Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 95:457–469
DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0433-1
The Effects of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Brand Performance:
The Mediating Effect of Industrial Brand
Equity and Corporate Reputation
ABSTRACT. In this article, the researchers explore the
following question. Can corporate social responsibility
(CSR) and the corporate reputation of a firm lead to its
brand equity in business-to-business (B2B) markets? This
study discusses CSR from customers’ viewpoints by tak-
ing the sample of industrial purchasers from Taiwan
small-medium enterprises. The aims of this study are to
investigate: first, the effects of CSR and corporate repu-
tation on industrial brand equity; second, the effects of
CSR, corporate reputation, and brand equity on brand
performance; and third, the mediating effects of corporate
reputation and industrial brand equity on the relationship
between CSR and brand performance. Empirical results
support the study’s hypotheses and indicate that CSR and
corporate reputation have positive effects on industrial
brand equity and brand performance. In addition, cor-
porate reputation and industrial brand equity partially
mediate the relationship between CSR and brand per-
formance.
KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility, industrial
brand equity, corporate reputation, brand performance
Introduction
Most prior research and discussion about brands and
brand equity have almost solely focused on consumer
markets. However, facing an unprecedented com-
petitive environment due to the influence of global-
ization and the impact of information technology
forces industrial marketers to differentiate their
products from their competitors to create value for
their buyers. One way to achieve this objective is to
create a private brand because it reduces consumer
risk and links the value-creating activities of suppliers
 Springer 2010
Chi-Shiun Lai
Chih-Jen Chiu
Chin-Fang Yang
Da-Chang Pai
with buyers’ perceptions. Empirical evidence increas-
ingly demonstrates that when making their buying
decisions, industrial buyers are not only influenced by
tangible attributes like price and quality, but with
intangible features such as trust, brand association,
supplier reputation and image (Cretu and Brodie,
2007; Mudambi, 2002; Mudambi et al., 1997).
According to Mudambi et al. (1997, p. 438), intan-
gible aspects of brand value ‘‘often contain emotional
dimensions.’’ Lynch and de Chernatony (2004,
p. 403) further indicate that ‘‘[b]rands based on
intangible, emotive characteristics – are seen as more
durable and less likely to suffer from competitive
erosion.’’ Thus the intangible, emotive aspects of
brand equity may be important sources of sustainable
competitive advantage. However, they are under-
emphasized in past research.
Industrial marketers now increasingly recognize
the value of branding; yet, how to achieve industrial
brand equity is still unclear. Some researches have
investigated the components of brand equity in
industrial markets (Michell et al., 2001; Mudambi
et al., 1997), but to our knowledge, studies
researching the antecedents of industrial brand equity
are scarce (for an exception cf. van Riel et al., 2005).
In other words, we know what industrial brand
equity is composed of much better than what causes
it to arise. This is an important gap that needs to be
filled to know where industrial brand equity origi-
nates. This study argues that buyers’ perceptions
about suppliers’ corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities may be an antecedent to industrial
brand equity because this perception induces buyers’
positive brand awareness/association of supplier’s
products, improves perceived quality about these
458 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.
products, builds brand loyalty, and brings about
brand satisfaction. Furthermore, the focus of CSR
research has shifted from ‘‘why’’ to ‘‘what’’ to
‘‘how’’, i.e., to adopt CSR practices most compat-
ible to business strategy to bring about maximum
outcomes for both the firm and the society (Basu and
Palazzo, 2008). Many studies in consumer markets
have also indicated that CSR and corporate repu-
tation induce positive brand perceptions of a cor-
poration’s products (Brickley et al., 2002; Jones,
2005; Smith and Higgins, 2000; Varadarajan and
Menon, 1988).
However, no related research exists in business-
to-business (B2B) markets. This study investigates
whether CSR and corporate reputation of an
industrial firm can lead to its brand equity in B2B
markets.
Also, in industrial markets the company’s name
often becomes the brand name across a range of
product groups. Since buying processes involve
more direct interactions with selling organizations,
integrating the research that examines company
influences is necessary (Cretu and Brodie, 2007). For
inquiring into the antecedents of industrial brand
equity, this study examines the effects of CSR and
corporate reputation on industrial brand equity.
CSR is still an evolving concept, and therefore lacks
a unified definition. This research defines CSR as
‘‘voluntary activities taken by corporations to
enhance economic, social, and environmental per-
formance voluntarily.’’ Additionally, we treat and
measure CSR as a whole construct without dis-
cussing its constitutive elements. Corporate reputa-
tion is defined as ‘‘the overall impression reflecting
the perception of a collective stakeholder group.’’
Empirical research of industrial brand equity has
mainly studied industrial purchasing in the Western
highly industrialized context. The generalizability of
their results to Asian industrial buying settings is
doubtful. Therefore, this research contributes to the
body of literature by using the sample of Taiwan’s
industrial buying firms because they are largely
small-medium enterprises which differ greatly into
their Western counterparts. Amaeshi et al. (2008,
p. 224) who studied CSR in supply chains of global
brands also argued that most people have ‘‘the false
notion that CSR practice is restricted only to global
firms and brands.… Quite often, the fact that pur-
chasing firms are customers is ignored in debates
around responsible supply chain management.’’
Discussing ethics in supplier–buyer relationships,
Bendixen and Abratt (2007) proposed that ‘‘one of
the stakeholders that have been neglected in the …
CSR literature is suppliers.’’ This study echoes their
call and discusses CSR from customers’ viewpoints,
using the sample of industrial purchasers from Tai-
wan small-medium enterprises to study the effects of
CSR supplier activities.
When suggesting directions for future researchers,
van Riel et al. (2005, p. 846) indicated that ‘‘research
is needed on the determinants of industrial brand
equity for a broad range of industrial markets’’ (emphasis
added). Because their sample of respondents con-
sisted mainly of engineers, they suggested that future
research includes other participants in the buying
decisions. This study follows their recommendations
and includes all employees involved in purchasing
decisions from a variety of industries in the sample of
respondents.
This study first investigates the effects of CSR and
corporate reputation on industrial brand equity;
second, the effects of CSR, corporate reputation,
and brand equity on brand performance; third, the
mediating effects of corporate reputation and
industrial brand equity on the relationship between
CSR and brand performance. Figure 1 presents the
research framework.
This research contributes to the literature in the
following way: first, prior research on industrial
brand equity rarely discusses its antecedents; we fill
this gap by investigating the effects of CSR and
corporate reputation on brand equity. Second, the
empirical studies of industrial brand equity are still
rare, limiting understanding of the effectiveness of
industrial branding. Although there are a few
branding research studies in industrial markets, these
studies are largely exploratory and thus limited in
their generalizability. Little attempt has been made
to develop a systematic framework to test the
comprehensive model.
The rest of this article proceeds as follows: the
next section reviews the literature about industrial
brand equity and discusses if CSR and corporate
reputation influence industrial brand equity. The
second section develops the research framework
hypotheses. The methodology section describes the
measures, sample, and data. The following section
presents statistical results. Finally, the last section
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance 459

