Order Number |
636738393092 |
Type of Project |
ESSAY |
Writer Level |
PHD VERIFIED |
Format |
APA |
Academic Sources |
10 |
Page Count |
3-12 PAGES |
Background info we need to know before writing:
Me and my teammate are working on a case study, which is about how company’s CSR (company social responsibility: ex. Protect environment, green material, do charity, etc.) behavior influence customer’s brand loyalty. And the main company we chosen is L’oreal, We already send out some questionnaires and get responses & data.
.Introduction of our project:
Purpose:
Focus:
And the essay we need to write here is part of our final report, and its function is to analyze the methodology we use in this project, and analyze each data (findings), and determine some relationship between each subjects, or to prove if the hypothesis are correct. Please see the sample essays I attached, which we can learn about their structures (any of them is fine).I will provide all the data &tables, and all the info about our project that you can build on it and make it a whole essay.
The things we need to cover in this essay:
———————————————————————
Now begin to write!
Guideline of the essay(structures)
We need to use bullet points to make each part separate clearly and well structured, I will talk about each part one by one, then you can just write follow my instructions step by step, no need to write other extra info or intro about this project (which are my teammates’ job), our parts are just exactly Methodology & results analysis
Structures(2 main parts: A & B):
(can have a look at sample essay 4, similar to that is fine)
(methodology about the whole project)
We have two parts:
A.Quantitative:
B.Qualitative
-Limited number of respondents
-respondents may have different attitudes towards the questionnaire, and the authenticity and quality of the questionnaire data need to be controlled
We are using the Qualtrics.com website to conduct our questionnaire link,which is a professional website, so the data is been effectively collected and calculated. And we are make the sample size large enought to reduce the inaccuracy.(can have some references) (we send out 213 questionnaires, get 182 valid respondents.)
We are using numbers to represent the attitude of the respondents’ attitude towards the questions (1-strongly disagree, 5-strongly agree), which is more accurate and easy to analyze, and we divide the respondents according to their ages, sex, occupation, income, etc. Categories, which makes our research more scientific and professional.
b.Pearson’s R:Test out level of relationship in between two variables → 0 to 1
c.P-value:Probability of obtaining collected results
An alternative to rejection points to provide the smallest level of significance that the null hypothesis will be rejected
Smaller p-value = stronger evidence
Most ideal p-value is <0.05
B.Data analyze (results)
(can have a look at sample essay 1,3,4)
questionnaires were sent 182 valid respondents, 148 respondents have purchased L’oreal products before(which are our main research group
Our basic info table(no need to explain anything content, just show it there like the sample articles):
Sex | Percentage | Age | Percentage |
Male | 22.97% | <18 | 1.35% |
18 – 30 | 49.32% | ||
Female | 77.03% | 31 – 40 | 18.92% |
41 – 50 | 14.19% | ||
Total | 100% | > 51 | 16.22% |
Total | 100% | ||
Occupation | Percentage | Monthly Incomes | Percentage |
Employed | 65.54% | <$15,000 | 8.10% |
Self-employed | 14.19% | $15,000 – $25,000 | 34.46% |
Unemployed | 4.73% | $25,001 – $40,000 | 35.81% |
Student | 6.76% | $40,001 – $60,000 | 13.53% |
Retired | 4.73% | >$60,001 | 8.10% |
Others | 4.05% | Total | 100% |
Total | 100% |
Some chosen tables we can analyze about(you can state your opinion about the table, i just want to give you some hints, and the whole report is attached too, which you can find more tables there):
Below table 1 is for the question: Please rate the below statement with 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, 5- Strongly Agree
# | Field | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std Deviation | Variance | Count |
1 | CSR means conducting business while respecting people, communities and the natural environment | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.01 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 148 |
2 | CSR is about achieving commercial success while honoring ethical values | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.80 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 148 |
3 | CSR is about making packaging recyclable | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.70 | 0.88 | 0.78 | 148 |
4 | CSR means making business decisions that fairly balance the claim of all key stakeholders | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.69 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 148 |
5 | CSR means making business decisions that fairly balance the claim of all key stakeholders | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.69 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 148 |
6 | CSR is the reflection of a company’s governance | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.67 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 148 |
7 | CSR is about employees volunteering in the community | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.54 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 148 |
8 | CSR is about charitable donations | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.40 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 148 |
We can see the “mean” here, which means the average number, the higher the number is, the more agreement that respondents give to the statement.
