Modeling the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on [605187]

Modeling the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Customer Based Brand Equity with Empirical study
005

Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to propose a model on how corporate social responsibility
(CSR) influences Customer based brand equity (CBBE). Four factors have been suggested, that
may moderate the role of CSR on CBBE, and these factors are: Customer attitude towards CSR,
the perceived nature CSR, Cultural and ideological factors and Market presence, quality and price
of CSR products.
Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Customer based brand equity .
الملخص
تهدف هذه الدراسةةةةى الت احتراو ج حذل كحف ة ت ى ت ا ر ال سةةةةجحل ى ا لت ؤس ى لع جسةةةةسةةةةؤ سعت
العال ى التلؤر ى. تم احتراو أربع سحا ف ةن أن تةحن ة كدد في دحر ال سةةةجحل ى ا لت ؤس ى لع جسةةةسةةةؤ
سعت العال ى التلؤر ى؛ هذه العحا ف هي: ححف الع الء تلؤه ال سةةةةةجحل ى ا لت ؤس ى لع جسةةةةةسةةةةةؤ ج ر
التصحر ى لعع ف لطب عى ال سجحل ى ا لت ؤس ى لع جسسؤ العحا ف الاقؤف ى حاإل د حلحل ى حتحفر ال جتج في
السحق حاللحد حالسعر لع جتلؤ هذه ال جسسؤ .
الكلمات المفتاحية: ال سجحل ى ا لت ؤس ى لع جسسؤ ؛ العال ى التلؤر ى.

Literature review
Today’s companies are well aware of the fact that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
activities are watched closely , not just only by environment al friendly organizations but also by a
large number of consumers and stakeholders (Arslan& Zaman. 2014) ; so companies try to

associate CSR to their Brands and take it as a way of its development. Now most studies inthis
field is based on know ing what is the differences can CSR make it on Brand equity based on the
consumer s’ view; b ut yet researchers haven’t provided enough information, or a pattern on how
consumers perceive and react to ward brands sociallyresponsible (Walker& Kent . 2009). On the
other hand, there are several experimental studies about the relationship between Corporate Social
Responsibility and Brand Equity where it has been concluded that Corporate Social Responsibility
cause a considerable change in it (Arslan& Zaman. 20 14). This change can be made by many
factors like the feeling of ethical obligation of consumers (Robert B.G. 2011) and the cultural
difference from a region to another (Maignan, 2001). Others believe that the Invisible Hand (Like
Adam Smith theory about m arket regulation) can exist for the impact of CSR on consume r’s
purchase decision. (Loiset et al 2001). Also, brand equity derives from creative interactions
between the brand and its stakeholders. In other words, the more fulfilled the stakeholders’
expec tations, the more valuable the brand equi ty (Jones, 2005), (Lai et al 2010).
Castaldo et al (2009) suggested that there is two conditions must prevail to assure the link
between the consumer’s perception of CSR activities of the company , and the consumer i ntention
to buy products marketed by that company. These condition s are: the products sold by the company
must comply with ethical and social requirements; the other condition company should have an
acknowledged commitment to protect consumer rights and in terests. CSR have an impact on the
consumer attitude even if company’s product or production processes are not directly related to it ,
which can be a tool of a reputation building to any company . Therefore to reach this goal , managers
should know the abilities of consumers to accurately evaluate CSR activities and potentially
become a strong organizational reputation (Walker& Kent. 2009) .
In another way CSR activities might also have a negative impact on brand image. F or that
reason companies using CSR as a strategy in their businesses should be aware of their customers’
attitudes of CSR activities in general and also of activities rela ted to their businesses (Popoli,
2011) by trying to choose the right steps that Brand equity can be built through Corpor ate societal
marketing which are: building brand awareness, enhancing brand image, establishing brand
credibility, evoking brand feelings, creating a sense of brand community, and eliciting brand
engagement (Hoeffler & Keller. 2002). Hoeffler & Keller sug gested three important keys about
how CS R programs have their effect on brand. These keys are CSR Awareness and knowledge,

