BHMH131

MARKETING
RESEARCH
FUNDAMENTALS
B02B Team2
NG HOI LAM 20088230A
LI WING SZE 20083420A
LAI WING TUNG 20035513A
LEUNG YEUN YI 20200768A
WONG YU HONG 20021244A
YEUNG YEE SHUN 20071456A

PPT Visual Quality​ Findings and Analysis​

(10%)​ (10%)​

Conclusion, Limitations,
Context
and Recommendations​
and Objectives (5%)​
(15%)​

Methodology​ Organisation and Clarity​

(10%)​ (5%)​

Ethical
and Professional Attitudes PPT + Report Total (60%)​
(5%)​
 Table of Contents
01 Introduction 02 Research Method

03 Finding 04 Analysis

05 Conclusion 06 Limitation

07 Recommendation 08 Reference

09 Appendix
01 Introduction
 1.1MUJI.(n.d.)
MUJI Case Background
originally founded in Japan in
1980.
Offer a wide variety of good
quality products including
household goods, apparel and
food.

Core Value
 Selection of materials
 Streamlining of processes
 Simplification of packaging
 Brand
CSR
Loyalty

Brand
Equity
 1.1 Case Background
Waste Management
CSR

(Royhin Keikaku, n.d.) (Royhin Keikaku, n.d.)

➢ Recycled into raw materials of clothes ➢ Reduce plastic waste

➢ Re-dyed to be sold again as "ReMUJI" ➢ Recycled into polyester raw materials
 1.1 Case Background
Brand Perceived
Awareness
Brand
Quality
Equity

Risk Assessment Voice navigation system

Brand Name
✓ Product design The voices from
✓ Layout customers are
✓ Manufacturing registered in
database
Mujirushi Ryohin
MUJI in Japanese To prevent :
translates as ➢ product accidents respond to quality
"no-brand quality ➢ Defects problems with speed
goods" ➢ complaints MUJI. (n.d.)
 1.1 Case Background
Membership
Brand Loyalty Stage

MUJI Mile MUJI Shopping Point

Normal 9999 or less

-

Bronze 10,000～49,999 -

Silver 50,000～99,999 +20%

Gold 100,000 or above +50%

MUJI passport. (n.d.)

03 Research Method
 1.2 Research Background

Management problem Research question Research objective

MUJI is a grocery brand that sells What are the consumer’s To find out
mainly daily supplies. It wants to perceived brand equity, MUJI consumers’ perceivd
know consumer’s perceived brand perceived CSR, and brand equity, perceived
equity, perceived CSR, and loyalty.​ loyalty towards MUJI ?​ CSR, and loyalty.​
 2.1 Research method

Research Data collection Data collection

Types of data
design method details
• Exploratory • Primary data • Online survey • Date:
• Descriptive • Secondary • Secondary 19/3~5/4
data data sources • Survey mode:
Computer
administered
• Survey
method:
Online survey
2.2 Target Population & Sampling Issues
Target Population All MUJI consumers who aged 18 or
above
Sampling Frame Not Available
Sampling Method Non-probability sampling method
•Judgment sampling
•Referral sampling
Confidence Level 90%
Margin of Error ± 5.80%
Variability of 0.5
Population
Sample Size 202
 2.12.3Questionnaire Design
Questionnaire Design

01 Screening section 02 General information 03 Perceived brand

• Warm-up question equity
S1 (Age)
• A1-A9 • BE1-BE12 (Perceived quality,
S2 (Purchase) (Types, spending, frequency, perceived value, trust and
purpose, greening practice) credibility, differentiation)
• B11,B12 (“halo effect”)

04 Loyalty behaviors 05 Corporate Social 06 Personal particular

LB1-LB3 Responsibility • E1 Gender
•CSR1-CSR4 • E2 Age
•D1 • E3 Educational level
• E4 Occupation
• E5 Work industry
• E6 Income level

