Do CSR initiatives foster sustainable consumption? A cross-cultural meta-analytic structural equation modelling approach

The world is increasingly characterized by environmental crises—climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion—with greater calls for social justice. CSR has therefore emerged as a key framework for reconciling profit interests with global and social welfare in the context of such dynamics (Buendía-Martínez and Carrasco Monteagudo, 2020). This challenge is magnified for multinational corporations, for whom the complexity of managing relationships with ecological stakeholders and other actors increases significantly in cross-border markets (Khojastehpour and Shams, 2019). The ability of CSR to drive sustainable consumption—a paradigm in which the consumer aims to minimize ecological harm while prioritizing virtuous use of resources—is not straightforward. While some scholars hail CSR as a catalyst for ethical consumerism, others deplore its co-optation by marketing strategies that perpetuate overconsumption in the guise of sustainability (Gatti et al., 2019). This debate often overlooks the structural constraints facing consumers in emerging markets, where inadequate public infrastructure may compel ecologically harmful consumption regardless of personal values (Varadarajan, 2014). This conflict mirrors a central intellectual and practical dilemma: Can CSR reconcile its dual role as a catalyst for market growth and environmental stewardship, or will it most likely be an oxymoronic force that exacerbates the very issues it seeks to alleviate? The very center paradox of CSR—its ability to promote sustainable consumption and explain overconsumption simultaneously—remains unsolved theoretically. This quandary is further complicated in the age of globalized business, when multinationals must function in a variety of cultural and institutional environments. Whether globally standardized CSR or locally specific approaches will prove more effective is still the grand challenge of international marketing (Ruyter et al., 2021). Cultural contingency of CSR impact awareness is therefore critical in an effort to design locally relevant but globally consistent strategies. Social Identity Theory (SIT) is a theory positing that individuals define themselves through membership in social groups and act in ways that align with group norms. It explains CSR's role in identity alignment, and VBN describes its moral path; neither model alone explains why CSR succeeds in shifting actual behavior but fails spectacularly in greenwashing. Cultural scaffolding by Institutional Theory offers partial solutions but neglects psychological microfoundations. Our integration of MASEM reveals a central result: success for CSR requires an alignment of tensions among identity congruence (SIT), ethical norm activation (VBN), and cultural legitimacy—a triple balance absent in prior research. It is this cross-disciplinary, multiperspective approach that scholars have called for to advance the understanding of global cause-related marketing and CSR, as it brings important contextual elements into the equation (Vrontis et al., 2020). From a business perspective, sustainable consumption is an opportunity and a paradox. On the one hand, consumers increasingly demand transparency, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship, compelling firms to integrate sustainability into brand strategy. Opponents claim that CSR-led campaigns are more concerned with appearance than substance, using sustainability as a token gesture to promote sales instead of catalyzing change (Ofori-Parku, 2021). Fashion fast brands, for instance, regularly introduce “eco-collections” while perpetuating exploitative production processes, thus legitimizing overconsumption under the ethical guise. Such a practice dissolves consumer trust and waters down CSR's transformative power. The result is a vicious cycle: marketing efforts that commodify sustainability risk reducing environmental necessity to trivialities, reducing high-minded environmental issues to branding stunts. A number of theories has delved into this ambiguity. SIT aims to explain how CSR is related to sustainable consumption through identity congruence: consumers embrace sustainable behavior when they identify with brands that match their self-definition as environmental stewards (Akintimehin et al., 2022). Similarly, VBN links people's environmental values to norms, in the belief that subjective corporate ethicality is the mediator between consumer values and sustainable behavior (Wang et al., 2019). Institutional Theory points to the way that cultural and economic systems make “ethical consumerism” normal as a marketable trend, not a revolutionary change in behavior (Lučić and Uzelac, 2023). The cultural, psychological, and institutional interactions complicate CSR's impact further. Cultural collectivism, for instance, enhances the effectiveness of CSR by making sustainability part of shared norms. Individualist cultures, however, call for CSR methods that appeal to self-interest (Koch et al., 2019). It places CSR in the context-dependent variable category, where social norms dictate whether or not sustainability is presented as a moral duty or a sellable extra. Psychological factors, such as environmental self-identity, also mediate this effect: environmentally self-identified consumers tend to notice and reward authentic CSR activity. This evidence confirms the necessity of CSR practice transcending tokenism in favor of open and participative practices before symbolic campaigns (Lima et al., 2023).

Thus, the main objective of this study is to elucidate whether CSR initiatives foster sustainable consumption or inadvertently undermine their stated goals through the meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) approach, synthesizing evidence from 51 cross-industry and cross-cultural studies, which are grounded on SIT, VBN, and Institutional theory bases. Theoretically, this paper integrates SIT, VBN, and Institutional Theory in one conceptual framework, combining micro-psychological mechanisms and macro-cultural forces. Through the intersection of micro-level psychological mechanisms and macro-level cultural-institutional processes, this research constructs a refined view of CSR's dual role in sustainable consumption, offering a prescriptive understanding regarding corporate strategy congruence with consumer values alongside planetary ecological agendas. This study integrates SIT, VBN, and Institutional Theory via an MASEM approach in resolving ambiguities over CSR's double role towards sustainable consumption. It formulates a glocalization framework that shows the process of reconciling global sustainability goals and national cultural values, such that corporate action aligns corporate practice with planetary boundaries. While SIT anticipates that identity congruence drives ethical consumption, VBN assumes moral duty, and Institutional Theory reveals how cultural norms legitimize them. Crucially, these models conflict when CSR triggers identity loyalty without ethics (e.g. greenwashing brands exploiting SIT) or cultural norms dominate personal ethics (e.g., collectivist societies prioritizing conformity over VBN's personal norms). Our MASEM model investigates empirically whether these tensions happen or not.

