Do social-conscious consumers value third-party sustainability assessment? Contradictory interpretation of corporate sustainability performance communication among self- vs other-oriented consumers Open Access

Corporate sustainability (CS) performance communication has become more important nowadays. Once firms comply with CS practices, they need to communicate the sustainability performance to relevant stakeholders to gain positive perceptions, which consequently leads to strong financial performance, enhanced brand value, reputation and weakened risks to the firm in return (Alon and Vidovic, 2015; Imaningsih, 2017; Kwon and Lee, 2019). In contrast, firms that overlook CS communication practices may initiate high chances of misperceptions and conflicts among stakeholders which, in turn, lead to unpleasant performance outcomes (Fombrun et al., 2000).

The notion above highlights the significance of maintaining a stakeholder-centric focus at the core of the CS concept. More importantly, sustainable firms need to employ the right communication tools to raise public recognition of CS performance (Peloza et al., 2012). In this case, sustainability assessments from trusted third-party organizations have long been utilized for communicating and promoting CS performance outcomes (Chang et al., 2022; Suttipun et al., 2021). Firms expect that third-party assessments will attract a broad range of public interests, leading to perceived positive attitudes, reduced perceived risk among relevant stakeholders and enhanced reputation of the firm (Diez-Cañamero et al., 2020; Parguel et al., 2011; Zerbini, 2017).

From a marketing perspective, consumers are considered one of the key stakeholders. Their attitudes toward the brand could affect sales, word of mouth among the public and brand equity of the firm (Winit and Kantabutra, 2022). Signaling theory has provided evidence that, under limited time and information provided, consumers tend to evaluate their observed brands from trusted sources that provide summative information. Therefore, sustainability assessments from the third-party organization are among the most influential tools for communicating CS performance outcomes to consumers (Sanchez-Chaparro et al., 2024; Brach et al., 2018; Winit et al., 2023).

Specifically, previous studies have shown that sustainability information, particularly in the form of third-party assessments, reduces perceived uncertainty and risk among consumers. When consumers experience limited information, lack of expertise or uncertainty in purchase decision-making, the level of perceived risk increases and negatively undermines credibility, trust and purchase intention. A credible source of CS performance information from third parties, in this case, could alleviate risks and, thus, increase intention to purchase (Sanchez-Chaparro et al., 2024; Brach et al., 2018).

With the rapid move of CS regulations and social trends (Christofi et al., 2012; KPMG, 2022), a significant number of sustainability indicators have been introduced in the forms of labels, certifications and indexes to communicate the sustainability “good deed” of a firm. However, only a few studies have deliberately examined the communication effectiveness of third-party assessment as a specific key performance indicator – whether it creates positive perceptions and, more importantly, does not initiate adverse outcomes such as perceived “greenwashing” from a high number of products making green claims (Cho and Taylor, 2020) among target consumers. Also, consumers with different psychological characteristics may respond to CS performance outcomes messages differently. Consumer studies in the past have focused mainly on environmental-related domains such as green consumers, proenvironmental consumers or eco-friendly consumers, despite the fact the dimension of sustainability has been expanding far beyond the environmental dimension to social and economic issues (Berger, 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Ng et al., 2014). This present study, therefore, further examines the social domain of consumers and their reactions to firms’ CS performance outcomes delivered through the third-party sustainability assessment. According to Huseman et al. (1987), individuals could be categorized into two psychological types along a continuum. On one end, “self-oriented consumer” describes a person who prioritizes self-oriented in their mental portfolios. On the other end, the “other-oriented consumer” represents a person who emphasizes collective and social interests.

This study proposes that consumers with different social psychological aspects may evaluate the CS performance outcomes of a firm differently. Specifically, “other-oriented” consumers may consider CS performance outcomes reported in the third-party assessment as “a must” outcomes or “norms” that firms must be responsible for society. Thus, they see no additional value in the CS performance outcomes promoted on these channels. In contrast, those who are “self-oriented” consumers may see the third-party sustainability assessment as a signal of additional value as they have no prior expectation of sustainability benefits to them. This latter group, therefore, tends to give extra credit to CS performance outcomes in these third-party sustainability assessments. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows:

• It aims to demonstrate that, when exposed to CS performance outcomes from third-party sustainability assessment institutions, consumers exhibit attitudes toward the firm differently, depending on personal attributes.

• It aims to demonstrate that, when exposed to CS performance outcomes from third-party sustainability assessment institutions, consumers perceive risks toward the firm differently, depending on personal attributes.

CS defines firms’ ability to equalize positive outcomes on financial, ethical, social and environmental performance over time (Kantabutra and Avery, 2011; Rogers et al., 2008). A sustainable firm enriches customer satisfaction, builds long-term shareholder and stakeholder values and enhances reputation (Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011b). CS therefore emerges as a progressively prominent strategy and has garnered global attention across various firms (Searcy, 2012; Rafi, 2022). Despite continuing debates on the description of CS, academics extensively develop research frameworks based on the stakeholder theory that suggests firms’ responsibility for individuals and groups, internally and externally. Thus, firms have obligations to shareholders, employees, customers and the broader community (Searcy, 2012).