Transitions: Section 3-6

 2.3 Measurement scale
Property Types of Level of Scale Operational
Property Definition
S1 Aged 18 or above Objective Nominal Yes/No

S2 Purchased MUJI's products in Objective Nominal Yes/No

the last 6 months

A1 Type of products purchased Objective Nominal Yes/No

(1) Clothes
(2) Food and Drink
(3) Skincare and cosmetic
(4) Stationery
(5) Electronics
(6) MUJI Green
(7) Accessories
(8) Cleansing Tools
(9) Kitchenware and Tableware
(10) Aroma/Candle
(11) Furniture
(12) Home Decoration
 2.3 Measurement scale
Property Types of Level of Operational Definition
Property Scale
A2 Range of spend Objective Ordinal $1-$50, $51-$100, $101-$150, $151-$200,
$201-$250, $251-$300, $301 or more
A3 Frequency of visiting MUJI Objective Ratio 0 time, 1-2 times, 3-4 times, 5-6 times, 7
per month times or more

A4 Times of each visit MUJI Objective Ordinal 30 minutes or less, 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to

90 minutes, 91 to 120 minutes, 121
minutes or more
A5 Reasons of choosing Subjective Nominal Yes/No
(1) Product quality
(2) Price
(3) Staff performance
(4) Friends or family members
recommendation
(5) Membership offers
(6) Store locations
(7) Positive company image (Corporate
Social Responsibility, Environmental
Social Governance)
(8) Simplified package
(9) Brand image
(10) Sustainable practice
 2.3 Measurement scale
Property Types of Level of Operational Definition
Property Scale
A6-9 Greening practice of Objective Nominal Yes/No
"reducing", "reusing”
and "recycle"
BE1-12 Perceived Brand Subjective Interval 12-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5
Equity strongly agree

LB1-LB3 Loyalty Behaviours Subjective Interval 3-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5
strongly agree

CSR1- Perceived CSR Subjective Interval 4-point scale from 1 strongly disagree
CSR4 to 5 strongly agree
 2.3 Measurement scale
Property Types of Level of Scale Operational
Property Definition
D1 Corporate Subjective Interval 7-point scale of
(1) Using leftover
Social rating from 1 the
bedding fabric to
make cushions Responsibil least supporting
(2) Using discarded ity activities to 5 the most
staple cotton to of MUJI supporting.
make rags
(3) Using recycled
paper for
packaging
(4) Sorting laundry
bins in its shops
(5) No over packages
(6) Offering paper
bags only
(7) Store upholstery
using recycled
wood
 2.3 Measurement scale
Property Types of Level of Operational Definition
Property Scale
E1 Gender Objective Nominal Male, female, prefer not to say

E2 Age Objective Interval 18-24, 25-31, 32-38, 46-52, 53 or above

E3 Educationa Objective Nominal Primary or below, Secondary, Post-secondary (High Dipolma, Associate
Degree, Certificate, Diploma), Bachelor degree, Master Degree or above
l level

E4 Occupation Objective Nominal Managers and Administrators, Professionals, Clerks, Service Workers /
Sales Workers, Plant or Machines Operators / Assemblers, Elementary
Occupations or Skilled Argricultral / Fishery Worker, Business Owners, Full-
time students, Home-makers, Retires, Unemployed, Prefer not to say

E5 Work Objective Nominal Accounting, Advertising, Banking & Finance, Civil Service, Construction,
Customer Service, Design, Education, Engineering, Food & Beverage /
Industry Restaurant, Hotel, I.T., Insurance, Law, Logistics, Medicine, Merchandising,
Property, Not Applicable, Prefer not to say

E6 Monthly Subjective Interval HKD$10000 or below, HKD$10001-20000, HKD$20001-30000,

