Next Article in Journal
Korean Business Groups and Performance of Group-Affiliated Professional Sport Teams: Focusing on the Asian Financial Crisis
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Impact of Public Rental Housing on the Housing Prices in Proximity: Based on the Regional and Local Level of Price Prediction Models Using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Sustainable Urban Regeneration through Smart Technologies: An Assessment of Local Urban Regeneration Strategic Plans in Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Agglomeration Externalities and Skill Upgrading in Local Labor Markets: Evidence from Prefecture-Level Cities of China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/su12176887
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Modelling Municipal Social Responsibility: A Pilot Study in the Region of Extremadura (Spain)

by
Maria Isabel Sánchez-Hernández
1,*,
Manuel Aguilar-Yuste
1,
Juan José Maldonado-Briegas
2,
Jesús Seco-González
3,
Cristina Barriuso-Iglesias
1 and
Maria Mercedes Galán-Ladero
1
1
Business Mangement and Sociology Department, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Extremadura, Av. Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
2
Financial Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Extremadura, Ave. Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
3
Academic Unit of Plasencia, University of Extremadura, Avda. Virgen del Puerto, 10600 Plasencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(17), 6887; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176887
Submission received: 1 July 2020 / Revised: 31 July 2020 / Accepted: 18 August 2020 / Published: 25 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Economics, City Development and Future Social Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Social Responsibility in the Public Administration is an emerging phenomenon responding to the challenges and opportunities for public institutions faced by the rapidly evolving world. The general and ambitious global goal of sustainability is at risk because inequality is increasing among countries, but also within countries at the regional and local levels. Facing this problem, the aim of this paper is to approach how the social responsibility of local governments is impacting citizens’ participation as a way of managing the required transformation to sustainable development. In order to contribute to seed light in the field, a pilot study was carried out, employing partial least squares as an exploratory method, with an ad hoc structural equation model, and with a sample of 256 inhabitants in three municipalities in Extremadura (Spain). The findings are promising for place marketing, local public management and democracy reinforcement because it is empirically demonstrated that the municipality’s orientation towards responsibility impacts citizen´s connection, attraction, and identification with the municipality, increasing citizen participation.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development represents encountering the demands of the generations of today without threatening the capability to subsequent generations to attend their own demands. This means that private or public sustainable organizations have to pursue a better quality of life for everyone, now, and also for the new generations to come [1]. The municipalities in Spain are the basic level of the Spanish local government. The global crisis emerged after the bursting of the financial bubble and the fracture with the past economic cycle has been accompanied by a series of incorrect organizational practices [2], also in public administration, where corruption is an alarming problem. For instance, many grave corruption situations around the world have been initiated in recent times in urban planning and construction at the local-level public procurement, revealing high corruption risks and mismanagement [3,4,5,6]. Consequently, and despite the anti-corruption units created in different countries and contexts [7,8], also at the local level [9,10], or the new transparency-enhancing legislation in the majority of countries, and the recent serious efforts made to improve governance systems and to introduce systematic public control, especially in Europe [11,12], more than ever, citizens are demanding Social Responsibility (SR), as stakeholders [13].
In addition, the new crisis in 2020, associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, is already having a considerable impact on the world economy. Even the concept of sustainability has been recently redefined to include, into the three classical pillars (economic, social and environmental), a local-level topic as the fourth pillar that is the role of human health [14]. In this situation, and more than ever before, every municipality is concerned about sustainability and how to implement social practices creating economic and social value for citizens [15].
Modern approaches of place marketing [16] look inside the place and are characterized as ongoing processes of monitoring citizens´ needs and, additionally, wishes, preferences and opinions [17]. The measure of public satisfaction with living, working, studying or visiting the place has also become an important issue to research because citizens represent an essential part in place marketing [18]. Vanová et al. [19] highlighted two types of local government objectives to enforce a place on the market. The first type is related to the citizens living there, called inhabitants, and the second one is related to outsiders. Some of these in-objectives inform about local authority work results, future changes and plans, economic costs effectiveness, responsibilities and duties. Other aspects, like involving citizens into decision-making processes or establishing a consensus between subjects involving in place development, are also recognized.
Many countries, especially the most developed, have undertaken reforms in public management in order to make their government more transparent, efficient, effective, productive and more responsive [20], improving their image. In this context, SR could help to re-establish citizen trust in public administrations. SR refers to an organization´s voluntary decisions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the organization, and beyond compliance [21].
In general terms, the relevance of SR for the competitive success of organizations has been recognized, and for the economic system as a whole, given the noticeable advantages resulting from each responsible action successfully implemented [22]. The deployment of strategies based on SR is highly demanded because of the benefits resulting from a better relationship with the key stakeholders. For instance, some positive consequences are: the improvement of reputation [23], the augmentation of customers/users or their increase of satisfaction, loyalty and identification with the organization [24], employees sharing corporate values, real motivation and engagement, positive impact on productivity [25], and more interested investors in organizations that join SR criteria [26].
Public administration is not outside of this situation, and a good example is the region of Extremadura in Spain. Since 2010, the Autonomous Region of Extremadura has developed its own plan for the promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at the regional level. The starting point was the Law of CSR in Extremadura (15/2010 of 9 December). This innovative legal framework has the intention to encourage economic, social and environmental decisions of companies in a non-coercive way. The law was developed by the Decree 110/2013, of 2nd July, by establishing the Autonomous Council to foster SR in the region, the Office of CSR, and a specific procedure for the qualifying and registering socially responsible companies in Extremadura in an available catalogue.
In this context, municipalities are invited to become responsible entities to satisfy citizens´ expectations. However, although some interesting works are starting to be published in the field [27,28,29], to the best of our knowledge, management academics have not yet generated a substantial body of theoretical and empirical contributions examining and explaining the responsibility of public administrations with citizens and other stakeholders. To contribute to filling this gap, this paper deals with the development of a model to link the SR of municipalities with other suitable variables for sustainability and public administration development such as citizen participation.
This work has the purpose to develop a model for approaching SR in a regional context by measuring what citizens perceive about the SR of their municipality, assessing the relationship between public local authorities and their inhabitants. This paper has an innovative theoretical and empirical contribution to the local public administration field of research, demonstrating the positive impact of SR on the attraction of citizens, the improvement of their connection and identification with the municipality and the positive final effect on citizen participation.