CS performance is generally measured by specialized institutions on the firms’ long-term environmental, social, stakeholder management and ethical involvement (Crisóstomo et al., 2020). Literature indicates that high investment in CS performance is associated with firms’ competitive position, including size, profitability, leverage and growth potential (Artiach et al., 2010; Crisóstomo et al., 2020). To achieve satisfactory sustainability performance, studies suggest that firms prioritize the benefits of an extensive range of stakeholders (Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011a; Fassin, 2012). A reciprocal relationship between firms and stakeholders would be advanced, leading to firms’ increased satisfaction, trust, commitment and identification (Fassin, 2012; Winit and Kantabutra, 2022).

Among stakeholders that comprise different groups with diverse needs, the consumer group deserves greater attention regarding its role in CS performance. Consumers are one of the most vital stakeholders, particularly when firms develop policies and priorities (Collins et al., 2007). Moreover, it is “unlikely that consumers will blindly accept social initiatives as sincere, and so may or may not reward the firm with positive attitudes and purchases” (Piercy and Lane, 2009, p. 340). Hence, firms need to conscientiously monitor consumers’ attitudes toward CS performance, especially in the aspects that are relevant to the reputation and brand equity of the firm (Winit and Kantabutra, 2022).

Signaling theory describes the behavior of two parties (individuals or organizations) using different information (Connelly et al., 2011). During communication, one party (i.e. the sender) decides whether and how to signal information, while the other party (i.e. the receiver) decides how to interpret the signal. Signaling theory, therefore involves a reduction of information asymmetry between the two parties (Spence, 2002). Within the signaling theory’s primary elements (comprising the signaler, the signal, the receiver, receiver feedback and the signaling environment), signals are the critical element that communicates positive information on organizational attributes (Connelly et al., 2011).

Signaling theory has been grounded in finance, marketing and management research, discussing firms’ signals to stakeholders in general, consumers, investors, board of directors, shareholders, etc. Specifically, firms’ signals are qualitative and involve an explanation (Perkins and Hendry, 2005), associated with the sender’s credibility (Balboa and Martí, 2007) and reduction of information asymmetry and uncertainty (Gulati and Higgins, 2003; Zhang and Wiersema, 2009).

According to the signaling theory, consumers could evaluate CS performance by observing signals. Most consumers (i.e. receivers) possess limited knowledge of firms’ products, services, brands or particularly sustainable performance. To assess CS performance, consumers rely on signals through related information (e.g. news, corporate sociopolitical activism and sustainability reporting quality) to reduce the asymmetry of information (Bhagwat et al., 2020; Ching and Gerab, 2017). Moreover, studies indicate that CS performance is associated with the quality of signals. Evidence of competitive strategy, strong financial performance and stability status are signals that convey firms’ positive sustainability performance to stakeholders, particularly consumers (Bae et al., 2018). In addition, signals could be communicated through firms’ sustainability reports which influence positive firm value over time (Friske et al., 2022). The positive signals result in lowered information asymmetry between firms and consumers.

Firms’ indexes, awards, labels and rankings from third-party institutions have been adopted as signals of CS performance. As prospective consumers possess limited information regarding the CS performance to evaluate the firm with certainty, they are inclined to observe signals to settle information asymmetries. However, the literature reveals both positive and negative effects of disclosing firms’ third-party assessment (i.e. top sustainable global companies list, corporate social responsibility [CSR] awards) on financial performance (Sanchez-Chaparro et al., 2024; Cho and Taylor, 2020; Brach et al., 2018; Ameer and Othman, 2012; Hou, 2019). On one hand, the literature reveals that third-party assessment signals are related to superior quality, positive corporate reputation and image (Connelly et al., 2011; Cowan and Guzman, 2020), acting as a source of information to ensure the values or benefits the consumers would gain from experiencing the firm’s products or services. Nonetheless, the process of signaling CS performance would be ineffective if consumers (the receivers) are blurred of information to seek or, more importantly, not on the lookout for the signals of CS performance (Cowan and Guzman, 2020).

Third-party assessments (e.g. “100 Best Corporate Citizens,” “Sustainability Index,” “America’s Greenest Companies” and “World Most Admired Companies”) are expedient signals that indicate firms’ sustainable practices. Such signals comprise effective attributes; authenticity, being costly to imitate and showing consistency and clarity. They contain informational cues that assist receivers in analyzing corporate brands (Cowan and Guzman, 2020; Friske et al., 2022; Siew, 2015). Studies reveal a significant positive relationship between CSR awards and the corporate financial performance of listed companies in Thailand (e.g. Suttipun et al., 2021) and Taiwan (e.g. Tsai and Wu, 2022). Moreover, firms’ awards received, or rankings assigned by a third party are a sign of effective environmental management (Siew, 2015).

On the other hand, third-party assessments may lead to distrust and perceived greenwashing. Specifically, third-party labeling or awards that pertain to insufficient information, ambiguity or inconsistent information can create skepticism. Sustainability awards or labels given to a company with a dubious reputation or in a significant sustainability challenges sector may yield counterproductive outcomes or even be perceived as having greenwashing practices (Sanchez-Chaparro et al., 2024; Cho and Taylor, 2020).