HKD$30001-40000, HKD$40001-50000, HKD$50001 or above, Prefer not
income to say
 2.4 Ethical Issues
01 Research Integrity
Avoid
➢ withholding information
➢falsifying data
➢altering research results
➢misinterpreting the research
findings to meet predetermined
points of view
02 Unethical behaviors
➢prohibiting selling (sugging)
03 Responsibilities to
respondents
➢protect the privacy of
respondents. (Obtain consent
about the collection of the
personally identifiable data and
keep confidential) ‣Email
➢protect the rights of
respondents, including the right
to refuse to participate in part or
all of the research process
 Microsoft excel:
☛ Create charts and graphs

2.5 Analytical Method ☛ Descriptive statistic

➣Measures of central
03 Findings
3.1 Response Rate

299 97 ➢ 299 responses were

received
➢ 97 invalid responses were
Collected Invalid screened out
Sample Sample
➢ 202 responses were
counted as valid for analysis

202 ➢ Response Rate:

(202/299)*1OO%
=67.6%
Valid Sample
for Analysis
3.2 Demographic Background of Respondents:
Gender
Gender of Respondents
(3) Prefer not to say
3%

➢ Majority:
Female (67%)
(1) Male ➢ 30% Male
30%
(1) Male ➢ 3% of
(2) Female respondents had
(2) Female
(3) Prefer not to say refused to provide
67%
said information
3.3 Demographic Background of Respondents:
Age
Age Group of Respondents
(3) 32-38, 4, 2% (5) 46-52, 1, 0%
➢ Respondents in
(2) 25-31, 14, 7%
the age of 18-24
were the
majority (91%)
➢ 7% were in
(1) 18-24, 183,
91% 25-31
➢ 2% were in
32-38
➢ Nearly 0% was
in 46-52
(1) 18-24 (2) 25-31 (3) 32-38 (5) 46-52
3.4 Demographic Background of Respondents:
Education Level
E3: Education Level of Respondents

(5) Master Degree or Above 3

Majority:
➢ Post-secondary
(4) Bachelor degree 70
➢ Bachelor degree
(3) Post-secondary (High Dipolma, Associate
➢ Overall high
101
Degree, Certificate, Diploma) education
(2) Secondary level
26

(1) Primary or below 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
3.4 Demographic Background of Respondents:
Occupation
(1) Managers and
Occupation of Respondents Administrators, 5, 2%
Student, 2, 1%
students, 1, 0% (10) Retires, 1, 1%
Social worker, 1, 1% (11) Unempolyed, 12, Highest rate:
Graduate student, 1,
6%
➢ Full-time
1%
(12) Prefer not
to say, 22, 11%
students (69%)
(2) Professionals, 4,
Second-highest rate:
2% ➢ Prefer not to say
(3) Clerks, 3, 1%
(11%)
(4) Service Workers /
Sales Workers, 7, 3%
(8) Full-time students,
140, 69% (5) Plant or Machines
Operators /
Assemblers, 1, 1%

(7) Business Owners,

2, 1%
3.4 Demographic Background of Respondents:
General Information
MUJI is high quality

Highest rate:
500 ➢ 4 “Agree” has
472
450 472
400
Second-highest rate:
Number of Respondents

350
➢ 5 “Strongly
300
250
Agree” has 255
255
200
Standard Deviation:
150 ✓ 0.68
100 Mean:
87
50 8 ✓ 4.07
0
2 3 4 5

