2013 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (20th)

July 17-19, 2013 Harbin, P.R.China

Research on the Relationship

between Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Equity
——From the Perspective of Consumer Cognition
HAN Na1，LI Jian2
1 School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, P.R.China, 100081
2 School of Social Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, P.R.China, 100081

Abstract: In accordance with information processing
theory, the outside information influenced individual
cognitive, and then affecting the individual evaluation
and behavior. However, the academic circles have
neglected the psychological reactions of consumers, this
study build the conceptual model of relationship between
corporate social responsibility and brand equity,
consumers’ emotional and rational cognition as
mediating variables. Meanwhile, using structural
equation methods to test the relationships between the
dimensions of corporate social responsibility and brand
equity, and mediating effects. The results showed that,
corporate environmental responsibility influenced brand
equity directly, and meanwhile indirectly through
perceived quality; Community responsibility affected
brand equity indirectly through perceived quality;
Consumer responsibility had an impact on brand equity
directly and indirectly through perceived quality.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility, brand
equity, consumer cognition
1 Introduction
According to McKinsey Global Survey, in 2010, 76
percent of executives say sustainability contributes
positively to shareholder value in the long term, and 50
percent of executives see maintaining or improving
corporate reputation[1]. Some existing researches show
that enterprises fulfilling social responsibility actively
will improve consumers’ appraisal, brand choice and
recommendation[2-4], so as to improve consumers’
attitude to enterprises and brands[5-6]. And some
researches also state that enterprises performing social
responsibility may increase the enterprise operation cost
and leading companies at a disadvantage[7-8]. So doing
goods not always leads to good returns. If corporate
social responsibility could positively improve brand
equity, which would promote the enterprise undertake
social responsibility actively. However, the ambiguous
relationship between corporate social responsibility
would harm brand management of enterprises.
There are many researches on corporate social
responsibility analyzing what should the enterprises do,
however the research mechanism aiming at consumers’
psychology is relatively insufficient[9]. Based on
information processing theory, outside information
influences individual cognition, thus affects individual
behavior. The author believes that consumers will form a
certain attitude to the information of enterprises
performing social responsibility, and then affect
consumer recognition and appraisal to the brand.
However, in the case of information asymmetry, it is
difficult for consumers to truly understand the actual
motivation of enterprises fulfilling social responsibility,
also can’t fully know the information of fulfilling the
social responsibility, which cause consumer’s purchase
decision and evaluation to the brand affected by rational
and perceptual cognition at the same time. Based on the
above logic, the author has constructed a conceptual
model, which shows the influence of corporate social
responsibility on the brand equity with the mediating
effect of perceived quality and trust, which analyzes the
effect of social responsibility on the brand equity from
rational and perceptual aspect, so as to solve the
following problems: ① the influence of rational
cognition in the mechanism of corporate social
responsibility and brand equity; ② the influence of
perceptual cognition in the mechanism of corporate
social responsibility and brand equity; ③ the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and
brand equity.
2 Literature review
2.1 Dimension of corporate social responsibility
The concept of corporate social responsibility was
first proposed by Sheldon in 1924. After decades of
development, the content has been expanding, but the
scholars have not reached consensus on the dimensions
of corporate social responsibility. Some scholars divide
corporate social responsibility into 3 dimensions, and
some scholars divide corporate social responsibility into
4 dimensions. The author summarized corporate social
responsibility dimensions, see Table 1, it can be seen that
corporate social responsibility include a variety of
dimensions.