Corporate
reputation
H2 H5
H4

Corporate social H1 Industrial H6 Brand

responsibility brand equity performance
Brand Loyalty
Perceived quality
Brand awareness
Brand association
Brand satisfaction

H3

Figure 1. Research framework.

discusses the results and proposes managerial impli-
cations as well as directions for future researchers.
Literature review and hypotheses
This section derives hypotheses from the research
framework shown in Figure 1. This study argues
that CSR and corporate reputation arouse custom-
ers’ emotional perceptions about the firms they deal
with, leading them to associate their perceptions
with the brands they intend to purchase, thus
developing brand equity as well as enhancing cor-
porate reputation of suppliers who supply these
brands. These in turn result in higher brand per-
formance.
It is now widely recognized that industrial com-
panies benefit from investing in branding to reap
the benefits of brand equity (van Riel et al., 2005).
Although some past studies have indicated that brand
equity is ‘‘alive and well’’ (Gordon et al., 1993) in
industrial markets (Bendixen et al., 2004; Davis
et al., 2008; Michell et al., 2001), research of brand
equity in B2B markets is still surprisingly rare
compared to that in business-to-consumer (B2C)
markets.
Mudambi et al. (1997, p. 434) defined brand
equity as ‘‘the total value added by the brand to the
core product.’’ This article follows their definition
and regards industrial brand equity as brand value
brought to industrial buyers. To create brand equity,
buyers must perceive meaningful differences among
brands in the product or service category. Therefore,
it is necessary for businesses to create brand differ-
entiation. Since brand equity derives from value
brought to buyers, a meaningful brand differentia-
tion must originate from brand value components.
This article emphasizes intangible, emotional aspects
of brand equity.
Since ‘‘consumer branding provides a logical
starting point for examining additional ways to
analyze industrial branding’’ (Mudambi et al., 1997,
p. 435), this study also adapts consumer brand equity
to investigate industrial brand equity. In Aaker’s
model (1996), brand equity is composed of five
components: brand name awareness, brand loyalty,
brand associations, perceived quality, and other
proprietary brand assets such as patents and channel
relationships. However, because most measures in
the past studies did not include the component of
other proprietary brand assets, this study also defines
and measures industrial brand equity as composed of
four components such as that of Aaker, namely
brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand associations,
and perceived quality. This study also refers to Wang
et al. (2006) and includes ‘‘brand satisfaction’’ as
another component of industrial brand equity. Brand
satisfaction is included because it influences the
incremental value of a product or service with a
specific brand name and is based on a customer’s
460 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.
subjective evaluation of product quality and service
quality by comparing buyer’s expectations with
buyer’s perceptions.
CSR and industrial brand equity
Research broadly defines CSR as a company’s
‘‘status and activities with respect to its perceived
societal or, at least, stakeholder obligations’’ (Brown
and Dacin, 1997). Due to the positive effects of CSR
participation and the negative effects of CSR vio-
lation, most companies today not only pay attention
to CSR issues, but also actively participate in CSR
activities.
In his daisy-wheel model of brand equities, Jones
(2005) proposed that brand equity derives from co-
creative interactions between the brand and its
stakeholders. In other words, the more fulfilled the
stakeholders’ expectations, the more valuable the
brand equity. Among these, socially responsible
behavior is one of the most proposed expectations.
Brickley et al. (2002) also acknowledged that
a company’s reputation for socially responsible
behavior constitutes an important part of its brand
capital. In fact, cause-related marketing (Varadarajan
and Menon, 1988) aims to enhance company reve-
nues and sales through product differentiation by
creating socially responsible attributes associated
with brands. As indicated by Smith and Higgins
(2000, p. 309): ‘‘the brand manager uses consumer
concern for business responsibility as a means for
securing competitive advantage.’’ Following this
logic, this study infers that the perceptions of CSR
practices about an industrial company by buyers can
positively increase its brand equity. Thus the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H1: The buyer perceptions of CSR activities about
suppliers are positively related to the supplier’s
industrial brand equity.
CSR and corporate reputation
In today’s highly competitive market environment,
many companies have used CSR as a strategic tool to
respond to expectations of various stakeholders such
as media, public opinion, nongovernment organi-
zations and even consumers, to thus create a favor-
able corporate image (Jones, 2005). In reality,
companies have regarded CSR activities as a
necessity, thus urging managers to contemplate how
to implement CSR activities consistently with their
business strategy (Porter and Kramer, 2006).
McWilliams et al. (2006, p. 4) pointed out that
CSR ‘‘should be considered as a form of strategic
investment’’ which ‘‘can be viewed as a form of
reputation building or maintenance.’’ On the other
hand, Fombrun (2005) proposed enhancing corpo-
rate reputation as an extrinsic motivation for com-
panies to engage in CSR activities. Garberg and
Fombrun (2006) also drew reputation gain as rele-
vant outcomes of CSR programs. Finally, Bendixen
and Abratt (2007) studied a large South African
MNC’s reputation in supplier–buyer relationships,
indicating that the buyer’s ethical perception about
suppliers constitutes the basis of corporate reputa-
tion. Thus, we derive the following hypothesis:
H2: The buyer perceptions of CSR activities about
suppliers are positively related to the supplier’s
corporate reputation.
CSR and brand performance
Over the last three decades, many researchers have
empirically tested the relationship between CSR and
financial performance with largely positive results
(Beurden and Gossling, 2008; Margolis and Walsh,
2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003). The basic premise is that
CSR improves financial performance by improving
the relationships of a firm with its major stakeholder
groups. This improvement shows from the cost and
the revenue side. From the cost side, as relationships
improve, trust builds between the two sides, thus
leading to a decline in transaction costs and certain
risks. From the revenue side, improved stakeholder
relationships bring in new customers as well as new
investment opportunities, enabling a firm to charge
premium prices (Barnett, 2008). This study defines
brand performance as ‘‘financial performance
brought by the supplier’s brands and perceived by
buyers.’’ Following this definition, this study argues
that the supplier’s CSR activities perceived by
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance
buyers induce them to buy products or services of its
brands, creating brand performance. Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H3: The buyer perceptions of CSR activities about
suppliers are positively related to the supplier’s
brand performance.
Corporate reputation and industrial brand equity
According to the resource-based view, a good cor-
porate reputation differentiates a company from its
competitors and is thus an important strategic asset to
a firm not only because of its value creation poten-
