The Impact of Domestic Companies’ CSR Targets on Consumer Post-Purchase Responses: The Moderating Effects of Brand Reputation

Abstract

With the growing interest in the environment, society, and governance, responsible management emphasizes corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Drawing upon social identity theory, this study explores the interplay between a brand’s CSR target (domestic or abroad) and its reputation in shaping consumers’ post-purchase product attitudes. Through two complementary experiments, the findings reveal that consumers exhibit more favorable post-purchase attitudes toward domestic brands with a high reputation when their CSR activities are targeted domestically. Conversely, the target of CSR activities does not significantly impact post-purchase product attitudes toward domestic brands of lower reputation. Further analysis reveals that for high-reputation brands, the perceived fairness of CSR activities is crucial, whereas, for lower reputable brands, the role of CSR activities is essential in reducing product risk, making the target country of CSR irrelevant. This study indicates that CSR strategies should be customized according to brand reputation, with significant implications for enhancing sustainable consumer brand loyalty.

Plain Language Summary

How the brand’s reputation affects consumer perception of local companies’ good deeds

People are paying more attention to how companies care about the environment, society, and good management. This study looks at how a company’s good actions, whether they help people at home or overseas, can enhance customers’ liking for their products, particularly if the company is reputable and trustworthy. We did two experiments and found out that when famous local companies assist their own community, customers tend to like their products more after buying them. But, if the company isn’t that famous, the location of their assistance does not significantly impact customers’ perception of their products. We also found that for well-known companies, it’s important that their help seems fair. But for less famous companies, it’s more about making sure their products seem less risky, no matter where they help. Our study suggests that companies need to think carefully about their reputation when planning their good deeds to keep customers loyal in a sustainable way.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility CSR target brand reputation post-purchase attitude social identity

Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a pivotal element in modern business strategies. With the rise of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies, companies are focusing on creating balance and sustainability within social systems, which has become a global paradigm. This global paradigm shift toward sustainability not only seeks to balance societal systems but also serves as a competitive advantage in relationships with consumers, stakeholders, and suppliers (Tao et al., 2023), corporate image, and customer loyalty across diverse markets, including developing countries including among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) (Contini et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2020; Le, 2023). Traditionally, businesses have been acknowledged for their dual obligation to contribute both economically and legally to society (McGuire, 1963). However, the pandemic has underscored a reevaluation of priorities, suggesting a more focused concern for the interests of employees, families, customers, and communities (Balis, 2020). Consequently, consumer perceptions of CSR initiatives have become more nuanced, with expectations now centered around genuine benefits rather than mere corporate obligations.

In response to this evolved consumer perspective, this study explores the multifaceted responses to CSR from existing customers, based on their reactions to cause-related marketing (CRM), a CSR strategy that involves making donations through purchases. In today’s world, consumers are no longer blindly supportive of CSR initiatives. This requires firms to focus on performing CSR that is genuinely beneficial to their customers.

This study attempts to investigate whether consumers will give unconditional support to cause-related marketing (CRM), which is a form of donation through payment at the time of purchase, and to understand how the interplay between CSR targets and brand reputation influences consumers’ post-purchase reactions. By examining the influence of CSR on post-purchases among existing customers, this research aims to shed light on the strategic importance of CSR initiatives that are genuinely beneficial, moving beyond mere potential consumer interest. To accomplish this goal, first, this study examines consumer reactions to CRM, a prevalent form of CSR where a portion of purchase proceeds is allocated to charitable causes. CRM consumers participate in and perform with their purchase amounts (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), thus, focus on CRM allows for a nuanced understanding of how consumers’ participation in CSR, through their purchases, influences their post-purchase attitudes. Second, building on the framework of social identity theory, we explore the psychological underpinnings of consumers’ responses to CSR activities. Prior studies have leveraged social identity theory to interpret consumer reactions based on the nationality of firms undertaking CSR (Choi et al., 2016). This study extends this line of inquiry and explores how social identity influences consumers’ attitudes toward CSR targets, particularly in how these efforts are perceived in different countries. Third, this study examines whether consumers’ attitude toward CSR activities changes even after the purchase. While existing research predominantly focuses on pre-purchase perceptions (e.g., Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014; van Prooijen & Bartels, 2019) we propose that the impact of CSR goes beyond the moment of purchase, potentially affecting long-term brand loyalty. This perspective suggests that strategic CSR implementation can serve dual purposes: fulfilling social responsibilities and contributing to sustainable business growth, with the latter evidenced by existing customers’ responses to CSR initiatives. Lastly, to explore these dynamics, this study employs experimental methods to investigate the interplay between CSR targets, brand reputation, and their subsequent effects on consumer loyalty. In the following section, we discuss the relevant literature and propose our hypotheses within the broader academic discourse, followed by a detailed description of the experimental design aimed at testing these hypotheses and uncovering mediation effects. In conclusion part, this study summarizes the research findings and discusses their theoretical and practical implications.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

CSR and Consumers’ Responses

CSR has become a crucial value for businesses across the globe, influencing consumer perceptions of corporate reputation and product offerings. The concept of CSR was initially introduced in the early 20th century as a way for businesses to contribute to the betterment of society while also benefiting themselves (Schmeltz, 2012). The current concept and goals were formalized by Bowen (2013) which states that businesses have economic, legal, and social obligations. According to Bowen, firms are expected to contribute to societal fairness, promoting social equity and addressing disparities in income, wealth, and power (Utting, 2007). CSR’s strategic importance is underscored by its capacity to enhance corporate reputation, particularly in developing countries, and to foster customer loyalty across various sectors, including among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Contini et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2020; Le, 2023). CSR plays a crucial role in reducing uncertainty among consumers and stakeholders, which in turn fosters loyalty toward the company (Abu Zayyad et al., 2021; Vlachos et al., 2009). This positive influence extends to a firm’s branding strategies, collaborations, and supplier selection processes (Singh, 2016; Tao et al., 2023). Furthermore, corporate ability and cause-brand fit significantly impact brand attitudes (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2012). Research indicates that a stronger connection between consumers and companies tends to enhance the effectiveness of CSR initiatives in influencing customer attitudes (Deng & Xu, 2017).