Total
 Perceived Brand Equity
Perceived Quality
Items Mean Standard Deviation

Aggregated mean 4.03 0.62

BE1 MUJI is of high quality. ​4.07 ​0.69

BE2 The likely quality of MUJI is extremely high. ​4.02 ​0.75

BE3 The likelihood that MUJI would be functional is very high. ​4.07 ​0.75

BE4 The likelihood that MUJI is reliable is very high. ​4.05 ​0.72

BE5 MUJI must be of very good quality. ​3.94 0.81​

Perceived Value
Items Mean Standard Deviation

Aggregated mean 3.83 0.73

BE6 MUJI provides good value for the money. ​3.71 ​0.90

BE7 There are reasons to buy MUJI over competitors. ​3.95 0.83​

Table1&2 : 5-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

 Perceived Brand Equity
Trust and Credibility

Aggregated mean 3.91 0.70

BE8 MUJI is a company I would trust. 4.04 0.83

BE9 I admire MUJI. 3.71 0.94

BE10 The products/services associated with MUJI have credibility. 3.98 0.75

Differentiation

Aggregated mean 3.20 0.41

BE11 MUJI is different from competing brands. 3.70 0.93

BE12 MUJI is basically the same as competing brands. 2.71 1.02

Table3&4 : 5-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

 Loyalty Behaviours toward MUJI

Items Mean Standard Deviation

Aggregated mean 3.93 0.66

LB1 I would be willing to consume the products/services of MUJI. 4.14 0.73

LB2 I would recommend MUJI to friends or relatives. 4.05 0.79

LB3 I would not expect any problems with MUJI. 3.60 0.94

Table: 3-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

 Corporate Social Responsibility

Items Mean Standard Deviation

Aggregated mean 3.92 0.64

CSR1 MUJI seems to give back to the local community. 3.65 0.94

CSR2 MUJI seems to be successful. 4.14 0.75

CSR3 MUJI seems to treat its stakeholders well. 3.83 0.78

CSR4 MUJI seems to be environmentally responsible. 4.06 0.80

Table: 6-point scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

 Corporate Social Responsibility

Items Mean Standard Deviation

Aggregated mean 3.97 0.84

D1(1) Using leftover bedding fabric to make cushions. 3.55 1.09

D1(2) Using leftover bedding fabric to make cushions. 3.85 1.02

D1(3) Using recycled paper for packaging. 4.18 1.00

D1(4) Sorting laundry bins in its shops. 3.70 1.09

D1(5) No over packages. 4.28 1.00

D1(6) Offering paper bags only. 4.19 0.99

D1(7) Store upholstery using recycled wood. 4.05 1.02

Table: 7-point scale from 1 the least support to 5 the most support
 Consumer perceived
• Corporate Social Responsibility
toward MUJI

O4 Analysis • Brand Equity

• Perceived Quality
• Trust and Credibility
• Perceived Value
• Differentiation
• Loyalty behaviours toward MUJI
 Objective: To find out consumers’ perceived CSR toward MUJI.

Respondents agree that MUJI is a successful company responsible for the environment to
benefit different stakeholders..

•Aggregate Mean = 3.92 Tended to agree

•CSR2 is the highest in table 6 Mean= 4.14/5 Agree
•CSR4 is the second highest in table 6 Mean= 4.06/5 Agree​
•Overall tended to agree

The positive perception of respondents can enhance the reputation of MUJI's CSR.

• Perceived CSR has a direct positive effect on brand image (Enrique et al., 2019 ).
• CSR strengthens the brand image, which is a consensus and builds a good reputation in the
eyes of others (Maldonado et al., 2017).
• MUJI’s philosophy exhibits many of the trademarks of a sustainable brand and consequently the
company already built up a very positive corporate image to the public (WorldPress, n.d.).
 Objective: To find out consumers’ perceived CSR toward MUJI.
Respondents know and support the CSR activities of MUJI
• Aggregate mean = 3.97 tended to supportive
• D1(5) is the most supportive activity in CSR Mean = 4.28 Supportive
✓ More than 80% of respondents support the activity of no over packages toward MUJI (Appendix 3.1).
✓ In terms of packaging, MUJI uses bulk, standardized packaging while at the same time conserving
resources and reducing waste (Martin Roll, 2022).

• D1(6) is the second supportive activity in CSR Mean = 4.19 Supportive

✓ 79% of respondents support the activity of MUJI offering paper bags only (Appendix 3.2).