2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Development

Acknowledging the high value of the existing contributions of different theories in describing and arguing why and how integrating SR and sustainability into organizational strategic decisions helps to improve the management of corporations [30], this work is routed on the seminal work of Garriga and Melé [31]. We try to develop a model for municipal SR joining the four groups of approaches described by the authors [31]. First, we deploy an instrumental approach because municipalities are a tool for citizens´ wealth creation. Second, the political approach is especially suitable for municipal social responsibility because of the power of local governments in the territory. Third, the study is rooted in ethical concerns, based on the ethical responsibilities of municipalities. Fourth, we assume an integrative approach when recognizing that the public corporation, which must be focused on the satisfaction of citizens' wants and needs, as it is argued in the following sub-sections.

2.1. From SR to Sustainable Development

Differences exist between the concepts of SR and sustainability, although both constructs share economic, social and environmental dimensions. SR is especially focused on social issues [32,33] and sustainability is a broader term describing a nested ecological system where the economy is clearly recognized as part of society, and society as part of the general ecosystem [33,34]. The Brundtland Report [35] defined sustainable development as the socio-economic process that can meet the needs of the world today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Since then, there have been successive and continuous pronouncements about it. Sustainable development has to be related to public policies and it must be taken up by society at large. In this direction, to develop sustainable cities and communities is goal number 11 for sustainable development from the United Nations for 2030 [1].
In this respect, recent contributions to academic literature study how to overcome difficulties, complexities and challenges to encourage reforms in public local institutions to obtain the urban development goal [36,37]. In this regard, municipalities have an important role by 2030 to ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and to upgrade slums, especially sustainable housing for the poor [38,39]. The municipal governments are also aware that they need to provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all [40] by expanding public transport and making it also financially sustainable [41], with special attention to vulnerable groups such as older persons [42] or persons in informal settlements [43], for instance.
Other studies are focusing their attention on how municipalities enhance inclusive, resilient, smart and sustainable urbanization [44], how to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage [45,46], the universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces caring about the ecology of cities [47], or how to reduce the number of deaths, and the number of people affected, by catastrophes such as water-related disasters [48] with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations developing the human face of city resilience [49]. To sum up, sustainability is a global goal to which modern and responsible municipalities might be implicated.

2.2. Theoretical Framework for Public Administration Today

Society is evolving and the role of governments and the practice of public administrations are also changing to encompass this evolution. One of the changes is the declining trust in politicians, institutions and governments. To combat this trend, we can observe the first steps in the public administration´s transformation from a traditional managerial focus to a citizen governance focus which is called “citizen-centered governance” or “networked governance” [50].
At this point, a renovated concept of corporate citizenship emerges from the work of Matten and Crane [51]. The classical concept of citizenship in political theory only refers to the relationship of the citizen to the state [52]. However, when introducing the concept into the management theory, we obtain a practical way of descriptively framing the relation of individuals with corporations. However, governments might also succeed in their responsibility to facilitate citizenship. The public administration today is starting to be distinguished by different collaborative experiences such as citizen and nonprofit sector participation, co-production and stakeholder engagement and public–private networks for solving social problems, among other possibilities. Innovation in the public sector is a growing academic field of research [53,54,55]. According to Hartley [50], the features of innovation in public administration could be different depending on the paradigm assumed. The typology of public management goes from “classic/traditional” (Weberian paradigm) to future “citizen-centered”, with the “new public administration” as a paradigm in the middle. In these three paradigms, the most important characteristic is the role of the population. While traditional public management treats the population as clients and the new public administration as customers, the citizen-centered public administration treats the population as co-producers. According to Bourgon [56], a new theoretical framework for public administration would help to guide the interactions amongst public servants, citizens, civil society, and elected politicians. Bearing in mind that most democratic forms of governance have the concept of citizenship at their core [57], theory development will help academics and practitioners to advance the concept of real democratic interaction.
However, new public administration could be mistakenly compared to new public management. Although both movements have common features, the second one stresses that management should guarantee the quality of public services. Efficiency is also important, as new public administration intends to make the public service more professional by adopting private sector management models and, for this reason, the movement has been criticised. Criticism is especially aimed at specific innovations such as outsourcing, privatization or fee-based pricing and choice-based consumerism [58]. Far from this approach, here, we adopt the idea that SR could be a new tool for the new public administration in order to build trust and to improve citizen participation [59].
Vigoda [60] established a theoretical- and empirical-grounded criticism of the state of the so-called new public management paradigm [61] because it overshadows the meaning of citizen participation through accentuating the importance of responsiveness. According to this author, citizens are the real owners of the state, but they are sometimes very passive and they do not always assume their role. As a consequence, this theoretical citizen power is, at the moment, only a symbolic banner for the governance, because there is not a strong and effective public administration–citizen relationship supporting the current representative democracies. He recommends more interaction between responsiveness and collaboration. Later, the same author explains how the need for a more collaborative administration is gaining attention in academia, challenging the previous idea of a responsive public administration [62]. According to these ideas, the first hypothesis emerges as follows.
Hypothesis 1. 
The municipality’s orientation towards responsibility (RES) has a positive and direct impact on the citizens´ participation (PART).