Not all CSR activities are universally well-received. For SMEs with limited resources, the effectiveness of CSR often hinges on its alignment with their core products and services and a genuine commitment to sustainability (Russo & Tencati, 2009). Consumer trust and expectations regarding CSR engagement exhibit considerable variability, as Green and Peloza (2014) have indicated. This variability necessitates a careful selection of communication mediums for CSR initiatives, tailored to meet diverse consumer expectations (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014). However, an overemphasis on CSR may engender skepticism among consumers, who might perceive it as a tool by executives to boost their prestige rather than a genuine effort toward societal betterment (Barnea & Rubin, 2010; Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014; Yoon et al., 2006). Moreover, a segment of the consumer base remains wary of CSR, suspecting that it primarily serves corporate interests at the expense of broader societal benefits (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). In particular, ethical consumer choice can evoke negative post-choice emotions and reduce choice satisfaction (Becker, 2021). The relationship between CSR and consumer well-being is not always straightforward (Carrero et al., 2020) and the mixed outcomes associated with CSR might stem from consumers’ critical evaluations of the motives behind corporate CSR initiatives (Choi et al., 2016).

This study predicts that corporate reputation will significantly influence consumers’ post-purchase reactions toward CSR activities, specifically when differentiating between domestic targets and those abroad, as facilitated by CRM. While CSR initiatives generally foster favorable consumer perceptions across firms of varying sizes (Contini et al., 2019; Le, 2023), consumers after purchasing products may exhibit mixed reactions (Becker, 2021; Carrero et al., 2020). Drawing on these prior studies, we suggest that brand reputation may play a critical moderating role. This investigation focuses on CRM, a CSR strategy where a fraction of the purchase price is allocated to charitable endeavors. CRM not only facilitates consumer engagement in philanthropy but also allows them to align their purchasing behavior with their values (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), prompting widespread adoption among businesses. The following section will explore relevant literature and articulate specific hypotheses to be empirically tested.

CSR Target and Social Identity Theory

The efficacy of CSR targeting strategies may depend on how consumers perceive the firm’s relationship with them from an identity perspective. People have a desire to define themselves in a positive light, which extends to their behavior in the consumption contexts. Thus, they are predisposed to support companies whose identities resonate with their aspirational selves (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Consequently, when consumers perceive a company’s identity as aligned with their values, they are likely to respond favorably (Dang et al., 2020; Deng & Xu, 2017). This relationship between consumer perception and corporate identity is grounded in social identity theory. People tend to categorize and define themselves based on their perceived social identity, which posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into various social groups. These categorizations inform their sense of belonging and guide their actions in a manner consistent with their perceived social identity (Markus, 1977; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Forgas, 2000). Identity classification serves not only as a tool for self-evaluation and a criterion for judging the fairness of the social system as a whole (Tajfel, 1978; Tesser, 1986). Emotional bonds and a sense of goodwill emerge within groups through a shared sense of belonging, which motivates them to prefer groups with high similarity to themselves, thereby fostering a desire for membership within these groups (Baumeister & Leary, 2017; Brewer, 1979; Brown et al., 1992; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; Tajfel, 1978). This group bias creates expectations of reciprocity among group members. Such expectations entail an exchange of organizational norms and values among members, reinforcing the belief that individuals within the group should receive more favorable treatment compared to those outside it, to maintain these shared norms and values (Blau, 2017; Dunne, 2018). Consequently, a strong attachment to the in-group may result in feelings of betrayal if members are perceived to contravene established norms or are deemed to receive less favorable evaluations than out-group members (Dunne, 2018).

Social identity theory may shed some light on consumers’ post-purchase reactions to CSR. Within the framework of social identity, the interconnectedness of consumers with brands and companies becomes particularly salient in consumption contexts. When consumers identify themselves with a brand, they connect it with their ideal self, seeing it as an extension of themselves (Belk, 1988). Consumers who see a brand as reflective of their ideal selves tend to form a deep connection with it, viewing it as an extension of their identity (Belk, 1988) and also defining themselves by the brand they purchase (Scott & Lane, 2000).

Engaging in CSR also allows firms to foster perceptions of social responsibility and justice among their consumer base, thereby enhancing consumer self-esteem and their inclination toward future purchases (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). The actions of a company, such as its CSR initiatives, are often seen by consumers as reflective of the group they belong to. Generally, CSR efforts focused on domestic countries are perceived more favorably than those aimed at overseas causes, except for people who identify as global citizens (Russell & Russell, 2010). People from countries with strong collectivist identities, such as India and Korea, tend to view their own companies’ CSR as being motivated by altruism, engendering more positive consumer attitudes toward these firms (Choi et al., 2016). Social identity theory suggests that the effectiveness of a CSR target strategy in shaping consumers’ post-purchase attitudes may vary depending on whether domestic firms are perceived as part of the in-group or the out-group. As such, the extent to which domestic firms are viewed as belonging to the in-group is anticipated to correlate with their brand reputation.