- 870 -
978-1-4799-0474-7/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
 Tab.1 Corporate social responsibility dimensions 3 Proposal of hypothesis and conceptual
Dimension Representative scholars models
CED(1971); Carroll(1979); Jin Liyin
(2006); Xu Shangkun, Yang Rudai 3.1 Hypothesis
Economic (1) The influence of social responsibility to
(2007/2009); Deng Dejun, Jiang
responsibility consumer cognitive
Kan(2011); Xu Hong, Zhu Xiuxia
(2012) Brand trust refers to a sense of security that
CED(1971); Frederick(1983);
consumers obtain from the brand. Rafael(2009)[10]
Environment showed that the brand fulfilling social responsibility
Modic(1988); Jin Liyin(2006); Xu
responsibility actively could obtain more consumer’s support and
Shangkun, Yang Rudai (2007/2009)
approval. The author believes that behavior of fulfilling
Carroll(1979); Deng Dejun, Jiang social responsibility could form brand affinity, then build
Legal Kan(2011); Xu Shangkun, Yang trust to the brand. Based on above analysis, this article
responsibility Rudai (2007);
Xu Hong, Zhu Xiuxia (2012)
proposes hypotheses below:
H1a: Environmental responsibility has positive
CED(1971); Frederick(1983); influence on trust;
Consumer Modic(1988); Jin Liyin (2006); H2a: Community responsibility has positive
responsibility Deng Dejun, Jiang Kan(2011); Xu influence on trust;
Shangkun, Yang Rudai(2007/2009) H3a: Consumer responsibility has positive influence
on trust.
CED(1971); Frederick(1983);
Employee Modic(1988); Xu Shangkun, Yang Many scholars have approved the positive
responsibility Rudai (2009); Steiner(1980); Deng relationship between enterprise social responsibility and
Dejun, Jiang Kan (2011) perceived quality. Lu Dong(2010)[11] analyzed the
relationship between social responsibility and consumer
Ethical Carroll(1979); Xu Hong, Zhu Xiuxia response, the results showed that altruistic attribution
responsibility (2012) positively influenced consumer perceived. The author
Frederick(1983); Modic(1988); Jin thinks that perceived quality which belongs to subjective
Liyin (2006); Deng Dejun, Jiang Kan judgment could be influenced by consumers and media.
Public
responsibility
(2011); Xu Hong, Zhu Xiuxia (2012); Based on above analysis, this article proposes hypotheses
Xu Shangkun, Yang Rudai below:
(2007/2009) H1b: Environmental responsibility has positive
Sponsoring influence on perceived quality;
Frederick(1983); Jin Liyin (2006) H2b: Community responsibility has positive
community
influence on perceived quality;
Other H3b: Consumer responsibility has positive influence
CED(1971); Carroll(1979)
responsibility on perceived quality.
(2) The influence of social responsibility to brand
This study aims at the influence of social equity
responsibility to brand equity from consumer perspective. In terms of environment responsibility, some
Due to information asymmetry, consumers could not researches also state that enterprises performing
make a comprehensive and accurate appraisal. environmental responsibility may increase the enterprise
Considering of this, this study applies interview to operation cost and impede the growth of enterprise
eliminate the dimension of social responsibility that performance. However, Porter supports that enterprises
consumer awareness is not high. The results show that shall undertake environmental responsibility. Meanwhile
consumers pay more attention to environmental some researches support Porter’s point, so as to improve
responsibility, community responsibility and consumer the enterprise reputation and competitiveness. Nathan&
responsibility. Therefore, this study analyzes social Tandberg[12] stated that more than 50 percent consumers
responsibility from the three aspects. preferred to purchase in the enterprise with good
environmental reputation. It is observed that
2.2 Composition of consumers cognitive environmental protection behavior doesn’t clash with
According to asymmetric information, consumers enterprises competitiveness. By fulfilling environment
could not make a comprehensive and accurate appraisal. responsibility, enterprises could build green image,
In the buying decision process, perceptual and rational improve consumer cognitive. Based on above analysis,
cognitive both play an important role. Considering of this, this article proposes hypotheses below:
this study will take perceived quality and trust as the H1c: Environmental responsibility has positive
mediating variable, analyzing the influence of social influence on brand equity.
responsibility to brand equity from the aspect of In terms of community responsibility, famous
perceptual and rational. management gurus Koontz and Weihrich suggested that
enterprises must contact with its social environment, and