CSR Relevance and meaningfulness , and CSR Transfer ability . From another perspective Popoli
(2011) theoretically proposed that the link between CSR strategy and brand image can be
articulated in the following sequence: CSR demand – CSR response – Brand image.
CONCEPTUALIZING, MEASURING AND MANAGING CUSTOMER BASED BRAND
EQUITY
Brand and Brand Mana gement
The brand is and has been defined in many different ways over the years, depending on the
perspective from which the brand is perceived. Often that depends on the academic background of
the author/originator of the different definitions.The America n Marketing Association (AMA)
defined the brand in 1960 as:A name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them
which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to
differentiate them from those of compe titors. (Heding et al, 2009) . Others defined it as a complex
multidimensional construct whereby managers augment products and services with values and this
facilitates the process by which consumers confidently recognize and appreciate these values
(Atony & Riley, 1998).
Because product features are easily copied, brands have been considered a marketer’s
major tool for creating product differentiation , and to insure this situation marketers had to manage
their brands to maintain or raise the stakeholders’ perception level about the brand. This brand
management is a process of creating, coordinating and monitoring interactions that occur between
an orga nization and its stakeholders, such that there is consistency between an organization’s
vision and stakeholders’ beliefs about a brand. Brand manageme nt mainly based on brand equity.
Atony & Riley, (1998) mentioned that a real brand management begins much earlier, with a
strategy and a consistent integrated vision. Its central concept is brand identity, not brand image.
For Keller, 2013, p.58) brand management involves the design and implementation of marketing
programs and activities to build, measure, and manage brand equity .
Brand Equity
Brand equity is one of the significant concepts in brand management. Aaker (1991) defin ed
brand equity as “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to
or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/ or that firm’s customers” .

Brand equity consists of four dimensions: brand aware ness, brand associations, perceived
quality of brand and brand loyalty. These dimensions may be used to explore the findings of
marketing and consumer behavior research in relation to brand equity and take it as background
for measuring brand equity (douli des & Chernatony, 2009) . Brand awareness is “the ability for a
buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category'' (Aaker, 1991).
Thus, brand awareness consists of both brand recognition and recall (Keller, 1993). Brand
associations is “anything linked in memory to a brand ” and brand image as “a set of associations,
usually i n some meaningful way. ” (Aaker 1991). The associations have a level of strength based
on experiences that customer can have with the brand (Keller, 1 993). Perceived quality is “the
consumer's judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority ” (Zeithaml,1988) . Brand
loyalty is the attachment that a customer has to a brand. ” Aaker (1991) .

Definition and Dimensions of Customer -Based Brand Equity

The brand equity construct has been viewed fr om two major perspectives in literature
(doulides & Chernatony, 2009). The first focused on the financial side of the Brand, the second on
the customer based side.
The conceptualizations of consumer -based brand equity have mainly derived from
cognitive psychology (doulides & Chernatony, 2009) . Keller (1993) offered a definition of
customer -based brand equity as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer
response to the mark eting of that brand”. This response to the marketing of a brand can be
translated into various stages of the purchase decision making sequence such as preference, choice
intentions and actual choice (doulides & Chernatony, 2009).

Building Customer -Based Brand Equity

Keller (2001) suggested a constructed set of six “brand -building blocks ” with customers in
a form of a pyramid: salience, performance, imagery, judgments, feelings, and resonance. These
blocks are grouped into four steps to build Customer bas ed brand equity: Brand Salience describes
the brand identity and revolves around the question who am I? Companies should work on how to

get a high level of salience, which means that consumer, is aware of both the depth and width of
the brand. The second s tep; Brand performance and brand imagery , is based on the intrinsic
(Performance) and extrinsic (image) characteristics of a brand. The brand performance refers to
product and service features and how it fits with customer expectation. The brand imagery i s the
ways how the brand attempts to meet customers' more abstract psychological or social needs. The
brand performance and brand imagery construct a Brand meaning where consumer can make
associations to the brand. The third step, Brand judgments and brand feelings refers to how
customers respond to the brand, its marketing activity, and sources of information; this response
is based on the rational (judgments) and emotional (feelings) evaluation . The judgments include
Quality, Credibility, Consideration and Superiority. For the feelings it includes Warmth, Fun,
Excitement, Security, Social approval and Self -respect. The forth step is Brand resonance ; this
step answering the question whether the c onsumer willing to set a relationship with the brand. It
translate s the level of psychological bond customers have with the brand , and how much the
consumer is involved with the brand.
Measuring Customer -Based Brand Equity
There is no t a unique measure for brand equity need ed to be taken when we want to asses s
it (Baker et al. 2005). it is a complex and multi -faceted concept, it needs to becaptured through a
set of measures rather than a single measure (doulides & Chernatony, 2009) .
The most famous measuring of CBBE is drawn from Aaker's and Keller's conceptualization of
brand equity (Yooa & Donthu, 2001) . As discussed above about the dimension s of Brand equity
and the blocks of C BBE. Aaker proposed four measures related toconsumer -based brand equity
which are loyalty (including willingness to pay price premium andsatisfaction), perceived quality
(including perceived quality and leadership), differentiation (perceived value, brand personality,
organizational associations) and brand awarene ss (Yooa & Donthu, 2001). Keller (1993) propose d
two basic approaches to measuring customer -based brand equity. The "indirect" approach ,which
assess the potential sources of customer -based brand equity by measuring brand knowledge. The
"direct" approach assess es the impact of brand knowledge on consumer response to different
elements of the firm's marketing program.
Recently, Netemeyer et al. (2004) suggested a scale based on four facets of consumer –
based brand equity: perceived quality, perceiv ed value for cost and brand uniqueness, which can