tial, but also because its intangible character makes it
difficult for competing firms to replicate (Fombrun
and Shanley, 1990; Roberts and Dowling, 2002).
Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity to
find the sources of brand value, Jones (2005) sug-
gested that brand value is created by fully satisfying
all stakeholder expectations, not just those of cus-
tomers. What most stakeholders expect is a company
with a good reputation. Thus a good corporate
reputation can improve the brand equity of its
products.
H4: Corporate reputation is positively related to
industrial brand equity.
Corporate reputation and brand performance
A good corporate reputation is ‘‘a top-level factor
for achieving sustained competitive advantage for
the organization’’ (Sanchez and Sotorrio, 2007,
p. 337) to bring about benefits of demanding a
higher price premium for company offerings.
Company reputation serves as a signal for the
underlying quality of a firm’s products and services;
the payment of lower prices in its purchases due to
lower contracting and monitoring costs; attracting
more qualified people in the labor market because of
the association of good corporate reputation with
high self-esteem; greater loyalty from employees
because employees prefer working for high-reputa-
tion firms; greater loyalty from customers because
customers value associations and transactions with
461
high-reputation firms (Roberts and Dowling, 2002).
Sabate and Puente (2003), surveying the empirical
analysis literature of the relationship between repu-
tation and financial performance, also demonstrated
that prior research about corporate reputation’s
influence on financial performance is largely posi-
tive. As such, we derive the following hypothesis:
H5: Corporate reputation is positively related to
brand performance.
Industrial brand equity and brand performance
High brand equity induces customers to pay a pre-
mium price for the product or service and to engage
in favorable advocacy regarding the firm and its
products, thus enhancing its brand performance
(Beverland, 2005; Beverland et al., 2007). Hutton
(1997) studied professional buyers in the personal
computer, fax machine, and floppy disk industries
and concluded that there was a brand equity ‘‘halo
effect’’ transferring brand evaluation from one cat-
egory to another and that buyers were willing to pay
a premium price as well as prepared to buy and
recommend products with the same brand name.
Bendixen et al. (2004) studied the products of
medium-voltage electrical equipment in South
Africa where the subjects of decision-making unit
members of industrial companies also achieved the
same results.
H6: Industrial brand equity is positively related to
brand performance.
Research method
Sample and data collection
This study gathered empirical data using a ques-
tionnaire survey among purchasing managers of
Taiwan manufacturing and service companies.
Questionnaires were mailed to 300 dealers with 96
returned after two weeks. After making telephone
calls, the questionnaires were mailed a second time,
and 83 more were received two weeks later; so the
total number of returned questionnaires was 179
462 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.
(response rate, 59.67%). This study uses t-testing to
compare the response groups before and after the
telephone calls, with insignificant differences in
terms of the percent of purchase, average of annual
sales volume, capital, and industry type, with a
p-value between 0.44 and 0.94; therefore, the
combined statistical analysis was satisfactory.
Measures
This study used measurement items for each con-
struct from the relevant literature. The questionnaire
included five parts, with each part separately assess-
ing supplier CSR, supplier corporate reputation,
supplier industrial brand equity, and firm’s brand
performance. The last part also recorded basic
demographic information about respondents. All
items except demographic information were mea-
sured on a 7-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly
disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (7). The informants
were asked to answer questions according to their
perceptions of purchasing organizations.
The assessment of supplier industrial brand equity
included: (i) brand loyalty; (ii) perceived quality; (iii)
brand awareness/association; and (iv) brand satisfac-
tion. Brand loyalty measured the degree of cus-
tomer’s favorable attitude toward a brand that
resulted in repurchasing behaviors. Perceived quality
measured the degree of customer’s subjective eval-
uation of product quality and service quality by
comparing what he or she expected with what was
perceived. Brand awareness measured the degree to
which the buyer recognized or recalled that the
brand was a member of a certain product category.
Brand association measured the degree to which
anything of significance was linked to memory of a
brand. However, in our study, as also found by
Washburn and Plank (2002) and Yoo and Donth
(2001), measurement items for brand association and
brand awareness were heavily loaded on one single
factor. Brand satisfaction measured the degree to
which an overall evaluation was based on the total
purchase and consumption experiences with a brand
over time. All items were adapted from Washburn
and Plank (2002) and Yoo and Donth (2001). Each
construct contained three to five items.
Supplier CSR measured the degree of suppliers’
engagement in social initiatives related to their
stakeholders including employees, buyers, commu-
nity, etc. All items were adapted from Maignan et al.
(1999), including five items for this construct. Sup-
plier corporate reputation measured the degree to
which customers think about a firm, and whether
they judge it as highly esteemed, worthy, and mer-
itorious compared to its competitors. All items were
adapted from Wang et al. (2006), including three
items for this construct. The firm’s brand perfor-
mance measured the perceived financial perfor-
mance related to purchasing or consuming supplier’s
brand products and services by purchasing managers.
All items were adapted from Lee et al. (2008),
including four items for this construct. All mea-
surement items are listed in Appendix.
Analyses and results
Reliability and validity
Measurement model
This study used LISREL 8.72 to analyze the research
model. The measurement model of all constructs
first assessed the adequacy of each multi-item scale in
capturing its construct. This research checked
internal consistency reliability, convergent validity,
and discriminant validity before testing the hypoth-
eses via the causal model (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988b). First, according to confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), this research deleted items and
compressed dimensions. Industrial brand equity to-
taled 15 questions within four sub-dimensions. We
used CFA of the first order and the second order,
respectively. According to Marsh and Hocevar
(1985), by calculating the target coefficient1 this
study compares CFA of the first order and the sec-
ond order to decide the fitness with data. The T
value that is closer to 1 implies that the second-order
CFA can replace the first-order CFA, making the
model more precise. The T values of industrial brand
equity are 0.99, closer to one in this study. The
fitness index of second-order CFA of industrial
brand equity reveals the fitness is good. Therefore,
this study takes the results of second-order CFA to
implement structural model analyses.
Second, in the reliability aspect, according to the
result of Table I, the Cronbach a of each variable is
between 0.86 and 0.89, above 0.70 recommended
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance 463

