Violations of CSR Practices in the Australian Financial Industry: How Is the Decision-Making Power of Australian Women Implicated?

Abstract

Financial institutions have made significant efforts in recent decades to integrate CSR activities into their core business approaches; however, several studies have shown that CSR violations have increased in the Australian financial industry, with financial institutions engaging in unethical practices and deceptive strategies to benefit their organizational profits over consumer interests. So far, research has shed light on how financial institutions have used CSR violation and manipulative strategies to bias consumer decision making, but there has been little investigation into how these manipulative techniques bias an individual’s rational, emotional, and decision-making powers when purchasing financial products. As a result, this study employs the theoretical notions of the emotion-imbued choice model (EIC) to investigate on how rational decision making, along with moderating effects of emotions (such as anxiety) and behavioural traits (such self-efficacy), influence the decision-making powers of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. It employs an online survey with 357 usable responses from Australian women, where several complex products and services are offered, and contentious claims of financial misconducts are reported. Data analysis is carried out through SPSS where regression analysis is performed along with double moderation performed through Hayes Process Model 2, with anxiety and self-efficacy chosen as moderators. Results reveal that anxiety significantly affects decision-making power of Australian women whereas moderating effects of self-efficacy was found to be insignificant. In addition, the regression results also showed that in the face of CSR violations, rational decision making has the greater influence on decision-making power of Australian women as compared to anxiety and self-efficacy. This study will be useful to a wide range of stakeholders, including the government, regulators, marketers, CSR activists, consumer watchdogs as they provide a comprehensive understanding of the interactions between rationality, emotions, and behavioural traits and how they affect the decision making of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions.

1. Introduction

The need for corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities is growing, as interest in these activities, but there is currently little regulation on how CSR activities can be implemented within various organisations [1,2]. Organizations have made significant efforts in recent decades to integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their core business [1,3]. These efforts range from the formation of new CSR firms (termed as Born CSR firms) to the implementation of stand-alone CSR programmes. While several international firms face challenges in integrating CSR into their existing operations, several studies have stated various theoretical foundations that provide potential explanations for why organisations choose to include reporting and information disclosures as part of CSR activities [4,5,6]. Currently, the demand for reporting and disclosures has increased within the financial industry, which has led to heightened interest in CSR activities [1,7,8,9]. However, there has been an increase in CSR violations within the Australian financial industry, with financial institutions engaging in unethical practices and manipulative techniques to benefit their organisational profits over consumer interests [1,8,10]. These manipulative techniques raise concerns about how financial institutions are failing to integrate CSR activities and whether all gender groups are treated equally under the current reporting structure [11,12].

Until now, several studies have shown how financial institutions have influenced an individual’s decision making through unfair manipulation and violations. Furthermore, these unethical manipulative techniques have been shown to negatively influence an individual’s rational behaviour as well as emotionally influence an individual’s decision making [13,14,15]. So far, research has shed light on how financial institutions have used CSR violation and manipulative strategies to bias consumer decision making, but there has been little investigation into how these manipulative techniques bias an individual’s rational, emotional, and decision-making powers when purchasing financial products. From a broader perspective, consumer decision-making power has been extensively researched from the perspectives of being powerful/powerless [16,17], having a voice, or having purchasing power [18,19]. However, when viewed through the lens of CSR activities, the notion of consumer power remains a source of concern in the Australian financial markets. Hence, understanding the concept of consumer decision-making power in the financial products markets needs attention because it will lay the groundwork for individuals to exercise their decision-making powers in the event of financial firms’ manipulations and inappropriate disclosures.

The Australian financial market has a good reputation in the global markets. Presently, Australia ranks among the top ten countries in terms of financial literacy levels [20,21]. Despite this, Australia has one of the widest male-women financial literacy gaps in the OECD. Existing evidence clearly shows how Australian women may be disadvantaged as a class within the current state of information reporting structure in Australian financial markets [22,23]. Furthermore, these evidences also showcases the reports from the Royal Banking Commission, which state that Australian financial institutions appear to have used manipulative techniques and unethical practices to exploit customers over the years. Additionally, the report also demonstrates how Australian women are exploited by financial institutions, demonstrating the emergence of a “culture of greed” within the Australian financial industry, which has resulted in emotional vulnerabilities, with customers feeling powerless in the face of financial illiteracy while purchasing financial products [12]. While financial literacy is a key aspect in financial decision making, several studies have found that lower levels of self-efficacy, as well as emotions (such as anxiety), do influence decision-making powers in Australian women consumers [19,24,25]. Therefore, our study delves into how rational consumers (i.e., Australian women) make use of their decision-making power when making financial product decisions in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. To accomplish this, the study employs an integrative theoretical model of the emotional imbued choice model (EIC) to investigate the moderating effects of emotions (e.g., anxiety) and behavioural traits (e.g., self-efficacy) between rational decision making and the decision-making powers of Australian women when purchasing financial products.

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 provides context by explaining the concepts of unethical CSR practices used in the Australian financial industry. Section 3 provides insights into the emotion-imbued choice model, which is used as the theoretical foundations of this study to investigate how CSR violations affect the rational, emotional, and decision-making power of Australian women when purchasing financial products. Later, Section 4 presents the literature on rational decision making and its effects on decision-making power, followed by a discussion on the role of emotional manipulation by examining the effects of two specific emotions (i.e., anxiety, self-efficacy) on consumer power, followed by the demonstration of the theoretical model used in this study. Section 5 then describes the methodology and scales used in this study, which is followed by the descriptive statistics and findings for the moderating effects of self-efficacy and anxiety on the decision-making power of Australian women in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 discusses each of the study’s findings, which is followed by the study’s conclusion in Section 8 and contributions and future research directions of study in Section 9.