make an impact on purchase intention and behavior, the willingness to pay a price premium as a
result of it . The y suggested alsoother facets of consumer -based brand equity, such as brand
awareness, familiari ty and popularity doulides & Chernatony, (2009) in their literature review of
CBBE, classified the measurement of CBBE into two approaches (direct or indirect). Direct
approaches to brand equity measurement attempt to measure the phenomenon directly by focusing
on consumers’ preferences or utilities, while indirect approaches measure brand equity through its
demonstrable manifestations.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CUSTOMER
The dimensional model of corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is the “organization’s obligation to maximizeits positive
impact and minimize its negative effects in being a contributing memberto society, with concern
for society’s long -term needs and wants” (Lantos, 2001).
Caroll (1991) presented a classification of CSR activities in a form of a pyramid. This
pyramid includes four kinds of CSR activities. These four categories are: Economic
Responsibilities (provide goods and services to societal members) , Legal Responsibilities (Law is
society’s codification of right and wrong. We have to obey it) , Ethical Responsibilities (standards,
norms, or expectations that reflect a concern for what Stakeholders regard as fair, just, or in
keeping with the respect or protection of stakeholders' mor al rights) and Philanthropic
Responsibilities (Contribute resources to the community;improve quality of life) . These
responsibilities have always existed to some extent but today just ethical and philanthropic
functions have taken a significant place.
Quazi & O’Brien , (2000) proposed two-dimensional model of corporate social responsibility based
on the Benefits and costs of CSR actions and Responsibility wideness. This proposed model has
four distinct quadrants. Each quadrant is named asfollows:
-Classical view: This is concerned with the classical view of social responsibility in which there
is no provision to look beyond a narrow view of profit maximization as it is seen to generate a net
cost to the company without any real benefit flowing from an activity.
-Socio -economic view: This quadrant represents a narrow view of social responsibility but accepts
that adopting some degree of social responsibility will lead to net benefit to the company in terms,
for example, of avoiding costly and embarras sing regulation, building good customer

relationships, good supplier relationships or the politics of networking. In this context, social
responsibility can be justified even if a manager holds a narrow view. In this perspective business
can simultaneously perform the dual function of profit maximization while serving social demand.

-Modern view: Modern view captures a perspective in which a business maintains its relationship
with the broader matrix of society where there are net benefits flowing from socially responsible
action in the long run, as well as in the short term. This is a modern view of social responsibility
and includes th e stakeholder view .
-Philanthropic view: This quadrant depicts a broader view of social responsibility in which
busines s agrees to participate in the charitable activities even though this is perceived as a net cost.
This impetus may come from altruistic or ethical feelings to do some good for society. This can
be associated with the p hilanthropic view.
CSR awareness
Most of the research on consumer response has not taken the awareness problem into
account (Lois et al. 2001) because t he main characteristic of the CSR concept is still thelack of
agreement o n what it really means. This may be due to the vagueness and int angibility of the term,
its ambiguity or simply to the fact that compared to other business functions. Moreover Servaes &
Tamayo (2013) found that the lack of customers’ awareness about CSR initiatives is a major
limiting factor in their ability to respond to the marketing initiatives. Similarly, potential customers
must be fully aware of CSR characteristics for CSR differentiation to be successful .The
advertising is like the only solution to reduce the information gap between CSR and customers,
which, in turn, makes it morelikely that customers will find out about the firm’sCSR involvement,
and reward the firm for its CSRefforts. Morerecently, relating advertising to CSR, researchers
suggested that CSR -related advertisingand media coverage may increase consumerawareness of
CSR. This, in turn, increases the demandfor socially responsible behavior and the returns
toengaging in such behavior. To realize this awareness the information intensityis considered as
one of the key elements in the CSR –value relation.
Costumer responses to Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR is a broad and complex concept that is challenging to measure its impacts . Many
surveys attempt ed to measure the size and composition of the consumer segment that is affected