- 871 -
participate actively in community activities. Enterprises
actively participate in community construction, support
community culture and education applying its
advantages, provide employment, help homeless people
and children, which not only can contribute to
community construction, but also lay a foundation for
enterprises. Based on above analysis, this article
proposes hypotheses below:
H2c: Community responsibility has positive
influence on brand equity.
In terms of consumer responsibility, Zhu Ruixue,
Guo Jingfu(2004) suggested that consumer responsibility
enhanced brand reputation, helping enterprises establish
good relationship with consumers, so as to improve the
market competitiveness. Willmott(2001)&Mitehell(2001)
pointed that consumers were more willing to buy
responsible enterprise products and services. Consumer
responsibility involves consumers’ direct and
fundamental interests, when consumers enjoy high
quality products, consumer evaluation will be improved.
Based on above analysis, this article proposes hypotheses
below:
H3c: Consumer responsibility has positive influence
on brand equity.
(3) The influence of consumer cognition to brand
equity
Many researches have analyzed the relationship
among brand trust and brand equity. Jin Liyin(2006)[13]
suggested that trust and social responsibility could
improve positive consumers’ appraisal and purchase
intention. These researches show that purchasing is
driven by cognition, therefore, rational factors play an
important role for consumers’ appraisal. Based on above
analysis, this article proposes hypotheses below:
H4: Trust has positive influence on brand equity.
There are abundant research on the influence of
perceived quality to brand equity, many scholars view
perceived quality as one dimension of brand equity. For
instance, Aaker(1996)[14] divides brand equity into brand
loyalty, brand awareness, brand association, perceived
quality, and other proprietary brand assets.
Yoo&Donthu(2001)[15] divide brand equity into three
dimensions: brand awareness/brand association,
perceived quality and brand loyalty. Obviously, many
scholars have reached a consensus on the relationship
between perceived quality and brand equity, namely,
Perceived quality has positive influence on brand equity.
(4) The influence of perceived quality to trust
According to psychology theory, psychology
includes two aspects: cognition and emotion. The
scholars have not reached a consensus on the relationship
of cognition and emotion. The first group states that
emotional reactions cause cognitive responses. The
second group just supports the opposite opinion. The last
group combines cognition with emotion, suggests that
the two aspects support each other.
This study applies the relationship between
cognition and emotion in psychology to analyze
relationship between perceptual cognition and rational
- 872 -
cognition. Due to information asymmetry, consumers
can’t understand all the information about social
responsibility, at the time may also lacking of practical
experience of a product or service, which will lead to
perceptual cognition prior to rational cognition. Based on
above analysis, this article proposes hypotheses below:
H6: Perceived quality has positive influence on trust.
3.2 Conceptual models
According to information processing theory,
consumers pay attention to the information of fulfilling
social responsibility, and then form a certain perception,
which will affect consumer evaluation. Based on the
above theoretical analysis, the author has proposed a
logical relation, namely “social responsibility- consumer
cognition- brand appraisal”. Based on above analysis,
this study has constructed a conceptual model, see Fig. 1.
Environment
responsibility
Perceived
quality
Community
responsibility
Brand equity
Consumer
responsibility Trust
CSR
The path have been proven by predecessors
Fig.1 Conceptual model
4 Research method
4.1 Questionnaire design and preliminary research
The survey questionnaire of this research design
includes three parts: the first part refers to enterprises
introduction, interviewees could choose from Bird,
Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Lenovo, Apple, Samsung or any
other e-brandings; The second part refers to appraisal and
cognition to the brand; And the third part refers to basic
personal information of interviewees, including age,
gender, major, etc. Wherein, the second part adopts
7-point Likert scale for scoring. 1 refers to “fully
disagree” and 7 refers to “fully agree”, and interviewees
may conduct selection according to their own actual
situations.
This research has conducted necessary
modifications according to actual demand based on the
mature scales of domestic and foreign scholars, and has
finally formed the social responsibility, trust, perceived
quality and brand equity measurement scale. Specifically,
corporate environmental responsibility measurement
scales refer to KLD, Chi-Shiun Lai et al.&RepuTex’s
research results; corporate community responsibility
measurement scales refer to KLD, Maigna& Chi-Shiun
Lai et al.’s research results; corporate consumer
responsibility measurement scales refer to Chi-Shiun Lai
et al., RePuTex, Welford’s research results; trust
measurement scales refer to Swan’s research results;
perceived quality measurement scales refer to
Zeithaml&Netemeyer et al’s research results; brand Tab.3 Reliability analysis
equity measurement scales refer to Hong-Youl Ha et.al.’s Factor Cronbach
Dimension items AVE
research results. loading α
In addition, before the formal survey, it is still
necessary to conduct preliminary research of a small Environment CSR11 0.729 0.524 0.813
responsibility CSR12 0.776
scope, so as to improve quality of the survey CSR13 0.785
questionnaire. The research sample of this study mainly CSR14 0.587
refers to students of a College in Beijing. In this Community CSR21 0.741 0.548 0.819
preliminary research, totaling 122 questionnaires were responsibility CSR22 0.747
collected. Wherein, 91 copies referred to effective CSR23 0.725
questionnaires. This study adopts the internal consistency CSR24 0.747
factor and Factor Analysis to inspect the reliability and Consumer CSR31 0.643 0.529 0.789
validity of the scale. American statistician Hair et. al. responsibility CSR32 0.626
(1998)[16] proposed that Cronbach α values should be
CSR33 0.869
CSR34 0.746
greater than 0.6, meanwhile factor loading coefficient Brand equity BE01 0.792 0.511 0.807
should be greater than 0.5. According to the above BE02 0.480
standard, the questions designed in this research all BE03 0.612
passed the reliability and validity analysis. TR01 0.820 0.599 0.643
Trust TR02 0.892
4.2 Sample and data collection TR03 0.573
In order to guarantee the validity of the PQ01 0.817 0.548 0.817
Perceived quality PQ02 0.862
questionnaire, researchers use the network to select
PQ03 0.430
students of a College in Beijing. In this formal research,
totaling 688 questionnaires were collected. Wherein, 427
copies referred to effective questionnaires, with 5.2 Validity analysis
proportion of 62.06%. In the valid questionnaires, the The survey questions adopted in this study all
basic personal information of interviewees is shown in referred to mature scales of foreign scholars, so it
Table 2. features relatively good content validity. Generally
speaking, convergent validity is measured through factor
Tab.2 Basic features of interviewees loading and average variance values (AVE). Ashill&
Jobber(2009)[17] proposed that if most factor loading
Category Number Proportion (%)
were greater than 0.6, then the items could well reflect
Male 152 35.60% the variance variations of latent variable. If AVE is above
Sex
Female 275 64.40% than 0.5, then these items have good convergent validity.
<25 317 74.24% If the square root of AVE is greater than correlation
coefficients between latent variables with other latent
25-35 89 20.84%
variables, then this study scales feature relatively good
Age 36-45 16 3.75% discriminative validity. Table 3 refers to the scale
46-55 4 0.94% convergent validity results. As shown in Table 3, most
>55 1 0.23% factor loading coefficients are all greater than 0.6, and
High schools AVE are greater than 0.5. Table 4 refers to the scale
13 3.04% discriminative validity results of social responsibility. As
and below
Junior College 67 15.69% shown in Table 4, the square root of AVE is greater than
Education the correlation coefficients among three dimensions of
Undergraduate 311 72.83%
social responsibility.
Graduate 36 8.46%
<1000￥ 203 47.54% Tab.4 Discriminative validity of social responsibility
1000-2000￥ 37 8.67% Environment Community Consumer
Income responsibility responsibility responsibility
2000-4000￥ 98 22.95%
>4000￥ 89 20.84% Environment
0.736
responsibility
5 Data analyses Community
0.607 0.740
responsibility
5.1 Reliability analysis
Consumer
This article adopts the internal consistency factor to 0.467 0.543 0.727
responsibility
inspect the reliability of the scale. Table 3 refers to the
scale reliability inspection results. As shown in Table 3, Notice: diagonal numbers are the square root of AVE, Values
Cornbach α values of all factors are greater than 0.6. below the diagonal are correlation coefficient of latent variable