by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The composite Structural model

reliability (CR) of measurable variable is between
0.86 and 0.91, above 0.6 recommended by Bagozzi
and Yi (1988) and Fornell and Larcker (1981),
revealing that the research variables are in the
acceptable range.
Finally, this study measures validity according to
convergent validity and discriminant validity pro-
posed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988b). Table I
shows that the factor loading t value is between 8.80
and 17.42, and each measurable variable reaches
significance (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). The
average variance extracted (AVE) of measurable
variable is between 0.55 and 0.71, above 0.5 rec-
ommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), and the
other variables are all accepted. This measurement
model, therefore, has good convergent validity. In
the test of discriminant validity shown in Table II,
the Dv2 among six pair variables are all reached at
p < 0.001. Any two pair variables among them all
have significance difference, and the fitness with data
of the unlimited model is better. Consequently, the
result supports the existence of discriminant validity
(Anderson, 1987; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988a;
Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982; Venkatraman, 1989).
After the pretest model of reliability and validity, we
move onto comprehend the structural model fitness.
The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis
usually takes the v2 to verify model fitness; however,
the sample influences v2, as the literature indicates
(Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Marsh and Hocevar,
1985; Marsh et al., 1988). Therefore, except for
considering sample size (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988),
when taking the v2 and the degree of freedom to
measure model fitness, Chin and Todd (1995) re-
quired that the standard should not be over three.
Following the suggestion of Bagozzi and Yi (1988)
and Hair et al. (1998), this study used seven indi-
cators to measure fitness of the entire model. The
result revealed that v2 = 167.64 (p = 0.000), v2/
df = 1.80(167.64/93), GFI = 0.89, AGFI = 0.85,
RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.98, CFI =
0.98. Except that the GFI and AGFI were lower
than the recommended 0.9, the others were all
above. Hair et al. (1998) argued that if the GFI and
AGFI were closer to one, the result would be better,
but an implicit standard did not exist to judge the
fitness between observed data and the model.
Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) took LISREL to