The Moderating Role of Brand Reputation

Brand reputation is an accumulated judgment of consumers about the value, self-esteem, and distinctiveness of a brand, signifying its strength, goodwill, and uniqueness (Aaker, 2012). High-reputation brands elicit consumer familiarity and positive emotions (Fang et al., 2007), serving as heuristics that consumers use to assess product quality and make purchasing decisions (Campbell, 1999; Chaudhuri, 2002; Maheswaran et al., 1992). In competitive markets, consumers demonstrate a preference for well-established, reputable brands over less reputable ones (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Hoyer & Brown, 1990), attributing greater economic value to them. This perception often leads consumers to favor weaker brands only when incentivized externally (Ryu & Feick, 2007). Given reputable companies act with good intentions, consumers align with high-reputation brands as a reflection of their own identity, thereby linking brand reputation directly to their purchase decisions (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010; Shapiro, 1982).

Brand reputation also guides the direction of inference about corporate activities. Companies with high reputations receive more positive responses from consumers by promoting CSR through publicity, a reliable promotional means. By contrast, companies with low reputations are more suitable for promoting CSR through advertising, a low-reliability promotional means (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014). Furthermore, consumer perceptions of CSR vary significantly between small and large firms. Green and Peloza (2014) suggest that consumers believe that small firms have implicit motives for CSR activities, while they have higher expectations for CSR of larger firms and aim to improve their public image. On the other hand, Green et al. (2018) found that consumers perceive large retailers to have a higher level of CSR commitment, compared to small retailers who showed no difference in response depending on varying levels of CSR commitment.

Considering the significant role of brand reputation, this study anticipates that perceived brand reputation is expected to significantly influence consumer reactions to CSR in domestic or foreign target countries. The author predicts that consumers’ post-attitudes would vary depending on the combined effect of two factors: the CSR target (domestic vs. abroad) of the domestic brand they have already purchased, and the brand’s reputation. Specifically, if a domestic brand has a high reputation, consumers are more likely to form a favorable post-attitude toward the product they purchased when the brand’s CSR target is domestic rather than overseas. A high brand reputation for a domestic company indicates that consumers have contributed to its accumulated profits based on their history of purchases. This has influenced customers’ emotional attachment to the company, making them feel like they belong to a group. As a result, customers expect their domestic companies to behave in a way that aligns with their in-group norms. As members of the same group, consumers feel a sense of duty and responsibility toward each other (Sutton & Griffin, 2004). Therefore, they would perceive it as fair and appropriate for a domestic company with a high reputation to prioritize the needs of domestic consumers over those of foreign CSR.

When it comes to domestic brands with a low reputation, consumers are less likely to form their opinions based on social identity as compared to those with a high reputation. From the social identity perspective, consumers have had a shorter relationship history with low-reputation brands, hence, they do not have the same level of expectations or obligations as they would for high-reputation brands (Sutton & Griffin, 2004). Instead, for less reputable brands, consumers are likely to view CSR as a means to compensate for their lack of trust in the quality of products due to a lack of purchase history. High-reputation brands don’t need to address quality concerns as their customers have already established confidence in the product quality through repeated direct and indirect consumption experiences (Herr et al., 1991; Smith & Park, 1992). However, for low-reputation products, reducing anxiety after purchase is a priority. Additionally, since consumers’ expectations for CSR are not high for small businesses (Green & Peloza, 2014), CSR might play a signal role as a way to reduce cognitive dissonance rather than drawing attention to the target. Therefore, for brands with lower reputations, the fact that they are implementing CSR might be more important to consumers, leading to a scenario where the specific target of CSR—whether domestic or abroad—does not elicit different responses. The above discussion is summarized with hypotheses and research model (see Figure 1) as follows.

Hypothesis 1a: For domestic brands with a higher reputation, consumers would show more favorable post-product purchase attitudes when the target of CSR is domestic (vs. abroad).

Hypothesis 1b: For domestic brands with a lower reputation, consumers would equally show favorable post-product purchase attitudes regardless of the CSR’s target.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Method

This study aims to investigate whether CSR target countries have any impact on consumers’ post-attitude toward their purchased products depending on brand reputation. This research has three main points in the method section. First, this study conducted two complementary experiments. Experiment 1 involved participants recalling their actual purchase experiences and measuring their attitudes before and after becoming aware of hypothetical CSR information to examine the impact of CSR targets. In this case, brand reputation was measured as participants’ perception of the actual purchase brand they recalled. Experiment 2 involved presenting participants with a scenario involving a hypothetical product purchase situation, manipulating both the CSR information of the purchasing brand and brand reputation.

Second, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 differed in their methods of analyzing the results. Experiment 1 used the difference between two repeated measures as the dependent variable, whereas Experiment 2 used the presence or absence of CSR information as a between-group variable to compare with the control group and aimed to test the psychological mechanisms behind the effects, presenting CSR information to participants after their purchases to explore existing customers’ responses.

Third, South Koreans were chosen as the sample of participants in this study, as we wanted to control for exogenous variables by ensuring that all participants identified socially with CSR-performing firms.