• D1(3) is the third supportive activity in CSR Mean = 4.18 Supportive

✓ 78% of respondents support the activity of Using recycled paper for packaging toward MUJI (Appendix 3.3)
✓ MUJI uses light beige paper resulting from the removal of pulp bleaching for its packaging and labels
(MUJI, n.d.).
✓ MUJI used recycled papers for the display hooks of our socks and scarfs (Royhin Keikaku, n.d.).
Overall, respondents had moderately The respondents had moderately high
high perception and tended to understanding and were more aware of
support the CSR activities of MUJI. MUJI's environmentally friendly packaging.
Objective: To find out consumers’ perceived CSR toward MUJI (CONT)

Consumers are becoming better informed and

more aware of the environmental impact of
consumer products (Adam, 2018).

Impact

More people concern the green products, and

the brand applied CSR activities can enhance
the brand image and customers loyalty.
 Objective: To find out consumers’ perceived CSR toward MUJI.

Respondents had moderately low about MUJI which seems to give back
to the local community
• CSR1 is the lowest in table 6 Mean = 3.65 Tended to neither disagree nor agree
• The seven CSR activities in table 7, MUJI focus on being environmentally responsible such as
recycling, reuse and replace.
• Comparing to MUJI being environmentally responsible, the action of giving back to the local
community is moderately low.

• Giving back to the local community is known as philanthropy such as participating in fundraisers and
charity events (Together We Rise, 2019).
• Also, it is one of the important of CSR.
• Therefore, giving back to the local community can enhance positive relationships which build a
sense of community among its consumers (Yujing, 2019).
 Objective :
To find out consumers’ perceived brand equity toward MUJI

1. Perceived Quality The aggregate mean = 4.03 (agree)

The perceived quality of MUJI is generally high
⬆️︎
• BE1 is the higher score in Table 1 (mean = 4.07)
• Responders tended to agree that the quality of MUJI is high
• MUJI‘s products use natural materials with minimalist designs (Mujikea, 2014) → Attracts minimalists

2. Perceived Value The aggregate mean = 3.83 (tend to agree)

It is valuable and reasonable to purchase MUJI
product 👍🏻
• The mean of BE6 is 3.71 (tend to agree)
• Responders agree that MUJI provide good value for money
→ Reasonable price of MUJI’s products
Objective:
To find out consumers’ perceived brand equity toward MUJI
3. Trust and Credibility The aggregate mean = 3.91 (tend to agree)

Respondents think that MUJI is trustworthy 🤝

⬆︎
• BE8 is the higher score in Table 3 (mean = 4.04)
• 77.2% responders agree that MUJI is a brand that they trust (Appendix 2.1)

Respondents trust MUJI due to the good quality

products and services ⬆︎
• The mean of BE10 is 3.98 (tend to agree)
• MUJI focuses on customer needs and store experience (Mujikea, 2014)
• A successful word-of-mouth from customers → Reliable
 Objective:
To find out consumers’ perceived brand equity toward MUJI

4. Differentiation The aggregate mean = 3.20 ( tend to agree)

MUJI is different to other competing brands

• BE12 is the lowest score in Table 3 (mean = 2.70 )

• The leader in daily necessities in the minimalist market (Mujikea, 2014)
MUJI's brand impression stands out, and it is difficult for other brands to imitate

People tend to choose MUJI form the competitive

market
• The mean of BE7 in Table2 is 3.95 ( tend to agree)
• People have greater preference to MUJI
 Objective:
To find out consumers’ loyalty behaviours toward MUJI

Aggregated mean=3.93/5
• Overall consumers’ loyalty behaviours is slightly positive
• Indicated that customers tended to have high brand loyalty behaviours and maintained a
long-term customer relationships.

Respondents were high willing to repurchase intention and WOM

LB1 Mean= 4.14/5, LB2 Mean=4.05/5 (tended to agree)
64% of respondents agreed that they will consume products /services of MUJI (Figure 1);
79% of respondents agreed that they will recommend them to friends or relatives (Figure 2)
• Muji spent very little on product advertisement or promotion but through WOM and shopping
experience to increase their customers (MarinRoll, 2020).