A persistent debate within the CSR literature is whether company sustainability initiatives truly curtail over-consumption or are merely “greenwashing” that legitimates further resource extraction (Ardley and May, 2020; Gatti et al., 2019). Scholars argue that symbolic green advertising can actually decouple corporate reputation from ecological performance, creating an ethical facade which paradoxically increases consumption (Forliano et al., 2025). Others contend that employee-engagement programmes are bound to be viewed as internal propaganda unless reinforced by transparent external disclosures (Koeswayo et al., 2024). These arguments are directly aligned with our hypotheses: if green marketing (H1) boosts brand loyalty without the allied ethical norm activation (H5–H6), the CSR–CSA link could very well be a case of greenwashing rather than actual behavioural change. Conversely, with high employee commitment (H4) and perceived corporate morality (H6), the identity-based route (H1–H3) should produce authentic, sustainable consumption. Integrating Social Identity, Value-Belief-Norm, and Institutional theories, we investigate if, and how, the CSR paradox is mitigated—or complicated further—under various cultural and psychological boundary conditions.

Among the theoretical perspectives used in CSR and sustainable consumption research, SIT validates the claims of identity fit and trust as consumer drivers. SIT argues that self-concept is attained through identification with groups or organizations with common values. In CSR initiatives, green marketing (GM), including promotional activities emphasising environmental benefits, elicits brand loyalty (BL) since it enables consumers to identify with firms that highly prioritize environmental stewardship (Karaosmanoglu et al., 2016). This identification is equivalent to consumer sustainable awareness CSA because consumers act in accordance with self-perception as sustainability champions (Connelly et al., 2024). SIT assumes that individuals obtain self-esteem from group membership, with the desire for identity congruence by becoming a member of value-congruent organizations. Our research takes this further to CSR by highlighting how green marketing enables consumers to express their environmental identities through brand loyalty. When companies actually incorporate sustainability into their core operations, they serve as in-group surrogates for sustainable consumers. The VBN Theory positions the ethical structure between personal values and environmentally friendly conduct through step-by-step activation: environmental concern → consequences awareness → responsibility ascription → personal norms. This study introduces new ground in applying PCE as the belief-stage mediator that determines concrete consumption norms from abstract environmental concern.

There is a rich and distinctive theoretical stream investigating the CSR and brand loyalty domains. BL in the form of identity congruence creates psychological consistency pressures that promote consumers to act in a way that is consistent with their concept of self (Salimi and Khanlari, 2018). Sustainable brand loyal consumers internalize environmental stewardship into their identity, leading to higher CSA. For example, loyal Seventh Generation (environmentally friendly household brand) consumers will be more likely to be waste reducers as their brand loyalty makes them aware of themselves as sustainability champions. Such in-group bias can extend to corporate origins; e.g., collectivistic consumers have been shown to attribute more altruistic intentions to the CSR motives of domestic businesses versus foreign companies, a bias mitigated by evidencing long-term engagement with an issue (Choi et al., 2016). SIT explains this by identity salience: since sustainability is a salient feature of one's self-concept, it influences behavior in varied contexts (Sharma and Mishra, 2019).

Cultural forces (CF) shape how GM is being translated into BL and CSA through the salience of sustainability in collective identity. In collectivist cultures, where group harmony and shared responsibility are valued, GM projects are apt to establish BL because sustainability would be congruent with communal norms. In contrast, individualist cultures may require CSR initiatives emphasizing individual benefits, for example, saving costs or prestige, to impact BL (Koch et al., 2019). SIT accounts for this mediation: in collectivist settings, GM strengthens BL by integrating sustainability into the in-group identity, which in turn sustains CSA because consumers act to uphold group standards. For example, Unilever's “Sustainable Living” advertisements in Southeast Asia call forth shared values of family well-being and public health to drive BL, thereby shaping CSA through peer pressure. Institutional Theory is also in agreement that cultural norms put CSR expectations in place, making BL a channel for norm-based behavior (Nisa et al., 2021).

Human capital is also one of the key integral elements of the CSR research agenda. Employees' involvement in CSR activities such as clean-ups or environmental education is a tangible demonstration of organizational commitment, at the center of building consumer trust (Bapat and Upadhyay, 2021). SIT explains this in terms of social categorization: when consumers observe employees working together on CSR, they perceive the brand as a collective “in-group” that is fully committed to shared values (Hu et al., 2020). For instance, Starbucks' “Greener Stores” initiative, which involves baristas in sustainable practices, provides space for consumer trust by demonstrating employee commitment to environmental goals. Such authenticity reduces greenwashing skepticism, which has the direct effect of enhancing CSA since consumers are assured that their consumption choices are in support of genuine efforts. Studies show that EE improves CSA compared to CSR actions without the involvement of employees (Gozdan and Sudolska, 2019), reflecting SIT's emphasis on internal-external stakeholder behavioral alignment.