Experiment 1

Sample and Design

We recruited participants from South Korean adults through an online Korean panel. Participants were asked to visit the internet web page by assigning randomly them to one of two experimental conditions (CSR target: domestic vs. abroad). Experiment 1 relies on a 2 (CSR target: domestic vs. abroad) × 2 (brand reputation: high vs. low) × 2 (attitude: pre vs. post) mixed design. The prior two independent variables were between-subjects factors, and the latter was a within-subject factor. The CSR target was manipulated, whereas brand reputation was measured. Since this study should explore consumers’ responses toward CSR target countries, the nationality of the recalled brand should be domestic. Thus we deleted responses from participants who recalled purchasing experiences of the global brand and finally used a total of 189 responses for analysis (M_age = 23.4, SD = 4.03, female = 45.0%). Internet gift certificates were given as a token for their participation in the experiment.

Procedure

As mentioned above, this study should be based on actual purchase experience, so the study was executed in two stages. In the first step, participants were asked to recall the brand and products that were actually purchased within the last year and write them (“Think of a domestic branded product that you have purchased within the past year. Please write the name of the brand and the name of product below”). After filling out, they measured the attitude and brand reputation of the product that they perceived at the time of purchase. In the second step, we presented a hypothetical news article in which participants recalled a brand company that donated some of the sales of products purchased to an underprivileged neighbor living in Korea (domestic condition) or abroad condition (“Imagine that you found out after the purchase that the brand you recalled and wrote down above donated a percentage of your purchase to children in need in Korea (vs. abroad) as part of its social responsibility activities”). After reading all the scenarios, the participants again responded to the post-attitudes toward the recalled brand and answered a series of questions, and the experiment was completed.

Measurement

Product attitude was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “unlikable/unfavorable/negative (1)” to “likable/favorable/positive (7)” (pre-attitude: Cronbach’s α = .93; post-attitude: Cronbach’s α = .95; Homer, 1990). Brand reputation was measured on a scale of “low quality/low reputation (1)” to “high quality/high reputation (7)” (Cronbach’s α = .75; Ryu & Feick, 2007).

Results

Before the analysis, as an independent variable, the CSR target was contrast-coded (domestic: +1, abroad: −1) and the measured brand reputation went through mean-centering. The interaction variable was made by the product of the two independent variables. To use repeatedly measured attitudes as a dependent variable, we calculated the value obtained by subtracting the first attitude (pre-attitude) before reading the CSR information from the second attitude (post-attitude) after reading the article. After refining the variables, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. The reason for using hierarchical regression is to confirm whether adding an interaction term had stronger predictive power than the main effects of CSR target or brand reputation alone. As a result of the analysis, the explanatory power of the model with the interaction effect was the highest (R² = .06, ΔF = 10.25, p < .01; Table 1). The main effects of CSR targets (b = −0.08, t = −.87, p > .35) and brand reputation (b = −0.05, t = −.68, p = .50) were not significant. Moreover, the interaction effect between the two variables was significant (b = −.24, t = −3.20, p < .01). Simple slope tests were conducted to examine specific patterns (Aiken et al., 1991; Dawson, 2014; Dawson & Richter, 2006). For the condition in which consumers read the domestic country of the CSR target, the higher the brand reputation, the larger the increase in positive attitudes toward the product post-purchase (b = .19, t = 1.88, p = .06), whereas when they read about the CSR target abroad, the attitude difference for the product purchased was more negative (b = −.29, t = −2.84, p < .01). That is, the higher the brand reputation, the more favorable the post-product attitude of the company for domestic donation activities, whereas the negative product attitude changes for donation activities abroad (see Figure 2).

Table 1.

The Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Model	Independent variables	Unstandardized coefficients		T	R (R²)
Model	Independent variables	B	Std. Error	T	R (R²)
1	CSR target	−.08	.09	−.87	.06 (.00)
2	CSR target	−.08	.09	−.85	.08 (.01)
2	Brand reputation	.05	.08	−.61	.08 (.01)
3	CSR target	−.08	.09	−.87	.24 (.06)
	Brand reputation	−.05	.07	−.68
	CSR target × Brand reputation	−.24	.07	−3.20*

p < .01.

Figure 2.

Simple slope results.

Experiment 2

Purpose

Experiment 2 aimed to investigate causal relationships between variables and demonstrate the psychological mechanisms for achieving internal validity. While Experiment 1 focused on external validity by examining the effect of CSR on attitude changes toward brands that participants have purchased, the recall of actual brands by participants might have introduced brand-related exogenous variables, such as brand image or knowledge, influencing the outcomes. To eliminate such biased influences or inferences of participants’ brand knowledge or image in memory by recalling their actual brand experiences, we conducted Experiment 2 using scenarios. The scenario technique has been used in the CSR literature to block out brand exogeneity (e.g., Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014; van Prooijen & Bartels, 2019). Before conducting Experiment 2, we selected stimuli and conducted a preliminary survey to ensure that brand reputation was manipulated well in the scenario prepared based on the selected stimuli.

Stimuli Development

For this study, we selected a jacket as a fictitious product stimulus because it is a product that both men and women, young and old, are likely to have purchased. Additionally, jackets are a product where consumers can judge the quality for themselves, and there is a wide range of relatively well-known and lesser-known brands available. The scenarios were designed to put participants in the situation of purchasing a jacket with either a high or low brand reputation (see Table 2). Specifically, the introduction to the scenario presented a situation where participants were buying a jacket and then provided a brief description of the characteristics that would determine the quality of the jacket. To ensure that the quality of the jacket was perceived similarly across all participants, we presented the same content of jacket quality before presenting the manipulation content of the brand reputation. We adopted the brand reputation manipulation to the context of this scenario by referring to previous studies (e.g., Campbell, 1999; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990). The jacket brand with a high reputation was introduced as a product of a large domestic company, given its high recognition among domestic consumers. By contrast, the jacket brand with a low reputation was described as a new brand that is slowly gaining recognition among domestic consumers as a product of domestic SMEs.