by CSR, while the experiments attempt to determine whether CSR has a significant impact on
consumer responses. These responses can be formulated by the payment of higher prices for an
ethic al company’s products. (Lois et al. 2001) , or More positive image of a firm if it offers support
to a cause they care about.
Lois et al. (2001) found in their analysis that three types of customers’ response s to CSR
activities which are:
-Precont emplators : where this type do not base their purchasing on CSR . This type of consumers
are subdivided into two group : the first believe that companies should be actively involved in their
communities, but they still base their purchasing on traditional criteria ( i.e., price , quality, and
convenience). The second group of consumers believe that companies are unable to really help or
that CSR interferes with the true purpose of busines s.
-Contemplators : Also, this type is devised into two groups. The first group are hypothetically
supporting CSR , but they don’t think will have an impact on improving conditions for society that
it is not worth basing their purchasedecisions on it. The second group of contemplators believes
that the buying based on CSR is a good id ea, but they still rarely do it because they have not really
know and have enough information about CSR .
-The Action Group : The people in this group have stronger beliefs about CSR, but CSR is still not
a determinant of most of their purchasing behavior. Again this type divided into two groups. The
first group want to be Socially Responsible customer but it is difficult to lear n about the good
things that companies are doing. The second group is cynical about company motives for CSR and
about media reports.
-Maintainers: This Type of people are Social responsible customers which are divided also into
two groups. First the strongest issue is just the environment for this group. The second are
knowledgeable about a range of CSR issues and also about specific company behaviors.
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR THE IMPACT OF CSR ON CBBE
The relationship between corporate social responsibility and customer based brand equity
In the last two decades many researches has been conducted to find out the effect of
Corporate Social Responsibi lity activities on brand equity . In many researches the results indicate
that the primary factor which is responsible for the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility
is consumers (Arslan & Zaman, 2014). Pivato, et al (2008) supposed that consumer perceptions

about a company socially oriented are associated with a higher level of trust in the brand and its
products. Generally, socially responsible activities engender favorable attitudes and purchase
intentions (Ross, et al, 1992) , but Cause marketing has been shown in some instances to foster
negative perceptions toward a company when they engaged in cause or societal supporting
activities , and also even if some studiesshowed that while the majority of consumers regard
business ethics as important, this attitude does not always translat e into their intentions (Walker&
Kent, 20). Polansky & Wood (2001) found that the over commercialization of some activities
designed to benefit society may in fact harm the attitudes of consumers targeted by these activities.
CSRi n each sta ge in CBBE Pyramid
The power of a brand is in what res ides in the minds of customers ( Hoeffler & Keller 2002 ).
The challenge for companies in building a strong brand by CSR activities is ensuring that
customers is linked to th e right type of brand elements. Hoeffler & Keller (2002) suggested how
CSR programs are in each of this element regarding to CBBE construct :
Brand awareness:
If companies desire to link responsibility to their brand, their customers need to know that
they are responsible. When investigating consumers’ perceptions of CSR activities and
associations linked to these activities, first it is essential to ensure that company’s customers are
in fact aware of these CSR activities. Customer awareness is essential for the brand and also for
the company ’s responsibility. Otherwise it would be difficult for a brand to benefit from its
responsible activities. If awareness is low, the effect of CSR on brand equity is only theoretical,
not of practical re levance (Pomering & Dolnicar 2009 ).

Enhancing Brand Image
Severalkinds of imagery -related associationswould seem to be able to be linked to a brand
through CS R.
Two such types of associations are (1) user profiles (The CSR may enable consumers to develop a
positive image of brand users to which they also may aspire, for example, in terms of being kind
and generous and doing good things) and (2) personality and values (CSR could bolster the
sincerity dimension of a brand’s personality such that consumers would perceive the people behind
the brand as caring and genuine).

Brand credibility
Brand credibility refers to the extent to which the brand as a whole , isperceived as credible
in terms of three dimensions :expertise (being competent and innovativeand being a market leader),
trustworthiness (being dependable and keeping customer interests in mind),and likability (being
fun, interesting, and worth spendingtime with). M ore important, CS R could affect all
threeconsiderations, as consumers may perceive a firm willing toinvest in CS R, as caring more
about customers and as moredependable, at least in a broad sense, as well as likable for“doing the
right things.”