2.3. The Expected Effect of Municipal Social Responsibility on Citizens

To build a good brand based on SR, any municipality will need relationship marketing. Following the Stakeholder Theory [63,64] applied to public institutions [65,66], this concept is mainly based on interactions within a network of relationships, building strong linkages with stakeholders [67]. The broader concept of relationship marketing applied to municipalities could be defined as the conscious strategic process of identifying, building, developing, improving, maintaining and enhancing good and strong relationships with inhabitants. Rakitovac and Bencic [29], p. 536, have recently stated that municipal social responsibility “is a permanent commitment of local governments to offer public services which will increase the quality of life of their citizens and foster sustainable competitiveness through the co-creation of a supportive business environment”.
The idea of the importance of developing strong interpersonal relationships between civil servants and citizens is derived from the traditional service marketing literature. In other contexts than the public administration, some interpersonal bonds are highlighted to define personal connection with the organization such as familiarity, care, friendship, rapport, and trust [68]. Thus, in municipal contexts, we can expect improvements in the personal connection of citizens with their municipality.
Hypothesis 2. 
The municipality’s orientation towards responsibility has a positive and direct impact on the personal connection of citizens with their municipality.
It is also expected that the orientation to SR of the municipality will cause the municipality–citizen identification. We refer to the creation of a strong municipality culture [69]. Regardless of the orientation to SR, citizens will be more likely to trust in the local government, perhaps because of feelings of efficacy and greater identification with the managerial process. Consequently, and applying the Theory of Social Identification [70], according to Kim et al. [71], the orientation of SR could be considered a responsible brand. This brand will cause a positive effect on citizens, increasing their identification with the municipality.
Hypothesis 3. 
The municipality’s orientation towards responsibility has a positive and direct impact on the personal identification of citizens with their municipality.
In addition, positioning the local government as a responsible entity will foster the personal attraction of citizens for this territory [72,73].
Hypothesis 4. 
The municipality’s orientation towards responsibility has a positive and direct impact on the personal attraction of citizens for their municipality.
It is expected that the personal attraction of citizens for their municipality will reinforce both their personal connection and their identification with the territory [57].
Hypothesis 5. 
The personal attraction of citizens for their municipality has a positive and direct impact on the personal connection of citizens with their municipality.
Hypothesis 6. 
The personal attraction of citizens for their municipality has a positive and direct impact on the personal identification of citizens with their municipality.
To sum up, attraction, connection and identification will be translated into the expected brand loyalty defended by Kim et al. [71] and other authors in traditional marketing situations [74,75,76]. This fact, in public administration at the local level, could be expressed in terms of citizen participation.
In many municipalities, public officials are beginning to become aware of the importance of public participation. This is happening in difficult contexts, where citizens are increasingly demanding accountability, after a decrease of trust in their local governments [77]. At the same time, we can expect that a higher level of participation when the municipality is already oriented to SR. To complete the conceptual model (Figure 1), in line with the rationale of the previous theoretical approach, both the personal connection and personal identification of citizens with their municipality will have a positive effect on participation.
Hypothesis 7. 
The personal connection of citizens with their municipality (CON) has a positive and direct impact on the citizens´ participation (PART).
Hypothesis 8. 
The personal identification of citizens with their municipality (IDEN) has a positive and direct impact on the citizens´ participation (PART).

3. Method

Structural Equation Modelling with Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS), which is now widely applied in Social Sciences [78], was chosen for its specific statistical properties (recommended for small sample size and non-normal data) and its suitability for exploratory research objectives [79], as it is the case. Although there is very sophisticated software in the market for this purpose, it is remarkable that we used the software SMART-PLS 2.0, developed by Ringle et al. [80], available online for free.