2. Unethical CSR Practices within the Australian Financial Industry

The concept of CSR is not new to the financial industry. Yet, the majority of research regarding CSR has been focused on the nature and content of disclosures [26,27,28], the role of CSR and its influence on bank market value or performance [29,30], internal organisational factors and their effects on the profitability on CSR disclosures [31,32], the relationship between CSR reputation and economic performance [33], and the corporate governance effects on CSR by banks [34,35]. Prior corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature indicates that organisations frequently publish CSR information to reduce their reputational risk following a major crisis/incident within an industry [1]. Furthermore, CSR disclosures are voluntarily incorporated into organisational reporting as a means of communicating responsible social and environmental measures undertaken as part of an organization’s activities to business stakeholders and society at large [5,13]. On these lines of discussions, several studies have stated that incorporating CSR disclosures within financial institutions plays a strategic role for organisations aiming to repair their damaged organisational image or reputation [1,8,12].

Primarily, banks and other financial institutions enable individuals and businesses to participate in a capitalist economy. Within Australia, the Royal Banking Commission is put in place to conduct a large-scale enquiry into the financial sector with the primary goal of examining and reporting on whether any organisational conduct by financial services entities amounted to misconduct or fell below community expectations and requirements [1,7,9,36]. However, according to recent Royal Banking Commission reports, the Australian financial industry has adopted unethical CSR practises to exploit vulnerable consumers who are emotionally vulnerable and lack a higher level of financial literacy [1,7,12]. While the Royal Banking Commission was established to expose widespread misbehaviour and manipulative practises by financial service providers, recent investigations revealed that financial advisors/institutions used a variety of manipulative techniques to influence emotionally vulnerable consumers (i.e., Australian women), distorting their rationality and decision-making powers. Further, a snapshot of manipulative techniques is provided in

Table 1. Some Indicative Manipulative Techniques Adopted Within the Australian Financial Industry Source [8,37].

Manipulation Technique	Banking Example
False promises on Value Proposition	Slogans such as “More Give, Less Take” and “More than Money” used by one of the five big five Banks in to advertise their services, which contradicts the findings of the royal commission’s report in 2018, who identified that five of the nation’s largest banks, including the bank showcasing this slogan, have improperly collected fees for services that were never provided.
Misleading consumers without telling them the complete truth	Statements such as “Our entire culture is centred on doing what is right for our customers”(from the CEO of one of the financial and online banking services providers) or “I’m not aware of any overbearing sales culture” (from the CFO of the same firm) in response to the incentive-compensation programme that made it possible for its employees to pursue underhanded sales practices, where this firm misled shareholders by creating 3.5 million fake-accounts and charging customer fees they did not know about.
Statements in response to deflect the responsibility	Hearing statements such as “You’ve got to come back to why do we exist and what is our vision” and one of the five big banks wanted to inspire its people “from their head and their heart to living the purpose and vision”(CEO of the bank) in response to what would stop banks from chasing short-term profits, rather than looking after their customers in future. The royal commission revealed multiple transgressions of banks in Australia.

, which shows how financial institutions influenced the decision-making power of Australian consumers over the past few years.

From a stakeholder theory perspective, developing socially responsible behaviours by providing transparent information disclosures improves relationships with relevant stakeholders [6,8]. However, Jahdi and Acikdilli [38] stated that inappropriate information disclosures and reporting results in an improper power balance within the marketplace. In response to these notions, Brill [39] and Balmer and Greyser [5] stated that there are several dimensions of power within a marketplace that demonstrate how consumer power is distributed in the face of market manipulation and persuasion techniques. Based on these notions, a snapshot of all these models can be seen in the below

Table 2. The Market Exertion of Consumer Power Through the Lens of CSR Source Brill [39] and Balmer and Greyser [5].

Assumptions	Manipulative Model	Transactional Model	Service Model	Corporate Model	Stakeholder-Institutional Model	Consumer Power Model
Power Balance	Dominance of Marketers	Consumer Marketer Balance	Consumers Dominate	Consumers and Stakeholders Dominate	Balancing current stakeholder and societal needs	Consumer Decision-Making Power and Resistance to Manipulation
Type of Consumer Power	Forces consumer choice	Consumer choice	Consumer Sovereignty	Consumer Stakeholder Sovereignty	Value Creation	Consumer Influence and Resistance towards Manipulation Techniques
Role of Marketer	To persuade consumers	To work with consumers	To service consumers	To work with consumers and stakeholders	An obligation to serve the long-term interests of customers and society.	Manipulate and Persuade consumers

.

As far as the distribution of consumer power in the financial industry is concerned, financial advisors are expected to guide customers in the direction that is in their best interests as part of their CSR activities. Unlike some previous studies, our paper does not concentrate on a major environmental incident having CSR implications. Instead, this paper focuses on a significant approach that demonstrates the extensive manipulations by Australian financial institutions revealed by the Royal Banking Commission, which resulted in significant influence on the decision-making powers of emotionally vulnerable individuals (i.e., Australian women). As a result, the study considers the consumer power model, which is much more appropriate for the given study to demonstrate how consumers in the current marketplace can influence and resist manipulative and persuasion techniques that are adopted by financial institution in Australia.

3. Theoretical Background

As stated in the preceding sections, rational consumers are expected to follow logical steps before making a decision; however, market manipulations have revealed that vulnerable individuals (i.e., Australian women) are emotionally biased, which influences their decision-making powers. Hence, by using existing academic literature of CSR within the Australian financial market, this section describes the emotion-imbued choice model, which states that rational consumers (i.e., Australian women) are influenced by emotions and behavioural factors which influence their decision-making powers.

Emotion-Imbued Choice Model

As per Merkl-Davies and Brennan [40], inappropriate disclosures and reporting are illustrations of CSR violations that allow financial institutions to emotionally manipulate consumers when making financial product purchase decisions. Furthermore, several studies have stated that examining the notions of CSR violations in the financial industry and understanding their impact on consumer decision-making power requires attention [41,42,43]. As a result, to better understand the effects of CSR violations in the financial industry, the current paper incorporates inputs from the emotion-imbued-choice model (EIC) and aims to provide a deeper understanding of how consumers’ rational, emotional, and decision-making powers are influenced when purchasing financial products.