Brand attitude defines buyers’ evaluation of a brand concerning their expectation of the brand’s ability to create a buying motive. Specifically, the potential buyers can have different overall attitudes to the brand depending on their focal buying reason on a specific occasion (Rossiter, 2014). Literature reveals that the outcomes of CS signals involve consumers’ attitudes. For instance, consumers depend on firms’ eco-labels as signals to encourage positive evaluations, gain trust and favorable attitudes toward the product and label source (Atkinson and Rosenthal, 2014). Baumgartner et al. (2022) found that consumers adopt signals akin to corporate reputation disclosures to assess the firms’ strategic behavior, before gaining positive attitudes such as perceived corporate reputation and purchase intention.

In arriving at positive consumer attitudes, third-party assessment of CS could therefore have an asymmetric effect on consumers’ evaluations of corporate brands (Parguel et al., 2011). In the hotel industry, eco-friendly certificates and awards positively shape customers’ perceived value, and consequently increase customers’ satisfaction, retention and intention to purchase a green premium (Lee et al., 2019). CSR and sustainability schemes also act as signals to enhance consumers’ evaluations of both product and corporate brands (Cowan and Guzman, 2020).

Consumers’ perceived risks explain their expectations of future loss in financial and performance aspects. Specifically, financial risks describe consumers’ net financial loss (e.g. potential costs for repairing, replacing or refunding), while performance risks define consumers’ loss when a brand/product performs below expectations (Sweeney et al., 1999). While extensive studies indicate that perceived risks lead to perceived brand value, attitudes and behavioral intention (Dowling, 1986; Sweeney et al., 1999), only limited studies have further examined the antecedents of perceived risks, particularly in the CS context.

Studies also show that consumers’ perceived risks could result from CS signals. Disclosure of firms’ environmental actions through transparent numbers can reduce market asymmetric information and align investors’ perceived risks. This enhanced clarity not only builds investor confidence but also strategically lowers the initial costs associated with equity financing (Yu et al., 2021). Moreover, firms’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) assessment enhances investors’ risk perceptions. A corporate environmental rating also holds an increasing influence on risks (Landi et al., 2022).

This research posits that positive signals of third-party sustainability assessment should enhance positive attitudes and diminish perceived risks. When evaluating CS, consumers seek relevant information from trusted sources to compare and directly associate it with their attitudes toward observed products and brands. Assessments from third-party agents are trusted information that offers comparative sustainability signals of a firm among a group of competing corporates. Thus, the perception of outstanding assessment results will consequently develop an affirmative attitude and reduce the perceived risks of the firm. Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 2 are presented:

The potential motivating force behind consumers’ sustainability signal evaluation is grounded in the equity theory. Equity theory is a management-centered concept that emphasizes individuals’ subjective perceptions of fairness in exchanges. It explores how people view the importance of self-versus-collective interests (Huseman et al., 1987; Shore, 2004). In detail, consumers vary in the manner they view the relative importance of self- and collective interests when assessing the costs and benefits of a given offer (Ross and Kapitan, 2018). The consumer perceives equity or fair exchange (i.e. being satisfied with their situation) when the comparison of benefits and costs are balanced. Both benefits and costs can be direct or indirect, immediate or delayed (Ross and Kapitan, 2018) However, individuals do not always follow the “norm of equity.” There can be differences in their disposition and values of equity perceptions, resulting in diverse types of attitudes to equity situations (Yamaguchi, 2003).

Consumers constantly engage in comparative analyses of their behavior in the marketplace, referencing both the equity value and personal salience at specific moments (Huseman et al., 1987). This individual salience is dichotomized into two categories along a continuum. At one extremity, “self-oriented” consumers prioritize self-interest in their mental portfolios over collective interest consumers. Such consumers are inclined to demand greater benefits or contribute less to exchanges. In contrast, “other-oriented” consumers frequently perceive a greater benefit from most exchanges and place a higher emphasis on collective interest in their mental portfolios. Once they perceive any inequity in an exchange, they are inclined to increase their contributions to restore balance, thereby ensuring their actions are equitably aligned with the benefits of others. Moreover, other-oriented consumers are predisposed to endorse initiatives that advantage additional stakeholders (Ross and Kapitan, 2018).

Equity theory suggests that perceived fairness in exchange occurs when the benefits and costs are balanced for all parties involved. For other-oriented consumers, the perception of fairness extends beyond direct personal gains to include broader societal and environmental impacts. They may perceive a brand as equitable when both individual and collective benefits are aligned, such as receiving a high-quality product (direct benefit), while also seeing positive outcomes for stakeholders and the environment (indirect and delayed benefits) as highlighted in third-party assessments. This perception of fairness may lead to a reserved behavioral response, as the exchange is deemed satisfactory. In addition, while it could be argued that other-oriented consumers would place a higher value on environmental performance, we suggest that their response is contingent on their perception of balanced exchange rather than a unilateral preference for sustainability.