3.1. Sample, Instrument and Procedure

In Spain, each municipality forms part of a province, and provinces are grouped in Autonomous Communities. At the moment, there are 17 Autonomous Communities in Spain and two autonomous cities (Ceuta and Melilla) composing the political landscape, with a total of 8118 municipalities (although some of them have additional second-level subdivisions, such as districts or commonwealths).
However, to verify the hypotheses derived from the theoretical model, and for validating the model itself, we carried out an empirical pilot study in a single region, the Autonomous Community of Extremadura. Three municipalities were selected as representative and a convenience balanced sample of 256 citizens participated in the study, where 133 were men and 123 women. To verify that the sample size was appropriate for SEM-PLS, the 10-times rule was used following Barclay et al. [81]. The appropriateness was confirmed because when the structural model has not formative constructs, as in our case, this rule recommends that “the minimum sample size should be equal to 10 times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular latent construct” [82], p. 24.
Each participant answered a self-administered questionnaire based on literature review, containing 28 questions (Likert scales with ten points). All details are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Measures

According to the theoretical work of Canyelles [83], the orientation to SR of municipalities has different elements in line with the United Nations who have identified three concepts as part of the founding principles of public administration: integrity, transparency and accountability [84]. To address the challenges that the public sector has to citizens, it is necessary to develop the ability to build trust. Because of that, governance and values could be considered as part of SR in municipalities. We refer to the increasing transparency in public administration, the promotion of a culture based on ethics and good governance in the public sector [77,85]. The need to manage the SR of public administrations should be treated as a key challenge to improve the ability to create social value. In summary, the behaviour of public administration and people conforming it must be guided by ethical values including the values of sustainability, transparency and SR as a whole.
Academic literature has also considered transparency and new forms of accountability as key elements for good governance [86]. There are studies looking for new styles of governance specially focused on promoting higher levels of transparency for citizen engagement [87]. For instance, SR strategy deployment has been considered as a way of creating, developing and reinforcing citizens’ trust in governments [12,88]. In this respect, Kim [71] defends that any government´s effort to create opportunities for citizen participation represents a relevant element of such a strategy. This should be reflected in policy decision making and in government performance evaluation.
Authors such as Nevado-Gil et al. [89] have analysed one of the mechanisms of administrative transparency that is the dissemination of public information via web pages. This instrument has acquired significant importance in recent years thanks to the growing use of information and communication technologies. However, the results of the study showed that much is yet to be accomplished locally in that respect. Other recent works in the Spanish context analyse mechanisms for improving participation at the local level [90,91].
For municipalities to be oriented to SR, accountability is also important. We refer to the set of activities to evaluate the institutions and their processes. In this context, the concept of accountability refers to a wide-ranging of public expectations dealing with ethics, morality and the responsiveness of governments [92]. The accountability serves as a control measure to determine how power is exercised, how citizens use their voices in the adoption of public decisions, and how those decisions are made in accordance with the general interest.
The ability to accomplish a responsible government requires also the integrity of policies, the capacity to generate significant impacts efficiently addressing the concerns of citizens. Consequently, another important part of SR is efficiency in public policy, bearing in mind that the main responsibility of a municipality is provided by the ability to produce positive results and sustainable impacts on the scope of their duties and, by extension, in all matters affecting the economic, social and environmental impacts of their town and area of influence [93]. Performance improvement is a key factor in all organizations, including those who, because of their public role, do not compete in the market. Managing this factor is an axis of the responsibility of each public institution with its stakeholders.
In addition, classical dimensions have to be considered as part of the orientation to SR in municipalities such as Economic Issues, Environmental Issues and Social–Labour Issues according to the triple bottom line developed by Elkington [94]. The economic dimension of SR of municipalities refers to economic impacts that affect the environment and stakeholders. Among the various aspects that could be included here, we highlight, for example, local purchase.
Moving to environmental issues, we can say that improving environmental impacts is one responsible action that many municipalities have already started. Finally, dealing with labour issues from the point of view of SR involves talking about human rights, non-discrimination, health and safety, integration, equal pay and reconciliation of life work and family.
According to the literature review, we found enough theoretical background supporting each construct. The orientation to SR in municipalities was supported by a seminal theoretical paper written in Spanish by Canyelles [83] condensed into 15 items, as follows: I feel that the municipality governs and, in addition, it cares about social issues (RES1); I see that the municipality is worried about being transparent in the use of public resources (RES2); I think that the municipality provides access to information about its management (RES3); I feel that the municipality produces positive results in the town (RES4); I think that the municipality has the ability to plan, produce, measure and evaluate the impact of their actions in the medium and long term (RES5); I think the municipality ensures institutional and interdepartmental cooperation when necessary and focus their efforts on key issues (RES6); The municipality reports and captures the opinions of neighbours (RES7); The municipality seeks consensus in their decisions (RES8); The municipality is in favour of participatory budgeting, public hearings and participatory local policies (RES9); The municipality is a major services contractor in the municipality (local purchases/payments to suppliers), promoting local development (RES10); The municipality provides companies with their location and development in the municipality (RES11); The municipality is a good example of an institution that protects the environment, reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions (RES12); The municipality is a good example of hiring people with disabilities, gender equality, conciliation or job security (RES13); I feel that the municipality is governed by ethical values, democratic culture, innovation and service to citizens´ attitude (RES14); I think the municipality works hard for the village/city to become a developed territory, economically and socially inclusive and sustainable (RES15).
The attractiveness of the municipality as a responsible entity was supported and adapted from Kim et al. [86] with three items: For me, this municipality is attractive as a responsible entity (ATTRAC1); I like this municipality because it is distinguished from others by its responsibility (ATTRAC2); When dealing with the municipality I feel good because I feel I am understood (ATTRAC3).
The personal connection of citizens with their municipality comes from Gremler and Gwinner [68] with three items after adaptation: When I need something, I like being served by people who are responsible of the municipality (CON1); I care the relationship with people working in the municipality (CON2); I feel there is a good link between people and the municipality (CON3). The same was needed to measure the identification of citizens with their municipality, 4 items adapted from the field of marketing the scale from Mael and Ashforth [95]: When someone criticizes my municipality I take it as an insult (IDEN1); I worry about what people think about my municipality (IDEN2); When the municipality has successfully achieved something, I feel that success is also mine (IDEN3); If you leave any news in print, radio or TV criticizing the municipality, I do not feel well (IDEN4).
Finally, the scale to measure the citizen´s participation was adapted by the authors from Yoon et al. [96] with three items: When I am very well attended at the municipality I use to communicate it (PART1); I use to make suggestions at the municipality to improve the service provided (PART2); If I see something wrong in the town or a failure of the municipality, I ask for a quick resolution (PART3).