And we can analyze the top3 (1-3)statement, why they might be the top 3, analyze why people’s recognition of the CSR is like that (important)
Table 2
# | Field | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std Deviation | Variance | Count |
1 | e. I believe CSR should be important for companies | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.09 | 0.69 | 0.47 | 148 |
2 | b. I value CSR effort in a company | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.01 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 148 |
3 | d. I believe I have high social and environmental awareness | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.90 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 148 |
4 | a. I fully understand what CSR means | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.69 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 148 |
5 | c. Companies engagement in CSR is important to me when I buy from company | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.68 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 148 |
For the table 2 above, we can analyze about people’s awareness of the CSR is increasing these days, we can see that most of them are agree CSR is important
Table 3
# | Question | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | Total | |||||
1 | I am aware that L’Oréal Group has committed to CSR issues | 0.00% | 0 | 18.24% | 27 | 49.32% | 73 | 28.39% | 42 | 4.05% | 6 | 148 |
2 | I think L’Oréal Group has been doing well in environmental aspects (e.g. reducing carbon emissions, water consumption, packaging) | 0.00% | 0 | 11.49% | 17 | 54.73% | 81 | 31.08% | 46 | 2.70% | 4 | 148 |
3 | I think L’Oréal Group has been doing well in social aspects (e.g. supply chain, employee benefits, anti-animal testing) | 0.00% | 0 | 12.84% | 19 | 54.73% | 81 | 29.73% | 44 | 2.70% | 4 | 148 |
4 | I believe L’Oréal Group is willing to listen to customer feedback to improve its CSR performance | 1.35% | 2 | 8.78% | 13 | 41.89% | 62 | 47.98% | 71 | 0.00% | 0 | 148 |
For this table3, we can analyze about we can see most of the people choose “Neutral” about the L’oreal’s purpose of doing CSR, thus L’oreal or other cosmetic companies may need to increase their CSR promotion, tell the customers what they think about CSR, maybe on their website or other social media, then the customer will know more about CSR and the brand.
Below table 4 is asking about:
Are you willing to pay higher prices for L’Oréal Group’s products as a results of CSR practices, e.g. anti-animal testing, organic and naturally made, ethical sourcing?
# | Field | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std Deviation | Variance | Count |
1 | Are you willing to pay higher prices for L’Oréal Group’s products as a results of CSR practices, e.g. anti-animal testing, organic and naturally made, ethical sourcing? | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.31 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 148 |
# | Yes (frequency) | No (frequency) | Total (frequency) |
All respondents | 68.92% (102) | 31.08% (48) | 100% (148) |
High income group (monthly income above $25,001) | 76.47% (65) | 23.53% (20) | 100% (85) |
Low income group (monthly income below $25,000) | 61.90% (39) | 38.10% (24) | 100% (63) |
We can analyze about consumers attitude towards the CSR practices and their buying power, which show positive attitude, you can using more references to support this.
And here i have generate the high income group & low income group’s differences.
There are more people in high income group (monthly income higher than $25,001 are more willing to pay for the products as a results of CSR practices, we can state this finding and analyze it.) (why this occur? Such as high income group may have higher CSR awareness, more money, higher education, etc… can relate to some online references)
Then table 5 , which asking about:
Please rate the importance of a company’s CSR practices to you when deciding to stay loyal to a brand/choose a new brand?
# | Field | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std Deviation | Variance | Count |
1 | Please rate the importance of a company’s CSR practices to you when deciding to stay loyal to a brand/choose a new brand? | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.73 | 0.65 | 0.42 | 148 |
# | Answer | % | Count |
1 | 1 – Strongly Unimportant | 1.35% | 2 |
2 | 2 – Unimportant | 2.71% | 4 |
3 | 3 – Neutral | 22.97% | 34 |
4 | 4 – Important | 68.24% | 101 |
5 | 5 – Strongly Important | 4.73% | 7 |
Total | 100% | 148 |
Then we can see their attitude towards the question we are researching, which shows positive attitude, then we can go back to our hypothesis and make some relation, talk about our findings.
Then table 7 (2 pics, shows the relationship of the variables of our 2 hypothesis)
Correlation Matrix | |||
CSR Initiatives by company | Customers’ perceived value | ||
CSR Initiatives by company | Pearson’sr p-value | —
— |
|
Customers’ perceived value | Pearson’s r p-value | 0.447
< .001 |
—
— |
Correlation Matrix
|
|||
Customers’ perceived value | Customers’ loyalty | ||
Customers’ perceived value | Pearson’s r p-value | —
— |
|
Customers’ loyalty | Pearson’s r p-value | 0.661
< .001 |
—
— |
References (for these 2 tables, the numbers are direcly generated by the questionnaire website, can berifly mention that)
This is the final table we need to analyze, as i mentioned before,
b.Pearson’s R:Test out level of relationship in between two variables → 0 to 1
c.P-value:Probability of obtaining collected results
An alternative to rejection points to provide the smallest level of significance that the null hypothesis will be rejected
Smaller p-value = stronger evidence
Most ideal p-value is <0.05
We can analyze the correlation coefficient of the variables,
CSR Initiatives by company |
Customers’ perceived value |
For these 2 variables, we can see theirPearson’s R is 0.447, which means they have positive correlation coefficient, and they have positive relationship. And the p-value is < .001, which means the results is strong. Since
Smaller p-value = stronger evidence
Most ideal p-value is <0.05
Customers’ perceived value |
Customers’ loyalty |
And for these two variables as well, they have positive relationship, and the p-value shows the results is strong, can just state our findings.
Then we can say that we can prove our 2 hypothesis they are true.
You can add any other info or references to support this.
I think i have mentioned all the thoughts and structures of this paper, IF you have any questions please tell me, this paper is important for me, thanks for helping!!!! 🙂
RUBRIC | |||
Excellent Quality
95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Literature Support
91-84 points The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed. |
Methodology
58-53 points With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached. |
Average Score
50-85% |
40-38 points
More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied. |
83-76 points
There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration. |
52-49 points
The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Poor Quality
0-45% |
37-1 points
The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied. |
75-1 points
There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references. |
48-1 points
There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached. |
Place the Order Here: https://standardwriter.com/orders/or