TABLE I
The reliability and validity analysis of each measurable variable

Index Mean Standard Factor t CR AVE Cronbach a

deviation loading

CSR 1 4.58 1.16 0.72 Standard 0.86 0.55 0.86

CSR 2 4.88 1.10 0.81 12.23
CSR 3 4.74 1.13 0.63 8.80
CSR 4 4.58 1.20 0.76 11.88
CSR 5 4.76 1.09 0.76 11.88
Corporate reputation 1 5.46 0.86 0.86 Standard 0.86 0.68 0.86
Corporate reputation 2 5.47 0.93 0.87 14.51
Corporate reputation 3 5.72 0.86 0.73 11.11
Industrial brand equity 1 5.40 1.01 0.80 Standard 0.91 0.71 0.89
Industrial brand equity 2 5.65 0.88 0.81 11.74
Industrial brand equity 3 5.70 0.82 0.82 11.62
Industrial brand equity 4 5.48 0.85 0.94 11.85
Brand performance 1 5.05 1.17 0.86 Standard 0.89 0.60 0.89
Brand performance 2 5.06 1.20 0.85 17.42
Brand performance 3 4.94 1.23 0.81 11.89
Brand performance 4 5.28 1.02 0.79 9.92
464 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.

TABLE II
The test of discriminant validity of each measurable variable

Variable Pair variable Limited model Unlimited model Dv2

v2 df v2 df

CSR Corporate reputation 258.50 20 75.61 19 182.89

Industrial brand equity 494.67 27 80.70 26 413.97
Brand performance 474.36 27 56.29 26 418.07
Corporate reputation Industrial brand equity 103.91 14 39.99 13 63.92
Brand performance 336.27 14 106.29 13 229.98
Industrial brand equity Brand performance 431.96 20 59.21 19 372.75

All Dv2 reached p < 0.001 (when df is 1 and p = 0.001, the v2 is 10.827)

analyze 184 articles in the marketing and consumer
area from 1977 to 1994,2 finding that the GFI (24%)
and AGFI (48%) were under the recommended
value and still in the acceptable range. Consequently,
the fitness between model and the observed data in
this study should be acceptable.
Hypothesis testing
After measuring the path relationship between ob-
served variables and latent variables of the model
with LISREL, this study proposed five hypotheses
tests as follows.
According to the results, CSR has positive impact
on industrial brand equity (c11 = 0.15, t = 2.22,
p < 0.05), corporate reputation (c21 = 0.58, t = 7.12,
p < 0.01), and brand performance (c31 = 0.18, t =
2.04, p < 0.05). Therefore, H1, H2, and H3 are
supported. Moreover, corporate reputation has posi-
tive impact on industrial brand equity (b12 = 0.72,
t = 8.33, p < 0.01) and brand performance (b32 =
0.28, t = 2.06, p < 0.05). Therefore, H4 and H5 are
supported. Finally, Industrial brand equity has positive
impact on brand performance (b31 = 0.32, t = 2.47,
p < 0.05) and H6 is supported.
The results demonstrate that explanatory variance
(R2) of each variable to overall model, respec-
tively, is: corporate reputation (R2 = 0.34), industrial
brand equity (R2 = 0.68), and brand performance
(R2 = 0.48). The explanatory variances of these
three latent dependent variables are all above 0.34,
revealing that the explanation of the research model
is at acceptable range. Figure 2 shows the details

Corporate
reputation η2
R2=0.34 32=0.28*
21=0.58**

12=0.72**

11=0.15* 31=0.32*
Industrial brand Brand performance η3
CSR ξ1 equity η1
R2=0.68 R2=0.48

31=0.18*
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Figure 2. The structural model of CSR, corporate reputation, industrial brand equity, and brand performance.
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance 465

of completely standardized estimates and empirical
results.
Mediating effects
This study estimates the mediating effects through
SEM as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) and
Williams et al. (2003), to respectively take competitive
models to fulfill the following four conditions: (1) the
relationship between the independent variable (CSR)
and the mediating variable (corporate reputation and
industrial brand equity) needs to be significant; (2) the
relationship between the independent variable (CSR)
and the dependent variable (brand performance)
needs to be significant; (3) the relationship between
the mediating variable (corporate reputation and
industrial brand equity) and the dependent variable
(brand performance) needs to be significant; (4)
simultaneously, the independent variable (CSR) with
the mediating variable (corporate reputation and
industrial brand equity) to the dependent variable
(brand performance) need to have significant relation,
and the independent variable effect needs to be
weaker than the second group.
Figure 3 shows that the results of statistic analysis
fulfill these four conditions. Under the fourth con-
dition, ‘‘industrial brand equity’’ and ‘‘corporate
reputation’’ to ‘‘brand performance’’ does not reach
the significant level of p < 0.05, the effect of ‘‘CSR’’
to ‘‘brand performance’’ reduces from 0.48 to 0.17
and reaches the significant level of p < 0.05. Con-
sequently, ‘‘industrial brand equity’’ and ‘‘corporate
reputation’’ have partial mediating effects on the
relationship between ‘‘CSR’’ and ‘‘brand perfor-
mance.’’
Discussion
This article investigates the effects of CSR and
corporate reputation on industrial brand equity and
brand performance. The empirical results support
our hypotheses and indicate that CSR and corporate
reputation have positive effects on industrial brand
equity and brand performance. Corporate reputation
and industrial brand equity also have partial medi-
ating effects on the relationship between CSR and
brand performance.