Evoking Brand Feelings
In terms of brand feelings , two categories of feelings are particularly applicableto CS R(1)
social approval (Enhanced levels of feelings of social approval will be created when CSR
provide sconsumers with external symbols to signal their affi liation to others) and (2) self -respect
(To accentuate these types of feelings, CS R can give people the notion that they are doing the right
thing and that they should feel good about themselves for having done so).

Creating a Sense of Brand Community
A CSR with a well -chosen cause can serve as a rallying point for brand users and a means
for them to connect to or share experiences with other consumers or employees of the company
itself.
Eliciting Brand Engagement
Participating in a cause -related activit y aspart of a CS R for a brand is certainly one means
ofeliciting active engagement. A CSR program of“strategic volunteerism,” whereby corporate
personnel volunteertheir time to help administer the nonprofit program,could be used to engage
consumers activel y with both thecause and the brand.
Presentation of the model and discussion.
In this theoretical study it is suggested four element s companies must take it into account
to know better how their CSR activities can have an impact on the Brand equity based on customer.

These elements are: (1) Customer attitude towards CSR, (2) Nature of CSR , (3) Cultural and
ideological issues and (4) Mar ket presence , Quality and price of CSR products.
Before starting the discussion of this model we must assume that the consumer is in the stage of
awareness or at least have heard about company’ s CSR involvement , so we can study whether or
not and how CSR h as an impact on CBBE.
1. Customer attitude towards CSR
Customer attitude means all the beliefs, feelings and behavioral intentions towards brands
socially responsible. Studies proved that Consumer s tend to feel secure when dealing with a firm
which is active in Corporate Social Responsibility (Serafeim & Ioannou2014), and are reluctant to
buy goods and services from businesses which are involved in socially or eth ically irresponsible
activities (Chen & Bouvain, 2005) .
The attitude of cust omer towards brand socially responsible influenced by several factors
related to customer, these factors is : Moral Responsibility , The perceived effectiveness of CSR in
alleviating social problems and social norms (Gielissen, 2011).
-Moral Responsibility : Moral responsibility consists of the reactive attitudes, for example
resentment and gratitude, we hold towards each other as co -members of the moral community
(Fahlquist 2008) . In cognitive psychology, human been is seeking always for the good and better
of the community . The moral responsibility makes a consumer to have a positive attitude towards
Brands socially responsible.
-The perceived effectiveness of CSR in alleviating social problems: The notion that CSR should
be perceived to be effective in alleviating the social problems is supported widely in literature .
Gielissen (2011) found that consumers buy SR products because they think they are effective in
alleviating social problems ( like Social benefits of Fa ir trade , environmentally friendly
products… )
-Social norms: The behavior is influenced by social norms. The social norms can be a reason for
departure from rational choice in the contextof environmental behavior . The positive opinions
about CSR may therefore also be an argument for having a positive attitude toward brands
Gielissen (2011).
2. Nature of Corporate social responsibility
The consumer ’s perception of the type of CSR activities which a company is involving in ,
has a key concept in affecting CBBE. It has been shown that the perception of these dimensions

may differ from a consumer to another according to demographical, psychological, cultural factors
(Maignan, 2001; Walker, 2009; Lois et al, 2001) .Arslan& Zaman, (2014) mentioned that t he firms
which focus much on Philanthropic responsibility received more favorable brand attitude , and
consumers evaluate them more positively as compared to firms which are more indulge in
sponsorsh ips and cause related marketing .For Maignan (2001), that marketing actions with a
social dimension generate consumers’ support for the organization.
The concept of association of these dimension s to CBBE can be easy to recognize if the
marketing of the brand is clear; so the brand knowled ge will be associated with the dominant CSR
dimension. As stated before the differential effect that the brand can make is the most persuasive
corporate social marketing program that customer want to see. From another point of view, we can
see the effect of CSR without any classification of it and take it as whole halo of effect (Klein &
Dawar, 2004) .
3.Cultural and ideological issues
Many of the studies and researches were conducted according to USA cultural
environment. Some researches proved that the perception structure of CSR differ from culture to
another (Magnan, 2001; Visser, 2005) . Visser (2005) suggests that Carroll’s CSR Pyra mid may
notbe the best model for understanding CSR in general, and CSR inAfrica in particular. Most
critically, it is suggested that the relative priorities of CSR in Africa are likely to be different from
the classic, American ordering. This finding remains speculative and provocative and would
therefore benefit from further empirical research. Henc e, research into alternative CSR theories
andframeworks is encouraged.
Maignan (2001) found that f or French consumers , legal responsibilities were positioned as
the most important corporate social responsibilities followed by ethical responsibilities in th e
second position. German consumers considered both legal and ethical responsibilities as the most
important corporate duties. These assessments suggest that French and German consumers are
mostly concerned about businesses conforming to social norms, not about businesses achieving
high levels of economic performance .