VBN suggests that individual values, for instance, environmental concern (EC), are the triggers for beliefs regarding the effects of human activities on the biosphere, leading to moral calls to adopt sustainable actions. EC is a measure of the importance an individual places on the welfare of the environment, influencing an individual's cognitive judgment of corporate action. When firms show CSR commitments such as carbon footprint reduction, labor practices, or investment in clean resources, they send signals about being compatible with these values and thus create perceived corporate ethicality (PCE, Achabou, 2020). As an illustration, a high EC consumer will surely find Patagonia's “1% for the Planet” initiative to be ethically fit because it satisfies their concern about environmental conservation in a direct way (Clausen et al., 2023). Empirical findings confirm this link: Chatzopoulou and Kiewiet (2020) found that EC increases PCE among consumers exposed to CSR transparency reports, since such disclosures validate corporate compliance with personal values. VBN subsequently positions EC as the value anchor that makes consumers sensitive to viewing CSR efforts as ethical responsibilities rather than profit-driven gestures.

PCE mediation of the EC-CSA relationship is grounded in VBN's belief and norm activation stages. Corporate ethicality beliefs (PCE) produce a moral responsibility feeling that motivates people to be favorable towards ethical brands by engaging in sustainable consumption (Ferrell et al., 2019). This “ethical carryover” impact is perceived because consumers feel that their buying decision reflects their moral identity. For example, when a customer perceives For example, if a customer considers Ben and Jerry's fair-trade practices to be ethical (high PCE), they have a moral duty to purchase their products over conventional ones, thereby facilitating CSA (H5, Polk, 2014). Koh et al. (2022)'s research infers that PCE mediates EC's effect on CSA since ethical beliefs convert environmental abstract principles to concrete behavior, including consuming eco-certified products and reducing trash (Velaoras et al., 2025). This agrees with VBN's assertion that personal norms—internalized moral standards—are the best predictors of pro-environmental behavior.

Psychological factors (PF), i.e., pro-environmental self-identity, moral intensity, and perceived consumer effectiveness, strengthen the EC-PCE relationship by making even more salient the personal meaning of CSR action (H9). VBN emphasizes that values would not be enough to trigger behavior, but would have to be evoked by psychological and environmental cues (Lima et al., 2023). For instance, those with a strong pro-environmental self-concept, especially those who identify themselves as “environmental stewards”, will view CSR actions as extremely moral in value regardless of these actions being negligible. It was determined through research that PF strengthens the EC-PCE connection, whereby high environmental self-identity participants scored a company's CSR initiative as more ethical compared to low self-identity participants for the same initiatives. Perceived consumer effectiveness—assuming individual behavior brings about environmental change—also emphasizes the EC-PCE route by evoking hope that ethical brand choice will lead to system change (De Canio et al., 2021).

Institutional Theory proposes that individuals and organizations are located within cultural systems that impose what is appropriate behavior through norms, values, and routines. Cultural factors (CF), including collectivism vs. individualism, power distance, and long-term orientation, shape how consumers experience and respond to CSR practices (Lajnef and Ellouz, 2026), like green marketing (GM). In collectivist cultures where community harmony and the group's good take precedence, GM is more resonant as sustainability gets into the psyche as a shared good. Unilever's South Asian “Clean Future” strategy, for instance, emphasized collective well-being and intergenerational justice, aligned with collectivist values. This cultural congruence enhanced brand loyalty (BL) by positioning Unilever as a leader of shared societal goals. Conversely, in collectivist cultures, GM activities that resonate with personal benefits, including cost reduction and prestige, are most effective, considering that these are aligned with institutionalized norms of self-interest (Namrata et al., 2020). Institutional Theory thus accounts for CSR's effect on CSA based on cultural congruence, to the extent that CSR communication is aligned with institutionalized norms.

The transformation from BL to CSA is not universal, but on the basis of cultural legitimacy norms, it upholds sustainable behavior. In contexts where sustainability is embedded, brand loyalty more automatically converts to CSA since consumers consider sustainable consumption as a civic obligation. Devotion to Sweden-based IKEA, in which concern for the environment is greatly ingrained, pushes CSA by normative pressure and peer norms like waste reduction and recycling of furniture (Iannuzzi, 2018). Institutional Theory provides an answer for this through the normative pillar, in which society compels conformity because of its norms. On the contrary, in low institutionalization of sustainability cultures, such as low-regulatory emerging economies, BL may not be equivalent to CSA due to incongruent norms, for example, minimizing cost-effectiveness over morality. This resonates with Institutional Theory's concern with cultural scripts, where shared notions of “proper” practice control how loyalty gets expressed in action (Herold, 2018).

Social norms (SN)—the informal rules constraining acceptable group behavior—affect CSA directly by exerting exogenous pressures for conformity (You, 2023). Institutional Theory locates SN in the regulative pillar, where social expectations are enforced through sanctions, namely social approval and disapproval (Khalil, 2021). For example, in high pro-environmental norm nations, peer pressure exists for consumers to adopt green habits, especially reusable bags and avoiding fast fashion, and this has a direct impact on CSA (Xiao et al., 2022). The EU “Green Deal” has integrated sustainability into a community focus, subsequently turning SN into a good driver for CSA (Eckert and Kovalevska, 2021). Analogously, to Bhutan, whose Gross National Happiness integrates intrinsic flourishing, SN press consumers to propel green products in civic duty (Phuntsho and Zangmo, 2018). Institutional Theory thus positions SN at the macro-scale cultural forces for legitimation and delegitimation of sustainable consumption, bypassing individual attitudes.

The conceptual model (Figure 1) brings SIT (trust based on identity), VBN (activation of moral norms), and Institutional Theory (legitimacy in culture) into a unified framework. CSR can be asserted to produce sustainable consumption only when these three processes operate synergistically – a “triple balance” not addressed in the extant literature. For instance, SIT's micro-level congruence of identity enhances VBN's moral norms after they have been culturally institutionalized.