- 873 -
6 Research results Hypothesis H1 refers to test the relationship
between environmental responsibility and perceived
6.1 Hypothesis testing quality, trust, brand equity. Specifically, H1a has not
This study verified the relationship applying passed the test, indicating that the fulfillment of
AMOS17.0, so as to confirm the influence of social corporate environmental responsibility will not build
responsibility to consumer cognition and brand equity. consumer trust. Under the significance level of 0.1, H1b
Table 5 refers to fitting results of structure model. As has passed the test, indicating that the fulfillment of
shown in Table 5, RMSEA is in the acceptance range. environmental responsibility will improve consumer
χ 2 /df , NFI 、 CFI 、 IFI & RFI are lower than the perceptions. Under the significance level of 0.001, H1c
has passed the test, indicating that fulfillment of
recommended 0.9, however, the gap is very tiny, they
environmental responsibility will improve brand assets.
still can be accepted.
Hypothesis H2 refers to test the relationship
between community responsibility and perceived quality,
Tab.5 Fitness of the entire model
trust, brand equity. Among the three hypotheses, only
χ /df2
RMSEA NFI CFI IFI RFI H2b has passed the test, which indicates that community
Fitness 3.054 0.067 0.849 0.892 0.893 0.821 responsibility has positive effect on perceived quality,
but could not improve consumer trust and appraise
standard 2-3 <0.1 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 directly.
Hypothesis H3 refers to test the relationship
Table 6 refers to standardized path coefficient of between consumer responsibility and perceived quality,
structure model. Fig.2 refers to cognitive model of trust and brand equity. All the three hypotheses have
corporate social responsibility on brand equity. passed the test, indicating that enterprises could improve
Apparently, many hypotheses have passed the test. brand equity by fulfilling consumer responsibility.
Hypothesis H4 refers to test the relationship
Tab.6 Standardized path coefficient of structure model between perceived quality and brand equity. H4 has
Standardized passed the test, indicating that consumer trust should
path coefficient improve brand equity directly.
Perceived Consumer Hypothesis H6 refers to test the relationship
← 0.772***
quality responsibility between perceived quality and trust. H6 has passed the
Perceived Environment test, indicating that consumer perceptual cognition could
← 0.148*
quality responsibility improve rational cognition positively, which provides a
Perceived community method for enterprise credibility construction.
← 0.180**
quality responsibility
Consumer 6.2 Mediating effects
trust ← 0.402***
responsibility Baron&Kenny(1986), Williams et al. (2003)
Perceived suggests that mediating effects need to fulfill the
trust ← 0.403***
quality following four conditions: (1) the relationship between
Brand equity ← trust 0.448*** independent variable and mediating variable (perceived
quality and trust) needs to be significant; (2) the
Perceived relationship between the independent variable and the
Brand equity ← 0.366**
quality dependent variable needs to be significant; (3) the
Environment relationship between mediating variable and dependent
Brand equity ← 0.340***
responsibility variable needs to be significant; (4) simultaneously,
Consumer independent variable with mediating variable to the
Brand equity ← 0.350**
responsibility dependent variable need to have significant relation, and
Notice: *refers to the significance level of 0.1; the independent variable effect needs to be weaker than
** refers to the significance level of 0.05; the second group.
***refers to the significance level of 0.001 Fig.3 shows that the results of statistic analysis
fulfill these four conditions in the relationship between
Environment
responsibility
0.340*** environmental responsibility and brand equity. Under the
0.148*
Perceived fourth condition, “environment responsibility” and
**
quality
“perceived quality” to “brand equity” respectively reach
0.180
Community the significant level of p<0.1 and 0.05, the effect of
0.403***