4.Market presence, Quality and price of CSR products
Recent investigations demonstrate that the relationship between CSR and ethical
consumerism is not always direct and evident. The results are in many cases contradictory and

establish numerous factors that affect whether a firm’s CSR activities translate into consumer
engagement and loyalty (Lois A. et al, 2001) . They include tradeoffs with traditional criteria (like
price, quality, and conve nience) and lack of information , corporate brand dominance , and the type
of CSR,consumers’ personal support for the CSR issues, and their general beliefs abou t CSR . It
has beenproven that consumer have the willing to pay for products Socially responsible i f they are
available and state d that it is difficult to reach to those products (Lois et al, 2001) .
Through what it mentioned, companies must be aware of consumers’ perceptions of their
CSR activities in order to benefit those perceptions when building a brand and brand
equity. Moreover if companies want to enhance Customer based brand equity through Corporate
Social Responsibility; it will be needed to coordinate those four elements together and to make
sure that the customer perceives the right message.

The empirical study
Questionnaire design
The questionnaire contained nineteen statements relating to a thre e factors of the proposed
model (Attitude towards CSR, Nature of CSR and Market presence, Quality, Price of CSR
Products) and a simple view about Customer based brand equity on socially responsible brands.
For the fourth factor (Cultural and ideological is sues) it was analyzed separately according to the
need of using many variables (Country and CBBE) together to assess the factor. These statements
were formulated from the theoretical study. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they
agreed or disagree d with each statement. In this study the statements were positively worded and
were placed randomly. Each statement was linked to a 5 point Likert scale with 1 “strongly
disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”.
Sample and data collection
The sampling technique used in this study is convenience sampling. The questionnaire was
posted in internet for International students groups. This diversification helps in studying the effect
of cultural and ideological issues about CSR.
After receiving first responses on the q uestionnaire, it’s been noticed that there is vague in
understanding some questions so adjustments were made to be more simplified. After the
adjustments, the total answers received are 71 answers which 5 of them was invalid and 66 valid.

ANALYSIS AND RESU LTS

Data analysis
The data were processed with statistical package SPSS 20 and LISREL 9.20 Student Edition.

Respondent profile
62% of respondents are male and 38% female, 35% of them are PhD students or more and
56% are master degree students and 9% ar e bachelor’s degree and also 62% are in the field of
economics and the rest are in the other field of social, natural and technique science.
Reliability Analysis
The reliability aspect, according to the result of Table I,showed that the Cronbach α value
was greater than 0.6 for all the measurement dimensions except the market presence, price and
quality of CSR products which was under 0.6. It means that the research variables of the three
dimensions are in the acceptable range just for the last dimension wh ich means there is no
consistency among the variables.

Table 1:Reliability test
N of
Items Cronbach's
Alpha
Customer attitude towards CSR 4 .637
The nature of CSR activities 5 .671
Market presence, price and quality of CSR products 4 .115

Confirmatory factor analysis
To measure the model fitness we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The
findings in Figure I indicate that RMSEA is 0.077 bigger than 0.05 which means that our proposed
model has a mediocre fit.

Figure 1: Confirma tory factor analysis

Component Factor Analysis
To know more about the model fit and what are the potential factors which might have an
effect besides what we proposed we took a Component Factor analysis. Component factor analysis
was employed to uncover underlying attitude dimensions. To make the findings, a Varimax
Rotation was performed on an initial factor solution. We took these criteria to make the findings:
 The value of each Eigen value is greater than 1.0.
 The factor loadings after Varimax rotation are greater than 0.5.
 The cumulative explained variations greater than 0.5.
 No variable has significant loading on more than one factor.

The KMO and Bartlett 's Test to measure the sampling adequacy was performed (Table 2),
KMO must be over 0.5 to be meaningful. KMO in this study for all the items of the model was
0.627 which confirm a high adequacy of sample.

Table 2:KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser -Meyer -Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .627
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi -Square 186.646
df 78
Sig. .000

The Component Factor analysis is done with Varimax rotation and it extracted four factors
which explained 59.43 percent of the total variance (Table 3). Table 4 shows the varimax rotated
matrix for all four factors. Factor 1 captures the items that support that the nature of CSR used by
brands has an effect on CBBE. Factor 2 covers the items of Customer attitude towards CSR . Factor
3 included two items of market presence and the nature of CSR. Factor 4 is based on the quality
of CSR products.