The built framework (Figure 1) illustrates the manner in which CSR activities draw upon identity-based trust (SIT), ethical obligation (VBN), and cultural fit (institutional theory) to initiate CSA. Moderators like CF and PF tune these pathways, while mediators (BL, PCE) interpret the flip from corporate behavior to consumer activity. By positioning CSR within this multi-theory framework, the study builds a rich theory of sustainable consumption that balances individual agency, cultural setting, and institutional norms.

The integration of SIT, VBN, Institutional Theory presents a multi-dimensional description of the impact CSR has on sustainable awareness. SIT describes how GM encourages BL by enabling consumers to identify with sustainable brands. VBN also connects EC with PCE, whereby ethical judgments activate moral responsibilities for acting sustainably. Institutional Theory places these relations within cultural contexts, explaining how society institutionalizes CSR as a social norm, which moderates its impact on BL and CSA. Taken together, these frameworks combine micro-psychological processes (SIT, VBN), macro-social cultural values (Institutional Theory), and organizational credibility institutions into an explanatory framework that the literature is deficient in providing.

A systematic literature review was carried out to identify studies that explore the connection between CSR and sustainable consumer behavior. The extant literature was identified through a systematic search strategy using Boolean operators and truncation techniques to capture terminological variations and broaden the scope of results. Two search strings were used: (“Corporate Social Responsibility” OR CSR) AND (“Green Behavior” OR “Sustain*-Oriented Consum*” OR “Environment* Friendly Behavior”); (“Corporate Social Responsibility” OR CSR) AND (“Sustain* Consum*” OR “Ethical Consum*” OR “Green Consum*“) AND (“Consumer Trust” OR “Brand Loyalty” OR “Environmental Awareness” OR “Purchase Intentions”) AND (“International Marketing” OR “Global Marketing” OR “Cross-Cultural Marketing”).

The search was conducted in Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus on December 31st, 2024, resulting in 1,629 initial records. After eliminating duplicates, non-English articles, grey literature, and studies that were not relevant to the research area, 51 peer-reviewed quantitative studies were selected for analysis, as shown in Figure 2. Inclusion criteria had the most focus on empirical research that directly linked CSR activities to consumer behavior theories, e.g. environmental consciousness, green buying, or brand loyalty. Experiments had to report quantitative effect sizes, such as correlations, regression weights, or odds ratios, with standard errors (SE) or sufficient raw data to derive them. No temporal restrictions were applied to enable an exhaustive combination of earlier and current research. Conversely, exclusion criteria eliminated studies with no direct empirical linkages between CSR and consumer behavior, e.g., those with solely financial effects for firms. Qualitative examinations, theory articles, and non-peer-reviewed literature, including dissertations, conference abstracts, and opinion pieces, were also excluded for methodological accuracy and replicability. Replicated studies or publications with weak statistical data, such as the absence of correlation and regression coefficients, standard errors, and effect sizes, were also removed. This double emphasis on inclusion and exclusion criteria narrowed the dataset to studies that robustly investigate CSR's influence on driving sustainable consumption in various cultural and institutional settings with minimal noise from unnecessary or low-evidence sources. Data extraction was on the main variables, such as independent variables, mediators, moderators, dependent variables, and methodological information. Two independent coders established eligibility using pre-stated criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third adjudicator. Further details on the search protocol and methodological transparency are provided in  Annex 3.

MASEM is a structured procedure that integrates meta-analysis and structural equation modeling to estimate complex theoretical models from multiple studies, and it allows the simultaneous estimation of direct, mediated, and moderated effects (Cheung, 2021b). On the contrary, conventional meta-analyses generally exclude indirect pathways or are unable to integrate broken pieces of evidence into integrated frameworks. MASEM was used in order to tackle complicated interactions between CSR programs and CSA that involve several mediators and moderators. Conventional meta-analyses generally exclude indirect pathways or are unable to test integrated theoretical models (Cheung, 2021a). By merging correlation matrices across 51 studies, MASEM facilitates the estimation of direct, mediated, and moderated effects concurrently in one model, along with controlling for study differences. This method ensured strong integration of scattered findings into one shared causal framework (Leong et al., 2022) to enable strict checking of hypotheses regarding the interaction between CSR-elicited trust, ethical attitudes, and culture to influence sustainable practices. Two-Stage Structural Equation Modeling (TSSEM) use in R Studio's metaSEM package is advised for the even more sophisticated methodological elaboration through facilitating the separation between pooled effect size estimation and model testing to reduce sparse or overlap data bias (Ng et al., 2023). Data extraction emphasized main variables, such as independent variables, mediators, moderators, the dependent variable, and methodological information (sample size, effect sizes, SE), as can be seen in  Annex 1.

Models used in this research were operationalized through the employment of available models and empirical scales from earlier studies. CF was adopted from Shen et al. (2023) and others, and EE took its basis on Cai et al. (2023) and others. PF were informed by Lin et al. (2023) and others. EC was informed by Amoako et al. (2024) and others, and PCE integrated items from Mansouri et al. (2022) and others. GM followed the work of Yang and Chai (2022) and others on operationalization, SN used the effort of Li et al. (2022) and others, and BL followed Le et al. (2023) and others. Constructs were harmonized using a consensus-based coding protocol. For example, GM included studies measuring eco-advertising, sustainable packaging, or cause-related campaigns. The multi-study basis is a firm and validated measure across the constructs. Definitions of the key acronyms used in the model are provided in  Annex 4. MASEM was performed in R Studio with the metaSEM package, and the TSSEM approach was utilized. In the first stage, random-effects models pooled correlation matrices from various studies, taking into account the heterogeneity between studies. Variance-covariance matrices for all were synthesized using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. In the second stage, the proposed structural model was evaluated using the pooled matrices. Path coefficients, indirect effects, and moderating effects were estimated using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, and model fit was evaluated with indices such as RMSEA (<0.08), Comparative Fit Index (CFI, >0.90), and Standardized Root Mean Square (SRMR, <0.08). The evaluation of between-study heterogeneity was conducted using I² statistics and Q-tests, while sensitivity analyses were carried out by removing outliers to confirm the robustness of the findings. This method allowed for a strong estimation of direct, mediated, and moderated pathways that connect CSR initiatives to sustainable consumer behavior.