Table 2.

Scenario of Experiment 2.

Common intro scenario
You recently purchased a jacket of the domestic 00 brand from a clothing shopping mall to purchase a jacket suitable for spring and fall. Now it’s been about a week since I bought a casual jacket from the 00 brand. You’ve just purchased a jacket and are making a judgment about it. The thickness of the jacket I bought is medium, and the texture and material are pretty good. It’s a little stretchy, but it isn’t that uncomfortable when I wear it.
High-reputation brand (Large company)	Low-reputation brand (SME)
The 00 brand you purchased is a product of a large company in Korea and has a long brand history. Therefore, it has long been highly recognized among Korean consumers, and its quality and reputation are high.	The 00 brand you purchased is a product of a small and medium-sized enterprise in Korea and has a short brand history. So now it is slowly raising awareness among Korean consumers, and its quality and reputation are moderate.

Pretest

A total of 70 persons participated in a between-subjects pretest with two conditions of brand reputation (high vs. low) using the scenarios developed during stimuli creation (M_age = 38.9, SD = 9.1, female = 37.1%). Participants were first presented with a common introductory scenario and then asked to evaluate the attractiveness and perceived quality of a jacket. Later, they were shown the remainder of the scenario and asked to evaluate the brand reputation and perceived involvement of the jacket. Jacket attractiveness was measured on a seven-point Likert scale by “attractive/appealing/good-looking” about the jacket (not at all—very likely; Argo & Main, 2008; Cronbach’s α = .86). Perceived quality of the jacket was measured by “the jacket described above has excellent quality/have fewer problems/looks to be reliable” (Jo, 2007; Cronbach’s α = .86). Brand reputation was measured by “the above jacket has low quality/low reputation (1) – high quality/high reputation (7)” (Cronbach’s α = .77). Jacket purchase involvement was measured by “not interesting/not important (1)-interesting/important (7)” (Bower & Grau, 2009; Cronbach’s α = .82).

According to the t-test, for brand reputation, participants allocated to the large firm conditions (high-brand reputation) showed higher perceived reputation compared with those in the SME conditions (low-brand reputation) (M_low = 4.31, SD = 1.16 vs. M_high = 5.00, SD = .99; t (68) = −2.70, p < .01). There are no differences in jacket attractiveness (M_low = 4.70, SD = 1.11 vs. M_high = 4.89, SD = .82; t (68) = −.83, p > .40) and jacket quality (M_low = 4.63, SD = 1.17 vs. M_high = 4.76, SD = .80; t (68) = −.55, p > .55) between brand reputation. In addition, jacket involvement has no gender difference (M_man = 4.72, SD = 1.27 vs. M_woman = 5.06, SD = 1.29; t (68) = −1.08, p > .25). That is, no difference exists between groups in terms of stimulation other than brand reputation, so the scenario is judged to be well-written.

Sample and Design

A total of 279 adults were recruited through an online Korean panel and compensated with internet gift certificates for their participation (M_age = 26.9, SD = 2.1, female = 51.3%). We randomly assigned participants to one of six conditions in a 3 (CSR target: domestic vs. abroad vs. control) × 2 (brand reputation: high vs. low) between-subjects design.

Procedure

The participants were given a scenario based on the pretest. After reading the scenario that manipulated the brand reputation, they were asked to imagine that the brand they were purchasing was doing CSR. The CSR initiative was presented to the participants as part of CRM promotion. The promotional offer stated that a portion of the sales from the jacket purchased by the participant would be donated to those in need in their domestic country (vs. abroad). The statement read, “Today you learned that the 00 brand is donating part of its jacket sales to low-income neighbors in Korea (vs. abroad). The sales amount at the time of your purchase was used for donation activities of the 00 brand.” In the control group, CSR facts were not presented.

Measurement

The attitude toward the jacket (Cronbach’s α = .93) and brand reputation (Cronbach’s α = .71) were measured in the same way as in Experiment 1. As variables of the psychological mechanism, the perceived risk of product quality was measured by “the likelihood of regretting the purchase of this jacket/the risk of negative factors occurring” on a scale from “not at all (1) – very likely (7)” (Cronbach’s α = .85) (Shimp & Bearden, 1982; Yeo & Park, 2006). Perceived fairness to CSR was measured by adapting items from previous studies to the context of this study (Kukar-Kinney et al., 2007; Su et al., 2008) as “I think this is a fair corporate behavior/a reasonable corporate behavior” on a scale from “not at all (1) to very much so (7)” (Cronbach’s α = .88).

Results

Manipulation Check

As a result of conducting an independent sample t-test to check brand reputation, the results show that participants in the highly reputable brand presentation condition perceived brand reputation as higher than the lowly presented conditions (M_high = 5.26, SD = .79 vs. M_low = 4.41, SD = .76; t (277) = 9.20, p < .001).