Table 3 Total variance explained

Component Eigenvalue % of Variance % Cululative
variance
1
2
3
4 2.782
2.236
1.443
1.266 21.402
17.197
11.099
9.736 21.402
38.599
49.698
59.433

Table 4 Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3 4
CSR.N Support CSR brands because it complies with legal regulations .786 -.054 .294 .136
CSR.N Support CSR brands because it alleviates some social problems .778 .044 .000 .055
CSR.N Support CSR brands because it promotes the well -being of the
society. .663 -.219 .068 -.364
MPQP Market presence .645 -.105 -.456 .096

CSR.ATT CSR increase the level of trust I have in a brand. .012 .759 -.098 .067
CSR.ATT Support CSR brands because it’s my duty .216 .714 .230 .040
CSR.ATT work for a company which are SR -.174 .710 -.173 .094

CSR.ATT I used to buy socially responsible brands very often. -.219 .501 .326 -.199

CSR.N Support CSR brands because it supports non -governmental
organizations working in problematic areas. .188 -.431 .267 .377
MPQP MARKET PRESENCE ONE STORE .003 -.185 .781 .081
CSR.N Support CSR brands because it preserves the natural environment .492 .206 .554 -.149

MPQP Quality -.106 -.003 -.092 .818
MPQP Price .283 .268 .373 .474
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

For the fourth factor which is Cultural and ideological issues we run an analysis of variance
(one way ANOVA test) to test whether this factor has a significant effect on customer based brand
equity. For the dependent variable we measured CBBE based on six items (Awareness,
Associations, Quality, Loyalty) and then we measured the mean of those items into one variable.
The independent variable was the countries. In this study we classified the countries like this
(Turkey 30%, Algeria 29%, Afghanistan 20%, As ian countries 17%, African countries 4%). The
table 5shows a degree of significance of 0.002 under 0.05 which emphasis our hypothesis that the
cultural differences have an impact on customer based brand equity.
Table 5 ANOVA Test

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4.335 4 1.084 4.683 .002
Within Groups 14.117 61 .231
Total 18.452 65

Discussion
After running a confirmatory factor analysis it showed that the proposed model has not a
good fit so we made a component factor analysis to uncover the underlying dimensions and to find

the factors which fits to the variable set. The varimax rotated table showed that there is three
explainable factors, first was about the nature of CSR second about the attitude towards CSR and
the third is the quality of CSR products. For the factor of price and market presence they showed
that don’t have a big impact on CBBE. The study proved that customers accept to buy the CSR
product even if the price is higher than 10% or if it takes them to go to another store to find it. For
the quality most of responds didn’t accept to buy the CSR brands if the quality is not good
compared to other brands. For that reason our hypothesis is rejected about the factor of Market
presence, price and quality of CSR products to just under the factor of quality and for the price and
market presence it doesn’t have a big impact.
Cultural and ideological issues test showed that there is a difference in level of CBBE over the
countries which emphasis our hypothesis that cultural issues have an impact on CBE.
As a conclusion we can say that the factors that have an impact on CBBE are: (1)the Nature
of CSR activities used by companies, (2) The attitude of customers towards CSR, (3) Cultural
Issues and (4) The qual ity of CSR products.

Conclusion
As a conclusion, customer attitude, CSR perception, Products quality and cultural and
ideological issues may play a role in the effect of CSR on CBBE, therefore the proposed model
can be used to explain this effect, with the elimination of the market presence and the price of CSR
products. These two last factors cannot be a moderator for the relationship between CSR and
CBBE. Also we can say that the proposed factors are not exclusive in this effect. Other factors can
be m entioned in the model that may strength the relationship, because the authors tried to include
the most mentioned ones in literature.

References
 Aaker, D.A, (1991) ,Managing Brand Equity , Free Press, NY.