Other-oriented consumers typically prioritize collective interests and advocate for activities that benefit other stakeholders. Upon encountering brands that exhibit superior sustainable performance ratings, these consumers are more likely to regard sustainability as a fundamental criterion – a requisite for both consumers and firms in the contemporary business landscape. For them, sustainability constitutes a crucial element of ethical business conduct. They often perceive sustainability as a moral obligation, expecting that firms would adhere to environmentally and socially responsible practices (Ross and Kapitan, 2018). Therefore, sustainability is not invariably regarded as an additional advantage or a unique selling proposition for a brand. Rather, to other-oriented consumers, it is viewed as a fundamental expectation. While such consumers may value sustainable practices within a brand, these practices might not substantially influence their attitude toward the brand because they are perceived as standard or obligatory for all conscientious companies. Consequently, their primary focus may shift to other attributes, such as product/service quality, price or the broader societal impact of the brand.

Self-oriented consumers, conversely, exhibit a more self-oriented perspective and may regard sustainability performance as an additional personal advantage. They interpret sustainability as an attribute that can yield direct personal benefits. When encountering a brand distinguished by high sustainability performance, self-oriented consumers are likely to count this as an additional perk or a value-enhancing feature that could augment their well-being (Ross and Kapitan, 2018). Sustainability is thus not inevitably considered imperative (“a must”) but rather viewed as a desirable attribute (“a delightful-to-have”). Such consumers may predominantly concentrate on the personal benefits obtained from a firm’s sustainability endeavors, including cost savings, enhanced product quality or the prestige associated with affiliation with an environmentally conscious brand. Consequently, they are apt to demonstrate a stronger positive attitude when they recognize a firm as exhibiting high sustainability performance, perceiving it as an additional advantage for themselves.

This study postulates that self-oriented consumers perceive CS as a personal advantage or an additional benefit that can augment their experience with a firm. This perception may lead them to display a stronger positive brand attitude when they identify a firm with an outstanding sustainability performance assessed by the third-party organizations, due to their emphasis on the personal gains it provides. Moreover, self-oriented consumers could arrive at a lower level of perceived risks when they view a firm with high sustainability performance due to their attributes. For other-oriented consumers, as they mostly regard sustainability as a fundamental ethical and moral obligation that both consumers and firms are expected to fulfill, we anticipate no variation in their brand attitude or perceived risks when they are exposed to a brand with an outstanding sustainability assessment result. Hence, no hypothesis is advanced for such consumer groups. Our hypotheses 3 and 4 are proposed:

We conducted quasi-experimental research (a 2 × 1 between-subjects design) to test our hypotheses. The independent variables include the presentation of third-party assessment cues (conditions: present versus not present) across three product and service brands. The dependent variables comprise brand attitude and perceived risks. The moderating variable is consumers’ disposition (self- vs other-oriented). Thailand is selected as our research setting due to the diversity of CS performance among firms. Participants comprised students enrolled in the graduate program at a university in Chiang Mai, the second-largest city in Thailand.

This study comprises two key phases: experiment manipulation and a main study. The experiment manipulation is guided by three primary objectives. First, it aims to identify suitable brands of products and services that align with the research context and the nature of potential participants. Second, it seeks to identify appropriate third-party assessment cues for stimuli (i.e. sustainable performance awards, ranking or index). Third, it intends to develop and pretest dependent measures to ensure their appropriateness within the Thai context. The main study draws upon the work of Bodem-Schrötgens and Becker (2020). It aims to investigate the influences of third-party assessment as sustainable performance cues on consumers’ attitude and perceived risks. In addition, it seeks to examine the moderating effects of consumers’ disposition (self- vs other-oriented) on the main effects. The details of both phases will be outlined in the following sections.

Three companies from distinct industries were selected to assess variations between enterprises. Specifically, Siam Cement Group (SCG), one of Thailand’s major and eldest building material and solution companies, exemplifies both product and service; Siam Commercial Bank (SCB), one of Thailand’s leading commercial banks, represents a purely intangible service; and Thai Union (TU), a global processed seafood brand, illustrates a purely tangible product. These companies contain comparable levels of familiarity and accessibility among potential participants. They are publicly listed on the Thai Stock Exchange and have achieved international recognition. Moreover, each maintains international rankings and a reputation for sustainable performance in their annual or sustainable reports, thus minimizing potential bias.