responsibility *
72
** Brand “environment responsibility” to ‘‘brand equity’’ reduces
0.7 8*** equity
0.44 from 0.414 to 0.259, Consequently, “perceived quality”
Consumer 0.402***
Trust
has partial mediating effects on the relationship between
responsibility 0.350** “environment responsibility” and “brand equity”.
Fig.2 Cognitive model of corporate social responsibility on
brand equity

- 874 -
 Environmental
responsibility
0.166*
Perceived
quality
Environmental
responsibility
0.414*** Brand equity brand equity through consumer rational and perceptual
cognition indirectly.
� 1� � 2�
(4) Consumer cognition (perceived quality and trust)
Environmental
responsibility 0.25
has partial mediating effects on the relationship between
9***
Perceived
quality
0.397** Brand equity Brand equity CSR and brand equity. It means that consumer rational
6**
0.54
Perceived
quality and perceptual cognition play an important role in the
� 3� � 4�
fulfilling social responsibility.
Fig.3 Mediating effects in the relationship between
environmental responsibility and brand equity 7.2 Limitations and future directions
This section addresses some limitations in our
On the relationship between community research and suggests related directions for future
responsibility and brand equity, the independent variable research. Our first limitation is that we focus only on
“community responsibility” to the dependent variable environmental responsibility, community responsibility
“brand equity” doesn’t reach the significant level of and consumer responsibility, but social responsibility
p<0.1, therefore “perceived quality” doesn’t have partial includes many dimensions. Different dimension may
mediating effects on the relationship between cause different consumer appraise, and we focus only on
“community responsibility” and “brand equity”. consumer, ignoring other stakeholders. Therefore, we
Fig. 4 shows that the results of statistic analysis suggest that future researchers investigate the influences
fulfill these four conditions on the relationship between of other stakeholders on brand equity and compare
consumer responsibility and brand equity. Under the different impact with other dimensions of social
fourth condition, “perceived quality” and “trust” to responsibility.
“brand equity” respectively reach the significant level of Information transmission way (such as enterprise
p<0.05 and 0.001, the effect of “consumer responsibility” releasing and third-sector organizations) may cause
to ‘‘brand equity’’ reduces from 0.394 to 0.252, and effect on consumer cognition. As shown in the existing
reaches the significant level of p<0.05. Consequently, researches, when the enterprise promote its fulfilling of
“perceived quality” and “trust” have partial mediating social responsibility, consumers may attribute the
effects on the relationship between “consumer behavior to egoism, then leading to negative brand equity.
responsibility” and “brand equity”. We suggest that future researchers investigate the
influences of Information transmission way.
Perceived
quality
2***
Consumer 0.80 Consumer
0.394** Brand equity
Responsibility 0.422 Responsibility