Post-purchase Attitude

To verify the hypothesis, we conducted an ANOVA with brand reputation and CSR target as independent variables and attitudes toward the purchased products as the dependent variables. For the main effect on brand reputation, product attitude was higher under brand conditions with high reputation (M_high = 5.76, SD = .93 vs. M_low = 5.27, SD = 1.06; F (1, 273) = 18.30, p < .001). The main effect of CSR targets was also shown (F (1, 273) = 15.30, p < .001) and the interaction between the two variables was also significant (F (1, 273) = 4.99, p < .01). A planned contrast was conducted to examine the difference between the specific groups. As a result of the analysis, when presented with scenarios involving high-reputation brands, participants in the domestic CSR conditions showed more favorable product attitudes compared to those in the control group (M_domestic = 6.06, SD = .87 vs. M_control = 5.57, SD = .82; F (1, 273) = 6.34, p < .05). In contrast, product attitudes in the abroad CSR condition did not significantly differ from those in the control group (M_abroad = 5.65, SD = 1.06 vs. M_control = 5.57, SD = .82; F (1, 273) = .18, p > .65). For low-reputation brand conditions, participants in the domestic CSR conditions (M_domestic = 5.61, SD = 1.07 vs. M_control = 4.63, SD = .78; F (1, 273) = 26.33, p < .001) and those in the abroad CSR conditions showed more favorable product attitudes compared to those in the control groups (M_abroad = 5.59, SD = 1.02 vs. M_control = 4.63, SD = .78; F (1, 273) = 25.33, p < .001). Furthermore, there was no difference in product attitude between abroad CSR conditions and domestic CSR conditions (F (1, 273) = .01, p > .90) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The effect of CSR target and brand reputation on post-attitude toward products (Experiment 2).

Mediation Results

Our hypothesis suggests that consumers’ post-purchase reactions to CSR targets of high-reputation brands are influenced by CSR fairness, whereas for CSR targets of low-reputation brands, the perception of lower risk of the product itself is more important. To test these predictions, we conducted a mediation analysis. After excluding the control group and dividing into two groups based on brand reputation, bootstrapping was performed to examine the differential dual mediating effects of CSR fairness and perceived product risk on the hypothesis logic (Model 4; boots: 5000, Hayes, 2013).

High-Reputation Brand

According to the analysis, the effect of CSR targets on CSR fairness is significant (b = 0.50, t = 2.45, p < .05), and the effect on perceived risk was not significant (b = −.27, t = −1.13, p > .25). The effect of CSR fairness on product attitude (b = .48, t = 5.31, p < .001), the impact of perceived risk (b = −.24, t = −3.02, p < .01) was significant, and the effect of CSR targets on product attitude was not significant (b = .10, t = .59, p > .55). In this analysis, CSR fairness did not include 0 in the confidence interval, indicating a mediating role (95%, b = .24, CI: [.049, .469]), whereas perceived risk, including zero in its confidence interval (95%, b = .06, CI: [−.033, .223]), was found not to play a mediating role.

Low-Reputation Brand

Similarly, as a result of bootstrapping through CSR fairness and perceived risk, the effect of CSR targets on CSR fairness was not significant (b = .16; t = .69, p > .45). The effect on perceived risk was not significant (b = .27, t = 1.18, p > .20). The effect of CSR fairness on product attitude (b = .46, t = 5.83, p < .001) and the effect of perceived risk (b = −.17, t = −2.05, p < .05) was significant. Moreover, the effect of CSR on product attitude was not significant (b = −.02, t = −.09, p > .90). In this analysis, CSR fairness included 0 in the confidence interval, indicating it did not serve as a mediator (90%, b = .08, CI: [−.091, .279]). Conversely, perceived risk was found to play a mediating role, as its confidence interval did not contain zero (90%, b = −.05, CI: [−.173, −.001]).

Conclusion

Conclusion and Contribution

This study investigated how consumers react to product brands based on their reputation and where CSR is performed (domestically or abroad). The study revealed that consumers who purchased high-reputation brands had a favorable post-attitude toward the product when CSR was performed in their own country. However, consumers who bought low-reputation brands did not show any significant difference in their post-purchase product attitude based on the CSR target. The results suggest that CSR is perceived as fairer when high-reputation brands undertake such activities within their home country. Also, it was observed that performing CSR for a low-reputation brand could mitigate risk perceptions associated with the purchased products.

The academic contributions and practical implications of this study are as follows. First, the study focused on post-purchase and how consumers respond to CSR activities toward the brand, which is distinct from previous research that mainly examines the impact of CSR on pre-purchase situations. Consequently, the study predicts the direct impact of CSR on customer loyalty, which can help firms develop effective CSR strategies to enhance customer loyalty.

Second, the study can apply the impact of CSR from the perspective of corporate stakeholders by examining the reactions of existing customers. CSR is not only seen as a means to promote equality and fairness or merely as a tool for managing external image (Utting, 2007), but understanding how it integrates into the company’s internal culture and values is also essential. However, there have been few prior studies that examine how stakeholders and company members think about this. Unlike previous research, this study explores unique mechanisms related to CSR, examining how these CSR mechanisms could influence the loyalty of current customers who already purchase from the company. This approach could also apply to understanding the effects of CSR activities on employee morale and job satisfaction. This is because customers with high loyalty may share a mindset similar to that of internal employees. Although this research focuses on consumers, it offers the potential for expanding into studies that help understand internal perspectives on CSR.