The experimental manipulation procedures were adapted from Thakor and Lavack (2003) and Winit et al. (2014). Based on the literature (e.g. Bodem-Schrötgens and Becker, 2020; Carayannis and Provance, 2008; Koontz et al., 2020), sustainable performance cues involving third-party assessments were designed as experimental stimuli. In developing the stimuli, a secondary data search was performed through public company reports and public relations materials to gain insights into the presentations of third-party assessments of CS performance. It was found that Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) is a reputable third-party assessment that all three companies have in common. DJSI is “the first global sustainability benchmark and tracks the stock performance of the world’s leading companies in terms of economic, environmental and social criteria” (S&P Global, 2025). Among reputable academic research, DJSI has been broadly used as a proxy or signal of firms’ sustainability activism and performance (e.g. Artiach et al., 2010; Chavalittumrong and Speece, 2022; Cunha et al., 2020; Durand et al., 2019; Hawn et al., 2018; López et al., 2007; Papoutsi and Sodhi, 2020; Robinson et al., 2011). Thus, it encompassed all dimensions of CS and was adopted to represent the main CS performance in the manipulation cue. Next, two versions of the structured online questionnaire were employed: one incorporating information relating to third-party sustainability assessment and another serving as a control. Each version contained scenarios for the three brands (SCG, SCB and TU) within a single condition. For the third-party sustainability assessment condition, firm information was manipulated to establish third-party assessment cues for each brand’s sustainable performance. Consistent across three brands, the cues were presented using a brand logo, corporate background and corporate facts highlighting the DJSI achievement, along with an additional performance achievement relating to the field/industry of each firm to balance the perceived positive brand images and brand quality. Description of achievements relating to CS: social, ethical, environmental and financial performance was provided, as shown in  Figure AI. The control condition provided only the brand logo and corporate background without any presence of corporate facts. All other product variables were held constant across product and service categories, including financial performance.

To assess the impact of ordering effects, four distinct versions were developed based on two conditions, each with a different brand sequence: Sequence 1 presented SCG, TU and SCB, while Sequence 2 included SCB, TU and SCG. The overall results show no difference in the two sequences, indicating that no ordering effect is in place. In the control group, the participants’ brand attitude when viewing the questionnaire in Sequence 1 and Sequence 2 is not significantly different for TU and SCB. However, it is significantly different when the participants observed Sequences 1 and 2 for SCG. Therefore, the interpretation must be conducted with care. The participants’ perceived risk when viewing the questionnaire in both sequences shows no significant difference for all brands. In the conditioned group (exposed to third-party assessment), the participants’ brand attitude and perceived risk when examining the questionnaire in Sequence 1 and Sequence 2 are not significantly different for all brands. The details are depicted in Table 1.

A manipulation check was applied by asking participants to identify the type of sustainable performance information after they were exposed to the manipulated corporate facts information (Figure AII). Participants exposed to the third-party assessment were expected to agree with the statement that reads “The information reflects long-term outcomes resulting from the implementation of policies, projects and activities of all three companies. This is evident through the awards, rankings or indexes they have received from external organizations or agencies.” Respondents who agreed with other statements were considered to have failed the manipulation check and were excluded from further analysis.

The measurement of brand attitude was adapted from Ferrell et al. (2019), using a seven-point semantic differential scale. Respondents were asked to evaluate their overall feelings toward each brand based on three dimensions. The perceived risks scale was adapted from Huang et al. (2004), employing a seven-point rating scale, encompassing five types of perceived risks: financial, performance, psychological, social and physical risk. The scale measuring consumer disposition (self- vs other-oriented) was adapted from the Equity Sensitivity Index (Ross and Kapitan, 2018). It includes five questions that assess participants’ desired relationship with any community in which they might reside. For each question, the participants are asked to allocate 10 points between two opposing answer choices (Choice A on the left and Choice B on the right). More points given to one side results in fewer points for the other. In a possible total score of 50, items 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and 5B represent other orientations. The participants are then categorized into two groups, self-oriented (scores of 0–24) and other-oriented (scores of 25–50), based on a median split (Table 2).

To ensure that the potential confounding effects of brand familiarity are controlled, brand familiarity was assessed using a newly developed single-item measure for SCG, SCB and TU. Participants were asked to indicate their level of familiarity with each of the presented brands, using a scale ranging from 0 (never heard of this brand) to 7 (very familiar with this brand). This measure was employed to evaluate differences in brand familiarity across conditions. It is expected that no significant differences in brand familiarity will be observed.

The scales were translated into Thai by a bilingual marketing scholar who is an expert in a sustainability context. Another bilingual expert then back-translated the scales to verify conceptual accuracy and ensure that the items were contextually appropriate for the Thai setting. Minor adjustments were made to enhance consistency with the original English version. The finalized Thai measures were subsequently pretested to assess interpretive clarity and scale reliability.

An online quasi-experimental study was conducted to investigate how consumers’ attitudes and perceived risks vary between manipulated and control conditions. The study also examined whether these relationships are influenced by consumers’ self- vs other orientations. The specifics of the main study are detailed below.

The main study used a sample of 151 students. The homogeneity of the student population allows for more precise predictions, enabling a robust evaluation of a given scope of study. The participants are volunteers from various majors and academic levels. They are young, urban and educated consumers. These characteristics align with those of opinion leaders, making them suitable for the objectives of this study. Furthermore, the students possess brand awareness and may have experience purchasing products or using services from the three companies selected for the study. Notably, Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) reported no significant differences in magnitudes between studies involving student samples and those using consumer samples.

Data was collected within an online classroom setting. With prior approval from the course instructor, participants were recruited on a voluntary basis to complete the online survey questionnaire using their mobile or computer devices, which took approximately 15–20 min. Both the researcher and the instructor emphasized to participants that participation was entirely voluntary and would not affect whatsoever their course grade. Participants were informed that their personal information (such as name or ID) would remain anonymous and not be identifiable in any way. This ensured that participants could respond based on their genuine judgments. Moreover, participants were informed that they could withdraw from the survey at any point, either during or after completing the questionnaire. A 200 Baht (US$7) gift card was given to each participant as a token of appreciation.