4. Results

As usual, in the SEM-PLS procedure, the analysis was performed in two different stages. First, we examined and obtained results from the measurement model, and second, we analysed the structural model for hypotheses testing.

4.1. Measurement Model Validation

In this first stage, we considered the validity of the scales (measuring what one really wanted to measure) and the reliability of the measurement model (whether the process is stable and consistent).
  • Indicator acceptance [81,97,98]—The factor loadings obtained satisfied the strictest criterion (λ > 0.7). We want to highlight that it was unnecessary removing items from the initial model because all of the original items meet the strictest criterion of individual reliability. The minimum factor loading obtained was 0.827 for the first item of the participation construct.
  • Internal consistency of the constructs of the measurement model—Using Cronbach´s Alfa coefficient, internal consistency for each element into the model was estimated as a high 0.98 for the municipality orientation to SR, 0.93 for the attractiveness construct, 0.89 for the personal connection construct, 0.94 for citizen´s identification, and 0.89 for citizen´s participation. All the composite reliability indicators were above the 0.7 threshold recommended by Nunnally [99].
  • Properties of the measurement model—Convergent validity was confirmed. The average variance extracted (AVE) was always above 0.50, indicative that more variance was explained than unexplained in the variables associated with a given construct [100]. The model shows very good values for the AVE (0.77 for RES; 0.83 for ATTRAC; 0.74 for CON; 0.80 for IDEN; 0.74 for PART).

4.2. The Structural Model Interpretation

For assessing the structural model, it was necessary to examine the following:
  • The goodness of a model—It is determined by the strength of each structural path and analysed using the value of R2 (explained variance) for the dependent latent variables. Figure 2 shows the main results and high predictive power of the model. R2 for each dependent variable is graphically shown in the figure in the middle of the construct with the high values of 0.69, 0.68, 0.51 and 0.66 respectively for ATTRAC, CON, IDEN and PART.
  • The path coefficients (β) and their levels of significance—For each path or relationship between constructs, desirable values must be at least equal to or greater than 0.1 [101]. The significance level of the path coefficients was tested via a bootstrap re-sampling procedure (Table 2).
  • The Stone–Geisser test—It is used to verify the predictive relevance of the model (Q2 > 0) [98]. In the model, all Q2 are positive demonstrating its predictive relevance. In other words, the observed values are well reconstructed by the model.

5. Discussion

The results obtained from the empirical analysis show how municipalities are challenged by the new trend of socially responsible actions. The relationship between the municipal SR orientation and other relevant variables for marketing a place has been empirically demonstrated. First, the attraction of citizens for this territory, and second, this attraction will incentivize both the connection and identification with this place as a brand. Finally, the SR of municipalities is able to create a culture of corporate citizenship behaviour, promoting participation.
The findings are promising for place marketing, local public management and democracy reinforcement because it was empirically demonstrated that the municipality’s orientation towards responsibility impacts citizen´s connection, attraction, and identification with the municipality, increasing citizen participation.
With the results obtained in this study, it is possible to argue that a favourable institutional context advocated to promote SR in the territory could be the best starting point for fostering a regional brand consisting of a responsible image of the place. The main contribution of the analysis is the development of a model that works for explaining the relationship between municipal social responsibility and one of the most valuable elements of modern democracies—citizen participation. A number of key terms emerge from this exploratory research, which help our understanding of the responsibility of municipalities and the relationship with other variables that should be considered in any locality.

