediators (Figure 2).

The bootstrapping results indicated a significant “CSR strategy→perceived integrity→CBI→BER participation intention” serial mediation process in the high transparency signal (indirect effect = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.19) but not in the low transparency signal (indirect effect = −0.02; 95% CI = −0.107 to 0.147, n.s.). The indirect effect of “CSR strategy→perceived integrity→BER participation intention” was not significant in the high transparency signal (indirect effect = −0.09; 95% CI = −0.276 to 0.03, n.s.) or in the low transparency signal (indirect effect = 0.01; 95% CI = −0.07 to 0.09, n.s.). The mediation effect results show that perceived integrity is not significant when it is used as a single mediator, but it is significant through serial mediation of perceived integrity and CBI. In summary, these results support H5.

Similarly, we tested our full conceptual model (CSR strategy×transparency signaling→perceived competence→CBI→BER participation intention), as shown in Figure 3. The analyses showed a significant moderated serial mediation effect on BER participation intention. We further probed the conditional indirect effects and found significant indirect effects serially through perceived competence and CBI only when the transparency signal was high (indirect effect = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.34). Therefore, H6 was supported.