Voluntary participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Treatment Version 1, Treatment Version 2, Control Version 1 and Control Version 2). Participants were not informed of their assigned group condition. The randomization process was carried out using the break-out room function in the online classroom platform. In each group, participants were provided with all necessary documents – including (1) a consent letter, (2) an instruction letter and (3) the questionnaire – via QR codes. At least one researcher or research assistant attended each session to facilitate and monitor the survey. They were thoroughly trained to address any participant queries. All participants received identical instructions for each treatment and were required to read and provide informed consent before proceeding with the questionnaire. Participants were informed that they would be asked to share their opinions on the performance of three major companies as consumers. They were then directed to review the case materials, which contained a brief company background along with information on key stakeholders and CS performance, before completing the questionnaire. Once participants submitted their responses, they were debriefed and dismissed from the online session. The data was automatically stored in the researcher’s secured storage.

An independent sample t-test was used to examine the differences between the third-party sustainability assessment condition and the control group across self- vs other-oriented consumers.

Among 15 students, 11 (73%) perceived manipulation conditions correctly in the manipulation check. Therefore, the manipulation was effective, and the designed conditions could be employed in the main study. Table 3, column I, illustrates the results of the manipulation check. Moreover, as we assessed brand familiarity across conditions using an independent t-test, the results show that brand familiarity of participants in the control group and the group exposed to third-party assessment is not significantly different. The results are congruent among self- vs other-oriented participants and across three brands (SCG, TU and SCB), confirming that no potential confounding effects are in place for the designed conditions for the overall participants (Table 4).

The main study comprised 151 students, 90 were assigned to the manipulated condition group and 61 were assigned to the control group. Among the conditioned group, 65 students (72%) accurately identified the manipulation conditions, resulting in a total of 126 participants advancing to the main study. As over 70% of the respondents correctly identified the manipulation conditions, the manipulation was thus successful. Table 3, column II, shows the results of the manipulation check of the main study.

Tests of measures dimensionality for two dependent variables were performed using AMOS v29. Attitude and perceived risk achieved a good fit across three product categories. The reliability test showed satisfactory results as Cronbach’s alphas range from 0.91 to 0.96, indicating that the dependent variables are suitable for further analysis (Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2014).

The data was analyzed and reported following Zuniga Huertas et al. (2022) and Rokhayati et al. (2022). All hypotheses were tested via an independent t-test.

Table 5 displays the results of means, standard deviations and independent t-test results in brand attitude and perceived risks across the three product categories. H1 examines the influence of a third-party assessment on brand attitude. The results indicate that the average brand attitudes of participants exposed to the given firm’s third-party assessment information are statistically higher than the control group. The results are in accord for SCG [M_assessment = 5.55 vs M_control = 5.00, t(124) = 3.417, p = 0.001], TU [M_assessment = 4.70 vs M_control = 4.37, t(118) = 2.195, p = 0.030] and SCB [M_assessment = 5.28 vs M_control = 4.84, t(124) = 2.090, p = 0.039]. H1 is therefore supported.

H2 assesses the influence of a third-party assessment on perceived risks. The results reveal that the average perceived risks of participants exposed to the given firm’s third-party assessment information are statistically lower than the control group. The results are consistent for SCG [M_assessment = 2.73 vs M_control = 3.14, t(124) = −1.877, p = 0.063], TU [M_assessment = 2.90 vs M_control = 3.31, t(122) = −2.270, p = 0.025] and SCB [M_assessment = 2.90 vs M_control = 3.42, t(124) = −2.292, p = 0.024]; H2 is supported. Even though the p-value for SCG is significant at 0.1, the direction of results is consistent with other product categories. We thus accept the results.

Table 6 displays the means, standard deviations and independent t-test results in brand attitude and perceived risks in self-oriented groups, across the three product categories. H3 examines the moderating effects of participants’ self-orientation. The results show that, among participants who are highly self-oriented, the average brand attitude of participants exposed to the given firms’ third-party assessment information is statistically higher than the control group. The results for SCG [M_assessment = 5.50 vs M_control = 4.69, t(58) = 3.862, p = 0.000], TU [M_assessment = 4.74 vs M_control = 4.27, t(58) = 2.098, p = 0.040] and SCB [M_assessment = 5.25 vs M_control = 4.67, t(58) = 1.961, p = 0.055] are aligned.

Among participants with other-oriented attributes, the results show that the average brand attitudes to the given firms’ third-party assessment information are not statistically different from the control group, across all product categories. Hence, H3 is supported. While the p-value for SCB is significant at 0.1, the direction of results is in accord with the other product categories. We thus accept the results.