Corporate
0.62** reputation 0.48** Brand
CSR CSR performance

0.58** Industrial
brand equity
(1) First condition (2) Second condition

CSR
0.17*

Brand
Corporate 0.38** Corporate 0.30* performance
reputation reputation
Brand
performance
Industrial Industrial 0.31*
brand equity 0.30* brand equity

(3) Third condition (4) Fourth condition

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Figure 3. The competitive models of CSR, corporate reputation, industrial brand equity, and brand performance.
466 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.
Managerial implications
According to the above results, we propose the
following managerial implications. First, since buy-
ers’ perceptions about supplier’s CSR activities
constitute an antecedent of industrial brand equity,
we urge managers in the B2B market to engage in
CSR activities to enable their buyer’s perception of
them. The traditional Chinese proverb, ‘‘doing good
and not wanting others to know it,’’ is not suitable in
this context. Second, buyers’ perceptions about
supplier’s CSR activities positively enhance the
supplier’s corporate reputation, in turn enhancing
the industrial brand equity of suppliers. Moreover,
corporate reputation and industrial brand equity not
only have direct effects on brand performance, but
also have partial mediating effects. These results
indicate that CSR effect on brand performance is
partially through the effects of corporate reputation
and industrial brand equity. If the supplier wants to
improve financial performance by its brands, man-
agers must do their best to enhance their corporate
reputation and prevent it from erosion because
corporate reputation takes a long time to build, but
is easily dismantled. On the other hand, managers
must also devote their energy to enhancing industrial
brand equity. In this respect, Mudambi et al. (1997)
explored branding in industrial markets and pro-
posed performance components of the brand value
pinwheel to the customer. Their pinwheel of brand
value to purchasers comprises four performance
components: product, distribution services, support
services, and company. Therefore, to enhance brand
equity, managers in industrial market can improve
their industrial brand equity by devoting their
attention to these four components.
Limitations and future directions
This section addresses some limitations in our
research and suggests related directions for future
research. Our first limitation is that we focus only on
industrial buyers, ignoring other stakeholders. We
suggest that future researchers investigate the influ-
ences of other stakeholders on brand equity. Our
second limitation is that in addition to the brand
equity model proposed by Aaker (1996), other
models exist. For example, Davis et al. (2008) adopt
Keller’s (1993) brand equity framework to study the
differentiation effect of brands in the context of
logistics service. We do not claim that our results in
this article will also hold in other brand equity
models. Future researchers can adopt different
models and compare their results with ours. The
third limitation of this research is that we are con-
cerned only with buyers’ perceptions about suppli-
ers’ CSR activities, not actual CSR activities.
Although buyers’ perceptions are related to suppli-
ers’ CSR activities, they are not equivalent to actual
CSR activities. Distinguishing these effects is nec-
essary to understand the real effects of actual CSR
activities. Additionally, we treat CSR as a whole
construct and not as a composite; therefore, we do
not discuss the effects of different elements of CSR
activities on industrial brand equity and corporate
reputation. However, as our definition indicates,
CSR is an overarching concept which includes
several dimensions such as economic, social, envi-
ronmental, etc. Future research could deconstruct
these elements to inquire into their separate effects to
learn about the separate effects of different CSR
dimensions on industrial brand equity and corporate
reputation. Focusing on the sample of Taiwan’s
SMEs also limits the generalizability of our findings
to similar conditions. We suggest that future re-
searches compare large enterprises with SMEs and
also recommend cross-cultural comparisons.
Notes
1
Target coefficient (T) = first-order measurement
model v2/second-order measurement model v2.
2
Reference from the Journal of Marketing, the Journal
of Marketing Research, the International Journal of Research
in Marketing and the Journal of Consumer Research.
Appendix
Corporate social responsibility
1. Our major supplier is very concerned with
local community
2. Our major supplier is very concerned with
environment protection
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance
3. Our major supplier is very concerned with
buyers’ benefits
4. Our major supplier is very concerned with
the rights of female and disabled employees
5. Our major supplier actively participates in
social initiatives
Industrial brand equity
Brand loyalty
1. Products and services of this brand are the
first choice of us
2. We feel ourselves loyalty to this brand
3. Even with many choices, we will not choose
alternative brands
Perceived quality
1. This brand is of very good quality
2. The likelihood that this brand will function
well is very high
3. The likelihood that this brand is reliable is
very high
Brand awareness/association
1. The name of this provider is well known in
our industry
2. We can recognize this brand among compet-
itive brands
3. In comparison to other providers, this com-