The structural equation model based on meta-analysis had an adequate overall fit to the data, evidenced by fit measures exceeding standards established: RMSEA = 0.04 (90% CI: 0.02–0.06), CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.03, and χ²(24) = 35.12 (p = 0.07), as shown in Table 1. Δβ (delta beta) is the change in effect size resulting from moderation in this study, and β (beta) denotes unmoderated, direct effects, as shown in Figure 3. All model reliability indicators are within the recommended limits (Kenny et al., 2014); thus, the model is considered reliable and of a good fit.

These fit measures confirm the model's appropriateness in explaining the hypothesized relationships between CSR initiatives, mediating factors, contextual moderators, and CSA (see  Annex 2). Hypothesis testing validated that GM significantly enhanced BL (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), substantiating H1, since environmentally friendly promotion schemes appealed to consumer values in order to instill trust. EC was a significant predictor of PCE (β = 0.28, p < 0.001), supporting H5, since eco-values were reflected in the ethical judgments of firms. The results also highly confirmed H2, such that BL significantly directly affected CSA (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). This accorded with SIT in that consumers integrate sustainable behavior into their self-concept if they associate it with loyal brands. SN was also significant to CSA (β = 0.19, p < 0.001), confirming H9. H3 was supported since BL mediated the total effect of GM on CSA (β = 0.09, 95% CI [0.05, 0.13]), and CF further strengthened this indirect relationship (Δβ = 0.04, p = 0.02). H6 was verified since PCE fully mediated the EC-CSA relationship (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06, 0.10]), capturing environmental values in ethical consumption. H8 was also verified, with joint cultural contexts with emphasis on collective values enhancing CSR's impact on BL (Δβ = 0.12, p = 0.01), congruent with the collective welfare norms' moderating effect. H10 and H7 were confirmed, as cultural contexts that promote collective welfare (Δβ = 0.10, p = 0.03) and psychological green-mindedness (Δβ = 0.14, p < 0.001) moderated the relationship between CSR and CSA. Finally, EE had a positive influence on CSA directly (β = 0.15, p < 0.001), confirming H4 and emphasizing the role of employees as authenticity indicators. Moderate heterogeneity (e.g., GM→BL: I² = 68%) uncovered contextual variation, with sensitivity analyses confirming robustness (coefficient variability <5%). The model explained substantial variance in CSA (R² = 0.52), BL (R² = 0.41), and PCE (R² = 0.38), confirming theoretical and empirical consistency.

GM significantly affected BL with a standardized path coefficient of β = 0.33 (SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41]). EC significantly impacted PCE (β = 0.28, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.22, 0.34]), such that stronger ecological values among consumers regarded CSR-active firms as more ethical. BL was strongly directly associated with CSA (β = 0.27, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.37]), while SN had a less but significant influence (β = 0.19, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.13, 0.25]). EE also had a direct effect of boosting CSA (β = 0.15, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.19]), emphasizing the importance of internal stakeholders in promoting sustainable practices.

The indirect routes provided a clearer view of the connections between CSR and CSA. BL played an extensive role in mediating between GM and CSA (β = 0.09, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.05, 0.13]). Also, PCE mediated the connection between EC and CSA fully, as indicated by (β = 0.08, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.06, 0.10]), depicting the mechanism by which beliefs of ethicality transform ecological values into consumer behavior.

Cultural contexts supporting collective values strengthened the GM's impact on BL (Δβ = 0.12, p = 0.01) and increased the cumulative impact on CSA (via BL) (Δβ = 0.10, p = 0.03). PF held constant the impact of EC on CSA, as pro-environmentally oriented respondents reported higher sustainable behaviors (Δβ = 0.14, p < 0.001). Except for GM→BL (I² = 68%, Q = 45.2, p = 0.001), which is expected given methodological and cross-cultural variances among studies, moderate heterogeneity was identified for all paths. Sensitivity analyses removing studies with small sample sizes (N < 100) confirmed the consistency of findings, with coefficient variations less than 5%. Attesting to its predictive potential, the model explained a sizable portion of variance in CSA (R² = 0.52), BL (R² = 0.41), and PCE (R² = 0.38).

Institutional Theory's collectivist culture strengthened CSR's impact on Brand Loyalty (Δβ = +0.12, p = 0.01), supporting SIT's mechanism of identity in collective environments. In individualistic cultures, however, VBN's ethical route (EC→PCE→CSA) dominated (β = 0.08), as personal norms outweighed group affiliation. This is dialectical resolution: Institutional Theory's macro-norms dictate that SIT or VBN micro-processes dominate CSR's impact.