H4 also examines the moderating effects of participants’ self-orientation. From the results, among participants who are highly self-oriented, the average perceived risks of participants exposed to the given firm’s third-party assessment information are statistically lower than the control group. Results from SCG [M_assessment = 2.59 vs M_control = 3.32, t(58) = −2.528, p = 0.014], TU [M_assessment = 2.77 vs M_control = 3.31, t(58) = −2.092, p = 0.041] and SCB [M_assessment = 2.84 vs M_control = 3.47, t(58) = −2.029, p = 0.047] are all in agreement.

Consistent with H3, among participants with other-oriented attributes, the average perceived risks of other-oriented participants exposed to the given firm’s third-party assessment information are not statistically different from the control group, across all product categories as we anticipated. Therefore, H4 is supported.

As a post hoc analysis, we also performed familiarity tests between brand attitude and perceived risks of participants who viewed the brands as familiar compared to low/unfamiliar, for SCG, TU and SCB. We divided participants into low- and high-familiarity groups via the median-split method and examined the mean differences in brand attitude and perceived risks between the two groups. It was found that there are significant differences across the three product categories. Participants who are in the high-familiarity groups indicate significantly higher brand attitudes than participants in the low-familiarity group. The differences were also found in the perceived risks of most brands. Hence, there were confounding effects from brand familiarity when examining brand attitude and perceived risks. Despite this finding, we trust that the use of three well-known brands enhances realism, generalizability and external validity while representing distinct categories: pure product, pure service and hybrid product. Our pretest ensured equal brand familiarity across participants.

This study offers theoretical contributions to CS literature. First, using signaling theory, we demonstrate a significant and positive relationship between third-party assessment and brand attitude among consumers, one of the focal stakeholders. It confirms that third-party assessment serves as signals that influence consumer brand attitude. These results align with previous research indicating that ESG information, such as indices, awards and rankings, leads to perceived positive attitudes (Atkinson and Rosenthal, 2014; Baumgartner et al., 2022) among consumers, and enhances the firm’s reputation (Diez-Cañamero et al., 2020; Parguel et al., 2011; Zerbini, 2017). In addition, our findings reveal a significant negative link between third-party assessment and perceived risks, suggesting that firms should leverage their sustainability assessments as indicators to build reliability among consumers. These findings are consistent with recent research showing that positive CS reports can reduce information asymmetry between corporations and consumers, ultimately enhancing the firm’s value and credibility, as well as reducing perceived risks over time (Friske et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2021; Landi et al., 2022).

While previous studies have established the positive influence of third-party sustainability assessments on brand attitude and their role in reducing perceived risks, the present study extends these findings by employing the DJSI as a comprehensive and dynamic proxy of third-party sustainability assessment. Unlike static certifications, the DJSI applies continuously evolving selection criteria that assess firms based on their long-term economic, social and environmental asset management strategies. Companies must demonstrate improvement in their sustainability practices to maintain their inclusion in the Index, ensuring that the certification reflects ongoing commitment rather than a onetime achievement. This distinction is particularly important in addressing consumer skepticism and greenwashing concerns, as it reinforces the credibility of third-party assessments in signaling authentic CS efforts (White et al., 2019).

Moreover, this study enhances external validity and generalizability by using real brands across three product categories. Prior research often relies on fictional brands, which may not fully capture real consumer perceptions of sustainability assessments. By analyzing actual brands included in the DJSI, this study ensures greater applicability to real-world decision-making and reduces concerns about artificial experimental settings. This approach strengthens real-market relevance and provides a more authentic understanding of how third-party sustainability assessments influence consumer perceptions, offering a novel contribution to sustainability literature.

Second, this study is among the first to investigate the distinct consumer characteristics that vary in self- and other orientations by testing their moderating impacts. The findings show that these different characteristics result in varied attitudes and perceived risks when exposed to third-party sustainability assessment. Specifically, highly self-oriented consumers exhibit a stronger positive brand attitude and stronger negative perceived risks toward firms that possess third-party assessments. Among other-oriented consumers, on the other hand, their brand attitude and perceived risks are not significantly changed when firms with third-party assessments are presented. These results provide valuable insights for brands on how to use third-party assessment information more effectively by targeting the appropriate audience.

The rationale behind the varying moderating effects is that the third-party assessment enhances the positive brand attitude among self-oriented consumers. We illustrate that those consumers perceive the CS index as an extraordinary benefit that they will get when occupying the brand (e.g. positive brand image, social responsibility persona or social admiration). Conversely, other-oriented consumers view CS as a mandatory responsibility that every well-known company has to comply with in society (Ross and Kapitan, 2018), thus third-party sustainability assessment cues may act as just “expected information” to identify the existence of sustainability attributes of observed brands.

Our findings indicate several managerial implications for managers or the leadership of sustainable firms. First, to enhance brand attitude and minimize perceived risk, firms could showcase evidence of assessment related to CS when publicizing their performance through various channels such as corporate websites, whitepapers, articles, blogs, speeches and news releases.