pany is a leading brand in the industry
4. We have no difficulties in imagining this
brand in mind
5. We can recall some characteristics of this
brand
Brand satisfaction
1. Products and services of this brand usually
meet our expectations
2. Products and services of this brand are at the
desirable level
3. Overall, we are very satisfied with products
and services of this brand
4. Products and services of this brand always
bring happiness and delights to us
467
Corporate reputation
1. Customers’ overall perceptions of total expe-
rience in the firm is rather good
2. Customers’ comparative perceptions of this
firm with other competitors are very good
3. Customers believe in a good long-term fu-
ture of this firm
Brand performance
1. Purchasing or using this brand will increase
our company’s sales growth
2. Purchasing or using this brand will enlarge
our company’s market share
3. Purchasing or using this brand will increase
our company’s margin
4. Purchasing or using this brand will increase
our company’s overall performance.
References
Aaker, D. A.: 1996, Building Strong Brands (Free Press,
New York).
Amaeshi, K. M., O. K. Osuji and P. Nnodim: 2008,
‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Supply Chain of
Global Brands: A Boundaryless Responsibility? Clari-
fications, Exceptions and Implications’, Journal of
Business Ethics 81, 223–234.
Anderson, J. C.: 1987, ‘An Approach for Confirmatory
Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling of
Organizational Properties’, Management Science 33(4),
525–541.
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing: 1988a, ‘Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Rec-
ommended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin
103(3), 411–423.
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing: 1988b, ‘Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Pref-
erences’, Journal of Consumer Research 27(2), 233–248.
Bagozzi, R. P. and L. W. Phillips: 1982, ‘Representing
and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic
Constructal’, Administrative Science Quarterly 27(3),
459–489.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Y. Yi: 1988, ‘On the Evaluation for
Structural Equation Models’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 16(1), 74–94.
468 Chi-Shiun Lai et al.
Barnett, M.: 2008, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and
the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate
Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review
32(3), 794–816.
Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny: 1986, ‘The Moderator-
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Con-
siderations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
51(6), 1173–1182.
Basu, K. and G. Palazzo: 2008, ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking’,
Academy of Management Review 33(1), 122–136.
Baumgartner, H. and C. Homburg: 1996, ‘Applications
of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and
Consumer Research: A Review’, International Journal of
Research in Marketing 13(2), 139–161.
Bendixen, M. and R. Abratt: 2007, ‘Corporate Identity,
Ethics and Reputation in Supplier–Buyer Relation-
ships’, Journal of Business Ethics 76, 69–82.
Bendixen, M., K. Bukasa and R. Abratt: 2004, ‘Brand
Equity in the Business-To-Business Market’, Industrial
Marketing Management 33(5), 371–380.
Bentler, P. M. and D. G. Bonett: 1980, ‘Significance
Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covari-
ance Structures’, Psychological Bulletin 88(3), 588–606.
Beurden, P. V. and T. Gossling: 2008, ‘The Worth of
Values – A Literature Review on the Relation
Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance’,
Journal of Business Ethics 82(2), 69–82.
Beverland, M.: 2005, ‘Creating Value for Channel Part-
ners: The Cervena Case’, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing 20(3), 127–135.
Beverland, M., J. Napoli and A. Lindgreen: 2007,
‘Industrial Global Brand Leadership: A Capabilities
View’, Industrial Marketing Management 36(8), 1082–
1093.
Brickley, J., C. Smith and J. Zimmerman: 2002, ‘Business
Ethics and Organizational Architecture’, Social Sci-
ence Network Electronic Paper Collection, 250947.
Brown, T. J. and P. A. Dacin: 1997, ‘The Company and
the Product: Corporate Association and Consumer
Product Response’, Journal of Marketing 61(1), 68–84.
Chin, W. W. and P. A. Todd: 1995, ‘On the Use,
Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation
Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution’, MIS
Quarterly 19(2), 237–246.
Cretu, A. E. and R. J. Brodie: 2007, ‘The Influence of
Brand Image and Company Reputation Where
Manufacturers Market to Small Firms: A Customer
Value Perspective’, Industrial Marketing Management
36(2), 230–240.
Davis, D. F., S. L. Golicic and A. J. Marquardt: 2008,
‘Branding a B2B Service: Does a Brand Differentiate a
Logistics Service Provider?’, Industrial Marketing Man-
agement 37(2), 218–227.
Fombrun, C. J.: 2005, ‘The Leadership Challenge:
Building Resilient Corporate Reputations’, in J. P.
Doh and S. A. Stumpf (eds.), Handbook on Responsible
Leadership and Governance in Global Business (Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), pp. 54–68.
Fombrun, C. and M. Shanley: 1990, ‘What’s in a Name?
Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy’, Academy
of Management Journal 33(2), 233–258.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker: 1981, ‘Evaluating
Structural Equation Models with Unobservable and
Measurement Errors’, Journal of Marketing Research