References
***
Trust
� 1� � 2�

Consumer
Responsibility 0.2
[1]McKinsey. How companies manage sustainability:
Perceived
quality 0.3
97*
*
52
** McKinsey global survey results. Accessed on March 31,
Perceived
1***
Brand equity
quality
0.546** Brand equity
2010, available at https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/.
0.48 **
8*
Trust
0.4
4
[2]Sen S, C B Bhattacharya. Does doing good always
Trust

� 3�
Fig.4 Mediating effects in the relationship between
consumer responsibility and brand equity
7 Research conclusions and future directions
7.1 Research conclusions
This article investigates the effects of CSR,
perceived quality and trust on brand equity. The specific
conclusions are as follows:
(1) Corporate environmental responsibility can
promote brand equity directly, meanwhile through
perceived quality indirectly. Fulfilling the corporate
environmental responsibility has positive effect on
quality indirectly and corporate brand equity.
(2) Corporate community responsibility can
promote brand equity through consumer cognition
indirectly. It means that the community responsibility can
promote consumers cognition, but can’t promote brand
equity directly.
(3) Corporate consumer responsibility not only can
promote brand equity directly, but also could promote
� 4�
lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate
social responsibility [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,
2001, 38(2): 225-243．
[3]Brown T J, P A Dacin. The company and the product:
Corporate associations and consumer product responses
[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1997, 61(1): 68-84.
[4]Handelman J M, S J Arnold. The role of marketing
actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the
institutional environment [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1999,
63(3): 33-48.
[5]Sen S, C B Bhattacharya, et al. The role of corporate
social responsibility in strengthening multiple
stakeholder relationships: A field experiment [J]. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2006, 34(2):
158-166.
[6]Lafferty B A, R E Goldsmith. Cause-brand alliances:
Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the
cause? [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2005, 58(4):
423-429.
[7]Aupperle K E, Carroll A B, Hatfield J D. An empirical
investigation of the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and profitability [J]. Academy of
Management Journal, 1985, 28(2): 446-463.

- 875 -
[8]Hayek F A. The corporation in a democratic society:
In whose interest ought it and will it be run?//H
Ansoff(ed.), Business Strategy (Middlesex: Penguin),
1969: 225.
[9]Xie Peihong, Zhou Zucheng. Empirical study on the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and
consumer purchase intention in China [J]. Nankai
Business Review, 2009, 1(12): 64-70.
[10]Davis Keith. Can business afford to ignore social
responsibilities? [J]. California Management Review,
1960(2): 70-76.
[11]Lu Dong, Samart Powpaka, Kou Yan. Corporate
social responsibility based on consumers’ viewpoints:
Altruism or self-interest [J]. Chinese Journal of
Management, 2010, 6(7): 865.
[12]Tandberg. Corporate environmental behavior and the
impact on brand values [DB/OL]. [2009-1-15].www.
Tandberg. com date viewed.
- 876 -
[13]Jin Liyin. An empirical study on corporate social
responsibility evaluating scale system: Consumers’
viewpoint [J]. China Industrial Economy, 2006(6):
114-120.
[14]Aaker David A. Measuring brand equity across
products and markets [J]. California Management
Review, 1996, 38(3): 102-120.
[15]Yoo B, Donthu N. Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale [J].
Journal of Business Research, 2001(52): 1-14.
[16]Hair Joseph F, Jr Rolph E, Anderson Ronald L,
Tatham William C Black. Multivariate date analysis [M].
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.
[17]Ashill N, Jobber D. Measuring state, effect, and
response uncertainty: Theoretical construct development
and empirical validation [J]. Journal of Management,
2009, 36(5): 1278-1308.