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
0% 3%
1 Strongly disagree 14%
2% 1 Strongly Digaree 0% 18%
2 Disagree 33% 31%
2 Disagree
3 3
4 Agree 4 Agree
5 Strongly agree 51% 5 Strongly agree
48%
 Objective:
To find out consumers’ loyalty behaviours toward MUJI
Respondents were slightly high satisfaction
LB3 Mean=3.60/5 (tended to be slightly positive)
• They tended not to expect any problems with MUJI.
• More satisfied product attributes so brand switching is lower to occur as a result of
satisfaction is considered to be linked to consumer loyalty and repurchase
behaviours (Curtis, T., Abratt, R. & Rhoades, D. L. Et al., 2011).

The Standard Deviation of aggregated mean(0.66) is less variability

The Standard Deviation of LB3(0.94) is the largest value of s

• Implied the mean scores of those variables are close

• The Standard Deviation of aggregated mean(0.66) is lower than 0.7
• High reliability
05 Conclusion
 O5 Conclusion
• Consumers’ perceived corporate social
responsibility toward MUJI is moderately high
➢ Consumers have positive perception on the
CSR reputation of MUJI Thinking:
➢ Overall tended to positive, but not strong. ✓ MUJI needs to engage more in
➢ The action of MUJI giving back to local charity work to give back to the
community is moderately low comparing with local community.
being environmentally responsible ✓ MUJI can be rewarding buyers
• Consumers’ overall perception loyalty towards through economic benefit so as to
MUJI is moderately high offer valuable products
➢ Maintained a long-term customer ✓ MUJI can promote more on
relationship building a unique brand image.
• Consumers’ perceived brand equity toward
MUJI is moderately high
➢ Differentiation of MUJI is not perform well in
brand equity
06 Limitation
 I. The Credibility of the data was not high

➢ Lengthy Questionnaire (The length of the questionnaire is quite long):

➢ 8 parts and 38 questions
➢ Time-consuming:
▪ >5 minutes
➢ Attention loss (Recipients might not be willing to take much time to
finish a questionnaire)
➢ Yea-saying/ nay-saying patterns (many respondents chose the same option
in most questions)
➢ Some of the respondents might not answer all the questions seriously in
order to save time
➢ Credibility might not be adequate
II. Nonprobability sampling- Referral sampling
• The findings of the research reveal a
bias in the 18-24 age range (90.6%)
• The other age group were
underrepresented
• ↓Representativeness

• The occupation was bias in full-time

students (65.6%)
• ↓ Representativeness
07 Recommendations
07 Recommendation

1. Engaging in charity work to give back to the local community

➣the aggregate mean of perceived CSR was 3.92 ☞aim to reach higher marks
☞the mean of MUJI seems to give back to local community is 3.65 only
➣support or participate in charity work ☞ e.g. Hong Kong Cleanup (sign up a team for cleanup
challenge, make a donation) (Hong Kong Cleanup,2022)
➣it can create positive image by using charity tool (Chuhan et al., 2020)
 07 Recommendations
2. Rewarding buyers through economic benefit so as to offer valuable products

➣the aggregate mean of perceived value was 3.83 (tend to agree) ☞ should raise until 4
➣offer volume discount ☛rewards buyers who purchase in bulk by providing a reduced
price for each product (Iranmanesh, 2017)
➣increase sales by consumers purchase a quantity of products which is higher than
normal
➣consumers can enjoy the products with a valuable and reasonable price

3. Build uniqueness for the brand- promote pared-back design and simple branding

➣the aggregate mean of differentiation was 3.2 (tend to agree) ☞ should raise until
4
➣promote the concept of “simple” to the public to build the brand uniqueness
☛by social media: Facebook, Instagram -most commonly used, easy to reach
different groups of people
➣to achieve breakthroughs in differentiation, product features or image building
advertising are seen as the pathway to growth (Romaniuk et al., 2007)
 08 Reference