18(1), 39–50.
Garberg, N. A. and C. J. Fombrun: 2006, ‘Corporate
Citizenship: Creating Intangible Assets Across Insti-
tutional Environment’, Academy of Management Review
31, 329–346.
Gerbing, D. W. and J. C. Anderson: 1988, ‘An Updated
Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Uni-
dimensionality and Its Assessment’, Journal of Marketing
Research 25(2), 186–192.
Gordon, G. L., R. J. Calantone and C. A. di Benedetto:
1993, ‘Brand Equity in the Business-To-Business
Sector’, Journal of Product and Brand Management 2(3),
4–16.
Hair, J. F. Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Thatam and
W. C. Black: 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
Edition (Prentice-Hall, International Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ).
Hutton, J. G.: 1997, ‘A Study of Brand Equity in an
Organizational-Buying Context’, Journal of Product and
Brand Management 6(6), 428–439.
Jones, R.: 2005, ‘Finding Sources of Brand Value:
Developing a Stakeholder Model of Brand Equity’,
Brand Management 13(1), 10–32.
Keller, K. L.: 1993, ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity’, Journal of
Marketing 57(1), 1–22.
Lee, J., S. Y. Park, I. Baek and C. S. Lee: 2008, ‘The
Impact of the Brand Management System on Brand
Performance in B-B and B-C Environments’, Industrial
Marketing Management 37(7), 848–855.
Lynch, J. and L. de Chernatony: 2004, ‘The Power of
Emotion: Brand Communication in Business-To-
Business Markets’, Brand Management 11(5), 403–419.
Maignan, I., O. C. Ferrel and G. T. M. Hult: 1999,
‘Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and
Business Benefits’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 27(4), 455–469.
Margolis, J. and J. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Compa-
nies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’,
Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–305.
 The Effects of CSR on Brand Performance
Marsh, H. W., J. R. Balla and R. P. McDonald: 1988,
‘Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor
Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size’, Psychological
Bulletin 103(3), 391–410.
Marsh, H. W. and D. Hocevar: 1985, ‘Application of
Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the Study of Self-
Concept: First and Higher-Order Factor Models and
Their Invariance Across Groups’, Psychological Bulletin
97(3), 562–582.
McWilliams, A., D. S. Siegel and P. M. Wright: 2006,
‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implica-
tions’, Journal of Management Studies 43(1), 1–18.
Michell, P., J. King and J. Reast: 2001, ‘Brand Values
Related to Industrial Products’, Industrial Marketing
Management 30(5), 415–425.
Mudambi, S.: 2002, ‘Branding Importance in Business-
To-Business Markets: Three Buyer Clusters’, Industrial
Marketing Management 31(6), 525–533.
Mudambi, S. M., P. Doyle and V. Wong: 1997, ‘An
Exploration of Branding in Industrial Markets’,
Industrial Marketing Management 26(5), 433–446.
Nunnally, J. C. and I. H. Bernstein: 1994, Psychometric
Theory, 3rd Edition (McGraw-Hill, New York).
Orlitzky, M., F. Schmidt and S. Rynes: 2003, ‘Corporate
Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis’,
Organization Studies 24, 403–441.
Porter, M. and M. Kramer: 2006, ‘Strategy and Society:
The Link Between Competitive Advantage and
Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business
Review 84, 78–92.
Roberts, P. W. and G. R. Dowling: 2002, ‘Corporate
Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Perfor-
mance’, Strategic Management Journal 23, 1077–1093.
Sabate, J. M. and E. Puente: 2003, ‘Empirical Analysis of
the Relationship Between Reputation and Financial
Performance: A Survey of the Literature’, Corporate
Reputation Review 6(2), 161–177.
Sanchez, J. and L. Sotorrio: 2007, ‘The Creation of Value
Through Corporate Reputation’, Journal of Business
Ethics 76, 335–346.
Smith, W. and M. Higgins: 2000, ‘Cause Related
Marketing: Ethics and the Ecstatic’, Business and Society
39(3), 304–322.
469
van Riel, A. C. R., C. P. Mortanges and S. Streukens:
2005, ‘Marketing Antecedents of Industrial Brand
Equity: An Empirical Investigation in Specialty
Chemicals’, Industrial Marketing Management 34(8),
841–847.
Varadarajan, P. R. and A. Menon: 1988, ‘Cause-Related
Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and
Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of Marketing 52(3),
58–74.
Venkatraman, N.: 1989, ‘Strategic Orientation of Business
Enterprises: The Construct, Dimensionality, and Mea-
surement’, Management Science 35(8), 942–962.
Wang, Y., J. A. Kandampully, H. P. Lo and G. Shi: 2006,
‘The Role of Brand Equity and Corporate Reputation
in CRM: A Chinese Study’, Corporate Reputation Review
9(3), 179–197.
Washburn, J. H. and R. E. Plank: 2002, ‘Measuring
Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a Consumer-Based
Brand Equity Scale’, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 10(1), 46–62.
Williams, L. J., J. R. Edwards and R. J. Vandenberg:
2003, ‘Recent Advances in Causal Modeling Methods
for Organizational and Management Research’, Journal
of Management 29(6), 903–936.
Yoo, B. and N. Donth: 2001, ‘Developing and Validating
a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity
Scale’, Journal of Business Research 52(1), 1–14.
Chi-Shiun Lai and Chih-Jen Chiu
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
Yunlin, Taiwan
E-mail: laics@yuntech.edu.tw
Chin-Fang Yang
Da-Yeh University,
Changhua, Taiwan
Da-Chang Pai
ChungChou Institute of Technology,
Changhua, Taiwan