Second, we recommend managers emphasize their corporates’ sustainability merits assessed by third-party institutions as communication strategies on CS performance when targeting self-oriented consumers. Managers can employ surveys measuring customers’ sense of self-orientation as part of firms’ records of customer purchase and satisfaction (e.g. postpurchase services) to categorize them into self- and other-oriented consumers. When engaging in direct communication with self-oriented consumers, firms should highlight sustainability performance assessed by third-party organizations to entice higher positive brand attitudes and lower perceived risks. Managers should recognize that, for this consumer group, visible CS performance recognitions are viewed as highly socially desirable, indicating the firm’s exceptional brand image. This suggestion is also consistent with a previous study, which recommended that firms could overcome perceived inferiority in functional and esthetic attributes of sustainable products among self-oriented consumers by promoting self-benefit attributes (White et al., 2019).

Third, to further optimize the efficiency of marketing communication budgets, firms should strategically extend the resources allocation toward engaging self-oriented consumers as alternatives from targeting green consumers or the environmentally conscious segment, as is commonly practiced. By doing so, firms can cultivate more target consumers who view sustainability initiatives as extraordinary and valuable.

Finally, although other-oriented consumers do not reject third-party sustainability assessments, these certifications may have limited persuasive power, as they prioritize a brand’s broader societal contributions over CS endorsements. Therefore, third-party assessments should not be the sole or primary communication tool for shaping their perceptions. In some cases, relying on such assessments may even be ineffective or counterproductive, particularly when engaging consumers who value collective benefits and social impact over corporate accolades. To effectively connect with other-oriented consumers and enhance brand attitude, firms should go beyond mere compliance with sustainability standards and instead emphasize community engagement, participatory initiatives, and collective impact. Communication strategies that highlight stakeholder-driven endorsements and real-world social contributions – such as grassroots sustainability programs and consumer-involved initiatives – can foster stronger emotional connections, credibility and trust. By actively demonstrating meaningful contributions to societal well-being, brands can authentically differentiate themselves, reinforcing positive perceptions and strengthening brand attitude among socially conscious consumers.

Despite careful design and execution, this study encompasses certain limitations that warrant researchers’ attention. First, the study employs a quasi-experimental method to examine the causal relationships between observed variables and control for the influence of other factors. Thus, future research could validate our findings through real-life scenarios by measuring consumers’ brand attitudes and perceived risks. Case studies of firms receiving merits in CS performance could further verify the influence of third-party assessments, particularly among self-oriented consumers. Second, our results indicate that third-party assessments produce nonsignificant effects on consumers’ brand attitudes and perceived risks amid consumers with other-orientations. However, the underlying explanations for the findings are beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, future research could explore the core rationale of such a consumer group in viewing third-party assessments as “a must” even though having evident evaluations from trusted sources signify the superiority and higher credibility of sustainable firms. Researchers could conduct in-depth interviews or focus groups to examine other-oriented consumers. Finally, although we controlled for brand familiarity across manipulated conditions (i.e. three product categories), our post hoc analysis showed that the degree of high- vs low familiarity affects brand attitude and perceived risks, suggesting areas for future research.

In summary, the findings underscore the importance of using third-party assessments to shape consumer brand attitudes and perceived risk. It is crucial to consider personal characteristics when communicating CS performance to effectively reach the right target audience and maximize the value of these tools.

While this study provides insights, the use of students as the primary sample in experimental research design may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand the sample to include a broader and more diverse population, such as working professionals, consumers across different age groups and individuals from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. A larger and more heterogeneous sample would allow for robust statistical analysis, ensuring that the findings are not limited to a specific demographic group but can be generalized to a wider audience.

In addition, we recognize the potential influence of third variables beyond consumers’ mindsets that could impact the results. Cultural influences and social norms may play a significant role in shaping consumer responses to brand sustainability efforts. For instance, consumers from collectivist cultures may prioritize the societal benefits of a brand’s sustainability initiatives, while those from individualistic cultures may focus more on personal benefits. Similarly, social norms – such as the perceived prevalence of sustainable consumption within one’s peer group or society – can shape consumer attitudes and behaviors. When sustainability is widely endorsed within a community, consumers may be more likely to engage with sustainable brands due to normative pressure. Future studies could consider these variables as covariates in experimental designs to better isolate their effects more effectively.

Furthermore, to explore alternative explanations and gain deeper contextual insights, future research could employ mixed-method approaches, such as interviews or focus groups. These qualitative methods would help uncover underlying motivations and perspectives that may not be captured through quantitative analysis alone, thereby strengthening the interpretive depth of the study.

Finally, conducting large-scale surveys with a significantly higher number of respondents across multiple contexts could enhance external validity, helping to confirm whether the observed effects are consistent across diverse consumer segments and market conditions.

After reviewing the provided corporate background and corporate facts, participants exposed to the third-party assessment were requested to choose one of three statements that best describe the corporate facts. Only those who agree with the statement three were included in the analysis:

1. The information reflects policies, projects and activities of all three companies. However, they have not yet provided reports on the results or consequences of these initiatives.

2. The information reflects the results of operations derived from policies, projects and activities of all three companies. These results are clearly demonstrated through numerical data or referenced statistics.

3. The information reflects long-term outcomes resulting from the implementation of policies, projects and activities of all three companies. This is evident through the awards, indexes or certification they have received from external organizations or agencies.

Source(s): Authors’ own work