6. Conclusions

Today, modern approaches of place marketing look inside the place and are characterized as ongoing processes of monitoring citizens´ wants and needs. Taking into account this trend previously studied by authors such as Kotler and Gertner [16] or Eshuis et al. [17], and motivated by the recent decline of trust in government, municipalities are starting to become aware of citizens´ opinions. Considering that SR is an opportunity for branding a place, the measure of citizens´ perception of municipal SR is also emerging as an important issue to research.
This paper is an empirical contribution to the field of research devoted to analyse relations between State and Society in line with the previous work of Narmania [27], Teteevoca and Jelinkova [28] and Rakitovac and Bencic [29]. By analysing a Spanish case with a pilot study at the regional level in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura, the paper opens the door to study to what extent the model could be translated and adapted to other municipalities, regions and countries.
The conclusion of the study is three-fold. First, the orientation to SR in municipalities previously studied for Canyelles [83] from a theoretical point of view was operationalized. With this empirical study, the scale with 15 items was validated and it is now available for further studies. Second, it was demonstrated that the structural model developed here, and rooted in the place marketing field, also works for public administration, in the specific context of local governments, fostering the citizen´s connection, attraction, and identification with the municipality. Third, it was empirically demonstrated that the municipality’s orientation towards responsibility reinforces real democracy in line with Painter [52] because it is positively related to citizen participation.
However, this research is not complete. There is much to be understood and learned about the social orientation of public policies. In this new time of the Coronavirus crisis, SR seems to be more important than ever and public administration is not outside of the process. Extremadura has started the journey to SR by fostering CSR, and also by implementing the same philosophy in public institutions. Future research is needed to consolidate this political impetus in SR and to consolidate the first steps performed in public administration.
Taking into account that the results of the current study are context-specific with a small sample, in the near future, the authors will expand the study to other municipalities in the region under study to test the validity of the model and to be able to generalize conclusions. This work may represent a first empirical step towards the further examination of the relationship between SR in municipalities and the participation and satisfaction of citizens.

