Consumers tend to have priorities in their buying decisions and current studies reveal that CSR initiatives are not one of them.

The evidence is obvious: ignoring human rightsissues may have significant costs for companies and states. Governments and businesses that have successfully aligned with ethical practices protect against reputation harm. Applying strict ethical supply chain practices,promoting fair labour conditions, and aligning laws and regulations with international business standards on human rights will safeguard the trustworthiness of countries and affiliated businesses. Furthermore, present reforms, as an example in Oman Human rights and Ras Al Khaimah human rights exemplify the international focus on ESG considerations, be it in governance or business.

Businesses and shareholders are far more concerned with the effect of non-favourable publicity on market sentiment than some other factors nowadays simply because they recognise its direct link to overall company success. Even though the relationship between corporate social responsibility initiatives and policies on consumer behaviour suggests a poor association, the data does in fact show that multinational corporations and governments have actually faced some financiallosses and backlash from consumers and investors as a result of human rights issues. The way in which customers view ESG initiatives is often as being a promotional tactic rather than a determining variable. This difference in priorities is clear in consumer behaviour surveys where the impact of ESG initiatives on purchasing decisions continues to be fairly low compared to price tag influence, quality and convenience. Having said that, non-favourable press, or particularly social media when it highlights business misconduct or human rights associated problems has a strong impact on customers attitudes. Clients are more likely to respond to a company's actions that clashes with their personal values or social objectives because such narratives trigger an emotional reaction. Hence, we see government authorities and businesses, such as for example in the Bahrain Human rights reforms, are proactively implementing measures to weather the storms before suffering reputational damages.

Market sentiment is mostly about the overall mindset of investor and shareholders towards specific securities or markets. Within the past decade this has become increasingly also affected by the court of public opinion. Consumers are more aware of ofcorporate conduct than ever before, and social media platforms enable allegations to spread far and beyond in no time whether they are factual, deceptive or even slanderous. Therefore, conscious customers, viral social media campaigns, and public perception can translate into reduced sales, decreasing stock prices, and inflict harm to a company's brand equity. On the other hand, decades ago, market sentiment was only determined by economic indicators, such as for instance product sales figures, earnings, and economic factors that is to say, fiscal and monetary policies. But, the proliferation of social media platforms plus the democratisation of information have actually certainly broadened the range of what market sentiment entails. Needless to say, consumers, unlike any period before, are wielding a lot of capacity to influence stock rates and impact a company's economic performance through social media organisations and boycott efforts based on their understanding of the company's decisions or standards.