The emotion-imbued choice model (EIC) is a key theoretical model in the field of emotional decision making [44,45]. It investigates both rational choice theory and the impact of emotions in synthesising an individual’s decision-making process [44,45]. The novelty of the EIC model stems from its consideration of non-traditional paths (i.e., incidental emotions, behavioural characteristics of the decision-maker, characteristics of the options, conscious/unconscious state of mind, and expected outcomes) that contribute to the current state of emotions in decision making (See Figure 1). Furthermore, it can be assumed that when confronted with financial institution manipulations, consumers have biases in making financial purchase decisions.

As a result, based on context of CSR violations and manipulation practises in the Australian financial sector, it can be argued that not only rationality, but also an individual’s characteristics, current state of feelings, and anticipated outcomes influence an individual’s decision-making powers when making financial decisions. Hence, the current study develops a theoretical model to understand how rational decision making of Australian women and their decision-making powers are influenced by behavioural traits (such as self-efficacy) and incidental emotions (such as anxiety) in the current reporting structure of the Australian financial industry.

4. Development of Hypotheses and Theoretical Model

The building process begins with the definition of the endogenous construct–Consumer power in the context financial decision making. Later, the sub-sections propose hypotheses on how rational decision making, specific emotions (such as anxiety), and behavioural traits (such as self-efficacy) influence Australian women’s decision-making powers under the current reporting structure of the Australian financial industry.

4.1. Consumer Power

Consumer power appears to be a cliché in the contemporary consumerist culture. Modern practitioners conceptualise consumer power as an attribute that allows a consumer to exercise their choices when making decisions (Tajurahim et al., 2020). Simply put, consumer power allows an individual to make a purchase decision that is not influenced by force or pressure. However, several researchers have stated that consumers are unable to exercise greater power as a result of financial firms’ CSR violations, such as inappropriate disclosures and misleading consumers in order to achieve personal benefits [5,8,38,46].

In general, consumer power has been classified using three distinct perspectives: (a) the consumer sovereignty model, (b) the cultural power model, and (c) the discursive power model. To begin, the consumer sovereignty model is based on Hobbes’ Leviathan, which states that a greater degree of power is restored to well-informed consumers and autonomous agents rather than individual producers [47,48]. Second, the cultural power model is based on De Certeau [49] ideas, which assert that consumers in a marketplace are active and innovative agents rather than powerless dupes susceptible to cultural tactics. Finally, the discursive power model is based on Foucault’s notions of power and seeks to understand how a normal or deviant consumer will act in various contexts [47,48]. Although each of these perspectives takes a different approach to examining consumers’ decision-making powers, the current study focuses on the discursive regimes of consumer power related to understand the influence of CSR violations on rationality (logical reasoning) and irrationality (emotions) on the decision-making power of Australian women under the current reporting structure of the Australian financial industry.

4.2. Inappropriate CSR Disclosures and Their Influence on Rational Decision-Making and Consumer Power

It is essential to have the understanding that making decisions regarding one’s finances is not a simple matter, regardless of whether a person is capable of making rational decisions or not [40,50,51]. According to Klinke [52], when it comes to public understanding of risk governance, appropriate knowledge combined with rationality allows an individual to make the optimal financial decision. However, these decisions are being manipulated due to the adoption of inappropriate disclosures by financial institutions, which is a violation of CSR measures [50,52,53,54,55]. Recent consumer manipulation investigations in the Australian financial industry have either broadened the definition of manipulation to include standard persuasion tactics or have focused on the use of emotional vulnerabilities to influence consumers’ decision-making powers [54,56]. According to Martin [50], organisations with knowledge about consumers use that knowledge to exploit a specific target’s vulnerabilities in order to subtly undermine their decision away from the consumer’s interests and towards the firm’s interests. Furthermore, it is also stated that organisations do deviate from CSR activities and employ manipulation techniques to leverage an individual’s weaknesses to influence their rational behaviour during the decision-making process [40,50]. While organisations use manipulative techniques in corporate documents and information disclosures to consumers to establish and maintain unequal power within society, techniques such as targeted manipulation within persuasion or nudging allow manipulation that acts similarly to fraud or coercion in undermining consumer market choice.

In a rational world, decision-makers are assumed to follow a specific set of procedures before they reach their final decisions. In other words, to achieve pure rationality in financial decisions, rational actors are seen to follow a three-step approach (i.e., demand identification, information search and evaluation of alternatives) to reach towards a financial product purchase decision (Lin, 2011; Kumar and Goyal, 2016). Execution of these steps in decision making allows a rational decision-maker to achieve a higher degree of decision-making power. To these discussions, Friedrichs and Opp [57] and Ummels [58] added that individuals are highly rational in their everyday life situations. For example, the study discovered that people tend to act rationally when making decisions about planning a vacation, waiting for a flight, playing a game, or choosing training and jobs. Moreover, Drozdowski [59] stated that individuals face the inability to judge to outcome/effects of financial decision making is due to a lack of information and the primary instrument for assessing benefits and costs related to decision making. On these notions, recent research conducted by VanBergen, Lurie, and Chen (2021) finds that individuals rely more on their rationality and reasoning than their emotions when making certain decisions. However, individuals struggle to make rational decisions in financial markets due to a lack of market information on financial products [60]. Particularly, women consumers are susceptible to emotional vulnerabilities that influence their decision-making power, when market manipulations are used in complex financial product purchase decisions [22]. As a result, understanding the effects of rationality on an individual’s decision-making power when making manipulation are in place when purchasing financial products is critical; thus, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Rational decision making positively influences the decision-making power of an individual when making financial-product purchase decisions.

