Luxury is difficult to define because its meanings vary between cultures and between individuals ^[1][22]. On account of the absence of a widely acknowledged definition, scholars turned to identify attributes that distinguish non-luxury from luxury. Dubois et al. ^[2][23] suggested that luxury differs from non-luxury in terms of six attributes from the perspective of customer perceptions, which are (1) superfluousness, (2) ancestral heritage, (3) aesthetics and poly-sensuality, (4) scarcity and uniqueness, (5) expensiveness, and (6) excellent quality. Similarly, Berverland ^[3][24] indicated that six attributes distinguish non-luxury brands from luxury brands, including (1) endorsements, (2) culture, (3) history, (4) marketing, (5) value-driven emergence, and (6) product integrity. Further, Tynan et al. ^[4][25] believed that luxury brands are characterised by eight attributes, including (1) expensiveness, (2) authenticity, (3) hedonism, (4) symbolism, (5) exclusivity, (6) security, (7) rarity, and (8) quality excellence. Rovai ^[5][26] noted that luxury consumption is more closely associated with wealth, prestige, status, hedonism, symbolism, exclusivity, uniqueness, power, rarity, and conspicuousness than non-luxury consumption. As a result, there are some vague boundaries between luxury and non-luxury.

Nevertheless, a general consensus is that luxury is perceived by consumers as more valuable than non-luxury and such perceived values are the sources of the desirability and price premium of luxury goods ^[6][27]. Stathopoulou and Balabanis ^[7][28] summarised that the value of luxury perceived by consumers can be divided into four dimensions, including social, quality, uniqueness, and usability values. Such values are created by the interaction between a consumer and a brand ^[8][29]. CSR is an important approach for a firm to engage its consumers ^[9][30], and it hence has the power to influence consumers’ perceived values and subsequently their attitudes towards luxury brands/goods.

CSR was differently defined by prior scholars as it can be understood from different theoretical perspectives. According to Carroll ^[10][31], CSR refers to a business organisation’s obligation to meet the philanthropic, legal, moral, and economic expectations of society and stakeholders at a given period. Brown and Dacin ^[11][32] defined CSR as a set of corporate behaviours and the status with connection to a firm’s perceived social and stakeholder obligations. McWilliams and Siegel ^[12][33] believed that CSR is defined as corporate behaviours that create social good, beyond the legal and economic requirements. Moreover, CSR is somewhat overlapped with corporate citizenship, business ethics, and sustainability ^[13][34]. Although CSR is differently defined by scholars, there are two general consensuses. On the one hand, CSR initiatives can be mandatory, voluntary, or both, which vary between countries. On the other hand, a firm shall not solely pursue economic interests and it should create benefits for society and diverse stakeholders and reduce its negative externalities ^[14][35]. Moreover, firms can implement CSR initiatives both passively and proactively. On the one hand, they have to respond to stakeholder and institutional pressure and hence passively implement CSR initiatives. On the other hand, CSR can be a strategic approach for a firm to gain a lot of benefits, e.g., improved corporate reputation, stakeholder engagement, reduced legitimacy risks, and enhanced financial performance ^{[15][16][17][18]}[3,4,5,6], which drive the firm to proactively embrace CSR ^[19][20][36,37].

It is widely acknowledged in the literature that consumers positively respond to firms’ CSR initiatives ^[9][21][22][30,38,39]; however, this does not necessarily stand in the luxury sector because it is unclear whether CSR is compatible with luxury ^[23][1]. First, it is debated over whether customers’ CSR perceptions are a significant driver of luxury purchase decision-making ^[24][25][26][9,10,40]. Achabou and Dekhili ^[25][10] even reported that CSR reduces customers’ perceived quality of luxury goods because the incorporation of recycled materials may bring inferior quality. Second, the connotations of luxury are somewhat conflicted with CSR. While CSR highlights sobriety, moderation, and ethics, luxury highlights hedonism, excess, and ostentation ^[25][10]. Third, CSR initiatives may reduce consumers’ luxury experience. According to the research of Barber and Deale ^[27][18] and Peng and Chen ^[28][19], in the hospitality industry, consumers hesitate to visit luxury hotels that implement environmentally friendly initiatives because they are concerned that these initiatives may reduce the comfort of the luxury experience.