Third, this study, based on the Social Identity Theory, highlights the significance of differentiation in a company’s social responsibility activities. It posits that consumers’ expectations of companies vary with their brand reputation and size. For emerging startups, this research indicates the necessity of engaging in CSR initiatives to forge a positive brand reputation actively. That is, companies with lesser-known brands may be better off conducting their CSR efforts regardless of the type until they have built up some brand awareness. In the current focus on ESG management, it has been observed that SMEs or brands with lesser reputations gain more benefits from CSR in terms of consumers and stakeholder support. Conversely, larger companies should be aware of whether their CSR efforts maintain their awareness and corporate image as members of the domestic consumer group. While prioritizing CSR efforts that do not alienate domestic consumers, large companies should also strive for a global CSR approach that extends their commitment to social responsibility beyond national borders, ensuring a harmonious balance between local appreciation and global impact.

Lastly, this study examines the relationship between CSR activities and how consumers perceive product risk, with a particular focus on the impact of brand reputation. By establishing a connection between product risk perceptions and CSR initiatives, this research shows how CSR can help to promote sustainable consumer attitudes. The study reveals that both small and large businesses can leverage CSR to reduce consumers’ psychological risk associated with the launch of new products, brand expansion, or market entry strategies. Additionally, this research highlights that the consumer response to CSR initiatives is influenced by the brand’s reputation, which adds complexity to predicting the effects of CSR. Companies with a good reputation can enhance their positive brand image by ensuring that their CSR activities are perceived as fair. In contrast, less reputable companies need to assess how their CSR efforts can reduce product-related risks. This study enriches the discussion on CSR by uncovering unique mechanisms through which CSR influences post-purchase perceptions. It offers valuable insights for organizations to craft their CSR strategies effectively while balancing fairness and risk mitigation.

Limitations and Future Studies

It is important to note that this study has some limitations that need to be taken into account, and further research is required. Firstly, the study only used participants from South Korea as a sample in two experiments. As discussed earlier in the method section, it is crucial to investigate the impact of consumers’ responses to the nationality of CSR firms based on social identity. Therefore, this study should avoid controlling for exogenous variables. Although using a single-country sample is acceptable, future research should consider using a cross-country sample to generalize the findings. Additionally, collecting samples from countries belonging to different cultural spheres, including South Korea, would also constitute a valuable direction for future research.

Second, this study delved into the impact of CSR in the context of CRM promotions, thus, also presenting a range of predictive possibilities that can guide future research. Corporate promotions have been known to weaken attitudes toward the purchased product (e.g., Kivetz, 2005). However, this study found that CRM engagement can strengthen internal attitudes toward the product. The research suggests that CSR promotions may trigger different psychological mechanisms compared to previous studies.

Third, companies with a good reputation often expand their business overseas and create brand awareness in new markets by carrying out social responsibility activities. It is important to understand what factors can lead to a positive response to CSR activities by high-reputation brands from the perspective of local citizens. For instance, consumers who have a global identity or high construal level may believe that a company’s CSR activities abroad can lead to increased sales and improved product quality. However, SMEs may have doubts about how to use consumers’ resources and their final use. From a consumer’s point of view, they may perceive financial risks associated with CSR or CRM activities by companies that use their resources (Yavas et al., 1993). In our study, we simulated exposure to CSR through news articles. However, in reality, companies should utilize their social media platforms (SNS), create storytelling around their CSR activities, and share feedback through stakeholder forums and workshops. Investigating the differential impact of CSR communication through various channels on existing customers could offer empirical value and provide valuable direction for future research.

Lastly, it would be valuable to explore how consumer characteristics influence the effectiveness of CSR activities. Risk-averse consumers are prone to be sensitive to failure after purchase (Higgins, 1997), so they may view CSR efforts positively from weaker brands. However, risk-averse consumers may potentially view the CSR efforts of lesser-known brands negatively at the time of purchase due to their persuasion knowledge. This implies that the timing of consumers’ learning about a company’s CSR activities (whether it’s before or after the purchase) can lead to different responses. On the other hand, risk-seeking consumers may not react differently to a company’s CSR activities, regardless of when they make their purchase. It would be useful to study how consumer traits and product types can affect the impact of CSR activities to offer effective CSR strategies for companies in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kikyoung Park

Data Availability Statement

Due to confidentiality agreements and to protect the privacy of individuals involved, the data used in this study cannot be made publicly available.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(2012). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.

Abu Zayyad

H. M.

Obeidat

Z. M.

Alshurideh

M. T.

Abuhashesh

Maqableh

Masa’deh

R. E

. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and patronage intentions: The mediating effect of brand credibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(5), 510–533.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Argo

J. J.

Main

K. J.

(2008). Stigma by association in coupon redemption: Looking cheap because of others. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 559–572.

Balis

(2020). Brand marketing through the coronavirus crisis. Harvard Business Review, 1–5.

Barnea

Rubin

(2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In Zukauskiene

(Ed.), Interpersonal development (pp. 57–89). Routledge.

Becker

(2021). Feeling right about doing right, even if it was difficult? Emotional and behavioral consequences of conflict during ethical consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(3), 817–826.

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

10.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

11.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

12.

Bigné-Alcañiz

Currás-Pérez

Ruiz-Mafé

Sanz-Blas

(2012). Cause-related marketing influence on consumer responses: The moderating effect of cause–brand fit. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(4), 265–283.

13.

Blau

P. M.

(2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.

14.

Bowen

H. R.

(2013). Social responsibilities of the businessman. University of Iowa Press.

15.

Bower

A. B.

Grau

(2009). Explicit donations and inferred endorsements. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 113–126.

16.

Brewer

M. B.

(1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.

17.

Brown

R. J.

Hinkle

Ely

P. G.

Fox-Cardamone

Maras

Taylor

L. A.

(1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 327–342.