The results underscore CSR's multiple functions to guide sustainable consumption. The significant direct effects of GM on BL (β = 0.33, *p* < 0.001) and BL on CSA (β = 0.27, *p* < 0.001) validate the salience of identity congruence (SIT) in encouraging ethical consumption. Similarly, PCE's full mediation between EC and CSA (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06, 0.10]) aligns with VBN Theory in which moral duty is a motive for action (Ferrell et al., 2019). Moderating effect of cultural collectivism (Δβ = 0.12, *p* = 0.01) complies with Institutional Theory's postulation that the norms of society institutionalize sustainability, whereas EE's direct effect (β = 0.15, *p* < 0.001) emphasizes authenticity as an authenticity-creation process. The explanatory power of the model (R² = 0.52 for CSA) demonstrates its capability to facilitate micro-macro dynamics, translating into actionable data for informing glocalized CSR practices. Despite heterogeneity in some channels (e.g. I² = 68% for GM→BL), sensitivity tests guaranteed the robustness of the framework, underpinning flexibility across environments.

Overall, the analysis supported the hypothesized pathways, illustrating CSR's direct and indirect impacts on sustainable awareness through trust, ethics, and context. Good model fit, consistency throughout sensitivity analyses, and strong moderation effects altogether support the strength and utility of the framework.

CSR is increasingly approached from multiple theoretical angles, opening up the possibility of interdisciplinary integration and the challenge of situating conclusions within a single paradigm. The dialectical stress between SIT, VBN, and Institutional Theory illustrates how individual identity, moral reasoning, and cultural institutions collectively shape CSR's impact on sustainable consumption. Our results cut across disciplinary boundaries, offering a meta-analytic synthesis across them. For instance, BL's strong influence on CSA aligns with SIT's emphasis on identity congruence as the impetus for ethical behavior. Consumers embrace sustainable behavior when they identify brands as consistent with their self-concept, translating loyalty into a means for environmental action (Rather et al., 2022; McNeill and Venter, 2019). Meanwhile, VBN Theory clarifies how EC involves moral obligations to interact with ethical brands, and this is mediated by PCE. This double theoretical foundation—identity (SIT) and ethics (VBN)—highlights CSR as a reconciliation of individual values and firm conduct. Institutional Theory locates these dynamics as well. CF, similar to collectivism, strengthened CSR's impact on BL, revealing how cultural norms embed sustainability as an embedded responsibility (Huq and Stevenson, 2020; Horak et al., 2018).

To delineate the contribution of the present research, the authors pinpoint the aspect that this is the first meta-analytic verification of the triple-balance hypothesis, where sustainable consumption emerges only if identity alignment (SIT), moral norm activation (VBN), and cultural legitimacy (Institutional Theory) simultaneously function in concord. While individual bivariate relations—e.g. green marketing → brand loyalty—have been empirically established before the present research, the simultaneous estimation of direct, mediated, and moderated effects in 51 studies provides the first quantitative evidence that these three theoretical approaches must be concurrently satisfied. Demonstrating that cultural collectivism strengthens the identity route by Δβ = +0.12, whereas pro-environmental psychological variables strengthen the ethics route by Δβ = +0.14, moves the literature beyond isolated effects and establishes the boundary conditions under which CSR actually leads to sustainable consumption.

Community cultures in the FMCG sector, for example, value shared sustainability goals more, making CSR more salient (Picard and Manfredi, 2023). Individualist cultures would, by contrast, require CSR action to demonstrate personal benefits such as savings or prestige in order to achieve a similar impact. One such patent inconsistency is with the modest effect of EE on CSA, lower than previous single-sector literature (Gunawardana, 2020). The inconsistency is most likely due to sectoral idiosyncratic factors. FMCGs' untypical reliance on frontline worker-client interaction may increase EE's size, while our MASEM aggregates data for technology and healthcare sectors, cushioning sector-specific intensities. Yet, EE's continuation of positive feedback corroborates Institutional Theory's overall contention that organizational practices, where they converge with cultural expectations, result in trust and legitimacy within contexts. By synthesizing concepts from many disciplines, this study transcends the disciplinary limits of single-theory or sector-specific approaches. Whereas previous research was prone to highlight context-specific findings, e.g., CSR in video games (Dhandhania and O'Higgins, 2021), our meta-analytic method provides generalizable insights into the effects of CSR on sustainable consumption, balance of identity, ethics, and cultural-institutional relations.

The GM's direct impact on BL shows the power of CSR to build trust when it is aligned with the values of consumers. To illustrate, a study of global brand Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) finds that while CSR messages tweeted are rare, they receive greater digital presence (retweets) than normal messages, and this net impact is greater for non-US headquartered and non-U.S.-based CMOs (Ozturan and Grinstein, 2022). This is consistent with SIT, where eco-branding builds loyalty since it enables consumers to identify themselves with brands sharing the same environmental ideology. Precisely, eco-branding promotes loyalty by allowing consumers to identify with brands reflecting their environmental worldview, a result in accordance with earlier single-sector research (manufacturing sector: β = 0.697; Boota et al., 2025). Our meta-analytic findings, however, develop this line of argument further by illustrating this alignment to be cross-niche in nature, applying not just across industries but also across cultural contexts. This cross-contextual validity, revealed in this case by MASEM, is new evidence, resolving previous controversies regarding CSR's segmental effectiveness and empirically merging SIT's micro-level identity practices with Institutional Theory's macro-cultural norms. The subsequent mediation of BL in shaping CSA further confirms Kuchinka et al. (2018)'s argument that CSR success is contingent upon the translation of transactional trust into long-term behavioral commitment. Similarly, EC with PCE validates VBN Theory, whereby moral gatekeeping roles of ethical judgments are used to transform environmental values into consumer action. These intervening mechanisms seal gaps in existing research by providing empirical evidence that ethicality is the missing link between concern and action. Our contention that the moral path is heavily context-dependent is forcefully theorized by international marketing research on corporate transparency. Heinberg et al. (2020) demonstrate that a lack of corporate transparency—often reflective of a country's overall institutional environment—undermines CSR efforts by feeding consumer skepticism, thereby diminishing brand loyalty and sustainable consumer behavior.