1. Chauhan, Verma, Jain. (2020 March). Is Charity a new tool for branding?
file:///Users/cindylai/Downloads/IsCharityanewtoolforBranding.pdf
2. Maldonado, G., Pinzón, S.Y. & Leana-Morales, C. (2017),“Corporate social responsibility, brand imageand firm reputation in
Mexican small business”,Journal of Management and Sustainability,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 38-47.
3. WorldPress.(n.d.). MUJI, a genuine sustainability or a marketing ploy?.
https://lvzhoublog.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/back-to-our-origins-into-the-future/
4. Enrique,B.,Francisco,J.S., & Juan,M.B. (2019 February 11). The impact of perceived CSR on corporate reputation and
purchase intention.European Journal of Management and Business Economics.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJMBE-12-2017-0068/full/html
5. Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K., Zailani, S. and Ghadiri, S.M. (2017), "The effects of consumer perception of volume discount
benefits on intention to purchase grocery products: Deal proneness as a moderator", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1017-1035. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2016-0135
6. Romaniuk., Sharp., Ehrenberg. (2007 December). Evidence concerning the Importance of Perceived Brand Differentiation.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3
7. Martin Roll. (2022). Muji – The Global Strategy Behind The Japanese No-Brand Brand.
https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/strategy/muji-the-global-strategy-behind-the-japanese-no-brand-brand/
 08 Reference

8. MUJI. (n.d.).What is MUJI?. https://www.muji.com/us/feature/whatismuji/

9. Ryohin Keikaku. (n.d.).Waste Management. https://ryohin-keikaku.jp/eng/sustainability/environment/waste/
10. Hong Kong CLEANUP. (2022). 3 easy steps to create your CleanUp Event. https://hkcleanup.org/
11. MUJI passport. (n.d.). Choose your country or region | MUJI https://www.muji.com/in/passport/mile.html
12. Curtis, T., Abratt, R., Rhoades, D. L., & Dion, P. (2011). Customer Loyalty, Repurchase and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytical
Review. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, (24). https://commons.erau.edu/db-
management/18
13. MartinRoll. (2020 Nov). Muji – The Global Strategy Behind The Japanese No-Brand Brand. Retrieved from
https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/strategy/muji-the-global-strategy-behind-the-japanese-no-brand-brand/
14. Mujikea. (2014, December 8). Brand awareness. Mujikea. https://mujikea.wordpress.com/tag/brand-awareness/
15. Adam,B. (2018 November 21). Do Customers Really Care About Your Environmental Impact?. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnycouncil/2018/11/21/do-customers-really-care-about-your-environmental-
impact/?sh=61e63ef8240d
16. Together We Rise. (2019 February 20). 7 Ways to Give Back to the Community. https://www.togetherwerise.org/blog/7-
ways-give-back-community/
17. Yujing, L. (2019 April,26). 5 Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility. EnergyLink. https://goenergylink.com/blog/5-
benefits-of-corporate-social-responsibility/
 09 Appendix

1.1 Questionnaire
 09 Appendix
1.1 Questionnaire
 09 Appendix
1.1 Questionnaire
 09 Appendix
1.1 Questionnaire
 09 Appendix
1.1 Questionnaire
 09 Appendix

2.1
BE8:MUJI is a company I would
trust.
0%4%

19%

46%

31%

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 4 Agree 5 Stronly Agree

Appendix 2.1-point scale from 1 the strongly disagree to 5 the strongly agree
 09 Appendix

3.1 3.2 3.3

D1(5):No over packages. D1(6): Offering paper bags D1(3):Using recycled
2% 6%
only. paper for packaging.
11% 1% 8% 2%6%

12% 14%

56% 49% 49%

25%
30% 29%

1 The least supportive

1 The least supportive 2
1 The least supportive 2 2 3
3 4 3 4
4 5 The most supportive
5 The most supportive
5 The most supportive

Appendix 3.1-3.3-point scale from 1 the least support to 5 the most support
Thank You