18.

Campbell

M. C.

(1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187–199.

19.

Carrero

Valor

Redondo

(2020). Do all dimensions of sustainable consumption lead to psychological well-being? Empirical evidence from young consumers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 33, 145–170.

20.

Chaudhuri

(2002). How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(3), 33–43.

21.

Choi

Chang

Y. K.

Jessica Li

Jang

M. G.

(2016). Doing good in another neighborhood: Attributions of CSR motives depend on corporate nationality and cultural orientation. Journal of International Marketing, 24(4), 82–102.

22.

Contini

Annunziata

Rizzi

Frey

(2019). Consumers’ corporate social responsibility and corporate ability associations as predictors of reputation: Developing countries under analysis. Business Strategy & Development, 2(3), 228–241.

23.

Dang

V. T.

Nguyen

Pervan

(2020). Retailer corporate social responsibility and consumer citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of perceived consumer effectiveness and consumer trust. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102082.

24.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.

25.

Dawson

J. F.

Richter

A. W.

(2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926.

26.

Deng

(2017). Consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives: The mediating role of consumer–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 515–526.

27.

Dunne

T. C.

(2018). Friend or foe? A reversal of ingroup bias. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(4), 593–610.

28.

Fang

Singh

Ahluwalia

(2007). An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 97–103.

29.

Goldberg

M. E.

Hartwick

(1990). The effects of advertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 172–179.

30.

Green

Allen

A. M.

Peloza

(2018). The influence of retailer size on consumer responses to social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(4), 439–446.

31.

Green

Peloza

(2014). How do consumers infer corporate social responsibility? The role of organisation size. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(4), 282–293.

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.

33.

Herr

P. M.

Kardes

F. R.

Kim

(1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.

34.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

35.

Hoeffler

Keller

K. L.

(2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.

36.

Hogg

M. A.

Mullin

B. A.

(1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In Abrams

Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 249–279). Blackwell Publishing.

37.

Homer

P. M.

(1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the Ad: Some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 78–86.

38.

Hoyer

W. D.

Brown

S. P.

(1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141–148.

39.

M. S.

(2007). Should a quality sub-brand be located before or after the parent brand? An application of composite concept theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 184–196.

40.

Kim

Yin

Lee

(2020). The effect of CSR on corporate image, customer citizenship behaviors, and customers’ long-term relationship orientation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102520.

41.

Kivetz

(2005). Promotion reactance: The role of effort-reward congruity. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 725–736.

42.

Kuenzel

Halliday

S. V.

(2010). The chain of effects from reputation and brand personality congruence to brand loyalty: The role of brand identification. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 167–176.

43.

Kukar-Kinney

Xia

Monroe

K. B.

(2007). Consumers’ perceptions of the fairness of price-matching refund policies. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 325–337.

44.

T. T.

(2023). Corporate social responsibility and SMEs’ performance: Mediating role of corporate image, corporate reputation and customer loyalty. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(10), 4565–4590.

45.

Maheswaran

Mackie

D. M.

Chaiken

(1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–336.

46.

Markus

(1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78.

47.

McGuire

(1963). Business and society. McGraw-Hill.

48.

Russell

D. W.

Russell

C. A.

(2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21, 65–81.

49.

Russo

Tencati

(2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 339–353.

50.

Ryu

Feick

(2007). A penny for your thoughts: Referral reward programs and referral likelihood. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 84–94.

51.

Schmeltz

(2012). Consumer-oriented CSR communication: Focusing on ability or morality? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 29–49.

52.

Scott

S. G.

Lane

V. R.

(2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.

53.

Shapiro

(1982). Consumer information, product quality, and seller reputation. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 20–35.

54.

Shimp

T. A.

Bearden

W. O.

(1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on consumers’ risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 38–46.

55.

Singh

(2016). The influence of CSR and ethical self-identity in consumer evaluation of cobrands. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 311–326.

56.

Skard

Thorbjørnsen

(2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 149–160.

57.

Skarmeas

Leonidou

C. N.

(2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838.

58.

Smith

D. C.

Park

C. W.

(1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 296–313.

59.

Zhou

K. Z.

Zhou

J. J.

(2008). Harmonizing conflict in husband–wife purchase decision making: Perceived fairness and spousal influence dynamics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 378–394.

60.

Sutton

Griffin

M. A.

(2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 493–514.

61.

Tajfel

H. E.

(1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

62.

Tajfel

H. E.

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.

63.

Tajfel

H. E.

Forgas

J. P.

(2000). Social categorization: Cognitions, values and groups. In Stangor

(Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 49–63). Psychology Press.

64.

Tao

Zhao

(2023). Do corporate customers prefer socially responsible suppliers? An instrumental stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(3), 689–712.

65.

Tesser

(1986). Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on cognition and action. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 435–464). Guilford Press.

66.

Utting

(2007). CSR and equality. Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 697–712.

67.

van Prooijen

A. M.

Bartels

. (2019). Anthropomorphizing brands: The role of attributed brand traits in interactive CSR communication and consumer online endorsements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 18(6), 474–483.

68.

Vlachos

P. A.

Tsamakos

Vrechopoulos

A. P.

Avramidis

P. K.

(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180.

69.

Yavas

Riecken

Babakus

(1993). Efficacy of perceived risk as a correlate of reported donation behavior: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 65–70.

70.

Yeo

Park

(2006). Effects of parent-extension similarity and self regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272–282.

71.

Yoon

Gürhan-Canli

Schwarz

(2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.