4.3. Inappropriate CSR Disclosures and Their Influence on Anxiety and Consumer Power

Anxiety is one of the unstable characteristics of rational individuals that can cause uncertainty in the decision-making process [61]. From a broader range, anxiety can be generated by causes unrelated to the decision [62,63], by a compulsion to perform better [62,64], by thinking about how situations could worsen [62,65], and by thoughts of disappointment [62,66]. Furthermore, several studies have found that inappropriate guidance and information disclosures increase consumer anxiety when making financial product purchases [51,67]. Even though it is recommended that financial advisors provide genuine information as part of CSR activities in financial firms, it is argued that financial firms deviate from their ethical standards to make personal gains. Because of fluctuations in anxiety levels, these manipulations are frequently seen to influence an individual’s risk perception and decision-making power [51].

Previous research has discovered that anxiety causes individuals’ negative feelings toward the decision-making process to escalate, resulting in the individuals becoming significantly more risk-averse in their decisions [68,69]. To these discussions, Maner, et al. [70] added that anxiety and its relations with risk-avoidance in decision making could be seen in two ways. On the one hand, people are assumed to be anxious during decision making, indicating a threat or danger. Higher levels of anxiety are seen to stimulate pessimistic appraisals of upcoming events [62]. In contrast, on the other hand, anxiety is argued to induce positive emotions within an individual, motivating them to make efforts to repair their negative emotional states when making decisions [71,72]. Researchers have specifically linked the concept of stereotype anxiety/threat among women’s financial decision-making styles (Kaur and Vohra, 2012). Women, for example, have been argued to become stressed and anxious when making financial decisions due to the complexity of financial products. Researchers have termed this as “financial anxiety”, in which individuals tend to have negative feelings and a risk-avoidant attitude when making financial decisions (Grable et al., 2020, p. 18). Although anxiety has received considerable attention in relation to its relationship to risk-taking tendencies in decision making, it has remained under-researched in terms of how it affects an individual’s decision-making powers, especially within the current state of information reporting structure in Australian financial markets. Since anxiety has been shown to create uncertainty and a risk-aversion attitude in decision making, it is assumed that it will also reduce Australian women’s decision-making powers. Hence, we hypothesise as follows:

H2. 

Anxiety negatively moderates the relationship between rational decision making and consumer power when making financial-product purchase decisions.

4.4. Inappropriate CSR Disclosures and Their Influence on Self-Efficacy and Consumer Power

In the context of the banking sector, “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) refers to the act that promote societal goods beyond the immediate interests of banks or their shareholders [53,73,74]. Furthermore, as part of CSR activities, one of the primary values of financial institutions is information transparency, which allows consumers to learn more about the institution’s services [75]. Based on this notion, the main tenet of this study is that as bank information transparency about products/services increases customer familiarity with financial services, it also increases their perceived self-efficacy in dealing with financial services [73,75].

Given the impact of personality traits on decision making, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) asserts that an individual’s actions and decisions are influenced by their personality traits (such as self-efficacy) [76,77]. Furthermore, viewing the relationships between personality traits through the lens of social cognitive theory allows us to understand that self-efficacy not only allows an individual to be informative and knowledgeable, but it also allows them to gain competency in decision making [76,77]. In general, self-efficacy is one of the forms of personality traits in which refers to a person’s belief in their own ability to carry out actions that will help them achieve their goals and desires [76,78]. On a broader scale, self-efficacy has been linked to several dimensions (i.e., motivation, feeling of esteem, outcome value and its expectancies) that improve an individual’s decision-making powers. Furthermore, terms such as financial self-efficacy have been frequently used to view an individual’s self-efficacy behaviour when making financial decisions, whereby an individual’s capacity to conduct relevant information search regarding a financial product and their goal orientation are assumed to be aligned with each other [75,76]. For instance, empirical investigations conducted by Farrell, et al. [79] reveal that there is a positive relationship between self-efficacy and financial decision-making powers among Australian women. More precise results showed that higher levels of self-efficacy were a significant predictor of financial investments and wealth generation over time. Several studies have confirmed that financial self-efficacy has a mediating and moderating effect on an individual’s financial decision-making behaviours [78,80].

Furthermore, it is stated that when consumers are provided with transparent disclosures about financial products, they gain a higher level of economic self-efficacy, allowing them to easily make risk and value assessments when making financial-product purchase decisions (Tajurahim et al., 2020). Additionally, when viewed through the lens of empowerment theory, self-efficacy allows consumers to be proactive in gathering information when making decisions (Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995, Tajurahim et al., 2020). Besides this, research on the relationship between self-efficacy and emotions revealed that recalling positive emotions regarding banking disclosures and clarity elicited higher levels of self-efficacy, whereas recalling negative information is expected to lower levels of self-efficacy when making financial decisions [77,81]. As a result, it can be assumed that CSR disclosures can not only influence self-efficacy but also increases empowerment when making decisions, especially in the context of women consumers making financial product decisions. Hence, we hypothesise as follows:

H3. 

Self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between rational decision making and consumer decision-making power when making financial-product purchase decisions.

Based on the literature review presented in the preceding sections, the conceptual model for this study and the hypotheses that have been proposed are summarised in Figure 2.

5. Methods

To investigate how CSR violations in the Australian financial industry influence the rational, emotional, and decision-making powers of Australian women, an online survey based on existing scales for each construct was constructed (See Supplementary Materials). Furthermore, before proceeding to the data collection stage, the ethics committee of Swinburne University of Technology approved the study’s ethical considerations. Later, the online survey was pretested with six Australian academics to ensure face and content validity. After the completion of the pre-test, survey links were distributed via email and social media platforms (such as Facebook and LinkedIn), and Qualtrics Panel was contacted to assist in disseminating the survey to the targeted audience in Australia. The survey questionnaire included measures adapted from existing scales to fit the research study. These measures are as follows:

5.1. Operationalisation of Constructs

More often, researchers tend to operationalise a construct before using it in a research study. Martin, et al. [82] define operationalisation as “the process of defining variables that represent specific concepts or portions thereof”. Constructs are composed of two types of indicators reflective and formative [83,84]. Reflective indicators are intended to reflect a trait of an underlying construct. Formative indicators contribute towards an underlying construct [84]. Based on these ideas, formative constructs are used in this study (

Table 3. Operationalisation and Selection of Scales.

