4.6 Article

CSR Actions, Brand Value, and Willingness to Pay a Premium Price for Luxury Brands: Does Long-Term Orientation Matter?

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS
卷 169, 期 2, 页码 241-260

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04486-5

关键词

Corporate social responsibility; Luxury brand value; Willingness to pay a premium price; Culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research finds that CSR actions of luxury brands have a negative impact on consumers' willingness to pay a premium price for products, while the functional and symbolic value of the brand plays a positive mediating role in this impact. Additionally, there are differences in consumer perceptions of brand value and purchase intention in different cultural contexts.
Sustainable luxury is a strategic issue for managers and for society, yet it remains poorly understood. This research seeks to clarify how corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions directly and indirectly (through brand value dimensions) affect consumers' willingness to pay a premium price (WTPP) for luxury brand products, as well as how a long-term orientation (LTO) might moderate these relationships. A scenario study presents fictional CSR actions of two brands, representing different luxury products, to 1,049 respondents from two countries (France and Tunisia). The results of a structural equation modeling approach show that the luxury brands' CSR actions negatively affect customer WTPP overall and for each brand. The luxury brands' functional and symbolic value dimensions positively mediate the effects of CSR actions on WTPP, whereas social value does not. The effects of CSR actions and brand symbolic value on WTTP do not differ between countries. The effect of functional value on WTPP differs across countries, such that it is stronger for high-LTO than low-LTO cultures. Inversely, the effect of social on customer WTPP is stronger for low-LTO than high-LTO cultures. These findings have theoretical and practical implications for luxury brand managers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据