Some scholars argued that CSR is compatible with luxury. Janssen et al. ^[29][41] believed that if luxury goods elicit the perceptions of scarcity and ephemerality, consumers perceive a match between luxury and CSR, which leads to positive evaluations. Similarly, Kapferer ^[30][42] argued that sustainability can be compatible with luxury because both concepts focus on rarity. Meanwhile, luxury goods are characterised by their excellent quality, and they are hence more durable than non-luxury goods ^[31][11]. Moreover, since luxury goods are characterised by rarity, they are commonly produced by a limited volume. In this way, the production of luxury goods restricts the use of materials ^[23][1]. Hang et al. ^[32][20] argued that it is important to investigate customer perceptions of CSR to evaluate whether there is a fit between luxury and CSR. This is because if luxury customers perceive CSR initiatives positively, engaging in CSR initiatives could bring financial benefits to luxury firms, resulting in a virtuous circle.

Stakeholders can respond differently to a firm’s CSR initiatives and such differences can be explained by the Attribution Theory ^[33][16]. The theory posits that individuals have an inherent desire to infer and assign a cause to an action or behaviour. They expect to figure out why some people or organisations engage in something, and they attribute one or several causes to these actions or behaviours. Different attribution outcomes lead to individuals’ different attitudes and behavioural responses ^[33][16]. Mohr et al. ^[34][14] indicated that consumers are likely to attribute a firm’s CSR initiatives to either egoistic motives (e.g., profit-making and image management) or altruistic motives (e.g., helping others). They negatively (or positively) respond to egoistic (or altruistic) motives. In this way, the same CSR initiative may trigger consumers’ different attitudes ^[35][13]. Barone et al. ^[36][12] found that consumers positively evaluate a brand if they believe the brand’s CSR initiatives are driven by altruistic motives, whereas perceived egoistic motives undermine a brand’s image. Likewise, Pharr and Lough ^[37][43] reported that if consumers attribute a firm’s cause-related marketing to an egoistic motive, their loyalty would be reduced. Moreover, Youn and Kim ^[38][44] found that consumers are willing to engage in a firm’s cause-related marketing activities if they perceive an altruistic motive. Consequently, luxury consumers’ responses to CSR initiatives are likely to be influenced by their attribution of these initiatives.

Research has shown that consumers’ attribution processes are influenced by several factors. The first is CSR fit, i.e., the extent to which a firm’s CSR initiatives are consistent with its characteristics ^[39][45]. A low level of CSR fit is likely to lead to the attribution of an egoistic motive because of the absence of a logical relation between corporate behaviours and social issues ^[40][46]. The second is the CSR history of a firm ^[41][42][47,48]. The CSR history provides consumers with information for inferring the motives of a firm’s current CSR activities. If a firm’s current CSR initiatives are consistent with prior ones and/or if a firm has a good CSR reputation, consumers are likely to perceive an altruistic motive ^[41][47]. The third is the credibility of CSR information. Many firms whitewash their CSR information in their sustainability/CSR reports and advertisements to pretend to be socially responsible, which triggers consumers’ skepticism of CSR information ^[43][15]. If they perceive CSR information as not credible, they are likely to transfer this distrust from the CSR information to the firm and subsequently perceive an egoistic motive ^[44][49]. The fourth is firms’ CSR communication. The research of Kim ^[45][50] evidenced that CSR communication factors, e.g., CSR informativeness, consistency, transparency, promotional tone, factual tone, and personal relevance, shape consumers’ perceived corporate reputation by influencing their CSR knowledge and trust in CSR commitment. Viererbl and Koch ^[46][51] found that a firm’s CSR communication characterised by an imbalance between the actual extent of CSR activities and the amount of CSR communication causes consumers’ negative CSR perceptions. Lee et al. ^[47][52] reported that consumers’ CSR awareness is positively influenced by the degree of using several communication channels, including mass media, firm offline, firm online, and interpersonal communication, but is not influenced by the degree of using CSR reports.