Constructs	Study Context	Operational Definition	Reliability
Rational Decision-Making Process	Taiwanese Financial Market	A rational decision is defined as an attempt to reach an optimum decision by categorising decision making into three types based on the level of rationality. Pure rationality allows decision-makers to reach optimum decisions and achieve the highest efficiency with unlimited time, resources, and knowledge to make decisions.	0.67 (Demand Justification) 0.62 (Searching for Information) 0.64 (Evaluating Alternatives) 0.75
Anxiety	Disposition of anxiety in investment decisions	Anxiety has been defined as an emotional response involving unpleasant feelings of tension and apprehensive and worried thoughts, and it prompts avoidant and conservative behaviour.	0.82
Anger	Disposition of anger in investment decisions	Anger has been defined as an “emotional state that consists of feelings that varies in intensity, from mild irritation or annoyance to fury and rage” (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012, p. 1059).	0.80
Consumer Power	Measuring power in social context (how sellers manipulate consumers)	Power is the perceived ability or potential of a social actor to influence or control the behaviour of another within a given relationship or context. Furthermore, it is an outcome of social dependency. A dependency, rather than power, may be viewed as an antecedent condition for predicting behaviour. Power can then be a useful scientific construct only when employed as an indicator of social dependency. Extending this to a consumer context, a consumer’s power over a retailer or its sales agent is derived from the retailer’s desires for the use or ownership privileges over the money resources commanded by the consumer. Likewise, a retailer’s power over a consumer derives from the consumer’s dependency on the retailer as a source of supply of those products and/or services which he or she may desire. As such, the interdependency existing between retail exchange partners leads to their attributed powers with respect to each other. Consumer Power is measured by Consumer Influence (CI) and Consumer Resistance (CR).	0.75 0.66

). To ensure stability of the study’s results, all of the constructs have a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.65 or higher [85,86].

5.2. Measures

Independent variables-Each phase of rational decision making is regarded as a latent construct (i.e., IDENT-3 items, INFO-2 items, and Eval-3 items), and it was assessed using a seven-point likert scale (ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Respondents were asked to indicate how they rationally evaluated a financial product purchase. Further, the items are adapted based on the suggestions of Lin (2011).

Outcome variables-As per Brill (1992), consumer decision-making power can be operationalised as two sub-scales: consumer influence (CI) and consumer resistance (CR). The influencing power is defined as the ability or potential to control the behaviour of another social actor, whereas the resistance power is defined as the power exerted by the consumer to delete the influencing power exerted by another individual. As a result, to understand how CSR violations affect consumer decision-making power, consumer influence and consumer resistance are both considered latent constructs (i.e., CI-6 items, CR-8 items), and they were assessed using a seven-point likert scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) adapted from Brill (1992).

Moderator variables-Emotions such as anxiety scales (i.e., ANX-20 items) was assessed using a four-point likert scale (ranged from almost never to almost always) from a questionnaire adapted from Gambetti and Giusberti (2012). Furthermore, self-efficacy (i.e., EFF-6 items) was measured using a four-point likert scale (ranged from almost never to almost always) adapted from Farrell et al. (2016).

5.3. Sampling

Based on this background, the present study’s population is defined as Australian women whose age is 18 years or above. Furthermore, studies in financial decision making have argued that using a convenience sample allows researchers to collect useful information that would not be possible using probability sampling techniques [87,88,89]. Moreover, several studies have argued that choosing convenience sampling methods during COVID-19 is preferable because sampling is dependent on the location and situation of the study [89,90]. As a result of the COVID-19 restrictions, the current study employs a convenience sampling method in which a general sample of the targeted audience is drawn from a group of individuals who are easy to contact or reach.

6. Results

Data cleaning techniques were applied to the gathered data set based on responses gathered from the online survey, and a total of 357 responses were used for data analysis. The collected data was analysed using descriptive statistics, followed by a validity analysis to ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs used in the study. Likewise, linear regression was performed on the given data set, with rational decision making, anxiety, and self-efficacy chosen as independent variables and consumer power chosen as dependent variable. In addition, moderation was conducted using the PROCESS macro in SPSS-v-28. To estimate the conditional (moderated) effects, PROCESS employs an ordinary least squares approach and a bias-corrected bootstrap method (with 5000 bootstrapped samples). For each variable of interest, we calculated the means, medians, standard deviations, ranges, and intercorrelations. All continuous variables of interest were mean centred to test the proposed moderation models. The product of the two mean-centred main effects was then used to generate interaction terms. The two main effects and the interaction term were entered into linear regression analyses. To demonstrate significant interactions, a simple slope analysis was performed using the Johnson-Neyman technique at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of the moderator (Spiller, Fitzsimmons, Lynch, and McClelland, 2013). In the current study, we conducted analyses corresponding to Model 2 using Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’ double moderation approach (2007).

6.1. Descriptive Analysis

The current study used a sample of 357 Australian women to examine how rational consumers (i.e., Australian women) make use of their decision-making power when making financial product decisions in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. According to the responses (See

Table 4. Demographic Profile of Respondents.