Cultural environments were also found to be important moderators, magnifying the impact of CSR in settings where community well-being is a strong value. This is consistent with Institutional Theory, in that social norms instill sustainability as a collective imperative. For instance, where cultural worldviews place strong emphasis on resource maintenance, CSR activities will resonate more strongly. Conversely, in individualist cultures, the effect of CSR is mediated by less binding communal norms and needs to be adapted in the form of individually oriented ethical responses. This kind of cultural sensitivity draws on existing research in consumerism by showing how structures in cultures can strengthen or weaken forces of overconsumption. PF also acted as moderators of CSR effectiveness, whose pro-environmental values worked alongside sustainable behaviors. This attests to theories of behavior in which existing motivation propels the uptake of green practices (Shahzad et al., 2022). EE is also found to be a direct driver of CSA, emphasizing workers as ambassadors of authenticity who bridge corporate speak and consumer trust.

The strategic role of HR systems in amplifying CSR effectiveness needs to be emphasized. Our finding that EE has a positive impact on CSA (β = 0.15) is in line with the newer literature on integrating HRM-CSR. When sustainability is internalized by HR through value-based recruitment, green training programs, and sustainability-based performance targets, workers are living evidence of CSR commitments (Miller, 2022). This takes operational realities to CSR as white noise in marketing. Staying in the middle of both is this HR-CSR unison closing the authenticity gap, where consumers increasingly distrust symbolic CSR but recompense companies for internal-external congruent behavior (Bizri et al., 2024). Future CSR research thus must contend with HR no longer as a function that assists but as a co-architect of ethical value co-creation.

The study relies on our three theories by adding cultural and psychological variables (ethicality, communal values) to the model in order to demonstrate that sustainability intentions are not only personal but also culturally scaffolded. In reality, multinational companies should employ a “glocalized” strategy: CSR has to attend to the welfare of the community in collectivist markets, while individualistic environments call for campaigns that depend on individual ethical gains (Khanzad and Gooyabadi, 2022). The need for such refined adaptation is compellingly demonstrated in research on spatial distance, demonstrating that nationalistic consumers respond more favorably to local firms supporting local causes, but that this bias can be attenuated when foreign MNCs invest in global causes (Strizhakova and Coulter, 2019). This brings empirical precision to our model of glocalization: in nationally oriented markets, foreign MNCs will be more successful if they frame their CSR initiatives on the grounds of global rather than local concerns so as not to trigger in-group biases, and nationalism shapes responses to cause-related marketing in ways that can be mitigated by focusing on global causes (Grinstein et al., 2022). The immediate effect of GM on BL is based on SIT's premise that consumers associate with brands that are an extension of their self-concept (Orth and Rose, 2017). The result identifies that CSR identity alignment works outside niche contexts, as opposed to sectoral fragmentation theory. VBN also accounts for why EC acts on moral obligations by bridging PCE and individual values to firm responsibility. This places VBN beyond individualism-based theories, positioning CSR as a driver of ethical behavior. Institutional Theory puts such dynamics into perspective: cultural collectivism adds strength to CSR's authority, showing how social norms institutionalize sustainability (Horak et al., 2018). As an instance, in communal cultures, CSR is blended with collective well-being, whereas individualist settings require appeals based on self-interest (Picard and Manfredi, 2023). That sort of cultural scaffolding explains contradictions like EE's limited cross-sector effect, which varies by sectoral norms.

The “tensio”’ between theories is contextual. SIT and VBN are convergent where cultural values (e.g. collectivism) render identity coterminous with ethics (e.g. Unilever's communal campaigns). Tension, however, is present in individualist cultures, where CSR can be effective only by appeal to self-interest (VBN) rather than group identity (SIT). Our model thus synthesizes theories by showing how macro-cultural pressures (Institutional Theory) mediate micro-psychological processes (SIT vs. VBN).

Compared to past research, this study has greater effect sizes for GM→BL (β = 0.33 versus β = 0.292 in Amoako et al., 2024). This is largely due to culturally moderated pathways incorporating CF, enabling communal trust that has been included. A surprise was the curvilinear effect of EE on CSA. Although EE encourages authenticity, too much emphasis on internal CSR, for instance, employee volunteering, without external transparency, can promote skepticism, reducing returns. These contradictions highlight the need for context-specific CSR efforts rather than one-size-fits-all initiatives.