 Arslan. M and Zaman. R , (2014 ), Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand
Image: A Study on Telecom Brands, Developing Coun try Studies, Vol.4, No.21.
 Atony. L.C. and Riley F D, (1998), Defining A "Brand": Beyo nd The Literature With
Experts' Interpretations , Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 417 -443
 Baker, C., Nancarrow, C., and Tinson, J. (2005), The Mind Versus Market Share Guide to
Brand Equity, International Journal of Market Research, 47, 5, 523 -540.
 BoongheeYooa, Naveen Donthu, (2001), Developing and validating a multidim ensional
consumer -based brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, 52, 1 – 14
 Carroll, Archie B, (1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the
Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders . Business Horizons , 34, 439-448.
 Carroll, Archie B. (1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the
Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders , Business Horizons, Vol 34, 4 , 39–48
 Castaldo. S et al, (2009), The Missing Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility and
Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products , Journa l of Business Ethics, 84 , 1–15.
 Christodoulides,G, and Chernatony.L , (2 009), Consumer Based Brand Equity
Conceptualization & Measurement, International Journal of Market Research.
 Erdem.T, et al, (1999), Brand Equity, Consumer Learning and Choic e, Marketing
Letters ,vol 10, 3 , 301-318
 Fahlquist , Jessica Nihle´n (2008), Moral R esponsibility for Environmental Problems —
Individual or Institutional? JAgric Environ Ethics.
 Gielissen. Robert B, (2011), Why do Consumers Buy Socially Responsible Products?,
International Journal of Business and Social Scie nce, Vol. 2, 3, 21 -35.
 Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K.L, (2002), Building brand equity through corporate societal
marketing , Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21, 1 , 78–89.
 Jones. R, (2005), Finding Sources of Brand Value: Developing a Stakeholder Model of
Brand Equity , Brand Management 13, 1, 10–32.
 Keller. K.L, 2001, Building Customer -Based Brand Equity , American marketin g
association, 15-19.
 Keller.K.L, (2013), Strategic Brand Management , Pearson,USA.
 Keller.K.L, (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer -Base d Brand
Equity , Journal of Mar keting, Vol. 57, 1, 1-22
 Klein, J and Dawar.B, (2004), Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions
and brand evaluations in a product –harm crisis , Intern. J. of Resea rch in Marketing, 21
,203–217.
 Lai. C.S et a l, (2010), The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand
Performance: The Mediating Effect of Industrial Brand Equity and Corporate Reputation ,
Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 457–469.
 Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate s ocial responsibility , Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 18, 7, 595 -630.
 Lois A. et al, (2001), Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The
Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Beh avior , The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, VOL 35, 1, 45-72
 Maignan. I, (2001), Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A
Cross -Cultural Comparison , Journal of Business Ethics 30 , 57–72.

 Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., &
Wirth, F. (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of consumer -based brand
equity, Journal of Business Research, 57, 209 –224.
 Polonsky, M.J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the over commercialization of cause -related
marketing harm society? Journal of Macro marketing, 21, 8 –22.
 Pomering, A. &Dolnicar, S. (2009), Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR
implementation: are consumers aware of CSR initiatives?. Journal of Business Ethics, 85
(2s), 285 -301.
 Popoli Paolo, (2011), Linkin g CSR s trategy and brand image: Different approaches in local
and global markets , Market ing Theory, Vol.11 , 4, 419–433.
 Quazi.A and O’Brien.D, (2000), An Empirical Test of a Cross -national Model of
Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.25, 33–51.
 Robert B.G, (2011), Why do Consumers Buy Socially Responsible Products? , International
Journal of Busines s and Social Science, Vol. 2, 3, 21 -35.
 Ross, J.K., Patterson, L.T., &Stutts, M.A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations
that use ca use related marketing , Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.20,
93–97.
 Serafeim, G, &Ioannou, I (2014), The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Investment Recommendations , Harvard business school.
 Sergio Pivato,NicolaMisaniand and AntonioTencatin, (2008), The impact of corporate
social responsibility on consumer trust: the case of organic food , Business Et hics: A
European Review, Vol.17 , 1 , 3-12.
 Servaes.H and Tamayo.A, (2013), The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm
Value: The Role of Customer Awareness, Management Science, Vol. 59, 5, 1045 –1061
 Tilde Heding, Charlotte F. Knudtzen and MogensBjerre, (2009), Brand Management:
Research, theory and practice , Routledge, NY,
 Visser. V, (2005), Revisiting Carroll’s Csr Pyram id: An African Perspective , African
poverty and stagnation is the greatest tragedy of our time. Commission for Africa.
 Walker. M and Kent. A, (2009), Do Fans Care? Assessing the Influence of Corporate
Social Responsibility on Consumer Attitudes in the Spor t Industry , Jou rnal of Sport
Management, Vol23, 743 –
769.http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/17462/1/Consumer_based_brand_equity_conceptualization
s_and_measurement.pdf
 Zeithaml. V, (1988), Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means -End
Model and Synt hesis of the Evidence , Journal of Marketing, Vol.52, 2-22.