Item		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Women	357	100
Age	<25 Years of Age	31	8.6
	26–35 Years of Age	93	26.0
	36–45 Years of Age	80	22.4
	46–65 Years of Age	101	28.2
	>65 Years of Age	52	14.5
Income	<20,000$	100	28.0
	20,000–34,999$	78	21.8
	35,000–49,999$	63	17.6
	50,000–74,999$	70	19.6
	<75,000$	46	12.8
Education	Up to Primary School	3	0.84
	Ordinary Level	110	30.8
	Post-Graduate Level	40	11.2
	Undergraduate Level	113	31.6
	Advanced Level	91	25.4
Marital Status	Single	106	29.6
	Married	154	43.1
	Widow	19	5.32
	Divorced	32	8.96
	De Facto	46	12.8
Total		357	100

), 8.6% (n = 31) of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 25, 26% (n = 93) were between the ages of 26 and 35, 22.4% (n = 80) were between the ages of 36 and 45, 28.2% (n = 101) were between the ages of 46 and 65, and 14.5% (n = 52) were over 65. Regarding income levels, 28% (n = 100) of the participants earned less than 20,000$, 21.8% (n = 78) earned 20,000–34,999$, 17.6% (n = 63) earned 35,000–49,999$, 19.6% (n = 70) earned 50,000–74,999$, and 12.8% (n = 52) earned more than 75,000$. With regard to the education level, 0.84% (n = 3) had a schooling education, 30.8% (n = 110) had an ordinary level education, 31.6% (n = 113) had an undergraduate level education, 11.2% (n = 40) had a postgraduate level education, and 25.45% (n = 91) had an advanced level education. In addition, 29.6% (n = 106) were single, 43.1% (n = 154) were married, 5.32% (n = 19) were widowed, 8.96% (n = 32) were divorced, and 12.8% (n = 46) had a de-factor relationship status. Based on the above-mentioned demographic profile of the participants, it can be understood that most of the respondents (i.e., Australian women) are between the ages of 46 and 65, with higher roles and responsibilities towards their families and careers. Furthermore, demographic data show that the majority of Australian women (49.8%) earned less than 20,000$ per year/less than 35,000$, which is considered low/medium income in Australia.

Besides this, an insight into the financial literacy levels of Australian women reveals that the percentages of correct responses for basic financial literacy questions (such as basic numeracy, interest rates, inflation, compounding interest, and time value of money) are 71%, 55%, 50%, 43%, and 62%, respectively. This investigation revealed a striking fact that while all of the respondents had some understanding of each subject of financial literacy, only 17.64 percent were able to correctly answer all of the financial literacy questions. As a result, it can be concluded that overall financial literacy among Australian women on basic financial literacy concepts is low.

6.2. Construct Validity and Common Method Bias

Firstly, Harman’s one-factor test is performed on all the items, indicating that common methods bias is not an issue. Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis is carried out to test the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The results of the CFA show that the recommended values have been met (Chi-square = 332.34, χ2/df = 1.76, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.89, RMR = 0.08 and RMSEA = 0.046). It is ensured that all items retained within CFA have a factor loading of 0.40 or greater (see

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading	Sig	Cronbach’s (α)	C.R.	AVE
Demand Identification	IDENT1	0.65	***	0.79	0.80	0.57
	IDENT2	0.77	***
	IDENT3	0.83	***
Information Search	INFO2	0.53	***	0.60	0.60	0.42
	INFO3	0.77	***
Evaluation of Alternatives	EVAL1	0.87	***	0.72	0.74	0.60
	EVAL2	0.65	***
Anxiety	ANX8	0.65	***	0.87	0.87	0.50
	ANX9	0.65	***
	ANX11	0.68	***
	ANX15	0.63	***
	ANX17	0.73	***
	ANX18	0.76	***
	ANX20	0.78	***
Self-Efficacy	EFF1	0.75	***	0.73	0.73	0.58
	EFF2	0.77	***
Consumer Influence	CI2	0.62	***	0.62	0.62	0.45
	CI3	0.71	***
	CR2	0.51	***
Consumer Resistance	CR6	0.77	***	0.80	0.80	0.50
	CR7	0.84	***
	CR8	0.67	***

Notes: *** p < 0.001.

) (Hair et al. 2010). Thirdly, convergent and discriminant validity is evaluated by calculating the composite reliabilities and average variance retrieved for each construct. Because this study includes second-order factors (such as rational decision-making and consumer power), convergent and discriminant validity for the first-order and second-order constructs is verified to confirm discriminant validity (See

Table 6. Validity Analysis.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)
ANXI	0.870	0.489	0.375	0.875
EFFI	0.730	0.575	0.115	0.730
RATI	0.894	0.739	0.286	0.905
POWER	0.567	0.481	0.344	0.920

Notes: CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extracted; MSV—maximum shared variance; MaxR(H)—maximum reliability.

). Discriminant validity assures that all of the constructs are distinct from one another and that they do not correlate or overlap with one another in any way (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). To establish discriminant validity, the diagonal values must be bigger than the row and column values; also, the correlation must be less than 0.85. Additionally, Han (2021) and Lam (2012) claimed that even a lower average variance retrieved of 0.40 or less is acceptable to assure convergent validity unless their composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha scores are larger than 0.60. As a result, it is ensured that all constructs have an average variance of greater than 0.40 and composite reliability of 0.60 or higher. Based on the measurements presented above, it is acceptable to assume that the proposed constructs in the conceptual framework have good measures for convergent and discriminant validity.

6.3. Regression and Moderation Analysis

Table 7. Linear Regression Analysis.

Hypothesis	Regression Weights	Beta Coefficient	R2	F	p-Value	Hypothesis Supported
H1	Rat- > CP	0.010	0.436	274.50	<0.001	Yes
H2	EFF- > CP	0.015	0.008	2.82	<0.001	Yes
H3	ANX- > CP	0.012	0.008	2.78	<0.005	Yes

shows the results of a linear regression with rational decision making, anxiety, and self-efficacy as independent variables and consumer power as the dependent variable one at a time. The results indicate that rational decision making is significantly related to consumer decision-making power, with the highest regression coefficients (β = 0.010, p < 0.001) and R² = 0.43, p < 0.001.

Furthermore, self-efficacy is found to be positively related to consumer decision-making power with regression coefficient (β = 0.015, p < 0.001) and R² = 0.008, p < 0.001. Moreover, anxiety was also found to have a positive relationship with consumer decision-making power, with regression coefficient (β = 0.012, p < 0.001) and R² = 0.008, p < 0.001. Additionally, multiple linear regression model was tested in SPSS (

Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis.

Model	R	R2	Adjusted R2	Std. Error of the Estimate		Change Statistics
						R2 Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.689	0.475	0.471	0.08263		0.475	106.516	3	353	<0.001
Predictors: (Constant), ANXI, RATI, EFFI
Dependent Variable: POWER							Coefficients
Model		Unstandardised Coefficients		Standardised Coefficients	t	Sig.	95.0% Confidence Interval for B
		B	Std. Error	Beta			Lower Bound	Upper Bound
1	(Constant)	1.455 × 10−17	0.004		0.000	1.000	−0.009	0.009
	RATI	0.104	0.006	0.688	17.665	<0.001	0.092	0.115
	EFFI	0.025	0.007	0.148	3.497	<0.001	0.011	0.039
	ANXI	0.012	0.006	0.086	2.042	0.042	0.000	0.023

) which showed that the independent variable overall had an R² = 0.47 with p < 0.001. In addition, to test our model (shown in Table 8), Hayes (2013) suggested using SPSS Macro Process (http://www.afhayes.com, accessed on 3 October 2022) to test the moderating effects of self-efficacy and anxiety on consumer power of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. As shown in Table 8, there exists a significant direct effect of rational decision making and self-efficacy had on the consumer power of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. Besides that, the findings show that anxiety has a significant moderating effect (β = −0.018, p < 0.05) on Australian women’s purchasing power with (R² = 0.008, p < 0.5) whereas efficacy’s moderating effect was found to be insignificant (β = 0.01, p > 0.5) respectively.

Based on the analysis conducted in the above sections, the conceptual model accepted after the moderation effects is shown in above Figure 3. In the accepted model, it can be inferred that rationality significantly strengthen the decision-making power of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. Furthermore, anxiety appears to negatively moderate the relationship between rational decision making and decision-making power in Australian women making financial purchase decisions.

7. Discussion

Based on the analysis performed in the preceding sections, five major findings can be drawn from the regression and Hayes Process Macro analysis. Guided by the ATF and EIC frameworks, the study investigated to moderating effects of anxiety and self-efficacy on consumer power of Australian women in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. According to our first hypothesis, rational decision making has positive influence (β = 0.01) on consumer power of Australian women when making financial product purchases. This finding appears to be consistent with several studies indicating that rationality improves an individual’s decision-making powers [91]. Despite the fact that financial product purchases are assumed to be difficult for Australian women, and financial advisors are depicted as manipulating them through emotions, results show that rationality remains one of the most powerful influences on an individual’s decision-making power.

Secondly, in accordance with the proposed second and third hypotheses, the estimation coefficients result from regression reveal that there is a significant direct effect of self-efficacy and anxiety on consumer power of Australian women in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. Despite the fact that the majority of the study’s respondents have lower levels of income and literacy, it is reasonable to conclude that people in this study have higher expectations (i.e., self-efficacy) for their financial planning, which enables in gaining higher consumer power among Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. Hence, consistent with the findings of previous studies on self-efficacy [79,92], this result suggests that self-efficacy enables a consumer to exert greater power when making financial purchase decisions. Moreover, it can be interpreted from the above analysis that direct effects of anxiety have a positive significant effect on consumer power of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. From an informational perspective, the findings can be supported by understanding that people who are induced with negative emotions are more likely to make riskier decisions and have more decision-making power than people who are induced with positive emotions. However, from a motivational standpoint, it can be argued that individuals experiencing negative emotions are motivated to make efforts to repair their negative emotional state when making decisions. Consistent with the findings of previous studies on anxiety [71,72] and anger [93,94] on decision making, this result suggests that anxiety has a significant positive effect on an individual’s decision-making power.

Thirdly, in accordance with the proposed third hypotheses, the estimation coefficients from SPSS Macro Process show that there is a negative moderating interaction effect of anxiety on consumer power of Australian women in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. As a result, it can be argued that with emotional vulnerabilities and lower financial illiteracy, the triggering effects of anxiety tend to dampen the decision-making powers of Australian women when making financial purchase decisions. Hence, with consistent findings from Grable, Archuleta, Ford, Kruger, Gale and Goetz [61] and Dvorak-Bertsch, et al. [95], it can be concluded that anxiety has a negative moderating effect on an individual’s decision-making powers.

8. Conclusions

By exploring the role of rationality on consumer decision-making power, this study expanded our understanding of how decision-making powers of Australian women are influenced by emotions (such as anxiety), and behavioural traits (such as self-efficacy) when making financial product decisions in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises in the Australian finance industry. The results revealed that rationality, along with self-efficacy and anxiety, had a significant direct effect on Australian women’s decision-making power. However, anxiety was found to have a moderating effect on the decision-making powers of Australian women when making financial product purchase decisions. To our knowledge, this is the first paper of its kind to investigate the role of rationality, emotions, and behavioural traits on Australian women’s decision-making power in the face of inaccurate reporting and breaches of CSR practises within the Australian financial industry. Furthermore, the study sheds light on the financial literacy levels of Australian women, which is a major concern as achieving gender equality and empowering all women remains one of the United Nations’ key Sustainable Development Goals.

9. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

9.1. Theoretical Contributions

The framework adds to the CSR and CSR related marketing literature in several ways. Firstly, this paper presents a novel investigation framework that demonstrates how rationality, emotions, and behavioural traits influence the decision-making powers of Australian women when purchasing financial products. By uplifting decision-making power of vulnerable consumers, their overall wellbeing could be enhanced. This could trigger future investigations as to how unethical CSR practices of financial industry could affect the decision-making powers of vulnerable consumer segments.

Secondly, based on the theoretical foundations of the emotion imbued choice model (EIC) and the appraisal tendency framework, the framework illustrates and clarifies the relevant elements of the empowerment process that lead to the perception of consumer power (ATF). Despite the fact that power has been identified as a critical component of the empowerment process [17,96], no prior research has clearly specified the role of consumer power as a result of the empowerment process to our knowledge. As a result, the study provides insights into the discursive regimes of consumer power that assert that little research has been conducted into how normal and deviant consumers behave under the influence of various contexts. This understanding would enable CSR researchers to develop further conceptual frameworks that could explain as to how higher levels of consumer decision making power could protect vulnerable consumer groups from the unethical reporting and manipulative practices of firms. This could lead to consumer activism clamouring for better CSR practices of firms.

Thirdly, the framework illustrates the relationships between various constructs (i.e., antecedents and consequences) that influence and are influenced by two distinct dimensions of consumer power (i.e., Consumer influence and Consumer resistance). As a result, we provide a solid foundation for applying the proposed consumer empowerment framework to a variety of consumption contexts that ensure higher protection for potentially manipulative behaviour of firms in the financial industry.

Lastly, previous research in the CSR related marketing literature suggests that cognitive and emotional interactions influence an individual’s risk-taking tendencies and decision-making abilities. Moreover, negative emotions have been visualised to create a threat that reduces an individual’s decision-making powers. However, with the above findings and theoretical support from information-based and motivational decision-making properties, the study contributes to the notion that negative emotions also enable consumers to exercise greater decision-making powers when making financial product purchase decisions. Overall, by enhancing the consumer decision making power, greater protection for vulnerable consumers could be ensured.

9.2. Practical Implications

This study will provide an “appropriate” direction of CSR for the industry and to lay the groundwork for financial services firms to develop a truthful and authentic CSR agenda going beyond ‘eye catching phrases’ and other euphemisms used in CSR-related marketing literature. Industry regulatory could develop a guide that focuses on CSR values and the issues identified in this study. Regulatory directives to enhance the decision-making power of vulnerable consumer groups would be required. CSR reporting of the firms operating in the industry ought to be regulated in such a way that truth in the CSR claims is monitored. Implementation of such actions is certain to ensure higher CSR ratings of the industry and the overall wellbeing of the consumers, especially vulnerable consumer groups. Further, the study’s findings can be useful to a wide range of stakeholders, including the government, regulators, marketers, CSR activists, consumer watchdogs and consumers, because they provide a comprehensive understanding of the interactions between rationality, emotions, and behavioural traits and how they affect the consumer power of Australian women’s when making financial decisions.

According to the above findings, it can be seen that nearly 28% of the respondents had an income of less than 20,000$ per annum, which is considered the low-income earner bracket in Australia [97,98]. Moreover, existing studies also shows that lower levels of income and self-efficacy make it difficult for women to exercise their optimum level of consumer power when making financial product purchases. Further, studies related to gender inequalities in financial knowledge and income differences among women contribute not only towards women’s underrepresentation in financial decision making but also to their subjective well-being [99,100,101]. On these lines of discussions, some studies also indicate that income equality between genders not only exacerbates negative emotions but also has a significant impact on an individual’s subjective well-being [102,103]. As a result, it is suggested that the government should prioritise consumer education to improve financial literacy levels. This will increase consumer empowerment to protect and defend their rights in the marketplace. Essential financial literacy concepts could be included in the secondary school curricula to provide a higher cognitive level grasps of key aspects such as risk and return, return on investment, future trends of the markets and assessing one’s financial health.

Secondly, it is proposed that financial institutions need to apply care and caution when incorporating emotional attachments into their products and marketing materials in such a way that consumers would not be misguided and duped. Moreover, the findings indicate that rising anxiety levels among consumers can reduce consumer power when making financial decisions. As a result, rather than manipulating when making financial decisions, financial advisors should focus on providing appropriate advice to consumers in distress. This would enhance the overall financial wellbeing of the consumers.

Finally, financial institutions be socially responsible when advertising a financial product’s hedonic properties so that consumers with higher self-efficacy can gain higher emotional competencies in purchasing a financial product and envision themselves in a better situation in the future [104].

9.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Every study has its own contributions and limitations. Although the study uses constructs borrowed from previous literature, specific limitations of the study need to be acknowledged.

Firstly, the current study looked into the impact of emotions and behavioural traits on consumer decision-making power. However, the role of behavioural biases (such as overconfidence, disposition effect, and herding) are not addressed in this study. As a result, future studies that consider the consequences of behavioural biases may provide more comprehensive theoretical and practical insights to the CSR theory and practice specific to banking and financial services industry.

Secondly, the study’s conclusions are directly applicable to the Australian context, they could be generalised to other contexts as well. However, women in other countries may have different roles and responsibilities in the home. Hence, a comparative study among other developed and developing countries could yield more generalisable results.

Thirdly, the current study gathers self-reported responses from the survey which have the potential to be exaggerated; respondents might feel too embarrassed to reveal personal information; and a variety of biases, including the social desirability bias, might have an impact on the findings. For example, individuals cannot accurately report on all aspects of their emotion regulation because some of the decision making may be related to unconscious frame of mind. Furthermore, people may describe very different emotion regulation strategies than they actually use in emotionally provoking situations [105,106].

Fourthly, the survey instrument is designed with English Language and does not back translate to any other languages. Given that the survey participants may have a different preferred language for communication, a survey framed with multiple languages can be much more effective to the respondents who do not speak English as their first preferred language.

Lastly, this study could be better refined by taking into account a larger sample size of the population. With a larger sample size, it is estimated that the study can produce better and validated results [107,108].