Author Contributions

M.I.S.-H. has designed and coordinate the research, analysed the data and wrote the article. M.A.-Y., J.J.M.-B., J.S.-G., C.B.-I. and M.M.G.-L. have contributed to the paper by getting data and improving the final version of the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Junta de Extremadura and European Union (FEDER) grant number IB16024.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Regional Government of Extremadura and the European Union for its support to the research groups of the University of Extremadura (Group SEJO21).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development Goals. 2020. Available online: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
  2. Shiller, R.J. The Subprime Solution: How Today’s Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to Do about It; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Quesada, M.G.; Jiménez-Sánchez, F.; Villoria, M. Building Local Integrity Systems in Southern Europe: The case of urban local corruption in Spain. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2013, 79, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benito, B.; Guillamón, M.D.; Bastida, F. Determinants of urban political corruption in local governments. Crime Law Soc. Chang. 2015, 63, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Parrado, S.; Dahlström, C.; Lapuente, V. Mayors and Corruption in Spain: Same Rules, Different Outcomes. South Eur. Soc. Politics 2018, 23, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Drápalová, E.; Di Mascio, F. Islands of good government: Explaining successful corruption control in two Spanish cities. Politics Gov. 2020, 8, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. De Sousa, L. Anti-corruption agencies: Between empowerment and irrelevance. Crime Law Soc. Chang. 2010, 53, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mungiu-Pippidi, A.; Johnston, M. (Eds.) Transitions to Good Governance: Creating Virtuous Circles of Anti-Corruption; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Michael, B.; Mendes, S. Anti-corruption law in local government. Int. J. Law Manag. 2012, 54, 26–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, K.; Choi, S.O.; Kim, J.; Jung, M. A Study on the Factors Affecting Decrease in the Government Corruption and Mediating Effects of the Development of ICT and E-Government—A Cross-Country Analysis. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cini, M. European Commission reform and the origins of the European Transparency Initiative. J. Eur. Public Policy 2008, 15, 743–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ortiz-Rodríguez, D.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J. The influence of administrative culture on sustainability transparency in European local governments. Adm. Soc. 2018, 50, 555–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carroll, A.; Buchholtz, A. Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, 8th ed.; South-Western Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 redefines the concept of sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A.R. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kotler, P.; Gertner, D. Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. J. Brand Manag. 2002, 9, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eshuis, J.; Braun, E.; Klijn, E.H. Place marketing as governance strategy: An assessment of obstacles in place marketing and their effects on attracting target groups. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cleave, E.; Arku, G.; Sadler, R.; Kyeremeh, E. Place marketing, place branding, and social media: Perspectives of municipal practitioners. Growth Chang. 2017, 48, 1012–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vanová, A.; Boxiková, A.; Foret, M. Communicating Town. In Best Practices in Marketing and Their Impact on Quality of Life; Alves, H., Vázquez, J.L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2013; pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bourgon, J. New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy Adm. 2009, 24, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aminia, M. Bienstock, C.C. Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Park, J.; Lee, H.; Kim, C. Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspectives. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Servaes, H.; Tamayo, A. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness. Manag. Sci. 2013, 59, 1045–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Dogl, C.; Holtbrugge, D. Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: An empirical study in developed and emerging economies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1739–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Girerd, I.; Jimenez, S.; Louvet, P. Which Dimensions of Social Responsibility Concern Financial Investors? J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 121, 559–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Narmania, D. Efficient Management of Municipal Enterprises. Eur. J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2018, 3, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Tetrevova, L.; Jelinkova, M. Municipal Social Responsibility of Statutory Cities in the Czech Republic. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Rakitovac, K.A.; Bencic, M.T. Municipal Social Responsibility. In Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, Proceedings of the 51st International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Rabat, Morocco, 26–27 March 2020; Hammes, K., Machrafi, M., Huzjan, V., Eds.; Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency: Varazdin, Croatia, 2020; pp. 528–538. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ashrafi, M.; Magnan, G.M.; Adams, M.; Walker, T.R. Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Garriga, E.; Melé, D. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 53, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schwartz, M.S.; Carroll, A.B. Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Bus. Soc. 2008, 47, 148–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Montiel, I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. United Nations (UN). The Bruntland Report: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  36. Klopp, J.M.; Petretta, D.L. The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities 2017, 63, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zinkernagel, R.; Evans, J.; Neij, L. Applying the SDGs to cities: Business as usual or a new Dawn? Sustainability 2018, 10, 3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Smets, P.; van Lindert, P. Sustainable housing and the urban poor. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2016, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Soederberg, S. Universal access to affordable housing? Interrogating an elusive development goal. Globalizations 2017, 14, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rode, P.; Floater, G.; Thomopoulos, N.; Docherty, J.; Schwinger, P.; Mahendra, A.; Fang, W. Accessibility in cities: Transport and urban form. In Disrupting Mobility; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 239–273. [Google Scholar]
  41. Buehler, R.; Pucher, J. Making public transport financially sustainable. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ryan, J.; Wretstrand, A.; Schmidt, S.M. Exploring public transport as an element of older persons’ mobility: A Capability Approach perspective. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 48, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Heinrichs, D.; Bernet, J.S. Public transport and accessibility in informal settlements: Aerial cable cars in Medellín, Colombia. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 4, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Allam, Z.; Newman, P. Redefining the smart city: Culture, metabolism and governance. Smart Cities 2018, 1, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Guzman, P.; Pereira Roders, A.R.; Colenbrander, B. Impacts of common urban development factors on cultural conservation in world heritage cities: An indicators-based analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Childers, D.L.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M.; Marshall, V.; McGrath, B.; Pickett, S.T. An ecology for cities: A transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience and urban sustainability. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3774–3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lowe, D.; Ebi, K.L.; Forsberg, B. Factors increasing vulnerability to health effects before, during and after floods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 7015–7067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Seeliger, L.; Turok, I. Towards sustainable cities: Extending resilience with insights from vulnerability and transition theory. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2108–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hartley, J. Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money Manag. 2005, 25, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  51. Matten, D.; Crane, A. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Turner, B.S. Review essay: Citizenship and political globalization. Citizsh. Stud. 2000, 4, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bekkers, V.; Edelenbos, J.; Steijn, B. (Eds.) Innovation in the Public Sector; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Araújo, J. Improving public service delivery: The crossroads between NPM and traditional bureaucracy. Public Adm. 2001, 79, 915–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Figaredo, D.D.; Álvarez, J.F.Á. Social Networks and University Spaces. Knowledge and Open Innovation in the Ibero-American Knowledge Space. RUSC Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 2012, 9, 245–257. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bourgon, J. Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a New Public Administration theory. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2007, 73, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Painter, J. Multi-level citizenship, identity and regions in contemporary Europe. In Transnational Democracy: Political Spaces and Border Crossings; Anderson, J., Ed.; Roudledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 93–110. [Google Scholar]