While the study calls for CSR disclosure, policymakers might employ the results in imposing multi-level regulations. Our findings that CSR effectiveness is determined by institutional and cultural contexts are also echoed in strategic research on how firms allocate resources between R&D and CSR. Randrianasolo and Semenov (2021) demonstrate that the relationship is not fixed but is contingent on the national philanthropic environment (NPE) and industry, creating a synergy in high-NPE countries but a trade-off in low-NPE countries, particularly for service firms. In addition, our findings also yield divergent routes to CSR impacts for various industries with policy actionable suggestions. For instance, the strong moderation function of cultural collectivism for CSR performance suggests that high-environmental-impact industries like fast fashion, typically located in collectivist manufacturing hubs, must adopt strong sustainability reporting standards aligned with collective well-being values (Li et al., 2024). Conversely, technology sectors, in which our evidence suggests less cultural moderation but more consumer confidence in innovation, can concentrate on circular economy initiatives that leverage institutional trust in technology-driven solutions. The direct effect of EE on CSA also underscores the need for public-private partnerships to fund employee-driven CSR initiatives, including upskilling employees in sustainable practices. Such efforts are consistent with our finding that EE mitigates greenwashing skepticism by conveying authenticity, a process multiplied by standardized certifications such as ISO 14021 (Minkov et al., 2019). These certifications, as illustrated in our moderated mediation analysis, reinforce the ethical channel from EC to CSA by adding legitimacy to company assertions. However, our model's culture contingencies can be significantly amplified by macro-environmental shocks. Evidence confirms that consumer skepticism of cause-related marketing is higher in countries in economic crises, particularly against foreign companies, on the basis of ethnocentrism and hostility (Priporas et al., 2020). This speaks to a vital boundary condition: during periods of national uncertainty, even extremely culturally-sensitive CSR by foreign MNCs can be met with suspicion, so that emphasizing a need for hyper-sensitivity to the socio-political sphere trumps stable cultural facets. By tailoring CSR policies to these evidence-based pathways—cultural norms, employee engagement, and certification-backed ethicality—policymakers can transform CSR from a voluntary practice into a coordinated societal responsibility.

In conclusion, this research depicts that without a cross-cultural perspective, one cannot determine whether CSR facilitates sustainable consumption or not. The pathways are not worldwide but are practically defined by the institutionalized and culturalized setting of each marketplace. To international marketing scholars, this emphasizes the merits of blending micro-psychological theories with macro-cultural frameworks. By positioning CSR initiatives strategically across cultural values—emphasizing community in collectivist contexts and individual moral agency in individualist ones—firms can make CSR a profit center instead of a cost center and an effective driver of building worldwide brand loyalty and creating meaningful, sustainable change.

Contrary to parallel application, our results show that Institutional Theory, VBN, and SIT rival and supplement one another. CSR drives sustainable consumption only if: (1) identity (SIT) and ethics (VBN) intersect; (2) cultural contexts (Institutional Theory) support or suppress these channels. This provides the answer to the paper's key question: CSR does promote sustainability once it is glocalized to balance identity, ethics, and culture, not as separate strands, but as interlocking forces.

We have made considerable progress in this study toward the integration of the micro-macro dichotomy in sustainability scholarship. We generalize SIT through demonstrating that CSR-triggered identity congruence is a universally applicable psychological mechanism across cultures, collectivist contexts augmenting this pathway (Δβ = +0.12, *p* = 0.01). This resolves age-old debates over CSR's inconsistent effectiveness. We further extend VBN Theory by operationalizing perceived corporate ethicality as the strongest mediator transforming abstract environmental concern into concrete ethical consumption (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06, 0.10]), linking personal values and collective action. We also advance Institutional Theory by empirically verifying how cultural conditions institutionalize sustainability as collective responsibility to justify CSR's twin market-environment role. This three-way integration circumvents theoretical fragmentation in sustainability studies.

Employee engagement must be a top priority—grassroots engagement signals authenticity more than command-and-control policies (β = 0.15, *p*<0.001). Above all, overestimation of in-house action without external verification can recoil; the tension between staff involvement and third-party recognition preserves credibility. Customer segmentation based on psychological readiness—initially focusing on those with strong pro-environmental identities—produces the greatest effect, as it multiplies CSR's moral impact (Δβ = +0.14, *p* < 0.001).

Corporate decision-makers can transition from broad “be culture-sensitive” mantras to an actionable playbook by placing their company within the Culture × Employee-Engagement matrix (Table 2). Each quadrant defines a distinct KPI set and message frame that directly arose from our moderated-mediation outcomes. Managers must select an action and KPI from their respective quadrant, quarterly benchmark progress, and allocate expenses to the lever (employee engagement or external certification) that the matrix says is most applicable to their cultural context.

Policy-makers ought to apply our results to design subtle interventions. High-impact industries such as fast fashion, typically based in collectivist production hubs, require compulsory sustainability reporting aligned with the cultural values of their local contexts. Employee-driven CSR and independent ethical certifications to support the environmental concern → ethicality → consumption nexus must be rewarded through tax credits. Regulatory frameworks must incorporate social norms, such as scaling up EU-style “Green Deal” models that transform sustainability into legally enforceable social norms (SN → CSA β = 0.19, *p* < 0.001). Tech firms should be incentivized toward circular economy technologies by R&D subsidies, while extractive industries require culturally sensitive restoration policies.

Three limitations of the methods are worth noting. Firstly, residual heterogeneity across significant pathways (e.g. GM → BL, I² = 68%) suggests the presence of unobserved variables, e.g. regulatory stringency or CSR firm practices by an industry. Secondly, the dominance of cross-sectional data in meta-analytic samples precludes causal inference about how CSR-consumption dynamics evolve over time longitudinally. Thirdly, the application of country-level cultural proxies may suppress subnational variation in sustainability norms, thus suppressing local dynamics.

There are five research priorities that are clear for further developing this research stream. Scholars should investigate macro-moderators, e.g., economic disparity or governmental legislation, which can influence the effectiveness of CSR. Temporal causality must be proven using longitudinal designs that track consumers' responses across product lifecycles, collecting panel data or experimental data. The role of digital mediation requires more urgent attention, where studies need to investigate how social media activism influences dynamics between CSR and CSA. Subcultural analysis from ethnographic methods can deconstruct within-country variations. Finally, shifting from self-report to behavioral assessment would enhance ecological validity.