Total views : 290

Consumer Behavior based on Brand Sensitivity and CSR Activity Type


  • Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Namseoul University, 91 Daehak-ro, Seonghwan-eup, Sebuk-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, 31020, Korea, Republic of


Objectives: This study contributes to the academic study and theoretical framework by verifying the results from various CSR studies. Additionally, this study provides useful data for corporate PR professionals to identify which CSR activity is the most effective communication strategy. Methods/Statistical Analysis: To test the hypotheses, this study applied a 2 x 3 between subjects factorial design between brand sensitivity: High/low and CSR types: Charitable activity, voluntary activity, cause-related marketing. Advertisement articles for three scenarios were created and an operation check was conducted. Findings: The results show that there are identical responses for all dependent variables for the reliability of a news release, attitude towards a firm, product attitude and purchase intention. In other words, regardless of the dependent variable, when the level of brand sensitivity is high, the results show a favorable response to charitable activity and cause-related marketing. However, when the level of brand sensitivity is low, the results show a positive response to voluntary activity, charitable activity and cause-related marketing. Improvements/Applications: Furthermore, firms cannot be evaluated by consumers through the CSR activity alone. Hence, a specific type of CSR activity could be effective, but could cause a serious problem if consumers evaluate it as a careless event. In particular, firms must strategically approach CSR activities by analyzing consumer prejudices, preliminary emotions and their emotional state towards the brand in great detail.


Brand Sensitivity, Consumer Behavior, CSR Activity Type.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 268)


  • Lachance MJ, Beaudoin P, Robitaille J. Adolescents’ brand sensitivity in apparel: Influence of three socialization agents. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2003 Jan; 27(1):47–57.
  • Hyokjin K, Puzakova M, Rocereto JF. Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing. 2015 Jul; 79(4):56–76.
  • Ersun NA, Yildirim F. Consumer involvement and brand sensitivity of university students in their choice of fashion products. Marmara University Journal of the Faculty of Economic and Administration Sciences. 2010 Jun; 28(1):313–33.
  • Crane A, Palazzo G, Spence LJ, Matten D. Contesting the value of ‘creating shared value. California Management Review. 2014; 56(2):130–53.
  • Strand R, Freeman RE, Hokerts K. Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015; 127:1–15.
  • Petrenko OV, Aime F, Ridge J, Hill A. Corporate Social Responsibility or CEO Narcissism? CSR Motivations and Organizational Performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2016 Feb; 37(2):262–79.
  • Workman JE, Hee LS. Relationships among consumer vanity, gender, brand sensitivity, brand consciousness and private self-consciousness. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2013 Mar; 37(2):206–13.
  • Ramirez E, Goldsmith RE. Some antecedents of price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2009; 17(3):199–213.
  • Hui-Ming DW, Bezawada R, Tsai JCC. An investigation of consumer brand choice behavior across different retail formats. Journal of Marketing Channels. 2010 Jul-Sep; 17(3):219–42.
  • Hansen K, Singh V. Are store-brand buyers store loyal? An empirical investigation. Management Science. 2008 Oct; 54(10):1828–34.
  • Kong CL, Phau I. Impact of gender on perceptual fit evaluation for prestige brands. Journal of Brand Management. 2010 Mar; 17(5):354–67.
  • Ghasemi S, Nazemi M, Hajirahimian T. From Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to Creating Shared Value (CSV): Case study of Mobarakeh Steel Company. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal. 2014; 6(1):15–22.
  • Nan X, Heo K. Consumer response to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Journal of Advertising. 2007; 36(2):63–74.
  • Hoque N, Uddin MR, Ibrahim M, Mamun A. Corporate social responsibilities as a means of materializing corporate vision: A Volvo Group approach. Asian Social Science. 2014; 10(11):258–68.
  • Porter ME, Kramer MR. Strategy and strategies: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 2006; 84(12):78–93.
  • Kyeong HA, Jung KT, Yeon WD. The structural relationships among Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities, authenticity of CSR and corporate image of Korea Sports Promotion Foundation (KSPO). Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies. 2015; 62(11):77–94.
  • Oconnor A, Shumate M, Meister M. Walk the line: Active moms define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review. 2008; 34(4):343–50.
  • Greening DW, Turban DB. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society. 2000; 39(3):254–80.
  • Martínez P, Bosque IR. CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2013; 35:89–99.
  • Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Maximizing business returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2010; 12(1):8–19.
  • Heinze KL, Soderstrom S, Zdroik J. Toward strategic and authentic Corporate Social Responsibility in professional sport: A case study of the Detroit Lions. Journal of Sport Management. 2014; 28(6):672–86.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.