  58. Le Grand, J. The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, X.; Wan Wart, M. When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vigoda, E. From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Adm. Rev. 2002, 62, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schiavo-Campo, S. Performance in the public sector. Asian J. Political Sci. 1999, 7, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vigoda, E. Collaborative public administration: Some lessons from the Israeli experience. Manag. Audit. J. 2004, 19, 700–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman Publishing: Marshfield, WI, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  64. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Berner, M.M.; Amos, J.M.; Morse, R.S. What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government? Views from city stakeholders. Public Adm. Q. 2011, 35, 128–163. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ndaguba, E.A.; Hanyane, B. Stakeholder model for community economic development in alleviating poverty in municipalities in South Africa. J. Public Aff. 2019, 19, e1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gummesson, E. Total Relationship Marketing; Butterworth-Hinemann: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gremler, D.D.; Gwinner, K.P. Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. J. Serv. Res. 2000, 3, 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gray, A.; Jenkins, B. From public administration to public management: Reassessing a revolution? Public Adm. 1995, 73, 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kim, S. Public Trust in Government in Japan and South Korea: Does the Rise of Critical Citizens Matter? Public Adm. Rev. 2010, 70, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Servillo, L.; Atkinson, R.; Russo, A.P. Territorial attractiveness in EU urban and spatial policy: A critical review and future research agenda. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2012, 19, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Ziyadin, S.; Streltsova, E.; Borodin, A.; Kiseleva, N.; Yakovenko, I.; Baimukhanbetova, E. Assessment of investment attractiveness of projects on the basis of environmental factors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lau, G.T.; Lee, S.H. Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. J. Mark. Focused Manag. 1999, 4, 341–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Gounaris, S.; Stathakopoulos, V. Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An empirical study. J. Brand Manag. 2004, 11, 283–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hal, R.G. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Straub, D.W. Editor’s Comments: A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in” MIS Quarterly”. MIS Q. 2012, 36, iii–xiv. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Will, S. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg. 2005. Available online: www.smartpls.de (accessed on 15 February 2020).
  81. Barclay, D.; Thompson, R.; Higgins, C. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Canyelles, J.M. Responsabilidad social de las administraciones públicas. Rev. Contab. Dir. 2011, 13, 77–104. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  84. Armstrong, E. Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration: Recent Trends, Regional and International Developments and Emerging Issues; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  85. Lawton, A.; Doig, A. Researching ethics for public service organizations: The view from Europe. Public Integr. 2006, 8, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kim, P.S.; Halligan, J.; Cho, N.; Oh, C.H.; Eikenberry, A.M. Toward Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government. Public Adm. Rev. 2005, 65, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Da Cruz, N.F.; Tavares, A.F.; Marques, R.C.; Jorge, S.; De Sousa, L. Measuring local government transparency. Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 866–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Galera, A.N.; de los Ríos Berjillos, A.; Lozano, M.R.; Valencia, P.T. Transparency of sustainability information in local governments: English-speaking and Nordic cross-country analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nevado-Gil, T.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I. La Administración Local y su implicación en la creación de una cultura socialmente responsable: Información divulgada en la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura. Prism. Soc. Rev. Cienc. Soc. 2013, 10, 64–118. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  90. Ramos Vidal, I. Detecting key actors in interorganizational networks. Cuad. Gest. 2017, 17, 63–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. García Castro, D.; De Elizagarate Gutierrez, V.; Kazak, J.; Szewranski, S.; Kaczmarek, I.; Wang, T. Nuevos desafíos para el perfeccionamiento de los procesos de participación ciudadana en la gestión urbana. Retos para la innovación social. Cuad. Gestión 2020, 20, 41–64. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gibson, P.D.; Lacy, D.P.; Dougherty, M.J. Improving performance and accountability in local government with citizen participation. Innov. J. Public Sect. Innov. J. 2005, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hendriks, F.; Tops, P. Between democracy and efficiency: Trends in local government reform in the Netherlands and Germany. Public Adm. 1999, 77, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Elkington, J. Towards the suitable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mael, F.; Ashforth, B.E. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yoon, M.H.; Seo, J.H.; Yoon, T.S. Effects of contact employee supports on critical employee responses and customer service evaluation. J. Serv. Mark. 2004, 18, 395–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Carmines, E.G.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and validity assessment. In Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. N-07-017; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  98. Chin, W. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modelling. MIS Q. 1998, 2, vii–xv. [Google Scholar]
  99. Nunnally, J.C. Phychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  100. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modelling; The University of Arkon: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 12 06887 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 1. The conceptual model. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 06887 g001
Sustainability 12 06887 g002 550
Figure 2. Main Results. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 2. Main Results. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 06887 g002
Table
Table 1. Technical Data Sheet.
Table 1. Technical Data Sheet.
Geographical Scope3 Municipalities in Extremadura (Region in Spain)
Universe13,284 citizens
Method of Information CollectionPersonal contact
Sample256 (133 men; 123 women)
Measurement Error6%
Trust Level95% z = 1.96 p = q = 0.5
Sampling MethodSimple random
Average Duration of the Interview10 min
Table
Table 2. Hypotheses Testing.
Table 2. Hypotheses Testing.
Hypothesis: A → BOriginal Path Coefficient (β)Mean of Sub-Sample Path Coefficientt-Value
H1: RES→ PART0.6600.66012.13 ***
H2: RES → CON0.7690.76820.66 ***
H3: RES → IDEN0.6760.67415.33 ***
H4: RES → ATTRAC0.8300.82936.61 ***
H5: ATTRAC → CON0.5510.5536.80 ***
H6: ATTRAC→IDEN0.4260.4224.91 ***
H7: CON →PART0.3000.2953.48 ***
H8: IDEN →PART0.5220.5218.44 ***
*** p < 0.001 (based on a Student’s two-tailed test, t (499)) t (0.001;499) = 3.31. Source: Own elaboration.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Hernández, M.I.; Aguilar-Yuste, M.; Maldonado-Briegas, J.J.; Seco-González, J.; Barriuso-Iglesias, C.; Galán-Ladero, M.M. Modelling Municipal Social Responsibility: A Pilot Study in the Region of Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176887

AMA Style

Sánchez-Hernández MI, Aguilar-Yuste M, Maldonado-Briegas JJ, Seco-González J, Barriuso-Iglesias C, Galán-Ladero MM. Modelling Municipal Social Responsibility: A Pilot Study in the Region of Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability. 2020; 12(17):6887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176887

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Hernández, Maria Isabel, Manuel Aguilar-Yuste, Juan José Maldonado-Briegas, Jesús Seco-González, Cristina Barriuso-Iglesias, and Maria Mercedes Galán-Ladero. 2020. "Modelling Municipal Social Responsibility: A Pilot Study in the Region of Extremadura (Spain)" Sustainability 12, no. 17: 6887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176887

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop